Why I think we are on the verge of superconferences

deanvogs said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Because I don't want to add Mizzou/Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse so that we can play those teams that we don't really care about and have Penn State visit Kinnick stadium once per decade. If you don't understand the HATE, I honestly don't think you are much of a college football fan. If your entire goal is a pretty playoff, go watch the NFL.

I think its idiotic to push for superconferences as a way to get a playoff. You can very easily slap together an 8 team playoff.
 
ICHawk24 said:
Because I don't want to add Mizzou/Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse so that we can play those teams that we don't really care about and have Penn State visit Kinnick stadium once per decade.
Click to expand...

Also, this is probably the best explanation I've seen to accurately describe the suckitude of a "super" conference.
 
DwayneTwill said:
Why not. There's no reason they couldn't, in a system just like olivecourt laid out.
Click to expand...

The closest we could ever get in the current system would be a +1.....which would be an improvement in my mind.

Like I said guys, this is just what I think, don't get all offended by it. I love college football more than anything, and everyone has an opinion. I think the current system is great, but has faults....just as super conference would be great, but would have faults.
 
ICHawk24 said:
Because I don't want to add Mizzou/Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse so that we can play those teams that we don't really care about and have Penn State visit Kinnick stadium once per decade. If you don't understand the HATE, I honestly don't think you are much of a college football fan. If your entire goal is a pretty playoff, go watch the NFL.

I think its idiotic to push for superconferences as a way to get a playoff. You can very easily slap together an 8 team playoff.
Click to expand...

Dude, back off....Just because I can see the positive of a super conference and you can't doesn't mean I'm not a college football fan.....

Like I said, I'm not rooting one way or another. I just understand that we will NEVER, EVER have a playoff without super conferences. Therefore I am torn, as I'd like to see a playoff....

I'm not saying theoretically we couldn't have a playoff....I'm just saying that it would never come about under the current system.
 
It's not coming about in the current setup because the schools don't want it, not because it's impossible under the current circumstances. If anyone wanted it, it would happen, "super"conferences or not. There's no reason it couldn't.
 
olivecourt said:
With our current system, why couldn't the six BCS conference champions and two wild cards be in a playoff?
Click to expand...

How do you pick the 2 wildcards? The conference championship losers? Or do you jump them or take teams that didn't even win their division?

Like I said in theory you could....but do you honestly think that the brain trust that gave us the BCS, or going to do something like this??
 
I agree with a lot of what is said in this thread. Super conferences remove one of the best things about college football - traditional rivalries and games. How many years did Iowa play Illinois? How many years will it be between games now, let alone with 16 team conferences? Screw it, if 16 team conferences is good, and we don't care about traditional rivalries, we should form a National College Football League (NCFL), make an ACFC and and NCFC, with four divisions of 8 teams (for example, the ACFC West) and then we can make huge bank from people buying the NCFL Saturday Ticket.

I understand super conferences are probably coming. I'm aware there probably are some advantages. It's such a ridiculous money grab though that it just irks me. Frankly I think we really start to see a push for removing college athletics' tax breaks like Grassley was talking about a few years ago.
 
Wildcards are not a good idea. One of the ideas floating at the meeting today was aligning all the non major Superconference leftovers into one huge four region conference with a two week playoff for the championship. The guy who brought that up actually said he thought that would get the champ a spot in the NC playoff.

Desperate times lead to irrational thoughts.
 
deanvogs said:
How do you pick the 2 wildcards? The conference championship losers? Or do you jump them or take teams that didn't even win their division?

Like I said in theory you could....but do you honestly think that the brain trust that gave us the BCS, or going to do something like this??
Click to expand...

There are any number of ways to do it-- you could use the highest ranking BCS teams that didn't win a conference, for instance (kind of how the BCS for the at-large bowl slots). We already pick 10 teams at the end of the year to play in BCS games-- why is it any more difficult to pick 8?

But as you say, it's the brain trust (bowl officials, networks, etc.), not the number of teams in each conference, that works against these changes. Otherwise, they would have already been made. 16-team conferences doesn't affect the will to change, and that is what is key right now. Everyone is getting rich, and no one wants to change the system just to give college football what every single other sport has-- a champion determined on the field.
 
BryceC said:
It's such a ridiculous money grab though that it just irks me.
Click to expand...

I still don't even see how it generates more money. If anyone can explain it to me, I'm all ears. How would the Big Ten adding Maryland and North Carolina, for instance, generate any more money for Iowa?
 
Leave the Big10 alone unless Notre Dame becomes part of the equation. No other teams in close proximity to our current footprint will increase revenues for our existing members.

We are going to 9 conference games so we will finally get back to playing all of the conference teams at least twice in a 4 year period. This will be good for players, fans, and increase the Big Ten's current stake even more without adding another team. Let the other conferences expand and dilute their rivalries.

Our last two additions were Penn State and Nebraska. We couldn't have upgraded much better than that. Only Notre Dame will do at this juncture.
 
olivecourt said:
There are any number of ways to do it-- you could use the highest ranking BCS teams that didn't win a conference, for instance (kind of how the BCS for the at-large bowl slots). We already pick 10 teams at the end of the year to play in BCS games-- why is it any more difficult to pick 8?

But as you say, it's the brain trust (bowl officials, networks, etc.), not the number of teams in each conference, that works against these changes. Otherwise, they would have already been made. 16-team conferences doesn't affect the will to change, and that is what is key right now. Everyone is getting rich, and no one wants to change the system just to give college football what every single other sport has-- a champion determined on the field.
Click to expand...

OK, I don't know how many other ways I can say it.....Yes, there are about 100 different way to do a playoff.....

Now onto the reality of it.....The coaches don't want it, the AD's don't want it, the conference commissioners don't want it....Only the fans do....so we all know what that means, no playoff in this current system.
 
CAARHawk said:
Wildcards are not a good idea. One of the ideas floating at the meeting today was aligning all the non major Superconference leftovers into one huge four region conference with a two week playoff for the championship. The guy who brought that up actually said he thought that would get the champ a spot in the NC playoff.

Desperate times lead to irrational thoughts.
Click to expand...

This is interesting.....and yes wildcards are a terrible idea.
 
I don't care whether the Big 10 expands or not...it does make for interesting reading though.

What would be great fun is watching what the clowns would do if the Big 12 collapsed and potentially the Big East. The clowns would have their choice of Conference USA, the MWC, or the MAC. Any one of those choices would make the clowns totally irrelevant in the State of Iowa and in college football, AND they don't have much relevancy in the State of Iowa OR college football now. They would simply fade away....
 
olivecourt said:
I still don't even see how it generates more money. If anyone can explain it to me, I'm all ears. How would the Big Ten adding Maryland and North Carolina, for instance, generate any more money for Iowa?
Click to expand...

This is why I think super conferences are unlikely. There are very few schools that make it financially viable to expand. The SEC is struggling right now to make an A&M expansion financially worthwhile.
 
DJL said:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the Big 10 should grab Missery and someone for the ACC to expand their footprint. I don't like superconferences, but they are coming sooner or later. I don't want the Big 10 to get the leftovers after the SEC, Pac 12, and whatever mix of the Big 12, ACC, and Big East is left standing. I would rather have them act now so they can get schools that may actually increase revenue. Now I expect someone to comment and say that ND and Texas are the only way the Big 10 can make more money. I don't know if that's true or not.
Click to expand...
I couldnt agree more, big ten should take Mizz, and marlyland, force ND to join the confrence hand!!!!!
 
DJL said:
Because the SEC will go to 14 at least, and the Pac 12 has openly admitted it would like to get to 16.
Click to expand...

At what cost? How good is an SEC that might include lower-tier Big 12 or Big East teams? And who can the Pac 12 legitimately add without numerous "conditions". And it's not like the Big 12 has a lot of worthwhile teams waiting to join. My conspiracy-riddled mind suspects it's all the behind-the-scenes machinations of ESPN.

And if conferences and the NCAA and BCS think they're being attacked NOW, how do they think Congress will react when the same non-BCS schools complaining now complain to Congress when some of them get left out of these "super-conference" alignments?

Personally, I think the answer is to limit size on the upper end as well as the on the lower end. Bowl tie-ins, TV agreements, etc., will be even worse with super-conferences. Is a 14- or 16-team SEC even worth following if 10 or 12 of those teams are guaranteed bowl bids.

B1G should stand pat and let the other conferences make fools of themselves.

Super-conferences will only erode the overall quality of OOC match-ups. On the other hand, it might just put the leftover schools in better bargaining position with so many super-conference schools needing to pad their OOC schedules. It might actually be humorous seeing Troy, Middle Tennessee, Arkansas State and better FCS schools hosting a bidding war for their "services".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top