8 12-Team Conferences in College Football

**Willie Bee** · 01-29-07, 12:41 PM

Interesting, and geographically it makes sense. Plus you set up a pretty simple 8-team playoff scenario. But talking nearly two dozen schools into dropping out of Div-IA is going to be very tough, almost as tough as talking Notre Dame into joining any conference.

What would be simpler and would be the least disruptive to the current 'bowl structure' and the fat cats who have their grips on that is to just add one more game to the current schedule. This year, it would have been USC versus Florida after those schools had dispatched Michigan and Ohio State respectively. In my opinion, that's about all you can realistically hope to bring about in the coming five years or so.

**EBone** · 01-31-07, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

Interesting, and geographically it makes sense. Plus you set up a pretty simple 8-team playoff scenario. But talking nearly two dozen schools into dropping out of Div-IA is going to be very tough, almost as tough as talking Notre Dame into joining any conference.

Willie Bee, my thoughts in putting this together were the following:

1) Finishing in the Top 2 in the conference has to be Priority #1. Then win your Conference Championship so you can participate in the Playoff.

2) Make regional rivalries stronger than ever. My belief is: college football is about the best sport out there. What makes college football so great? I think it is the regional rivalries. Even the NFL can't match the emotions fans have for these great college rivalries. So, make the regional rivalries even more important by putting them in the same conference. They've kinda done this already so my proposal sticks with the same theme.

3) If the 23 teams want to bitch about being dropped, part of my proposal is that if you win the Div 1AA championship then you have the choice of moving up to D1 the next year. That would mean that the worst team in Div 1 of that year would have to be dropped into Div 1AA. So the conversation would go like this, "so, you're upset about being dropped. OK then. I can understand that. But the way you get back to the Div 1 level is by winning the 1AA level. If you can't win the 1AA level, do you really think you have a legitimate gripe about being part of Div 1 play?"

4) Unity would strong arm Notre Dame. If the other 95 teams agreed not to play Notre Dame until they joined a conference, then ND would cave. The problem is that no one in the NCAA has any balls to stand up to them. A united front would bring ND back into the fold.

Just a thought. It'll never happen but it sure is fun to talk about.

E

**FightForCalifornia** · 02-22-07, 06:23 PM

Cool idea, but a few points:

1. This would be the end of traditional non-confernece rivalries like USC/ND, UF/FSU, Commander & Cheif trophy, etc.

2. The Pac-10 prides itself on being far and away the best academic conference - that's the reason that they won't allow Fresno State, SDSU, etc. to join. When it originally formed, the Pac-10 actually wanted the University of Texas to be a member because of their acadmeics, although UT declined because of Geography.

3. UConn > a lot of the teams that were listed

4. I think that ND fits in better with the Big East than with the Big-10. It's a small, private school and it already plays in the BE for basketball.

5. I think the conferences would work better like the 12 team ones now - two 6 team divisions, play the 5 teams in your division and 2-3 in the other division, have 4-5 non conference game and play a conference championship.

Overall, cool idea though!

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 02:35 PM

Well for one at first glance it looks like all you did was put together conferences based on geographic location without paying attention to the skill of the teams you are putting against one another in those conferences. Like Michicagn with Michigan st. and eastern michigan and western michigan....? did you really put that much thought into it like you said? I hope it wasnt too hard to do that. How bout another conference with illinois and northern illinois and northwestern... how bout just 52 conferences all labeled with the state they are from? like the illinois conference and the michigan conference.....the florida conference would kick ass... and also leaving out schools like Uconn and Northern illinois and including schools like East Carolina and Tulane. Basically i just dont get the purpose of you spending "a lot of time" on that. And secondly did it really take that long? I hope not since it looks like you used one criteria for the conferences; that being geography

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 02:44 PM

ok the post before i rambled a bit but ok. some problems with a system like this. Are that it would take years for the conferences to even out. 2 what about all the money lost from all the bowl games you get rid of? In this situation there are only 7 post season games. That is a lot of money lost to the networks, to the schools, and pretty much everyone involved. secondly the out of conference games that pit big time CFF schools against smaller schools serves many purposes. The big time school gain early season game "training" while beating up on the smaller schools which everyone knows. But the smaller schools are getting 100's of thousands of dollars for each of those games, to act as practice dummys. That is the only reason the smaller schools agree to those games. That money those schools get is a large part of the funding that keeps them afloat, since their programs are not cash cows for the school like the Michigans and Notre Dames and so on. If you get rid of those out of conference games you may as well get rid of the smaller schools that will no longer have the funding neccessary to keep their programs afloat.

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 02:49 PM

.....im an idiot i sent it again without making my main point. You bring up why presidents are against playoff systems. The main reason being that it would go into the spring semester. Do you honestly believe that? I hope not. That is what they have to say because of course it's about the students right? Garbage, it is now, and always has been about the money. If the money is right there will be a playoff system instantly. If it wasnt all about the money football programs bring into schools then why is the education the players are getting for the most part a joke? the basic theory is a kid gets to attend school for free in exchange for playing football for the school. That is why they get away without paying them. However the education they get results in many students failing, or being "helped" by the team. so the school still benefits from their play but the student-athlete is getting the shaft because they are exploited for their skills and not getting the education in return. Im just rambling again, and am probably off topic, but i do that sometimes...

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 02:56 PM

also im just wondering how you plan on seeing those final 8 teams for the playoff? would it be done by people without and actual mathematical reason? if so you are far from removing the controversy

**ShamsWoof10** · 03-20-07, 03:03 PM

I have actually thought about this and had a idea close to what you are saying... I actually think this is going to happen... Yes I do think a playoff system is coming... One sign of it is the College Football Selection Show they started and another is The National Championshiop Game was called just that "The National Championship Game" and not the Fiesta Bowl...

I was thinking since you have 11 BCS conferences just add a team and take out a conference... With 10 12 team conferences you can have the winner of each qualify and 6 wildcards or more if you granted buy's... A 16 team brackett... This would give the selection show the same flavor as basketballs... You can also cut the regular season games back down to where they used to be to make up for extra games played... They use to only play 11 now some play 13...

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 03:10 PM

shamswoof how is there being a selection show any sign of a playoff system to come? that makes no sense. it's obviously just because the network new people would watch and theyd get advertising money. and also there may be 11 bcs conferences like you said but each of those teams does not have 11 teams in it.

**ShamsWoof10** · 03-20-07, 03:30 PM

No I never said they had 11 teams.. I am saying since it looks like they are going to a 12 team base conference with each split into two sides that you add one team to make 120 teams total and have 10 conferences each with 12 teams...

What I believe you are missing is that things can't happen over night and if they tried implamenting a playoff system so much would have to be done before it can happen and redoing the conferences is likely one of them... This has to be done gradually... When they do annouce a playoff system I believe most of the preliminaries would be done which likely took decades... The selection show will annouce the wildcard teams and matchups...

Many people didn't know a thing about the internet in the mid 80's or ever heard of such a thing but ground work was being laid out since 1969 when it was FIRST called DARPAnet then they dropped the D and it was Arpanet... Same thing will the coming sky cars and personal jets... NASA, DOT, and FAA have been working on SATS (Small Aircraft Transportation System) since 1995 and the plans are much older then that but in 5 years when people see and hear about them they will think it happened over night... When people suggest such things they don't realize what has to be done to make it happen... They just think "yeah poof let's just have it..."

**EBone** · 03-20-07, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Dbldown11

Well for one at first glance it looks like all you did was put together conferences based on geographic location without paying attention to the skill of the teams you are putting against one another in those conferences. Like Michicagn with Michigan st. and eastern michigan and western michigan....? did you really put that much thought into it like you said? I hope it wasnt too hard to do that. How bout another conference with illinois and northern illinois and northwestern... how bout just 52 conferences all labeled with the state they are from? like the illinois conference and the michigan conference.....the florida conference would kick ass... and also leaving out schools like Uconn and Northern illinois and including schools like East Carolina and Tulane. Basically i just dont get the purpose of you spending "a lot of time" on that. And secondly did it really take that long? I hope not since it looks like you used one criteria for the conferences; that being geography

Dbldown11,

I appreciate your comments even if you think I'm an idiot. As I stated in my initial post on the subject, I think college football thrives with regional rivalry so, yes, geography was a big part of my theoretical realignment. To use your example of the directional Michigan schools as well as Mich/Mich State in a conference, initially, yes, there would certainly be a disparity in talent. But as time went on, the elevated status that the directional Michigan schools would get in knowing that they will get Michigan and Michigan State on their schedules every year should immediately give them a somewhat equal playing field when they are recruiting. National TV games, playing elite competition every week, etc., etc.... the MAC does pretty well now. I don't think it to be too far-fetched that they could catch up pretty quickly if given the chance to compete for the services of the premier high school athlete.

To answer your other questions, it did take me a while to align the teams according to region (maybe for some, it wouldn't take that long). It is not rocket science but it has a few challenges. As far as who gets into the 96 or who doesn't, I stated in my original post that the 96 teams picked for Division 1 play would be a subjective exercise. Some of the teams I left out of Div 1 play could certainly be put back in and replaced with someone else if you feel that UCONN and UNI are getting the shaft. By all means, replace them if you feel that strongly about it. I'm glad that illicits such a vile reaction out of you. It means that you care about the state of college football as it is today. We need more passion from folks about how the national champion is crowned.

E

**EBone** · 03-20-07, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Dbldown11

ok the post before i rambled a bit but ok. some problems with a system like this. Are that it would take years for the conferences to even out. 2 what about all the money lost from all the bowl games you get rid of? In this situation there are only 7 post season games. That is a lot of money lost to the networks, to the schools, and pretty much everyone involved. secondly the out of conference games that pit big time CFF schools against smaller schools serves many purposes. The big time school gain early season game "training" while beating up on the smaller schools which everyone knows. But the smaller schools are getting 100's of thousands of dollars for each of those games, to act as practice dummys. That is the only reason the smaller schools agree to those games. That money those schools get is a large part of the funding that keeps them afloat, since their programs are not cash cows for the school like the Michigans and Notre Dames and so on. If you get rid of those out of conference games you may as well get rid of the smaller schools that will no longer have the funding neccessary to keep their programs afloat.

Dbldown11,

I think it would take 3 maybe 4 years for the small directional schools (to use your example, universities like E Mich and W Mich) to catch up. As I stated before, putting the directional schools in conferences with the likes of the Michigans and Ohio States of the world instantly elevates their status.

As far as the bowl games are concerned, my initial proposal stated nothing about getting rid of the bowl games. I would propose getting a core group of 7 bowl games to sponsor all 7 of the playoff games. As we have seen in the recent past, just because you don't make those 8 teams as proposed, you can still go to a bowl game. If a team loses in their conference championship game, you can still get invited to the Aloha Bowl. The Aloha Bowl does not have to go away. These non-BCS games, as they are labelled now, can still be in existence. As a gambler, I actually hope they do stay around. I'd hate to see all the other bowl games go away.

As far as the out of conference games are concerned, I think you are missing the point entirely. The reason that the smaller schools play the big schools in non-conference action is to get money so they can compete in every facet. If you get them into a conference with the big schools, they don't have to play those games for money anymore. The small schools are now in with the money!!!!!!!!!! Don't you think that if Western Michigan knocked off Michigan a couple of times that college football, as we know it today, could change rapidly as far as the balance of power especially if the likes of a Western Michigan were in the same conference as Michigan? I certainly do.

E

**EBone** · 03-20-07, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Dbldown11

.....im an idiot i sent it again without making my main point. You bring up why presidents are against playoff systems. The main reason being that it would go into the spring semester. Do you honestly believe that? I hope not. That is what they have to say because of course it's about the students right? Garbage, it is now, and always has been about the money. If the money is right there will be a playoff system instantly. If it wasnt all about the money football programs bring into schools then why is the education the players are getting for the most part a joke? the basic theory is a kid gets to attend school for free in exchange for playing football for the school. That is why they get away without paying them. However the education they get results in many students failing, or being "helped" by the team. so the school still benefits from their play but the student-athlete is getting the shaft because they are exploited for their skills and not getting the education in return. Im just rambling again, and am probably off topic, but i do that sometimes...

Dbldown11,

I have nothing to add to this post. I agree entirely with what you have said here. In my initial posting on the subject, I was trying to not give any excuse for the college presidents to make in not implementing this system or a system like this. I'm not saying that what I propose is the end to all the problems posed by the current college football system; I'm saying this is a proposed solution.

E

**EBone** · 03-20-07, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Dbldown11

also im just wondering how you plan on seeing those final 8 teams for the playoff? would it be done by people without and actual mathematical reason? if so you are far from removing the controversy

Dbldown11,

In my original post, I state that the winner of each conference championship (8 conferences proposed) goes to this 8 team playoff. The teams that participate in the 8 team playoff is decided on the field; not by a computer or a subjective poll.

E

**Dbldown11** · 03-20-07, 06:36 PM

no i wasnt saying that you're in idiot, sometimes when i get into discussions it may seem like that, i appologize if i came off that way. So I agree that once the smaller directional schools play the big boys week in and week out they are "in with the money" but you also have to look at the revenue they get from the sport. Michigan brings in tons every home game with their stadium capacity. I'm not sure what the directional michigan schools stadium capacity but i know it is far far less than michigan's so there is a big difference. And I know that the 8 conference champs play in the playoff my question was how you decide who is an 8 seed in the playoff and who is a 1 seed and so forth

**EBone** · 03-20-07, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Dbldown11

no i wasnt saying that you're in idiot, sometimes when i get into discussions it may seem like that, i appologize if i came off that way. So I agree that once the smaller directional schools play the big boys week in and week out they are "in with the money" but you also have to look at the revenue they get from the sport. Michigan brings in tons every home game with their stadium capacity. I'm not sure what the directional michigan schools stadium capacity but i know it is far far less than michigan's so there is a big difference. And I know that the 8 conference champs play in the playoff my question was how you decide who is an 8 seed in the playoff and who is a 1 seed and so forth

Oh, OK. I must have misunderstood your first point here. Sorry.

How would I seed the 8 teams in the playoff? I suppose you could do some sort of computer model. However, I believe that is inexact especially if you folllowed the model of 1 non-conference game along with 11 conference games because you could certainly model the conference but if there is no other point of reference, it could be real tough coming up with a fair seeding system.

I would say seed them like they do in the college basketball tournament. Get a committee together and seed them according to what this committee recommends. I kind of like what Bobby Knight said the other day about tournament committees, "make sure they are former coaches or former NCAA athletes that know the game; not athletic directors who are in positions of power but have never played." I'd apply that to this NCAA Football Committee.

E

**pags11** · 04-04-07, 01:55 AM

it's good to be back reading about college football...

**hawk 5** · 04-06-07, 06:46 AM

Iowa not having Mich or Ohio St play against every year? I'm there.

**EBone** · 12-11-08, 03:32 PM

It has been a while since I floated this idea.

Anyone want to dog this or tweak it?

E

**M.W.** · 12-11-08, 07:29 PM

The Pac-10 prides itself on being far and away the best academic conference

That honor belongs to the ACC, and the Big 10 is probably ahead of the PAC 10 as well.

**M.W.** · 12-11-08, 07:31 PM

I guess my question is, what's the point? All this so you can have an undisputed national champion? Why is that important?