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

My reason for looking at polls preseason is to see a "Kansas State" at 15 or whatever and thinking that is a surprise, then realizing they did well last season.

The Top Three nearly always finish in the Top Ten.  The next seven usually finish ranked with one or two that flail and drop out.  The next ten is probably 50% gonna finish ranked.

There is no final CFP poll, just AP and Coaches and whoever.  There COULD be a time when the AP final poll doesn't have the playoff winner at Number One.  It's possible.

I figure if a single person misses my point, it could well be that I didn't express it well, or maybe they just are incapable of understanding it.

When a host of people do it, consistently, I figure I am not expressing things well at all.

Or it's like explaining evolution to a few illiterate goat-herders.

They can.

But they won't.

Because $$$$.

Maybe - the money is currently being sent to conferences for whatever reason to split. That is a major source of revenue, but it isn't the only source. Being in the postseason on a regular basis could also, theoretically, improve a team's revenue. In any event, without any sort of automatic qualifier, there isn't much incentive to be in other leagues, so I wouldn't just conclude that.

Also, the NFL merged with the weaker AFL and that seemed to work out.

Maybe - the money is currently being sent to conferences for whatever reason to split. That is a major source of revenue, but it isn't the only source. Being in the postseason on a regular basis could also, theoretically, improve a team's revenue. In any event, without any sort of automatic qualifier, there isn't much incentive to be in other leagues, so I wouldn't just conclude that.

Also, the NFL merged with the weaker AFL and that seemed to work out.

Well, the money is not necessarily causative, but correlates with a lot of other positives. Some of which might go away if you move to a weaker conference. 

I.e. I posted upthread about my previous lament that Darrell Hazell was recruiting at a MAC level. In truth, when I started looking at recruiting classes, his teams on paper would DOMINATE the MAC. The worst recruiting program in the B1G over that 4 year stretch and it was FAR better than anything in the MAC. 

So you might ask--why does Purdue get its teeth kicked in repeatedly in the B1G instead of dropping down, and then kicking ass and taking names in the MAC? 

Well the answer, in addition to all the money of course, is that if Purdue dropped down to the MAC, they'd start recruiting like a MAC team instead of a B1G team. Purdue recruits know they're going to play in big games on national TV, even if they're likely to lose them. MAC recruits, well, don't, unless it's an annual paycheck game to get your teeth kicked in by a B1G team. 

That's a more stark example than say a B1G or SEC team moving to the B12 or ACC, of course. But programs move up for aspirational reasons when the opportunities arise, not down to beat up on weaker competition. Because teams often rise or fall to the level of what's around them. If Penn State left the B1G and moved to the ACC or B12 to have a better chance of winning their conference, would they still recruit like Penn State? 

Well, the money is not necessarily causative, but correlates with a lot of other positives. Some of which might go away if you move to a weaker conference.

I.e. I posted upthread about my previous lament that Darrell Hazell was recruiting at a MAC level. In truth, when I started looking at recruiting classes, his teams on paper would DOMINATE the MAC. The worst recruiting program in the B1G over that 4 year stretch and it was FAR better than anything in the MAC.

So you might ask--why does Purdue get its teeth kicked in repeatedly in the B1G instead of dropping down, and then kicking ass and taking names in the MAC?

Well the answer, in addition to all the money of course, is that if Purdue dropped down to the MAC, they'd start recruiting like a MAC team instead of a B1G team. Purdue recruits know they're going to play in big games on national TV, even if they're likely to lose them. MAC recruits, well, don't, unless it's an annual paycheck game to get your teeth kicked in by a B1G team.

That's a more stark example than say a B1G or SEC team moving to the B12 or ACC, of course. But programs move up for aspirational reasons when the opportunities arise, not down to beat up on weaker competition. Because teams often rise or fall to the level of what's around them. If Penn State left the B1G and moved to the ACC or B12 to have a better chance of winning their conference, would they still recruit like Penn State?

Certainly, there are lots of factors to consider when changing conferences. My point is that right now, there is almost no benefit to switching conferences except for the amount of money coming in from the conference. If you change up the incentives a bit, then the behavior of the various schools may also change. To put it a different way, having an invitational only playoff means it doesn't much matter what conference you are in - you can get invited from any conference. So the conference affiliation is only determined by who gives you the most money. If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.

There is no reason to be in the MAC right now other than no one else will take you. But if the MAC was guaranteed a playoff spot, Purdue might take a lot longer look at them.

Certainly, there are lots of factors to consider when changing conferences. My point is that right now, there is almost no benefit to switching conferences except for the amount of money coming in from the conference. If you change up the incentives a bit, then the behavior of the various schools may also change. To put it a different way, having an invitational only playoff means it doesn't much matter what conference you are in - you can get invited from any conference. So the conference affiliation is only determined by who gives you the most money. If you get money AND a playoff spot (and theoretically, a percentage of the playoff money) then you have additional incentives to make a conference affiliation.

There is no reason to be in the MAC right now other than no one else will take you. But if the MAC was guaranteed a playoff spot, Purdue might take a lot longer look at them.

I think prior to the 12-team playoff, teams were moving UP in conference difficulty in exchange for access. In the 4-team playoff we were already seeing the PAC and the B12 champs as potential to be left out or have a higher bar to clear than the B1G/SEC champs, and a non-champ from those leagues was probably never going to have a chance at the 4-team playoff. I'd argue that this, in addition to the issue of money, may have spurred TX/OU and USC/UCLA to announce their moves when they did. (Admittedly, I don't recall the exact timing of that compared to announcement of the 12-team playoff with conference champs getting automatically included. I could be wrong on the timing here.)

But I still think that a team looks at the long term and not the short term. Take money out of the equation and grant an auto-bid to the MAC, and I still don't think Purdue or any current B1G school considers them. Because 10 years into being a MAC team, the recruiting advantage of being a B1G school is gone, and then you're just another MAC team. 

Now, if you *really* change the incentives, maybe it changes. Such as:

• Get rid of recruiting, have a draft of graduating HS seniors instead.
• Eliminate the transfer portal and have a CBA with more regimented limitations regarding player movement.   
• Allow payment of players but institute a salary cap for parity.
• Make playoff eligibility based on pure objective standards where each team simply has to win their conference and then at-larges are determined mathematically instead of a beauty pageant.

Now, if you do that, nobody will care what conference they're in. Teams would probably prefer to be the bigger fish in a weaker conference. 

But if you do that, you also kill CFB as it's just a minor-league version of the NFL. 

Granted, they're killing CFB already, so it doesn't matter. This will just accelerate the demise. 

But if you do that, you also kill CFB as it's just a minor-league version of the NFL.

We're kinda doing a good job of that anyway.