Mailbag: Readers' Thoughts on Realignment
On Thursday, I outlined a comprehensive plan for a 132-team, 11-conference realignment in the FBS, and invited the public to chime in with opinions and comments on my model. If you haven't gotten the chance to examine my proposal, here's a link to do so.
You read, and you responded. Let's have a look at some of your thoughts.
Rich:
Georgia Tech's triple option retired at end of 2018 when head coach Paul Johnson stepped down.
Rich, thanks for noticing my error there. Somehow, I completely glossed over that detail. Granted, Johnson was at Georgia Tech for nearly half my lifetime, but he's been gone a full season. Hopefully short-term memory loss isn't a symptom of COVID-19.
Fred:
Makes no since to take ISU out if big 12. Their proximity to other schools are much closer than Arkansas or Colorado. Not such an easy fix is it. Keep trying but do the math.
Fred, I'd suggest you take a moment to adjourn to your nearest map and locate the state of Arkansas.
As far as Colorado is concerned, you do have a point - Boulder is every bit as far out of the way as Ames, at least from the rest of the Big 12 campuses. However, the Buffaloes have a prestigious program that's somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the college football world. It didn't make sense to keep them in the Pac-12, nor did it really seem fair to send them to the Mountain West.
Keep in mind that the state of Colorado borders Wyoming to the north, Utah to the west and New Mexico to the south. It's hardly a college football hotbed out there in the Plateau. That's not the case for ISU, as the state of Iowa is flanked by through-and-through Big Ten states in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Honestly, from a geographical standpoint, Iowa State is much better suited to jump to the Big Ten than Colorado is to join any conference. However, given their history, putting the Buffaloes back in the Big 12 seems like the right thing to do. And let's call it like it is: Iowa State has no reason to be in the Big 12. They don't have any fierce conference rivals, nor do they have a history of excellence. They're more or less a placeholder.
Stormy:
I like your college realignment, one change however: swap Wake Forest and East Carolina. WF is traditional Tobacco Road with Duke, NC & NC State.
I'm not opposed to this at all - in fact, it's a great idea. In my ACC reboot, I had Wake Forest in the Capitol Division of the reimagined ACC, with Duke, UNC and NC State in the Coastal Division:
I operated under the assumption that Wake Forest could still play those Tobacco Road rivalries from the Capitol Division, as an eight-game conference slate would allow them to take on three opponents per year from the Coastal. But it wouldn't be an issue to swap the Demon Deacons with ECU and make certain that those rivalry games get played every single year. Good call, Stormy.
Rod:
Penn State alum here. Put Pitt in Big Ten to play historical rival Penn State and West Virginia. Cincinnati good but Ohio State already has great rivalry with Michigan and Penn State.
Rod brings up another excellent point. I considered Pitt in my revamped Big Ten East, but Cincinnati made more sense geographically. Here's what the conference looked like in my model:
My realignment proposal had Marshall in the AAC and Pitt in Conference USA. However, if Pitt moved to the Big Ten, Marshall to C-USA, and Cincinnati to the AAC, there wouldn't be much geographical proximity sacrificed at all. Rod's idea holds some merit, and the requisite shuffle isn't a reach. I'm a fan.
Matt G.:
I think the idea of a Southwest Conference again sounds cool. ... To get philosophical, these grown men like myself that get as emotional as a 10 lb newborn on Fall Saturdays about their team see enough change in the world. With all the craziness of 2020, the last thing we want to see is yet another thing we love change.
I feel you, Matt. I feel you. To be honest, the primary reason I want change is because I don't like change either. I want things the way they used to be. I want the old Big 12 back. I want the SWC. You want the SWC. EVERYONE WANTS THE SWC.
Cam:
Not accounted for in your layout was the most important factor for admission into the Big Ten, which is academic prestige. This also is heavily weighted in the ACC but to a lesser degree (see Louisville). Schools in these conferences share funding for research that is incredibly valuable to their endowment, so this factor tends to be more of an influencer than just the state of their athletic programs.
You bring up a fantastic point, Cam. However, I'm not talking about realigning anything but FBS football. Schools can keep their conference affiliations in other sports and in research endeavors, but I think what's become evident over the past few days is that the FBS is increasingly an autonomous entity. I don't claim to know all the specifics of how an FBS-only realignment would happen, but it's really clear that the NCAA is beginning to distance itself from the FBS in terms of the decision-making process. NIL legislation may widen that chasm. I think that within two or three years, this entire realignment process could be much more feasible than it may seem right now.
Ramsin:
While I appreciate you putting my alma mater James Madison in FBS, I did question adding Sam Houston State. Not only are they on the smaller side in terms of stadium size, fan support, and resources, I do not think they (or even JMU) are the best FCS call up option. That would be North Dakota State. In my opinion, I would keep SHSU in the FCS, move New Mexico to the SWC to join NM State, and add NDSU to the MWC... Also, because this is an internet-based discourse, I think I need to say something about your mother or call you schoolyard names. Let's go ahead and say I threw in some choice insults here that left you feeling slightly attacked, but also caused a chuckle at their ingenuity.
First off, Ramsin, real recognize real.
Secondly, as someone who grew up in Missouri Valley territory, I love the idea of bringing North Dakota State to the FBS. However, regardless of where home base is, a road trip to Fargo isn't a quick one, especially for any of the the Bison's theoretical foes in the Mountain West scenario that you proposed. Trust me, I wholeheartedly believe that NDSU has earned the right to compete at the FBS level. But their campus is so far out of the way that it just doesn't seem plausible. The Big Ten is the only conference that would be a remote possibility in my mind.
It's admittedly fun to watch the Bison run roughshod over the rest of the FCS, but they should get a shot to play with the big boys. I'm all for finding a way to try and sneak them into the Big Ten. Maybe Rutgers gets the boot?
Matt S.:
You need to move Clemson and Tennessee to the ACC and bring South Carolina and Coastal Carolina to the SEC. The move of Tennessee would be tough due to rivalries but geographically it works. Also, I think Coastal Carolina would quickly develop to become competitive in the SEC. They have demonstrated that with the creation of a program, becoming quickly competitive in FCS and now competitive in FBS. Plus they would have the recruiting proximity to do so.
Somewhere, there's a picture of me in a Coastal Carolina T-shirt at the 2016 College World Series...
Ah, there it is. With a cameo from Marlins Man, no less.
I wouldn't mind Coastal in a realigned SEC at all, Matt. I think you're absolutely correct that with a bit more of a reputation on which to recruit, CCU could be highly competitive in a Power 5 environment.
Ken:
Here is my add to your concept as I have thought about this for several years. The college football playoff always seems to have two major complaints. 1. There always seems to be a team left out that has a valid argument to be in. 2. The non-power 5 always seem to have a team that believes they should be there. That being said, here is my solution utilizing your realignment... Each Team plays a ten game schedule. (5) divisional games to decide the conference championship and (5) opponents of their choice. Let the selection committee continue to rank teams as they have been doing forever now. The (11) winners of conference titles PLUS the remaining (5) highest ranked teams make the playoff sweet sixteen. These teams will now play for the national title. That will cover 15 of the bowl games that are licensed thus making them more "must see tv"
Ken, you're really tempting me to open a whole new can of worms here, because I love your idea and it's something that I too have considered for quite a while. I've said for years that the FBS should do away with conference championship weekend and play a 64-team tournament, beginning the first week of December and running through mid-January. The bottom line is that the current bowl structure doesn't maximize revenue or interest, unlike the near-flawless tournament model in college basketball. There's a reason why we watch every March Madness game every year, regardless of who's playing. It's because every game actually means something. One upset can throw the entire bracket into a state of chaos. In a sense, every game affects all the other games. There's no Camellia Bowl in March Madness.
Why wouldn't we take the system that makes college basketball special and apply it to the monolith that is college football? Tell me you wouldn't love to watch a 7-5 Arizona State take an unbeaten Clemson down to the wire in the Round of 64, or see an unheralded Group of 5 program make a run to the Elite Eight.
All right, I'm going to hop off the soapbox before I head down another rabbit hole. We'll certainly revisit playoff reconfiguration somewhere down the line. Thanks for your feedback on realignment, and keep my mailbag (@ParkerThune) fresh with your comments on any of my pieces.
To get the latest OU posts as they happen, join the SI Sooners Community by clicking “Follow” at the top right corner of the page (mobile users can click the notifications bell icon), and follow SI Sooners on Twitter @All_Sooners.
