Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....

wow.

at this point it really is a situation where college football is divided into the SEC and 'everyone else'. And everyone else is looking like clearly the weaker of the two....

I'm not saying i like it because I think it does take away more of the culture of what the SEC is supposed to represent-deep south football teams headlined by bama, georgia, florida, auburn, tennessee and LSU. Those are the core programs of the SEC. By adding A&M back then and now Texas and Oklahoma, some of that core identity is diluted.....

but damn if it isn't the conference of all conferences at this point.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:20:35 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....
>
> wow.
>
> at this point it really is a situation where college football is divided into the SEC and 'everyone else'. And everyone else is looking like clearly the weaker of the two....

I don't think there's going to be an "everyone else". There is actually a bold prediction on a tOSU blog that Ohio State also eventually joins, meaning, eventually, one superconference to rule them all.

Mike

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Michael Falkner <darkstar7646@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:20:35 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....
>>
>> wow.
>>
>> at this point it really is a situation where college football is divided into the SEC and 'everyone else'. And everyone else is looking like clearly the weaker of the two....
>
>I don't think there's going to be an "everyone else". There is actually a bold prediction on a tOSU blog that Ohio State also eventually joins, meaning, eventually, one superconference to rule them all.

Sadly, this is very likely where things are headed. Reasonably sized regional conferences of 10-12 teams added to the fun of competiteveness. That is
disappearing in increments.. Just one more reason why I am losing interest in big team sports and pro sports (although there is a good argument that
college football and BB are pro sports.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-4, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....
>
> wow.
>

But it's not like all those teams are going to play each other every year.

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-4, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....
> >
> > wow.
> >
> But it's not like all those teams are going to play each other every year..

true, but they likely will expand things to 9 conference games. So you'd play 9 out of the 15 other teams(assuming itstays at 16). Plus I think the 'permanent games' are going to be unbalanced where the powers play each other more often than not. For example, in a 3 game permanent rotation for Georgia, it's a guarantee that Auburn and Florida would be two of those games. You can do a similar thing for the other top sec schools- ie for Auburn, Georgia and Alabama....

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:17:51 PM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
> > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-4, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma.....
> > >
> > > wow.
> > >
> > But it's not like all those teams are going to play each other every year.
> true, but they likely will expand things to 9 conference games. So you'd play 9 out of the 15 other teams(assuming itstays at 16). Plus I think the 'permanent games' are going to be unbalanced where the powers play each other more often than not. For example, in a 3 game permanent rotation for Georgia, it's a guarantee that Auburn and Florida would be two of those games. You can do a similar thing for the other top sec schools- ie for Auburn, Georgia and Alabama....

I wouldn't be surprised if the "new look NCAA" gets rid of the universal 12-game regular season in Division I and lets each conference decide how many games each team can play, or how the conference championship tournaments can be conducted.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 2:02:20 PM UTC-7, j...@mich.com wrote:

> Sadly, this is very likely where things are headed. Reasonably sized regional conferences of 10-12 teams added to the fun of competiteveness. That is
> disappearing in increments.. Just one more reason why I am losing interest in big team sports and pro sports (although there is a good argument that
> college football and BB are pro sports.

I'm thinking 4 8's myself. And that'll be the entirety of college football, for all meaningful purposes.

Mike

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:13:42 PM UTC-7, JGibson wrote:

> But it's not like all those teams are going to play each other every year.

Maybe not, but imagine the draw they'll have by telling people that's the pool of schools who will literally play each other every week, with no further useless games.

Mike (At least at the "home viewer" level...)

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> I wouldn't be surprised if the "new look NCAA" gets rid of the universal 12-game regular season in Division I and lets each conference decide how many games each team can play, or how the conference championship tournaments can be conducted.

Irrelevant if there's only one conference.

Mike

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Falkner wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:13:42 PM UTC-7, JGibson wrote:
>
> > But it's not like all those teams are going to play each other every year.
> Maybe not, but imagine the draw they'll have by telling people that's the pool of schools who will literally play each other every week, with no further useless games.
>
> Mike (At least at the "home viewer" level...)

With no further useless games, teams better get used to having some bad W-L records in comparison to what they have now. Coaches will be on an even shorter leash.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:53:46 AM UTC-7, JGibson wrote:

> With no further useless games, teams better get used to having some bad W-L records in comparison to what they have now. Coaches will be on an even shorter leash.

Absolutely. Player "salaries" are probably going to be tied to visibility and to winning.

And what's to say, if they get to 32 teams in one national superconference, that 3-5 bad years might see that number shrink to 28 or even to 24...

Mike

> > I wouldn't be surprised if the "new look NCAA" gets rid of the universal 12-game regular season in Division I and lets each conference decide how many games each team can play, or how the conference championship tournaments can be conducted.
> Irrelevant if there's only one conference.

Unless the one conference has 130 schools in it, I think there's going to be more than one conference.
The NCAA already lets the Power 5 conferences write a number of the bylaws; I can easily see it letting any Superconference do the same thing with things like schedule length, when it can schedule games, or even if the schools can pay the players directly. ("Men being paid more than the women? Not our problem. Call the Department of Justice.")

But tell me: who's in the basketball superconference?

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:56:47 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> Unless the one conference has 130 schools in it, I think there's going to be more than one conference.

I"m thinking 32. The rest get shuffled off to the NAIA or promptly disbanded. Football will become a club sport at many colleges.

> The NCAA already lets the Power 5 conferences write a number of the bylaws; I can easily see it letting any Superconference do the same thing with things like schedule length, when it can schedule games, or even if the schools can pay the players directly. ("Men being paid more than the women? Not our problem. Call the Department of Justice.")

The NCAA won't exist long enough to have any say about it.
> But tell me: who's in the basketball superconference?

The question is whether there would be one -- that would be the final death knell to the NCAA -- the only reason they exist now is because of the bounceyball tournament.

Mike

> > Unless the one conference has 130 schools in it, I think there's going to be more than one conference.
> I"m thinking 32. The rest get shuffled off to the NAIA or promptly disbanded. Football will become a club sport at many colleges.

Do tell, why haven't the teams at FCS, or Division II or III, schools been "shuffled off to the NAIA or promptly disbanded"? And if any teams should become "club teams," it should be the superconference teams - club teams aren't under as many restrictions as "NCAA teams," especially with NIL money making scholarships at big-time schools almost unnecessary.

> > The NCAA already lets the Power 5 conferences write a number of the bylaws; I can easily see it letting any Superconference do the same thing with things like schedule length, when it can schedule games, or even if the schools can pay the players directly. ("Men being paid more than the women? Not our problem. Call the Department of Justice.")

> The NCAA won't exist long enough to have any say about it.

The NCAA is not going anywhere any time soon. If it was just about "football money," the NCAA would have disbanded about 40 years ago when it lost control of the schools' football TV contracts. Besides, somebody has to write the football (and basketball, and baseball, and women's volleyball, and soccer, and ice hockey, and swimming & diving) rules for the rest of the colleges, plus the NAIA and NJCAA.

And do you seriously believe that the NFL is going to give damn one as to how many games Alabama plays, or check on whether or not every USC football player is actually a student there, or even what the superconference's game rules should be? (Two-minute warnings? Don't stop the clock to move the chains? Defensive pass interference always enforced at the spot of the foul? How about overtime?)

> > But tell me: who's in the basketball superconference?
> The question is whether there would be one -- that would be the final death knell to the NCAA -- the only reason they exist now is because of the bounceyball tournament.

Which is it? Does the NCAA disband when the football superconference is formed, or does it survive until there's a basketball one as well?

Okay, as far as the superconference's football teams are concerned, they can operate as if the NCAA doesn't exist (well, maybe except for the playing rules, but even then, this gives the NCAA the excuse to get away from having to water down the rules so they apply just as much to Division III schools that have little business fielding teams as to FBS powerhouses), and the way Emmert is talking, that's probably what he wants.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:49:46 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > Unless the one conference has 130 schools in it, I think there's going to be more than one conference.
> > I"m thinking 32. The rest get shuffled off to the NAIA or promptly disbanded. Football will become a club sport at many colleges.
> Do tell, why haven't the teams at FCS, or Division II or III, schools been "shuffled off to the NAIA or promptly disbanded"?

NIL (players getting paid above the table) is what's changing this dialogue..

The entire supposed basis of the NCAA is now literally null and void.

> And if any teams should become "club teams," it should be the superconference teams - club teams aren't under as many restrictions as "NCAA teams," especially with NIL money making scholarships at big-time schools almost unnecessary.

That'd be nice, but the combination of visibility, fame, and a fast-track to the NFL is going to start metering these kids through "certain schools" -- now, not only for the exposure, but the money as well.

> > The NCAA won't exist long enough to have any say about it.

> The NCAA is not going anywhere any time soon. If it was just about "football money," the NCAA would have disbanded about 40 years ago when it lost control of the schools' football TV contracts. Besides, somebody has to write the football (and basketball, and baseball, and women's volleyball, and soccer, and ice hockey, and swimming & diving) rules for the rest of the colleges, plus the NAIA and NJCAA.

As I said below, I think March Madness is the only thread keeping this together...
> And do you seriously believe that the NFL is going to give damn one as to how many games Alabama plays, or check on whether or not every USC football player is actually a student there, or even what the superconference's game rules should be? (Two-minute warnings? Don't stop the clock to move the chains? Defensive pass interference always enforced at the spot of the foul? How about overtime?)

Yes, if they actually formally have Alabama, et. al. as a formal minor league to them. They've tried numerous times and failed (including the AAF, which was run as a minor league and didn't even last one winter/spring season), and now may have the model which works...

> > > But tell me: who's in the basketball superconference?
> > The question is whether there would be one -- that would be the final death knell to the NCAA -- the only reason they exist now is because of the bounceyball tournament.
> Which is it? Does the NCAA disband when the football superconference is formed, or does it survive until there's a basketball one as well?

There wouldn't have to be one -- it'd be subsumed into the G-League if one is not created, but the NCAA would be out of the picture, so chances are, there would not be one.
> Okay, as far as the superconference's football teams are concerned, they can operate as if the NCAA doesn't exist (well, maybe except for the playing rules, but even then, this gives the NCAA the excuse to get away from having to water down the rules so they apply just as much to Division III schools that have little business fielding teams as to FBS powerhouses), and the way Emmert is talking, that's probably what he wants.

It is.

Mike