Recent Comments
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 didn't say the whole 25, I said most of it. Like in the 17-20 range. Smith is in the mold of eg and doesn't really look streaky like guys like Eddie and Brown were last year. This isn't going to be a one man show like last year. It's going to be a guard heavy, press and run type team. Look at LaSalle and VCU and that's the mold JJ is going for.
completely agree. I think the WR group is going to turn around this year.
All I want is ONE excuse to visit Ole Miss.
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?
I don't know why he couldn't be buried at sea like bin Laden? Seems fitting to me.
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."
phil steele is the only pre-season mag worth reading
Fortunately, Moorehead has almost a blank slate to work with, which I think will help get things rolling again.
No worries. I bought it last year, but I wonder if I should this year? I can't help but think we might fare better this season, if I forgo the purchase...
True, in fact a good buddy of mine from home went to Vandy and I was amazed when I visited. Even the Cavs say we have the prettier women of the two, though we don't have the ratio. That's what I hate about the expanded ACC; less Southern schools!
C'mon UK, let's make a trade!
Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear, this is Steele's east coast edition (cover) of the magazine.
He was on the cover of the 2012 edition, along with Geno Smith and Silas Redd. He was also on the cover of Lindy's Atlantic Coast preview mag last year. I wonder if these are just regional covers?
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.
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.
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.
I remember LT3 was on the cover of USA Today last summer. There's a lot of hype around this kid and for all our sakes I hope he lives up to it.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
And this is why you read previous comments before you post. I basically just copied you. My bad. Have a +1.
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 think you have it.