Get Ready For A New World Order

UNTflyer · August 3, 2009

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...mp;sportCat=ncf

CMJ · August 3, 2009

This is why a playoff scares me...because this is what it would be like if there ever was one.

oldguystudent · August 3, 2009

I've always kind of advocated a further division of football anyway. Comparing UT to UNT is a farce, and we all know it deep down. That said, I love this concept:

Every season, the bottom five teams in the Gordon Gekko Subdivision will be booted out and replaced by the top five teams in the Tom Joad Subdivision, which will feature eight 10-team conferences. The four teams that finish last in the Gekko conferences are automatically relegated, plus one underachiever will be chosen at large for demotion. They will be replaced by the four semifinalists from the playoff of Joad conference winners, plus a fifth team that must win an at-large game against another Joad conference winner.

That allows for the Utahs, TCUs and Boises of the world to move up, and keeps the Baylors, Dukes, and Syracuses of the world on their toes.

NT03 · August 3, 2009

A normal life is boring , but superstardom's is close to post mortem

August 3, 2009

This has fail all over it.

Teams go up and down, even the "great" school. Look at Notre Dame. If this had happened in the 80's, SMU would still be in the elite group and USC would not.

How often do we keep reshuffling to make sure the elites are really the elites and the common man is really is his place?

Maybe we should just not play outside our conferences and do away with bowl games. After all, SEC thinks that whoever wins their title is really the champ. Same goes for the BIG-10 and BIG-12...

UNTflyer · August 3, 2009

We don't need to pare down Div I-A. Look at basketball - we have how many teams?

347!

A football playoff is simple.

The NCAA announces that it WILL finally crown a college football champion for FBS.

The NCAA tells conferences that in order to participate, they must present a conference champion that is determined by a conference championship game (essentially, a first-round playoff). To qualify, these conferences must be comprised of 12 teams - no more, no less. Massive realignment will occur into 10 12-team conferences. Conference championship games could replace the lower tier bowl games. The Sun Belt Championship would be the New Orleans Bowl, for example.

Each conference champion + 6 at-large bids to be named by a selection committee will participate in a playoff that begins the third week in December. The opening round will be played in the mid-upper level bowls (Citrus, Sun, Cotton, Gator, etc.)

Round two will be played in the traditional BCS bowls (Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar).

Each year a BCS site will host the Final Four. By this time, we are into the first week of January. Game 1 is played Friday and Game 2 is played Saturday. Now we have two teams left to play the following week in a championship game.

Another way to do the Final Four would be:

Orang-Sugar winner plays in Orange/Sugar Bowl again in alternating years. Same for Fiesta/Rose. Then just rotate the Championship Game among the four.

Edited August 3, 2009 by UNTflyer

UNTflyer · August 3, 2009

In my plan, there would still be 22 bowl games in existence.

DeepGreen · August 3, 2009

"Of your three nonconference games, two must be played against fellow Gordon Gekko Subdivision opponents. Only one game can be played against an opponent from outside the top 40."

Fine. Each of those games "outside of the top 40" will cost $10,000,000+. The 80 teams in the Tom Joad Subdivision will increase the price tags for these games annually as they see fit.

This idiot, Pat Forde, will probably cause the AOL email server crash.

Edited August 3, 2009 by DeepGreen

greenminer · August 3, 2009

Nothing new here. Plenty of holes in this rehashed topic. It'll be interesting to see where he puts USF and his alum, Mizzu.

Travis · August 3, 2009

Have we ever considered a system like the English Premier League

NM Green · August 3, 2009

I just want to see Utah go undefeated again this year and play for the national championship. they would not be kept out a 3rd time!

GMG

go Utes!

oldguystudent · August 3, 2009

Have we ever considered a system like the English Premier League

I asked a couple of British acquaintances to explain that one to me, and it's set up such that in theory, some club team whose roster is comprised of 11 men from the local pub who don't fall down too often after a few pints could theoretically rise to the ranks of Manchester United. Of course, the community park they play in with it's 3 rows of metal bleachers would need an upgrade, but still, it's possible in theory.

So along those lines, it would theoretically be possible for the Kilgore College Rangers to rise to the level of BCS national champion.

I don't think it's at all viable, but it sure would be interesting.

*As a total hijacking side note, while I was looking up the name of a Texas JC football team, I noticed that JC football is pretty much a LOT of teams in California vs. a few teams in the other 49 states. Why is that? Ironic too since California has dumped so many of its 4-year college football programs. Apologies in advance. I suppose this question is only for people who give a rat's ass about JC football in California.

Travis · August 3, 2009

I asked a couple of British acquaintances to explain that one to me, and it's set up such that in theory, some club team whose roster is comprised of 11 men from the local pub who don't fall down too often after a few pints could theoretically rise to the ranks of Manchester United. Of course, the community park they play in with it's 3 rows of metal bleachers would need an upgrade, but still, it's possible in theory.
So along those lines, it would theoretically be possible for the Kilgore College Rangers to rise to the level of BCS national champion.
I don't think it's at all viable, but it sure would be interesting.
*As a total hijacking side note, while I was looking up the name of a Texas JC football team, I noticed that JC football is pretty much a LOT of teams in California vs. a few teams in the other 49 states. Why is that? Ironic too since California has dumped so many of its 4-year college football programs. Apologies in advance. I suppose this question is only for people who give a rat's ass about JC football in California.

Yes, but the cool thing is... if you suck in the highest level you will drop down to the second tier and the best of the second tier will rise up. I like it because it rewards and punishes based on success on the field.... but in theory everyone has the opportunity to get a piece of the pie. I have no idea at all if it could work with football (especially at the collegiate level) but it is just for discussion.

FirefightnRick · August 3, 2009

"Of your three nonconference games, two must be played against fellow Gordon Gekko Subdivision opponents. Only one game can be played against an opponent from outside the top 40."
Fine. Each of those games "outside of the top 40" will cost $10,000,000+. The 80 teams in the Tom Joad Subdivision will increase the price tags for these games annually as they see fit.
This idiot, Pat Forde, will probably cause the AOL email server crash.

The reason he wrote it though Deep is that there's always going to be those readers who are willing to lay down and take it up the you know what. They have never witnessed a David defeating Goliath game in there lives, so they think.."what's the use", and swallow this kind of trash idea whole.

Rick

emmitt01 · August 4, 2009

Two reasons this model, if every adopted, would be scrapped by year 5.

1)None of the "biggest" teams in college football would accept relegation! Imagine, if you will, what would happen if UT, OU, USC, Notre Dame, or Florida were to fall on hard times in recruiting or just had bad coaching for a year. They would, by rule, be relegated to the lower division of football. And what if that same year that UT was bad TCU was just outside of the teams that move up to play the "big boys" but they started a lot of freshmen? TCU would then be pretty good that next year that UT was sent down. What if several small schools were in this same boat? Do you think Mack Brown (or the UT fanbase) would accept being sent down to a lower division and also face the possibility that there are "lesser" teams that might beat them and keep them down? I sure don't. BCS teams and their fans will only accept a system where the deck is clearly stacked in their favor AND should they falter the system is built to prevent a shift in power.

2)What happens if the 5 teams from the "big boys" who are sent down are OSU, Tech, LSU, Arkansas and Ole Miss and the five teams from the "little guys" who movSe up are Buffalo, Syracuse, Boston College, S. Florida and Illinois? Now 5 teams from the south have to be placed in an east coast conference and 5 teams from the east have to be placed in a southern conference. Would you re-shuffle the conferences every season? And what comes when UT whines and cries that the only reason they were sent down is because, by nature of their location, they had to play in a conference with Tech, OU, LSU, OSU, etc and that they could have easily won one of the "big boy" conferences from the west coast? (Just imagine Mack Brown moaning about his plight in having to play Big XII teams instead of acting as if is his automatic ticket to legitimacy) Would this idiot Forte distribute the heaviest hitters amongst the "big boys" to avoid this?

TIgreen01 · August 4, 2009

First, the English premier league's system of allowing anyone access isn't really as awesome as it sounds. True, in theory, anyone can work their way up to the top....but what really happens is that the absolute best teams in the EPL increasingly separate themselves from the rest. Once a team has been relegated to the second division, their attendance and tv revenue drops (b/c they are not playing the top competition anymore---it's akin to UNT having to play in the Sun Belt vs. TCU or SMU having all those years in the SWC) and they cannot afford to keep their teams running at the same level...so you have big player contracts that have to be dumped, along with coaches and staff. Basically, those teams that get relegated have a hard time ever getting back up to the absolute top of the EPL if they do make it back to the first division.

So, forget the worries that the UTs and Ohio Sts of the world wouldn't accept relegation....I don't think they'd ever get close. The EPL consists of 4-6 ridiculously good teams, then the rest are mediocre to bad. Now, lots of the continued separation may have more to do with them not really having any kind of salary cap---but neither does FBS football. The big programs would simply continue to outspend the rest of the world who would then have the worry of being relegated---and having to budget accordingly if that were to happen.

Edited August 4, 2009 by TIgreen01

forevereagle · August 4, 2009

The inherent problem with this plan is not the 40 teams that make it in and do not want to be ousted. It is the other 80 who do not want to lose their piece of the pie. The bubble teams will be the most vocal. From either side of the bubble, they are close enough to the outside that they will not be in favor of this system. There is a vast majority that would not be invited or sit close to being out that this would never pass, no matter how the traditional contenders feel about it. And then, if by some act of God this does occur, then the price to play outside of the 40 would be so astronomical that it would not be feasible. This is not a solution, and would further the problem. This would almost guarantee an anti-trust lawsuit if it went into affect because it would be telling 80 teams that they have no right to compete for the best recruits or a championship at the highest level.

UNTflyer · August 4, 2009

Is a salary cap and revenue sharing the answer to college athletics? Should programs be limited in the amount they can spend? Look what it has done for the NFL.

Total Revenue:

#1 Texas @ $120 million

#118 Louisiana-Monroe @ $7.7 milllion

Total for all schools come to $5.3 BILLION.

It's really becoming ridiculous what college athletics has become.

Edited August 4, 2009 by UNTflyer

untjim1995 · August 4, 2009

Is a salary cap and revenue sharing the answer to college athletics? Should programs be limited in the amount they can spend? Look what it has done for the NFL.
Total Revenue:
#1 Texas @ $120 million
#118 Louisiana-Monroe @ $7.7 milllion
Total for all schools come to $5.3 BILLION.
It's really becoming ridiculous what college athletics has become.

I do believe that when the next shift takes place in college football, the big BCS schools will either create a super BCS or separate from the NCAA to set up their own affiliation. I could see some BCS private schools like Baylor, Wake, Vandy, Duke, and Northwestern being relegated down. Big public universities with large enrollments and large alumni bases, along with the private schools like ND, USC, BYU, and Boston College will stay up. It would all look something like this:

Western League--USC, UCLA, UA, ASU, WSU, UW, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, BYU, and Utah

Midwest League--Texas, Tech, A&M, OU, OSU, Arkansas, KU, K-State, Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa State

Southeastern--Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, South Florida, Tennessee

Upper Midwest--Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Louisville, Cincinnati

Atlantic Coast--North Carolina, NC State, UVa, Va Tech, WVU, Kentucky, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Boston College, Connecticut

There are other teams, like UCF, Memphis, Boise State, or Fresno that could also move up in these talks, but you get the idea.