AAC and Mountain West merget would solve the P5 dilema.

[Skingraft]

What's a merget?

[charsibb]

It's what happens when you meet a drunk mermaid at a bar.

[Who'sYourData?]

 

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.

 

 

Huge problem is your theory of a four team playoff.  Getting a one game CCG has been problematic enough.  Why would the P5 allow the AAC to have a four team CCS?  They wouldn't.  It's a non-starter.  Focus on the AAC and USF being the best they can be.

[NCBull]

I like the idea, hippy. Good thoughts.

[charsibb]

 

 

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.

 

 

Huge problem is your theory of a four team playoff.  Getting a one game CCG has been problematic enough.  Why would the P5 allow the AAC to have a four team CCS?  They wouldn't.  It's a non-starter.  Focus on the AAC and USF being the best they can be.

 

 

Could the current AAC and MWC champs to agree to play each other, with the winner getting the Jan 1 bowl invite?

[Who'sYourData?]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Huge problem is your theory of a four team playoff.  Getting a one game CCG has been problematic enough.  Why would the P5 allow the AAC to have a four team CCS?  They wouldn't.  It's a non-starter.  Focus on the AAC and USF being the best they can be.

 

 

Could the current AAC and MWC champs to agree to play each other, with the winner getting the Jan 1 bowl invite?

 

 

Nope.   That would be two postseason games instead of the one allowed.

[smazza]

wouldn't make a difference without forming a brand new league