What's new
By:

College Football Conferenece Expansion

While I'm against a Pac 16 on the merit that I hate the idea of superconferences, I would have to admit that a pod system in the Pac 16 would be much better for Utah than simply spliiting it into West/East divisions. If Utah was in a pod with the Arizonas and Colorado, one could make the argument that they're the best program in their pod.

However, I'd be interested to see how they determined the 2 schools who would play in the Pac championship each year. If you had 4 pod winners with only 1 loss each, whats the tie breakers? Each year there would be 6 PAC schools you didn't play, obviously making it tougher for head-to-head tie breakers and the like.
 
jazzman12 said:
While I'm against a Pac 16 on the merit that I hate the idea of superconferences, I would have to admit that a pod system in the Pac 16 would be much better for Utah than simply spliiting it into West/East divisions. If Utah was in a pod with the Arizonas and Colorado, one could make the argument that they're the best program in their pod.

However, I'd be interested to see how they determined the 2 schools who would play in the Pac championship each year. If you had 4 pod winners with only 1 loss each, whats the tie breakers? Each year there would be 6 PAC schools you didn't play, obviously making it tougher for head-to-head tie breakers and the like.
Click to expand...

My guess is there would be some sort of playoff. The 4 pod winners play a conference semifinal against each other, with the winners playing in the conference championship game.
 
SaltyDawg said:
My guess is there would be some sort of playoff. The 4 pod winners play a conference semifinal against each other, with the winners playing in the conference championship game.
Click to expand...

Under that scenario you'd be asking the 2 teams that end up making it to the Pac final to play 14 total games in a season once you factor in their bowl. I don't think that's going to fly. Not to mention the scheduling problems created by trying to fit in an extra week for semifinal games.

My best guess that in the event of a 3 or 4 team tie, the PAC would use BCS rankings and take the 2 highest.
 
jazzman12 said:
Under that scenario you'd be asking the 2 teams that end up making it to the Pac final to play 14 total games in a season once you factor in their bowl. I don't think that's going to fly. Not to mention the scheduling problems created by trying to fit in an extra week for semifinal games.

My best guess that in the event of a 3 or 4 team tie, the PAC would use BCS rankings and take the 2 highest.
Click to expand...
Well the rules for the conference championship game dictate that 2 division champions play in the championship game. So the pods would likely to be some sort of subdivisions. Each 2 would play for the division champion, and the 2 divisions play for the conference championship.

I don't think playing an extra game will be a big deal. Nobody was concerned with the extra game a conference championship brings. I think if the money works, the schedule will be acceptable. And if the money doesn't work, they obviously won't expand the conference.
 
Looks like Texas and Oklahoma put the wheels in motion to apply for the Pac 12 today (and take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them). Both of them got approval from their boards.
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/...ners-texas-longhorns-ok-presidents-act-pac-12

Also looks like whatever is left after the fallout from the Big 12 and Big East will merge:
https://espn.go.com/college-footbal...st-big-12-talking-possible-merger-report-says

Looks like BYU will be left out when all the dust settles. The Big 12 was basically their only hope, and the Big 12 appears to be dead.
 
If the Big East and Big 12 shattered remains merge, then yes, it's not looking good for BYU, since the the Big Tweast wouldn't want such a western school. The Big Tweast will need some more members, but will likely take from Conf. USA to get 'em.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Well the rules for the conference championship game dictate that 2 division champions play in the championship game. So the pods would likely to be some sort of subdivisions. Each 2 would play for the division champion, and the 2 divisions play for the conference championship.

I don't think playing an extra game will be a big deal. Nobody was concerned with the extra game a conference championship brings. I think if the money works, the schedule will be acceptable. And if the money doesn't work, they obviously won't expand the conference.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the NCAA may limit the number of games a school can play.
 
But what about the poor innocent kids?

hasn't that been the excuse for maintaining systems like the BCS for years?

The poor kids can't travel such long distances! They'll miss too much school! Playoffs would occur around finals week and it's unfair for them to compete in playoffs during important tests!

Playoff for a 16 team conference? But I thought we didn't have enough time for playoffs! Ohhh the poor kids!!

Now all of a sudden, there's a ton of gold to be made. To hell with the kids, their time, travel, cost, and studies! MONEY MONEY MONEY! lol....

I'm sorry man, but college football is becoming more and more disgusting to me. I'm losing interest in it by the day. Big schools get off easy with breaking the rules, while a team like Boise St. gets hit.
college Presidents throw their weight around and make waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much.
Conference expansion that ruins rivalries.
Double standards.
The most corrupt and utterly asinine ranking system in all of sports.
Texas throwing their weight around (and everyone bending over for them). This would be like Jerry Jones asking for his Cowboy team to always play in the super bowl or else he'd stop playing (and the NFL bending over to accommodate). Ridiculous.
The corruption... The greed....

The NCAA makes the NBA look like a bunch of saints. Compared to what these corrupt Presidents and ADs are doing, they make Kobe Bryant actually look like a good person. Unbelievable.
 
As strange as it might sound, I'm wondering if BYU would be interested if the MWC and Conference USA decided to merge. BYU would carry enough cache that the new conference would probably let them keep part of their own TV deal, the new conference would certainly get a better TV deal than current MWC deal, and Boise St would probably be included.

Just my opinion, but BYU is better off in a conference with the likes of Boise, Louisville and the like over independence.
 
Just split the 120 teams into 3 - 40 league conferences

15 from each move up and down each year

Top Conference gets X money from TV rights - 2nd conference gets X - 3rd gets X

Playoff of the top 8 teams in the top league every year - remaining teams get bowl games that are above .500 like it is now.

Sounds a lot like soccer in Europe but makes a WHOLE lot of sense to me. The rivalry is dead for most teams anyways with all this switching so why not give us what we want!
 
jazzman12 said:
As strange as it might sound, I'm wondering if BYU would be interested if the MWC and Conference USA decided to merge. BYU would carry enough cache that the new conference would probably let them keep part of their own TV deal, the new conference would certainly get a better TV deal than current MWC deal, and Boise St would probably be included.

Just my opinion, but BYU is better off in a conference with the likes of Boise, Louisville and the like over independence.
Click to expand...
I don't think they are talking about merging in the typical sense. They are just talking about playing a championship game with the winner getting a BCS bid. So BYU would either have to hope CUSA wanted them, or go crawling back to the MWC with their tail between their legs (and hope the MWC wanted them).
 
Serious question, but do we even want a huge playoff system where Utah might have to face OU, USC, Oregon, Texas, etc?

I've been wanting a decent playoff system for quite some time. But this seems a bit too drastic.

In my mind, it would be like the NBA determining the championships by rankings. Dumb.
And then going from there, to putting a playoff system together where the Jazz have to play the Mavs, Lakers, Heat, Spurs, Thunder, and Celtics en route for a championship.

I can't help but wonder that this will (only) favor the biggest most powerful schools that have 2-3 deep at every single position.

As good as Utah, TCU, and Boise have been this decade. I doubt they would have lasted if they would have played in a long war of attrition playoff system. Eventually someone would have gotten injured. Eventually Alex Smith or Brian Johnson would have worn down.

Texas, USC, etc could wear down too. But they're typically much deeper and usually more talented than everyone else.

The super conference thing is similar to that of our own modern economics. You "think" that you're getting a better deal and that more competition would be a good thing. But instead, what you might end up getting, is a few monopolies that become "too big to fail" who end up ruling everything.

If I'm a Utah fan, I don't think I like the direction of this... As it stands right now, you have an excellent chance of playing in the Rose Bowl. Even after USC comes off probation, you'll have an excellent shot. Your schedule has enough softies to not wear you down. But has plenty of good/well recognized teams that make things entertaining.

However, once other bigs come into the conference... Yikes...

War of Attrition...

And a handful of biggies will rule everything.

Actually, if I'm anything other than a Florida, LSU, Texas, USC, Bama, and maybe Ohio St. I'm not liking the direction college football is going in.

Of course, schools like Washington, Texas Tech, Utah, etc might never really care about being good enough to compete but never good/deep enough to all out win it. The bigs will bring in a ton of revenue. Once that revenue is shared, everyone will benefit. This is great for college Presidents.

But is it good for the fans?
 
The Thriller said:
Serious question, but do we even want a huge playoff system where Utah might have to face OU, USC, Oregon, Texas, etc?

I've been wanting a decent playoff system for quite some time. But this seems a bit too drastic.

In my mind, it would be like the NBA determining the championships by rankings. Dumb.
And then going from there, to putting a playoff system together where the Jazz have to play the Mavs, Lakers, Heat, Spurs, Thunder, and Celtics en route for a championship.

I can't help but wonder that this will (only) favor the biggest most powerful schools that have 2-3 deep at every single position.

As good as Utah, TCU, and Boise have been this decade. I doubt they would have lasted if they would have played in a long war of attrition playoff system. Eventually someone would have gotten injured. Eventually Alex Smith or Brian Johnson would have worn down.

Texas, USC, etc could wear down too. But they're typically much deeper and usually more talented than everyone else.

The super conference thing is similar to that of our own modern economics. You "think" that you're getting a better deal and that more competition would be a good thing. But instead, what you might end up getting, is a few monopolies that become "too big to fail" who end up ruling everything.

If I'm a Utah fan, I don't think I like the direction of this... As it stands right now, you have an excellent chance of playing in the Rose Bowl. Even after USC comes off probation, you'll have an excellent shot. Your schedule has enough softies to not wear you down. But has plenty of good/well recognized teams that make things entertaining.

However, once other bigs come into the conference... Yikes...

War of Attrition...

And a handful of biggies will rule everything.

Actually, if I'm anything other than a Florida, LSU, Texas, USC, Bama, and maybe Ohio St. I'm not liking the direction college football is going in.
Click to expand...
I am all for a playoff system. I don't like the idea of superconferences though. Not because I don't think Utah can hang. But because if I decide to go on a road trip for a big game, I would rather go to great (and close) cities like LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, or Eugene, than (far away) crap holes like Norman, Stillwater, or Lubbock.

I don't really care how good a football program is. Nobody is on top forever. As good as Texas may be today, they will eventually be bad. As bad as Washington State is today, they will eventually be good. Everyone has their ups and downs.

And you can bet that Utah will get the depth required to compete. Now that they are on an even playing field when it comes to recruiting, they will start getting the same caliber of players. If they don't, then it's time to fire whoever is doing the recruiting and bring someone else in. I don't think that's an issue though. Utah is only 3 games into their first season as a BCS school and they are already getting recruits they wouldn't have previously. After 3 years or so Utah should be right up there with any other BCS team as far as depth goes.
 
Looks like Missouri is headed to the SEC to become their 14th team along with Texas A&M. Oklahoma reportedly saying that they will stay with the Big 12 is and only if huge conditions are met. Dan Beebe(Commissioner) needs to be fired. They weren't happy with how he handled the departures of Nebraska and Texas A&M. They also want to have the Longhorn Network modified. We'll see what happens.

https://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6997737/oklahoma-consider-staying-big-12-wants-reform-according-report
 
This **** is a ****ing nightmare. The rich and their ****ing money, Jesus Christ.

All of these schools shuffling is the equivalent of ****ting where you eat. You can draw parallels to this and the greed that builds and topples economies (hint, this is more the former than it is the latter).

I am still all about a playoff. If that's an advantage for the most talented teams, so be it. I want an actual champion for the first time ever already.
 
Well I'm glad the PAC 12 rejected the expansion. Great news for Ute fans. We don't have to worry about Texas destroying our conference the way they did the Big 12, we don't have to be concerned with traveling to crappy cities in Oklahoma for big games, and we can officially put to rest that the conference would rather have Texas than Utah.

We're still in a prestigious conference with great cities to visit, stable, Rose Bowl, great TV deal, etc. Just great news all around for Ute fans.

Now all the BYU fans that talked crap about the PAC preferring Texas can pray that BYU somehow gets into the Big 12. Pretty sure they won't mention that if the PAC wanted Texas or Oklahoma, the Big 12 would be dead. Probably won't hear much about Texas being a cancer that basically destroyed the Big 12 either. And probably won't hear much about how crappy it will be to travel to any of those cities for big games either.

Unless BYU doesn't get in, of course. Then we'll probably hear all about how bad it would have been and how they prefer to stay independent.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Well I'm glad the PAC 12 rejected the expansion. Great news for Ute fans. We don't have to worry about Texas destroying our conference the way they did the Big 12, we don't have to be concerned with traveling to crappy cities in Oklahoma for big games, and we can officially put to rest that the conference would rather have Texas than Utah.

We're still in a prestigious conference with great cities to visit, stable, Rose Bowl, great TV deal, etc. Just great news all around for Ute fans.

Now all the BYU fans that talked crap about the PAC preferring Texas can pray that BYU somehow gets into the Big 12. Pretty sure they won't mention that if the PAC wanted Texas or Oklahoma, the Big 12 would be dead. Probably won't hear much about Texas being a cancer that basically destroyed the Big 12 either. And probably won't hear much about how crappy it will be to travel to any of those cities for big games either.

Unless BYU doesn't get in, of course. Then we'll probably hear all about how bad it would have been and how they prefer to stay independent.
Click to expand...

The PAC12 formerly 10 did want Texas more than Utah at the time last year. This year there are a lot more headaches involved including the Longhorn Network. We'll see if this plays out even more and the PAC12 changes their mind.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Well I'm glad the PAC 12 rejected the expansion. Great news for Ute fans. We don't have to worry about Texas destroying our conference the way they did the Big 12, we don't have to be concerned with traveling to crappy cities in Oklahoma for big games, and we can officially put to rest that the conference would rather have Texas than Utah.

We're still in a prestigious conference with great cities to visit, stable, Rose Bowl, great TV deal, etc. Just great news all around for Ute fans.

Now all the BYU fans that talked crap about the PAC preferring Texas can pray that BYU somehow gets into the Big 12. Pretty sure they won't mention that if the PAC wanted Texas or Oklahoma, the Big 12 would be dead. Probably won't hear much about Texas being a cancer that basically destroyed the Big 12 either. And probably won't hear much about how crappy it will be to travel to any of those cities for big games either.

Unless BYU doesn't get in, of course. Then we'll probably hear all about how bad it would have been and how they prefer to stay independent.
Click to expand...

Being stuck in the MWC or being Independent isn't as good as being in the Big 12 with Texas throwing their weight around.

So I still think that BYU, Boise, Utah St. Fresno St, or basically any mid major would jump at the chance to join the Big 12.

Think of it this way, if BYU were in the PAC, and Utah in the MWC or Independent, you'd jump at the chance to go into the Big 12 (even if it meant dealing with the arrogant longhorns).
 
The Thriller said:
Being stuck in the MWC or being Independent isn't as good as being in the Big 12 with Texas throwing their weight around.

So I still think that BYU, Boise, Utah St. Fresno St, or basically any mid major would jump at the chance to join the Big 12.

Think of it this way, if BYU were in the PAC, and Utah in the MWC or Independent, you'd jump at the chance to go into the Big 12 (even if it meant dealing with the arrogant longhorns).
Click to expand...

BYU might get their chance now. We'll see what happens with the BIG 12, but they were on the shortlist of invitees to the conference. Pitt was at the top according to reports, but they are on their way to the ACC. If the BIG 12 stays together then I fully expect BYU to get an invite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top