Realignment Thread

[Ballboy534]

No delusion here. FSU holds the key. Lets see what happens Aug 15 with them, before progosticating what the future holds.

Its not a matter of believing them. Im sure they are nice southern folks, who mean what they say at the moment.

Clocks keep ticking, and moments change to a newer moment.

Money Talks, Shit Walks.

You shouldn't be astounded. Realignment rumors make for good, interesting conversation in the offseason .. And Mizzou and aTm basically denied it to the end. What they say and what they mean can be totally different .. and they have to maintain plausible deniability to save face if they decide not to go or .. worse .. isn't wanted.

I certainly respect people's opinions and sources when it comes to this, and I agree 100% that nothing is certain either way. However, did you watch and listen to what Dabo Swinney said? Did you take a gander at what our chairman of the Board of Trustees stated publicly? That type of verbiage isn't exactly something you backtrack on, not when you've reiterated that Clemson is "1000% committed to the ACC." Especially when it could cost you a job and potentially career within months. I seriously doubt either one of those guys (well, perhaps Dabo; he does tend to let his emotions run rampant while giving public statements) would risk that much over a bunch of rumors...

 

[Rocco]

It should be mentioned that nobody believed Missouri's denials last year because they did everything they could the year before to get into the B1G. No one believed TAMU because they were trying to get into the SEC in 2010 before getting shot down, and Gov. Perry went out and said the two sides were negotiating. So far the only people who claim there are negotiations going on are bloggers of varying levels of credibility.

 

[Rocky]

It should be mentioned that nobody believed Missouri's denials last year because they did everything they could the year before to get into the B1G. No one believed TAMU because they were trying to get into the SEC in 2010 before getting shot down, and Gov. Perry went out and said the two sides were negotiating. So far the only people who claim there are negotiations going on are bloggers of varying levels of credibility.

Rocky reps Rocco ^^^^^^

 

[HoHumHokie]

So has anyone heard why all a sudden the Big12 no longer has interest in Clemson?....especially if Louisville is the next option for them?

Don't understand what ND has to gain from joining as a partial member either.

 

[hunzworth]

So has anyone heard why all a sudden the Big12 no longer has interest in Clemson?....especially if Louisville is the next option for them?

Don't understand what ND has to gain from joining as a partial member either.

I think if ND joins any conference as a partial member it will just be temporary until the TV contracts and such can be worked out.

IF things go the 4x16 I'd dont think it would wise move for ND to stay independent. Any major team would have basically no insentive to play them and if the playoffs end up being conference champions well...

Honestly even if we dont go to the "superconferences", ND could still prob benefit from joining a conference. I've got a "theory" about how ND's is surviving off an aging fan base that was built when there were only 2 games broadcast per weekend. It also gets into the fact that ND hasnt been relevant for a long time and arent the attracting the "bandwagon" fans like they did in the back then. They also have a relatively small enrollment >10k. Dont get me wrong ND is still one of the most recognizable CFB programs in the country but I have to wonder if it is getting to the time that they need a conference.

BTW if the big12 locks up ND and FSU the ACC will basically be hopeless IMO.

 

[MattB4VT]

So has anyone heard why all a sudden the Big12 no longer has interest in Clemson?....especially if Louisville is the next option for them?

Don't understand what ND has to gain from joining as a partial member either.

Still interest. Having at least one southeastern partner probably going to me mandatory to get fsu.

 

[MattB4VT]

Fsu would like to also see GT and/or Miami bc of proximity, but big 12 sees the canes as toxic (obviously) and gt as not lucrative enough. Gt also likes where it is currently. Wouldn't rule them out though.

 

[VTscores]

"As for selecting the teams, Scott and ACC Commissioner John Swofford indicated there has been serious discussion about implementing a selection committee similar to the NCAA tournament in men’s and women’s basketball.

A key issue will revolve around who exactly will be on the proposed committee and how much weight they would give to winning a conference championship and strength of schedule. Revenue sharing must also be resolved in the coming months."

BCS commissioners reach consensus on four-team college football playoff - The Washington Post

 

[757Hokie83]

^ heard that on CFB Live last night...IMO, a selection committee is rather discouraging (but that may just be because of our yearly NCAA snubs from bball)

 

[VTscores]

If you think about it, it's a committee now.

At least with this system, you just have to be in the top four to get a shot.

 

[ckhokie]

At least with this system, you just have to be in the top four to get a shot.

Yeah, but with the BCS, for the most part, you really did get the 1 vs 2 teams (save maybe 2 or 3 years) now, you might have 4 or 5 11-1 or 10-2 teams gunning for that last spot in the playoff, and have a committee picking? I feel like there will be just as many, if not more arguments.

 

[VTscores]

How could it be done without a committee?

No matter how you do it, you're letting someone decide. If you're choosing the top four, I think the top two will generally make it in, no? Eight would be significantly better, because any team that doesn't make that obviously has some flaws in their record.

There will always be an argument over the last spot or two.

 

[ckhokie]

How could it be done without a committee?

The BCS formula. As bad a wrap as the BCS gets, the formula would most likely be the least skewed

No matter how you do it, you're letting someone decide. If you're choosing the top four, I think the top two will generally make it in, no? Eight would be significantly better, because any team that doesn't make that obviously has some flaws in their record.

There will always be an argument over the last spot or two.

With as much money on the line as their is, there is no way I trust any group of humans to pick the top 4 without any type of allegiance or interest. Do you really want a guy like Lou Holtz picking the top 4 just because he was a coach and supposedly watches a lot of football?

IF you have humans choosing the top 4, it shouldn't be anyone other than Vegas.

 

[VTscores]

The BCS formula. As bad a wrap as the BCS gets, the formula would most likely be the least skewed



With as much money on the line as their is, there is no way I trust any group of humans to pick the top 4 without any type of allegiance or interest. Do you really want a guy like Lou Holtz picking the top 4 just because he was a coach and supposedly watches a lot of football?

IF you have humans choosing the top 4, it shouldn't be anyone other than Vegas.

Oh, you don't think that's skewed?

I suppose in the sense that more people are involved. But you don't think the BCS conferences are really going to give away the farm, do you?

 

[VTscores]

... and Lou Holtz isn't picking anything.

 

[Rocco]

The BCS Formula already has a committee element- the pollsters. They chose Alabama over Oklahoma State.

 

[sparko]

I agree .. I think that 8 is the perfect balance. 16 or more is too many. If you're not a conf champ in the top 8, you really can make no excuses. I REALLY hope that there is something in the new rules to emphasize conference championships ALONG with rankings. With very few exceptions, the SEC champion will just about always be in the top 4 (and the Big12 champ usually too).

 

[ckhokie]

Oh, you don't think that's skewed?

I suppose in the sense that more people are involved. But you don't think the BCS conferences are really going to give away the farm, do you?

less skewed does not equal not skewed.

And the BCS conferences won't really mean anything now, will they.

In 2009, who do you leave out?

Bama 13-0
Texas 13-0
Cincinnati 12-0
TCU 12-0
Florida 12-1
Boise 13-0

2008:
Oklahoma 12-1
Florida 12-1
Texas 11-1
Alabama 12-1
USC 11-1
Utah 12-0 (who crushed Alabama, so you can't just leave them out)
Texas Tech 11-1
Penn State 11-1
Boise St 12-0

2007:
tOSU 11-1
LSU 11-2
VT 11-2
oklahoma 11-2
UGA 10-2
Mizzu 11-2
USC 10-2
Kansas 11-1
Hawaii 12-0
WVU 10-2

The more teams you add, the harder it gets to somehow pick 4 deserving teams. And if they go the committee route, who is to say a guy like Dr. Lou won't have a vote? I wouldn't be surprised to see former coaches/analysts making the final decisions. Do you really want a guy like John Cooper picking between a 10-2 OSU team and an 11-2 VT team?

 

[ckhokie]

The BCS Formula already has a committee element- the pollsters. They chose Alabama over Oklahoma State.

Like I said, save 2 years maybe (Ok St, and Auburn) the BCS formula has gotten it right though. When you put it entirely in the hands of voters, or a committee, you will get more of these instances where an Alabama makes it over an OkSt.

I just dont know how anyone can be ok with former coaches and athletic conference commissioners 'voting' on these teams.

 

[sparko]

Any argument that throws out conference championships is lame as hell in my opinion. I'm not saying that every conference should fall into this bill. Have a committee come up with a decent, fair RPI-like calculation that can be applied to a conference overall. If the conference meets the minimum "RPI", their conference champ automatically qualified if they're in the top 6 of the final rankings. The rankings should be based on measurable statistics (such as RPI, SOS, number of wins, number of quality wins, etc). Polls are bullshit. I'd much rather let an unbiased computer rank teams rather than biased pollsters. Get some MIT grads together to figure it out. Set it up so that a loss to a great team offsets itself to a degree (SOS goes up but obviously wins go down). That leaves the incentive of scheduling difficult OOC games.

And I don't think that injuries, short weeks, night games, that kind of crap, that people used for their "human element" argument should be considered...sorry -- you either win or you lose. You have a problem with short weeks -- schedule differently. Injuries? All teams have them..deal with it. Night games?? Please -- it helps your recruiting.

There is EASILY a VERY fair and COMPROMISING way to do this, where ALL parties could walk away and feel like their conference has a FAIR shot. But everyone has their own self-interests to deal with, and not what is trully best for CFB ... it's like DC politics.