Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I started to post this in one of the existing threads but thought I’d go this route to shift the focus from “what’s wrong” to “what it could be”. I liked Gruden’s idea of more play-in games on CCG Saturday but I don’t think it goes far enough as a long term fix. So, here goes…

The Super Bowl pits the AFC champ vs the NFC champ - doesn’t matter if the 2 or 3 or 7 best teams are all on one side or the other - the Super Bowl will always be AFC vs NFC. Fast forward to a new college football playoff landscape, what’s your preferred format? I know there are some that want this but is there really a majority that would want it to be BIG vs SEC all the time and all the time BIG vs SEC? Like AFC vs NFC?

My fandom doesn’t stem from following a blue blood program - I went to high school in Lubbock (college ACU) but I still live in Lubbock and therefore I support and follow Texas Tech. But I was born in Los Angeles and didn’t move to Texas until I was 15. The blue bloods were all I ever knew as they were the teams always on TV and playing in the bowl games on New Years Day (the majority of my early college football viewing) 

So I’m an outsider regarding blue bloods but I understand their perspective of not wanting to share that which they have built.

But is that really what’s best for the future of the game?

I’m curious if you Longhorns truly want that sort of contraction? I’m open to hear your pros and cons for going that route.

As for me and my personal non blue blood perspective and fandom, I always enjoyed the regionality of the SWC - wish Arkansas never left. When we moved to Texas, I hadn’t heard of Texas Tech but I knew about Texas and Arkansas and Oklahoma - and Aggy because of the movie “Best Little Whorehouse In Texas” - lol

But I REALLY liked the original Big12 - save for screwing up the OU/NU game. And I would like to see a return to something similar to those affiliations - doesn’t have to be exact but close. The scarcity of teams out west make if difficult to do with a good and equal distribution of program size and strength. But I believe it’s worth pursuing. If nothing else, the transfer portal and NIL age has shown us who’s committed and who isn’t (so far) - so maybe that’s a starting point on where the cut line should be. Texas Tech and BYU have made it known with their recent contracts that they are committed.

With that being said, here’s my wish list:

Eight conferences of 9 teams (8x9=72)
Playoffs are the 8 champs and 8 at-large based on w/l record - regular season is 8 conf game + 4 (max of 2 vs teams outside the 72)

I don’t want to list my entire 72 here now but I would like to see these traditional rivals stay together as group “starter kits” if you will for the 8 leagues

- SC, UCLA, UO, UW
- NU, OU, TX, ATM
- UI, UM, tOSU, PSU
- UA, AU, LSU, UGA
- UF, FSU, UM
- ND, AF, Army, Navy

I guess that’s all I got, the rest can be filled in. As for my preference for Tech, Lubbock is already pretty remote so besides the Dallas area, regionality doesn’t exist. So, the only one I’d for sure like to be back in the same conference with is Nebraska  - I guess that eliminates Texas from consideration  - lol

Cheers!!

Posted

Family moved from LA to Lubbock? Ouch.

The SWC was always a shit show. Growing up in Dallas in the 60's/70's (dad was Texas Ex) the SWC was the epicenter of college football for me. But it was always constant in-fighting and teams either cheating their asses off or turning in other schools.  The original Big 12 was good, but would never work now because of TV contracts. 

It's fun to reminisce about the old days, but no way any team would want to leave the SEC or B1G because of the money they generate. Probably make sense for other schools to reorganize more geographically and build rivalries. Stanford, Cal in ACC? Ok. W Virginia in same conference as BYU? Makes no sense.

Posted

You're on the right track. The only thing that makes logical sense would be a complete reorganization of college football into something like you propose. I've always thought that 8 10-team regional conferences with promotion/relegation to 1-AA makes a ton of sense.

The problem is that it will never happen. Money is the big reason, but there's a whole lot of practicalities that make it impossible. Reorganization and realignment will continue to happen, but as it has already - in fits and starts, piecemeal, and unequally. That means deciding a champion will always have some fuckery to it.

We used to argue about who is #1. Then the BCS came along and we argued about the top 2. Then the playoff and we argued about the top 4. Now it's top 12(ish). If they expand to 16, I guarantee that #17's fans will be pissed off in the first year. We as Texas fans are mad right now, and probably rightly so, but there's diminishing returns on the number of teams you put in the playoffs. The 16th best team doesn't actually have much of a chance to win it all. Honestly I kind of doubt that the 12th best does. Fourth best might.

The one change that intrigues me a little bit it just getting rid of the committee. Use a computer, or Elo, or whatever and just be done with it. Publish the parameters that go into the calculation. At least that way everyone knows what they need to do.

Posted
2 minutes ago, tokamak said:

You're on the right track. The only thing that makes logical sense would be a complete reorganization of college football into something like you propose. I've always thought that 8 10-team regional conferences with promotion/relegation to 1-AA makes a ton of sense.

The problem is that it will never happen. Money is the big reason, but there's a whole lot of practicalities that make it impossible. Reorganization and realignment will continue to happen, but as it has already - in fits and starts, piecemeal, and unequally. That means deciding a champion will always have some fuckery to it.

We used to argue about who is #1. Then the BCS came along and we argued about the top 2. Then the playoff and we argued about the top 4. Now it's top 12(ish). If they expand to 16, I guarantee that #17's fans will be pissed off in the first year. We as Texas fans are mad right now, and probably rightly so, but there's diminishing returns on the number of teams you put in the playoffs. The 16th best team doesn't actually have much of a chance to win it all. Honestly I kind of doubt that the 12th best does. Fourth best might.

The one change that intrigues me a little bit it just getting rid of the committee. Use a computer, or Elo, or whatever and just be done with it. Publish the parameters that go into the calculation. At least that way everyone knows what they need to do.

It's probably going to 24 like FCS.

I'm fine with that.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's probably going to 24 like FCS.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah. It's fine. Doesn't matter. We're just replacing bowls as year-end entertainment at that point. I don't believe that, say, #19 Michigan truly has a chance to get hot and win 5 games in a row and lift the trophy, but it also doesn't hurt anything. More football is good.

Posted
4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Yeah. It's fine. Doesn't matter. We're just replacing bowls as year-end entertainment at that point. I don't believe that, say, #19 Michigan truly has a chance to get hot and win 5 games in a row and lift the trophy, but it also doesn't hurt anything. More football is good.

Especially if the teams believe they have a shot at winning a national championship, as far fetched as that may be.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...