The West division is the PAC-10, the South is the SEC, the Southeast, basically the ACC. Other than some promotions, the Midwest is basically the Big-10, the Southwest is the SWC and the Plains the Big 8. Didn't we used to call these conferences before the mad rush for more ESPN dollars? Very nostalgic. Swap a couple of teams around and that is what they are.

For us, Penn State and Pitt used be our rivals when we had these things called independents. Not sure how Indiana is now considered Northeast. I think really only Rutgers, BC and Syracuse would be remotely considered Northeast. Other than Virginia and Maryland, all the other schools were independents within the last 30 or so years.

There may be something related to College Football during the past 30 years that has been an improvement but it's few and far between.

I predict few will be glued to their TVs or phones on a Tuesday night to see whether Central Michigan or New Mexico State gets relegated.

And we have played Pitt over 70 times. I suppose that counts for something. How much, I'm not sure.

Btw, as to the Plains Division, including BYU, Utah and Colorado is more laughable than including Wisconsin imho. Last I checked, those three schools were in a pretty mountainous area of the country.

in New Jersey and Maryland.

We could put a fence around Buffalo!

College Sports Tomorrow is desperate to be some part of the conversation for the future of college football. They don't have the standing to be any part of it. They'll "leak" their ideas early and often to try and gain recognition and support. In the end, they'll have nothing to do with what happens next unless they get far more powerful friends.

hangers-on that suck now and have always sucked. Relegation should work in every direction, including the traditional alignments. If your team only wins 3 games or less, you should be dumped.

To make a super league you need to eliminate half of those teams and put them in a lower tier... Northwestern football and plenty of others should not be in a super league unless they get there via promotion

they aren't the most likely because they've been in the league too long. It may be that all the desirable teams left can be accommodated with addition that does not need subtraction. I haven't examined possible scheduling arrangements in a new proposed setup.

That said, Rutgers and Maryland should probably feel a little nervous. I'd need to learn more about their respective market viewership. But at some point, the leagues may feel that they just can't add any more teams to make schedules work. And if there's still a marquee name out there, I'd guess they'd gladly trade a bad team (Rutgers/Maryland) in a high-population market that is wishy washy about either college football or the team itself for a good team and good brand in valuable high-population markets in the state of Florida.

Similarly, Missouri, Vandy, and South Carolina should probably feel a little nervous. I imagine the SEC will have less honor than the Big Ten, so even a founding member in Vandy should watch their back. If they need to cut to make numbers work and a clear upgrade is available for middling teams added to the conference in '91 or '12 in markets that aren't clearly desirable, I wouldn't put it past them.

The "Chicago market" is part of any of these conversations as long as it includes Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, or Illinois. Northwestern doesn't move the needle and other than Michigan or Notre Dame none of the others move the needle by themselves either.

TV viewership would remain unchanged (virtually), no?

NU would seem to be another dilutive mouth to feed.

They can say they're "Chicago's B1G team" all they want, but their following doesn't warrant special treatment.

ND is as much Chicago's team as Northwestern is.

that even Northwestern, with all of its arrogance, can't even bring itself to market itself as "Chicago's College Team," but instead uses "Chicago's Big 10 Team."

Chicago has always been and will always be a Notre Dame city, although I'll acknowledge that the haters account for some of those eyeballs.

...where Notre Dame is.

"It's someplace in New York, right?"

I can just picture the rioting at Brown that would ensue if that were seriously proposed.

plus PSU. Likely we would keep Navy and USC and drop Stanford. We would only have one game a year to rotate to find interesting opponents. My guess is, however, we would use that game to feast on a cupcake.

Report that the initial plan was for the teams that generated more money to be paid more?

I don't see how there would be enough dough to go around with 70 teams if that were the case.

And finally give Penn State the Death Penalty they deserve?

So, since the cult will never let that degenerate hive of villainy die...

Life penalty.

Give that penis-looking motherfucker a 20 year contract.

Those divisions looks like some of the conferences from when I was young. I envisioned the end game of "realignment" to be two super conferences of 24 to 36 teams, each "conference" divided into two divisions. The teams would be chosen to maximize TV revenue. It's no accident that the B1G went after Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA. They wanted the TV markets for the conference. That's why they want FSU - to get a Florida market. Travel cost isn't a factor because the TV revenue will easily cover it. This is for football only, of course, but screw the non-revenue sports, right? It's all about making money. I really don't like the 10 "add on" teams from G5 schools. I guess they change from year to year? What about the rest of the G5 schools? Oh, wait, they are mid-week filler time games for ESPN. Personally, I think the G5 conferences should tell the Power conferences to pound sand and break away from them. They should form their own group with some D2 conferences. It would give them a chance to play for a NC, but it won't happen because of the revenue they get playing Power Conference teams as well as mid-week games. I have no idea what the end game is, but I'm sure it won't be in the players best interests, nor anything we want, but the fans don't really figure in the equation.

a regional structure, not football. Football has been the driver of moving away from regional conferences, to the detriment of non-revenue sports in the leagues. What a bizarre proposal.

Some want the revenue to stay with the sport that produced it and to hell with the other sports. It's sink or swim. Your sport doesn't generate money, too bad. But, yeah, conference structures based on a particular region helps the non-revenue sports woth travel costs alone. But the networks don't care about that. They care about what makes them money.

at Washington State, Wake Forest, Oregon State, UCF, Syracuse, and Cincinnati?

however, it was a good news/bad news thing. As in, this is unlikely to happen (good news) but what is actually likely to happen is much worse (bad news).

In my opinion that's far too long to maintain quality play for college teams, despite the movement in that direction by extending the postseason (I think teams in the current setup can play up to fifteen games altogether, right?).

On the other hand, if the eventual scheme goes similar to this in division layout, I'd hope we'd push for quasi-independence: play two teams from each division yearly, keeping S.C. there permanently and skipping the "Under League" entirely. Instantly you'd have a national, competitive, and interesting schedule with barely any effort--something Swarbrick could only have dreamed of.

round of playoffs? What, exactly, would the relationship be to universities under this system?

educational outcomes. We'll see what graduation rates look like in another couple years. But generally speaking transferring often makes it harder to graduate on time. There's good reason to think that free transfer rules for undergraduates will lead to lower graduation rates. Hopefully that's not the case.

but to claim that everything was fine with the student part of "student athletes" until the portal came about is complete bullshit. Dexter Manley was (by his own admission) illiterate while attending OK State (finishing in 1981) and he never had any eligibility issues. That's just one example.

exactly Dean's List material. More recently, a USC QB had a ballroom dancing class constitute his curriculum 1 semester.

Coach Prime allegedly didn't attend a single class in his final semester at FSU.

Obviously, this list is long, but we now appear to be headed to a U-23 FB league sponsored by universities

and tutors have been doing guys' homework for an awful long time at a lot of these places.

The student part of student-athlete was always up to the individual, at most places. If you wanted to put in the work and get a solid degree, you could (as long as it didn't interfere with practice time). If you wanted to coast, you could.

the idea that the portal is the cause of these issues is laughable; one would need to start about 75 years earlier to start identifying the culprits. Of course I agree that Notre Dame was different (and mostly still is, even for guys we get in the portal).

And that’s mostly because athletes have as well. The athletes are just transferring for playing time in most cases (and fewer cases more money) rather than an education. Yes, neglect of the “student” in student athlete has existed forever, but never on the scale at which it exists today where players are just annual free agents. It’s never been more prevalent at ND, and ND has historically been one of the most committed to providing its athletes with legitimate degrees.

I specifically disagree with the idea that the AD's are simply following the athletes lead.

edit to add that I certainly understand and appreciate your frustration with the situation and I share your point of view on how this system is a mess right now. I just don't agree that blaming the players is the right place to start; this starts at the top of the hierarchy of the schools, not at the labor force.

This entire system is basically set up to benefit the schools first, the coaches second, and the players last. Nothing new about that.

I think the fact that athletes are now free agents and some of them are getting paid gives the ADs even more latitude to consider changes to the game that essentially treat college athletes like professionals. I agree that the athletes aren’t leading anything. I agree with your second paragraph as well.

Some folks don't want athletes to bother with the student part anymore. I read in one model (the Saban model) where going to class was optional. If that were to happen, what does class eligibility even mean? If you don't go to class, why bother with being called a freshman? You are just another emoyee, albeit very well paid!

Big 10 West what happens when Iowa is your best team.

I’m not sure that matters. I would assume we’d still play USC every year. Also, teams like Pitt, BC and Penn State were once regulars on our schedule.

Do I think it’s a great alignment? No, it’s weak as all get out, but that’s a different question.

with USC.

I think that's going to come to a head when the Big Ten moves to 12 game conference schedules before the super league.

Penn St. is the only worthwhile team in the whole division.

Sprack, if it sucks, just say it sucks. You don't have to just roll over all the god damned time.

I thought I made that clear. Just not because of the rival thing.

There's no way a national college league can support twice as many franchises as the NFL.

I don't know when or if a super league will come to pass, but a good test for admission is: would this school be invited to the Big Ten/SEC today? If the answer is "no", move along.

support that many teams. College football was big long before the NFL, and the brands have maintained their strength from ties and traditions that the NFL can’t replicate. But it won’t matter because the key moves have already been made that puts the sport on the path of cutting out those who simply can’t provide the same value of the top 40 that already consolidated or that are among a handful that have equal value.

just for fun...20 minutes over lunch:

Tier 1 - Super League: 40 teams, 8 divisions divided into two conferences (protected, no relegation or promotion from or to this League)
Tier 2 - 15 teams TBD after year 1
Tier 3 - 15 teams TBD after year 1

Tiers 2 and 3, bottom 5/top 5 relegated/promoted every year.

Playoff format: 16 teams
- 14 from Super League (8 division champs and 6 at-large, get seeds 1-8 and 11-16)
- 2 from Tier 2 (those teams get seeds #9, #10 every year).

Scheduling: Super League teams play 12-game schedule against each other. Tiers 2/3 play 12-game schedule against each other. Super League teams allowed to have "Week 0" game to do whatever they want, TV controlled by Super League. So team could schedule a buy game, neutral site game against Tier 2, Tier 3, FCS whatever.

Super League 12-game schedule: play other 4 teams in your division, 4 more from within your conference, 4 more from other conference. Would create some variety and also protect some traditional matchups (ND-USC, etc.).

Conference delineation primarily used for travel and division champ tie-breaker purposes.

Super League divisions:

ND
Penn State
Michigan St.
Purdue
Indiana

USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
Utah

Ohio State
Michigan
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Missouri
Nebraska
Arkansas
Illinois
BYU

FSU
Miami
Clemson
Virginia Tech
UNC

Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee

Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Miss. State
LSU

Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
TCU
Baylor


Tier 2 & 3:

Okla. St.
Arizona State
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Pitt
Louisville
NC State
Kansas State
Iowa State
West Virginia
Texas Tech
Kansas
Maryland
Rutgers
Cal
Stanford
Wash. State
Oregon State
BC
Wake Forest
Duke
Syracuse
Vanderbilt
Northwestern
Cincinnati
SMU
Houston
UCF
Tulane

No

It is such a craptastic idea in the first place.

Quickly

so basically back to what we used to have...
Pac 8/10/12, SWC, Big 8/12, Big 10, Big East, ACC, SEC :)

West is the old Pac 8/Pac 12
Southwest is the old SWC
Plains is the old Big 8
Midwest is the old Big 10
North East is the old Traditional Independents
South East is the old ACC
and South is the Old SEC.

If you start with that you get some movement.

Were it up to me I would hae BYU and Utah go into the SW, and the two oklahoma schools go to Plains.

Have Midwest just be the old Big 10, (Grab Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin)

Missouri is an old Big 8 School.

Probably move former independents Cincinnati and Louisville to the Plains,

I will let the ACC and SEC folks figure out the South and South East.

Preserves some historical rivalries, also you then have 3 out of division games. I would let the old independents (not North East) have fewer in division and more out of division games.

and SEC are forced to share revenue with nobodies, in a sane world, ND and Cincinnati would be flipped.

And yes it's obvious to flip Ga. Tech and Florida to continue natural rivalries. This proposal seemed to be obsessed with maintaining teams in the same state to be in the same division despite contrary history.

However, some of Bill Connelly fellows other criticisms do not do much. There would half to be odd schools out when trying to mold existing conferences into evenly split divisions. Missouri would be one of the least prioritized considerations. They'll go wherever there is room. Same for South Carolina, especially when they used to be conference brethren with those same teams. You could make an argument for Vandy to flip in with the ACC teams for cultural reasons.

But again, this is never happening. The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to be forced to share revenue with bottom-feeder ACC schools and Big 12 schools.

dictating their share of the revenue. I have to believe this wouldn't have been floated, without a well reasoned revenue distribution model, that heavily favors the B1G and SEC. We just haven't seen it, yet.

appealing before actually getting any serious buy in from the Haves. I think there’s no indication the Haves are willing to split the pie even at favorable amounts because it’s hard to imagine a share that doesn’t dilute the Haves revenue from simply consolidating and playing a league schedule without letting others in.

There's at least 25 teams on that list of 70 that don't make any sense to include. Games involving those teams don't draw enough eyeballs on TV.

potential, trends, match ups, time slots, etc. Heck, the B1G and SEC are as much media content companies as they are conferences. This is even more true when you partner them up with networks. It's all quite calculable, and when the biggest dogs in the room actually own the calculator and the data, they'll make it happen.

No team in slots 26-70 are going to find themselves shockingly enriched. There was a hierarchy to the sport 5 years ago and there will be one 5 years from now.

Why not put ND/Ohio State/Michigan/Wisconsin in the same "Midwest" division?

With little thought.

ND > Midwest
Missouri > South
Vandy > South East
Wake Forest > North East