with realignment, has anybody thought about the fact...

[Coach34]

that schedules are about to get tougher for most schools, and that conference winners will most likely have 1 or 2 losses after all is said and done? This is going to push us forward to a playoff because its going to madness figuring out who to rank where

making the SEC and Pac-10 tougher, while only adding Nebraska to the weakass Big Ten is a definite advantage for them at the end of the season

 

[alabamadog]

thats going to hurt us as far as getting to a bowl. The only way I see us benefitting from expansion in football, besides from the extra money, is if Vandy moves to the west. On the bright side, adding a couple teams is going to be good for the basketball schedule.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

went to a 12 team league...Thoughts were that we might never have another undefeated team or a National Champion. Tougher Schedule, plus a league Champ. Game.

Somehow that all worked out.

 

[thatsbaseball]

nm

 

[Coach34]

went to a 12 team league...Thoughts were that we might never have another undefeated team or a National Champion. Tougher Schedule, plus a league Champ. Game.

Somehow that all worked out.

We added a decent UPig program and SC's football history was worse than our's when they joined. The teams being mentioned are a schedule upgrade for sure and one I don't want if I'm Fla, Bammer, Jawja, and LSU.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

It's ain't 17n wrong.

 

[MSUDawg25]

You should try using the phrase "I disagree" in place "you're wrong". It's a lot less obnoxious. Just sayin.

 

[FlabLoser]

that schedules are about to get tougher for most schools, and that conference winners will most likely have 1 or 2 losses after all is said and done? This is going to push us forward to a playoff because its going to madness figuring out who to rank where

making the SEC and Pac-10 tougher, while only adding Nebraska to the weakass Big Ten is a definite advantage for them at the end of the season

The primary reason the Pac10 and Big10 suckered the Big 12 into opposing a playoff system is that they want to have intra-conference playoffs. A simple 4-team conference playoff would generate about 3x what your average one-and-done conf championship generates. All all the money would be guaranteed to the conference - unlike a normal national playoff where the conference is barely guaranteed a seed much less 3 games.

There's no being forced into a playoff. Its all part of the master plan. When conference playoffs are established, another couple rounds for inter-conference national playoffs would be a foregone conclusion.

Its all about controlling more TV sets and getting more conference games, regular season or post season, on those TV sets. Little else matters. Not academics, not classroom time, not traditions, not fear of being able to compete in a conference, etc.

 

[Coach34]

because I can assure you the top teams in the SEC werent concerned about adding SC and their 4 or 5 bowl game history to the SEC in 1991

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I can recall this being discussed at some length in the many news articles, quotes by coaches, and sports writers columns, TV announcers.

Can I give you a specific fact, no, not 18 or so years later.

Sorry for screwing with your thread. I'm not biting any further, I just remember it.

I know you are bored, but go watch some Soccer, and College Baseball.

 

[Seinfeld]

but if we somehow do end up with 3-4 "Super" conferences, I think that you can kiss the current championship/bowl system out the door. Does that mean conference tournaments, a national tournament, or a combination of the two? Who knows, but I can guarantee the current 10-team BCS format will be gone.

As a side note, I also still haven't quite wrapped my head around the implications of the new power conferences pulling away from the NCAA.

 

[codeDawg]

Across the board and have 4 divisions per conference. This would setup the same number of conference games we have today with a playoff conference championship. The NCAA doesn't have to hold the playoff and the conferences get to present their BCS bids.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

because I can assure you the top teams in the SEC werent concerned about
adding SC and their 4 or 5 bowl game history to the SEC in 1991

What you aren't taking into account is that expanding the SEC back then meant more than adding two teams. It also meant adding the SEC Championship game which is another conference game that's always against a top opponent. Even so, the SEC has had its fair share of Ntnl. Championships.

 

[Sutterkane]

we already cycle 2 of the east teams, why not just make it 1 plus the "east rival" that you play each year?

 

[Dawgzilla]

The concerns were that expansion meant adding a regular season conference game - regardless of the opponent - and the championship game at the end of the season. Sure enough, in 18 years the SEC has only managed to have 4 undefeated teams: Alabama in 92 and 09, Auburn in 04, and Tennessee in 98. Fortunately, the BCS has worked out to enable SEC teams with 1, or even 2, losses to play for the National Title.

I'm not entirely sure how, but expansion and playing a championship game have actually improved the conference. The TV money is there, and I think programs have been forced to step up their game just to be competitive in the SEC.

 

[patdog]

would make it a lot tougher for an SEC team to win a national championship.