Dream Conference Realignment

[Tiger1992 999]

Unless the money is astronomically huge, why in the hell would Clemson want to join the SEC?

Ideally, conference realignment shouldn't be about football, it should be about the best interests of the university as a whole, of which football is a part. However, Pollyana doesn't live here, and realistically, realignment is almost always about football.

Clemson currently has a cakewalk to the CFP because the ACC is so weak. It won't always be as weak as it is now and Clemson likely won't always be as strong as they are now, but even so, their path is much easier through the ACC than it would be through the SEC.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

I don’t know about the 8 divisions thing but it seems like a good idea to me. There seems to be a serious effort to push for an 8 team playoff which would push out conference championship games. 

Most of it is behind paywall:

https://theathletic.com/708538/2018/12/12/college-football-playoff-expansion-eight-team-support/

Yeah I saw this.  I can see where the ACC and the PAC 12 would want to get rid of their title games, as they aren't well attended compared to the other conferences.  ACC has been lucky lately that Clemson is there, as before their run the game would have tons of empty seats.  I can't ever see the SEC agreeing to give up the title game since it's so lucrative.

We're going to get eight teams sooner or later for the playoff.  The best thing the conferences could do though is agree that all play a 9 game league schedule and also agree to a similar framework for non-conference games.  Maybe something like you can't play any FCS teams.  This would then help the Group of Five schools get more games scheduled against the big boys to help their strength of schedule argument too.   At the same time, it takes away the complaint against the SEC and ACC for not playing the same amount of conference games as everyone else.

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

We're going to get eight teams sooner or later for the playoff.  The best thing the conferences could do though is agree that all play a 9 game league schedule and also agree to a similar framework for non-conference games.  Maybe something like you can't play any FCS teams.  This would then help the Group of Five schools get more games scheduled against the big boys to help their strength of schedule argument too. 

That’s a lot of wear and tear in the regular season just to also play a conference championship and then an 8 team playoff. I am also biased. I want Auburn to finish with a decent record. 

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

t the same time, it takes away the complaint against the SEC and ACC for not playing the same amount of conference games as everyone else.

Everyone is always going to complain. Hell, there are people complaining that ND didn’t have to worry about a week 13 unlike the rest of the playoff teams. I say no to conference championship games. 

[AURealist 2,185]

10 hours ago, AUght2win said:

Right and with two interdivision lock games UT would still play Vandy every year. They would have to drop UK I guess.

TN can drop the UK.  We can swap out Missouri to whoever wants them and replace with Louisville so Kentucky gets an SEC in-state rival.  

Replace Louisville in the ACC with UCF. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

That’s a lot of wear and tear in the regular season just to also play a conference championship and then an 8 team playoff. I am also biased. I want Auburn to finish with a decent record.

Eh, it doesn't bother me.  Kids play 15 games right now if they go all the way to the title game and that's with three weeks off in December.  Play the first round of an eight team playoff in mid-December and you still have a lot of time between games for rest and recovery.  Heck man, to win the high school state title here in Texas, a team has to play 16 games (10 regular season + 6 playoff) and they only get one bye week during that entire run.

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Everyone is always going to complain. Hell, there are people complaining that ND didn’t have to worry about a week 13 unlike the rest of the playoff teams. I say no to conference championship games. 

People will complain, but it helps if everyone is playing a similar style of schedule.  Unless college football gets away from rankings and has a quantifiable way to seed playoffs similar to the NFL or even high schools, there will always be arguments.

The ND argument is weak to me though.  They played a 12 game season, sure, but they played just as many games against FBS competition as Bama and Clemson did.  If you look at it, Bama and Clemson needed that extra game to get on equal footing with ND, not the other way around, as ND did not play an FCS school (and I'd note they never do).   

Personally though, I love conference championship games.  I've been to two SEC title games and they're just special.  In 2010, I actually sat right in front of members from the Pac 12 offices who were scouting the SEC title game and looking at how it was done.  They were blown away by the atmosphere.  And with 14 team conferences now, I don't see how you can truly name a champion without the game.

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

If you look at it, Bama and Clemson needed that extra game to get on equal footing with ND, 

This says all that I need to know. Thanks. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

This says all that I need to know. Thanks. 

OK.  Not sure I understand where you're coming from, but cool.

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

OK.  Not sure I understand where you're coming from, but cool.

We are never going to agree.  

[AUght2win 6,816]

5 hours ago, Tiger1992 said:

Unless the money is astronomically huge, why in the hell would Clemson want to join the SEC?

Ideally, conference realignment shouldn't be about football, it should be about the best interests of the university as a whole, of which football is a part. However, Pollyana doesn't live here, and realistically, realignment is almost always about football.

Clemson currently has a cakewalk to the CFP because the ACC is so weak. It won't always be as weak as it is now and Clemson likely won't always be as strong as they are now, but even so, their path is much easier through the ACC than it would be through the SEC.

Because the money IS astronomically huge. I can't see any situation where a non-SEC team makes more money by not joining, than joining. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/26/11456612/athletic-department-finances-sec-big-ten-pac-12-acc

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

 Nor should they ever schedule an FCS school since they choose to not be in a conference and not afforded a conference championship game. I will say that it worked out for them this year that their schedule was legit although I do think they need to be in a conference . Just my opinion . 

I would argue that their schedule, on paper in the pre-season, is legit most every year.  Obviously no one can control how another team does after scheduling the game, but they do make an effort to schedule tough.  For example, I'm sure when they scheduled FSU for this season they didn't think the Noles would suck.  Just bad luck.

I think a lot of people are blinded by ND dislike or the fact that they aren't in a conference and overlook the rest.  Take a look at next year.  They play true road games against Georgia, Michigan, and Stanford.  I wish they played in the Big 10 personally, but unless the rest of college football forces that change, it's just another pointless debate.  Again goes to why I would rather we move to a structured high school or NFL model with fewer FBS teams, where the subjectivity of rankings and "who's better" is taken off the table completely.

[AUBwins 10,064]

16 hours ago, Squidward2016 said:

This is the end all solution to conference realignment for the SEC:

 The roommate switch

• Bedrock rivalry games are played ANNUALLY.
• Rotate through the entire conference every TWO YEARS.
• Round-robin DIVISIONS are maintained each year (per NCAA rules for the SEC championship game).
• Each student/athlete gets to both HOST AND VISIT every other school in a four-year SEC career.
• All done in an 8-GAME schedule (or 9 if/when desired).

 

Added pics in the article for quick visuals.  First I have seen if this model.  Love it! We would get all our rivals back, especially with the 9th game. I like that this works with 8 or 9.

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I would argue that their schedule, on paper in the pre-season, is legit most every year.

I’d argue in the preseason that Auburn playing Washington, LSU, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Alabama is legit. But you seem to think that is not good enough just because we have three cupcakes. Meanwhile you think ND (and all the flexibility that they have) playing Pittsburgh, FSU, Ball State, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt is legit. 

You also minimize the fact that Auburn has to play in tbe SECCG while Notre Dame doesn’t. We lost our playoff chances in tbe SECCG last year while while Notre Dame doesn’t have to worry about that. So yeah, that’s an advantage that rubs me raw but yet you call it a weak argument. lol

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Take a look at next year.  They play true road games against Georgia, Michigan, and Stanford.  

If they get through that schedule, they should be in consideration. This year, I don’t think they’re all that great and the CFP against Clemson will show it. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

39 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I’d argue in the preseason that Auburn playing Washington, LSU, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Alabama is legit. But you seem to think that is not good enough just because we have three cupcakes. Meanwhile you think ND (and all the flexibility that they have) playing Pittsburgh, FSU, Ball State, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt is legit. 

You also minimize the fact that Auburn has to play in tbe SECCG while Notre Dame doesn’t. We lost our playoff chances in tbe SECCG last year while while Notre Dame doesn’t have to worry about that. So yeah, that’s an advantage that rubs me raw but yet you call it a weak argument. lol

If they get through that schedule, they should be in consideration. This year, I don’t think they’re all that great and the CFP against Clemson will show it. 

1) I'm not sure why you're arguing about Auburn here when we aren't in the discussion.  If AU would have gone undefeated and won the SEC title, then of course they would have gotten in.  I'm not even arguing against three cupcakes as you put it.  I'm arguing against FCS teams.  You're reading comprehension needs serious work.

2)  You conveniently left off that ND's preseason schedule strength also included Michigan, Stanford, Syracuse, and USC.  In fact, both Michigan and Stanford were in the Top 10 when ND beat them.

You also seem to be unaware that they are contractually obligated to play those ACC teams so that they can be a part of the conference in other sports.  It's a deal the ACC willingly cut, and one ND would have been stupid to turn down as they get to have their cake and eat it too.  So the "flexibility" you mention is not as much as it seems, especially when you add in yearly rivalries with USC, Stanford, and Navy (which goes back to the 30s).

3)  If you believe Clemson should be in this year and Notre Dame shouldn't, then I'd ask you to check their schedules.  They had five common opponents.  ND still played more ranked teams including a 10 win club and two others that won their divisions in conference play.  Clemson's best win?  A tie between 9 win Syracuse and 9 win NC State.

There's nothing inherently wrong in stating a fact that in the regular season, ND plays more FBS teams than most SEC and ACC teams.  I'm sorry, but simply playing 13 games isn't a good argument when one of those wins is against someone like The Citadel, Furman, or Alabama State.  I'm trying to look at like vs like as much as possible when comparing teams and the best way I can do that right now is by looking at their results against teams who also get to have 85 scholarship players.  If you don't get that concept, then that's on you my man.  We don't have to agree, but your logic is very flawed as it's coming from an admittedly emotional place ("yeah it rubs me raw") and not a rational one.

[doc4aday 1,887]

On 12/12/2018 at 6:34 PM, SumterAubie said:

I would be happy just to see Auburn and Missouri trade spots.

This is what needs to happen asap. Keep bammer as our west regular and let the rest stay put. Clemson needs to stay in the ACC and Memphis just is not ready for the SEC.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, doc4aday said:

This is what needs to happen asap. Keep bammer as our west regular and let the rest stay put. Clemson needs to stay in the ACC and Memphis just is not ready for the SEC.

Never gonna happen if that means Bama can't play Tennessee every year.

[doc4aday 1,887]

6 hours ago, AUght2win said:

Because the money IS astronomically huge. I can't see any situation where a non-SEC team makes more money by not joining, than joining. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/26/11456612/athletic-department-finances-sec-big-ten-pac-12-acc

If I am correct, Auburn should be in the top 15 total revenue. This is where we stand:

 

UBURN, Ala. - Auburn Athletics' NCAA Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, ending on June 30, shows record revenues of $147.5 million and an operating surplus of $14.6 million.

[doc4aday 1,887]

24 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Never gonna happen if that means Bama can't play Tennessee every year.

I would be willing to bet good money that if UT could get out of playing bammer every year they would welcome this!

[aujeff11 6,243]

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

1) I'm not sure why you're arguing about Auburn here when we aren't in the discussion.  If AU would have gone undefeated and won the SEC title, then of course they would have gotten in. 

Because you said we need to play another conference game! No we don’t. 

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not even arguing against three cupcakes as you put it.  I'm arguing against FCS teams

Right. Because the Ball States’, Cincinnati’s and Kansas’s are so much different. Notre Dame can win the “we played the tallest midget contest,” if that suits your fancy. 

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

2)  You conveniently left off that ND's preseason schedule strength also included Michigan, Stanford, Syracuse, and USC.  In fact, both Michigan and Stanford were in the Top 10 when ND beat them.

Beat Michigan in week one before they even got rolling. Even 7-5 Auburn can beat a top ten opponent in week one.

Famous Michigan alum Braylon Edwards hadnt even cussed Harbaugh by that point. Was USC even ranked? 

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

3)  If you believe Clemson should be in this year and Notre Dame shouldn't, then I'd ask you to check their schedules.  They had five common opponents.  ND still played more ranked teams including a 10 win club and two others that won their divisions in conference play.  Clemson's best win?  A tie between 9 win Syracuse and 9 win NC State.

Clemson is in because of their talent and recent dominance. That’s it. You don’t see me knighting for Clemson do you? Notre Dame’s opponents have gone 77-70 this year rounding out to a winning percentage of around .524. Their schedule is nothing to knight for. If you’re going to play a crap schedule, get a conference championship game. Navy, Ball State, and were ranked below 100 in total points per game. Pitt was 121st in passing offense. Florida State, Stanford, and Northwestern were ALL ranked below 115 in rushing offense. Good grief. 

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's nothing inherently wrong in stating a fact that in the regular season, ND plays more FBS teams than most SEC and ACC teams.

They play a bunch of mediocre p5 teams and you eat it up. 

When Auburn has Washington, LSU, Mississippi State (number one scoring defense,) Texas A&am, Georgia, Alabama, and a possible SECCG, you’re like “nope, add a another conference game, keep the conference championship game and let’s do an 8 team playoff.” That rubs me raw. 

38 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

We don't have to agree, but your logic is very flawed.

Pot, kettle, and all that jazz.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Because you said we need to play another conference game! No we don’t. 

Reading comprehension dude.  What I said was if you want to help eliminate arguments, all conferences playing 9 conference games would help that.  Equal footing for everyone that way.

By the way,  Gus, Kirby and Saban are in favor of a 9th SEC game.  But if you know bettee than them when it comes to scheduling, please take your argument there.

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Beat Michigan in week one before they even got rolling. Even 7-5 Auburn can beat a top ten opponent in week one.

Famous Michigan alum Braylon Edwards hadnt even cussed Harbaugh by that point. Was USC even ranked? 

There isn't a pre-season in college football.  A win in week 1 counts the same in the W/L column as a win in week 12.  You could also argue ND wasn't rolling yet either, as they played Michigan before making the QB switch to Ian Book.

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 Clemson is in because of their talent and recent dominance. That’s it. You don’t see me knighting for Clemson do you? Notre Dame’s opponents have gone 77-70 this year rounding out to a winning percentage of around .524. Their schedule is nothing to knight for. If you’re going to play a crap schedule, get a conference championship game. Navy, Ball State, and were ranked below 100 in total points per game. Pitt was 121st in passing offense. Florida State, Stanford, and Northwestern were ALL ranked below 115 in rushing offense. Good grief. 

I also don't see you out here complaining loudly about Clemson being in despite playing a largely crappy schedule.  And Oklahoma has one of the worst defenses in the country, yet they're in the playoffs.  Same for the KC Chiefs at the pro level.  Individual units or stats don't tell the whole story of a team.  You should know that.  Be smarter in your arguments.

29 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

They play a bunch of mediocre p5 teams and you eat it up. 

When Auburn has Washington, LSU, Mississippi State (number one scoring defense,) Texas A&am, Georgia, Alabama, and a possible SECCG, you’re like “nope, add a another conference game, keep the conference championship game and let’s do an 8 team playoff.” That rubs me raw. 

You really don't seem to grasp the premise of my argument.  Like vs like isn't "eating up their schedule".  I want teams to be evaluated on the same amount of games against FBS competition.  Then we can fairly evaluate strength.  So yes, in this debate, Clemson and Bama or hypothetically AU would need that conference title game so that they play 12 games against FBS competition, just like ND did.  If the SEC champ or a 1 loss runner up played all 13 games against FBS competition and ND only plays 12, then obviously the debate changes drastically against ND.

One last thing.  If you did that 8 team playoff, AU is in last year despite having three losses.  And the SEC gets three teams in.  Not like the conference is at a disadvantage right now.

[AUght2win 6,816]

54 minutes ago, doc4aday said:

If I am correct, Auburn should be in the top 15 total revenue. This is where we stand:

 

UBURN, Ala. - Auburn Athletics' NCAA Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, ending on June 30, shows record revenues of $147.5 million and an operating surplus of $14.6 million.

I believe we are in the top 10 in overall revenue and value.

[AUght2win 6,816]

49 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Because you said we need to play another conference game! No we don’t. 

Nine games is gonna happen, brother. And it needs to. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

2 hours ago, AUBwins said:

19 hours ago, Squidward2016 said:

This is the end all solution to conference realignment for the SEC:

 The roommate switch

• Bedrock rivalry games are played ANNUALLY.
• Rotate through the entire conference every TWO YEARS.
• Round-robin DIVISIONS are maintained each year (per NCAA rules for the SEC championship game).
• Each student/athlete gets to both HOST AND VISIT every other school in a four-year SEC career.
• All done in an 8-GAME schedule (or 9 if/when desired).

 

Added pics in the article for quick visuals.  First I have seen if this model.  Love it! We would get all our rivals back, especially with the 9th game. I like that this works with 8 or 9.

First you've seen of this model ? Check my post about 6 hours before that one, lol.  

[aujeff11 6,243]

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Reading comprehension dude.  What I said was if you want to help eliminate arguments, all conferences playing 9 conference games would help that

You actually didn’t. And there is no reason for equal footing when other conferences aren’t carrying the burden of Auburn’s schedule. 

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

By the way,  Gus, Kirby and Saban are in favor of a 9th SEC game.  But if you know bettee than them when it comes to scheduling, please take your argument there.

And there is a strong push to eliminate conference champions games, but you don’t want that because you attended a couple and just loved them.

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There isn't a pre-season in college football.

SEC’s fault.

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You could also argue ND wasn't rolling yet either, as they played Michigan before making the QB switch to Ian Book.

They went undefeated against a meh schedule and had no conference championship game. They were rolling alright.

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I also don't see you out here complaining loudly about Clemson being in despite playing a largely crappy schedule.

Are you offended? 

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

  And Oklahoma has one of the worst defenses in the country, yet they're in the playoffs

I’m sure I’ve said somewhere around here that Oklahoma’s defense sucks. Maybe even said it twice. God forbid I didn’t say it though because then that would mean I don’t mean it now. 

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I want teams to be evaluated on the same amount of games against FBS competition.  

Maybe our program can schedule a game against Chip Lindsey’s Kansas team just for you. 

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So yes, in this debate, Clemson and Bama or hypothetically AU would need that conference title game so that they play 12 games against FBS competition, just like ND did.

Right because that game against Ball State was so important. This whole FBS school litmus test is ridiculous. 

Bama, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, and others all had tougher schedules than ND. Facts. 

 One last thing.  If you did that 8 team playoff, AU is in last year despite having three losses.  And the SEC gets three teams in.

READING COMPREHENSION DUDE I never pushed back against tbe 8 team playoff. I pushed back against (also) keeping the SECCG and adding the ninth game. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Nine games is gonna happen, brother. And it needs to. 

Nope. It doesn’t “need to.” The SEC had the opportunity to put two conference teams into the playoff two years in a row now. Until our SOS goes down and our teams decline, we don’t have to do anything. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

7 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

You actually didn’t. And there is no reason for equal footing when other conferences aren’t carrying the burden of Auburn’s schedule. 

I actually did.  Below is the direct quote from this very thread when I posted it this morning.  

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The best thing the conferences could do though is agree that all play a 9 game league schedule and also agree to a similar framework for non-conference games.  Maybe something like you can't play any FCS teams.  This would then help the Group of Five schools get more games scheduled against the big boys to help their strength of schedule argument too.   At the same time, it takes away the complaint against the SEC and ACC for not playing the same amount of conference games as everyone else.

 

11 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

And there is a strong push to eliminate conference champions games, but you don’t want that because you attended a couple and just loved them.

And that push isn't coming from the SEC, which you are so vehemently defending here.  In fact, the SEC is steadfast in its stance the championship game is here to stay.  This from the commish:

https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2018/12/greg-sankey-releases-statement-on-sec-title-game-amidst-cfp-expansion-talk.html

Also, yes, I said I loved them.  But the key reason to keep them is the other point I stated, which (as you have a tendency to do), you've conveniently omitted.  Bold emphasis mine:

"Personally though, I love conference championship games.  I've been to two SEC title games and they're just special.  In 2010, I actually sat right in front of members from the Pac 12 offices who were scouting the SEC title game and looking at how it was done.  They were blown away by the atmosphere.  And with 14 team conferences now, I don't see how you can truly name a champion without the game. "

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

SEC’s fault.

Are you offended? 

Maybe our program can schedule a game against Chip Lindsey’s Kansas team just for you. 

All three of these are juvenile responses.  Be better or leave me the hell alone dude.

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

They were rolling alright.

So you say "they beat Michigan before Michigan was rolling" and I point out that ND wasn't rolling yet either, while giving evidence that ND made a QB change weeks after the UM game.  Now you need to move the goalposts to fit your narrative.  OK then.

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I’m sure I’ve said somewhere around here that Oklahoma’s defense sucks. Maybe even said it twice. God forbid I didn’t say it though because then that would mean I don’t mean it now. 

Do you think I read or memorize every post you make on here?  You pointed out deficiencies in teams that ND played by specifically mentioning unit rankings. I pointed out that unit rankings don't tell the whole story and used OU and the KC Chiefs defenses as examples.  God forbid you actually understand the debate being had, especially on a point that you brought up.

23 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Bama, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, and others all had tougher schedules than ND. Facts. 

Yep, they all played very tough schedules.  Congrats to them.  Those also aren't the only teams in college football.  Also a fact.