When Nick Saban talks, people listen. A mic consistently in the face is a byproduct of winning national championship rings for half his fingers. (That is correct by 3rd grade standards, when we all were giddy to learn the thumb technically wasn't a finger. Or by Alabama standards, where they awarded Saban a commemorative 5th ring for the thumb.)
As your may or may not know, the Big Ten is working toward eliminating I-AA games from its team's schedules. Saban was asked his thoughts on the Southeastern Conference possibly doing the same eventually.
"I'm for five conferences — everybody playing everybody in those five conferences," the Alabama coach said Thursday night before speaking at a Crimson Caravan stop. "That's what I'm for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody's got to play 'em. …"
Seventy is a number that's divided evenly by 5. Of the five power conferences, the SEC, B1G, and ACC have, or will soon have, 14 full-time members. The Big 12 is chilling with 10 and the Pac-12 doesn't dig misnomers. These are probably the leagues Saban is talking about, and perhaps in his scenario the latter two move to 14 teams (14 * 5 = 70).
My initial impulse was to like this idea. The season is too short and precious to waste games on pay-for-I-AA-blowouts (JMU joke here) and uninteresting non-conference matchups ("LET'S PLAY ECU EVERY GAME" – Jim Weaver, probably). With the playoff, there's less of a chance for a loss to eliminate a team from national championship contention. Strength of schedule will be used even more to evaluate teams. Finally, with a 70 team pool, there will be more common opponents to apply the irrational Transitive Property of Football to.
I soured on it a bit when I started thinking about the flaws.
- I-AA schools depend on the cash the big boys payout to fund their programs and athletic departments. Tennessee-Martin athletics director Phil Dane said, "If the SEC should follow that trend, it would be a major concern for us because football guaranteed games are a very significant part of our business."
- It wasn't too long ago that Virginia Tech was an afterthought in college football, struggling to make a name for itself, and find a conference home. Saban's 70 team model leaves 6 seats at the table, with one reserved for Notre Dame. There are more than 5 schools that didn't survive expansion, but remain committed to football. Furthermore, who is going to force the Pac-12 and Big 12 to take in the stragglers?
- Most importantly, it wouldn't be the 70 best teams. Hello there, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Colorado, Boston College, Indiana, etc... I don't like handshakes and proximity trumping on-the-field product.
Am I for more competitive games? Always. Am I for crushing the little guy, and shutting the door on schools trying to move up? No. The rise of new era programs and powerhouses is something I've come to appreciate.
College football isn't very symmetric or homogeneous, it'll require unique, probably complex, solutions for its problems. Here's one: Eliminate I-AA games from the schedule, play I-AA teams instead of spring games. I-AA schools get a payday, boring spring scrimmages are eliminated, and look, an open spot in the fall.
Reformation, reorganization, separation, whatever you want to call it, may be inevitable because money is involved. This is what SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said regarding full cost of attendance being part of an athletic scholarship.
"Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that," Slive said. "But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."
He went on to stress that he hasn't been involved in any discussions concerning divisions however it's clearly another example of conference officials being concerned with the current state of college athletics.
The ACC's grant of rights halted expansion, but not change. The O'Bannon lawsuit, is happening, and who knows what else is around the corner. Sometimes I wish I could unplug, and wait for college football to figure itself out.
Comments
1AAs during the spring game would be great fun
I was thinking something similar, like a preseason exhibition game that wouldn't count towards rankings or records. I don't know if spring is the right time for it, but during summer camp might be interesting.
Hate Saban and his recruit-stealin, cherry-pickin, staff of thieves, but the idea of a 70 team "league" which gets rid of a lot of the chaff teams from the schedule kind of appeals... Don't see it happening though unless ESPN decides it will make more money for them.
Maybe there could be a pool of teams for each conference. That way, if a team is consistently crappy, they could get bumped down to the children's table and better teams can be brought up to play with the big boys. This would probably present a logistical nightmare, but I like the idea of merit having some pull.
See, I like this idea. It's similar to how the Premier League works in European soccer. Basically, each conference would have an A league and a B league. The bottom 2-3 teams from the A league would be replaced by the top 2-3 teams of the B league. This would make it so that each year there are 10-15 new teams that are playing without regards to status as being a D1-A or 1-AA team. Conferences would be regional so as to make travel easier and less expensive. Then you would reward the little guys for being successful and keep competition tight. I can't see the NCAA ever doing something like this though.
the premiereship model makes sense to me. been sucking for years? so long duke. been kicking ass and taking names for years? hello boise. it would create more incentive to non-football schools in the big 5 conferences to be competitive and give the little guys a shot to sit at the table with the big boys.
The promotion/relegation idea is GREAT, and SBNation even did a whole week on it here:
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/5/17/3025448/conference-footb...
Regionalizing the game again but still keeping inter-conference matches would make it awesome. Why the HELL don't we play WVU anymore? I would trade Syracuse and BC in a heart beat to get WVU back on our schedule because I hate them so much and really, that's what sports are about (aside from championships). The best games are that much sweeter because they involve triumph over the teams you REALLY hate, and I could give two shits about BC. As awesome as the Tyrod win against Nebraska was, didn't the Logan Miami win feel even sweeter because it was MIAMI?
As a fan of a Premier League team (Aston Villa) that has spent the last three seasons flirting with relegation (though they appear to have escaped again this year, hopefully) I can tell you that being shitty is even more captivating than being good. Not knowing if continued suckiness will leave your team playing teams like Brighton & Hove Albion (seriously, that's the name of a team) instead of playing Manchester United and being broadcast around the world is stressful as hell. But FUN stress (at least when your team escapes). Also speaking as someone who has yet to deal with their team being relegated (hasn't happened for 25 years, long before I picked them up), so take it with a grain of salt.
The potential problem I see is UVA and Duke pushing to somehow get the Ivy League in our pyramid, then purposely (I'm assuming here they've been shitty NOT on purpose) losing their way into it so they can associate with who they always thought were their equals.
Chelsea! jk, but the relegation among conferences really interests me personally. I believe it could provide the incentives and promote the best teams available in order to follow the "Saban 70" model
i would be so far against the NCAA calling it the Saban 70 model lol
I really dislike soccer and don't know much of anything about the Premier League, but I like this idea. My question is what would dictate whether you begin the season in A or B league; Is it based on the previous season's performance or based on prestige/reputation? Also, when you say bottom teams in A replaced by top in B, does that refer to the following season or do they have a cutoff point midway through the season where the transfers happen? (I know nothing about the premier league other than hearing "Premier League" on tv occassionally)
Also, how would this fix the problem of those smaller schools needing us for a payout; if those small schools are in the B league (and most probably wouldn't even make the cut for the B league) then they wouldn't get the chance to play the real big boys.
In European soccer leagues, every team plays every other team in the league twice (home and away), so a team in a 20 team league has 38 games. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss. The team with the most points at the end wins the league, the bottom three (at least in English top flight) get dumped down to the second level for the next season, replaced by the top three (or top 2 and winner of a playoff between teams 3-6) of the second division. In the event teams are level on points, it goes to Goal Differential (goals scored - goals conceded), then Goals Scored (to encourage more offense), then I don't know, not sure it's ever had to go that far.
So, obviously the home and away can't work, but play every other team once (and since there are no ties in college football) the team with the worst record gets dumped. In the event of a tie, go to the head to head match up, then if it's three teams that all went 1-1 against each other, to total Margin of Victory (total points scored - total points conceded) then to total Points Scored. Teams would start in their current league, and the results of this season would determine where you play in the following season. So if Duke craps the bed in 2013, they are down in the Big East in 2014, replaced by probably South Florida or...someone, I don't even know who is in the Big East anymore, Houston?
Yes, this would basically be the structure. You have 5 top leagues (ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac 12) and then each has a feeder league (Big East/AAC, C-USA, MAC, Sun Belt, MWC+WAC respectively), and then they would have a feeder conference from FCS. So FCS can get more money by moving up the ladder. Each year, 2 or 3 teams moves up to a new conference. It's survival of the fittest. Darwin meets Heisman if you will. So in theory, after 2 years, a team like Duke could be relegated to essentially FCS status while a team like Appalachian State or North Dakota State could be in Tier 1 with the big dogs. Each Tier has a championship, but, just like the current setup, the top tier is the one everyone cares about. Everything else is a consolation prize.
This whole notion sounds like a utopian scheme, but in this dream world how are things like number of scholarships going to be divided. Will everyone (whether in top tier or bottom tier leagues) have the same number? If not at what point would a weaker football school (think Duke or France) lose scholarships after they move to a lower tier? Again I think its a brilliant idea and fun conversation, but not realistic when you get to the logistics.
SHHHHH!! Logic is irrelevant. But really though, that is one part that is difficult. While from the beginning, the top 2 tiers would have 80 scholarships per current NCAA regulations, the third tier (FCS schools) can't afford to have that many. I'm not a logistic kind of guy so I don't know how that would work.
One other thing to worry about is - what about other sports? I know, football is #1 for us and for university wallets, but would these demotions apply to a school's entire athletic department?
Those sports seem to have their shit together. Seems like only football has these major issues. What likely will happen, no matter what system is used, is football programs will separate from the NCAA, but all other sports will operate through it, or with the same structure. Football will develop its own structure and function separately. If that were the case, the College Football Premier League could function rather well.
I understand the concerns. And I understand the good ol boys club won't like letting the new kids in (see TCU, Boise.)
The only way this works is on a level and set-up similar to the English Premier League. The bottom teams move down and are replaced with the top teams from the lower division. In order for this to work, conference ties for football would need to be dissolved in some respects.
And this is why you read previous comments before you post. I basically just copied you. My bad. Have a +1.
Oh, I'm in full support. Just like on EA Sports, I would fill in my OOC games with Florida, Bama, Oregon and Texas every year. Frankly, I have started scheduling other things to do during our boring OOC games recently, like yard work or church BBQ dinners. It's not worth watching live, if we win, it's boring. If we lose, I'm pissed. So I come back and find out the game then watch it on ESPN3 while I watch interesting OOC games on Saturday night ABC/FOX/ESPN.
I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a money maker. Just think if everyone played interesting OOC games every week. You really would need ESPN to go to the Ocho. You could sell 4th and 5th tier games to TBS. We have become very myopic with this view that Furman brings in $1.2M at the gate, requires a $400K payout, so it's worth $800K to VT. You're diluting the brand with these types of games, reminding people that VT football isn't always such a great time and maybe I do have another things to do with my life on Saturdays in the fall. Play Arizona State, sell the game to Fox Sports Arizona and MASN and you're done. TV will pay you to play interesting games.
There should be some overriding Administration wing (that isn't the NCAA) where a Roger Goddell like guy runs a business that handles all the scheduling. The NCAA are the ones who allowed D-1AA games to count for bowls, the worst mistake they've made the last twenty years.
Run it the way the English Premier League runs. There are a given number of top-tier spots. Those teams play each other. If, at the end of the year, you're near the bottom, you move down to the feeder league, and teams from below move up to fill the slot. It could work rather well in college football, given the shear number of teams. It cuts out weak games, but gives rising teams a chance, and sends Duke and Kansas back down to a level where they might compete a little better.
I love this idea, and wholeheartedly endorse the Premiership model.
The one element that would need to be addressed is the issue of transfers. I haven't thought this through yet, so forgive me for the half-baked thought. If a team that is traditionally middle-of-the-pack, with the occasional over-achieving season or two (first teams to come to mind are Arkansas and Ole Miss - maybe even Auburn after last year) were to have a horrible year after enjoying a few strong seasons and equally strong recruiting...imagine they completely shit-the-bed after the upperclassmen leave, leaving behind a bunch of touted but inexperienced kids to take over (see Arkansas/Auburn, 2012). Now that team finishes with such a poor record that they get relegated. We've seen how primma donna a lot of these kids can be without this added stake of being sent to the minors. Some of those kids could get frustrated by their inability to play for a championship during the end of their career and transfer to a top flight school that still has a shot at a title (and with that, the aforementioned massive TV exposure). Now how does that school recruit that same top flight talent?
Though it would take a perfect storm, it could very well happen and bury some traditionally strong (albiet inconsistent) programs. You could make the argument that they deserve it on account of this, that, or the other. But during a time in which we are trying to revamp a lot of the inadequacies of college sports - pay-for-play, little guys vs. the big guys, etc. - might this system give a little too much power to the athletes?
As I said before, I love this idea, but there are a lot of elements of the current system that need to be addressed in order to ensure the success of such a system over the longterm.
Good point, and if you look back at the simulation Jason Kirk and Bill Connelly did last year, Miami ended up getting demoted at one point, so it's not at all out of the realm of possible. You either need to make sure the "compensation" of a player (scholarship, per diem, God forbid actual payments) are not impacted by relegation OR you have to build a loophole into the transfer system letting people bolt if their team ishes the bed, with restrictions, of course. I dunno, would make for a fascinating bar convo.
On one of your last points...at this point, don't the athletes have too LITTLE power? They can't transfer freely without restrictions even though their coaches can, they aren't actually compensated for what is proving more everyday to be an extremely dangerous sport for their long term health and they are used to promote and advertise their university or college again, without compensation. Long story short, they are free labor that is making hundreds of millions of dollars for lots of people. Sure, there is a balance to be found somewhere, but I think the players need a little more leeway than they currently get without taking complete advantage of the schools that provide the programs and the fans that allow the programs to exist.
I agree that they currently have too little power. I was trying to say that the balance would shift in a major way because it could turn into a "what have you done for me lately" type of situation with certain personalities.
Not football-related, but this really pisses me off; could become a shrine to future terrorists:
"Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was buried in a cemetery in Doswell, Virginia, source says."
I don't know why he couldn't be buried at sea like bin Laden? Seems fitting to me.
Nice article, Joe. But the gratuitous shot at Jim Weaver detracted from it, IMHO. Weaver has done a great job over the years of scheduling marquee out-of-conference games for us.
Nebraska, LSU, Southern Cal, Wisconsin, Alabama, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Boise State ... and now Michigan.
That's a pretty damn good lineup.
JOKES. THINGS THAT MAKE YOU LAUGH. ENJOY THEM MORE THAN YOU DO.
Gratuitous, look it up, because you don't know what it means.
Also:
Oh, OK ... Sorry I took it the wrong way.
I like this English Premier League idea. Anything to rid us of playing Boston College every year.
The major problem I would have with this type of setup would be the loss of rivalry games. When LOLUVA inevitably gets demoted, we won't get to beat up on them every year, and I for one enjoy watching it.
One of the problems I see is that a team could have 1-2 rebuilding years with young players, get demoted, and be unable to have the big upswing like you see sporadically.
What happens to the champ of the minor league? Do they get a spot in a playoff of some kind?
The champ of the lower league gets promoted with 1 or 2 other teams from top of that league, while 2 or 3 low teams in the top league get demoted.
Still some flaws in the system, see Auburn 2009-2011. They went 7-5 in 2009, and in the 'Premier league model' could have fallen to the second tier league (five way tie for second to last place in the SEC, so not sure they actually would've fallen). Assuming they did fall, they wouldn't have the chance to play in 2010 National Title game.
Big premier league fan (go Tottenham) here. Without a doubt in my mind, this would be the best thing to ever happen to American sports. This would virtually eliminate all of the useless games that plague an NCAA season because the good teams would be fighting for championships while the bad teams would be fighting relegation. Here's my model:
-Have football operate as a completely different entity. Makes all of this a lot easier.
-5 leagues with 14 teams. Each big league has a second tier. Possibly rename the second tier leagues so it's obvious who their top tier affiliate is.
-At the end of the season, the winner of the league's championship game will enter into an 8 team playoff. The other 3 teams will be picked at large.
-Meanwhile, the bottom 4 teams will play relegation battle games. The last place team will play the 4th worst team while the 2nd and 3rd worst teams play each other. The losers of these games get relegated while the winners survive. Down in the second tier, a similar process will be going on where the top 4 teams play 2 games to determine which 2 teams go up. All of these playoffs would be at a neutral site.
Quite frankly, I feel like this model would generate way more revenue so profits could be shared with the second tier and everyone would be happy. If teams really care about football, they would do whatever they can to get promoted and stay in the top league. It would also help fill stadiums at the end of the season because what kind of shitty fan would sit at home while they're team is in a relegation playoff game?
And just to prove my point, instead of snoozers at the end of the season, we would get frantic finishes like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hIrFck2sc10#!
Go Spurs!
Why not award the SEC champion a National Title and then have one for the rest of us? Where are the divisions between 1-A, 1-AA, or Div 1, Div 2, etc... How do you decide? I sure as hell don't want things decided by the media.