A Modest Proposal
I think every college football fan has something they would change about the sport we love. It seems every year after a BCS breakdown we hear about all kinds of radical proposals. So to kick off the blog for the 2007 season (I hope to beginning posting a couple times a week!!) I present to you my radical realignment. Let me beginning by stated some problems that I hope my proposal solves.
1. It is difficult to compare teams to each other when schools don't play comparable schedules. I believe that last seasons Wisconsin team is an example of this. The Badgers went 1-1 against top notch competition last season (lost to Michigan, beat Arkansas in bowl game). If Ohio State would have been on the schedule we might have had a clearer picture of how good the Badgers were. The point being to fairly judge a teams ranking, we need the universities to play higher quality competition.
2. There is no incentive to scheduling more difficult games, as it applies to winning the national championship. Sure there are monetary issues and exposure to be gained by playing compelling non-conference games, but it is very dangerous to schedule these types of games. Coaches are willing to play a soft non-conference because they know tough conference games are right around the corner. I realize that a lot of schools have been playing one marquee game before conference, but I dream of a day win all the non-conference games are interesting. For example, the Texas 1990 non-conference schedule consisted of a trip to Penn State, Colorado in Austin, and the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma.
So How Do We Solve These Problems?
The main solution that I present is to radically realign the conferences and to reduce the number on division 1 football teams. My plan calls for 11 conferences consisting of 8 teams each, thus reducing the field from 119 to 88. I have split the new conferences evenly so that each one includes 2 or 3 top-tier teams, a few middle of the road programs, and a couple of teams that will find themselves at the bottom most years. Some traditional rivals will be split up, but should continue playing each other in non-conference match ups. Each school would play every team in their conference (7 games) and then play a 4 or 5 game non-conference schedule depending on a 11 or 12 game regular season. The reason I believe this solves problem one from above is that teams are only allowed to play one of the 88 universities in the newly created Division 1. Hopefully we will see increased competition and thus able to better evaluate teams.
The level of competition should greatly improve by reducing the number of D-1 team and by eliminating the playing of D-1AA teams. But if we wanted to go a step further to encourage top teams to play, I suggest giving greater weight to conference games than non-conference. For example, high school non-district games count in a school's overall record, but the district games decide who makes the playoffs. If there was a way to reduce the impact of a non-conference loss I believe teams would be more willing to play tougher competition, thus preparing them for conference.
Finally, I also think that by including some smaller schools in with the big boys, it could improve the small teams program. It may take a few years, but with the small schools receiving additional TV and bowl money, and not to mention increased attendance, they will be able to invest more back into their programs.
My New and Improved Division I
Conference 1
1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas Tech
4. Arkansas
5. TCU
6. Baylor
7. SMU
8. Rice
Conference 2
1. Oklahoma
2. Nebraska
3. Colorado
4. Kansas State
5. Oklahoma State
6. Kansas
7. Colorado State
8. Air Force
Conference 3
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Ole Miss
5. Mississippi State
6. Houston
7. Memphis
8. Tulane
Conference 4
1. Tennessee
2. Louisville
3. Missouri
4. Kentucky
5. UNC
6. Wake Forest
7. Vandy
8. Duke
Conference 5
1. Georgia
2. Florida
3. Virginia Tech
4. Georgia Tech
5. South Carolina
6. Maryland
7. Southern Miss
8. UCF
Conference 6
1. Florida State
2. Miama
3. Clemson
4. N.C. State
5. Virginia
6. South Florida
7. East Carolina
8. Navy
Conference 7
1. Penn State
2. West Virginia
3. Rugters
4. Boston College
5. Pitt
6. Syracuse
7. Army
8. Marshall
Conference 8
1. Ohio State
2. Notre Dame
3. Wisconsin
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Miami OH
7. Cincinnati
8. Toledo
Conference 9
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Iowa
4. Iowa State
5. Minnesota
6. Illinois
7. Northerwestern
8. Northern Illinois
Conference 10
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Cal
4. Arizona State
5. Arizona
6. Stanford
7. Hawaii
8. New Mexico
Conference 11
1. Washington
2. Oregon
3. Oregon State
4. Washingtion State
5. Utah
6. Boise State
7. BYU
8. Frenso State
Well my friends there you have it. Am I on to anything here or did you just waste 5 mins. of your life. I have some playoff ideas, but this post is too long so I'll package those. Let me know what you think!!
I think every college football fan has something they would change about the sport we love. It seems every year after a BCS breakdown we hear about all kinds of radical proposals. So to kick off the blog for the 2007 season (I hope to beginning posting a couple times a week!!) I present to you my radical realignment. Let me beginning by stated some problems that I hope my proposal solves.
1. It is difficult to compare teams to each other when schools don't play comparable schedules. I believe that last seasons Wisconsin team is an example of this. The Badgers went 1-1 against top notch competition last season (lost to Michigan, beat Arkansas in bowl game). If Ohio State would have been on the schedule we might have had a clearer picture of how good the Badgers were. The point being to fairly judge a teams ranking, we need the universities to play higher quality competition.
2. There is no incentive to scheduling more difficult games, as it applies to winning the national championship. Sure there are monetary issues and exposure to be gained by playing compelling non-conference games, but it is very dangerous to schedule these types of games. Coaches are willing to play a soft non-conference because they know tough conference games are right around the corner. I realize that a lot of schools have been playing one marquee game before conference, but I dream of a day win all the non-conference games are interesting. For example, the Texas 1990 non-conference schedule consisted of a trip to Penn State, Colorado in Austin, and the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma.
So How Do We Solve These Problems?
The main solution that I present is to radically realign the conferences and to reduce the number on division 1 football teams. My plan calls for 11 conferences consisting of 8 teams each, thus reducing the field from 119 to 88. I have split the new conferences evenly so that each one includes 2 or 3 top-tier teams, a few middle of the road programs, and a couple of teams that will find themselves at the bottom most years. Some traditional rivals will be split up, but should continue playing each other in non-conference match ups. Each school would play every team in their conference (7 games) and then play a 4 or 5 game non-conference schedule depending on a 11 or 12 game regular season. The reason I believe this solves problem one from above is that teams are only allowed to play one of the 88 universities in the newly created Division 1. Hopefully we will see increased competition and thus able to better evaluate teams.
The level of competition should greatly improve by reducing the number of D-1 team and by eliminating the playing of D-1AA teams. But if we wanted to go a step further to encourage top teams to play, I suggest giving greater weight to conference games than non-conference. For example, high school non-district games count in a school's overall record, but the district games decide who makes the playoffs. If there was a way to reduce the impact of a non-conference loss I believe teams would be more willing to play tougher competition, thus preparing them for conference.
Finally, I also think that by including some smaller schools in with the big boys, it could improve the small teams program. It may take a few years, but with the small schools receiving additional TV and bowl money, and not to mention increased attendance, they will be able to invest more back into their programs.
My New and Improved Division I
Conference 1
1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas Tech
4. Arkansas
5. TCU
6. Baylor
7. SMU
8. Rice
Conference 2
1. Oklahoma
2. Nebraska
3. Colorado
4. Kansas State
5. Oklahoma State
6. Kansas
7. Colorado State
8. Air Force
Conference 3
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Ole Miss
5. Mississippi State
6. Houston
7. Memphis
8. Tulane
Conference 4
1. Tennessee
2. Louisville
3. Missouri
4. Kentucky
5. UNC
6. Wake Forest
7. Vandy
8. Duke
Conference 5
1. Georgia
2. Florida
3. Virginia Tech
4. Georgia Tech
5. South Carolina
6. Maryland
7. Southern Miss
8. UCF
Conference 6
1. Florida State
2. Miama
3. Clemson
4. N.C. State
5. Virginia
6. South Florida
7. East Carolina
8. Navy
Conference 7
1. Penn State
2. West Virginia
3. Rugters
4. Boston College
5. Pitt
6. Syracuse
7. Army
8. Marshall
Conference 8
1. Ohio State
2. Notre Dame
3. Wisconsin
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Miami OH
7. Cincinnati
8. Toledo
Conference 9
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Iowa
4. Iowa State
5. Minnesota
6. Illinois
7. Northerwestern
8. Northern Illinois
Conference 10
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Cal
4. Arizona State
5. Arizona
6. Stanford
7. Hawaii
8. New Mexico
Conference 11
1. Washington
2. Oregon
3. Oregon State
4. Washingtion State
5. Utah
6. Boise State
7. BYU
8. Frenso State
Well my friends there you have it. Am I on to anything here or did you just waste 5 mins. of your life. I have some playoff ideas, but this post is too long so I'll package those. Let me know what you think!!
Labels: College Football
posted by Matt at 8:50 PM
3 Comments:
You have to find a way to keep the OU/UT and OSU/Michigan rivalries as mandatory games because under the new format they are in different conferences. It also takes away slightly from some of the other good SEC matchups for example but as a whole it probably makes things more balanced in the long run.
Yes, I assume that most of the rivalries that are broken up will continued to be played, but as a non-conference game. Much like Texas/OU before the Big 12.
Good stuff...I think the Tennessee Conference is a little weaker than others, but you can only do so much. You are a genious and should be asked to be president of NCAA...who's with me? MATT, MATT, MATT
Post a Comment
<< Home