Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Peatearpan]

2 hours ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

Probably true, but as some have said, this will eventually lead to the whole thing blowing up and then possibly a return to traditional regional conferences like there were before all this crap began.  This is all being driven by money, but the college football fans of most of the schools are the biggest losers in this.  Even the big school fans are losers when their traditional rivalries get broken up with realignments.   At this point, I am hoping for all of this to accelerate so that it blows up and reverses within my lifetime.  Everything is cyclical.  We've already got the NFL, we don't need college football to become the "NFL with textbooks."

What was the system before the BCS?

[Jim Johnson]

13 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

What was the system before the BCS?

The Bowl Alliance (95-96-97) ... which did not include the Pac 10 or Big Ten or the Rose Bowl... combined the AP and Coaches Polls and put the top two teams together that were in the other conferences.

Before that was the Bowl Coalition (92-93-94) ... which was almost the same thing (but it included the SWC and the Big 8)...

Before THAT is when polls voted for their champions, and the AP and UPI polls were the two that counted the most.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Jim Johnson

[Peatearpan]

20 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

The Bowl Alliance (95-96-97) ... which did not include the Pac 10 or Big Ten or the Rose Bowl... combined the AP and Coaches Polls and put the top two teams together that were in the other conferences.

Before that was the Bowl Coalition (92-93-94) ... which was almost the same thing (but it included the SWC and the Big 8)...

Before THAT is when polls voted for their champions, and the AP and UPI polls were the two that counted the most.

I miss the BCS system. They should have kept that, and seeded teams in to the playoffs with that.

[Rocky Style]

26 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

I miss the BCS system. They should have kept that, and seeded teams in to the playoffs with that.

I really liked that era.  I watched all the bowl games including the "bad" ones.  Now I cancel my streaming services before the so-called playoffs.

[sparkybull]

the playoffs are just an insider club too. it's going to be the same teams year in, year out - because why would CFB sacrifice valuable TV money to give other programs a shot at a larger playoff?

[BayIslandBull]

The current CFP with only 4 teams is a joke. Nothing matters except the final vote after conference championship games.

[usf97]

11 minutes ago, BayIslandBull said:

The current CFP with only 4 teams is a joke. Nothing matters except the final vote after conference championship games.

A 4 team playoff seems like a dream compared to the old days. Like in 1997 when FSU #1 lost to UF #3 in the Sugar Bowl and then you had to watch the Rose Bowl to see if ASU #2 would win the national championship or if Ohio State #4 would win it for UF. 

Crazy times. 

[MaltLiquorBull]

16 minutes ago, BayIslandBull said:

The current CFP with only 4 teams is a joke. Nothing matters except the final vote after conference championship games.

Sadly, it seems like the pre-season rankings have too much weight...If you start out unranked, it's almost impossible to climb up.  If you start in the top 10, you have a head start and you are there until you get beat.  A team's odds of getting into the playoff picture or an NY6 bowl are determined before the first snap of the season.  I suppose all the pre-playoff systems had the same flaw.

[Jim Johnson]

7 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

Sadly, it seems like the pre-season rankings have too much weight...If you start out unranked, it's almost impossible to climb up.  If you start in the top 10, you have a head start and you are there until you get beat.  A team's odds of getting into the playoff picture or an NY6 bowl are determined before the first snap of the season.  I suppose all the pre-playoff systems had the same flaw.

Pre-season rankings absolutely have too much weight... which is why the BCS and CFP didn't release their official pools until after the first six weeks.

Early rankings also fall under the "Power 5 bias" - which is why it takes weeks for undefeated G5 teams to move up.

Pre-Pac 12 Utah (MWC) and early 2000s Boise State made the BCS bowls because they dominated their conference for a few YEARS... ranking higher and higher each pre-season allowed them to finally bust the BCS.

[Peatearpan]

22 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

Sadly, it seems like the pre-season rankings have too much weight...If you start out unranked, it's almost impossible to climb up.  If you start in the top 10, you have a head start and you are there until you get beat.  A team's odds of getting into the playoff picture or an NY6 bowl are determined before the first snap of the season.  I suppose all the pre-playoff systems had the same flaw.

I say leave the pre-season ranking. 10 conference champs get auto bids. 6 highest ranked non-conference champs get at large bids. Then use the rankings to seed them.

Idk, seems fair to me. Multiple SEC-B1G teams would still get in. Every conference would be represented. I know it would create more interest and eyeballs for the CFP. It would also get more exposure for smaller schools, and create parity across the board.

That last part is probably where the bigger conferences get hung up.

Ten 16 team conferences; no wait; even better Ten 20 team conferences. **** it.