Why I think we are on the verge of superconferences

zhawkzrule said:
I agree superconferences will be here sooner like it or not. I had posted awhile ago in another thread, I just think its going to be necessary for alot of schools to survive for many reasons, but mostly economically, they will need the revenue sharing from those conference affiliations, football is the main ticket winner and with all the state budget shortfalls and many expense cutting measures schools are having to take, in order for their other sports programs to survive I believe its inevitable we'll see a major super conference affiliation within the next few years.
Click to expand...

That makes sense for a school like Iowa State if they could get an invite. But why would a school like Florida want to see the money they make split up 16 ways instead of 12, 13, or 14? The would only want to see that if the school they are adding is going to bring in more than they take. There just aren't very many schools out there that do that. I am not convinced that Texas A&M is a home run in that regard, but we'll see.

For instance, if the Longhorn Network is successful, I think it makes large conferences less likely. Why would Texas want to share revenue 16 ways when they can keep the lion's share for themselves?

To the OP, most of your points actually argue against the development of superconferences, so I really don't see how anything is more on the verge now than it ever was before.
 
I'm not sure why people hate the super conference idea. You get 4 conferences with 16 or 18 teams apiece. That way you basically create a playoff. Sure you don't play some teams on the other side of your conference, but big deal. You now have 8 teams in your division that you will love to hate.

First round of the 8 team playoff is your conference championship that takes place the beginning of Dec. From there you have the winner of the BIG play the Pac-16 in the Rose Bowl on Jan 1st. and you have the winner of the SEC play the winner of (Last conference standing) in the Sugar Bowl on Jan 1st. Play the championship 2 weeks later between the winner of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. Fill in the blanks with other bowls games, conference championship game losers play, #3 VS #3 in other bowl games, etc.....
 
deanvogs said:
I'm not sure why people hate the super conference idea. You get 4 conferences with 16 or 18 teams apiece. That way you basically create a playoff. Sure you don't play some teams on the other side of your conference, but big deal. You now have 8 teams in your division that you will love to hate.

First round of the 8 team playoff is your conference championship that takes place the beginning of Dec. From there you have the winner of the BIG play the Pac-16 in the Rose Bowl on Jan 1st. and you have the winner of the SEC play the winner of (Last conference standing) in the Sugar Bowl on Jan 1st. Play the championship 2 weeks later between the winner of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. Fill in the blanks with other bowls games, conference championship game losers play, #3 VS #3 in other bowl games, etc.....
Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone likes the superconference idea. I like Big Ten teams and don't want any johnny-come-latelies that I don't care about added in diluting the history of the conference. I don't think playing only half the teams in your conference during the regular season is the best way to determine a true champion. Smaller conferences with teams playing more of their conference-mates each season are better.
 
DwayneTwill said:
I don't understand why anyone likes the superconference idea. I like Big Ten teams and don't want any johnny-come-latelies that I don't care about added in diluting the history of the conference. I don't think playing only half the teams in your conference during the regular season is the best way to determine a true champion. Smaller conferences with teams playing more of their conference-mates each season are better.
Click to expand...

Then you will alway have the same old, same old....Non conference schedule means so much more. You have the same voters, voting the same teams at the top of the polls each and every year.

With super conferences you win your conference division you are one of the 8 in the playoffs! Rankings, BCS, computer, all be dam@ed!

I know it is all what you preferences are, and you will give up some traditions. At the same time can you imagine how epic the new battles would be in your conference knowing that if you win your division, you go to the playoffs?
 
Last edited:
Just had a weird lunch meeting. I am associated with a bottom tier FBS conference team. Boosters from second and third tier conferences have been putting out feelers. But they have no idea what is going to happen.

The guys we met with were from one of the bigger non-BCS conferences. They are gripping.
 
deanvogs said:
Then you will alway have the same old, same old....Non conference schedule means so much more. You have the same voters, voting the same teams at the top of the polls each and every year.

With super conferences you win your conference division you are one of the 8 in the playoffs! Rankings, BCS, computer, all be dam@ed!

I know it is all what you preferences are, and you will give up some traditions. At the same time can you imagine how epic the new battles would be in your conference knowing that if you win your division, you go to the playoffs?
Click to expand...

I disagree with all of this.
 
deanvogs said:
I'm not sure why people hate the super conference idea. You get 4 conferences with 16 or 18 teams apiece. That way you basically create a playoff. Sure you don't play some teams on the other side of your conference, but big deal. You now have 8 teams in your division that you will love to hate.

First round of the 8 team playoff is your conference championship that takes place the beginning of Dec. From there you have the winner of the BIG play the Pac-16 in the Rose Bowl on Jan 1st. and you have the winner of the SEC play the winner of (Last conference standing) in the Sugar Bowl on Jan 1st. Play the championship 2 weeks later between the winner of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. Fill in the blanks with other bowls games, conference championship game losers play, #3 VS #3 in other bowl games, etc.....
Click to expand...

You could implement something very similar to that playoff system right now, and you wouldn't have to blow up the entire college football landscape to do it.

Two other points: there's a difference between hating superconferences and not thinking they are going to happen. Now I happen to do both, but I don't think everyone on here that doesn't think superconferences are going to happen hates them. The just point out that there isn't any logical evidence that suggests that 16-team leagues are in and of themselves superior to 12 or 14 leagues, and that the number of teams that one league has doesn't really affect how many teams another league should have.

Now, to the hate: I like going to away games, I like playing teams that Iowa has a tradition with, I like that in cities like Chicago and Cleveland there is a great mix of Big Ten fans from different schools, I like knowing that college kids don't have to spend every single minute that they aren't practicing for a game on a plane traveling to it. Sure, if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, all of those things would be preserved. I live in New York now, so I would like to see Rutgers for my own selfish reasons. But Maryland? North Carolina? Texas? All of those schools have been tossed around, and even if the financial logic worked (which would only be a slam dunk with Texas), I think the Big Ten would slowly become a loose collection of teams with no real connection or history... kind of like the Big 12 was until it imploded.
 
I agree with alot of Dtwill's points. I still think we are heading for some type of playoff. With some of the lesser bowl games getting axed for lack of revenue with the economy like it is. But still keep some for teams that dont make it into a playoff scenario.
 
olivecourt said:
You could implement something very similar to that playoff system right now, and you wouldn't have to blow up the entire college football landscape to do it.

Two other points: there's a difference between hating superconferences and not thinking they are going to happen. Now I happen to do both, but I don't think everyone on here that doesn't think superconferences are going to happen hates them. The just point out that there isn't any logical evidence that suggests that 16-team leagues are in and of themselves superior to 12 or 14 leagues, and that the number of teams that one league has doesn't really affect how many teams another league should have.

Now, to the hate: I like going to away games, I like playing teams that Iowa has a tradition with, I like that in cities like Chicago and Cleveland there is a great mix of Big Ten fans from different schools, I like knowing that college kids don't have to spend every single minute that they aren't practicing for a game on a plane traveling to it. Sure, if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, all of those things would be preserved. I live in New York now, so I would like to see Rutgers for my own selfish reasons. But Maryland? North Carolina? Texas? All of those schools have been tossed around, and even if the financial logic worked (which would only be a slam dunk with Texas), I think the Big Ten would slowly become a loose collection of teams with no real connection or history... kind of like the Big 12 was until it imploded.
Click to expand...

Cosign.
 
deanvogs said:
Then you will alway have the same old, same old....Non conference schedule means so much more. You have the same voters, voting the same teams at the top of the polls each and every year.

With super conferences you win your conference division you are one of the 8 in the playoffs! Rankings, BCS, computer, all be dam@ed!

I know it is all what you preferences are, and you will give up some traditions. At the same time can you imagine how epic the new battles would be in your conference knowing that if you win your division, you go to the playoffs?
Click to expand...

Right now, starting today, you could put the six BCS conference champions and two wild cards in the exact system you describe. So it's technically a three round playoff, but actually it's four rounds, because the conference championship game would function as a de facto first round for every conference but the Big 12.

The number of teams in each conference has nothing to do with anything. There isn't a playoff right now because bowl officials, the TV networks, and the university presidents and ADs don't want it. When that changes, we'll see a playoff, regardless of how many teams are in each conferences.
 
olivecourt said:
You could implement something very similar to that playoff system right now, and you wouldn't have to blow up the entire college football landscape to do it.

Two other points: there's a difference between hating superconferences and not thinking they are going to happen. Now I happen to do both, but I don't think everyone on here that doesn't think superconferences are going to happen hates them. The just point out that there isn't any logical evidence that suggests that 16-team leagues are in and of themselves superior to 12 or 14 leagues, and that the number of teams that one league has doesn't really affect how many teams another league should have.

Now, to the hate: I like going to away games, I like playing teams that Iowa has a tradition with, I like that in cities like Chicago and Cleveland there is a great mix of Big Ten fans from different schools, I like knowing that college kids don't have to spend every single minute that they aren't practicing for a game on a plane traveling to it. Sure, if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, all of those things would be preserved. I live in New York now, so I would like to see Rutgers for my own selfish reasons. But Maryland? North Carolina? Texas? All of those schools have been tossed around, and even if the financial logic worked (which would only be a slam dunk with Texas), I think the Big Ten would slowly become a loose collection of teams with no real connection or history... kind of like the Big 12 was until it imploded.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with a lot of this. I am not saying I necessarily WANT the super conferences. I'm just saying I don't understand the HATE for them.....
 
olivecourt said:
Right now, starting today, you could put the six BCS conference champions and two wild cards in the exact system you describe. So it's technically a three round playoff, but actually it's four rounds, because the conference championship game would function as a de facto first round for every conference but the Big 12.

The number of teams in each conference has nothing to do with anything. There isn't a playoff right now because bowl officials, the TV networks, and the university presidents and ADs don't want it. When that changes, we'll see a playoff, regardless of how many teams are in each conferences.
Click to expand...

It simply isn't as easy if you aren't counting the conference championships as one of the rounds.....

Plain and simple, a playoff NEVER, EVER, happens the way the conferences are constructed to date.....That is just a simple fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top