National Expansion For College Football: Part I
August 5, 2007 by bcsbusters
Get great free widgets at Widgetbox!
PART I: National Expansion - Conference Realignments
Much has been made of the recent buzz regarding Jim Delaney and the expansion of the Big-10…or Big-11…or now the Big-12…wait, isn’t there already a conference called the Big-12? There is an outstanding book that came out a couple of years ago alluding to the unintended consequences of the television revolution as it raced towards critical mass - “The Fifty-Year Seduction” (Keith Dunnavant). After watching a series of BCS snafu’s early in the new millennium, climaxing when Texas overcame Jeff Tedford and the Bears in 2004, I decided to research the issues that continue to hold college football back from truly crowning an annual champion.
Dunnavant’s book was one of the first research pieces I read and it is loaded with the chronological sequence of events that crowned the BCS as the ruling authority over college football. It is a MUST read if you’re at all concerned about the direction of college football, along with former NCAA President Walter Byers book “Unsportsmanlike Conduct,” which chronicles the College Football Association movement - which precipitated the BCS mess.
Yes, there are many aspects of the current system that you have to account for in setting up a equitable and fair national championship race for college football, but perhaps the greatest limiting factor is the conference alignments across the country. A decade ago, Bud Selig sent out a radical proposal with the aim of realigning professional baseball as a stimulant to improve the equity in the game that had been thrown off by the rising salary cap, and the never ending battles of free agency. Today, the game has raced forward without a hint of the controversy that proposal stimulated as it hit the air waves.
The Big-10, Big-11 or soon to be Big…Great…Magnificent…12…or whatever the hell your going to call it is driven totally by the ever widening television worm hole (just what we need, another sports channel), and if we are going to entertain expansion for the Big-10, why not discuss a national realignment movement that would set up a regular season bracketed playoff, which would move college football on par with the rest of the sporting world.
I say regular season bracketed playoff because currently, the limiting factors inhibiting all playoff proposals include the following.
1) The current Bowl tradition in college football must remain in tact. There is no getting around this parameter. College football is not interested in an NFL-styled playoff system that diminishes this system for this is what truly distinguishes college football from all other sporting venues.
2) The season length must maintain the current 12-game regular season, with a little over one-half of the participants earning a rewarding 13th game bowl experience.
3) The final piece of the puzzle is the fact that ALL conferences do not have a conference championship game, thus playing an unequal number of conference games. The PAC-10 is one of the few conferences that plays all of its members on an annual basis, but refuses to play a conference championship game at the expense of the student athletes. While this is a noble stance - living in academic la-la-land - it throws a complete monkey wrench into the national championship picture.
These are the three hurdles that must be overcome in setting up an organized mechanism for determining college football superiority. So while the Big-10 is busy trying to get its fledgling television network off the ground via conference expansion…SEC Commissioner Mike Slive should be looking into and promoting national expansion and eliminate the Plus-One Concept to the current bowl structure, because trying to identify FOUR participants within the ill-advised, unionized allianced, poorly orchestrated and evaluated poll system will be just as challenging, chaotic and controversial as trying to figure out which TWO participants should be involved within the current BCS system. It is the system utilized in determining a national champion that is flawed, not the number of participants invited to the Big Dance. A system that will remain flawed unless we create a mechanism which will settle the issue on the field.
In order to create the possibility of head-to-head match-ups, so the all important BCS Bowl games can determine a true champion, ALL of the major conferences need to expand to the 12-team format similarly utilized by the Big-12, ACC and SEC Conferences. In addition, all conferences need to play a true championship game, even if both participants come within the same division. The current championship games within these three conferences often times do not even match-up the best two teams. While I will get into the specifics regarding the overall layout of a regular season bracketed playoff for college football in the coming days as we examine the important parts of the playoff argument, the largest hurdle to over come in bringing this concept to fruition is the national realignment picture, and the following is an example of how the conferences could be laid out.
 Atlantic Division |
Coastal Division |
| 1. Wake Forest | 1. Georgia Tech |
| 2. Boston College | 2. Virginia Tech |
| 3. Clemson | 3. Virginia |
| 4. Maryland | 4. Miami |
| 5. Florida State | 5. N. Carolina |
| 6. NC State | 6. Duke |
 North Division |
South Division |
| 1. Louisville | 1. South Florida |
| 2. Rutgers | 2. Pittsburgh |
| 3. Cincinnati | 3. West Virginia |
| 4. UCONN | 4. Appalachian State |
| 5. Syracuse | 5. E. Carolina |
| 6. Army | 6. Navy |
 West Division |
East Division |
| 1. Wisconsin | 1. Ohio State |
| 2. Notre Dame | 2. Michigan |
| 3. Purdue | 3. Penn State |
| 4. Minnesota | 4. Indiana |
| 5. Iowa | 5. Michigan St |
| 6. Northwestern | 6. Illinois |
 West Division |
East Division |
| 1. Arkansas | 1. Florida |
| 2. Auburn | 2. Tennessee |
| 3. LSU | 3. Kentucky |
| 4. Alabama | 4. Georgia |
| 5. Mississippi | 5. S. Carolina |
| 6. Mississippi St. | 6. Vanderbilt |
 North Division |
South Division |
| 1. Nebraska | 1. Oklahoma |
| 2. Missou | 2. Texas |
| 3. Kansas | 3. Texas A&M |
| 4. K-State | 4. Texas Tech |
| 5. Colorado | 5. Oklahoma St |
| 6. Iowa St | 6. Baylor |
 North Division |
South Division |
| 1. BYU | 1. USC |
| 2. Oregon St | 2. UCLA |
| 3. Oregon | 3. CAL |
| 4. Utah | 4. Arizona St |
| 5. Washington St | 5. Arizona |
| 6. Washington | 6. Stanford |
New Super-Conference Combining the “Best” Programs of the WAC & MWest.
Called Rocky Mt. Conference
 West Division |
East Division |
| 1. Boise St | 1. TCU |
| 2. Hawaii | 2. Houston |
| 3. Fresno St | 3. Rice |
| 4. Nevada | 4. Tulsa |
| 5. Wyoming | 5. SMU |
| 6. Air Force | 6. UTEP |
| 7. Colorado St | 7. North Texas |
 East Division |
West Division |
| 1. Southern Mississippi |
1. San Jose St |
| 2. UCF | 2. San Diego St |
| 3. UAB | 3. Idaho |
| 4. Memphis |
4. New Mexico |
| 5. Tulane | 5. Utah St |
| 6. Troy | 6. UNLV |
| 7. Middle Tennessee |
7. New Mexico St |
 West Division |
East Division |
| 1. C. Michigan | 1. Ohio |
| 2. W. Michigan | 2. Kent St |
| 3. N. Illinois | 3. Akron |
| 4. Ball State | 4. Bowling Green |
| 5. Toledo | 5. Miami-OH |
| 6. E. Michigan 7. Marshall |
6. Buffalo 7. Temple |
 |
| 1. Louisiana Tech |
| 2. Arkansas St |
| 3. Florida Atlantic |
| 4. Louisiana Lafayette |
| 5. Louisiana Monroe |
| 6. Florida-International |
| 7. Western Kentucky |
I will give you a day to chew on this concept and then explain why a reorganization of the 120 schools participating in Division I College Football would benefit everyone involved who is passionate about this collegiate enterprise.
PART II, PART III, PART IV, PART V.
My first-glance reaction is that would make sense except that I would think that the new Pac-12 would probably try to go for Boise State over Utah. Also, the Big East would probably try to get UCF since it’s in the Orlando TV market, it’s opening up a new stadium, and it’s a natural rival for USF.
Also, Notre Dame is in the Big East for everything but football, so I would think it would probably go there if it joined a conference (even though the Big Ten is probably a more natural fit in football). The fallout would probably mean the Big Ten grabs Missouri to get the St. Louis TV market for its new network network, and then the Big 12 adds either TCU or Utah.
Kyle over at Dawg Sports had some similar proposals last year in his radical realignment series he did it in 10 separate posts. Good stuff just like you have done here.
[...] the college football conferences from sea to shining sea. Do great minds think alike? Evidently, they do. (My thanks go out to Conquest Chronicles for bringing this one to my [...]
The biggest problem with Pac-10 realignment into two separate divisions has always been trying to create two evenly matched divsions and geographical lines. Your argument that the top-two teams should play for the championship is a good one, but then what’s the point of breaking the conferences into two divisions? Scheduling?
And I actually think BYU and Utah would have a more logical shot than Boise State. The Pac-10’s biggest stumbling block to inviting new teams has been academic standards - and it will remain their largest stumbling block. Plus, Utah is a much larger television market than Idaho.
Completey unrelated: Conference USA’s travel schedule would suck.
One way to overcome the divisional difficulties in a PAC-12 would be to put the traditional rivals into separate divisions, as follows: Division “a” would include Arizona, BYU, Cal, Oregon St., USC and Washington, while “b” would include Ariz. St., Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, Utah and Wash. St. In-state rivals would schedule each other every year, and a rotational system could be set up so that each non-state, non-divisional school wouldn’t skip more than a year of playing each other.
It’s not perfect, but it would help alleviate some on the concerns of the current members that they will be cut off from the So. Cal. market if they are put in a different division. In-state rivalries would remain intact, and they might even end up in the conference championship game, which would not even be possible if the divisions were split geographically.
Good Point,
There are many avenues one could take to improve the system, which supports my point that college football could make a few minor tweaks that would benefit everyone.
[...] course if we utilized BCSBuster Bracketology - this wouldn’t matter as the issue would settle itself on the actual playing field in the [...]
Why is it required that there be divisions and why does there have to be a championship game? Divisions have tended to be woefully imbalanced at times. The Big 12 has had recent years were the South is stacked topped with Texas and Oklahoma, while the North has has been average or mediocre. Divisions have resulted in let’s say a 12-0 team from division A facing a 8-4 or 7-5 team from division B, while division A has a couple of 11-1 and 10-2 teams sitting and watching who are clearly better than the division B champion. Even if you have a larger conference and a championship game, it would seem better to just have teams play their schedule then pick the top 2 teams by conference record for the championship game, if you HAD to have a championship game. The other option is to have a larger conference with no divisions and no championship game and just apply appropriate tie-breakers (e.g., head-to-head, best overall record, etc.) to pick the conference champion.
It would seem that college football could keep its dispersed, decentralized regular season. What could change is to have an 8 team post-season playoff. The first 2 games could be set in late November-early December before the bowl season kicks off, then the national championship could be mixed in at the end of the bowl season like it is now. Except for the championship game participants, the other playoff teams could go to their normal conference tie-ins. 8 teams would allow enough room for the top 4 or so teams by rating plus any undefeated teams regardless of rating, plus keep the bowl system intact. If Division I-AA can make a 16-team playoff work, there HAS to be a way Division I-A can make an 8-team playoff work.
For my playoff proposal I meant the first 2 ROUNDS could be set in late November-early December before the bowl season kicks off,…
While I agree it would be great for fans, there are many aspects of college football that have to be accounted for because it is THE cash cow, supporting all inter-collegiate sports at each institution.
I developed many types of playoff proposals, but have quickly concluded that college football will never adopt the traditional playoff paradigm. The proposal I have created essentially keeps the system intact. The schools throughout the country are on different scholastic calenders and you could never convince the presidents to conduct a playoff in the middle of dead week and finals week. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and we are beating a dead horse by promoting any type of playoff to extend the regular season, even if it involves the bowl games.
The playoff proposal I have created supports a 12 game season, the bowl platform and the importance of the regular season. The only change to make is ridding ourselves of the ridiculous match-ups in September (by starting with the conference games first) and saving room in the regular season for OOC (Out of Conference) match-ups to occur in a regionalized bracketed format, which would determine the bowl games.
Simply, it would create a chronological sequence of games where all 120 teams would be involved in one of four brackets, guaranteed four games, which would determine on the field - without controversy - who the best of the best is without destroying the current platform of college football.
In this plan, Memphis is in both the Big East South Division and the Conference USA East Division. One of the two must be replaced with the newest entry into Division 1-A: Western Kentucky.
I’ve actually recommended Appalachian State in a more recent edition as part of the Big-East along with Army, Navy and East Carolina. Western Kentucky would most likely take Memphis spot in C-USA.
I think you really only need 72 teams in six 12-team conferences (PAC-10, Rocky Mountain, Big 12, Big 12(Copy), SEC, and Big East). This generates an 8-team playoff with the six conference champions and two wild cards chosen in a way similar to the NCAA basketball seeding process. This takes three weeks, and it is played out in seven bowl games (say, Orange, Sugar, Gator, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, and one other rotating hosting the different rounds from year to year) starting on Christmas Day and finishing the week after New Year’s Day.
One might even keep bowl traditions alive by keeping the same first round games from year to year–so the PAC-10 plays the Big Ten in the first round every year, and when it has the first round game it goes to the Rose Bowl.
Simple, elegant, not a big change.
And it is a great idea, but like I’ve said before it will never work. Any playoff system has to keep the current system virtually intact.
A playoff involving the bowls is a financial train wreck waiting to happen, which is why administrators and presidents will never allow it. Football is the cog in the money machine and many teams would go bankrupt if this type of system was ever utilized. It is a super idea, but financially speaking, with what is at stake (the entire collegiate athletic platform), it will never get a green light for this risk of failure is too great.
[...] I think this match-up would and should occur every year, especially if college football adopted BCSBuster Bracketology. The non-BCS programs certainly lack a branding identity in college football, even in spite of Boise [...]
A 14-team conference is rather unwieldy when it comes to scheduling. Why not make the Rocky Mountain conference have West, Central, and East divisions of 5 teams each (15-teams total)? Teams play all 4 opponents in their division and 2 opponents in each other division. This means playing extra-divisional opponents twice on a 5-year cycle as opposed to twice on a 7-year cycle.
The 2-division format is handy for conference championships (in the traditional 90’s and 00’s sense) but with 4 teams advancing to a conference mini-tournament 3 division winners and a wild card will work just fine.
I say just promote San Jose St or New Mexico (or both and demote UTEP) to get your 15-teams. You can then drop another team like Middle Tennessee back to the Sun Belt conference to both even the C-USA and MAC out and also to give the Sun Belt an 8-game round-robin schedule.
Also, watch out for Western Kentucky. With App St this makes 121 teams. I have not found your outline for the 24(25)-team consolation tournament but I am sure it can still work with an extra team.
Come to think of it, that 15-team model looks sexy enough for the BCS Conferences; the new 12-team model. Or maybe I am just sleepy.
I can see it now, eight 15-team conferences; perfect for the tournaments. You have the 6 current BCS conferences, a 7th mostly western conference, and an 8th sub-par, mostly eastern conference.
On the other hand, I do like the function the Sun Belt serves in the current model; as a intermediary conference for I-AA quality teams in the I-A.
Maybe with a few more Division I-AA promotions (Montana, ND State, Youngstown, Western Kentucky, App St, Massachusetts, Princeton) a 9th intermediary division can return.
Regardless, some BCS Conferences may try it. Houston, Tulsa, and TCU to the Big 12(15)?
I enjoyed reading what you wrote, you should give http://www.sudokulive.net a look for Sudoku puzzles.