Anybody else a college football fan? All this expansion talk is crazy! I'm not sure any of this will actually go down but I guess there is some substance to some of these rumors.
College Football Conference Expansion
- Thread starter thunda123
- Start date
I'm all for a chance to prove themselves, but your talking about the national championship. That is reserved for the big boys and for a good reason, they have tougher schedules. These guys like Boise St, TCU, Utah, etc are givin good bowl games if their record validates it and they are still getting millions in BCS bowl games.
Good point about not wanting to travel to Boise though, I can see why it would be tough for them to get a big team out there. On the other hand, maybe they could if they didn't ask their opponent to cough up 3 million plus for the first game.
Now that all this has been plastered on ESPN for the last few days, I still think that nothing will happen for any major conferences. We will probably have the same arguments from both sides next season and perhaps someone may miss out again, maybe not. I'm all for giving these guys a chance, just not THE chance when they are playing lesser teams all season. I guess that's why this is such a big deal at ESPN, there are loads of people on either side.
Good point about not wanting to travel to Boise though, I can see why it would be tough for them to get a big team out there. On the other hand, maybe they could if they didn't ask their opponent to cough up 3 million plus for the first game.
Now that all this has been plastered on ESPN for the last few days, I still think that nothing will happen for any major conferences. We will probably have the same arguments from both sides next season and perhaps someone may miss out again, maybe not. I'm all for giving these guys a chance, just not THE chance when they are playing lesser teams all season. I guess that's why this is such a big deal at ESPN, there are loads of people on either side.
yup, thats why big teams can afford to pay teams like la tech and SDST almost a million dollars just to play them before conference play because on ticket sales alone most schools can make that money back easily, let alone the tv contracts and all the other stuff that goes into it.
This is what's wrong with college football. Who is it for us to say the small guy doesn't deserve a chance. Look at college basketball, it is what makes it fun. We need a playoff for this reason alone. And by the way the MWC will become a BCS conference in a few years, so they won't be little guys anymore.
32 teams is too much for football. the nfl has what, 12? i think 8-16 is the max we should have.
you could do it two ways IMO:
you could give the 6 bcs conference champs a bye (acc, b10, b12, p10, beast, sec), then take the next 8 highest ranked teams and have them play elimination brackets based off their rankings; these games could be played at the higher ranked teams home stadium. then you match each of the bye teams with the winners of round 1 based on their rankings (i.e. highest plays lowest), but the top 2 ranked teams of the 6 get another bye. so you go from a 6v6 round to a 4v4 round then a 2v2 round then the championships. every game from round 1 on could be played on neutral fields, and the championship at one of the bowl stadiums like now.
or
you could just take the top 8 or 16 teams and have no byes and just play them in a playoff based on rankings.
i kinda like the first option since it rewards teams who played the best and hardest schedules a lot more than the teams who just barely got in, but it gives every team playing a chance at the title.
you could do it two ways IMO:
you could give the 6 bcs conference champs a bye (acc, b10, b12, p10, beast, sec), then take the next 8 highest ranked teams and have them play elimination brackets based off their rankings; these games could be played at the higher ranked teams home stadium. then you match each of the bye teams with the winners of round 1 based on their rankings (i.e. highest plays lowest), but the top 2 ranked teams of the 6 get another bye. so you go from a 6v6 round to a 4v4 round then a 2v2 round then the championships. every game from round 1 on could be played on neutral fields, and the championship at one of the bowl stadiums like now.
or
you could just take the top 8 or 16 teams and have no byes and just play them in a playoff based on rankings.
i kinda like the first option since it rewards teams who played the best and hardest schedules a lot more than the teams who just barely got in, but it gives every team playing a chance at the title.
It may be only 12, but its because there are 32 teams...
There are 119 NCAA teams. The NCAA basketball and baseball playoffs are much much bigger then the NBA and MLB.
12/32 is about 1/3. 32/119 is almost 1/4 ... I also said it would be 32 or 16, Who wouldn't be for 32. it just adds one more week to the playoffs.
There are 119 NCAA teams. The NCAA basketball and baseball playoffs are much much bigger then the NBA and MLB.
12/32 is about 1/3. 32/119 is almost 1/4 ... I also said it would be 32 or 16, Who wouldn't be for 32. it just adds one more week to the playoffs.
because football games are harder on the kids than basketball games. theres 16 NFL games and what, 80 nba games? the last thing you want to do is put those kids at more of a risk of injury than need be. this argument has been used in the past against any sort of playoff whatsoever. even if it has been used to shield the real reason, money, its still a valid reason. making the best team in the country play 5 games to win it all is pretty rough.
plus, lets be honest, 64 teams in the basketball tourney is WAAAAY over kill. high number teams never make it to the finals. 32 would be even worse in football.
when they put in a playoff system, it most certainly wont be over 20 i can almost guarantee that. it would just be stupid to have a 7-5 team play a 12-0 team first round.
in college football, if you lose more than 2 or 3 games in a season, you dont deserve to play for the national title.
and all it takes is for a #1 team to have their star player injured playing michigan state who is ranked 32 in the nation for it all to come crashing down. 1 game more is 1 game that is not needed because teams 17-32 would NEVER make it to the final.
like i said, if you lose 3 games during the regular season in college football you have no business playing in a tourney for a national championship.
the major gripe people have with the bcs is that teams like utah, bsu, tcu etc almost never get a chance to play for it all. you don't need 32 teams to include those types of teams.
because they wouldn't.
trust me, none of the big teams in the country right now like usc, texas, florida, etc want a 32 team playoff system because of the points ive made. but most of them would welcome an 8, 12 or even 16 team playoff.
why reward mediocre teams?
Ok, lets take last year...
17-25
West Virginia 9-3
17 Pittsburgh 9-3
18 Oregon State 8-4
19 Oklahoma State 9-3
20 Arizona 8-4
21 Stanford 8-4
22 Nebraska 9-4
23 Utah 9-3
24 USC 8-4
25 Wisconsin 9-3
Not one of those teams could make a run in a playoff?
Just because we believe they wouldn't make it, doesn't mean we should just neglect them. It has been proven in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, any NCAA sport that has a playoff, that anything can happen.
Does the NFL do away with a playoff because people can get hurt? Does the NCAA do away because of the wear and tear of basketball on a player.
They are excuses plain and simple. I don't see the NCAA going to 32 teams because the higher teams would be scared, as any team can win on any day. That 1 extra game could be the game they lose. Though the NCAA wouldn't lose anything by going to 32 teams, they would only gain money, which would then go back to the schools.
17-25
West Virginia 9-3
17 Pittsburgh 9-3
18 Oregon State 8-4
19 Oklahoma State 9-3
20 Arizona 8-4
21 Stanford 8-4
22 Nebraska 9-4
23 Utah 9-3
24 USC 8-4
25 Wisconsin 9-3
Not one of those teams could make a run in a playoff?
Just because we believe they wouldn't make it, doesn't mean we should just neglect them. It has been proven in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, any NCAA sport that has a playoff, that anything can happen.
Does the NFL do away with a playoff because people can get hurt? Does the NCAA do away because of the wear and tear of basketball on a player.
They are excuses plain and simple. I don't see the NCAA going to 32 teams because the higher teams would be scared, as any team can win on any day. That 1 extra game could be the game they lose. Though the NCAA wouldn't lose anything by going to 32 teams, they would only gain money, which would then go back to the schools.
actually, i think it will happen eventually, especially if something like this merge happens eventually. it might be by the time my kids are in college, but it will happen.
Last edited:
No fun pulling your stars?
so is padding your NON con so you can take an easy run to the BCS national championship game.
If it makes it tougher for the top team, then so be it. That's how you win a championship. If you can't win against lesser teams then why should you be the NC.
Last year, I think Nebraska could have won it all the way they were playing their last 5-6 games, and took the #2 to the end, and should have won that game. Anyone can win at anytime, is my only reason for having them there. Northern Iowa over KU...
so is padding your NON con so you can take an easy run to the BCS national championship game.
If it makes it tougher for the top team, then so be it. That's how you win a championship. If you can't win against lesser teams then why should you be the NC.
Last year, I think Nebraska could have won it all the way they were playing their last 5-6 games, and took the #2 to the end, and should have won that game. Anyone can win at anytime, is my only reason for having them there. Northern Iowa over KU...
you are confusing what im saying. i never once said a 17-32 ranked team couldn't beat a top ranked team. in fact, i even said they could make a run. but they won't keep winning, they will eventually lose.
i agree, a team that loses to the #30-32 team in the country doesn't deserve to win the NC, but if a #1, 2, or 3 team has the potential to lose to a 32, 31 or 30 team, then they certainly wont make it all 4 rounds either. 16 teams would provide enough games to weed out the phonies.
you may enjoy making arguments, but you aren't even really reading what im saying. you are just arguing to argue it seems like. so i could keep posting over and over again and have legitimate arguments only to have you reply after not fully reading my post and picking one or two of my points and using a cry to the extreme to try and prove it false, but i dont really have the time for that. plus ive said what ive needed to say, sometimes multiple times over.
EDIT:
i dont mind you disagreeing with me, but if you dont take everything i say into consideration in this "argument" (i consider it more a discussion really), it gets a little frustrating, so i prefer to just stop then. ultimately its not up to us to decide how many teams a playoff will have if/when they move to one, but shoot me dead if its 32.
Last edited:
Boohoo KU.... Maybe you should stop having the FBI and IRS investigate you every 5 years.
The college basketball fan lives a difficult life. The season is too short. The offseason is too long. The NCAA tournament, as brilliant a competition as any in sports, is under siege. And maybe the worst of it? Nobody cares.
Oh, it's not that nobody cares about college basketball. But there's a difference between most people -- those whose fandom shifts and glides with the seasons, moving thoughtlessly from one sport to the next -- and the die-hard college basketball fan, who year-round sees everything through the prism of the game he or she loves.
Most people follow college hoops from January to April. The die-hard follows it from April to April.
Most people start thinking about their brackets when the conference tournaments start. The die-hard begins thinking about his bracket when the Maui Invitational starts.
You might be a college basketball die-hard if ... OK, OK, I'll stop. You get the idea. College basketball fans are passionate, but they're outnumbered. And in case the die-hard college basketball fan needed yet another reminder of their downtrodden disparity, I give you ... Conference Expansionocalypse 2010.
Everybody's making moves. The cell phones are ringing, the tweets are flying, and the e-mails are being leaked. But the most recent and potentially most dire development to the college hoops fan is that of the Pac-10's rumored attempts at forming the Death Star of West Coast conferences: The Pac-16.
That plan, one of many discussed at the Pac-10 meeting this past weekend, involves raiding the southern half of the Big 12 and adding teams like Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and either Colorado or Baylor to the current Pac-10. It's a move that would complement Missouri and Nebraska's apparent angling for spots in the Big Ten, and it would effectively dissolve the Big 12 as we know it.
What's insane about this scenario -- OK, there's a lot insane about this scenario, but let's start here -- is the teams that would be left behind. There's Baylor, a rising hoops program under coach Scott Drew. There's Kansas State, a rising hoops program under Frank Martin. There's Iowa State, which is a traditionally proud hoops program currently mired in the rebuilding muck.
That's at least two programs who finished in the top three of the Big 12 conference standings in 2009-10 who could get left out to dry in several of the conference expansion scenarios. If you add Missouri, which is playing a delicate game of chicken with the Big Ten and its own conference at the same time, you get three in the top five.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Orlin Wagner
Kansas is hoops royalty. Nebraska has zero NCAA tourney wins. Yet we live in a world where the Huskers might control KU's fate.
And that's before you talk about Kansas.
Remember Kansas? You know, one of the nation's premier hoops programs, a veritable cradle of the game, the place that employed James Naismith as its head basketball coach a mere six years after the Canadian doctor wrote the sport's first official rules, and a place that has pretty much done nothing but win at basketball since? The team that plays in one of college hoops' most revered fieldhouses and the site of many a basketball pilgrimage each winter? Yeah, that Kansas.
The Pac-10 doesn't want Kansas. The Big Ten doesn't seem wholly interested. The Jayhawks are, for the moment, on the outside of conference expansion looking in. Which says a lot more about conference expansion than it does the Kansas Jayhawks.
What it says is that college basketball doesn't at all factor into what conference expansion will produce. Those results might be elegant and simple -- Notre Dame joining the Big Ten and rounding off the expansion dominoes in one fell swoop.
Or it could be unwieldy: a Pac-16, a Big-16, the dissolution of the Big East, a joint deal between the Big 12 and the Pac-10, the SEC annexing itself from the NCAA and starting its own college football league on the moon. Everything's in play. But no matter what happens, basketball won't be a factor. And that's just a little bit depressing.
This isn't the first time someone has written this, by the way. A soul-crushingly handsome young fellow with a funny Irish name wrote about the potentially disastrous effects of Big Ten expansion on the Big East in late April, back when Big Ten expansion was the hottest topic in town. (Oh, how times have changed.) To be sure, the Big Ten's encroachment into Big East territory would mark a huge shift for college hoops; it would effectively neuter the Big East, potentially robbing it of two marquee basketball programs (Syracuse and Pittsburgh) in what is at its very core a basketball conference.
But at least Big Ten expansion seemed to show some signs of sanity in regard to college hoops. Picking up those two programs wouldn't be the focus of any expansion, but it would serve as a nice perk. If the Big Ten added Syracuse and Pittsburgh, or Syracuse and Connecticut, it would be grabbing up two of the nation's premier basketball programs in two important markets while simultaneously morphing into the best basketball conference in the country. The situation works in toto. That can't be discounted.
The Pac-16 would be a good basketball conference, sure, but that's clearly not the goal here. Texas (the state, not the school) is the target, and Texas, despite a couple of good basketball programs in Austin and College Station, is not basketball country. Same goes for Oklahoma. Oklahoma State, with its intense fandom and quirky Gallagher-Iba arena, is the one school mentioned that feels like it traditionally loves its hoops as much as its college football. One out of six ain't bad.
Ah, but what are you going to do? As always in conference expansion, this is nothing more than a lament. We hoops fans get it. We understand the game. College football makes the money. College football pays for everything else. College football is what moves the needle, and moving the needle is what conference expansion is all about. We're not naive.
We are, however, a little bit sad. No one wants Kansas? The Kansas? Really?
College basketball die-hards may understand the cold reality of conference expansion. But that doesn't make it any less insane.
The college basketball fan lives a difficult life. The season is too short. The offseason is too long. The NCAA tournament, as brilliant a competition as any in sports, is under siege. And maybe the worst of it? Nobody cares.
Oh, it's not that nobody cares about college basketball. But there's a difference between most people -- those whose fandom shifts and glides with the seasons, moving thoughtlessly from one sport to the next -- and the die-hard college basketball fan, who year-round sees everything through the prism of the game he or she loves.
Most people follow college hoops from January to April. The die-hard follows it from April to April.
Most people start thinking about their brackets when the conference tournaments start. The die-hard begins thinking about his bracket when the Maui Invitational starts.
You might be a college basketball die-hard if ... OK, OK, I'll stop. You get the idea. College basketball fans are passionate, but they're outnumbered. And in case the die-hard college basketball fan needed yet another reminder of their downtrodden disparity, I give you ... Conference Expansionocalypse 2010.
Everybody's making moves. The cell phones are ringing, the tweets are flying, and the e-mails are being leaked. But the most recent and potentially most dire development to the college hoops fan is that of the Pac-10's rumored attempts at forming the Death Star of West Coast conferences: The Pac-16.
That plan, one of many discussed at the Pac-10 meeting this past weekend, involves raiding the southern half of the Big 12 and adding teams like Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and either Colorado or Baylor to the current Pac-10. It's a move that would complement Missouri and Nebraska's apparent angling for spots in the Big Ten, and it would effectively dissolve the Big 12 as we know it.
What's insane about this scenario -- OK, there's a lot insane about this scenario, but let's start here -- is the teams that would be left behind. There's Baylor, a rising hoops program under coach Scott Drew. There's Kansas State, a rising hoops program under Frank Martin. There's Iowa State, which is a traditionally proud hoops program currently mired in the rebuilding muck.
That's at least two programs who finished in the top three of the Big 12 conference standings in 2009-10 who could get left out to dry in several of the conference expansion scenarios. If you add Missouri, which is playing a delicate game of chicken with the Big Ten and its own conference at the same time, you get three in the top five.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Orlin Wagner
Kansas is hoops royalty. Nebraska has zero NCAA tourney wins. Yet we live in a world where the Huskers might control KU's fate.
And that's before you talk about Kansas.
Remember Kansas? You know, one of the nation's premier hoops programs, a veritable cradle of the game, the place that employed James Naismith as its head basketball coach a mere six years after the Canadian doctor wrote the sport's first official rules, and a place that has pretty much done nothing but win at basketball since? The team that plays in one of college hoops' most revered fieldhouses and the site of many a basketball pilgrimage each winter? Yeah, that Kansas.
The Pac-10 doesn't want Kansas. The Big Ten doesn't seem wholly interested. The Jayhawks are, for the moment, on the outside of conference expansion looking in. Which says a lot more about conference expansion than it does the Kansas Jayhawks.
What it says is that college basketball doesn't at all factor into what conference expansion will produce. Those results might be elegant and simple -- Notre Dame joining the Big Ten and rounding off the expansion dominoes in one fell swoop.
Or it could be unwieldy: a Pac-16, a Big-16, the dissolution of the Big East, a joint deal between the Big 12 and the Pac-10, the SEC annexing itself from the NCAA and starting its own college football league on the moon. Everything's in play. But no matter what happens, basketball won't be a factor. And that's just a little bit depressing.
This isn't the first time someone has written this, by the way. A soul-crushingly handsome young fellow with a funny Irish name wrote about the potentially disastrous effects of Big Ten expansion on the Big East in late April, back when Big Ten expansion was the hottest topic in town. (Oh, how times have changed.) To be sure, the Big Ten's encroachment into Big East territory would mark a huge shift for college hoops; it would effectively neuter the Big East, potentially robbing it of two marquee basketball programs (Syracuse and Pittsburgh) in what is at its very core a basketball conference.
But at least Big Ten expansion seemed to show some signs of sanity in regard to college hoops. Picking up those two programs wouldn't be the focus of any expansion, but it would serve as a nice perk. If the Big Ten added Syracuse and Pittsburgh, or Syracuse and Connecticut, it would be grabbing up two of the nation's premier basketball programs in two important markets while simultaneously morphing into the best basketball conference in the country. The situation works in toto. That can't be discounted.
The Pac-16 would be a good basketball conference, sure, but that's clearly not the goal here. Texas (the state, not the school) is the target, and Texas, despite a couple of good basketball programs in Austin and College Station, is not basketball country. Same goes for Oklahoma. Oklahoma State, with its intense fandom and quirky Gallagher-Iba arena, is the one school mentioned that feels like it traditionally loves its hoops as much as its college football. One out of six ain't bad.
Ah, but what are you going to do? As always in conference expansion, this is nothing more than a lament. We hoops fans get it. We understand the game. College football makes the money. College football pays for everything else. College football is what moves the needle, and moving the needle is what conference expansion is all about. We're not naive.
We are, however, a little bit sad. No one wants Kansas? The Kansas? Really?
College basketball die-hards may understand the cold reality of conference expansion. But that doesn't make it any less insane.
I saw most of those teams last year. And compared to the top 12-16 teams in the nation....No, none of those teams had what it takes to throw together a run in a playoff. Pittsburgh came out of the gates on fire but stumbled the last two weeks of the season and barely squeaked out a win Vs. Carolina in their bowl. And Oregon St. was extremely hot and cold and everybody remembers how they faired in the Rose Bowl that they were vastly favored in.
Don't get me wrong, These are good teams but the upper part of the rankings is just in a class all itself.
Similar threads
