The four conference champions in a playoff. Done.
and no super conferences but the 4 supers and their champs playing in a play-off is better than what we have now.
If it makes you feel better, the 4 superconference championship games would, functionally, be national quarterfinals, thus creating a de facto 8 team national playoff even if it's not called that.
Even so, I hate the 4 16 team superconference thing... it would turn college football into a nebulous indistinguishable blob. And would meke the bowl games even more meaningless than they are now....and even though we need a playoff it would be nice to have one that still left room for bowl games as well.
That would mean that only 64 teams have a chance to win a championship. Right now, there are 66 BCS teams (including Notre Dame). Limiting the number of super-conference teams to 64 would inevitably leave some quality programs out and give them no chance of winning a championship at all. Right now, non-BCS teams technically have a chance of winning a championship (though it isn't very likely). Moving to a system where only 64 teams have a chance of winning a championship would definitely lead to complaints from non-super-conference teams, and they would have a better argument than today's non-BCS teams.
Delany should take note on how to get something accomplished in a timely manner. Whether you are for or against the Big Ten expansion, the fact that the Big Ten can't decide on the matter in a timely fashion is ridiculous and a little embarassing. It isn't something that should take over a yer to figure out.
Considering no sources were named, I'd wait until something is actually announced before getting so upset.
Riiiiiiight.
I mean why would you want to take some time to consider all possible consqeucens, both positive and negagtive, before making a seismic alteration that would explode 100 years of college athletics.
was in even announcing this was a possibility. He could have easily deflected media inquiries or even (gasp!) lied about the consideration they were going through. Now what we have is a bunch of scared conference commissioners trying to move fast and beat the B10 to the punch so that their conferences won't be disadvantaged. The B10 could wake up with far fewer options in a couple of months than they would have had if no announcements had taken place.
Georgraphically makes sense:
Cal-Oregon-Washington and Arizona-Colorado-Oklahoma-Texas
Pretty much forces Missouri and Nebraska to Big 10 (if they aren't trying to get there already)
Leaves Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas and K-State in the wind. However, Baylor would fit perfecty in a new Mountain West with TCU, Houston, Boise, BYU, Utah, etc.
ISU, KU, and K-St would be begging to go Big 10. Maybe Kansas would get consideration
Yet another blogger with "news" of a blockbuster conference shuffle. Haven't we had, like, 562 of those regarding the BT?
So the real question is -- does this blogger have any creds -- anyone know anything about him.
And I agree with the above poster, the BT's lethargy totally reminds me of how lethargic Bill Martin was in picking a BB coach about 7-8 years ago -- he let Pitino get away because he waited and waited and waited, and Louisville wooed him way more than we did. The BT should never have made its examination public -- now they've created a feeding frenzy. If any other conferences start making moves, they'll force the BT to react way faster. Good luck with that, Delaney.
I'll vouch for Chip Brown. He's more than a blogger, he's a radio dj and journalist. Great guy (originally from Michigan, btw) and does a radio show here in Austin on our local ESPN station. In fact, I'll come out and say his show "The Bottom Line" he does with Sean Adams is the best sports talk radio I've ever heard and littered with Michigan references. I'm nervous for him for being the first to post such a big story but knowing him, he's probably got a reliable source.
I'll believe it when we play Texas in the Rose Bowl. Wait...
Assuming the Big East isn't going to cut it, which of the four conferences is going to give ND a special exemption to represent them in the championship if the Irish go 9-3?
To avoid anti-trust litigation, the four superconferences would have to let at least one more team in. I am guessing that if it shakes down like this, there will be one conference of Big East and CUSA leftovers, with one at-large slot. The week of conference championship games would be a de-facto opening round, and two at-large teams could play a "best of the rest" game. This would produce six candidates.
Then, the top two teams on the computer could be seeded into the semis, with 3-6 playing a quarterfinal round. The quarters and semis could be played the following two weeks to determine two finalists. Then, everything could be done just as it is now with the bowls getting their picks of everyone except the NC qualifiers.
It would be just like now, but the two finalists would have actually had to play their way in. If anyone is concerned that four teams will play two extra weeks, they could either start the season earlier or cut the number of regular season games.
This would make league championships actually mean something, which isn't the case now. As it is now, the only thing that counts is getting into the first two computer slots. Sadly, this all makes too much sense and is too easy, therefore it won't get done. But it sure is nice to dream about.
"To avoid anti-trust litigation, the four superconferences would have to let at least one more team in."
Where did you get this idea from? I'm not saying it's necessarily incorrect, I'm just wondering where you got that assertion from.
No Tater, you're missing the point. 4 16 team super conferences don't need the NCAA to sanction their champion. Therefore, they simply restructure the championship outside of the current BCS/bowl structure.
It's similar to how the Big10 and PAC-10 had the Rose Bowl above the Bowl Coalition/Alliance. Had someone awarded a national championship to the winner of that game, is there grounds for anti-trust? Now, obviously the intent would be to limit the national champion to these 4 super conferences; but that's what we currently have now.
Actually, I (gulp) agree with Tater on this one (phew, haven't been struck by lightning yet).
I mean, 4 superconferences crowning their champion, isn't that just the BCS with fewer conferences and semifinals before the championship game? The BCS championship isn't NCAA sanctioned either. And that didn't stop the non-BCS conferences from threatening legal action until they were included.
I do recall reading somewhere that if there is a tournament, then the NCAA has the rights to it, which is why teams are so drawn to the BCS.
... unless the 64 teams just leave the NCAA altogether.
That's true but that is so unlikely to happen.
Run with the speculation for a moment and have fun imagining a bunch of Aggies (or Cowboys) descending on Berkeley for a road game. Sounds fun to me, anyway...
I went to the Oklahoma @ Cal game in 1997. Nothing unusual happened, at least near the stadium.
And I was at the Tennessee @ Cal game in '07. Even with the debacle of the treesitters outside of the stadium, anyone expecting some kind of cataclysmic culture clash would have been very disappointed.
That type of culture clash is part of what makes big games great (whether they be in-conference or out-of-conference). I was a freshman when FSU came to A2 with boatloads of RVs and drunk rednecks. While their fans were culturally nothing like ours, they were (without doubt) the best visiting fans I can recall during my time in A2. There was no "we hate you" venom. It was pure "this is great fun, now let's get wasted and hopefully wake up in time for the game tomorrow" fun. It didn't even matter that they crushed us....fun fans and good times.
And in February, Pitt was all set to be announced as the 12th team in the Big Ten. Call me when there's a press release or a report from a credible blog or reporter.
but I guess they stand to make more money this way. Man, this will be interesting if true. What if only some teams accept?
If Texas accepts, they will all accept.
but, it actually makes some sense. This is merely taking the proposed Pac-10-Big 12 Television alliance to another level. It would essientially be two conferences, the old PAC-8 and the Big 12 defectors plus Arizona and ASU with a scheduling and revenue sharing agreement. IMO this expansion makes more sense than many of the others that have been tossed around for the Big 10 and other conferences.
This sounds more like a pipe dream for the Pac-10 to me. Sure, they could offer all of these teams, but I doubt that Texas and/or Oklahoma would join. They would likely wait for their invite into the SEC 16-team conference that would be sure to follow.
If true, excellent move by the PAC 10. This dopes however crush my dreams of getting Texas in the Big 10. I wonder if the PAC 10 makes the offer formal if the Big 10 would quickly make an offer to Texas/Texas A&M as well so they don't lose out on the biggest fish out there.
I do like the proposal and it would be epic if it happened... I just doubt it. There'd be so much money in a conference that covered so many huge media markets.
They could all bliss out in the Flatirons outside Boulder, man.
I'm excited to see the conclusion of this expansion business, it looks as if 16-team or 14-team conferences could become the standard.
Texas will not join the Pac 10. They're a serious institution who may only be listening to the Big 10 for academic and/or financial reasons. While the Pac 10 has some decent schools, what the Big 10 provides on both fronts leads me to believe that the only offer Texas may even consider is with the Big 10.
I hope you're right...although I'd say that Stanford, Cal and UCLA are much better than "decent". If the Pac 10 lands Texas and the Big Ten ends up with UConn, Rutgers or any other combination of Big East weakness, it'd be an awful outcome.
You do realize Texas would have joined the Pac Ten during the last round of expansion if not for a Stanford veto, right?
Are you referring to the late 70's when the pac 10 added the arizona's or the mid 90's when the big 12 was formed?
It was after the collapse of the SWC IIRC, so it would be in the mid 90's.
This was prior to the Big Ten Network. Like I said, the Pac 10 has good schools and would be able to offer Texas a lot. It's just, the Big 10 can offer all of that plus 20+ million dollars.
And you think a conference with Texas, Oklahoma and USC, whose total area is home to ~90 million people, wouldn't be able to form a cable network and bring in as much (if not more) money than the BTN?
Do you really think academics is that important to Texas? The Big 12 is a joke academically. They care about maximizing their moneymaking ability... the CIC bump is meaningless to them, they don't need it like Missouri or Nebraska do.
Further, the Pac 10 is a hell of a lot stronger academically then you give it credit for. The California schools are better than all but Northwestern (you can argue our case, but let's just use USNWR rankings for simplicity) in the Big Ten. Add that to the money that would be made in a conference that covers the California, Texas, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Phoenix media markets and you have a perfectly good reason for Texas to consider this.
Not to mention, Texas has almost joined the Pac Ten twice.
No teams, no rivalry considerations, just in space.
Let's say the sixteen team, two division superconference...I'm sorry, as Brian aptly stated, "two conferences with scheduling and revenue-sharing agreements."...become the norm, the presumption is that you would have seven games in your division. That would only mean one game across divisions in your traditional eight game conference schedule.
So, here's the issue.
Do you go to a nine-game conference schedule, like the PAC-10 has now, and have two cross-divisional games, but an uneven split on home/away games per season...or
Do you go to a ten game conference schedule, seven divisional games, and three games across the divisions, perhaps one "permanent rival" or some such" and two rotating teams, and ensure five home and five road conference games, thus diminishing the need for scheduling FCS schools and MAC-rifices and their regional ilk?
OR
Do you go to a four division set up where you play some sort of set up where you play all of the teams in your division, one of all of the other divisions, and one team from each of the other two (which would be nine games.)
OR
something I haven't mentioned.
I know, it's all hypothetical, it's thinking in space, and it's whimsy as much as anything at this point, but I am trying to see through what might be the best, and fairest way to make this hypothetical work.
If you're not following @edsbs on Twitter, you should. Otherwise you're missing out on stuff like this:
If the Pac Ten controls both Americas, the rest of us are screwed, unless we can collectively convince the Big XII his only option is to concentrate all his forces on Brazil and occupy it indefinitely.
This is what I hate about Conference Risk -- it comes down to which guy your opponent can talk into attacking you instead of him.
Even though this does seem likely, I'm not going to believe any expansion talk until something is 100% percent done.
Gottlieb just mentioned this on ESPN radio.
Doesn't the Pac 10 have academic standards that would exclude some of those schools? I thought Pac 10 schools were supposed to be on the same caliber as the Big ten schools.
This is what I'm confused about. UT and A&M are good schools, easily better than the Arizonas, WSU, and the Oregons. Ok St and TT are much worse than those though.
Isn't Wazzou the worst school in the BCS? The Oklahoma schools are no worse than the Oregon schools.