[Pastor]

For football only.....

1) Eliminate all conferences and their parochialism
2) Every team plays 6 rivalry games of choice and then
3) every team goes into a win or eliminated tournament (like Basketball), seeding based on those 6 rivalry games
4) Losing teams are then matched to determine bowl games (loser #60 plays loser #30), winning teams move on
5) after 6 games (assuming 128 teams) we have a legit national championship game.


Would generate a lot of money, cancel those silly computer/coach/writer polls and biased strength of schedule (since reputation leads to the rankings which leads to \'strength\').

Talk about fun and exciting!  No more poor Boise States or lazy USC...everyone has a shot at the title.

[Pastor]

For football only.....

1) Eliminate all conferences and their parochialism
2) Every team plays 6 rivalry games of choice and then
3) every team goes into a win or eliminated tournament (like Basketball), seeding based on those 6 rivalry games
4) Losing teams are then matched to determine bowl games (loser #60 plays loser #30), winning teams move on
5) after 6 games (assuming 128 teams) we have a legit national championship game.


Would generate a lot of money, cancel those silly computer/coach/writer polls and biased strength of schedule (since reputation leads to the rankings which leads to \'strength\').

Talk about fun and exciting!  No more poor Boise States or lazy USC...everyone has a shot at the title.

[jacketree]

Is a bracket printed somewhere?

So if you are bad (or unlucky), you only play seven games?  That\'s a lot of revenue to lose for a lot of schools.

But you are on a decent track.  The trick is not to expand conferences; the trick is to regroup into round robin conferences or divisions or whatever you want to call subsets; take those champions (no conference title games) and go into a 16-team playoff. Basically organize those 128 teams into 16 divisions of 8 each.  So let\'s say you have 7 conference games + 3 non-conference games (that matter only for playoff seed or are just played for the good old competitive hell of it), and for the lucky winners another 4 games for all the marbles.  10 minimum; 14 maximum.  Bowls for the also-rans.

Or leave things the way they are and bitch and moan every year.  Much more satisfying. ;)

[jacketree]

Is a bracket printed somewhere?

So if you are bad (or unlucky), you only play seven games?  That\'s a lot of revenue to lose for a lot of schools.

But you are on a decent track.  The trick is not to expand conferences; the trick is to regroup into round robin conferences or divisions or whatever you want to call subsets; take those champions (no conference title games) and go into a 16-team playoff. Basically organize those 128 teams into 16 divisions of 8 each.  So let\'s say you have 7 conference games + 3 non-conference games (that matter only for playoff seed or are just played for the good old competitive hell of it), and for the lucky winners another 4 games for all the marbles.  10 minimum; 14 maximum.  Bowls for the also-rans.

Or leave things the way they are and bitch and moan every year.  Much more satisfying. ;)

[Pastor]

If a team loses it moves on to play another ;losing team...if say SJSU loses, they match up with Fresno State (or some such) for their next game....and they work their way toward a bowl game for post season.  Every team plays at least the current 12 games.

) Losing teams are then matched to determine bowl games (loser #60 plays loser #30), winning teams move on

[Pastor]

If a team loses it moves on to play another ;losing team...if say SJSU loses, they match up with Fresno State (or some such) for their next game....and they work their way toward a bowl game for post season.  Every team plays at least the current 12 games.

) Losing teams are then matched to determine bowl games (loser #60 plays loser #30), winning teams move on

[JeffInCorvallis]

I think Larry Scott and all the conference-builders have it wrong.  They are selling out everything for the TV money.  16-team conferences, big TV markets (like Boulder and Salt Lake City, I guess), conference championship games, and on and on.  Everything is primed to get big bucks from TV.  Fans, alumni, and students are just window-dressing for the TV cameras and the luxury suites where the real money is to be made.  Geographic or traditional rivalries?  Give \'em up if it means you can slide into the right conference with the right geographies and demographics so you can haul in the big bucks.

The problem is this whole arrangement in a very short time is going to change.  I\'m already watching a lot of Stanford games on the Internet.  I don\'t need ESPN with their blowhard analysts and satellite dishes.  It\'s already possible for somebody in the stands to stream a game from their iPhone.  What if BYU or Boise State were to go independent and decide they are going to stream all their games on the internet for a fraction of what it costs ESPN to do it.  They can sell some advertising, establish a nationwide fan base, and bring their product directly to their "consumers" while eliminating the middleman.

They won\'t do it right away, of course, because they get too much money from the TV networks.  But the technology exists today and it\'s only a matter of time until someone exploits it.  It won\'t be the big boys - ND or USC or Texas, they make way too much money today.  It\'ll be someone like Boise State.  And eventually the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

[JeffInCorvallis]

I think Larry Scott and all the conference-builders have it wrong.  They are selling out everything for the TV money.  16-team conferences, big TV markets (like Boulder and Salt Lake City, I guess), conference championship games, and on and on.  Everything is primed to get big bucks from TV.  Fans, alumni, and students are just window-dressing for the TV cameras and the luxury suites where the real money is to be made.  Geographic or traditional rivalries?  Give \'em up if it means you can slide into the right conference with the right geographies and demographics so you can haul in the big bucks.

The problem is this whole arrangement in a very short time is going to change.  I\'m already watching a lot of Stanford games on the Internet.  I don\'t need ESPN with their blowhard analysts and satellite dishes.  It\'s already possible for somebody in the stands to stream a game from their iPhone.  What if BYU or Boise State were to go independent and decide they are going to stream all their games on the internet for a fraction of what it costs ESPN to do it.  They can sell some advertising, establish a nationwide fan base, and bring their product directly to their "consumers" while eliminating the middleman.

They won\'t do it right away, of course, because they get too much money from the TV networks.  But the technology exists today and it\'s only a matter of time until someone exploits it.  It won\'t be the big boys - ND or USC or Texas, they make way too much money today.  It\'ll be someone like Boise State.  And eventually the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

[dabigv13]

I agree with you that conferences and TV exist for each other in this day and age, but I disagree that it will be the Boise St.s that effect the change- it will be the Texases. They already have explored the option of a Texas channel- ND practically has it now and it\'s the reason they aren\'t in a conference.

Paradoxically, I think it\'s women\'s sports and non-revenue men\'s sports that will eventually save college football. If USC were to decide to become independent, it wouldn\'t surprise me to see the Pac-10 protect their remaining brand by refusing to schedule USC on any sport. In CFB, big whoop, they\'ll play Texas, ND, and Alabama. But it would not be sustainable to be independent in all the other sports.

And that is how title 9 will become the savior of college football.

[dabigv13]

I agree with you that conferences and TV exist for each other in this day and age, but I disagree that it will be the Boise St.s that effect the change- it will be the Texases. They already have explored the option of a Texas channel- ND practically has it now and it\'s the reason they aren\'t in a conference.

Paradoxically, I think it\'s women\'s sports and non-revenue men\'s sports that will eventually save college football. If USC were to decide to become independent, it wouldn\'t surprise me to see the Pac-10 protect their remaining brand by refusing to schedule USC on any sport. In CFB, big whoop, they\'ll play Texas, ND, and Alabama. But it would not be sustainable to be independent in all the other sports.

And that is how title 9 will become the savior of college football.

[Leftcoast]

I\'m not all that concerned over a new wave of independents.

Over the last 40 years the trend has been for independents to JOIN conferences - not the reverse - for exactly the reasons Garvin points out.  Prior to the BYU announcement the roster of independents participating in Div 1/FBS was down to three schools - Notre Dame, Navy and Army.   Just last year folks on this board were discussing whether Notre Dame should drop their NBC deal when its term was up and join the Big 10 from a pure dollar perspective.  

To put some numbers behind this, over 51 schools have tried the independent route since Div 1A was established in 1978 and we are now down to four remaining independents.   Some of those "failures" were big names that have since joined BCS affiliated leagues (Miami, Florida State, Penn State, South Carolina, Va Tech, Boston College, (ahem) Rutgers, etc)  For a trip down memory lane there\'s a full list on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divisi...nt_schools

The BYU experiment will be illustrative over whether "going independent" has become a feasible option and I imagine several AD\'s will be watching.   But the BYU experiment may not be conclusive.  There are unique drivers, not all of which are monetary, in BYU\'s move that you don\'t see at other major universities (religious/church tie-ins, driving viewers to the BYU network, built in national following as with ND, etc).

Even in BYU\'s case they are leaving the WAC (and its weak TV contract) to go independent - leaving the PAC would be a very different story.  

[Leftcoast]

I\'m not all that concerned over a new wave of independents.

Over the last 40 years the trend has been for independents to JOIN conferences - not the reverse - for exactly the reasons Garvin points out.  Prior to the BYU announcement the roster of independents participating in Div 1/FBS was down to three schools - Notre Dame, Navy and Army.   Just last year folks on this board were discussing whether Notre Dame should drop their NBC deal when its term was up and join the Big 10 from a pure dollar perspective.  

To put some numbers behind this, over 51 schools have tried the independent route since Div 1A was established in 1978 and we are now down to four remaining independents.   Some of those "failures" were big names that have since joined BCS affiliated leagues (Miami, Florida State, Penn State, South Carolina, Va Tech, Boston College, (ahem) Rutgers, etc)  For a trip down memory lane there\'s a full list on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divisi...nt_schools

The BYU experiment will be illustrative over whether "going independent" has become a feasible option and I imagine several AD\'s will be watching.   But the BYU experiment may not be conclusive.  There are unique drivers, not all of which are monetary, in BYU\'s move that you don\'t see at other major universities (religious/church tie-ins, driving viewers to the BYU network, built in national following as with ND, etc).

Even in BYU\'s case they are leaving the WAC (and its weak TV contract) to go independent - leaving the PAC would be a very different story.