Conference Realignment - Power Five 16 team playoff

Submitted by Dave98 on

You could have three divisions in the WEST: 


1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Stanford
4. Cal
5. Oregon
6. Oregon State
7. Washington
8. Washington State
9. Utah
10. BYU
11. Colorado

1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Oklahoma
4. Oklahoma State
5. Arkansas
6. TCU
7. Texas Tech
8. Baylor
9. Arizona
10. Arizona State
11. Nebraska

1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Iowa State
6. Indiana
7. Illinois
8. Northwestern
9. Iowa
10. Wisconsin
11. Minnesota

And three divisions in the EAST


1. Alabama
2. Auburn
3. LSU
4. Ole Miss
5. Miss State
6. South Carolina
7. Tennessee
8. Missouri
9. Kansas
10. Kansas State
11. Clemson

1. Florida
2. Florida State
3. Miami
4. Georgia
5. Georgia Tech
6. Virginia
7. Virginia Tech
8. North Carolina
9. North Carolina State
10. Duke
11. Wake Forest

1. Notre Dame
2. Penn State
3. Pitt
4. West Virginia
5. Boston College
6. Louisville
7. Kentucky
8. Vanderbilt
9. Maryland
10. Syracuse
11. Rutgers

Two teams from each of the six divisions qualify for the 16-team playoff as well as four wildcard teams – two wildcards from the West and two from the East. Everyone's bottom line increases. Fans will eat it up so much they won't mind absorbing the increased costs for a College Football Channel as well as a DIRECTV type college football package or other games on pay-per-view.

http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1561434-the-next-big-move-in-realignment

What say you?

I'm not a big fan of this. It would basically eliminate conferences (history/tradition) and make college football NFL-lite.

cbuswolverine

July 7th, 2015 at 10:47 PM ^

I think whoever put Colorado/Utah/BYU with the PAC teams while putting Arizona and ASU with a bunch of Big 12 teams is a dumbass.

That's as far as I got.

UMgradMSUdad

July 7th, 2015 at 10:49 PM ^

When would the playoffs start and end?  That seems like a problem.  I could also see several school unhappy with their placement.  In this scenario the Arizona and Kansas schools are pretty well screwed.  It would be interesting to see something along these lines happening though.

Doctor Wolverine

July 7th, 2015 at 11:01 PM ^

I do think that we will end up seeing 6 power conferences with around 12 teams each, but the conferences will stay roughly the same...no true redistribution of the heavyweights from any one conference. I also think 16 teams is too many for a playoff. 8 teams is just right. The champion of each conference, plus 2 at large bids. The first round of the playoffs before Christmas and the last two like how they did it this past year. All other bowls remain the same (except preferably fewer of them to go around...maybe 20).

WorldwideTJRob

July 7th, 2015 at 11:14 PM ^

If we can trade Iowa St. For Nebraska/Penn St. I could see it, but just take the division winners and 2 wild cards for an 8 team playoff. Although the easier solution is to keep things like they are and give the power 5 conf. Champs auto-bids, then give the best of the other 5 an auto bid plus 2 wildcard teams to create an 8 team playoff.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

M-Dog

July 8th, 2015 at 12:04 AM ^

. . . give the power 5 conf. Champs auto-bids, then give the best of the other 5 an auto bid plus 2 wildcard teams to create an 8 team playoff.

Yes, this really is the best set up.  The auto-bid to the non-P5 is key for political correctness reasons.  Two at-large P5 teams is also enough to round things out.  

It still keeps the regular season meaningful. 

johnthesavage

July 7th, 2015 at 11:28 PM ^

If you want a 16-team playoff, you just do it. You take all the conference champions now and then you add at-large teams using the existing system for choosing at-large teams. Let each conference pick its champion its own way.

If we aren't doing that, it's because there isn't the will to have a 16-team playoff right now. And if there isn't the will for that, there sure isn't the will for that plus a complete realignment that would wreak havoc on many existing contracts.

Besides, 11-team conferences are awkward for this sort of thing. You can do all-play-all but you will end up with some tiebreakers. I know you can get this in any case, but I think it's better to have even and small divisions, and play for a conference championship, if it means qualifying for a postseason tournament.

Felix.M.Blue

July 7th, 2015 at 11:29 PM ^

sure will be pissed off. 

For your sake I'm glad you didn't leave your e-mail address for them.

I'd rather go with 8 12 team conferences

The NFL has their bye week the weekend of the 8 championship games so we get a game Friday night, 4 games Saturday, and 3 games Sunday. 

Monday night they have the selection show of the seedings

Plus the bye week comes at a great time for all NFL teams gearing up for the playoff run.

phork

July 7th, 2015 at 11:30 PM ^

Its going to happen sooner or later.  And besides, the history & tradition are all but dead at this point anyways.  I would change up that list a bit but I think in the end some version of this will prevail.

phork

July 8th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^

It will because you are going to see a dumping of the NCAA and the power5 create something new and more lucrative.   They've been wanting to dump the NCAA for a long time now and this is how it'll happen.   Because doing this they will no longer have to share bowl money with the lower tier programs who have been threatening legal action to break into the big bowls.

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

July 8th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^

1) they'll do no such thing because they don't want to spend all the money duplicating the process of setting up all the various infrastructures, rules, championships, and so on.  And because breaking from the NCAA would cost a ton of money as it would essentially destroy the basketball tournament.  The value of March Madness is 1+1=2 where one part is the power 5 and the other part is everyone else.  The value of two separate tournaments would be 1+1=1.5.  That supposedly more lucrative football setup will be canceled out by all those other costs, and in case you haven't noticed, college presidents and ADs are fairly risk-averse.

2) those college presidents and ADs don't even give one tenth of a shit if the system organizes into cute little patterns.  Zero fucks are given.  All they care about is what's best for their institution.  Even if the NCAA falls apart and something new is formed, all the motivations and decisions processes will be precisely the same as before.  And they're not going to force a total rearrangement of all their relationships and institutions to satisfy some pretty little organized system that somebody wants.

althegreat23

July 8th, 2015 at 12:00 AM ^

Clemson would hate that arrangement. They would go from basically only needing to win two difficult games (FSU and the ACC title game) to needing to beat Auburn, Alabama, and LSU.

JamieH

July 8th, 2015 at 12:30 AM ^

What we need is mandatory CCG games and an 8-team playoff where 5 of the births are auto-bids from the CCG's.  That is essentailly a 16-team playoff already, with the CCG functioning as the defacto first round of the playoffs.  Of course, there are still some at-large teams that will get in, but 5 of the 8 teams will be CCG winners.

Soulfire21

July 8th, 2015 at 8:21 AM ^

I never understood the "dilute the regular season" argument.  Isn't the whole point of the regular season to seed teams and determine who will play for the championship?  It really serves no other purpose (of course it is fun, and of course each individual game is still important because you need to do well to be seeded well, etc.)

I would rather go back to what made CFB really special and just play the bowls, then each poll can determine their own national champion.

Blue 8198

July 8th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^

As a relative old timer I was going to comment about the regular season being nothing more than to seed the teams playing for a national championship.  I understand that in today's sports world this has become the norm; however, I pine for the days when the Big Ten Championship was actually a thing and the focus of the season.  So much so that I recall referring to non-conference games as the preseason.

Then I read your second paragraph and agree completely.  There will be plenty of debate every year but the bowl games will be special (if less lucrative, which means not happening).

Finally, if something like the above ever happens I would be a big fan of our division and it could be called something more creative than East 3, perhaps the Big Ten of old.  And, swap Iowa State for Notre Dame just to piss them off.

M-Dog

July 8th, 2015 at 3:12 AM ^

Agreed, but with one modification:  2 of the wild cards come from P5.  The other comes from non-P5.

That way, you are politically correct and can't be accused of screwing the little guys.  Let them have a seat at the table.  

Besides, it would be interesting to see what a team like Boise State could do on the big stage. 

WolvinLA2

July 8th, 2015 at 1:17 AM ^

Why do we have to jumble up all the conferences just to have a larger playoff? That part doesn't make sense. Keep in mind there are more sports than football so throwing conferences out the window won't work.

Mr Miggle

July 8th, 2015 at 6:07 AM ^

Whenever someone has an idea that requires destroying the conferences to make it work, they should just stop. It's stupid, stupid, stupid and it's not worth discussing.

How about eliminating all the shadiness in recruiting by just having a draft? The first two rounds you have to select an in-state player. Then a wildcard round. Then four in your region and so on. It would draw massive ratings and save a lot of money. It's an equally good idea.

Kenny Loggins

July 8th, 2015 at 2:11 AM ^

what we need is 4 16 team conferences, each with two divisions. you have the conference champ games, which is basically an elite 8, then the current playoff system.