conf champ games

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:34 pm

rolltide wrote:That is a good point. I was aware of that, but I kinda forgot to think about it. Still, I would like to see every team play each other in-conf. The PAC-10 voted yes to a 12th game, but made it a conference game. That way they have 9 conf. games and 3 ooc. They all play each other that way. It probably won't happen for the other confs., but I think it would be cool.
Yeah, there's advantages and disadvantages to nearly every conference alignment. But how important are non-conference games anyway? Seems to me the most important games are conference games, no matter how you 'slice' it.
The point can be made that OOC games 'test' a team, competitively.
But if all there were was 12 team conferences, it would be possible to have each team play competitively. I'm not recommending this, but you can maybe see why that's a 'better' arrangement than the 8-team conference, or a 16-team 'conglomerate' that the WAC once utilized.
12 is neither too small or too large. Baby bear would be happy, I think.
Too bad he's no longer around, we could ask him what he thinks.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:22 pm

Tradition : The handing down of knowledge , customs, etc, from age to age.

Traditionalists don't want change. It is the definition of the word. They didn't want the BCS, they don't want play-offs, they don't want to add teams, they don't want to take away teams. Tradtionalists don't want change.

So no traditionalists wouldn't like realignment.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:17 pm

Spence wrote:Tradition : The handing down of knowledge , customs, etc, from age to age.

Traditionalists don't want change. It is the definition of the word. They didn't want the BCS, they don't want play-offs, they don't want to add teams, they don't want to take away teams. Tradtionalists don't want change.

So no traditionalists wouldn't like realignment
Actually, Spence, I think it would honor tradition, at least in part, if the Big Ten were to add Iowa St. and Missouri. For one thing they are rivals, in the Big XII N.
Their games reflect that rivalry, even last year, Missouri denied Iowa St. the opportunity to represent the Big XII, in the conference championship.

Secondly, Iowa St. would probably be suited to a Big Ten conference, competitively-speaking, more than they do in the Big XII.
Same with Missouri. Neither has been that influential with respect to the Big XII, but both have been competitive regardless. So, in effect, the Big Ten would be getting two teams that might prefer a 'fresh' start, somewhere besides the Big XII. And both are programs on the rise, in any respect.

Now, you can argue all you want about tradition, but it would appear to me that a conference championship game would help the Big Ten in terms of selecting one team to the BCS, each year. The Ohio St.-Michigan rivalry would remain unaffected if the conference were divided so they were divisional rivals.

Here's one possibility: West Divison: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Missouri, Indiana

East Division: Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St.

I think those groupings would serve tradition nicely, myself. What it would allow for is better representation to the BCS, if adopted. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:25 pm

I'm not saying it wouldn't help Ohio State. That isn't the point. 12 teams in a conference waters down the conference. If I had my way there would only be eight teams. That would still accomplish your goal of having only one champion because all the teams could play each other. It would also make the conferences stronger. Then no championship game would be needed because there couldn't be any ties.

12 teams is too many. If every conferene would drop the 4 weakest links all conferences would be stronger and the football would be better.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:32 pm

Spence wrote:I'm not saying it wouldn't help Ohio State. That isn't the point. 12 teams in a conference waters down the conference. If I had my way there would only be eight teams. That would still accomplish your goal of having only one champion because all the teams could play each other. It would also make the conferences stronger. Then no championship game would be needed because there couldn't be any ties.

12 teams is too many. If every conferene would drop the 4 weakest links all conferences would be stronger and the football would be better.
Spence, that's where we disagree. More conferences, in my opinion, would make it harder for the BCS to select viable teams, at any rate. I think you only need to refer to the Big East to see that 8 teams really isn't any better arrangement, than 12. In fact, I think having 12 teams gives a conference an advantage, since talent can be shared, and it also helps a conference establish an identity.
Look at the 'revised' ACC and tell me that they aren't more of a presence, competitively than they were before. Even the Big East, in some respects is a better conference now, than they were prior to Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami 'jumping ship' to the ACC.
You might argue otherwise, but I think the results are what matter, competitively they are probably about the same, if not better, but that's probably just my opinion. If they were to include an additional 4 teams, that would likely help them improve, if those teams were exceptionally good, as I believe the case would be with Penn St, Notre Dame, Navy & Marshall.
Whether or not the Big Ten would be 'better' with the additions of Iowa St., and Missouri, is maybe something of a question mark. But, referring to last year, it's hard to debate how it would have affected it, Ohio St. likely would have gone to the Rose Bowl, in a 'typical' year. Why I think that's relevant, is it does 'honor' tradition, while also sending a deserving team to the BCS. And, even in the unlikely event Iowa St, or Missouri should win their division, they would still have to beat the 'best' from the east, or in ohter words, Michigan-Ohio St., would still likely decide who goes, in a 'typical' year.
Think about it, it really would help the Big Ten, from a 'traditional' standpoint, if you're a 'traditionalist'. And I think those teams, Iowa St, and Missouri are good representative teams, at any rate.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:07 pm

There will always be an Ohio State - Michigan game in the B-10. It will always be the last game for both schools. The B-10 won't do anything to upset that rivalry.

Iowa St. and Missouri aren't the same type of schools that the B-10 schools are academically. The B-10 alliances are about more then football and they are about more then athletics. From strictly a sports standpoint Iowa St. and Missouri wouldn't add anything to the conference. If they couldn't make the conference stronger it would be pointless to add them.

I'm not a traditionalist either, but traditionalist do not like change at all. Even if it is seen as positive change they do not like it.

Finally, I am not suggesting that they add conferences, I'm suggesting that they trim teams out of D-1. Trimming around 40% of them would be a good start. I think if D-1A football consisted of 60 teams instead of 119 that the football would be a lot better. The talent wouldn't be so watered down. I would much rather see 60 strong teams.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:11 pm

Spence wrote:There will always be an Ohio State - Michigan game in the B-10. It will always be the last game for both schools. The B-10 won't do anything to upset that rivalry.

Iowa St. and Missouri aren't the same type of schools that the B-10 schools are academically. The B-10 alliances are about more then football and they are about more then athletics. From strictly a sports standpoint Iowa St. and Missouri wouldn't add anything to the conference. If they couldn't make the conference stronger it would be pointless to add them.

I'm not a traditionalist either, but traditionalist do not like change at all. Even if it is seen as positive change they do not like it.

Finally, I am not suggesting that they add conferences, I'm suggesting that they trim teams out of D-1. Trimming around 40% of them would be a good start. I think if D-1A football consisted of 60 teams instead of 119 that the football would be a lot better. The talent wouldn't be so watered down. I would much rather see 60 strong teams.
I agree with you that in general, there are probably more 'respectable' teams in I-A at the 'Championship' level (Big 6). And that's another reason why I think a reconfiguration of teams would give the BCS a more-representative field, than what they have in place now.
I agree that it would be a fairly drastic change, to reconfigure the conferences, but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Twelve-team conferences, in my opinion, work to the advantage of the BCS, from a competitive standpoint. That, combined, with competitive pairings of bowl games, would serve to make the BCS better. That's all I'm after, when it's all said and done, competitive pairings in the bowls.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:11 pm

Your proposal, if I understand it correctly, would force legitimate I-A teams into a I-AA or whatever designation, and I don't like that idea, myself. Teams are I-A because they meet I-A standards, otherwise they wouldn't be represented.


Sure it would take a rule change, but what your proposing would take a rule change also. If you cut down D1 from 119 to about 50 or 60 teams it would be a lot easier to judge who the good teams are, because they would be playing each other to fill their schedule.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests