Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

A Radical Realignment Plan for College Football

C

CR4ISU

New Member
Nov 25, 2013
10
0
1
http://online.wsj.com/articles/a-radical-realignment-plan-for-college-football-1406069526

Just saw this online. Kind of a scary thought to think of if they would ever consider starting new conferences. How in the world does the BIG have 7 teams in the first 2 clusters and the Big 12 only has 2? We do have 7 as well so the same total, but just don't get how everyone perceives them better in the first 2 clusters...

How are we not on this? :jimlad:
 
Stupidest idea I've ever heard of for so many reasons I'm not even going to waste my time mentioning. With crap like this actually getting published in the WSJ, I'm starting to think that I could just make stuff up an get published too.
 
CR4ISU said:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/a-radical-realignment-plan-for-college-football-1406069526

Just saw this online. Kind of a scary thought to think of if they would ever consider starting new conferences. How in the world does the BIG have 7 teams in the first 2 clusters and the Big 12 only has 2? We do have 7 as well so the same total, but just don't get how everyone perceives them better in the first 2 clusters...

How are we not on this? :jimlad:
Click to expand...

The proper name for that proposal is Cluster F---
 
CR4ISU said:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/a-radical-realignment-plan-for-college-football-1406069526

Just saw this online. Kind of a scary thought to think of if they would ever consider starting new conferences. How in the world does the BIG have 7 teams in the first 2 clusters and the Big 12 only has 2? We do have 7 as well so the same total, but just don't get how everyone perceives them better in the first 2 clusters...

How are we not on this? :jimlad:
Click to expand...


I think this possibly answers your question:

What a "Division IV" in college sports would look like is still anyone's guess. But two Ohio State sports researchers have an idea: What if schools were sorted into `conferences based on their football strength?
 
ImJustKCClone said:
I think this possibly answers your question:

What a "Division IV" in college sports would look like is still anyone's guess. But two Ohio State sports researchers have an idea: What if schools were sorted into `conferences based on their football strength?
Click to expand...


Hmmm, that does explain the idiocy.
 
Not sure how it would make sense to create conferences with all teams of similar stature. Seems to me they created a 10 year analysis and ranked teams. Calling it conference realignment, just puts a hot button label on their analysis. With the future of a football playoff, I could see 6 groups of 11-12 teams that play every team in their group, with the group champion earning an automatic spot in the playoff. Groups could be rebalanced every couple years and comprised of teams based on projected ability and geography.

I will be surprised if the current 4 team playoff lasts more than a few years, because at least 1 team from a big 5 confernce will ne left out of the playoff each year. Also, I can see a conference like the SEC complaining if their second best team is left out.
 
The groupings are bull, but this sort of set up could potentially work if the took an approach similar to the English Premier League. The top two teams in each "division" in a year would move up and the bottom two would move down. The only problem here is that the only way to do well is to have prolonged success. Teams that have unexpectedly good seasons will never be able to capitalize on it unless it can be sustained.
 
After giving this just a cursory view I can come up with a pretty salty cluster for basketball with the schools they threw under the bus:

Baylor
Duke
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa State
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
North Carolina
Syracuse
 
Last edited:
We beat WVU yet they're in the last cluster.

Auburn was HORRIFIC a few years ago but now is in the first cluster.

Things can change really quickly.

I actually have some semi-appreciation for the promotion/relegation system they seem to envision here, but I've always thought that anti-competitive like hell in the long term (all attention and money concentrates at the top and it becomes self-perpetuating). Looks at what has happened to EPL.
 
BMWallace said:
The groupings are bull, but this sort of set up could potentially work if the took an approach similar to the English Premier League. The top two teams in each "division" in a year would move up and the bottom two would move down. The only problem here is that the only way to do well is to have prolonged success. Teams that have unexpectedly good seasons will never be able to capitalize on it unless it can be sustained.
Click to expand...

Yea a relegation model seems like a good way to handle a sport with as many teams as college football and then you realize how much rosters fluctuate compared to pro sports clubs and that whole notion just falls apart. I suppose the top 1 or 2 clusters just reload every year, but for any team that worked it's way up, you're almost guaranteed that that the top contributors from the team that got promoted/demoted will not be there when they start play in their new cluster.
 
Sigmapolis said:
We beat WVU yet they're in the last cluster.

Auburn was HORRIFIC a few years ago but now is in the first cluster.

Things can change really quickly.

I actually have some semi-appreciation for the promotion/relegation system they seem to envision here, but I've always thought that anti-competitive like hell in the long term (all attention and money concentrates at the top and it becomes self-perpetuating). Looks at what has happened to EPL.
Click to expand...

It's a dumb model, but if you read the combination of factors they used to rank teams the clusters at least make internal logic.
 
ImJustKCClone said:
I think this possibly answers your question:

What a "Division IV" in college sports would look like is still anyone's guess. But two Ohio State sports researchers have an idea: What if schools were sorted into `conferences based on their football strength?
Click to expand...

That is what a doctoral dissertation at tOSU looks like everyone...
 
If I were to start over it would look like this:
*8 conferences of 10 teams each= 80 programs (based on geography and traditional rivals)
*Everyone plays round-robin in conference and one out of conference but in the 80 team pool.
*That would leave you 8 teams for a playoff. The first 4 games can be in early Dec to take place of current conference championships. 4 winners play in bowls much like current system.

There would be nowhere to hide and it would be tough to argue that there is a not a " true champion"
 
I'd still like to see the full analysis. Auburn in the 1st cluster over FSU? Florida State has been to bowl game for 25+ years, how are they behind Auburn? Iowa in the 2nd cluster? Really? I know we've only had 1 losing season in the last 10, but 2nd cluster? Okie State is in the 4th cluster and appears to have about the same, probably better, record as Iowa. I guess Iowa gets bumped up based on revenue and attendance since Kinnick has held between 23,000 and 10,000(after 2008 expansion) more fans.

Seems like a flawed analysis.
 
im4cyru said:
After giving this just a cursory view I can come up with a pretty salty cluster for basketball with the schools they threw under the bus:

Baylor
Duke
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa State
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
North Carolina
Syracuse
Click to expand...

**** we could even get some decent football teams/games out of this, Baylor is on the rise, North Carolina and Syracuse aren't exactly slouches, it would be fairly competitive in both sports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom