The Realignment Endgame

I don't see mega-conferences as NFL minor leagues, anymore than they are today.

I'd fully advocate for an 18 or 20 team conference if one division approximates the "old" Big 10 and each team in that "divison" plays each other.  That way the Big 10 is essentially what it used to be, with an agreement to play a "championship" with another conference, errr division.  Michigan and Ohio State play at the end of the year for a chance to advance, etc.

It's called "If we stop talking about it, that'll make it go away."

(Yeah I'm still in the denial phase.)

I had a question about the proposed theoretical structure of an 18-team conference in your diary post. Would it have to be 11 conference games? It seems fairly evident to me that, in the event of 16-team conference, we would ideally be looking at a nine-game conference schedule  from a structural standpoint. With an 18-team conference, you could do the same thing, but with a three-year cycle of schedules. Hypothetically, it would look like this (underlined teams - we play them, and strikethrough - off the schedule):

That's all theory, of course. I don't know if ADs in the current Big Ten would really want only one OOC game, much less in an even larger version of the conference. One thing that I would think comes into play as well is that this does seem to lead to a two-week playoff - hypothetically, division winners and the team with the next best record and/or the team with the head-to-head win in the event of a wildcard tie. I have to wonder if academic schedules would give schools pause for such a concept though.  

your original post, and yes, I think that something along those lines is on its way.  JUST MAKE SENSE, whatever it is, and I will be happy.  College football does not make sense right now, I just want something that I at least understand.

Since expansion and realignment is here to stay, I was thinking of some ideas that would be somewhat palatable to us traditionalists who care about the young whippersnappers walking across out finely manicured lawns. Here goes:



1. 4 "mega conferences" of either 20 or 24. That keeps between 80-96 teams in the mix of the "BCS" (or whatever it is called).



2. Each mega conference has 2 divisions of 10-12 teams.



3. Here is where I think it gets palatable. Each division represents one of the old traditional conferences. Obviously that would only account for around 6 divisions, so the remaining 2 divisions (which I see being in the same conference that ultimately is least cared about) can be made of a mix of whichever independent, sunbelt, Mac, WAC, etc. Conference teams want to ornate selected to join.



4. As to conferences and divisions, I see the B10 (including psu and Nebraska) and the PAC forming divisions of the same conference, so I will use that conference as an example. (perhaps the sec and the big 12 could form another, the acc and the big east another). Within the B10 division, you play all of the other 11 teams, with 1 out of conference game to start the season. That game counts towards your ranking, but obviously not your standing in your division (not unlike current system).



5. Winner of the big ten division plays the winner of the PAC division in the rose bowl, just like old times.



6. Winner of the rose bowl wins the big/PAC conference.



7. Each of the other conferences gave a similar structure with a conference championship in one of the other BCS bowls.



8. The 4 bowl winners play a playoff with ranking determining the matchups with 1-4 and 2-3. Winners of each of these games obviously play in a non-mythical national championship game.



9. Teams that do not win their division can still play in the lesser bowls.



I like this system for the following reasons:



The traditional conferences are maintained in the form of divisions within mega-conferences.



Keeps the integrity of the BCS bowls, and places real value on winning your conference.



Even keeps the lower tiered bowl structure in place.



Allows for a legit determination of a national championship. Everyone has their shot. If you didn't win your division, no crying because you had a shot to play everyone. All division winners get a chance to advance. Instead of arbitrary computers, the decisions Are all settled on the field.



Same number of games as current, except for 4 schools that advance. Even for those schools, only 2 more games.



Would generate tons of extra revenue in the form of 3 extra playoff games, so execs and tv will be happy.



The only downside that I see is that we diminish ooc scheduling. I can live with that, though.



Have at it, mgobloggers. I am curious for your take.

Would allow for 20-24 teams. That would mean the B1G would need to "reach" for another 6-8 teams somewhere within its footprint. They could add Kansas, GT, and every other AIU school within shouting distance, but that would leave the other conferences with scraps from the MWC, Big East and C-USA. 

Also notice that your original post completely overlooked Maryland in the Big Ten "East" -- no fault of yours, this is how much of a shocker Maryland has been. 

I like your idea but I think it will be four sixteen-team POWER conferences whose champions get playoff auto-bids; a Big East-Mountain West hybrid that could get into the "access" BCS bowls and potentially an expanded 8- or 16-team playoff; a C-USA-SunBelt hybrid; and the MAC. 

With 64 autobid teams, the Big XII gets pulled apart; the Big East disentegrates and its last remnants join the MWC; and unfortunately Cincinnati, USF, AIU member Iowa State and non-AIU member but BCS-bound Kansas State get screeeeewed. 

Here's how it'll go down in 2013

The ACC takes West Virginia from the Big XII, and UConn and Louisville from the Big East. They also lose Virginia to the B1G (see below). ND joins permanently, and they have 16 teams...

The B1G goes from 14 to 16 by adding Kansas from the Big XII and Virginia from the ACC. 

The SEC goes from 14 to 16 by adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State from the Big XII

The Pac 12 goes from 12 all the way up to 16 by adding Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Baylor. 

If the ACC and Pac 12 were benevolent, they could add Cincinnati/USF and Kansas St./Iowa St., respectively, and land at 18 teams. I wouldn't count on that though. Instead, I see a Big East-Mountain West alliance forming, with 24 teams and four divisions of six. 

East: Cincy, USF, KSU, ISU, Navy, Memphis (Temple returns to the MAC)

Central: SMU, Houston, LaTech, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Colorado St.

West: Utah St., BYU, Nevada, Air Force, Wyoming, Nevada, UNLV

Pacific: Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State, San Jose State, San Diego State, Idaho

Sunbelt and C-USA merge to form a very geographically clean conference in the mid-south. To round it off at 18 teams they pull up Appalachian State from FCS...

And the MAC simply goes from 14 to 16 by adding Army and Temple. 

And there you have it.

Need to remove about half the teams that compete in Divison 1A (FBS).  Too many schools losing money every year trying to compete at the highest level of college football. 

Rumors of VaTech and SEC talking are starting to surface. This is not a coincidence. You can book it that UVA and the B1G already have an agreement that is contingent on VT finding a good home. So then who does the SEC take to get to 16? Who does the B1G go after? What does ND do? Honestly,at this point ND is the decider.



If ND goes full ACC, the Big XII blows up. If ND goes Big XII, the ACC blows up. If ND goes B1G, ACC becomes the new big east. Given the size of the ACC buyout, my bet is ND becomes a full member, and Big XII is dead.

Not sure I follow that logic.

First off, why would ND choose to go full ACC?  How has the ACC gained any leverage over ND in the last week?

Second, why would that cause the Big XII to blow up?  The Big XII has yet to lose anyone.  Unless you are assuming Kansas is coming to the B1G?

 It is my understanding that China has agreed to pay off our National debt -- In return Delany has agreed to not go into  Shanghai and take over there TVs.  Beijing is still under negotiations...