🏈 Confidence facing the storms of Expansion

[LBS]

Regardless of where the SEC stands today, expansion will reshuffle the deck in college football.

The conferences are wound-tight, pacing, shadow boxing and doing everything short of the Haka Dance, yet Commisioner Slive sits practicing Zin and the Art of Football Dominance.

Apparently, comments made behind closed doors within the SEC have produced among the coaches votes of unqualified confidence for Slive's way-ahead. Coaches. The group of fella who lay away at night sweating the thought that there is something that they have missed. CNS will express more concern over Georgia State's chances for success that that of the Big10 or Pac-10.

Although we have learned to dominate the game, "the game" is changing.

WHAT SAY YOU. Are you calm about the SEC's apparent lack of noise about expanding? If calm, what do you cite to defend your all-is-well out look?

 

[TerryP]

I'm not real concerned about what other conferences are doing right now. Why? A lot of it has to do with the 17MM payout this past week to the SEC schools.

Even with expansion, the chances of two SEC teams getting to BCS games will remain the same.

Here's my only "concern."

Let's assume we do make a move and go to a 14 team conference. Does that mean we'll move to six divisional games and only two games against the East? Do we rotate a team off of our Western division schedule each year? (I certainly hope not...it would create a bizarre twist if we needed a tie-breaker for the game in ATL)

 

[psychojoe]

Personally it doesn't bother me that we are not playing our hand in public. The SEC has the very best of the TV contracts, and what is going on in other leagues is a reaction to the big payouts the conference just made, as Terry stated. Should expansion indeed become the next big thing, any school we target will be willing to hear what we have to say before leaping off in another direction.

 

[rammerjammer]

TP...I too have thought of the sectional and cross division rival games. What happens to the Bama/UT game or AU/UGA game. Those are cross division rivals that have a lot of tradition behind them. I think the logistics of a 14 team league can be worked out pretty easily. If by some chance the SEC were to go to a 16 team league, that would pose a whole new set of scheduling problems.

If it were a 14 team league, I think adding 1 extra SEC game to the schedule and dropping one OOC opponent would be a likely scenario. Keep the same format where we would play two eastern division opponents annually. UT being our constant and rotate the other. I have no idea how to approach a 16 team league other than keeping the same set up as a 14 league team and that would space out your eastern opponents over a decade.

No matter what happens I think that the SEC is still in the drivers seat. You said it all with the 17 million dollar pay out. That alone will make all the good schools that chickened out in 92 want to come to the table. I think, for the most part, we will be able to cherry pick who we want. It has been speculated to death, but if I am Mike Slive, a UT/aTm addition would be my first choice followed by an FSU/Clemson. The Texas connection would be a pure money making factor. The FSU/Clemson pickup makes more sense IMO. That would bring in 2 ACC opponents that are logistically closer to all the other conference teams and would put a lot more weight on the rivalry games between UF/FSU and USCjr/Clemson.

 

[LBS]

Regarding schedules:
Beyond 10 teams, teams can't play everyone in the conference, and yet we are content with our champion. As long as we can accept our championship game contenders, does it matter how many teams we have? With as much as 20 teams, we can make it work.

The valid concern at the rivalies. Regardless of divisions or number of conference games, we are better served by maintaining the rivalries. What does that mean? Not anything huge frankly.

Currently, two is the most any member team has. If we obligate/mandate 2x traditional rivalries, the balance of the conference schedule could rotate through all the other teams. Increased "rotating" games is the key to keeping the records relivent in the nation's eyes.

 

[planomateo]

personally, I think that the other conferences finally woke up and realized the SEC was going to be in power for a while. it seems that the only confs moving for change are the ones who aren't in the mix and are either trying to get auto BCS bids or trying to get a conf playoff system in place to give their conf a fighting chance in hell against the SEC.

how many BCS champs and how much money...exactly what they are trying to mimic. Slive did a good job setting this up.

seems that all of this will shake out by 7/1 due to timelines that conf members have to inform their conf they are leaving the conf. If nothing happens by then, then I think its fair to say that 2011 isn't going to be just like previous years in terms of conf memberships.

 

[LBS]

... it seems that the only confs moving for change are the ones who aren't in the mix and are either trying to get auto BCS bids or trying to get a conf playoff system in place to give their conf a fighting chance in hell against the SEC....

Big10 and PAC-10 both have automatic bids. What they don't have are Conference Championship Games, which they could get by adding 1 and 2 teams respectively. And yet both are considering as many as six teams. So its not automatic bids nor Championship Games.

Consider where the notional invites have gone. With the exception of Nebraska and Missouri, all the teams named are part of large T.V. markets. In part its about seizing new T.V. markets. How would you explain Rutgers and Syracuse being in the mix?

Consider who is not being asked. Boise would jump at the chance, but there is no one up there who will tune in, and their is not national audience. Its not that anyone fears them, Texas is at the top of everyone's wish list.

Its also about getting the "street cred" needed to be invited to contend for the National Championship. The SEC has been a lock in the NC game, in part because our Champion bested 8-10 bowl teams, and we win most of those bowls. That is proof that the Champ is worthy. The only ways other Conferences can compete with that is to improve the teams already in (FAIL), or add more quality teams. In one day, they can add 4 more bowl teams to their ranks, and that will mean something...and tapping into a T.V. market that can bring BILLIONS from the networks come new contract time is nice as well.

 

[TerryP]

Regarding schedules:
Beyond 10 teams, teams can't play everyone in the conference, and yet we are content with our champion. As long as we can accept our championship game contenders, does it matter how many teams we have? With as much as 20 teams, we can make it work.

The valid concern at the rivalies. Regardless of divisions or number of conference games, we are better served by maintaining the rivalries. What does that mean? Not anything huge frankly.

Currently, two is the most any member team has. If we obligate/mandate 2x traditional rivalries, the balance of the conference schedule could rotate through all the other teams. Increased "rotating" games is the key to keeping the records relivent in the nation's eyes.

OK, what do you do when you have two teams from the same division with the same won/loss record but no common opponents from the opposite division?

 

[psychojoe]

OK, what do you do when you have two teams from the same division with the same won/loss record but no common opponents from the opposite division?

Wouldn't the heads up decide it then?

 

[alagator]

Assuming this also includes the unique situation you mentioned earlier where these two divisional teams did not play (due to rotating one divisional opponent off the schedule to allow for more interdivisional play).

I would go with point differential of the common intradivisional opponents.

Many people argue that point differential is not a meaningful measure, but I say such an opinion is flawed. Two teams with common opponents A-B-C-D where Team 1 wins each by a combined 72-36 and Team B wins by a combined 132-72 tells me Team 2 is a little better squad relative to the competition faced (more points scored, greater average point differential, but more points yielded). And "relative to the competition faced" is exactly how we measure who is "better" or "best" after all. The results of one singular game might be a fluke or skew the comparison, but not the results from a collective set of games. It would NOT tell us automatically who would win a head-to-head contest between Team 1 and Team 2, but it does tell us that when those two teams faced a common set of opponents which team performed better collectively.

I would have zero problem with such a tie-breaking rule.

 

[TerryP]

Wouldn't the heads up decide it then?

missing the point a bit howard...if you have a 8 team division you will end up with teams not playing each other within the same division.

I can see 14 teams working...16 is GOING to create controversy.

That said...I do like the controversy involved in college football.

 

[TerryP]

alagator:

Take your scenario...put these four teams in that mix...Arky, Auburn, Ole Miss and Bama...

Doesn't quite compute to me...

 

[alagator]

alagator:

Take your scenario...put these four teams in that mix...Arky, Auburn, Ole Miss and Bama...

Doesn't quite compute to me...

What does not compute?

Point differential is point differential. Some say "style of play" (ie, Alabama running a smash mouth offense versus say Auburn or Arkansas running a "more explosive" attack) skews the point differential comparison. I do not buy that argument. Beating a team by 20 points is more impressive to me than beating a team by 2 points, regardless of the "style of play" chosen to inflict the beating.

If Alabama and Ole Miss were to not play in a given year and Alabama beat a set of opponents including LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, and Miss State by a combined 30 points and Ole Miss beat that same set by a combined 65 points, I would argue that Ole Miss performed better relative to the competition than did Alabama and would deserve to represent the West in the SECCG. I would have a much harder time trying to argue from a position that the name of the team, national reputation, and recent seasons outweigh what happened on the field.

 

[psychojoe]

The light has come on, Terry.

If the SEC became a 16 team league I'd favor mandating a 9th conference game and still playing everyone in your division. It moght be time to let the traditional rivalries go in that event.

Basketball scheduling would get dicey as well. If you stuck with home and home versus your division that would result in 14 in your division and 8 on the other side for a total of 22 conference games, more than most would want to play. Somewhat more useful would be home and home with three opponents, single games with the other 12, for a total of 18 converence games (what we played before SC and Arky joined the league.)

Not sure how baseball conference games are scheduled, but I know it isn't a complete round robin.

 

[alagator]

psychojoe...

I would imagine the divisional format would vanish for all sports other than football if a mega conference was created. At least a two division format.

The divisions are necessary only to comply with the NCAA rule that stipulates certain conditions that must be present for a football intraconference playoff game. Such alignments are not necessary in the other sports to allow for an intraconference post-season contest (one game or tournament) to determine the league champion.

Now, I could see a 16-team conference being divided into four divisions for non-football sports and results from those four divisions used to determine who qualifies for intraconference post-season play.

Take basketball and baseball for instance. Say you must finish 1st or 2nd in your division to qualify for an eight team tournament. Or 1st in a division plus the next four best at-large records. Basketball could accommodate a full 16 team tournament, but baseball and softball and the like could not. So, make it cut-throat in the league and limit participation in post-season conference championship play.

I was privy to some talks instigated by Florida that would have involved UF, Georgia, Syracuse, and one of either Alabama or Tennessee joining a 16-team mega-ACC. The template would have involved little interdivision football play (one game) and a championship game. In retrospect, this idea was actually more an union of two eight-team leagues who did not directly compete until the post season. Other sports were a little more integrated. Big TV money, but looking back, some of our assumptions might have been a little dreamy.

 

[ExiledTidefan]

I spoke a month or two ago about my idea for several 16 team conferences and a couple 12 team conferences. The idea was to get this thing aligned to set up a tourney style playoff system. Really, the biggest hurdles besides money and power is how to categorize these independent schools, as well as the most dominant schools from the lower, non-bcs conferences. We could kill all that with one large realignment comprising 6 super 16 conferences, and 2 12 team conferences. That's every major program as it stands right now.

My idea would cause all nonconference games to be nixed. You would play your nonconference schedule after the regular season. I planned it to be where you play 10 regular season games (the other 7 teams in your 8 team division, plus three from the other division of your conference), then your conference title game. Auto bids to the NCAA playoffs would go to conference champs, with the rest being awarded by things like RPI, AP vote, etc. Just like basketball.

I've heard this talk of UT, TA&M and others headed to the Pac 10. I didn't envision that scenario in my proposal, but I'd like to share it with this group anyway. It's in Excel format, and I'd like to post it here. Anyone can help me do that? There may be little interest in what I've come up with, but there's little interest in what I have to say usually, so, post on!

 

[TerryP]

The light has come on, Terry.

If the SEC became a 16 team league I'd favor mandating a 9th conference game and still playing everyone in your division. It moght be time to let the traditional rivalries go in that event.

Basketball scheduling would get dicey as well. If you stuck with home and home versus your division that would result in 14 in your division and 8 on the other side for a total of 22 conference games, more than most would want to play. Somewhat more useful would be home and home with three opponents, single games with the other 12, for a total of 18 converence games (what we played before SC and Arky joined the league.)

Not sure how baseball conference games are scheduled, but I know it isn't a complete round robin.

CHIT!

Thanks for throwing a wrench in this...I hadn't made it as far as considering the other sports programs...

Can't say how I feel at this moment...

 

[TerryP]

psychojoe...

I would imagine the divisional format would vanish for all sports other than football if a mega conference was created. At least a two division format.

The divisions are necessary only to comply with the NCAA rule that stipulates certain conditions that must be present for a football intraconference playoff game. Such alignments are not necessary in the other sports to allow for an intraconference post-season contest (one game or tournament) to determine the league champion.

Now, I could see a 16-team conference being divided into four divisions for non-football sports and results from those four divisions used to determine who qualifies for intraconference post-season play.

Take basketball and baseball for instance. Say you must finish 1st or 2nd in your division to qualify for an eight team tournament. Or 1st in a division plus the next four best at-large records. Basketball could accommodate a full 16 team tournament, but baseball and softball and the like could not. So, make it cut-throat in the league and limit participation in post-season conference championship play.

I was privy to some talks instigated by Florida that would have involved UF, Georgia, Syracuse, and one of either Alabama or Tennessee joining a 16-team mega-ACC. The template would have involved little interdivision football play (one game) and a championship game. In retrospect, this idea was actually more an union of two eight-team leagues who did not directly compete until the post season. Other sports were a little more integrated. Big TV money, but looking back, some of our assumptions might have been a little dreamy.

Good insight here...

 

[TerryP]

The light has come on, Terry.

If the SEC became a 16 team league I'd favor mandating a 9th conference game and still playing everyone in your division. It moght be time to let the traditional rivalries go in that event.

Basketball scheduling would get dicey as well. If you stuck with home and home versus your division that would result in 14 in your division and 8 on the other side for a total of 22 conference games, more than most would want to play. Somewhat more useful would be home and home with three opponents, single games with the other 12, for a total of 18 converence games (what we played before SC and Arky joined the league.)

Not sure how baseball conference games are scheduled, but I know it isn't a complete round robin.

Argo and 252 have some neat perspectives on this...

 

[LBS]

Deciding a division champ does not require all division teams to play each other, its just cleaner to understand. A formula set before the season would do (division winning percentage, conference winning percentage, overall percentage,...)

As long as traditional rivalries are honored, and no one has more than two that I'm aware of, the the balance of the conference schedule can be formatted as a home-n-home rotation.

Even with a conference as big a 20 teams, a 9 game conference schedule would honor all rivarlies known AND have every team play every other team once every 5 years.

Divisions can exist, with the top finishers playing for the title.

Regarding the other sports, cross division play is not required UNTIL you have to define the conference wide champion. That is traveling for one tournament a year, and then only if you finish well enough to qualify. Other sports can be managed....but don't tell teh PAC 10.

As for my 20; add the 4 team block from Texas, both Oklahoma schools, and FSU and Miami. That finishes the Holy Grail of College Football conferences.