Another idea for determining the Champion

**besserheimerphat** · 07-14-2009, 01:10 PM

I'm borrowing an idea from European soccer, but bear with me here...

Divide the 120 D1 teams into 10 conferences of 12 teams. The initial conference arrangement is based on preseason ranking (this really doesn't matter, as after the first year it will settle out). Each team plays every other team in it's conference. We end up with 10 conference champions (like bowl champions). The winner of the "top" conference is the national champion. This is where it gets interesting.

At the end of the year, the bottom two teams in each conference move "down" a conference. The top two teams in the lower conference move "up". So for example, at the end of last season per the AP, the Elite conference would be Florida, Utah, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, TCU, Penn State, Ohio State, Oregon, Boise State and Texas Tech. So this year Boise State and Texas Tech would drop to the next conference (13 - 24), and they would be replaced by Georgia and Mississippi.

This would keep schools in conferences of relatively equal strength, and the best teams would gravitate to the Elite conference and have a chance to win a national championship based on the results of 11 games. One or two preseason games could be scheduled against anybody, but since those games don't count in your conference record they would not have any bearing on your conference rank. This would hopefully increase the number of interesting early season games as, say, Oklahoma wouldn't have to worry about an early loss against Oklahoma State ruining its chances at a national title.

A team ranked initially in the 30's could play for a title if they have a couple of good years. If a "traditional" program doesn't deserve to be in their conference, the results of their play will put them where they actually belong.

*Meant to post in the football section, not the Big XII section. Mods please move as appropriate.

**RyCy04** · 07-14-2009, 01:14 PM

I stopped reading at "soccer."

**dosry5** · 07-14-2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by RyCy04

I stopped reading at "soccer."

You're good.

**hurdleisu24** · 07-14-2009, 01:17 PM

NO
I want to see the Big 12 change their tie breaker thou. If you play a 1AA team and there is a 3 way tie you lose out and then they go head to head to decide the champ of a divison

**jumbopackage** · 07-14-2009, 03:03 PM

I actually really like this idea.

you could finally re-combine 1AA and 1A and just have one D1 for football this way too.

The major hurdles are the obvious ones:
Revenue - there is no conceivable way that you could come up with a way to share revenue that everyone would agree to. The top two divisions would almost always consist of the same schools, and it would concentrate the revenue at that level. The conferences at least help spread the wealth around a bit as it is.

Maybe you could have a conference-based revenue approach that way as well, but you're going to have to convince all the schools to give up their tie-ins and probably their gates as well in order to fund it.

Secondly, it essentially destroys college football as we know it.

It'll never happen, though I think it's one of the more equitable ways to actually determine a champion given the scope and size of college football.

**egami** · 07-14-2009, 03:06 PM

We need more segregation like 1AA and 1A, not less.

**price26** · 07-14-2009, 03:11 PM

An interesting idea for sure. But I think you need to do more than the bottom two. Moving two teams each year would dramatically reduce the parity. The best team in year two could have finished third in the second rung of teams in year one, but it would possibly take them another year to just get into the top division. I think moving the top 5 and bottom 5 around would make better sense.

The other thing is it will make it even tougher to recruit though, because good players will naturally gravitate towards the top 20 teams that actually have a legitimate shot at winning a national championship. Teams in the 30-40 would be recruiting kids that would only get one chance, if they're are extremely lucky, to play for a NC.

It is interesting idea, but no way this flies in college sports, maybe in professionals, when they have the incentive of money, but not this way and not in college sports.

**CRCy17** · 07-14-2009, 03:12 PM

The biggest flaw in this that I see is it eliminates the chance of the underdog with one good year to move up from the depths to higher areas such as KU a few years ago. In this set up they would have been in say the 7th conference or so and would not have been able to make it to a Top 5 bowl

**cloneatlaw** · 07-14-2009, 03:20 PM

Interesting idea. I'd be worried about recruiting. A lot of kids would refuse to sign to play at a level five or six school or below, as there would literally be zero chance they could ever win a national title that way.

**isuno1fan** · 07-14-2009, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by RyCy04

I stopped reading at "soccer."

+1

**besserheimerphat** · 07-14-2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by cloneatlaw

Interesting idea. I'd be worried about recruiting. A lot of kids would refuse to sign to play at a level five or six school or below, as there would literally be zero chance they could ever win a national title that way.

I don't think it would effect the recruiting that much, as there are only a handfull of schools who legitimately compete for the national title as it is. At least this system would conceivably pit the 12 best teams against each other and let them play it out.

I know that this idea would never make it for various reasons already stated. I just thought it was an interesting thought experiment, and a totally different approach to the "problem."

**cstrunk** · 07-14-2009, 06:09 PM

This is a terrible idea, and would only benefit the current elite teams. Elite prospects would go to the better teams because teams like Iowa State would take 5-6 consecutive good years to get to a championship. And when players are only eligible for 4 years... this will make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The Boise State and Utah's of the college football landscape would get hosed, because the smaller schools would have an extremely difficult time staying good enough to keep moving up in conferences.

**Cat4ISU** · 07-14-2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by cstrunk

This is a terrible idea, and would only benefit the current elite teams. Elite prospects would go to the better teams because teams like Iowa State would take 5-6 consecutive good years to get to a championship. And when players are only eligible for 4 years... this will make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The Boise State and Utah's of the college football landscape would get hosed, because the smaller schools would have an extremely difficult time staying good enough to keep moving up in conferences.

This is correct. Not that top recruits don't already gravitate toward top 25 teams, but the system structure itself almost guarantees the mid-lower tier teams will stay just that.