Get rid of divisions with in conferences

[Ramius]

With conferences inevitably getting larger, i think divisions are becoming obsolete. With only 8 conference games in most conferences, but now 7 (and probably inevitably 8) teams in each division, they are becoming more and more cumbersome. You now play 6 of 8 games within your division, and given a protected rival is a 7th conference game, there's 1 game that rotates with your cross divisional teams. This leads to long stretches where you simply don't see many of the teams in your conference for years at a time. Whats the point of a conference if 4 or 5 years goes by between instances of playing a team?

 

My solution is to get rid of divisions. Go back to a single conference of 14 (12) teams. Put the top 2 teams at the end of the season in the conference championship. This gets rid of the goofiness where a top 10 team gets left out of a title shot in its own conference for a 7-5 team that won a weak division. You wouldn't have to worry about divisional imbalance, and there'd be no worry about a single loss to a top team effectively blocking your team from a title shot. In the ACC last year, 10-2 (7-1 in ACC) clemson got left out of the ACC title game while 6-6 GT made it in. I would have rather seen my Noles face Clemson again than play a crap ass tech team.

 

As for scheduling, you can assign each team 3 protected rivals than they play each season (or even 4), and you rotate the other 10 teams across the other 5 conference games. If you rotate 2 teams off/on your non-protected schedule each season, this guarantees you'll play each team 5 times in 10 years.

 

For FSU, you can give us protected rivals of Clemson, Miami, and NC St. For 'Bama you give them protected rivals of Auburn, Tennessee (i think), and LSU. This is much more reasonable scheduling setup than the soon to be standard of playing a team in 2014, and not seeing them until 2020.

[Astrobot]

I would love to see it. Clemson got hosed last year.

[KD in CA]

I disagree. If you failed to win your division you did not get 'hosed', it means you failed to beat at least one team in your division.

 

The problem is conferences are becoming too big and geographically meaningless.

[Gordio]

I disagree. If you failed to win your division you did not get 'hosed', it means you failed to beat at least one team in your division.

 

The problem is conferences are becoming too big and geographically meaningless.

 

Exactly, conferences have gotten to big. When you don't play a team in your own conference for 3,4,5 years something is wrong. Plus realignment has taken some good rivalaries away. Texas/A&M, Missouri/Kansas(especially in basketball), Pitt/WV, Georgetown/Suracuse to name a few. Those historic rivalries is what makes college football great.

[Ramius]

I agree that conferences are getting too big, and its ruining a lot of traditional games/rivalries. 12 was the perfect size for a conference. If you guys look, my system of eliminating divisions would allow for a conference of 14 teams where each team plays every other team a minimum of 5 times in 10 years.

 

I'm in favor of getting rid of divisions because you are supposed to win your conference, not your division. I want to see the top 2 teams in a conference play for the title, not watch one great team have to sit out because they lost a close game to a top ranked team in their division, while the opposing division sends a 4-6 loss team in the title game because they won a tie breaker in a ****ty division.