SFN & Wolken offer fix to college athletics through football realignment

Over the last few years I have been a staunch CRITIC of most hypothetical proposals for a college football playoff based on the holes that existed in the specifics, logistics, and massive unintended consequences of most proposals when laid against the backdrop of real world constraints and reality. Whether by design or by ‘luck’, college football’s landscape is gradually moving towards the EXACT composition that I suggested years ago that needs to exist in order to have the most credible college football system and national football champion.  In general summary, SFN has been saying for years that we need something along the lines of 64 total “BCS” or top tier of “Division One” football teams comprised of 8 conferences of 8 teams OR 4 ‘super conferences’ of 16 teams each split in two divisions of 8 teams.

Such a structure would create more natural geographic rivalries while simultaneously producing division champions to play in a conference championship game.  The resulting conference champion could then advance into a four team ‘national playoff’ that wasn’t punitive to fans who wanted to travel to see their team nor too heavily reliant on home field advantage (set by seeding) in the playoffs.

This structure insures:

  • that EVERY TEAM plays EVERY TEAM in a round robin format during the regular season. “EVERY GAME COUNTS”
  • the regular season winner of EACH 8 team division has been ‘settled on the field’ and then advances into the conference championship games that effectively serve as the national quarterfinals.
  • the integrity and week-to-week drama of the regular season remains.
  • if conferences were REALLY SMART they would count ONLY the 7 games played in the 8 team divisional play towards a ‘conference record’.  Why should Georgia’s divisional record be negatively impacted by playing LSU and Alabama in a year that Florida’s divisional record included games against Ole Miss and Miss State?
  • schools would be incented to play big and important non-conference games like Ohio State vs Alabama because losing such a game would not result in falling out of the national championship hunt due to the reliance on conference performance for advancement.

As each realignment rumor gets us closer and closer to a conference structure that resembles the exact 64 total teams that we’ve been promoting for years, The Daily’s Dan Wolken has provided a suggestion that helps save ALL of college athletics from being potential collateral damage of the football arms race for reasons just like THIS. I like it. I like it a lot! Please click here for Wolken’s thoughts.

The Atlantic Coast Conference is particularly challenged in the current conference realignment landscape not just because of our recent relative competitive under-performance, but also because of institutional composition of the conference as small private schools such as Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College (and even Miami) comprise 25% of our entire conference!

Conferences are eating each other alive because football has gotten too big, too important to control, and the fear of getting left behind is making reasonable people do a lot of unreasonable things. And the only solution is to detach football from the NCAA structure — in terms of conferences, finances, rules, everything — and let the rest of college athletics go back to making at least a little bit of sense. If the 64 most valuable football programs want to split up into four conferences, let them align with whatever schools they want to align with and get the best TV deal possible. But for the sake of every baseball or women’s basketball team that has to fly thousands of miles to play a game that generates no revenue, it no longer makes financial or geographic sense to tie their future to football’s coattails.

Once upon a time, it was to a school’s benefit to have all its sports in one conference, which were formed for the purpose of tradition, convenience and philosophical kinship. But the earning power of football has killed that model, and now we’ve got Boise State in the Big East, West Virginia in Big 12 and fans of schools like Florida State and Clemson so scared of getting left behind that they’d rather beg Texas and Oklahoma for crumbs of the Big 12’s pie than fight for their own slice in the ACC.

[snip]

If market forces are pushing these schools into these so-called super conferences, fine. Just don’t drag everything else in college athletics along. If Florida State thinks playing football in a Texas-based league is the best way to win a national title and make the most money, it should be able to make that move. But wouldn’t it be better for Florida State’s athletic department, its budget and its fans if it could leave the rest of its sports (which generate little revenue) in a league with, say, Florida, Miami, Central Florida, South Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina and Clemson instead of hauling its women’s volleyball team to Ames, Iowa, and Manhattan, Kan., every other week?

Consider the flip side. Schools like Kentucky, which count on basketball to generate big revenue, could benefit tremendously from a true free market in conference realignment where geography and common identity is paramount. Instead of a steady SEC diet of Auburn and LSU, for instance, they could build a league with more compatible programs like Louisville, Indiana and Ohio State. Traditional rivals Syracuse and Georgetown, who defined college basketball on the East Coast for decades, wouldn’t have to be separated by the football gulf between them.

Those are just a couple examples. The benefits to decoupling football from the rest of college athletics would be endless, producing a more sensible and compelling model for athletes, administrators and fans. And maybe better for football, too, if the superpowers could congregate without any strings attached.

We’re a long way from such dynamic change, but the evolution of college athletics seems to be happening at a faster pace than ever before. This is one way it could actually lead to a better future.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

ACC College Football

24 Responses to SFN & Wolken offer fix to college athletics through football realignment

  1. Wufpacker 05/25/2012 at 3:55 PM #

    There you go making sense again.

  2. NOT A FAN OF BLUE 05/25/2012 at 4:45 PM #

    Excellent. Thank you for posting.

  3. packalum44 05/25/2012 at 5:11 PM #

    This is non-sequitur logic. By his own admission, no one cares about the non-revenue sports as evidenced by the fact they don’t generate…ya know…revenue. So why make significant structural changes to the way conferences work for something we already don’t care about?

    In other words, he’s saying, you know these sports you fans don’t even watch or care about……well, don’t you guys want them to have geographical rivalries? Ummmmm, no. We don’t care which is why we don’t watch them.

    Furthermore, its the football/basketball rivalries that drive whatever small amount of interest we have in the non-revenue. For example, why does FL State care if their volleyball team beats Miami? B/C of their football rivalry. If FL State quit playing Miami and started playing Texas every year, they would develop new rivalries in f-ball with Texas, but their volleyball team keeps playing Miami and people give a shit even less than they did before. Whatever small amount of utility the fans do get from beating rivals would be gone, b/c the fans now hate Texas.

    Color me unimpressed.

    Non-Sequitur.

  4. highstick 05/25/2012 at 5:29 PM #

    Now explain to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina why they should leave the SEC…

  5. Manu Ginobili 05/25/2012 at 6:10 PM #

    But under a model that qualifies only conference champions to the national semifinals, what is the incentive of any big time program to play another big time program from another conference? Other than rivalries, obviously.

  6. StateMan 05/25/2012 at 6:57 PM #

    ^just to name a few reasons…Being on tv, recruiting, selling out games against teams that fans actually want to see.

    Is there a downside to loading up the schedule with big names in this format?

  7. choppack1 05/25/2012 at 7:34 PM #

    My general impression right now is that college football is killing itself. The 4 game championship is a horrid solution, its actually worse than the current bcs system.

    The creation of super conferences and a 4 game playoff is the worst possible outcome for nc state….and if you think the football or conference power players are interested in nc state, I suggest looking at ecu, who can’t even get an invite to a pillaged and plundered big east.

  8. mak4dpak 05/25/2012 at 8:16 PM #

    So how come there is not problems with a playoff system in the lower NCAA divisions, can’t we follow that system. I am just not sold on 4 team playoff. Don’t seem fair. It is like basketball, and a team not so hot at the beginning may be the best team in the end, if they are afforded the chance to prove it.

  9. bTHEredterror 05/25/2012 at 8:51 PM #

    “My general impression right now is that college football is killing itself.”

    I have to disagree chop. The BCS era was popping the cork off the champagne bottle that is playoff football. And it is the most successful period in the history of sports, not just college football.

    And we have a far better chance of getting to #4, than getting to #2. Both of which are a pipe dream by current standards BTW.

    Use Boise as an example, in this system 5 years ago, they get a shot. I’m sure some will say they’ll just get pushed back to #5 like they were pushed back to #3. But there’s a better shot of the good old boys’ letting you try knowing you’ll have to do it twice rather than just once.

  10. phillypacker 05/25/2012 at 9:22 PM #

    Traditional rivals Syracuse and Georgetown, who defined college basketball on the East Coast for decades…

    Huh? In this universe?

  11. phillypacker 05/25/2012 at 9:23 PM #

    Has this been a good solution for Notre Dame? Anybody have any idea?

  12. choppack1 05/25/2012 at 11:10 PM #

    Not a playoff advocate. I’ve always thought the 11 and 12 game “playoff” of the regular season and conference championships made for an intensity unmatched in sports…I’ve always hated the idea of a “small” playoff. It should be 8 teams minimum. If you are going to to ruin the bowl system, at least give is more than 3 games.

  13. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 10:47 AM #

    Non-sequitur. This article has contains an illogical conclusion based on the original premise of the article.

    Color me unimpressed.

  14. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 10:51 AM #

    Author’s premise: Fans don’t care about non-revenue sports (evidenced by the fact they cost more to maintain than the revenue they generate).

    Conclusion: Let’s alter the system to fix an issue that we don’t care about to begin with.

    Non-sequitur. Makes no sense.

  15. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 10:54 AM #

    Furthermore, his premise is wrong. The football rivalries are what drive the non-revenue rivalries. In other words, whatever small amount of utility fans derive from volleyball team beating their “rivals” comes from the fact that the revenue sports created that rivalry to begin with.

    Why do we love to beat UNC in women’s soccer? Why do FL State fans like to beat Miami in tennis? B/C of football rivalry. If they started playing Texas every year, and their tennis team beats Miami, no one cares. The Miami rivalry is dead. FL State fans want to beat Texas in EVERY sport now, and although the pleasure is much smaller in the non-revenue sports, whatever small amount derived is based upon the football rivalry.

  16. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 10:57 AM #

    If his premise was the same: Fans don’t care about non-revenue.

    Conclusion: Let’s limit the cost of these sports that will rise from traveling with new conference affiliations by ………

    Okay, that makes more sense. But taking this a step further, why not just eliminate them all together?

  17. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 11:01 AM #

    Or his Premise could have been: Non-revenue rivalries are facilitated by geographic boundaries moreso than revenue sports b/c volleyball players etc… are recruited locally. In other words, a Nebraska player will have nothing in common with a FL player in non-revenue. For the student athletes, playing local competition allows them to play against students faced in high-school or other institutions that recruited them. This is what creates rivalries in non-revenue sports.

    Conclusion: Let f-ball separate so these rivalries can remain.

    This line of reasoning would have been much stronger, however it is still flawed based upon my believe that revenue rivalries drive rivalries for the fans and schools moreso than any other factor. But at least it would have been logical.

  18. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 11:04 AM #

    The fact is, football allows these non-revenues to operate. I am completely against adding more non-revenue sports to NC State and would be perfectly content to rid ourselves of the burden that some present.

    Not saying we don’t fund the ones we have 100%, but let’s not sacrifice competitiveness in football b/c we want to have a bunch of non-revenue sports that add little if any value to the school.

  19. highstick 05/26/2012 at 11:18 AM #

    ^just to name a few reasons…Being on tv, recruiting, selling out games against teams that fans actually want to see.

    I think the SEC already does that..Granted the 3 Non conference games leave a little to be desired, but watch injuries go up drastically.

  20. LRM 05/26/2012 at 11:28 AM #

    I like the premise. One of the biggest drawbacks I see is that there are so many haves not who rely on the haves in their league, so this kind of plan would certainly widen that gap, and you’d see natural attrition from the haves not.

    But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and it isn’t without precedence. A similar distinction was made in the 70s when DI split into I-A and I-AA — except there was just a small fraction of the TV revenue then that there is today.

  21. Astral Rain 05/26/2012 at 12:25 PM #

    You could go 63 teams 7 leagues of 9, and 1 wild card, or 72 with leagues of 9, which allows 4 home/4 road games.

  22. Astral Rain 05/26/2012 at 12:26 PM #

    I wonder- if football under this system was categorized as a club sport, could it be outside the scope of the NCAA, and, on top of that, not count for title IX purposes?

    I think those two things along would do a world of good.

  23. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 5:47 PM #

    ^ Would do good for whom, what and how Astral Rain?

    Football is a violent sport. The NCAA is a regulator. You think we can have non-regulated football? We do have club football at State its called two hand tag (for liability purposes).

  24. packalum44 05/26/2012 at 5:57 PM #

    “I like the premise. One of the biggest drawbacks I see is that there are so many haves not who rely on the haves in their league, so this kind of plan would certainly widen that gap, and you’d see natural attrition from the haves not.”

    You like which premise?

    Its funny you mention the “haves” vs “have nots”. If you look at US News rankings and regress them to endowment size rankings, you will see a surprisingly high correlation.

    Most of the endowment “have nots” actually have a competitive advantage in football (e.g. SEC schools). This athletic success trickles down to academia from two obvious vantages:

    1) Happy fans tend to give more money back to their school, both for educational and athletic purposes.

    2) Successful athletic programs rely less on donations and use operating cash flows (e.g. TV revenue) to pay for athletics which in turns allows donors/schools to direct more funding to academics.

    I will not weep for the Wake Forest’s, Boston College’s, Rice’s, Vanderbilt’s of the world. They are very much more wealthy (per capita) than most of the football powers.

    The true “haves” are the Ivys. This athletic success is a good thing it will help level the playing field (no pun intended) between the Ivy’s and Publics and be a boon to public universities in both the short and long run.

Leave a Reply