Author
Topic: CFB Realignment
(Read 9824 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2021, 10:43:24 PM »

I enjoy disorganized mayhem over nice tidy conferences.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 22, 2021, 10:13:36 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on September 10, 2021, 05:13:46 PM

The geography is tailor made for the pod system.
South: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston
North: OSU2, Kansas, KSU, ISU
East: W Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis
West: BYU, Boise, SDSU?, UNLV?

IMHO, this would make a LOT of sense because it would build up geographic rivalries and minimize travel costs.

For Cincinnati, their schedule would then be (assuming nine game league schedule):

3: The three other teams in their division: WVU ~300mi, Memphis ~500 mi, UCF ~900 mi. Those aren't as close as most conference travel but LOTS closer than the B12's very distant teams.
4: All four teams from one of the other divisions on a rotating basis. When this was the North (OkSU, KU, KSU, ISU) it would be close, when it was the South (TxTech, TCU, Baylor, Houston) it wouldn't be too bad, when it was the West (BYU, Boise, SDSU?, UNLV?) it would be FAR.
2: One team each from the other two divisions probably selected based on performance to maximize quality match-ups.

That would be a pretty good set-up for the Bearcats. They'd probably want to keep their OOC match-ups close to home but that leaves them with PLENTY of options including a lot of historic rivals (like Miami, OH) and teams that they were previously in conferences with (like Pitt, Louisville, etc).

This potential league does not have the ratings draw to keep up with the B1G but I think they could keep themselves comfortably ahead of the MAC/SBelt/AAC/CUSA.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 22, 2021, 10:18:43 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on September 11, 2021, 12:49:21 AM

They could add whoever they want, but it doesn't matter. They're 2nd-tier. Yawn.

Honestly third. The SEC's addition of OU and Texas puts them substantially ahead of the rest of the old P5 and puts the B12 substantially behind. Maybe not even third but fourth. New "tiers":

SEC
B1G
ACC, PAC: I dropped them below the B1G because they haven't kept up in revenue or on-field performance with the exception of Clemson. Clemson has been great in the ACC but who is their 2nd best team? Clemson's performance has exceeded #1 in the B1G, tOSU's but I would guess the second best performing ACC school would be about 5th in the B1G.
B12 remnants plus whatever they add.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 22, 2021, 10:37:13 AM »

Quote from: ELA on October 21, 2021, 09:11:39 PM

The Group of Five needs to reorganize into one collective, with 4 geographic "divisions".

They need to quit poaching from each other til the low one on the totem pole dissolves. Otherwise, eventually, each one will be the low man.

Granted somehow the MAC just keeps on keeping on. Very relatively unchanged for decades.

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on October 21, 2021, 10:36:58 PM

The MAC is the only G5 in the North, and the MWC is the only G5 out West. So they will be fine.

AAC, CUSA and the Sunbelt are all in the Southeast.

I'm not sure I'm buying Marshall and S Miss to the Sunbelt because the pecking order has always been that CUSA raids the Sunbelt after the AAC raids them. In fact three of the remaining schools in CUSA used to be in the Sunbelt in W Kentucky, M Tennessee and FIU, but the Sunbelt doesn't want any of them back?

I think @ELA and @Brutus Buckeye both have good points here. There are, IMHO, two problems with the raiding game:

As ELA pointed out eventually each one ends up getting gutted, and
It creates these geographically unwieldy TV conferences to maximize football revenue but that also increases costs for other sports. Ie, when you add say Fresno St to a Midwestern or SE league because they are pretty good at football and in recruiting-rich California that makes sense (and dollars) in football but it also means that now you have to ship the women's volleyball team across the country for a conference match and that costs a lot for literally zero financial benefit.

I think the smarter play for them would be to create a non-poaching agreement tied to a scheduling alliance. The scheduling alliance could be managed to maximize high profile television games that will bring revenue to the leagues. Ie, right now the non-P5 ranked teams are:

#2 Cincy, AAC
#14 CCU, SBelt
#21 SMU, AAC
#22 SDSU, MWC
#24 UTSA, CUSA

You might even leave the "scheduling alliance" games undetermined until mid-season. That way you would KNOW you were getting high-end games to bring the revenue in. Example:

#2 Cincy could host #14 CCU and travel to #22 SDSU
#14 CCU could host #21 SMU and travel to #2 Cincy
#21 SMU could host #24 UTSA and travel to #14 CCU
#22 SDSU could host #2 Cincy and travel to #24 UTSA
#24 UTSA could host #22 SDSU and travel to #21 SMU

That gets you five ranked vs ranked games that will generate significant TV revenue and by being flexible you'd basically get that (or close to it) every year because it doesn't matter which teams are ranked it just matters that some teams are ranked and you'll have them play each other. The rest of the games could be scheduled based on two factors:

Equivalent match-ups: mediocre vs mediocre, bad vs bad
Travel costs

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:00:15 AM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on October 21, 2021, 10:43:05 PM

Cincy should've joined the B1G. Think it's absolute horseshit that Ohio State can have Ohio all to itself in the B1G- meanwhile Michigan has to share the state of Michigan with Sparty- a state that has 2 million less people than Ohio and probably not even half of the P5 high school football talent.

Michigan would be a hell of a lot better if Sparty wasn't around. They are sharing a state that has little to no real football talent with another major program. I say make it tougher on Ohio State and get Cincy in the B1G and let them be a pain in Ohio State's ass like Sparty is a pain in Michigan's.

I would never advocate kicking out schools that ARE in the B1G but, in retrospect, it was a mistake to add MSU in the first place. The B1G would be better off today if we had only one school each in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois and used the extra slots thus created to add one school each in three new states.

Michigan State was added in 1949 and their first year of BigTen Football was the 1953 season (they won the league and the RoseBowl that season).

In the 1950 census Michigan's population was 6.4 million where today it is up to 10.1 million but the more relevant issue is population relative to the country as a whole.

In 1950 Michigan's population of 6.4 M was #7 in the nation behind:

NY 14.8 M
CA 10.6 M
PA 10.5 M
IL 8.7 M
OH 7.9 M
TX 7.7 M

They were still ahead of FL (#20 with 2.8 M), GA (#13 with 3.4 M), and NC (#10 with 4.1 M).

In 2020 Michigan's population of 10.1 M was #10 in the nation behind

CA 39.5 M
TX 29.1 M
FL 21.5 M
NY 20.2 M
PA 13.0 M
IL 12.8 M
OH 11.8 M
GA 10.7 M
NC 10.4 M

Looked at another way:

4.23%: In 1950 Michigan's population of about 6.4 M was about 4.23% of the US population of 151.3 M
3.27%: In 2020 Michigan's population of about 10.1 M was about 3.27% of the US population of 308.7 M

I do NOT think that the solution to this conundrum is to kick out MSU, IU, and one of the IL schools but I also do NOT think the solution is to make the same stupid mistake AGAIN by adding Cincy, ISU, Pitt, or any other school in an existing B1G state.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #33 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:03:59 AM »

I guess we need Marquette to step up and re-ad football.

FearlessF · « **Reply #34 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:06:08 AM »

and U of Chicago

847badgerfan · « **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:14:01 AM »

UC still has a program. It's D3. They play at Stagg Field. Probably need to make it bigger, like the old days.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #36 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:15:19 AM »

FearlessF · « **Reply #37 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:17:49 AM »

yup, add the seating back and go D1

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #38 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:25:07 AM »

Does the new "stadium" even have seating?

Can't tell from the picture.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #39 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:28:03 AM »

Yes, but less than most high schools in Chicago. In some cases, much less.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #40 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:42:56 AM »

I'm not sure I've ever seen a smaller CFB stadium than that.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #41 on:** October 22, 2021, 11:56:29 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on October 22, 2021, 11:00:15 AM

I do NOT think that the solution to this conundrum is to kick out MSU, IU, and one of the IL schools but I also do NOT think the solution is to make the same stupid mistake AGAIN by adding Cincy, ISU, Pitt, or any other school in an existing B1G state.

Exactly. I don't see that those schools add anything to the conference except numbers, but by giving them the cache of B1G status it dilutes the ability of the existing schools in those states to dominate recruiting.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: CFB Realignment

Cincydawg

Re: CFB Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFB Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFB Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFB Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFB Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: CFB Realignment

FearlessF

Re: CFB Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: CFB Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: CFB Realignment

FearlessF

Re: CFB Realignment

Brutus Buckeye

Re: CFB Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: CFB Realignment

Brutus Buckeye

Re: CFB Realignment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: CFB Realignment