Beveaux Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Assuming that the SEC and B1G are going to decide to carve out 48 teams for a non-NCAA football conference, who are the 48? For this exercise, we assume that all the current members are going to be grandfathered in. Assume that leadership is not going to kick anyone out. Assume that no school opts out because of additional financial requirements. SEC needs 8 teams. B1G needs 6 teams. Here are the available teams from next year's Big XII and ACC + Notre Dame. Who is added and where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beveaux Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 (edited) Here's my first draft. SEC keeps to the south and east with neighbor states. B1G mainly populates the west to help out in travel scheduling. Edited February 3 by Beveaux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hashtag Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I think 64 teams makes more sense....48 seems low because you are going to want to factor in basketball tournament as well which is the second biggest cash cow in college sports. I think something like this: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longhornmd Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Question is will non conference games exist? What do you do with the Military academies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerry Hamilton Posted February 4 Moderators Share Posted February 4 On 2/2/2024 at 10:59 PM, Beveaux said: Here's my first draft. SEC keeps to the south and east with neighbor states. B1G mainly populates the west to help out in travel scheduling. Like that one ... just wonder if Duke gets in SEC with UNC ... tough to see them being apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beveaux Posted February 18 Author Share Posted February 18 (edited) 48 teams, not 64. I don't understand why the B1G & SEC would want to split the TV/Bowl/Championship with an additional 16 teams. Chances of a true contender coming out of the additional 16 teams is small. The other "Power 5" teams not in Tier One can create their own championship and have a chance to compete. I think money is the determining factor. Less teams = more per team. The NCAA owns the basketball championship and receives all the money to be doled out to the schools. Edited February 18 by Beveaux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentonhorn Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 I see lawsuits in the future . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glass Joe Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 I just hope the TV barons push the P2 conferences (SEC, B10) to cull the weakest members within their own ranks as part of this process. Grandfathering a school like Vandy makes zero sense in a top 48 structure. Ditto Northwestern. Does the state of Indiana really need 3 teams in the top 48 football programs (ND, Purdue, IU)? Is there really a world where Maryland earns a playoff spot…ever? I’d love to see 3-4 teams culled from the current P2 (Vandy, Nothwestern, one of IU, Maryland, or Rutgers). Then, add 17 schools from the remaining ACC and Big 12, and keep ND “independent” as the 49th team in the top 48. So, effectively, a 48 + 1 structure. I would also strongly emphasize a national footprint consideration in adding schools from the ACC and Big 12, and not so much historical football / brand considerations. From the ACC: FSU, Clemson, UNC, VT, NC State, Louisville, and Miami are seven no-brainers. My “maybe” tier would be: GT, UVA, Pitt From the Big12: Utah, CU, ASU, BYU, Tech, KSU, and Iowa State would be my top 7. All big state schools with 50,000+ annual attendance (typically). My “maybe” list would be TCU, Okie State. As a note: these are football ONLY structures / “conferences” and basketball is a completely separate structure and organizational model. Lastly, I would organize the other ~ 80 schools currently in Division 1 football into 6 “conferences” of 12-13 schools each, align those conferences geographically to approximate the regions of the top 48 schools (themselves divided into 6 divisions of course), and create a biennial relegation structure so that these non-top 48 schools have a mechanism to continue developing their football programs to earn a seat at the big kids table (top 48). There’s no reason a school like Minnesota or Rutgers deserves a permanent $80M membership in the top 48, while a school like Iowa State or Pitt is permanently barred from the top 48 club. Just kicking around an idea but perhaps we have “relegation / play-in” weekend every other year on the third Saturday of December (the CFP teams are off that week), where the best conference record over the preceding two years for each of the 6 “relegated” conferences plays the worst cumulative conference team from each of the six Top 48 divisions? This would rely on regional alignment of the non-top 48 conferences to the Top 48 divisions. For example, Minnesota or Illinois would have to play and beat Okie State or KU to retain its membership in the Top 48 division. If Okie State or KU wins the game, they move up to the Top 48 replacing the loser. And repeat this process every two years. Effectively, you’d be forcing the worst programs of the Top 48 to constantly earn their right to $80M membership at the big kids table while providing a path to the big kids table for the current G5 programs that are serious about their football programs and willing to spend $$ to continue building their programs. I’d guess the TV powers that be would love the idea of the lowest members of the Top 48 to be forced to continually invest in their programs competitiveness, as it assures of the most quality viewing product for TV viewers. Think of the relegation possibilities: UCLA vs Oregon St for a spot in the western division of the Top 48 Illinois vs KU in the Midwest region UCF vs NC State in the Coastal region UH vs A&M in the Southwest region 😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Leininger Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 This is so stupid it's not even worth considering. The SEC and B1G are not going to replace the NCAA because they don't want to deal with the headache of being sued every other day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hookem777 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 7 hours ago, Glass Joe said: I just hope the TV barons push the P2 conferences (SEC, B10) to cull the weakest members within their own ranks as part of this process. Grandfathering a school like Vandy makes zero sense in a top 48 structure. Ditto Northwestern. Does the state of Indiana really need 3 teams in the top 48 football programs (ND, Purdue, IU)? Is there really a world where Maryland earns a playoff spot…ever? I’d love to see 3-4 teams culled from the current P2 (Vandy, Nothwestern, one of IU, Maryland, or Rutgers). Then, add 17 schools from the remaining ACC and Big 12, and keep ND “independent” as the 49th team in the top 48. So, effectively, a 48 + 1 structure. I would also strongly emphasize a national footprint consideration in adding schools from the ACC and Big 12, and not so much historical football / brand considerations. From the ACC: FSU, Clemson, UNC, VT, NC State, Louisville, and Miami are seven no-brainers. My “maybe” tier would be: GT, UVA, Pitt From the Big12: Utah, CU, ASU, BYU, Tech, KSU, and Iowa State would be my top 7. All big state schools with 50,000+ annual attendance (typically). My “maybe” list would be TCU, Okie State. As a note: these are football ONLY structures / “conferences” and basketball is a completely separate structure and organizational model. Lastly, I would organize the other ~ 80 schools currently in Division 1 football into 6 “conferences” of 12-13 schools each, align those conferences geographically to approximate the regions of the top 48 schools (themselves divided into 6 divisions of course), and create a biennial relegation structure so that these non-top 48 schools have a mechanism to continue developing their football programs to earn a seat at the big kids table (top 48). There’s no reason a school like Minnesota or Rutgers deserves a permanent $80M membership in the top 48, while a school like Iowa State or Pitt is permanently barred from the top 48 club. Just kicking around an idea but perhaps we have “relegation / play-in” weekend every other year on the third Saturday of December (the CFP teams are off that week), where the best conference record over the preceding two years for each of the 6 “relegated” conferences plays the worst cumulative conference team from each of the six Top 48 divisions? This would rely on regional alignment of the non-top 48 conferences to the Top 48 divisions. For example, Minnesota or Illinois would have to play and beat Okie State or KU to retain its membership in the Top 48 division. If Okie State or KU wins the game, they move up to the Top 48 replacing the loser. And repeat this process every two years. Effectively, you’d be forcing the worst programs of the Top 48 to constantly earn their right to $80M membership at the big kids table while providing a path to the big kids table for the current G5 programs that are serious about their football programs and willing to spend $$ to continue building their programs. I’d guess the TV powers that be would love the idea of the lowest members of the Top 48 to be forced to continually invest in their programs competitiveness, as it assures of the most quality viewing product for TV viewers. Think of the relegation possibilities: UCLA vs Oregon St for a spot in the western division of the Top 48 Illinois vs KU in the Midwest region UCF vs NC State in the Coastal region UH vs A&M in the Southwest region 😂😂 Why have college football at this point? A lot of the smaller teams aren't going to be able to survive monetarily once ESPN is going to overpay for this and they can't afford to televise smaller conferences. No longer have any OOC games where they get played paid to get there butts beat (well except App St 🙂 ). Plus you might as well just call this the NFL minor league imo as it's no longer college football. A lot of rivalries will be gone and a lot of the mystique and draw of college sports well decline imo. Money and greed is the downfall of college football imo as we are already seeing it. If it ramps up like this, I have a feeling it's going to turn some fans off, myself includes, like certain professional leagues have imo. Sure the money will be there but after awhile it won't as younger generations have less draw, as we see in some professional leagues, for multitude of reason including it not having it's luster like it used to have with the older generations imo. Could be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hashtag Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) 21 hours ago, Beveaux said: 48 teams, not 64. I don't understand why the B1G & SEC would want to split the TV/Bowl/Championship with an additional 16 teams. Chances of a true contender coming out of the additional 16 teams is small. The other "Power 5" teams not in Tier One can create their own championship and have a chance to compete. I think money is the determining factor. Less teams = more per team. The NCAA owns the basketball championship and receives all the money to be doled out to the schools. In this new setup, bowls would cease to exist and there would be a 8-16 team playoff only IMO. You're also going to want to field a great basketball tournament because march madness is a HUGE money maker as well. You don't get that with just 48 teams. Edited February 19 by Hashtag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.962839b4196f7fc30f904f2feab8495a.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.