The case for super conferences?

[Mormon Red Death]

I don't like it at all.

If you are going to go to 16 team conferences, essentially, you have 2 8 team regions.

Just separate them and make 8 8 teams conferences. Then, have regional "playoffs" instead of conference championship games.

As a Ute fan, I don't like either scenario, but it beats the hell out of being in the MWC in some lower division of football.

The advantage of 16 team conferences is content...which means bigger contracts and more money.

I think this summer might be the summer that college football dies.

While many wanted playoffs, and I am sure we will get them, I don't think they envisioned this.

It would sure be nice to stay with 6 BCS conferences and 8 playoff spots. Give 2 spots to the highest ranking teams from those conferences and let them play.

16 team conferences seem pretty unstable. Not sure why I feel that way. Maybe my view is tainted unfairly by the SuperWAC.

How will it die?? There will be more tickets sold and more people watching on tv. seems to me college football will keep increasing in popularity.

[LA Ute]

How will it die?? There will be more tickets sold and more people watching on tv. seems to me college football will keep increasing in popularity.

Look, MRD, we don't like it. Now, if you can't toe the party line, try not to make so much noise about it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Seems Byu honk Pete Fiutak makes similar arguments that I did. Although there is virtually no way his PAC-18 will happen. No way will the Northwest schools give up the south.

[Mormon Red Death]

One more thought on the PAC-16. Utah, Colorado and the Arizona will veto any expansion that just gives the old PAC-8. If 4 more teams are added then the conference will have to be in Pods of 4 or 8. With the divisions rotation each year.

btw... no one mentioned this but the Pac12 and B1G want a +1 bowl format.

According to the Times, the favored format calls for adding a fifth game to the BCS tier – likely the Cotton Bowl – and seeding the top four teams. Those top four teams would play two semifinals games in two BCS bowls, which would rotate annually. The winners would advance to a title game to decide the national champion.

In this particular format, the Rose Bowl would not host any semifinal games, in exchange for preserving its historic Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup. It would, however, host the title game every five years.

Well maybe they don't

[OrangeUte]

http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700171007/ESPNs-business-blueprint-part-of-college-footballs-problem.html

Interesting. There is a lot of blame to go around.

[LA Ute]

http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/ar...s-problem.html

Interesting. There is a lot of blame to go around.

Good piece. Makes me glad Larry Scott didn't get the PAC as far into bed with ESPN
as he could have.

[Mormon Red Death]

Good piece. Makes me glad Larry Scott didn't get the PAC as far into bed with ESPN
as he could have.

IMO it doesnt matter they all try to do the same thing as ESPN. Look at comcast. They held the mtn hostage for 3 years before they would make a deal so it could be broadcast nationally. It says something when comcast is telling the fans to call their satellite companies and demand the mtn (so they can get the price they want) while they don't even put the product on their own fing system.

[BemidjiCoug]

http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/ar...s-problem.html

Interesting. There is a lot of blame to go around.

This guy is an idiot, ESPN puts on TV what people want to watch and what will make them money (will still live in America don't we?). People that want to watch sports that have declining ratings have the opportunity to.

I live in Northern Minnesota and before this year couldn't watch a BYU game unless I shelled out a bunch of extra cash to my cable provider (still can't watch Utah games, unless they are playing BYU ). Yet, I can chose between 4 hockey games any time I want (literally any time of the year).

If he wants to put blame on ESPN for the current situation in college football, he might as well just blame Capitalism.

[LA Ute]

This guy is an idiot, ESPN puts on TV what people want to watch and what will make them money (will still live in America don't we?). People that want to watch sports that have declining ratings have the opportunity to.

I live in Northern Minnesota and before this year couldn't watch a BYU game unless I shelled out a bunch of extra cash to my cable provider (still can't watch Utah games, unless they are playing BYU ). Yet, I can chose between 4 hockey games any time I want (literally any time of the year).

If he wants to put blame on ESPN for the current situation in college football, he might as well just blame Capitalism.

I think this was a compelling point (I hope that doesn't make me an idiot too ):

If ESPN wanted to reform college football, it could start with itself. A Twitter post by the blog "Everyday Should Be Saturday" noted the recent Big 12 upheaval: The conference -- which is contracted to Fox Sports -- is being broken up by an ESPN network (the Texas University Longhorn Network) for the advantage of another ESPN network -- the SEC. That sounds like a bad blueprint to me.

College football has a lot of problems, and taking on those problems needs to be done. But ESPN is far from a fair arbiter in this process.

[BemidjiCoug]

I think this was a compelling point (I hope that doesn't make me an idiot too ):

No your not an idiot, I guess I was specifically referring to his comments about how ESPN ruined hockey and NASCAR ratings or whatever he was alluding to. I'm just trying to point out that ESPN doesn't broadcast certain sports (or conferences) for a reason, no one around the country wants to watch them. ESPN is a national brand and wants to broadcast entertainment that people will watch across the nation.

I agree that ESPN shouldn't be preaching about how things need to be reformed when they are part of the problem. I just think they have done more to make college football better than they have to destroy it.

[LA Ute]

No your not an idiot, I guess I was specifically referring to his comments about how ESPN ruined hockey and NASCAR ratings or whatever he was alluding to. I'm just trying to point out that ESPN doesn't broadcast certain sports (or conferences) for a reason, no one around the country wants to watch them. ESPN is a national brand and wants to broadcast entertainment that people will watch across the nation.

I agree that ESPN shouldn't be preaching about how things need to be reformed when they are part of the problem. I just think they have done more to make college football better than they have to destroy it.

I agree with that!

[Uncle Ted]

College football needs its own division:

[...]
The time has come for college football to be classified as the separate entity that it is, and one that operates in its own conference; I'm looking right at you, Title IX.

Because football plays only about 12 times a year, these mega-conferences can work in these expansive models. It does not mean that TCU in the Big East still isn't geographically inane or that Texas A&M should be in a conference with South Carolina.

But if the standard is going to be alignment based primarily on TV sets, then Texas A&M playing in the $EC makes sense. So too does Texas playing a future conference game against UCLA.

Nothing else about the mega-conference really works, or benefits much of anyone other than a precious few. This is not a call to abolish all non-revenue sports. It is a call for regionalization. Immediately. TV doesn't care about any other sport other than football or men's basketball, and chances are very good that the athletic department heads don't either.

Even though most big-time college athletic programs are money losers -- a mere 22 made money in 2009-10 -- the public relations function of their football teams is so substantial that the investment is justified. Or can at least be explained. However, explain to me the logic of making even a comparative investment in a volleyball, tennis, golf or swim team when the residual is merely about checking off an equity box on a spreadsheet to satisfy federal law.

If one cent of one dollar of your football ticket money at, say, Texas Tech goes toward a women's volleyball team's trip to San Jose, Calif., in November, you need to demand a refund. When looking at your child's "student fees" at his or her college of choice, check how much money goes to the athletic department. It could be a few hundred bucks, and it's often to a locker room you'll never see.

I have no problem with my ticket money aiding the other sports, but I do have a problem with that ticket money being used to fund needless expenditures such as a cross-country flight for a sports team neither you nor me is apt to ever see compete.
[...]