Conference Realignment

[UgaBlows]

He was Leach’s DC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean a air-raid guy who would have kept the offense in place

 

[Techwood Relict]

Ga Tech - Don't make me laugh at the improvement vs the clown show that existed previously

New guy is much better

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Arnett canned the Air Raid when he took over for Leach. Now, they’re the #97 scoring offense. If you’re going to make a dramatic change, don’t tank your team.

Hmmm….. I think I’ll remember that.

 

[ibeattetris]

You have identified the reality of where college football is right now. Every team in your conference that loses casts doubt on every other team in that conference.

I honestly believe the ACC is the strongest conference this year. By a long shot. But having undefeated teams get beaten hurts because there is already a stigma against the ACC. UNC, Louisville and Miami could each, on a given Saturday, beat any other team in the country. Certainly their decisive wins over teams like LSU, Notre Dame and Texas A&M have already proven that.

The SEC turned me into a total ACC homer because they demonstrated a long time ago every win by an SEC team helps every other SEC team.

I think your argument could be made. I personally think the PAC is better than the ACC this year though. The ACC and SEC are closer than the media makes it seem. The top of the B1G is right there with everyone, but outside the top 3 they are a joke.

 

[Vespidae]

There ar

I think your argument could be made. I personally think the PAC is better than the ACC this year though. The ACC and SEC are closer than the media makes it seem. The top of the B1G is right there with everyone, but outside the top 3 they are a joke.

There are so many factors that go into determining who can be “perceived“ as a superior conference that it’s really a useless discussion.

Does an ACC team beating Vandy really matter? Does beating a 6-3 LSU, a 5-4 Texas A&M team, a 7-3 Notre Dame team mean much?

What happens when Texas, Oklahoma and others change conferences? Do all their wins get recast to prove SEC dominance?

The problem for the ACC isn’t the won loss record, it’s the fanbase size. The SEC fanbase dwarfs that of the ACC (and others) and simply put, is a more attractive target segment. They watch more, attend more, buy more swag, sell more …

I recall looking at NCAA licensing a few years ago. Eighty percent of all swag and license fees were generated by 10 schools. Eight were SEC schools.

Does ESPN, which broadcasts and OWNS bowl games, have a financial interest to steer target segments in the most favorable way? Yes. Do CFB officials have a financial interest to make sure SEC teams get into the playoff? Yes.

I don’t think it’s productive to compare conferences when everyone knows it’s manipulated. Watch the conference whose style of play you enjoy.

 

[RonJohn]

There ar

There are so many factors that go into determining who can be “perceived“ as a superior conference that it’s really a useless discussion.

Does an ACC team beating Vandy really matter? Does beating a 6-3 LSU, a 5-4 Texas A&M team, a 7-3 Notre Dame team mean much?

What happens when Texas, Oklahoma and others change conferences? Do all their wins get recast to prove SEC dominance?

The problem for the ACC isn’t the won loss record, it’s the fanbase size. The SEC fanbase dwarfs that of the ACC (and others) and simply put, is a more attractive target segment. They watch more, attend more, buy more swag, sell more …

I recall looking at NCAA licensing a few years ago. Eighty percent of all swag and license fees were generated by 10 schools. Eight were SEC schools.

Does ESPN, which broadcasts and OWNS bowl games, have a financial interest to steer target segments in the most favorable way? Yes. Do CFB officials have a financial interest to make sure SEC teams get into the playoff? Yes.

I don’t think it’s productive to compare conferences when everyone knows it’s manipulated. Watch the conference whose style of play you enjoy.

Then don't pretend that rankings and CFP is actually about football. Just have fans register for an ESPN+ account and vote for who gets into the CFP.

If you watch any of the ESPN roundtable shows (which I stopped watching a long time ago), they don't simply say that the SEC is more popular than other conferences. They make statements about how grueling it is to play an SEC schedule. They talk about how teams have SEC speed that other teams can't compete with.

In your example, should Alabama get credit for playing such a "tough" schedule against such opponents as a 6-3 LSU team and a 5-4 A&M team? Apparently, the only two tough games they played this year they are 1-1, so they are not a very good team and don't deserve to be ranked in the top 10 from a football perspective. The biggest issue I have is that the same "facts" will be used by pundits to praise the SEC and denigrate other conferences. Media people will discuss how tough Alabama's schedule is since they have played teams like 6-3 LSU and 5-4 A&M, while at the same time disregarding the 4-2 conference head to head because the ACC "only" played 6-3 LSU and 5-4 A&M.

I think you are actually making the same point that other people are making. Media companies and personalities DO NOT discuss football and DO NOT rank teams and conferences based on football. It is all a popularity and push for ratings game. Since, according you your statements, Alabama has played a weak schedule so far, don't try to convince me that they are a top 10 team based on football record. Just admit that football doesn't matter and you want to get fans engaged as much as possible, for or against whatever teams the media hype companies want to create controversy about.

 

[Vespidae]

Then don't pretend that rankings and CFP is actually about football. Just have fans register for an ESPN+ account and vote for who gets into the CFP.

If you watch any of the ESPN roundtable shows (which I stopped watching a long time ago), they don't simply say that the SEC is more popular than other conferences. They make statements about how grueling it is to play an SEC schedule. They talk about how teams have SEC speed that other teams can't compete with.

In your example, should Alabama get credit for playing such a "tough" schedule against such opponents as a 6-3 LSU team and a 5-4 A&M team? Apparently, the only two tough games they played this year they are 1-1, so they are not a very good team and don't deserve to be ranked in the top 10 from a football perspective. The biggest issue I have is that the same "facts" will be used by pundits to praise the SEC and denigrate other conferences. Media people will discuss how tough Alabama's schedule is since they have played teams like 6-3 LSU and 5-4 A&M, while at the same time disregarding the 4-2 conference head to head because the ACC "only" played 6-3 LSU and 5-4 A&M.

I think you are actually making the same point that other people are making. Media companies and personalities DO NOT discuss football and DO NOT rank teams and conferences based on football. It is all a popularity and push for ratings game. Since, according you your statements, Alabama has played a weak schedule so far, don't try to convince me that they are a top 10 team based on football record. Just admit that football doesn't matter and you want to get fans engaged as much as possible, for or against whatever teams the media hype companies want to create controversy about.

" .. should Alabama get credit for playing such a "tough" schedule against such opponents as a 6-3 LSU team and a 5-4 A&M team?" No, they shouldn't. Those teams aren't that great this year and neither is Alabama. Competitive, sure. Dominating? No.

I'm not trying to convince you that Alabama is a Top 10 team and nowhere did I claim that. I'm not sure why you want to debate a topic not introduced, but ok.

College football today is about money. Period. ESPN has a vested interest to promote teams that appeal to its viewers. You never hear about the Sun Belt Conference. Why? Because they are insignificant to that discussion.

I can like a team and cheer for a team while also recognizing the reality that the media, the pundits, the conferences are all basically creating content, marketing that content, and reaping the rewards for doing so.

 

[Boaty1]

Does an ACC team beating Vandy really matter? Does beating a 6-3 LSU, a 5-4 Texas A&M team, a 7-3 Notre Dame team mean much?

You do realize the only team to beat A&M by more than 1 score was .500 ACC team right?

FSU dominated LSU in a way nobody from the SEC has.

Notre Dame lost on the last play to Ohio State but was beaten soundly by Louisville and 2-4 ACC team Clemson.

You really went out of your way here to denigrate the ACC.

 

[Bogey]

Say what yall want about Alabama but I think they can give UGA fits if they meet in the SEC championship game. And if they win out and do beat the dawgs, they will definitely deserve to be in the playoffs, despite their only loss to a strong Texas team in the second week.

 

[Vespidae]

You do realize the only team to beat A&M by more than 1 score was .500 ACC team right?

FSU dominated LSU in a way nobody from the SEC has.

Notre Dame lost on the last play to Ohio State but was beaten soundly by Louisville and 2-4 ACC team Clemson.

You really went out of your way here to denigrate the ACC.

I didn't 'denigrate" the ACC. I said it is pointless to spend a lot of time debating whether one conference is superior to another based on a one year won-loss record.

You seem to want to debate that, "Oh, it surely is!"

Fine. Find someone likeminded and go for it.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

College football today is about money. Period. ESPN has a vested interest to promote teams that appeal to its viewers.

This tweet is from the king of lazy takes, but I can't argue with it. With carriage fees tanking, ESPN desperately needs the rating $$$...

 

[RonJohn]

I can like a team and cheer for a team while also recognizing the reality that the media, the pundits, the conferences are all basically creating content, marketing that content, and reaping the rewards for doing so.

I like football. The current media surrounding football is more like professional wrestling than it is an actual sport. It is getting to be more hype than anything at all related to football. I used to watch Sportscenter and College Gameday. I haven't watched either in several years. Pretty much the only time I watch ESPN is when GT is playing. I watch fewer other games now than I used to.

I think there is a real danger of college football having the same kind of declines as NASCAR has been experiencing. Push out the people who actually care about the sport to gain viewers who are only interested in the hype. When the hype wears off, those viewers will start to leave and many who actually care about the sport won't be around any longer. The business model for ESPN is changing, and the endless supply of money isn't available now. It is possible that the viewership of college football will decline in 10 years instead of increasing. Teams like Texas, A&M, and Alabama will be stung if that happens, but it won't hurt them too bad because they have large revenues not related to media. GT really needs to get the debt paid off because expecting increases in media revenue perpetually in order to survive and pay interest only on the debt might not be successful.

 

[TooTall]

I like football. The current media surrounding football is more like professional wrestling than it is an actual sport. It is getting to be more hype than anything at all related to football. I used to watch Sportscenter and College Gameday. I haven't watched either in several years. Pretty much the only time I watch ESPN is when GT is playing. I watch fewer other games now than I used to.

I think there is a real danger of college football having the same kind of declines as NASCAR has been experiencing. Push out the people who actually care about the sport to gain viewers who are only interested in the hype. When the hype wears off, those viewers will start to leave and many who actually care about the sport won't be around any longer. The business model for ESPN is changing, and the endless supply of money isn't available now. It is possible that the viewership of college football will decline in 10 years instead of increasing. Teams like Texas, A&M, and Alabama will be stung if that happens, but it won't hurt them too bad because they have large revenues not related to media. GT really needs to get the debt paid off because expecting increases in media revenue perpetually in order to survive and pay interest only on the debt might not be successful.

You mean showing all Colorado games on national broadcasts is bad for the sport? Gee, who coulda thunk it?

 

[Bogey]

Excessive media dollars are toxic and corruptive to college sports in my opinion.

 

[Boaty1]

I didn't 'denigrate" the ACC. I said it is pointless to spend a lot of time debating whether one conference is superior to another based on a one year won-loss record.

You seem to want to debate that, "Oh, it surely is!"

Fine. Find someone likeminded and go for it.

Why is it pointless to discuss results from this year? I didn’t make any claim to strength of conference. Merely responded to your drivel. Which I now realize you don’t understand yourself so my mistake. I’m new to this board and have to learn who to converse with.

 

[Vespidae]

Why is it pointless to discuss results from this year? I didn’t make any claim to strength of conference. Merely responded to your drivel. Which I now realize you don’t understand yourself so my mistake. I’m new to this board and have to learn who to converse with.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Well, maybe the hypocrisy of it all is being pointed out by some pundits....

 

[billga99]

This tweet is from the king of lazy takes, but I can't argue with it. With carriage fees tanking, ESPN desperately needs the rating $$$...

if FSU and/or Washington runs the table and is undefeated and conference champs they will get in. If ACC, Pac 12 and Big 12 (which already has 1 loss) all have a loss, possible. One caveat is if Tx. wins Big 12 and has 1 loss, hard to put Alabama ahead of them since they lost head to head.

 

[slugboy]

Well, maybe the hypocrisy of it all is being pointed out by some pundits....

I’d like to see resumé without the scare quotes. It’s a good question whether the championship shot goes to the teams with the best body of work, or the one people think has the best shot at winning. It’s easier to judge a team’s body of work.

Having a secret selection process opens up all kind of abuse. If MLB picked 4 playoff teams that way, we’d see the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, and the Red Sox almost every year. Boxing is that corrupt when the set up title fights. March Madness is great because they don’t do that.

I think March Madness leads to better ratings and better TV.

 

[RonJohn]

Well, maybe the hypocrisy of it all is being pointed out by some pundits....

The biggest problem with that quote to me is the desire for consistency. The media doesn't want consistency on a year-to-year basis. The measurement changes based on what makes the SEC look good. The big problem this year is that the SEC doesn't look good, so there isn't a measurement that helps them. Even Alabama vs. Oregon, their "resumes" are very similar, and at the end of the year will likely be almost identical. They keep changing the measurement to ensure the teams from the SEC are ranked highest. Now that measurements don't show that, this appears to be an attempt at some kind of an abstract understanding of consistency being the reason that Alabama should be the highest ranked 1 loss team. (And then backing up and saying that well maybe SEC incoming team Texas since they actually won head to head with Alabama.)

I myself would just say that I do question McElroy's professionalism, or at least his impartiality.