AAC and Mountain West merget would solve the P5 dilema.

[Triple B]

I am crazy enough to like this idea. If we are going to be stuck in g5 might as well make the most of it.

 

The question is how does Mega Conference make the most of it over the position we're in right now? Haven't seen a really compelling argument ... 

[Who'sYourData?]

Really, I think we've past the point where a merger makes sense.  If each conference had ten teams, they could stage a conference championship game that would give some legitimacy.  With the AAC and MW both at twelve teams, that idea pretty much goes up in smoke.

[Superhippy]

 

I am crazy enough to like this idea. If we are going to be stuck in g5 might as well make the most of it.

 

The question is how does Mega Conference make the most of it over the position we're in right now? Haven't seen a really compelling argument ... 

 

The whole point of my idea is that with 24 teams and essentially a 4 team playoff within the conference at the end of the season, you would be left with one team that is going to look very strong, and have a legitimate shot at making the playoff.   The winner of the conference would have beaten a 9 - 10 win team in week 11 and then the conference championship game would have two teams face off that both have 10 or 11 wins.  Whoever wins that game then will have no less then 2 very strong wins to help their ranking placement, and most likely 1 or 2 other very good wins along the way.

 

In the AAC's current form, even if the winner of the conference is undefeated, they aren't going to make the playoff unless everyone else is sitting on 2 losses, and even then it's not a lock.  Same goes for the Mountain West.   Together though, it would be tough to keep the team that was able to be the winner of a 24 team conference out of the playoff.   That's the sole reason why I think this should happen.   If the P5 is going to create a system that will exclude the other conferences, then the other conferences have to do something to put themselves back into the conversation.

[Superhippy]

Horrible idea....IMHO

 

you might have a few extra good teams to make your argument, but you will have THREE times as many bad teams at the bottom to undermine any positives.

The number of bad teams though is irrelevant, all that matters is the number of good teams.  Just look at the college football landscape right now.

 

ACC - 3 teams won 10+ games last year.  9 teams were 7-6 or worse.    The conference overall was pretty bad, but none of that mattered because 1 team (FSU) was able to run through all of the weak teams, and then had a couple of decent wins over Clemson and Duke, who got their wins by beating on the bad teams.

 

Big 10 - Same Deal.  2 10 game winners.  8 teams were 8-5 or worse.  They got 2 teams into BCS games.  Nobody cares if Purdue, Illinois, and Indiana suck, they care that Michigan State and Ohio State were both had alot of wins.  Now they just added Rutgers and Maryland who will be bottom feeders, which most people say is a waste of time, but by the end of the year when teams like Nebraska and Wisconsin have 10 wins instead of 9 because they faced them, people will overlook it and say they are a strong conference.

 

SEC -  14 team conference.  7 9+ game winners.  7 8-game or less winners.  Everyone calls it a great conference.  Why?  Because there are alot of teams who won alot of games.  And alot of those teams wins were against teams that suck.  But no one cares, to the point where Auburn with 2 losses got into the title game over a 1 loss Michigan State team.  And how did that happen?  Because they essentially played and won 2 playoff games in a row at the end of the year against Bama and Mizzou.   This doesn't happen though if the SEC doesn't have 14 teams because Mizzou wouldn't exist and then East and West would have beat up on eachother more during the year.

 

 

What was the biggest problem with the Big East year in and year out.   It was an 8 team conference year in and year out that essentially slaughtered itself, and we always ended up with a champ with 2 or 3 losses.   This led to everyone making a joke out of the Big East.   If the old Big East added 6 random C-USA teams, which led to West Virginia, USF, and Cincy having 10 win seasons year in and year out, people would be calling the Big East a solid conference.

 

 

The reality about College Football is that you need garbage teams in your conference, to make the good ones look even better.  If you have a 24 team conference where 6 teams a season win 10 games, and at the end you have a 12-0 vs. and 11-1, that's going to be great for the conference regardless if the majority of those wins were against garbage teams.

[BDYZR]

"Whoever comes out on top after all of that is going to be undefeated or have 1 loss with multiple quality wins. GUARANTEED."

 

I probably wouldn't bet the farm on this. What if, for instance, the East team has 2 losses and the South team has 1 going into the 12th game? Same for the other side of the conference. 2 loss team beats one loss team to advance...

[Superhippy]

Was this idea bong fueled? Have to ask with a name like Superhippy. Peace

Nope.  I am pretty sure having "The Team" on the back of our jerseys was fueled though.   That's the kind of "brilliant" idea that stoners regularly come up with.

 

 

The idea just came about from looking at looking at the landscape of college football.  The ACC and SEC were both the 1st leagues to go to 14 teams.  By no coincidence did they have the two teams in the championship game.  Auburn got into the title game with 2 losses over a 1 loss Michigan State team.   That happened because Michigan State had a "weaker" schedule.  If Nebraska and Iowa though each had a win more because they beat up on Rutgers or Maryland, then Michigan State would have gotten in the title game.

 

Then I thought about the old Big East.  Was it really that bad?  Maybe.  But the fact that it was an 8 team league that cannibalized itself year in and year out did not help at all.  In my opinion it's actually the main reason why it folded.   If the Big East had added a bunch of C-USA teams years ago and teams like Pitt and Syracuse had some teams to feast on every year they would have stayed.  Instead they figured "If we are going to be bottom feeders, might as well be bottom feeders in the ACC." 

 

The common thread to me seems to be that if the Non-P5 conferences want to force their way into the playoff discussion then they need to do something radical that involves a ton of teams.   Essentially stack the deck with so many cards that the odds are in your favor a few of those cards will be great.

 

"Whoever comes out on top after all of that is going to be undefeated or have 1 loss with multiple quality wins. GUARANTEED."

 

I probably wouldn't bet the farm on this. What if, for instance, the East team has 2 losses and the South team has 1 going into the 12th game? Same for the other side of the conference. 2 loss team beats one loss team to advance...

It could happen, and if after everything is said and done a 10-2 team wins a 24 team conference, then they will get into the Cotton, Fiesta, or Orange Bowl and miss out on the playoff.  It's still much better though then having an AAC team potentially go 12-0 and still be left out of the playoff.   It's also better then having a 8-5 or 9-4 team reaching a "BCS" bowl like we had with UConn a few years ago which actually did more harm for the league then good.    Last year you would have had an 11-1 UCF vs. a 11-1 Fresno State, and since the S.O.S. would have been better, it would have been about #9 vs. #13 or so.   The winner of that has a legit case for the top 4.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Superhippy

[Superhippy]

 

 

Horrible idea....IMHO

 

you might have a few extra good teams to make your argument, but you will have THREE times as many bad teams at the bottom to undermine any positives.

 

Have to agree. Don't see anything there that would somehow force anybody into a P6. Hem's idea about the top teams combining makes better sense except if you take the top football programs, you lose most the top basketball programs .... plus the travel would be killer, especially for the non-revenue sports.

 

 

The teams that excelled in this "combined" conferece, would eventually leave for the P5... thus creating the same problem

 

So let's say in theory after a few years USF, UCF, Boise, Fresno, and Cincy leave.   At this point we would no longer really care but for the sake of the discussion here's what would happen.

 

You add the best 5 teams between the MAC, Sunbelt, and C-USA, and then you are still left with a similar situation where 4 or 5 teams just by the sheer odds will win 10+ games.   

 

It would pull in great TV ratings too.  You basically would have the "Cinderella Team" conference where one out of 24 will come out on top and either make the playoff or find themselves in a great bowl game.  On top of that they will then be put firmly on the radar of the P5 conferences to now get in.   People love that stuff.  That's a big part of the reason why the NCAA basketball tourney does so well.

[slick1ru2]

[Triple B]

It could happen, and if after everything is said and done a 10-2 team wins a 24 team conference, then they will get into the Cotton, Fiesta, or Orange Bowl and miss out on the playoff.  It's still much better though then having an AAC team potentially go 12-0 and still be left out of the playoff.

A 10-2 AAC conference winner can just as easily go to a Cotton, Fiesta, or Orange Bowl now and a 12-0 Mega Conference team could just as easily be left out of the playoffs.

 

Last year you would have had an 11-1 UCF vs. a 11-1 Fresno State, and since the S.O.S. would have been better, it would have been about #9 vs. #13 or so. The winner of that has a legit case for the top 4.

 

You don't know the SOS would have been better .. and the winner of that match up last year would have had virtually no chance at being one of the playoff teams if there was one then. 

 

This is great stuff to hash around on a message board but there's just no basis in the reality of doing this .... especially when you look at the effect on the non-revenue sports.

[raptorcj]

Looks desperate to create more relevancy, but like others have pointed out, a mega-conference may actually do the opposite. Even when it had consistent top 10 teams, the BE was thought to be second-tier in CFB because of all the lower-end. Still think the best way to get relevant is win & get invite up. This looks to be our admins' approach too, but everything is predicated on wins.