Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
Having just the SEC and “everyone else” isn’t healthy for the game. And how are PAC-12 and ACC teams going to regularly compete against each other? The time difference would be a killer.
I tend to think that it would be far better to have four, 10-team conferences, where everyone plays everyone else in the conference (no internal conference divisions) and each conference champion then plays in the knock-out championship playoffs.
Surely there are 40 top programs that could fill out such conferences.
Or, how about this:
Have the power conferences be 8 teams each, and each school plays 3 or 4 schools that are not members of the other three power conferences; but if you lose to two or more of those 3 or 4 schools, you are automatically kicked out of the power conference for the next season and cannot be the conference champion this season even if you run the table within your own power conference.
With that scenario, you only have to come up with 32 really good teams, and there is a chance that those 32 aren’t static every year.
What I’m getting at is that even the SEC has some dog teams—if all this SEC v Everyone Else comes to pass, is Vandy really going to be allowed to stay in the SEC?
|
This is going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. There are several schools in in all these conferences that are dogs in football but powerhouses in other ports that bring in significant $$$. Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, and Baylor for example in basketball. Vandy kills it in baseball. Cut them out of football and the conference loses all that revenue from other sports.
And that doesn't even factor in TV markets. Rutgers blows in football but are the only Power 5 team in the NYC market which is why the Big 10 brought them in.
It's not as cut an dried as it first looks. All the schools bring something to the table.