Realignment

[ThatGUY]

Interesting view on realignment from a non-sport outlet, basically the business side of thing.

http://collegespun.com/independents/notre-dame/photo-the-wall-street-journals-college-football-realignment-plan-would-have-just-10-programs-in-the-top-cluster

mods feel free to move if needed, I understand the Aug 1st rules have some posters in an uproar, just looking for discussion

[Augustus]

This would be suicide for the Playoff selection committee, because there most likely would be an unbeaten team from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Clusters most years... and possibly no unbeaten team from the 1st Cluster.

The teams from the 1st Cluster would not accept only an unbeaten team to be allowed in the playoffs... and, forego a 1-loss Cluster 1 team as an 2nd choice for the playoffs. (sort of like many are saying 2 SEC Teams could reach the Playoffs now)

What if there were unbeaten teams in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Clusters; a 1-loss team in the 2nd Cluster; and at least 2 or 3 loss teams in the 1st Cluster? No way the 1st Cluster subjects themselves to beating themselves out of the playoffs.

The 1st Cluster would basically be SEC Cannibalism, squared.

Then, there's the region/fanbase travel thing, tradition, rivalries...

Plus, by divisioning by "football strength"... does that mean if a team sucks for 5-10 years, they drop to a lower Cluster? And, a dominant team in a lower Cluster moves up?

Moreover, the television package deals for the separate Clusters would be a complete ClusterDarn (excuse the pun).

It is obvious the person that put this together doesn't cover sports.

[PonderinHog]

There'd definitely be some beaten teams in that first cluster - as in beaten half to death. 

[The Boar War]

Michigan hasn't won the Big 10 in a decade and they're in the top tier.

Stanford puts up double digit wins for four straight years and ends up in cluster 3.

[HogFaninMemphis]

Michigan hasn't won the Big 10 in a decade and they're in the top tier.

Stanford puts up double digit wins for four straight years and ends up in cluster 3.

That's because of things like revenue...Michigan is probably top 5 every year, like Notre Dame, results aside...
This idea is super interesting with a relegation system like the EPL. I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, I don't think.

[Inhogswetrust]

That's because of things like revenue...Michigan is probably top 5 every year, like Notre Dame, results aside...
This idea is super interesting with a relegation system like the EPL. I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, I don't think.

I would. We aren't the EPL. Should all sports model themselves after a different one. Maybe the EPL should be more like American football in structure...................... 

[BorderPatrol]

That's because of things like revenue...Michigan is probably top 5 every year, like Notre Dame, results aside...
This idea is super interesting with a relegation system like the EPL. I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, I don't think.

The chart clearly says it is based on football strength, which makes even less sense.

bp

[rljjr]

In no world is IOWA ahead of any of the cluster 3 teams -- revenue, prestige, wins. Good grief. Also, the comment above about Stanford is spot on. Finally, AU, aTm, Tenn, and SC-East are NOT above Ark on any sort of consistent basis during the last 10 years.

That said, it's an interesting idea, but has zero chance of becoming reality.

[JayBell]

To me, it's not even an interesting idea.  It would be jam packed with far too many issues from the outset.

1)  Why would someone like Notre Dame or Michigan want to be in Cluster 1?  They'd get their heads bashed in by the SEC schools.  Eventually they might catch up, IF they actually stayed in Cluster 1 long enough for the transition.  But if you organize conferences based on income, there will be some serious gaps within each cluster.

2)  Is everyone in consideration for the national championship or just the teams in Cluster 1?  A lot of the time, the best team would be in Cluster 1, but any team would be lucky to end with just 1 or 2 losses after running that gauntlet.  That would create a ton of inequity in the quality of schedules and the final team records.

3)  It's funny how much this system resembles the foreign soccer leagues based on promotion and relegation.  THAT would be the only system that I could see working with this proposal.  Now, stay with me here:

If college football was up front about it, the NCAA could say that only these set top 20 teams have a chance of winning the national championship this year.  You have two divisions, each side plays all nine division opponents and the top two teams play each other for the national championship.  Then, the bottom 4 teams play the top 4 teams from Cluster 2 to see who stays in the top cluster the next year.  Same with each of the other clusters.

Still, it would not be beneficial for most schools.  It's the same reason no promotion and relegation has been put into place in MLS.  It doesn't make business sense.

[NaturalStateReb]

To me, it's not even an interesting idea.  It would be jam packed with far too many issues from the outset.

1)  Why would someone like Notre Dame or Michigan want to be in Cluster 1?  They'd get their heads bashed in by the SEC schools.  Eventually they might catch up, IF they actually stayed in Cluster 1 long enough for the transition.  But if you organize conferences based on income, there will be some serious gaps within each cluster.

2)  Is everyone in consideration for the national championship or just the teams in Cluster 1?  A lot of the time, the best team would be in Cluster 1, but any team would be lucky to end with just 1 or 2 losses after running that gauntlet.  That would create a ton of inequity in the quality of schedules and the final team records.

3)  It's funny how much this system resembles the foreign soccer leagues based on promotion and relegation.  THAT would be the only system that I could see working with this proposal.  Now, stay with me here:

If college football was up front about it, the NCAA could say that only these set top 20 teams have a chance of winning the national championship this year.  You have two divisions, each side plays all nine division opponents and the top two teams play each other for the national championship.  Then, the bottom 4 teams play the top 4 teams from Cluster 2 to see who stays in the top cluster the next year.  Same with each of the other clusters.

Still, it would not be beneficial for most schools.  It's the same reason no promotion and relegation has been put into place in MLS.  It doesn't make business sense.

The whole thing's a cluster.  These schools and conferences would never go with something so unpredictable and unstable. 

[rickm1976]

Michigan hasn't won the Big 10 in a decade and they're in the top tier.

Stanford puts up double digit wins for four straight years and ends up in cluster 3.

Yeah, Michigan and Penn State too.  I think they got them a little higher than they deserve.  Add Notre Dame also.

[ThatGUY]

No matter how you arrange it some people are always going to feel slighted....
Its not separated by Geography or "power", but $$$$