OT - Great Commentary on Conference Realignment by Tracee Hamilton of the Washington Post
Below is the link to an excellent piece in today's Washington Post about conference realignment and the negative ramifications that go with it. She discusses the impact realignment will have upon athletes and fans along with a host of other throught provoking topics. Excellent read.
September 20th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
It definitely reads like a bulldyke lesbian named Tracee Hamilton wrote that article.
There's really nothing of susbstance in her drivel. She's spouting that "think of the KIDS and the FANS" angle as if the airfare or roadtrips are so much of an inconvenience for schools to avoid making more money, solidifying themselves in a better conference, and expanding their recruiting footprint. Has anyone told her Boston College and Florida State are about a million miles apart? Oh wait. That doesn't make for a good story. Crying about realignment does.
With that said: I'd hit it. With a shovel.
September 20th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
To paraphrase Deion Sanders: "Hey hey hey hey hey! Hey. Hey."
September 20th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
IT SUCKS FOR THE FANS TO HAVE TO SEE TEXAS AND USC PLAY OFF FOR A CONFERENCE TITLE!
September 20th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. It's great that the B1G has a playoff system in place this year because now we get to see one more conference game and stay relevant for a few more weeks. Having said that, I already miss the good old days of not too long ago when all but two B1G teams were played every year.
From my perspective as a Michigan fan first and a B1G fan second, the only thing that will come out of reaignment that will benefit the fan is a playoff system and perhaps less dependency upon the NCAA. Every other aspect of the process stinks. It is first and foremost about money and little else really matters.
September 20th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
The NCAA controls playoff rights, the bowls are the only thing standing between the NCAA and football right now.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
Not if the 64 teams of the 4 superconferences decide the NCAA is more trouble than its worth.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
Maybe, but I doubt it. Those 64 schools hold all of the power in the NCAA anyway.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
Like I said in one of the other posts. This will probably bring about a playoff but not the playoff that the Utahs and Boise States are looking for. I think it will end up being son of the Bowl Coalition or something to that effect. So it will keep the bowl system intact....but pretty much keep the champion to one of these 4 conferences.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
Utah used to wanted that ... until it got religioned and now sees things from the perspective of a BCS member... and no longer wants those things that make other equal.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
but I am just wondering how they avoid anti-trust implications with separating from the NCAA or creating a separate subdivision.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^
who controls the BCS? It's not the NCAA.
If these conferences leave the BCS and form their own MNC system (which is how Bowl Coalition and BCS came to be, don't forget), then the BCS will be dead. The NCAA could then introduce a playoff system similar to what happens in the lower divisions, but as you admit those 64 schools have all the power and have kept that playoff out for decades.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
Of course it's all about the money. It always has been, from when Walter Byers coined the term "student-athlete" to justify shamateurism. It's just more out in the open now becuase of the internet.
As long as we get a playoff to determine a true champion, I will be happy. It would be a class move to allow players to take outside income from wherever they can get it, too: after, of course, they punish THE Ohio State University.
September 20th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
Another journalist at a respected media outlet shooting off about some emotion-based 'reasoning' and how this is BAD BAD BAD. Give it a rest.
And WTF do you want the NCAA and/or Mark Emmert to do, exactly, Ms. Hamilton? Sure, just cut through bylaws created by member institutions that address the power of the President of the NCAA and start telling conferences what teams they're going to have?
Sometimes I wonder what the required courses are for a journalism degree. Then I realize most journalists that understand business are working at the WSJ or Bloomberg. If Dan Wetzel writes another article where he magically pulls out $700m out of thin air as the value of a playoff, I may shit myself.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
a bad Mitch Albom piece.
She's also confusing conference realignment with larger, deeper issues with collegiate athletics. Athletes won't benefit from this because they can't, thanks to some archaic NCAA rules and 'procedures" that need some serious updating. This has nothing to do with realignment itself. Frankly, I'm not sure how it hurts coaches. If anything it should help. It helps fans...we get to see new leagues and new rivalries born with new matchups. That's fun for fans.
What it really hurts are the schools that get left behind from teh superconferences. She doesn't even mention this at all. Therefore, she has no idea what she's talking about.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
For those that are not regular readers of the Post, Tracee Hamilton is a Kansas alum and huge Kansas fan -- a team that could be left out in the cold by all this.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
She also worked for the Free Press a while.
September 20th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
I don't see why her or anyone else is getting all upset and disillusioned about this. 100 years Michigan was playing Yale and Harvard. Things change.
September 20th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^
people keep talking about abandoning traditional rivalries, but I'm not seeing it. At least not to any greater degree than the death of the independent or the great southwestern conference shuffle of the early 90's destroyed rivalries. Texas and Arkansas was one of the great rivalries of all time. Now nobody cares or remembers. Boo hoo, they're both doing fine.Anything truly major like WVU/Pitt can be arranged as an out of conference game. And those bemoaning the death of regionalism... is it really dead? If the 4 division Pac-16 comes to pass, we're seeing 4 perfectly matched regional groupings in a conference that covers about a quarter of the nation. That looks fine to me. I think the endgame here is still hyper regional, 4 super conferences covering 4 different quarters of the country: west, midwest, south east and east coast. Sets up nicely for a national tournament, doesn't it? And hey, aren't there 4 major bowl games? Hmm...
September 20th, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
apologies for my sloppy grammar/typing in this...ugh
September 20th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^
Say ND joins what becomes a 16-team Atlantic Coast Conference, with Pitt and 'Cuse and let's say UConn because yay basketball total hegemony. The ACC is realigned as follows:
| North | South |
|---|---|
| Syracuse | Florida State |
| Notre Dame | Miami (YTM) |
| UConn | Georgia Tech |
| Boston College | North Carolina |
| Maryland | Wake Forest |
| Virginia | Duke |
| Virginia Tech | NC State |
| Pittsburgh | Clemson |
With 9 conference games you play 7 against your divisional rivals and 2 of the 8 in the other division. Rotating home and away this means Notre Dame fans are seeing their "conference rival" GT come to South Bend once every 8 years. This is exactly how often they play Georgia Tech right now since the Jackets joined the ACC. This is stupid.
ND is also giving up at least one every-year rivalry, since there's only three non-conf slots left. Two of Michigan, MSU, Navy, USC and Purdue won't be played anymore. Actually three or you'll never again see a game again vs. Army or BYU or Stanford, let alone Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State or Air Force.
However the ACC can actually get their teams to see non-divisional opponents more often by going to four divisions:
| Atlantic | Northwest | Carolina | Southeast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia Tech | Notre Dame | North Carolina | Miami (YTM) |
| Maryland | Boston College | NC State | Florida State |
| Virginia | Pittsburgh | Wake Forest | Georgia Tech |
| Uconn | Syracuse | Duke | Clemson |
...where each year you play 7 conference games: three against your division and four against another division -- the division matchups switch every 2 years. This would mean Notre Dame plays BC, Pitt and Syracuse every year, and gets Georgia Tech twice (home once) every six years.
This alignment sucks by the way, since it gives Virginia Tech a conference lineup of Maryland, Virginia, UConn, N.C., NCState, Wake and Duke on years ND is playing BC, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson. A 2-game playoff (Rnd 1 is seeded, among div champs who didn't see each other during the season) could follow.
This would allow Notre Dame to play four nonconference games, enough that they need only drop one of USC, Mich, MSU, Purdue and Navy. I'd guess they'd continue Navy and USC, and if the Big Ten hasn't barred them, go to once every two years for Mich/MSU/Purdue. It does add a 13th game to the season for four teams, and a 14th game for two. I'm not sure that would bother people.
Fake Notre Dame season:
| Opp. | Result |
|---|---|
| NAVY | W 38-14 |
| MICHIGAN | L 24-28 |
| @ Michigan State | W 20-10 |
| @ Virginia Tech | W 14-3 |
| MARYLAND | W 35-17 |
| UCONN | W 35-10 |
| @ Virginia | W 20-17 |
| BOSTON COLLEGE | W 42-0 |
| @ Pittsburgh | L 12-20 |
| SYRACUSE | W 24-14 |
| @ Southern California | L 14-40 |
ACC Div Champs: Northwest: ND (9-3, 6-1); Atlantic: VT (10-2, 7-0); Southeast: FSU (11-0, 7-0); Carolina: N.C. (7-5, 4-2).
Top seeded FSU has played N.C. so they draw Notre Dame--the worse of the two div champs left.
Playoffs:
- ND def Florida State, VT def North Carolina
- ND defeats VT in rematch.
Florida State fans can complain about an 11-3 team getting the autobid over their 11-1 team, but hypothetical FSU is probably a solid BCS at-large, especially considering Big XII and Big East tie-ins no longer exist.
This is more of a league than a Conference. But it's a model that could be followed in reorganizing college football from a mess of 120 programs in conferences that vary widely in size and strength, to a 64-team, regionally select league of 16 divisions and a sensical playoff at the end.
September 20th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^
do it with 4 team pods instead of two 8 team divisions... that's the proposal the Pac-12 is working with and that's the proposal that would win out across the country. 9 conference games against the other 3 teams in their pod and then 2 from the other 3 pods each
September 20th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
If we have two rounds of conference playoffs and then an 8-team national playoff (as has been speculated), teams are going to have to play five playoff games, in addition to a 12-game regular season, to win the national championship. Great for the fans but maybe a little much to ask of the players.
September 23rd, 2011 at 6:03 AM ^
I think they'd have to scale back the regular season a bit so that the conf playoffs start over thanksgiving weekend and are over by the 2nd week of December. They've already extended the season past Jan 1. If they do Round 1 of the National Championship at Christmas they can have 2 weeks and change to hype up the finals.
September 20th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^
i could see the big east turning out like this
12 for football , 19 for basketball