Last edited by boomhorn; 03-17-2012 at 06:03 PM.
If we go to 16 teams, two things have to happen. One, it has to be a two division set-up, none of this pod crap. And at least two teams have to come from Florida. The reasons for both are the same and they're reasons mdmost eluded to and reasons I laid out in another thread... there has to be balance.
The Big XII as it originally existed failed because the entire conference depended on the state of Texas which means any program in or near Texas that could dominate in-state would dominate the conference. No other conference in the nation has this issue. By adding multiple teams in Florida, the state of Florida acts as a counter to Texas. By creating an 8 team Western division, they all their foot in Texas while an 8 team Eastern division would have a foot in Florida. Much more balance, much less Texas-centric and thus much more sustainable long-term.
2 8 team divisions would likely force at least 9 conference games a year. I doubt that would be very desirable to Notre Dame.
Last edited by Prophet; 03-17-2012 at 06:35 PM.
You split everyone into 2 divisions where you only get some schools playing other schools from the other side on a limited basis I almost would say what's the point of expanding then. Hell might as well keep it at 10. At least with pods you expand and there is actual relationships that are grown throughout the conference between Universities and fans because you see each other on a regular basis.
Also I wouldn’t mind BC over Pitt but Pitt does give West Virginia the backyard brawl back. However, if BC got Notre Dame and Pitt didn’t then WV needs to sit down and shut up.
However it goes down I think the Big 12 would be wise to be on the giving end instead of the receiving end of all this madness.
I know some are anti-Notre Dame but they're such a big chip on the board that if you making reasonable concessions would be in everyone's best interest if they wanted to join.
Unless you find a way to give four "pods" and equal footing in Texas and/or Florida, you're just going to wind up with another corn aggy with a bleeding vagina in 15 years, whining about certain schools controlling the conference.
Last edited by maninblack; 03-17-2012 at 07:21 PM.
Last edited by jtk1519; 03-17-2012 at 07:31 PM.
How exactly would you split the 4 Texas schools (so no pod dominated the state of Texas) and the 2 Florida schools (so no pod dominated the state of Florida) without the pods being geographically retarded?
Last edited by Prophet; 03-17-2012 at 07:44 PM.
Any word of the SEC trying to pre-empt any of this? Or take 2 more teams?
Haven't caught up on thread...
How likely is it for VTech to split from Virginia and NC State from the rest of their North Carolina brethren?
All this realignment talk is interesting. Maybe we can get a sub forum going or something.
That would make the CCG a little bit different each season, yet insure that both teams playing the CCG would be high quality. It would also make a "rematch" in the CCG less likely.
I've never been much into pods, but this kind of set up would keep my interest.
It's doable. Those exact details are all bull$#@! obviously, but it shows it can be done.
I guess im a little slow. I don't see why the pods don't work and i don't see why you can't retain geographical teams.You can't. That's why the pod idea is bad.
As I under stand (in a perfect scenario) it the pods would look like this:
A: UT, Tech, Baylor, TCu
B: OU, OSU, KU, KSU
C: Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson
D: ISU, ND, WVU, Pitt
So each pod retains traditional, natural rivals.
Then a hypothetical schedule (I'll use WVU for grins) would Look like this:
1.) all teams in "home" pod: ND, ISU, Pitt
2.) All the teams from one other pod (say Pod B): OU, OSU, KU, KSU
3.) One team from the other two Pods: FSU, Tech
Nine conference games, always access to at least one Texas school, 75% chance of a Florida/Georgia school, 75% chance at a well known East Coast (Pennsylvania/Ohio/Indiana/New York) type school (Pitt, WVU, ND). The only real Pod that might, and i emphasize might get screwed would be the OU, OSU, KU, KSU pod. But the reality is that OU is a national name and might as well be in Texas. KU and KSU are historically average to bad in football but do quite well nationally in basketball recruiting, and OSU grabs what it can.
Unlike what we saw in the Big12 where the north had issues recruiting, this pod system allows greater access to multiple talent rich areas. Mama's are guaranteed to see their babies play several games close to home. Competition would be SEC level, and it would develop a national following and new interesting rivalries based on pods (ie our 4 are better than your 4) capitalizing on geographic pride - like those old high school all star games between texas-cali-florida.
Talking about permanent cross pod rivals I would go at it in this manner. The rotation is obviously set many years in advance. In those years where the rival (say OU) isn't the selected team to play from their pod, I would schedule them as a non-conference match up. So effectively playing 10 conference teams in certain years but where the game has no bearing on conference standings.
Last edited by Lone Star; 03-17-2012 at 11:32 PM.
Ya'll are engaged in discussions that simply "assume" the Domers join the Big 12? Must be the offseason.
Last edited by FCHorn; 03-18-2012 at 01:05 AM.
10 conference games? Are you $#@!ing retarded?
To the people including Notre Dame and pushing 9 conference games, are you high? Did you forget that they have several rivalries they would like to keep? Anything more than 8 conference games is asinine. Even 8 might be pushing it.
nd is used to 11-12 non conference games so they were able to develop some decent rivalries over the years. no matter what conference they join, they are going to drop to 3-4 non conference games so they will have to pick which non conference games they want to keep as annual games and which they would want to rotate. last year it sounded like nd and michigan were ready to part ways. let them play usc and navy every year and use their remaining 1-2 games to rotate purdue, mich st, penn st, whomever.
ND is a big fish and a great catch but $#@! those guys and their retarded alumni. An expanded Big12 would never be stable with scheduling concessions just for ND. They aren't bigger than we are, at least nobody should admit it or pretend they are. ND gets nothing special.
hmm probably the part where three teams in a pod would never really get the opportunity to play another team - 6 $#@!ing years for a home and away - $#@! that. I'm pretty sure KU, KSU, and OSU would like to play texas a few more times than once every 3 years. Or that Tech, Baylor, TCu would like a shot at OU more often. Or WVU/ISU/Pitt might get a little sore being locked out of playing Miami/Gtech more than a handful of times.Which part of "permanent cross pod rival" do you not understand? In the 3-4-1 format, each team would have one permanent cross pod rival. In the years where their two pods were paired, the 8th conference game can be against someone else. In the years where their pods aren't paired, they will play one another in the 8th conference game. That means they will play every single year.
10 conference games? Are you $#@!ing retarded?
And the "permanent" rivalries are marquee so yeah even if it is a "10th" conference game (with zero bearing on conference titles) it would still be nationally picked up and would probably strengthen SOS.
ND will look at the ACC or Big 12 if they are forced to join a conference for one reason, they keep their tier 3 rights. That is huge for ND. They are one of a handful of school who could do a Longhorn Network type deal and get picked up with relative ease. The ACC still makes more sense as they have Boston College and Pitt in there. They can still do a few of their protected rivalry games like Navy, Michigan (assuming UM doesn't puss out), and USC. They could then do a rotator of the other rivalries they like but they would need an 8 game conference schedule to do that. The Big 12 may not offer that.
Because the nature of what we're talking about would be new and it's all hypothetical I don't really think there's a bad idea.
I don't like the idea of divisions with a 16 team conference. Would I accept it if it were the teams we're talking about? Sure but I think it sets up for more problems then pods. You would essentially have two mini-conferences and teams from both sides would rarely see each other.
Most of the discussion is predicated on Notre Dame joining. With that said it seems only realistic that they would join because they knew which way the college football winds were blowing and needed to be in a conference. With that assumption it's logical to assume that they might also be asked to make some type of a concession with regard to scheduling. If its a 3-4-1 system they would have to suck it up and and not play in Texas or Florida one season. This not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. They may also have to sacrifice some traditional rivalries.
I don't see anything wrong with 9 conference games with a possible 10th (CCG) but I would also be completely happy with a 8 games and the 9th being the CCG.
Last edited by maninblack; 03-18-2012 at 10:28 AM.
What if, and I'm thinking out loud on a keyboard, there could be one pod for Texas, Texas Tech, OU and OSU. Another pod for Baylor, TCU, KU and KSU. Then the southeast for FSU, GT, Clemson and Miami, and the northeast pod for ISU, ND, WVU and Pitt. At least that way you have solved the issue of OU-OSU being attached at the hip, and Texas-OU. We could then have a permanent cross-pod rivalry with ND. Also, if we did the 3-2-2-2 idea everyone could come into Texas or Florida once every year for recruiting purposes. I know I haven't completely thought my way through all of this, but it seems simple and workable to me. If y'all don't like this, then I'll go $#@! myself. The permanent cross-pod idea may not work, it's too complicated for me, this early on a Sunday morning.
^^^Yeah but then you are asking private schools with smaller budgets to go two states up while possibly losing games against Texas in a given year. And before any of throw out the so and so is lucky to even be here, this is what happens in expansion. CU was poised to throw a big monkey wrench in the whole Pac 16 format if they lost out on their yearly CA trips. With Mizzou dropping out, the other non-Texas Big 12 schools are in a prime position to take some of Mizzou's recruiting area away.
I just don't see how you can separate the Texas school. Regionallity was what was going to make the Pac 16 work.
Last edited by mdmost; 03-18-2012 at 10:34 AM.
Last edited by Ignatius; 03-18-2012 at 11:03 AM.
Well, md, if you could have say Baylor (on a 3-2-2 basis) play one of OU / OSU for two years and then flip, and then either one of UT /TT for two years then flip, why would anyone be upset with that. Baylor would play the first year: KU KSU TCU OU TT from the two westernmost pods with home and road schedules whatever mix you want, along with two from the SE and two from the NE, then in year two, flip all the home games with road games, then in year three and four Baylor would have KU KSU TCU UT OSU along with the other two pods previously unplayed teams from year one and two, do you think Baylor would piss and moan about that?
Then Baylor would have at least one of OU or Texas every single year.
Last edited by BurntOrangeAss; 03-18-2012 at 11:38 AM. Reason: An additional thought
Seems the route that will most likely be taken is the one md is espousing...
Yeah, he was referring to the old Southern Conference, from which the SEC broke off in 1932. And he makes a good point about lessons that can be learned. The great depression probably hit their tier 1 media value pretty bad
Here's a variation on the pod idea and scheduling, keeping in mind that:
* - With 4 'divisions' you really need two rounds of conference playoffs; the NCAA currently allows only a 13th game as a CCG for 12+ team conferences
* - Any fewer than 4 non-conference games and you've got problems convincing Notre Dame
* - Everyone needs a chance to play in the Florida / Texas markets
Each team plays everyone in its own pod, plus every team in one of the other 3 pods, on a rotating basis. This makes up 7 conference games. The 8th conference game, to be played over the Thanksgiving holiday/weekend, would be scheduled based on pod standings and would essentially serve as the semi-final round for all teams in 1st place in their pod. The 'other pod' you would play that year would rotate on a 3-year basis.
For example, let's say that after 11 weeks of the regular season the conference standings look like this:
Pod A: 1.Texas 2.TCU 3.Baylor 4.Tech
Pod B: 1.OU 2.OSU 3.KSU 4.KU
Pod C: 1.ND 2.WVU 3.Pitt 4.ISU
Pod D: 1.FSU 2.Clemson 3.Miami 4.GaTech
Assume also that every team in Pods A & B and Pods C & D have played each other already during the conference season. Your week 12 matchups would be:
#1 UT vs. #1 ND
#1 OU vs. #1 FSU
#2 TCU vs. #2 OSU
#2 WVU vs. #2 Clemson
#3 Baylor vs. #3 KSU
#3 Pitt vs. #3 Miami
#4 Tech vs. #4 KU
#4 ISU vs. #4 GaTech
By having the week 12 matchup always be against a pod you didn't play, you're guaranteed to have no conference game rematches this week (with a caveat below). You don't have to petition the NCAA for anything, because even though you've got a defacto CCG semifinal in the 1st two games, you're not adding any games to the schedule, only having a 'flex' schedule for the final week of the season. After this weekend, the winners of the two #1 vs. #1 games would play each other in the CCG game. The week 12 sites could be on campus determined by seeding, on campus pre-determined (ie you know #1 Pod A is at #1 Pod C before the season even starts), or at a neutral site. There are obvious TV/travel considerations in that decision, but to me it would work under any of those scenarios.
In order to preserve existing rivalries and to give everyone a shot in the Texas / Florida markets, I would also permit conference teams to play up to 2 games against conference foes every year. These games would have to be played prior to the conference season starting, and you wouldn't be allowed to schedule a team that was already on your schedule that year anyway. Wins/losses in these games wouldn't matter at all as far as conference standings. I don't think a lot of teams would do this just to get games in certain markets, but it would be an option. In other words, if ISU wants to get exposure in Florida in years where they don't play Pod D they can try to schedule a game with FSU, though IMO it would be better to schedule someone like South Florida as a home-and-home or at a neutral site in FLA. If the predictions of the plus 1 model come to pass and it only involves conference champions, you've got to think that the team who came out of this would be a lock to be in the national playoff, so losing a nonconference game to a really good team wouldn't hurt you.
For purely selfish reasons, it allows us to play OU every year in the Cotton Bowl, and (in my world) Notre Dame every year. This would involve us giving up either 0, 1, or 2 nonconference games depending on the year/rotation, but would any of us really care? Play Eastern $#@!bag State and Rice with the other two and be done with it.
Think about the scenario where we lose to OU in the Cotton Bowl as a nonconference game, both teams win their pod, and our week 12 matchup is OU at DKR in the conference semifinals on Thanksgiving night...
I actually like your idea ignatius. Seems to me the ad's and espn would chomp at the bit for a semi-playoff idea like that. All we need now is for someone to start the dominos falling. Anyone think something like this would be innovative enough to catch on and be implemented? If the bottom line is really the bottom line, then this cash cow of an idea would be unbeatable and the secsecsec would be wondering what hit them. Every game would be eagerly anticipated and dollars from the 1st and 2nd tier rights would be staggering, not to mention everyone has a shot a negotiating and keeping whatever 3rd tier rights they could. I'm on board in this fantasy land scenario. Anyone else? Also, i don't think Texas would be seen as a bad guy by any other school in the conference. Would never need to worry about those so called friends from the east. They would only drag us down.
disagree:* - Any fewer than 4 non-conference games and you've got problems convincing Notre Dame
* - Everyone needs a chance to play in the Florida / Texas markets
deviladvocate:* - With 4 'divisions' you really need two rounds of conference playoffs; the NCAA currently allows only a 13th game as a CCG for 12+ team conferences
2 potential paths for us to the playoff...
1. BIG16: win all your games, including beat OU (pod), beat FSU/domer (road semi), beat OU (neutral ccg), another top 4 (home/road national semi), another top 4 (neutral national final)
2. B12(10): win all your games, beat OU, top 4 (home/road national semi), top 4 (neutral national final)
we could have to beat OU twice, neither at DKR, and win road games in south bend / tallahassee, and LA/AnnArbor as examples, just to get to the final in scenario 1.
or we could stand pat with 10 and take our chances with the national semi.
i like our chances better re: opponent and venue in game in a national round of 8 than a conference semi.
i don't want a system where there are any backdoors, trapdoors, possible screwings, special circumstances, exceptions to rules, double-victory requirements... basically i don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything in my ideal conference regular season and playoff scenario. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a set-up for major college football, I don't want to do that.
i still $#@!ing love that map. especially if it's worth $30M a year to everyone before Tier 3.
Last edited by Hagbard Celine; 03-18-2012 at 03:02 PM.
The Pac12 has the right idea with a home game CCG. Spreading out the CCG to neutral sites is pretty much doing that any way (2005 in Houston, 2009 in Arlington). I think it's too much to ask to send fans to neutral site games for the CCG especially if the top 4 Plus 1 is at bowl game sites too. The ACC always had a hard time selling out Jacksonville. Home games are the best way to go.
and therein lies the rubBut the clippers aren't the lakers just because they're in the same market.
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont