What's new
By:
  • Prime Time. Prime Time. It's a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars, and best of all, no ads! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
  • After multiple requests and discussion, Twitter/X links will again be allowed on the board. Be mindful of the content you choose to post. Inflammatory, misinformation, or any content that violates the ToS will be removed. Repeated offenses may result in temporary suspensions. If you would like to still have Twitter/X links hidden from your feed, send a PM to Bread. Any other questions can be discussed in the customer service/support forum. Examples of hide tweet options shown here: https://allbuffs.com/threads/twitter-x-ban.161161/post-3915936

College Football Realignment

Alfred91 said:
You're forgetting one gigantic detail. Both Stanford and Cal would dump their entire athletic departments before they associated themselves with Fresno State, San Jose State, and Boise Community College*. They'd gladly pay to be associated with Duke, Georgia Tech, UVa, and UNC given the two options.

* - the Boise Community College moniker is the best thing to ever come out of Ramnation.
Click to expand...
1. I doubt that Louisville's academics are perceived much different that Boise's, but to your point, yes, the ACC has some really good academics
2. I hold a large degree of skepticism that academics matters significantly to anyone in this era of realignment
 
hokiehead said:
1. I doubt that Louisville's academics are perceived much different that Boise's, but to your point, yes, the ACC has some really good academics
2. I hold a large degree of skepticism that academics matters significantly to anyone in this era of realignment
Click to expand...

I tend to agree for the most part, but this is Cal and Stanford we're talking about, not the most right thinking group in the bunch. As far as L'ville's academics are concerned you probably know more than me, but Boise's are really, really bad.

When I was reading through a list of potential replacements for USC and UCLA before CU imploded the conference (lol), they listed academic rankings. Fresno and San Jose were in the low 300s, Boise literally had dashes instead of a rank.
 
hokiehead said:
1. I doubt that Louisville's academics are perceived much different that Boise's, but to your point, yes, the ACC has some really good academics
2. I hold a large degree of skepticism that academics matters significantly to anyone in this era of realignment
Click to expand...
You know that you're talking about the universities that were most opposed - based on academics - to Oklahoma & Oklahoma State application to make a PAC-14, right?
 
Buffnik said:
You know that you're talking about the universities that were most opposed - based on academics - to Oklahoma & Oklahoma State application to make a PAC-14, right?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. thanks.

  • was this something that happened over 10 years ago, or was there something more recent? if the former, things have changed a lot in 10 years wrt realignment
  • I don't think you'd make that up, but google is not immediately finding me a source with background on that. is this based on message board and SM rumors or is there 1st hand reporting that Cal and Stanford opposed that expansion b/c of academics? I probably tend to place more skepticism on the former than many people do.
 
hokiehead said:
I didn't know that. thanks.

  • was this something that happened over 10 years ago, or was there something more recent? if the former, things have changed a lot in 10 years wrt realignment
  • I don't think you'd make that up, but google is not immediately finding me a source with background on that. is this based on message board and SM rumors or is there 1st hand reporting that Cal and Stanford opposed that expansion b/c of academics? I probably tend to place more skepticism on the former than many people do.
Click to expand...
First, the conference rejected going all the way to a Pac-16 by turning down UT-TTU-OU-OSU. Several years later, OU-OSU were rejected.
 
Buffnik said:
First, the conference rejected going all the way to a Pac-16 by turning down UT-TTU-OU-OSU. ...
Click to expand...
yes, I knew that part.

I didn't know it was for academics and I didn't know there was a subsequent rejection of the OK schools.
 
Can the Conferences just stop jerking around the Olympic Sports and remain intact for them!

Football, men's Basketball, and women's Basketball (Maybe Baseball) should be in different types of leagues/structures
There is no one-size-fits-all all anymore.

My idea for the future of CFB is as follows after thinking about the Super League as the only way to move forward:

THIS IS BASED ON A 64-TEAM SUPER LEAGUE FOR THE TOP COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAMS
Start with TWO (2) Rivalry Games, one at the beginning and one at the end of your 12-game schedule home and away series
SIXTY-FOUR (64) Teams split into SIXTEEN (16) x 4-Team Core Geographic Pods that will all play each other [3 games] likely every year home and away
EIGHT (8) x 8-Team Balanced Scheduling Pods using some sort of Snake based on some type of rating system where you play everyone in your Balanced Schedule Pod [7 games]

At the end of your 12-game schedule that respects the Rivalry Games, Geographically Close Games, and Balanced Scheduling Games, you come up with the best teams from the 16 Core Pods and you have a 16-team playoff with the first rounds on campus sites, and then the rest at the best stadiums.

The quality and variety of the schedule would be very strong throughout the year and would possibly eclipse anything that the current system could ever produce.
 
4BienemyTDs said:
Can the Conferences just stop jerking around the Olympic Sports and remain intact for them!

Football, men's Basketball, and women's Basketball (Maybe Baseball) should be in different types of leagues/structures
There is no one-size-fits-all all anymore.

My idea for the future of CFB is as follows after thinking about the Super League as the only way to move forward:

THIS IS BASED ON A 64-TEAM SUPER LEAGUE FOR THE TOP COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAMS
Start with TWO (2) Rivalry Games, one at the beginning and one at the end of your 12-game schedule home and away series
SIXTY-FOUR (64) Teams split into SIXTEEN (16) x 4-Team Core Geographic Pods that will all play each other [3 games] likely every year home and away
EIGHT (8) x 8-Team Balanced Scheduling Pods using some sort of Snake based on some type of rating system where you play everyone in your Balanced Schedule Pod [7 games]

At the end of your 12-game schedule that respects the Rivalry Games, Geographically Close Games, and Balanced Scheduling Games, you come up with the best teams from the 16 Core Pods and you have a 16-team playoff with the first rounds on campus sites, and then the rest at the best stadiums.

The quality and variety of the schedule would be very strong throughout the year and would possibly eclipse anything that the current system could ever produce.
Click to expand...
You Cant Be Serious Schitts Creek GIF by CBC
 
4BienemyTDs said:
Can the Conferences just stop jerking around the Olympic Sports and remain intact for them!

Football, men's Basketball, and women's Basketball (Maybe Baseball) should be in different types of leagues/structures
There is no one-size-fits-all all anymore.

My idea for the future of CFB is as follows after thinking about the Super League as the only way to move forward:

THIS IS BASED ON A 64-TEAM SUPER LEAGUE FOR THE TOP COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAMS
Start with TWO (2) Rivalry Games, one at the beginning and one at the end of your 12-game schedule home and away series
SIXTY-FOUR (64) Teams split into SIXTEEN (16) x 4-Team Core Geographic Pods that will all play each other [3 games] likely every year home and away
EIGHT (8) x 8-Team Balanced Scheduling Pods using some sort of Snake based on some type of rating system where you play everyone in your Balanced Schedule Pod [7 games]

At the end of your 12-game schedule that respects the Rivalry Games, Geographically Close Games, and Balanced Scheduling Games, you come up with the best teams from the 16 Core Pods and you have a 16-team playoff with the first rounds on campus sites, and then the rest at the best stadiums.

The quality and variety of the schedule would be very strong throughout the year and would possibly eclipse anything that the current system could ever produce.
Click to expand...
I think we'll see regional conferences form for all sports except football.

I'm not convinced that this pending "non-FB realignment" event will be like you describe with a one-time division into equal sized groups. I think it's more likely to be piece -meal and end up with different conferences of different sizes.
 
hokiehead said:
I think we'll see regional conferences form for all sports except football.

I'm not convinced that this pending "non-FB realignment" event will be like you describe with a one-time division into equal sized groups. I think it's more likely to be piece -meal and end up with different conferences of different sizes.
Click to expand...
Different Conferences that are not operated equally is still uneven and unfair
 
manhattanbuff said:
A Super League would mean the end of non-revenue sports at most schools.
Click to expand...
Would really depend on how much profit came in from spinning off football to its own thing.

But I certainly don't know how they'd justify paying coaches more than they do professors for sports that lose money if the AD wasn't absolutely swimming in revenue.
 
manhattanbuff said:
A Super League would mean the end of non-revenue sports at most schools.
Click to expand...
Why? The non-revenue Olympic Sports would need say $30 Million to operate
A Superleague might be able to generate $200 million per team, more than enough to keep funding the other sports and that would be a focus of the new structure. One does not equal the other.
Same with Mens Basketball and possibly Women's Basketball
 
Buffnik said:
Would really depend on how much profit came in from spinning off football to its own thing.

But I certainly don't know how they'd justify paying coaches more than they do professors for sports that lose money if the AD wasn't absolutely swimming in revenue.
Click to expand...
Football being its own entity would likely involve a divorce from the schools other than a licensing deal for the logos and facilities. If people think that money makes it to bolster pay for non-revenue sports, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
4BienemyTDs said:
They would work hard to build out these School Franchises and keep them connected
Click to expand...
For-profit businesses who are on licensing deals with Universities are not going to pay extra money to increase funding for non-revenue sports. They will pay the minimum amount needed to keep the programs afloat and pocket the rest.
 
manhattanbuff said:
For-profit businesses who are on licensing deals with Universities are not going to pay extra money to increase funding for non-revenue sports. They will pay the minimum amount needed to keep the programs afloat and pocket the rest.
Click to expand...
You are thinking to greedy and profit-driven
There is a way to create community betterment companies to run these things without maximum greed
 
manhattanbuff said:
For-profit businesses who are on licensing deals with Universities are not going to pay extra money to increase funding for non-revenue sports. They will pay the minimum amount needed to keep the programs afloat and pocket the rest.
Click to expand...
^This

May I remind everyone that a major reason for failure of PACN was that they pushed "Conference of Champions" and a ton of live sports content of events that drew audiences that could be counted with 3 digits? That NBC quickly mothballed its Olympic channel because there wasn't an audience?

There is no money to be made from most college sports. You can't force an audience for things people don't want to watch.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
At some point, the Universities themselves are going to have to subsidize the Olympic and non revenue generating sports they wish to continue competing in.
Click to expand...
Bigger programs will get enough from their football licensees. But the idea that the licensing deals will pay salaries for non-revenue athletes is batshyt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top