18, 20 or 24 teams?

[NorthKCHawk]

I am fine staying at 18 teams. You have one protected rival, and rotate the other 16 teams every other year. 9 game conference schedule, leaves room for non-con home and home games against another power 5. Also likely ensures there are 4 power conferences (albeit 2 of them are clearly lesser).

20 is the next option. 4 divisions of 5 teams. You play your division every year and rotate the other divisions once every three years. (You could also do 5 pods of 4 teams, but its a bit messier). This model maximizes regional rivalries, while ensuring every class plays every team in the conference at least once. Not sure how you would do the conference championship. Semi-final and then final, or just pick the best two division winners?

24. Least favorite. I think if we go to 24 we are basically moving to the NFL model. The Big 10 is one conference. SEC, raid what you want to get to 24 and you are the other conference. Our champs meet for the national title. I think you would have to do 6 pods of 4 teams. You play the other 3 teams every year and rotate. I would probably move to an 11 game conference schedule and rotate playing 2 other pods every year. Its messy. But, at this point the conference is so big, you are basically just playing your conference.

Given my affinity for regional rivalries, flexible non-conference scheduling, and smaller pods giving each school a goal (let's win the North!), I think 20 teams is probably the sweet spot for me. You?

 

[Hawkfnntn]

My guess is they end up going 20... Maybe not in the next yr or so but within 5. I don't think the door is closed on ND yet and pick your southern team. Be it a NC SC or FL school. I think that's the final frontier for where they'd like to get another team.. But it's anyones guess what'll happen it's all wild

 

[Hawkboys]

20 is the short term goal (next decade), but there will ultimately be 3 24 team leagues for football at least. It wouldn't surprise in the least that we end up with a CFB 2 tier relegation system where the top TV deals are for the top 24 or 32 teams

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I love the concept of relegation. Imagine being able to boot NW and Nebraska out of the conference and replacing them with the winner of the Big 12 and Pac 12???? Its a fun concept, but the Conference affiliations are so deeply entrenched I don't see this happening. Right now, the Conferences are the power brokers in college football, so I don't see anything derailing that in the near term. That said, who saw NIL and conference realigments coming a decade ago?

 

[guffus]

I think 16 is a good limit. A conference gets bigger than 16 and schools start thinking about splitting the conference in half between the Big boys and the dead weight. If the Big Ten ever grows to 24, I could see it lasting only about 6 years before the conference splits in 2.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I think 16 is a good limit. A conference gets bigger than 16 and schools start thinking about splitting the conference in half between the Big boys and the dead weight. If the Big Ten ever grows to 24, I could see it lasting only about 6 years before the conference splits in 2.

This is definitely foreseeable. "Good news, we're up to 24." Few years later: "Hey football purists, did you think the Big Ten got too big? Great news, we're scaling it back down to 12!"

 

[guffus]

This is definitely foreseeable. "Good news, we're up to 24." Few years later: "Hey football purists, did you think the Big Ten got too big? Great news, we're scaling it back down to 12!"

Yup
Step 1: add USC, UCLA, Wash, ore, go to 18

Step 2: Add ND, UNC, VA, FSU, go to 22

Step 3: split into 2 conferences

Haves
Ohio St, Mich, PSU, Wisc, Neb, Iowa, ND, UNC, VA, FSU, USC, UCLA, Ore, Wash

Have nots
ILL, Ind, Pur, Minn, NW, Mich St, MD, Rut

 

[CP87]

Yup
Step 1: add USC, UCLA, Wash, ore, go to 18

Step 2: Add ND, UNC, VA, FSU, go to 22

Step 3: split into 2 conferences

Haves
Ohio St, Mich, PSU, Wisc, Neb, Iowa, ND, UNC, VA, FSU, USC, UCLA, Ore, Wash

Have nots
ILL, Ind, Pur, Minn, NW, Mich St, MD, Rut

Iowa in the haves is pretty optimistic. They certainly could be there, but it wouldn't take much for them to flip places with Ill, Minn, or Mich St.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

It would be interesting if conferences decided to cut out the bottom dwellers. The Northwesters, Rutgers type of schools. They probably won't for quite awhile because they still provide games on tv for content. OSU and Michigan can't play each other every week they need their cupcakes too. So schools like Vandy won't get kicked out of the SEC anytime soon and it is what it is. Bigger is better... Till it isn't..

 

[Hawkboys]

It would be interesting if conferences decided to cut out the bottom dwellers. The Northwesters, Rutgers type of schools. They probably won't for quite awhile because they still provide games on tv for content. OSU and Michigan can't play each other every week they need their cupcakes too. So schools like Vandy won't get kicked out of the SEC anytime soon and it is what it is. Bigger is better... Till it isn't..

I don't think the Big Ten or SEC will ever cut out the bottom dwellers. I do see the top 4 of 5 schools of the B1G join with the top 4 or 5 of the SEC along with a few ACC schools and create 1 top tier football conference that monopolizes the TV contracts.

 

[HawkeyezBull]

I don't think the Big Ten or SEC will ever cut out the bottom dwellers. I do see the top 4 of 5 schools of the B1G join with the top 4 or 5 of the SEC along with a few ACC schools and create 1 top tier football conference that monopolizes the TV contracts.

Two things they need regional affiliations, which is why Major Sports leagues also divide by geography so all areas are represented and interested when the playoffs hit.

2nd lower tier teams prop up the records and cache of the top teams

3rd and more likely College Football jumps the shark and actually challenges the NFL with contracts and everything that comes with the game. I could see it actually being a challenger to the NFL longer term.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Two things they need regional affiliations, which is why Major Sports leagues also divide by geography so all areas are represented and interested when the playoffs hit.

2nd lower tier teams prop up the records and cache of the top teams

3rd and more likely College Football jumps the shark and actually challenges the NFL with contracts and everything that comes with the game. I could see it actually being a challenger to the NFL longer term.

I'd heard an argument on a podcast having been made in regards to the whole geography of it all. So say some years going forward that the SEC is just stupid dominant. With like 8 of the top 10 teams or something like that. Say they get 10 of the 16 teams into the playoffs or whatever. The thought process that sort of thing happening could be is that regionally much of the country could just tune out of those games. Yeah they are the better/good teams but why would any schools fans west of the Mississippi or north of the Mason Dixon line care? They can pay more attention the NFL instead that time of yr.

I can't say if it's a thing that'll for sure happen but maybe it could. If it did that'd just bring on a level of apathy/disinterest nationwide that would be counterintuitive to what their goals outta be. Hard to see the future

 

[SwirlinLingerie]

I hate it all. I think the past couple weeks have been super sad days for college football fans. The whole charm of the sport is the tradition and rivalries, fueled primarily by geographic groupings of teams. And then the contrast of those traditions/styles with other teams from other geographies.

What we're rapidly approaching is NFL lite - similar vibe but just a lower quality of football.

At this point, I think everyone would be better off if all the non-football teams reverted to traditional conferences with close geographic proximity (so may as well extract Rutgers and Maryland, maybe even Penn State).

And then remove high end college football from the NCAA. Not everyone needs to join. Maybe Boise State goes all in, but a Northwestern or Cal says it's not for them. Have a commissioner run it and negotiate the TV deals. Make the players employees and all that goes with that.

Organize the teams into geographic divisions as much as possible. Hopefully Iowa lands in a division with Wisconsin and Minnesota. More likely Missouri is in the division than Ohio State and Michigan though.

Maybe you even throw a bone to the old school college football types (like us?) and continue a Top 25 ranking or something. After the division winners and wild card teams, the top 2 ranked teams not making the wild card also join the playoffs.

If fans are upset with the NFL lite model, miss watching the traditional rivalries every year, and don't enjoy going 11-5 in the regular season (looking at you Alabama and Ohio State fans), then maybe we finally talk about going back to the traditional 10 team geographic conferences.

 

[HuckFinn]

I don't think the Big Ten or SEC will ever cut out the bottom dwellers. I do see the top 4 of 5 schools of the B1G join with the top 4 or 5 of the SEC along with a few ACC schools and create 1 top tier football conference that monopolizes the TV contracts.

We better not. That would end college football.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I agree with the post about the national audience tuning out if the SEC is essentially the only game in town, or if one superconference of 20ish teams is formed. One needs to look at the slow demise of baseball. It started with TV moving the playoffs and world series games to time slots that no kid under 15 could stay up and watch. Hard to hook the next generation when they are asleep in bed. But, the lack of a salary cap and otherwise competitive balance meant that for the most part, the same 6-8 teams were the only ones with a real shot. And, they are all on the East or West coast. Yes, the Royals slipped in their for one big one, and I was a huge fan of baseball during that stretch, but my interest in baseball has faded. Its close to impossible for midwestern market teams to regularly compete these days. Even the Cardinals have fallen off. Baseball has become a very regional sport.

College football could go the same way if they cannot figure out a way to inject some parity in NIL/recruiting, and make certain that the North can stay competitive with the South.

Honestly, the simplest solution is largely to keep them separated until the finals. Let the Northern teams (Big 10) play each other and crown a champ, and play the Southern team (SEC) champ for all the marbles. The worst championship game ever was the Alabama and Georgia rematch. Didn't even watch.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I agree with the post about the national audience tuning out if the SEC is essentially the only game in town, or if one superconference of 20ish teams is formed. One needs to look at the slow demise of baseball. It started with TV moving the playoffs and world series games to time slots that no kid under 15 could stay up and watch. Hard to hook the next generation when they are asleep in bed. But, the lack of a salary cap and otherwise competitive balance meant that for the most part, the same 6-8 teams were the only ones with a real shot. And, they are all on the East or West coast. Yes, the Royals slipped in their for one big one, and I was a huge fan of baseball during that stretch, but my interest in baseball has faded. Its close to impossible for midwestern market teams to regularly compete these days. Even the Cardinals have fallen off. Baseball has become a very regional sport.

College football could go the same way if they cannot figure out a way to inject some parity in NIL/recruiting, and make certain that the North can stay competitive with the South.

Honestly, the simplest solution is largely to keep them separated until the finals. Let the Northern teams (Big 10) play each other and crown a champ, and play the Southern team (SEC) champ for all the marbles. The worst championship game ever was the Alabama and Georgia rematch. Didn't even watch.

I think football will go the way of boxing. It will still be around, but the popularity has already peaked and is falling. Putting Big Ten games on Peacock is like when they started moving all the big boxing matches to PPV. You can boost the money in the system, but you absolutely destroy the long-term viability of the sport because a bunch of kids don't start watching it. When I was a kid everyone knew Mike Tyson (who really began to usher in PPV), but I'll bet most people can't answer who the heavyweight champion of the world is right now.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Sports in general are slowly waning. Just about anything is hard to compete with the internet connected phone in young people's hands. That said, I see football hanging on as king for the foreseeable future in sports. What is going to replace it? Soccer? Its growing, but not in my lifetime. Basketball? NBA is not far off from MLB. Casual fans do not tune in until the playoffs, at best. Fighting and hockey will always be niche sports because of the violence and lack of widespread youth participation.

What may ultimately kill football is losing the feeder system. High school football will slowly wane as parents question the danger and high schools weigh interest and liability. That said, again, I don't see that for a while. High school football remains a staple in large swaths of this country, especially the South and rust belt.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Sports in general are slowly waning. Just about anything is hard to compete with the internet connected phone in young people's hands. That said, I see football hanging on as king for the foreseeable future in sports. What is going to replace it? Soccer? Its growing, but not in my lifetime. Basketball? NBA is not far off from MLB. Casual fans do not tune in until the playoffs, at best. Fighting and hockey will always be niche sports because of the violence and lack of widespread youth participation.

What may ultimately kill football is losing the feeder system. High school football will slowly wane as parents question the danger and high schools weigh interest and liability. That said, again, I don't see that for a while. High school football remains a staple in large swaths of this country, especially the South and rust belt.

When five southern schools win every championship for two decades you will see football's popularity wane more nationally. Ohio has won two this century, no one else from the north has even been close. Hell, even they're almost a decade removed from their last one. The demographic shift south has been immense and between population collapse and diminishing participation rates, it won't be long until teams from the midwest look completely unfit to share the field with southern teams.

Football will be king, but it will be smaller in most places. The new immigrants will decide what sports prevail, not old dudes like us.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I don't think the Big Ten or SEC will ever cut out the bottom dwellers. I do see the top 4 of 5 schools of the B1G join with the top 4 or 5 of the SEC along with a few ACC schools and create 1 top tier football conference that monopolizes the TV contracts.

I agree. Conferences are never going to axe a team because of performance on the field/court. The only time they would, would be if a university did something so egregious. To put into perspective, Penn St wasn't even close to being booted out. Baylor wasn't either.

Nothing gets more egregious than Penn St for gawds sake. This talk above by others is just silly.

Plus, do people really think about all the moving parts with adding or subtracting a university/college. It's never going to be willy nilly like choosing off a menu.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I think football will go the way of boxing. It will still be around, but the popularity has already peaked and is falling. Putting Big Ten games on Peacock is like when they started moving all the big boxing matches to PPV. You can boost the money in the system, but you absolutely destroy the long-term viability of the sport because a bunch of kids don't start watching it. When I was a kid everyone knew Mike Tyson (who really began to usher in PPV), but I'll bet most people can't answer who the heavyweight champion of the world is right now.

I have said this for years to many people that PPV absolutely killed boxing. I even started a thread here or when Jon had the site. PPV brought more $$ but less eyes on the sport. I along with many didn't fork over the $60 to view fights. Since I stopped watching the sport, my interest went down then I couldn't relate to any of the boxers over time. If I don't know who the hell the boxers are, how am I supposed to be interested or connect to the sport?

Fights used to be on TV like on Saturdays and ESECPN had Thursday night fights. I think ABC used to have major championship fights on Saturdays or the weekend. Then every boxer wanted to get paid. Once PPV started, boxing went by the wayside. Once MMA came along, interest really declined. MMA is prob going to go down the same path but it actually might be fine, as the younger generations will accept PPV better, because that is all they know.

I can't name more than 3 damn boxers now. Is Vinny Pazienza still boxing?