Conference Realignment: One Solution To Rule Them All

Submitted by Cold War on

This is an interesting proposal would place schools into five geographic groups.

 

SEC stack (45): GA, FL, AL, MS, SC, TN, KY

ACC stack (57): NC, VA, WV, VA, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, PA, NY, NH, VT, ME

Big Ten stack (40): OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD

Big XII stack (42): LA, TX, AR, OK, KS, NE, NM, CO, WY

Pac-12 stack (33): CA, AZ, UT, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, HI

 

Each of these five geographic "stacks" would include three tiers, and teams that finished lowest or highest in their tier would move  up or down to another tier.

 

For example, here's the  Big Ten Stack, incorporating all schools in OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD.

 

Big Ten

(Top)
East West
Indiana Illinois
Michigan Iowa
Notre Dame Minnesota
Ohio State Northwestern
Purdue Wisconsin
Michigan State Iowa State

 

Mid-American Conference

(Second-Tier)
East West
Cincinnati Northern Illinois
Akron Central Michigan
Kent Eastern Michigan
Bowling Green Western Michigan
Miami (OH) Toledo
Ohio U. Ball State

 

Third-Tier Conferences

 
Pioneer Conference (IA, ND, SD, IL) Ohio Valley Conference (IN, OH, MI)
Drake Butler
North Dakota Dayton
North Dakota State Valparaiso
South Dakota Indiana State
South Dakota State Youngstown State
Northern Iowa  
Eastern Illinois  
Illinois State  
Southern Illinois  
Western Illinois  
Robert Morris  

 

Seems like a comprehensive, common sense proposal. May be worth a read.

 

http://www.dawgsports.com/2012/12/21/3792076/conference-realignment-one-solution-to-rule-them-all

 

MGoBoard

robmorren2

December 23rd, 2012 at 8:39 PM ^

Notre Dame will be in their own stack. ND Stack (5) Notre Dame, Purdue, Navy, Boston College, Pitt ... winner of that stack gets an automatic Championship Game bid. Otherwise, ND won't play anymore. Hhhmppppfff. /Swarbrick'd

Joined: 06/04/2011

MGoPoints: 2486

weasel3216

December 23rd, 2012 at 8:51 PM ^

Just the idea that any school can realistically make the commitment to get the the top tier to be a football power. Of course they would have to make the financial commitment first and then grow the program.

Joined: 08/09/2009

MGoPoints: 3502

Yeoman

December 23rd, 2012 at 9:32 PM ^

This is going to be a bit long, but bear with me...

I think it would help this proposal if there were some explicit criteria for sorting the teams into tiers beyond a general impression of importance based, largely, on prior conference affiliation.

An example: here's Sagarin Predictor for the top 20 B1G-area teams in 2012 (national rank in parentheses):

  1. Notre Dame (3)
  2. Wisconsin (20)
  3. Ohio State (24)
  4. Michigan (25)
  5. Northwestern (36)
  6. Iowa State (37)
  7. Michigan State (41)
  8. North Dakota State (42)
  9. Northern Illinois (43)
  10. Cincinnati (47)
  11. Kent State (65)
  12. Purdue (66)
  13. Iowa (71)
  14. Northern Iowa (73)
  15. Minnesota (74)
  16. Indiana (76)
  17. Bowling Green (78)
  18. Toledo (79)
  19. South Dakota State (84)
  20. Ball State (86)

And in 2011:

  1. Wisconsin (6)
  2. Michigan (10)
  3. Michigan State (15)
  4. Notre Dame (21)
  5. Cincinnati (28)
  6. Toledo (41)
  7. Ohio State (43)
  8. North Dakota State (44)
  9. Iowa (46)
  10. Northern Illinois (54)
  11. Illinois (55)
  12. Northwestern (56)
  13. Iowa State (59)
  14. Purdue (72)
  15. OHIO (74)
  16. Western Michigan (76)
  17. Northern Iowa (79)
  18. Miami U. (85)
  19. Minnesota (91)
  20. Illinois State (99)

2010:

  1. Ohio State (7)
  2. Wisconsin (17)
  3. Notre Dame (18)
  4. Iowa (21)
  5. Illinois (31)
  6. Northern Illinois (44)
  7. Michigan State (46)
  8. Cincinnati (64)
  9. Michigan (75)
  10. Western Michigan (76)
  11. Iowa State (79)
  12. Northwestern (80)
  13. Toledo (91)
  14. Minnesota (96)
  15. Miami U. (97)
  16. North Dakota State (99)
  17. Central Michigan (102)
  18. Purdue (103)
  19. Indiana (106)
  20. Western Illinois (107)

2009:

  1. Ohio State (7)
  2. Cincinnati (15)
  3. Iowa (17)
  4. Wisconsin (25)
  5. Notre Dame (31)
  6. Michigan State (46)
  7. Central Michigan (50)
  8. Northern Iowa (61)
  9. Purdue (65)
  10. Michigan (66)
  11. Minnesota (67)
  12. Northwestern (72)
  13. Iowa State (76)
  14. Southern Illinois (81)
  15. South Dakota State (84)
  16. Northern Illinois (86)
  17. OHIO (87)
  18. Illinois (89)
  19. Bowling Green (92)
  20. Indiana (94)

I'm stopping there for now because I can't bear to look at the 2008 page. But I think that's enough.

I can appreciate that it's difficult to use these computer methods to compare top 1AA teams to low-level B1G teams; there really isn't that much data available to verify those comparisons. I'm not ready to promote N.D. State to the B1G. But what possible justification can there be for putting Cincinnati, which has been in the top 10 in the region at least six years in a row, in the MAC-level second tier behind Indiana, which can't make the top 15 in their best year? Purdue, Minnesota and Indiana have all been significantly worse than Cincinnati every year since at least 2007. Illinois's only been better one of those years.

Here's what you get for a Sagarin-objective top tier, summing the ranks for the last four years:

  1. Wisconsin 68
  2. Notre Dame 73
  3. Ohio State 81
  4. Iowa 145
  5. Michigan State 148
  6. Cincinnati 154
  7. Michigan 176
  8. Northern Illinois 227
  9. Northwestern 244
  10. Iowa State 251
  11. Purdue 306
  12. Illinois 310

That seems a reasonable group to me. Whatever criteria are used, though, I think it would be important to get them agreed to far enough in advance that teams would have a chance to play themselves on or off the list. Pick something in year x, and use that criteria to sort the teams three years later, maybe.

(MIchigan was 83 in 2008, by the way; the cut off for this list is an average of 77.5. If your average year is worse than Michigan's 2008 season--that's you, Indiana and Minnesota--you have no business being placed in a top tier.)

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

Tater

December 23rd, 2012 at 10:19 PM ^

The only positive to this system is decreased travel expenses.  Unfortunately, it looks like it was created by a panel of profs and college administrators who were chosen for knowing absolutely nothing about sports, as to promote objectivity.

Consequently, it looks about like something your loopiest, most sports-hating prof would scribble on a bar napkin during happy hour.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Hardware Sushi

December 23rd, 2012 at 10:26 PM ^

And endless threads with new relegation ideas.

There's a hive mind here that everyone seems to hate adding Maryland and Rutgers because we will play traditional/original Big Ten less often, yet everyone is always up for a new game of 'make college football like European professional leagues where leagues aren't static".

I am baffled at the cognitive dissonance required to pull off these mental gymnastics.

Joined: 03/08/2010

MGoPoints: 6543

Yeoman

December 23rd, 2012 at 11:14 PM ^

One way or another, there will always be a need to have some changes in conference alignments as populations shift and schools change size and develop or de-emphasize their programs. The question is, what do you want to drive those changes? School location and its possible effect on cable television revenues, or on-field performance?

I'd be happy to sacrifice some traditional games for the latter. The only rivalries this set-up would damage are those that are so unbalanced they aren't really rivalries any more, and they'll return if they ever re-balance.

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

FreeKarl

December 24th, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^

On field performance changes rapidly and is hard to even judge. Should NIU be rewarded for their on-field performance and promoted to a higher division even though they lost to one of the B1G's worst in Iowa? Not to mention many of the smaller schools sponsor only a small amount of non-revenue sports, creating logistical issues with those sports. 

Joined: 11/16/2012

MGoPoints: 304

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 24th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^

And endless threads with new relegation ideas.

I am baffled at the cognitive dissonance required to pull off these mental gymnastics.

Neverland realignment ideas are the new Neverland playoff ideas.  Everyone always thought they had a great playoff idea that was very special and perfect.  Most of which never took anything realistic into account.  Now that "playoffs" have been settled for the foreseeable future, now everyone wants to come up with their own realignment idea that is very special and perfect.  Most of which do not take anything realistic into account.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

trueblueintexas

December 24th, 2012 at 1:27 AM ^

I have a feeling this is one of those plans everyone thinks has some cool aspects until it is their team which gets demoted a level. What would your response be if it was Michigan who got demoted.

Joined: 11/10/2008

MGoPoints: 36632

Yeoman

December 24th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^

 

What would your response be if it was Michigan who got demoted.

 

FIRE RICH ROD?

All joking aside, you're probably right that this is the reason nothing like this would ever be adopted. Not because of Michigan, which would have only faced one relegation battle in my lifetime and almost certainly would have popped right back up the following year, but because of schools like Indiana that can put a moribund football team on the field decade after decade but still get their equal share of the league's bowl and tv revenues. If I were the AD or President at Indiana I probably wouldn't want there to be any consequences for failure either.

If I were an Indiana fan or alum, though, I might have mixed feelings. Maybe the fear of relegation would light a fire under the department and they'd find a way to improve the program. I might be willing to risk a few years of MAC football if it brought with it an attempt to get the program up to a legitimate B1G level.

And if I were a fan of, say, BYU, which has had a high-level program for decades and always seems to get the short end of the stick at conference-realignment time, I'd think this was the greatest idea ever.

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

Mr Miggle

December 24th, 2012 at 7:25 AM ^

Is the author living in a fantasy land or just an idiot? How can someone spend so much time on this and not consider the obvious problems with his proposal?

Oh, he did address the scholarship differential between the divisions and suggested giving two years to let relegated teams go from 85 to 60 scholarships. LOL at the pure stupidity of that.

What would happen to every existing TV contract? What would be the financial implications of being relegated to a school like Tennessee? Wouldn't being relegated and no longer scheduling perhaps every rivalry game be a big deal for fans? At least he got well balanced divisions in our region.

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47586

Anonymosity

December 24th, 2012 at 8:56 AM ^

Yeah, the Big Ten stack would look quite different as Kent State, NIU, Cincinatti, and maybe a couple other teams would be in the first tier, while, at the very least, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota would be second-tier and Illinois would be quickly heading toward tier three. I'm not sure people would be okay with conference games against Kent State or NIU. Jim Delaney sure wouldn't be.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 2482

Seth

December 24th, 2012 at 9:07 AM ^

Any relegation proposal is pure fantasy unless there's a HUGE shift in the focus of NCAA from profit to competitive fairness. That acknowledged, I made up one of these fantasy things myself once, but didn't bother to include FCS teams because those are schools that specifically decided they do not want to be part of the FBS arms race.

It actually wasn't that hard to create five conferences of 24 teams: http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-museday-expansion-universalis, and each conference would have two tiers of 12.

The greater point is "WHY?" The idea that you can find one champion out of >100 teams with vastly disparate resources is insane. Note that pro leagues start feeling bloated and spread thin at about 28 teams. And then you figure we only have a dozen games against disparate schedules each year to decide. We shouldn't keep changing our system, potentially destroying rivalries and conferences built on shared culture just because Boise State or TCU will be left out--if those schools are truly on the level and can continue to be, they can find a home with a higher tier conference.

What they should have done with the BCS is make it MORE exclusive, reforming the upper tier of college football to give out their own championship to the exclusion of the mid-majors, essentially forming a different division. But then they would have had to carry the Big East.

I would say this latest realignment is exactly when the NCAA shoudl step in and create a sensical tier system, and it wouldn't be that hard to do so--just create a tier that can pay players (up to, say, $2500 a year). The big money schools can afford $300,000 a season but the Indiana States will finally be forced to drop the pretense.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149183

ska2682

December 24th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^

I like the idea, but just saying the bottom 2 teams move down every year, and the top two move up is just crazy.  I think it would make more sense to use a 3 year sample size to determine promotion/relegation.  It allows teams that have a down year (2008) to not be penelized the next year, and also a team that has an out of the ordinary good year to be rewarded.

Joined: 09/07/2012

MGoPoints: 862

bacon1431

December 24th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^

I think it'd be a fun change. It'd never happen. Would make NCAA sanctions easier - relegate them a tier or two depending on the severity. 

Maybe make 10 teams per regional tier and play everyone within your tier so there's no complaints about schedules. Finish in the top 2 and you move onto a playoff. Third place finishers get to go to a playoff, top 2 get byes into next round or something. 

Fun to imagine. Never going to happen. 

Joined: 07/26/2008

MGoPoints: 25277