12 team conference ideal...Bringonthecats.com

[ketelmeister]

This is a great analysis of where we are with conferences. A must read.

Conference Realignment: What Matters in Realignment? (Post 2) - Bring On The Cats

[cysocool]

12 is ideal for me too- thanks for posting..

[Let's Go State]

Very well written.... Definitely not EMAW caliber.

[KnappShack]

This really nails the problems with the Super Conference. Some respectable schools tried to make that fly without success.

The last thing I want is to have a Big 16 that has scheduling issues and a decreasing rate of return on the money front. The pod system for football os a train wreck. Issues with scheduling and $$ would make it far too easy for the Texas - Oklahoma schools to split off.

12 is good. 14 with ND. Otherwise let's see how the 14 team SEC deals with the scheduling issues and cash those checks from our 12 team league.

[ketelmeister]

12 is ideal for me too- thanks for posting..

Here is part one of that series

Conference Realignment: Why is this happening? (Post 1) - Bring On The Cats

[cysocool]

[QUOTE=ketelmeister;2877649]Here is part one of that series

Wow. Under these two models an ACC team would have made the new playoff system only once in a decade. Wouldn't this cost the ACC millions more in lost post season revenue?

Point #4: Access to the four team playoff, driven by money, will create an even bigger divide than financial inequities

Regardless of which model is chosen (John Swofford has gone on the record to support the Delany model), the results are pretty staggering in regards to what conferences will generally qualify for the playoff. If you prefer the Delany model, the breakdown of participants by conference looks like this (if you were to look at the last ten seasons):

SEC

10

Big Ten

8

Pac-12

7

Big 12

7

MWC/WAC

4

Big East

3

ACC

1

If you use the SEC preferred model of just taking the top four, in the last ten years, this is the breakdown:

SEC

12

Big 12

9

Pac 12

7

Big Ten

7

Big East

2

MWC/WAC

2

ACC

1

No matter how you shake it, the top four conferences are the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12. What's unbelievable is that the ACC, regardless of the model, only had one team qualify under either scenario in the last decade (2007 Virginia Tech. Yes, the same one that lost to Kansas in the Orange Bowl). The supposedly inferior Big East, the mid-major Mountain West, and the essentially extinct WAC conference would have sent more members than the ACC would have since the 2001-2002 season.

[ManofCyience]

This is perfectly written. I have been a strong believer of 12 team conferences during this whole "superconference" hysteria. I always found 12 to be a good number, play your division teams (those geographically closest and one's you hold natural rivalries with) every year and half of the the other division every other. Likewise in basketball, division teams twice and opposite division teams once every year. But who really cares about basketball anyways, this thing is driven by football.

He brings a very valid point to why I think the Big XII needs to expand back to 12 teams to return to a championship game format. Although most Big XII fans today think the round robin format accurately determines the champion, a championship format holds the same merit. The best team has to win the games either way. That's the mantra of ESPN and modern college football "Every Game Counts." (Although Alabama and LSU would agree differently). The Championship game is a huge revenue boost. That is what drove the Big Ten to add a "football school" when they grabbed Nebraska two years ago (because they could not get ND). They wanted the added revenue of a championship game and if any Nebraska fans read this, that is plain and simple why you are in the Big Ten. You are magic number 12.

I believe that the SEC and ACC made a mistake when they expanded to 14. I believe that the SEC may have buyer's remorse and release Missouri and Texas A&M back to the Big XII. You heard it here first if that does happen. The ACC would appear to be losing 1, 2, 3 or God knows how many in the next few months and will return to 12ish teams soon so there's that. As pointed out in the article, adding teams beyond 12 does not add revenue (what realignment is all about). It only adds one thing: Confusion. Confusion as to why teams that have never played each other before are now rivals, confusion as to why teams that play each other twice a century are considered conference opponents. Nothing good is beyond 12.

In a perfect world in my mind with 120 FBS schools, there would be 10 conferences of 12 teams. The Conferences would be the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, PAC 12, ACC, Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. It wouldn't take too much moving around from what the conferences naturally are. The competitive level of the conferences would be as fair as possible in my opinion. Doubt it will ever happen, but here's to hoping.

[ahaselhu]

I REALLY like every team in a conference playing every other team, so my preference would be no more than 10. However, I understand the reasoning on why 12 is optimal right now.

Really, really good articles.

[Let's Go State]

I REALLY like every team in a conference playing every other team, so my preference would be no more than 10. However, I understand the reasoning on why 12 is optimal right now.

Really, really good articles.

100% agree!

[TigerCyJM]

12 is the ideal #. you have the opportunity to play everyone regularly but have that crucial 4th non-con.