****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

The current system is rigged in Notre Dame's favor. They don't need a conference to get into a playoff.

You are apparently unaware of the change that is likely going to occur in the BCS. Its not final and they could always change their mind, but the plan most likely to be adopted next month is to select the 4 highest-ranked conference champions, as long as they are top-6. If there are fewer than 4 conference champions in the top 6, then and only then do they fill it out with non-champions.

Under that scenario, UND would probably need to go undefeated and hope one of the big 4 has a really bad year. That is highly unlikely.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

1. There's not going to be auto bids at all anymore.

well yeah, no kidding. My point is that the ACC was viable with Pitt/Syracuse only because they had and still thought they'd have, an auto-bid. Now that auto-bids are going to be gone, the ACC is pretty well screwed due to SOS.

[alnorth]

This is what UND may be facing if the current plan for BCS reform is adopted.

Final regular season BCS rankings - 2017 (conference champs in bold)

1. Alabama in, seeded #1
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma in, seeded #2
4. USC in, seeded #3
5. Auburn
6. Wisconsin in, seeded #4
7 through infinite. who cares

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by alnorth

This is what UND may be facing if the current plan for BCS reform is adopted.

Final regular season BCS rankings - 2017 (conference champs in bold)

1. Alabama in, seeded #1
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma in, seeded #2
4. USC in, seeded #3
5. Auburn
6. Wisconsin in, seeded #4
7 through infinite. who cares

That is not the current plan. That was Delaney's pitch, which has been effectively shot down by pretty much everyone except the Big Ten and Pac 12.

It is going to end up top 1-4 in a ranked system, similar to the BCS now.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

That is not the current plan. That was Delaney's pitch, which has been effectively shot down by pretty much everyone except the Big Ten and Pac 12.

It is going to end up top 1-4 in a ranked system, similar to the BCS now.

AKA the SEC's plan. That plan may be what the SEC is hoping for, but most articles have still said that the Big 10 plan is still the most likely, and why wouldn't it be? If the Big 12 and Pac 12 are pretty sure they can almost always have a top-6 champ, they'd back it too. Why do UND any favors?

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/0...ogle_news_blog

The Pac-12 Conference favors sending conference champions

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by alnorth

This is what UND may be facing if the current plan for BCS reform is adopted.

Final regular season BCS rankings - 2017 (conference champs in bold)

1. Alabama in, seeded #1
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma in, seeded #2
4. USC in, seeded #3
5. Auburn
6. Wisconsin in, seeded #4
7 through infinite. who cares

Yea I think this "playoff" is going to be pretty much a mess for many years. The Big 10 and PAC 10 will ALWAYS do the Rose Bowl. To the Big 10 teams that is pretty much the NC.

It will probably be something like the top 4 teams ranked by the "BCS", or whatever its called, with a max of two teams per conference. There will be 5 conferences that have major activity (PAC, BIG, Big 12, SEC and ACC) so the idea of a 4 team "conf. championship" final four just isn't going to happen.

that's my opinion anyway.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by alnorth

AKA the SEC's plan. That plan may be what the SEC is hoping for, but most articles have still said that the Big 10 plan is still the most likely, and why wouldn't it be? If the Big 12 and Pac 12 are pretty sure they can almost always have a top-6 champ, they'd back it too. Why do UND any favors?

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/0...ogle_news_blog

Well first off, the all conference champs plan likely sets the NCAA up for antitrust issues if it excludes independents like ND or BYU, or non-power conference teams like Boise. ND is in the playoff committee along with conference commissioners. If no one valued ND they would have been excluded.

Second, any playoff that could potentially not include teams ranked #2 or #3 would not be acceptable to the public. The point of this entire process is to improve the system of crowning a champion.

I think we will see a straight 1-4 ranking system, but the Big Ten and Pac want to ensure that they have access to the Rose Bowl.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Well first off, the all conference champs plan likely sets the NCAA up for antitrust issues if it excludes independents like ND or BYU, or non-power conference teams like Boise. ND is in the playoff committee along with conference commissioners. If no one valued ND they would have been excluded.

Second, any playoff that could potentially not include teams ranked #2 or #3 would not be acceptable to the public. The point of this entire process is to improve the system of crowning a champion.

I think we will see a straight 1-4 ranking system, but the Big Ten and Pac want to ensure that they have access to the Rose Bowl.

If the Big 10 and Pac 12 insist on the conference champ model, they will get it. If they don't care that much about it, they wont, but it seems to me they do care about the conference champ model a great deal. The antitrust issues don't really exist because the independents do have a (slim, but theoretical) road, and they could easily join a conference if they wanted to. By opting out of a conference, UND pretty much chooses to make it harder on themselves for no really good reason.

[alnorth]

Anyway, the whole UND thing is a sideshow. If they are forced into a conference, it'll probably be the Big 10, so who cares.

[alnorth]

To make it more concrete, money aside we all know about money and we know about how FSU is broke, but lets say thats not enough for FSU to move, they'd also need to be convinced they cant make the postseason in the ACC. For arguments sake lets also say I'm wrong and we go to the SEC top-4 model (which actually supports my point, because the ACC champ can't squeek in there at #6)

Take a look at FSU's conference schedule:

Wake Forest (lol)
Clemson (ok, not bad)
@USF (lol)
@NC State (lol)
Boston College (HA!)
@Miami (OK)
Duke (seriously? lol)
@VT (nice)
@ Maryland (ok)

If FSU loses 1 or 2 games, their strength of schedule is going to be a smoking ruin. FSU, as the 1 or 2-loss ACC champ, will have to hope for a bunch of losses in the Big 12, B1G, or Pac 12.

Before, SOS didn't mean much, now it means a lot, and the ACC screwed their football schools by taking Pitt and Soren Petro's alma mater instead of a couple football schools.

edit: and Pitt/Syracuse isn't in yet. The SOS will go downhill from here.

[eazyb81]

FSU will likely not be able to afford more than 1 loss in any conference to make a top 4 playoff. It's not like an 11-1 ACC champion Florida State is getting passed up by 8 win teams in the SEC and Big Ten now.

FSU is not winning championships because they are losing too many games. That would hurt them in the Big 12 too. Also didn't the Big 12 champion get passed up by an SEC team with an equal record last year?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

FSU will likely not be able to afford more than 1 loss in any conference to make a top 4 playoff. It's not like an 11-1 ACC champion Florida State is getting passed up by 8 win teams in the SEC and Big Ten now.

FSU is not winning championships because they are losing too many games. That would hurt them in the Big 12 too. Also didn't the Big 12 champion get passed up by an SEC team with an equal record last year?

A 1-loss ACC champ will be passed by a 1-loss SEC/Big12/B1G/PAC 12 champ. Maybe even a 2-loss SEC team. 2 losses as an ACC team, forget it.

Obviously FSU has to win more, if they don't think they can, they may as well close up shop as a serious football school, and enjoy their time losing in the ACC. If they have any ambition of ever being good again someday and salvaging their brand, they have to get the hell out of the ACC because that conference is going to trash their SOS.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

A 1-loss ACC champ will be passed by a 1-loss SEC/Big12/B1G/PAC 12 champ. Maybe even a 2-loss SEC team. 2 losses as an ACC team, forget it.

Obviously FSU has to win more, if they don't think they can, they may as well close up shop as a serious football school, and enjoy their time losing in the ACC. If they have any ambition of ever being good again someday and salvaging their brand, they have to get the hell out of the ACC because that conference is going to trash their SOS.

So they need to lose fewer games, and the way to do that is to move to a tougher conference? The ACC is more than capable of producing a national champion.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by alnorth

A 1-loss ACC champ will be passed by a 1-loss SEC/Big12/B1G/PAC 12 champ. Maybe even a 2-loss SEC team. 2 losses as an ACC team, forget it.

I don't buy that it is static like this, and I don't think you have any data that can prove it.

I have no doubt that a 1 loss FSU would trump a 1 loss team from the Big 12 if it was, say, Texas Tech or Kansas State. Prestige and brand is usually the tie-breaker, which FSU will have in the ACC or Big 12.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I don't buy that it is static like this, and I don't think you have any data that can prove it.

I have no doubt that a 1 loss FSU would trump a 1 loss team from the Big 12 if it was, say, Texas Tech or Kansas State. Prestige and brand is usually the tie-breaker, which FSU will have in the ACC or Big 12.

Exactly. Both the ACC and Big XII have two traditional powers, a few teams that can be good in spurts, and a bunch of filler. Right now, both Texas and Miami are down while Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech are strong. The difference is that for ACC schools haven't applied to get into another conference, and the Big XII is hemorrhaging teams.