Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Darth Snow, May 2, 2012.
doh. Stay put Larry!
I hope the only realignment that takes place is the merger of the WAC and West Coast Conference
4 team playoff, 8 team playoff? Who cares? I would ove an option that has ND and their special considerations hung out to dry with no clear route to a NC.
14-game regular season, here we come.
Will be curious how this shakes out, since the Big12 seems to have stabilized enough to prevent getting picked apart.
Really hope someone injects some sanity into this circus. 14-game regular seasons and other side effects of super conferences would severely damage the game.
... and in other news it's May so what else are we going to talk about.
I would love a 14-game regular season. More games = more home games = more tailgates. It would also mean the Pac 12 could do a complete round-robin schedule every year. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of when.
Hopefully Larry and PAC Presidents have shut down any real possibility of expansion in the near future.
This. CFB needs to remain different than NFL.
What effect would such a season have on the kids? These guys are in their early 20s. Seems too long a season for the young people.
Are you serious?
Not sure if serious or trolling.
yes. how is this good for the UNPAID student-athlete? it is a violent dangerous game and adding 2 games to their schedule has health and academic consequences. and don't tell me how they are paid enough because they get a schollie. have you seen the grad rates? i love college football, but the more it morphs into a business (which has been happening for years, of course), the more they have to start thinking about fair compensation for the athletes.
More home games sounds fun in theory. It really does.
But then I start wondering about the quality of play as more games are added. I start thinking about the quality of play in college football as a whole. When you can actually start saying losing multiple games early on probably will not matter, it presents a huge problem. The importance of the regular season (the best of any sport) has been tarnished and once it is gone, you cannot get it back.
Don't a lot of high school teams play 14 games (or more) if they make a playoff run?
I don't buy this argument. Basketball players play 30+ regular season games, then conference tournaments, and the good ones go on to play in the NCAA or NIT tournaments. That's about 35 games a year, spread out over 5 months. They play at least 2 games per week, often involving extended road trips. Nobody is screaming over the impact this is having on them. Why the double standard? It's faux outrage, IMO.
faux outrage is my modus operandi.
but, there is a big difference between the physical toll of bb and fb. and, check out grad rates for bb players-- they are even worse. i suspect that the schedule may have something to do with that. and, furthermore, look at all the "one and dones" now in bb. turn it into a mercenary sport and you get mercenary results. more games without comp is a path toward the basketballization of college fb and i don't think it is a good thing.
The same applies to lacrosse as well. They don't play 35 games but play around 20.
I don't think you're going to have a choice in the matter. It's untenable to have 14-16 team conferences with a 12-game season. It just doesn't work. Look at the history of college football. They started with 9 regular season games IIRC. The standard conference back then was 6-7 teams. Then conferences grew to 8-10 teams, and lo and behold the regular season went from 9 to 11 games. Then you got 12-team conferences, and guess what? 12-game seasons. We now have the most powerful football conference in the country sitting at 14 teams. They're openly talking about another round of conference realignments. How long do you think they're going to let the regular season sit at 12 games?
Liver makes good point, Sacky says doesn't matter because conferences want money and that means more games is going ot happen no matter what.
In the end, I think Sacky is right. Too bad liver's point is also right.
14-game schedule works well for 16-team conferences.
7 games against the teams in your division.
4 games against teams in the other division (play everyone twice in 4 years).
3 non-conference games.
It may happen, but I guess what annoys me most is that there we basically have to accept that super-conferences are inevitable. **** that.
and, another thing!
if this happens and the p12 goes to 16, how will THAT be good for CU? you have to believe the 4 expansion schools include some texassss contingent. we'll end up in some eastern division with a bunch of ****ing a-holes that we just go away from.
The SEC getting butt hurt over the Pac12 TV contract and going to 14 teams may have been the death knell of your hopes. You better hope that when they realize 14 teams sucks ass, they decide to go back to 12 instead of going up to 16.
I would hope that they also consider increasing the number of players allowed. The "inevitable" extra games will also mean the inevitable extra injuries. An increase of 5 'ships total (from 85 to 90) would help.
This is the likely ending for this whole thing. I am not sure that every conference will end up with 16 teams, 14 works well also. Does the same thing except 6 games in the division. This is what I would prefer for the PAC over a 16 team set-up since 16 teams would likely mean getting stuck with more Texas schools.
Separate names with a comma.