Are conferences now too big?
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Yes. Been that way for a while.
And he’s exactly right because it creates unbalanced schedules.
And he’s exactly right because it creates unbalanced schedules.
Well the exception would be a poorly coached, highly paid, overly talented team with the easiest schedule in the conference that that couldn't even make the playoffs. Anybody know of a team like that ?
He’s right of course. 12 teams is really stretching it. Anything bigger is just too big. And really 10 should be the max. Ideally you’d have 7 conferences of 9-10 teams each that look very much like the old SEC, Big 10, SWC, Big 8, ACC, Big East & PAC-10. Take the 7 champions + a G5 champion & 4 at large for your 12-team playoffs.
I mean just look at the schedule difference between ours and ole miss. It's night and day. I mean I know we suck but these first 2 years for us are almost unfair
Too big yes, but the SEC/Big 10 isn't downsizing. The SEC certainly needs a better formula for scheduling though. I doubt there's many teams out there that either conference is considering adding (UNC would be the prize).
You do realize that if the SEC drops back to 10-12 teams who’s getting left out don’t ya?
He’s right but that’s exactly what we need to make the playoffs
With a 12-team playoff, there will always be imposters in the playoffs. And more smaller conferences would mean more automatic bids. I mapped out a playoff in my 7 old conferences format & it didn’t look much different. Swap in Missouri (Big 8 champ) for Arizona St, and maybe Alabama for SMU. Otherwise looks about the same.
Giant sized conferences require giant sized conference schedules to name a legit champion and prove out who the legit contenders are.
In 1992, there was a 12-team SEC with 8 conference games. You played 73% of the teams in the regular season. B1G teams played 80% of the league.
Now you have a 16-team SEC, but still just the 8 games. Big 10 has 18 teams and a 9-game schedule. Teams in both leagues only play 53% of the other teams in the conference. It’s a 17ing joke. Conferences really don’t even exist any more in the current configuration.
Both leagues (and the ACC / Big 12) need to be playing 11-game conference schedules. That’s how you get back to the proportion you need to have legitimate contenders emerge.
In 1992, there was a 12-team SEC with 8 conference games. You played 73% of the teams in the regular season. B1G teams played 80% of the league.
Now you have a 16-team SEC, but still just the 8 games. Big 10 has 18 teams and a 9-game schedule. Teams in both leagues only play 53% of the other teams in the conference. It’s a 17ing joke. Conferences really don’t even exist any more in the current configuration.
Both leagues (and the ACC / Big 12) need to be playing 11-game conference schedules. That’s how you get back to the proportion you need to have legitimate contenders emerge.
Yep
For the economists out there, this is the classic definition of an oligopoly….and, if you’ve been following college football the past 40 years, you could see this coming.
He's right and not only that but the large conferences take out some of the rivalry. When you only pay teams every few years you just don't have that element.
Toothpaste and tube.
Who cares that Indiana got lucky? The right teams will ultimately win it all. Y’all think too much about this stuff.
Who cares that Indiana got lucky? The right teams will ultimately win it all. Y’all think too much about this stuff.
The average margin of victory was only about a point more than previous round one matchups. This is a big no story