[Concept] Fixing CFB Realignment

[DuckTownHusker]

"Here we go, another low-effort realignment post."

Maybe after this post you'll think differently.

Realignment has brought a lot of excitement and interest to college football, but at what cost? We've seen the ending of several storied rivalries and long-standing conference affiliations in the name of chasing TV dollars. And while it's fun to watch Oregon play Penn State, eventually the novelty wears off. We're left with awkward conference alignments and teams playing a whole bunch of other teams that don't interest the fans.

For every new conference game like Texas-Alabama, we're treated to a few dozen yawners like UCLA-Rutgers or SMU-Wake Forest.

So, how do we fix it?

Read on, all you CFB sickos, read on...

 

[2nd and 3]

I have had conversations with friends about this topic. Our numbers of teams always hovered around 72, 6 conferences of 12 teams. Structured similar to the old Big 12 or old SEC, two divisions of 6 teams. Play the 5 teams in your division, then three crossover games every year. 8 conference games and in theory, you would play at every conference opponent within a 4 year span. This would allow for 4 non conference games as well, to be played against other FBS teams.

With this setup, conference championship games could still be played. If the playoff was expanded, the championship games wouldn't be as detrimental to the loser of those games.

The current G5 teams would be able to form their own division, maybe call it D1 AA?? Would be more competitive and would allow teams like NDSU or SDSU to move into that division and remain competitive. Current FCS teams could hold steady, possibly plucking some current D2 teams to stabilize numbers. Maybe call this division D1 AAA?? Then D2 and D3 would continue on as they currently do.

I know ideas like this will never work as money is involved but common sense has to come into play eventually, doesn't it? Maybe?

Thoughts?

 

[DuckTownHusker]

I have had conversations with friends about this topic. Our numbers of teams always hovered around 72, 6 conferences of 12 teams. Structured similar to the old Big 12 or old SEC, two divisions of 6 teams. Play the 5 teams in your division, then three crossover games every year. 8 conference games and in theory, you would play at every conference opponent within a 4 year span. This would allow for 4 non conference games as well, to be played against other FBS teams.

With this setup, conference championship games could still be played. If the playoff was expanded, the championship games wouldn't be as detrimental to the loser of those games.

The current G5 teams would be able to form their own division, maybe call it D1 AA?? Would be more competitive and would allow teams like NDSU or SDSU to move into that division and remain competitive. Current FCS teams could hold steady, possibly plucking some current D2 teams to stabilize numbers. Maybe call this division D1 AAA?? Then D2 and D3 would continue on as they currently do.

I know ideas like this will never work as money is involved but common sense has to come into play eventually, doesn't it? Maybe?

Thoughts?

I didn't touch on CCGs, as I think they will eventually die off. But I agree on the G5/FCS teams. There are some points about that specifically in the presentation.

Taking the top 80 teams out of FBS allows G5 teams a real chance at a title. Central Michigan, etc., all have a shot. Same goes for the 4 Dakotas schools, Montana, Montana State, etc, should they want to reclassify to that new G5 level.

I'd love a playoff with MAC, Big Sky, Ivy, etc. Imagine watching East Carolina or App State take on Harvard or Youngstown State in post-season play. There's a lot of quality football there, and separating from Alabama, Ohio State, etc., gives them a real chance to shine.

 

[MiniDisk]

"Here we go, another low-effort realignment post."

Maybe after this post you'll think differently.

Realignment has brought a lot of excitement and interest to college football, but at what cost? We've seen the ending of several storied rivalries and long-standing conference affiliations in the name of chasing TV dollars. And while it's fun to watch Oregon play Penn State, eventually the novelty wears off. We're left with awkward conference alignments and teams playing a whole bunch of other teams that don't interest the fans.

For every new conference game like Texas-Alabama, we're treated to a few dozen yawners like UCLA-Rutgers or SMU-Wake Forest.

So, how do we fix it?

Read on, all you CFB sickos, read on...

slide 9 you put iowa in the post season bracket instead of nebraska, unforgivable...... im a hard no on this proposal.......

 

[DuckTownHusker]

slide 9 you put iowa in the post season bracket instead of nebraska, unforgivable...... im a hard no on this proposal.......

It's based on 2025 standings, and in this model Nebraska and Iowa are in separate divisions anyway.

NU, KU, KSU, OU, OSU

Iowa, ISU, Minn, Mizzou, Wisc

 

[Hville]

Everyone keeps trying to structure college football under the impression of the NFL. The truth is the NFL and college football are totally different in their structure. One is managed by a single entity as a per profit business. The other has independent conference entities that have little reason to give up their control.

 

[RedRum]

This model ignores a basic fundamental that makes it a complete non-starter. Why would the BIG and SEC go for this? The answer is they won't and the chance is zero.

These conferences have worked decades building a brand and locking in TV and other revenue agreements. And now, they are separating from the field. They aren't going to give that up to share it not only with the ACC and Big XII, but a bunch of G5's? If they are going to make a move, it's going to be to pull the last handful of teams with value and gut those last two P4's, not add a bunch.

 

[BGRed]

Post in thread 'Super Conference'

Dec 9, 2025

For those still interested, here's a refresher with all the CFP PR about tough schedules, easy schedules, good losses, bad losses, conference strength/weakness, autobids and all of that... this would blow up the conferences and create 12 fairly equal groupings for the following season based on current season results & a set of computer rankings. For this breakdown, I used the Massey Composite of 81 systems. Each season, the groupings change based on results. With all the money and the way conferences are realigning today, I'm discounting travel costs as a factor.

Groupings for...

• BGRed

• 

 

[WestTexasHusker]

It's been about 3 years ago now, but I visited with two fairly high-level CBS Sports guys at a meeting, and big media wants inclusion. 60-70 seems to be the number. Of course, CBS couldn't care less about Alabama or whoever. And common sense says they don't want one conference or entity negotiating for all of those 60-70. That is extreme leverage, NFL style (which is probably why the remaining P4 should do it).

Media is in the business of making money from advertising. The conference commissioners are in the business of making money for their conference. They haven't quite figured out yet that they'll make a lot more if they band together. Perhaps not initially, but in the future, absolutely.

 

[DuckTownHusker]

It's been about 3 years ago now, but I visited with two fairly high-level CBS Sports guys at a meeting, and big media wants inclusion. 60-70 seems to be the number. Of course, CBS couldn't care less about Alabama or whoever. And common sense says they don't want one conference or entity negotiating for all of those 60-70. That is extreme leverage, NFL style (which is probably why the remaining P4 should do it).

Media is in the business of making money from advertising. The conference commissioners are in the business of making money for their conference. They haven't quite figured out yet that they'll make a lot more if they band together. Perhaps not initially, but in the future, absolutely.

Yep. If the conferences bend a little and give up some CCGs, etc., there's a future where every week is full of classic rivalries (NU-OU) and interesting cross-division/OOC games like Ole Miss-UNC.

That's very saleable inventory.

 

[WestTexasHusker]

Yep. If the conferences bend a little and give up some CCGs, etc., there's a future where every week is full of classic rivalries (NU-OU) and interesting cross-division/OOC games like Ole Miss-UNC.

That's very saleable inventory.

The problem is, you've got four conference commissioners with big egos, all representing their own constituents and self-serving interests. How nice it would be if there were some adults in the room.

 

[TFrazier]

The problem is, you've got four conference commissioners with big egos, all representing their own constituents and self-serving interests. How nice it would be if there were some adults in the room.

 

[19D Cav]

The problem is, you've got four conference commissioners with big egos, all representing their own constituents and self-serving interests. How nice it would be if there were some adults in the room.

Many of the Adults in the room are a big part of the Problem throwing their money around paying teenagers in hopes of Winning Championships to live out some childhood dream of their own
For Example

Cody Campbell
Phil Knight
Kevin Plank

 

[NU_Alum]

It's been about 3 years ago now, but I visited with two fairly high-level CBS Sports guys at a meeting, and big media wants inclusion. 60-70 seems to be the number. Of course, CBS couldn't care less about Alabama or whoever. And common sense says they don't want one conference or entity negotiating for all of those 60-70. That is extreme leverage, NFL style (which is probably why the remaining P4 should do it).

Media is in the business of making money from advertising. The conference commissioners are in the business of making money for their conference. They haven't quite figured out yet that they'll make a lot more if they band together. Perhaps not initially, but in the future, absolutely.

If this were true, it would either have happened already or be way in the works. "Bid media" doesn't give a rat's behind about inclusion, they're out to make the most money possible. That does not mean including the bottom 20-30 teams that pull in nearly nothing for tv ratings.

 

[WestTexasHusker]

Many of the Adults in the room are a big part of the Problem throwing their money around paying teenagers in hopes of Winning Championships to live out some childhood dream of their own
For Example

Cody Campbell
Phil Knight
Kevin Plank

Yeah, I don't fault them, and I don't see that they are creating any problems per se. It's their money to spend as they wish. If it's OK for Ohio State and Texas to have a lot more money than anyone else, why not Texas Tech and Oregon? No way Indiana does squat without Mark Cuban.

In a weird and twisted way, the whole "NIL" thing (the sham that it is) has created a bit of parity. The whole thing will come crashing down in the end, but it's kind of fun, if not odd, to see Texas Tech in the CFP.