Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
The committee’s policy was you needed 13 and 12 games wasn’t enough “data points” to know if a team is any good . Until 6 was magically more data points than 12.
I agree, that school(s) that are left out will complain.
But as long as the ranking calculation is transparent and published weekly- schools will know where they stand. And after the fact know what elements under their control did they do wrong. Did they miss out because poor SOS? Did they have a bad loss?
But as CascadeClone mentioned, as long as elite teams get a Playoff berth then its a matter of excluding "wild card" teams.
Playoff selection would be made easier if things eventually pare down to 3 power conferences.
Even if UO has little chance to get into the B1G, the noise has got to make the Mountain 4 pissed off an nauseous at the same time.
NCAA rules used to state that, so schools couldn't build posh housing for just athletes. It's why some random students live with the KU basketball team.
There have been a small handful of years where a #5 team entering postseason has a legit claim to be national champion caliber before and after bowl season.
There has never been a case to my knowledge where the #9 team has a rational claim to the #1 resume entering bowl season or after they play a bowl game. I mean, as Iowa State fans we had a recent team that was ranked 10th going into bowls and 9th after. Great year but we all know it wasn't remotely a national champion resume/season.
The #5 team that comes to mind is 2004 Utah was 5/6 in polls and finished 4th/5th. I think that was 2 team playoff BCS era. They basically blew out every opponent. I think it's one of two times in history a team played a season where nobody got within 2 TDs and one of the others was a Nebraska NC team. 23-6 road win at Arizona was closest anybody came to beating 12-0 team. 12 zero excitement fourth quarters. That is dominance.
If I could go back in time that's the year I'd most want to implement an 8 team playoff. Their coach and scheme were ahead of their time and won a national championship 2 seasons later at Florida. I could easily have seen #5 Utah winning an 8 team playoff.
IMO a committee can work when there is a 4 or 8 team playoff system. As it would seem easier to differentiate and draw consensus on a top 4 or 8.
if it would be a 12 or 16 team playoff, it really becomes a beauty contest where there are small differences between team 12 and 13-15 or between team 16 and 17-20. IMO best to avoid the arguments of favoritism and let a computer ranking systems determine the last teams in.
Better to blame some computer geek than Condoleeza Rice or Gary Barta.
It's all 4 IMO. ESPN buys that content for the 10:30 pm ET time slot.
I wonder if NIL rules are so vague they can bend it to get around virtually anything. Like if those housing rules hold back KU luxury hotel, luxury hotel now funded by NIL slush fund and the school's old pile of money goes to other facilities.
It's a legit 6 team pod with 3 large markets and one medium sized one with Nike ads.
Cal/UCLA are redundant but maybe they get the irrational money for nothing that Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland, Miss St, Vandy and NW already have.
4 Pac mountain schools join us, and I drew a map the other day that shows how WSU/OreSt fit like puzzle pieces into MWC. Boise St will have 4 easy drive opponents which is nuts for a WAC/MWC team historically. Montana Schools could get a promotion to take them to 16 with best geographic rivals a mountain league has ever had.
If the big ten takes 4 PAC teams, that would allow us to basically determine what we are willing to do with the rest. Can start step them in over a few years instead of immediate full rate.
Agree. Ideally the Big10 would get to 6 Pac12 teams. Play 5 games against old Pac12 foes and then 4 games against traditional Big14. Basically would mean each traditional Big14 would have to make 1 trip west each season and Pac12 teams would come east twice.
I am going with UW, UO, Stanford and ASU. Sure Cal could make sense over ASU if the Big10 sees more value by having all 4 California schools. But IMO they would seem to get same $ benefit from just having 3 and bringing in ASU (Phoenix) or Utah (SLC).
16 years of the BCS (1998-2013). Assuming an 8-team format, that's 128 total spots.
The breakdown, if you just take the Top 8:
Conference champs - 68
Conference runner-up (either CCG loser or 2nd in standings if no CCG game) - 24
At-large (either DNP in CCG or finished 3rd or lower in conference) - 27
Mid-majors - 7
Independents - 2
-----------------------------
Conference champs ranked #9 or #10 - 8
...ranked #11-15 - 10
...outside the BCS Top 15 - 9
-----------------------------
Highest conference runners-up: Oklahoma (#1, 2003), K-State (#3, 1998), Michigan (#3, 2006)
-----------------------------
Teams in the top 4 who avoided a CCG: Nebraska '01, Texas '04, LSU '06, Texas '08, Alabama '11, Stanford '11, Florida '12, Oregon '12, Alabama '13
I don't think B1G is going to add 4 Pac schools right away. I think Warren will want to add 2 as a way to ease scheduling and give USC/UCLA some west coast partners, and that'll be it for 2024. If 20 is the target, I think Warren will want to leave room for the dream of ND and/or UNC and another ACC school down the line.
Agree that the remaining 6 would all beg to join if Big Ten takes that rumored four. Colorado and Arizona are, imho, slam dunk immediate adds with no scenario they are not.
Do you double up teams in Arizona and Utah? As good as Utah's athletic department has been, BYU has more eyeballs and fan interest. In my opinion you take Utah to strengthen the football brand even though it does nothing for TV markets, which would put you at 15 looking at Arizona State and a future post-raid-ACC.
There is the outside chance that SEC decides it needs to expand into Arizona or Colorado one day in addition to the guaranteed ACC raid coming. West coast SEC wing is completely dead now.
What long term ACC targets would SEC/B10 turn down that Big 12 would be thrilled to add? Louisville? Ga Tech? Pitt? VaTech?
I think they want to add 4-6 more down the road to look less like they are destroying regional football, which they obviously are. They also want that 4-6 to be at least half ACC targets.
Oregon is not sitting for the waiting game and complicating their plans right now.
Just my own perspective.
I HAD been in favor of Oregon to the Big10, as it would obviously destabilize the PAC 12 and make the big 12 clear # 3. However, I've changed my stance on this.
We need to drag out the current state of college football as along as possible, because once it goes to the next model (NFL like), we won't be a part of it. Once all the powers join either the big 10 or SEC, it is over.
We need to drag out the current state of college football as along as possible, because once it goes to the next model (NFL like), we won't be a part of it. Once all the powers join either the big 10 or SEC, it is over.
