A "fix" for college FB

[cyclonenum1]

Interesting article I commend to your reading. Thought provoking idea and some interesting stats from the WSJ:

What the English Premier League Can Teach College Football - WSJ.com

Maybe soccer does have some redeeming aspects after all!

Couple of other theories floating around down here in SEC country...although UT is happy with no conference title game to have to hurdle to a BCS title game right now that will likely change. History has shown that the conference title game can propel you into a title game (it is not just a thing that can knock you out of it). The conferences with no title game lose a lot of revenue and exposure by not having a title game. The conferences with no title game have a far longer layoff between the last game and the bowl game that is a competitive disadvantage.

The two teams people see the Big 12 targeting to move back to 12 teams...

Arkansas - would like to face an easier Big 12 N than a tougher SEC W as long as the payout is similar and would like to be in a better MBB conference.

and

Boise State - they want in a BCS conference and the Big 12 N is a great geographic fit.

If you look at the history of the BCS title game you see the Big 12 and SEC have dominated with 13 of the 24 appearances (7 Big 12 and 6 SEC)....maybe a conference title game is not such a bad thing...even though UT currently thinks so.

For you Big 10 hacks that think the wonderful world of total revenue parity is leading your conference to the top of the competitive heap...look at the article from the WSJ above...2 of your teams "relegated" in this example (Illinois and Indiana)...and by the way...you only have 3 conference appearances in the BCS title game...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[LutherClone]

Interesting article I commend to your reading. Thought provoking idea and some interesting stats from the WSJ:

What the English Premier League Can Teach College Football - WSJ.com

Maybe soccer does have some redeeming aspects after all!

Couple of other theories floating around down here in SEC country...although UT is happy with no conference title game to have to hurdle to a BCS title game right now that will likely change. History has shown that the conference title game can propel you into a title game (it is not just a thing that can knock you out of it). The conferences with no title game lose a lot of revenue and exposure by not having a title game. The conferences with no title game have a far longer layoff between the last game and the bowl game that is a competitive disadvantage.

The two teams people see the Big 12 targeting to move back to 12 teams...

Arkansas - would like to face an easier Big 12 N than a tougher SEC W as long as the payout is similar and would like to be in a better MBB conference.

and

Boise State - they want in a BCS conference and the Big 12 N is a great geographic fit.

If you look at the history of the BCS title game you see the Big 12 and SEC have dominated with 13 of the 24 appearances (7 Big 12 and 6 SEC)....maybe a conference title game is not such a bad thing...even though UT currently thinks so.

For you Big 10 hacks that think the wonderful world of total revenue parity is leading your conference to the top of the competitive heap...look at the article from the WSJ above...2 of your teams "relegated" in this example (Illinois and Indiana)...and by the way...you only have 3 conference appearances in the BCS title game...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Is this a joke? The closest conference school would be TT @ just under 1,300 miles...

 

[helechopper]

Hahaha! Great article, but not a chance in hell of this ever happening.

 

[Stormin]

Interesting article I commend to your reading. Thought provoking idea and some interesting stats from the WSJ:

What the English Premier League Can Teach College Football - WSJ.com

Maybe soccer does have some redeeming aspects after all!

Couple of other theories floating around down here in SEC country...although UT is happy with no conference title game to have to hurdle to a BCS title game right now that will likely change. History has shown that the conference title game can propel you into a title game (it is not just a thing that can knock you out of it). The conferences with no title game lose a lot of revenue and exposure by not having a title game. The conferences with no title game have a far longer layoff between the last game and the bowl game that is a competitive disadvantage.

The two teams people see the Big 12 targeting to move back to 12 teams...

Arkansas - would like to face an easier Big 12 N than a tougher SEC W as long as the payout is similar and would like to be in a better MBB conference.

and

Boise State - they want in a BCS conference and the Big 12 N is a great geographic fit.

If you look at the history of the BCS title game you see the Big 12 and SEC have dominated with 13 of the 24 appearances (7 Big 12 and 6 SEC)....maybe a conference title game is not such a bad thing...even though UT currently thinks so.

For you Big 10 hacks that think the wonderful world of total revenue parity is leading your conference to the top of the competitive heap...look at the article from the WSJ above...2 of your teams "relegated" in this example (Illinois and Indiana)...and by the way...you only have 3 conference appearances in the BCS title game...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

No thanks. The Revenue for a championship game only improves if we get more money for that game. ESPN has said our money won't be reduced because we only have 10 teams and lack a championship game now. By subtracting two teams we actually gained money. I don't see us adding any more teams.

 

[fnclone]

Can we stop talking about the Big 12 expanding? It has been made exponentially clear by several people that it is not going to happen. Also, Boise is a terrible geographical fit for the B12. There is not any BCS team that would want to go play on the blue turf. See Oregon and the loss they took home last year.

 

[ahaselhu]

In some ways this is ok. But I think the biggest problem is the fact that lower tier teams typically have a "rebuilding" phase followed by 1 or 2 peak seasons, then back to rebuilding. Basically, they'd hit their peak, get promoted to the upper tier, and get soundly thrashed because they've been decimated by graduation.

It does give lower tier teams a better opportunity to win a "conference championship", but it would be like winning the MAC. It'd be cool, but I'm not sure I'd care that much.

 

[BooneCy]

I think the concept works better for professional leagues, not college.