Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Except the only way ut comes to the ACC, is inthe proposed pod system.
4 - 4 team pods.

tobacco road - unc, ncst, wake, duke
South- Clemson, gt, Miami, fsu
North- md, UVA, vt, bc
Gulf - ut, x,y,z where x,y,z may equal tt, ou, osu.......

OU/OSU are already going to the Pac-XX, so that scenario isn't an option. Now we may see three schools dragged along (TT, Baylor, ?). That may work, but it's still a bit disjointed.

[CU Tiger]

Already?
It is a signed contract?

[CU Tiger]

Dola - pardon me for stating it this way, but what turns off quite a few folks, IMHO is your constant supposition that your opinion or guess is fact.

There are plenty of reports that ou/osu are PAC xx bound, but quite a few that dispute that...yet you would submit that suggesting otherwise is ignorant and a non starter for a conversation. Frankly it is tiring. None of us "know" what is going to happen so we come here to light heartedly discuss the possibilities, you don't come here to discuss you come to lecture, and enlighten us.

That works if you are unequivocally the smartest in the room, or a lucky guess and never wrong, in your case you are neither and frequently revert to ignoring your inaccuracies as you move on to our next lesson in your awesomeness and mizzou's relevance.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dola - pardon me for stating it this way, but what turns off quite a few folks, IMHO is your constant supposition that your opinion or guess is fact.

Yes its entirely this, going back years now. Don't worry, your post will be shrugged off as you not understanding and we'll just keep enjoying all the "facts" that turn out to be wrong. Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that Missouri had unequivocally been offered a Pac 12 spot as soon as the Texas A&M thing was official and turned it down? what happened to that? Missouri would never consider the Pac 10. SEC/Big 10 or bust!


Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Big 10 Expansion Thread - nobody knows WTF is up

that was 16 days ago.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Big 10 Expansion Thread - nobody knows WTF is up

Today.


Indignant when challenged, but the facts change without retracting anything, without acknowledging that anything different was ever said or considered. Its straight out of 1984. We're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia. And any other mizzou fan on this board shrugs and treats these things as the massive rumors that they are, just like all of the rest of us. But these things are stated with absolute certainty and an absolute air of complete insider knowledge, anyone who dares to challenge them is talked down to.

Add to these kinds of things the frequent allusions to the Iraqi Information Minister when describing reports coming from any other school but Missouri and you have a recipe for hilarity, with some occasional WTF!? outrage mixed in.

[Kodos]

Ohhh, you and your FACTS!

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We'll just keep winning.....unless we have to travel to Tempe

fixed it for you

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

fixed it for you

It was a really fun game to watch. Let us not forget that the Sun Devils have a rematch on slate in Columbia.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yes its entirely this, going back years now. Don't worry, your post will be shrugged off as you not understanding and we'll just keep enjoying all the "facts" that turn out to be wrong. Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that Missouri had unequivocally been offered a Pac 12 spot as soon as the Texas A&M thing was official and turned it down? what happened to that? Missouri would never consider the Pac 10. SEC/Big 10 or bust!

It's all relative to time. Mizzou wasn't a consideration for the Pac-XX two weeks ago because there was no fathomable reason why UT would ever be stupid enough to hold on to the LHN and risk falling in the pecking order. 16 days later and we're realizing, oh, UT really is that stupid. That's the way this thing has gone for 18 months and the scenarios will continue to change. Get used to it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That was not the comparison I made. I made a comparison of what Texas was making coming into this season vs. what they stand to make. Their total revenue is around $40M. They'd only make $15M the moment that OU/OSU/MU leaves because the league will disband at that point. No conference deal at all.

Texas is making $40M from TV revenue this year? They're really getting $25M from the Big-"12" TV deals? What the hell is Iowa State getting, $5M? The total TV revenue for the conference is only $150M per year...

...unless, are you counting the exit fees from Nebraska & Colorado in that figure?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's all relative to time. Mizzou wasn't a consideration for the Pac-XX two weeks ago because there was no fathomable reason why UT would ever be stupid enough to hold on to the LHN and risk falling in the pecking order. 16 days later and we're realizing, oh, UT really is that stupid. That's the way this thing has gone for 18 months and the scenarios will continue to change. Get used to it.

I think the point was that WE know this.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's all relative to time. Mizzou wasn't a consideration for the Pac-XX two weeks ago because there was no fathomable reason why UT would ever be stupid enough to hold on to the LHN and risk falling in the pecking order.

You were the one that said the Pac 10 had made an offer to Missouri and that they had turned it down 2 weeks ago!

[Chubby]

why is Missouri even considering the Pac12 when they are already in the big 10???

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Chubby

why is Missouri even considering the Pac12 when they are already in the big 10???

Cuz they're still upset about the Big Ten jolting them. Now that they're in the B1G, they're jumping to the Pad for revenge! Take that, Delaney!

[Kodos]

I hate autocorrect...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dola - pardon me for stating it this way, but what turns off quite a few folks, IMHO is your constant supposition that your opinion or guess is fact.

Surely you're referring to the PS3's dominance over the XBOX 360.

No?

Oh, you must mean McCain's win in Pennsylvania over Obama.

Wait, not that either?

Ah, you must be referring to the NHL in KC then.

[bronconick]

Florida State forming a committee to "explore the university's options."

FSU preparing for realignment possibilities, such as moving to SEC or welcoming Texas into ACC

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

There are plenty of reports that ou/osu are PAC xx bound, but quite a few that dispute that...yet you would submit that suggesting otherwise is ignorant and a non starter for a conversation.

Sounds like the global warming debate

(ducks)

[Logan]

Keep fuckin that chicken MBBF. Your self righteousness and complete disregard for learning from your past mistakes, assumptions, and guarantees has been the most entertaining aspect of this board since Pumpy left.

[Ksyrup]

Pumpy didn't leave. He's still in the shower.

Oh, wait...

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Except the only way ut comes to the ACC, is inthe proposed pod system.
4 - 4 team pods.

Tobacco Road - unc, ncst, wake, duke
South- Clemson, gt, Miami, fsu
North- md, UVA, vt, bc
Gulf - ut, x,y,z where x,y,z may equal tt, ou, osu.......

I still think the ACC could have created some buzz for itself by going to 3 pods of 4 when it realigned. It's the most sensible arrangement of schools possible (whereas Atlantic/Coastal became the modern progenitor of Leaders/Legends). And I'd love the race for 2 championship game sports among 3 division leaders.

All that said, I'd take a Gulf pod, for sure. The Gulf is still technically the Atlantic Ocean. And Lord knows how well our last football-minded expansion has worked for us.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Keep fuckin that chicken MBBF. Your self righteousness and complete disregard for learning from your past mistakes, assumptions, and guarantees has been the most entertaining aspect of this board since Pumpy left.

Pumpy left?

[Toddzilla]

Everything I'm hearing here in DC is "Texas to the ACC" this and "Texas to the ACC" that. Virginia Tech is not really happy about this - Texas is just a bigger and badder Louisville when it comes to conference politics - but if ESPN wants it to happen, it probably will since ESPN owns both the ACC contract and the Longhorn network.

If it does come to fruition, look for VT and FSU to make calls to the SEC in record time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Little side entertainment from Ken Starr. Sent to boosters and students.....

"We are grateful for the many words of support during the recent tumult associated with the Big 12 athletic conference. The administration has endeavored to provide periodic updates to the Student Government President, Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Staff Council leadership. During these challenging times, the strong statements of support that have come from our meetings with student, faculty and staff leaders has both encouraged and energized us. Thank you.

At the present time, we are optimistic that the Big 12 will remain a viable athletic conference. As we have said consistently, we think a strong Big 12 Conference is in the best interest of all parties ? most notably, our students and student-athletes. News reports are full of wild speculation, with rumor and unidentified sources driving much of the discussion. What I can tell you is that the issues are complex, but important conversations are continuing.

Lest we conclude this is purely about our athletic programs, let me assure you that this is an issue that could impact all of us. Clearly, our storied football rivalries and related traditions are considered by prospective and current students an important element of student life on our campus. And what of the student-faculty experience that we hold so dear? Dramatic changes in conference configuration would force student-athletes to travel greater distances to compete. This change would be disruptive to the classroom experience and make difficult for student-athletes the high level of engagement with faculty that is such a hallmark of a Baylor education. Threatened as well could be the revenue dollars that come into the University from various sources as a result of the front porch which a nationally visible athletics program provides.

Let me also make clear that the course Baylor is following in these negotiations, and the manner in which we are participating, is absolutely consistent with the high standards to which our distinct mission as a Christian university calls us. We will continue to represent Baylor in the most honest, transparent and honorable manner possible. In particular, I want you to know that Baylor has always complied fully with its contractual responsibilities regarding the Big 12. At the heart of our concern are the solemn conference agreements signed in good faith by all current members of the Big 12 Conference. As a result of these agreements, and the guaranteed revenue associated with them, a number of our fellow Big 12 institutions have already made binding and significant commitments of financial resources that will have dramatic consequences on their campuses.

As we contemplate these issues, we are reminded how very proud we are of our student-athletes and our coaches. Sharing transformational mission trips during their breaks and reporting an overall grade point average last semester of 3.2, our student-athletes reflect, in a very public way, the character of Baylor's remarkable student body. Beyond that, we are making a strong statement on a national stage that Baylor University is a powerful presence in collegiate athletics in our country. We are confident that such a reputation will serve us well as present conversations continue concerning Baylor's future conference commitments. Please visit the Baylor Athletics Experience to learn more about athletic accolades.

We will continue periodically to update campus leadership and the entire campus community. In the meanwhile, we invite you to visit the Baylor Nation website for the latest news and information on the Big 12 discussions and for information on how you can get involved: Baylor University || Baylor Nation. You may also find of interest an opinion piece in today's Houston Chronicle, "Consider Costs of Ending Big 12," in which I share some thoughts about the Big 12 and Texas football traditions.

Let me close by once again extending a word of thanks to the many individuals within our community, both near and far, who have been so generous in their words of kindness and encouragement. Baylor's position is strong, and it is right. Because we have your prayers and your support, we are confident of a successful resolution of the current challenges we face.

We look forward to seeing many of you Saturday when our #19 ranked football team takes on Stephen F. Austin under the lights at Floyd Casey Stadium.

Sic'em, Baylor Nation!
Ken Starr

[I. J. Reilly]

What’s with all the MBBF hate? The guy loves his school; it’s really hard to be subjective about things you love.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

What’s with all the MBBF hate? The guy loves his school; it’s really hard to be subjective about things you love.

Meh. It's easy to take things too seriously on message boards. I'm sure all the people involved are people I would get along with in person (in addition to the ones I do know and have met). Not a big deal. They're good people.

[Toddzilla]

I think this has very little to how much someone loves their school and rather how much one insists their word is always correct well after been proven wrong again and again and again.

[Young Drachma]

I have a source that says that Rutgers will join the Eurobasket association. They're trying to break into the NYC market.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I think this has very little to how much someone loves their school and rather how much one insists their word is always correct well after been proven wrong again and again and again.

I agree with IJ. I don't get why MBBF gets such hate. Maybe it's because I don't take a lot of his stuff seriously, or I have safely compartmentalized it into "Homerville" and consequently ignore it, but his posts don't generally bug me too much.

But there are definitely posters that do bug me on other issues, so maybe this is just a potato-potAto thing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article discussing changes in Big 12-3 that lead us to this point

Texas A&M and Oklahoma Declare Independence from Texas : Outkick The Coverage

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Everything I'm hearing here in DC is "Texas to the ACC" this and "Texas to the ACC" that. Virginia Tech is not really happy about this - Texas is just a bigger and badder Louisville when it comes to conference politics - but if ESPN wants it to happen, it probably will since ESPN owns both the ACC contract and the Longhorn network.

If it does come to fruition, look for VT and FSU to make calls to the SEC in record time.

I don't know...at some point the game of musical chairs has to stop, right? If Texas gets far enough along with the ACC that it becomes public like aTm has with the SEC, Texas and the ACC will have to be certain that all of its members are on board. So I couldn't see Texas joining the ACC and then FSU/VT bailing. It seems that if FSU/'VT were to bail because of Texas, the ACC just wouldn't accept Texas.

I like the idea of bringing in Texas from a competition standpoint, because the ACC sucks right now and it needs a credibility boost. But if bringing them in causes the same issues the Big 12 has a year or two from now, I don't want to see it happen. And that could happen, if FSU/VT are actually upset about Texas joining, but the SEC isn't interested in FSU/VT right now for whatever reason, then they really have no choice and would have to accept Texas.

There are really too many moving pieces for me to get a firm grasp on how this would all shake out. I tend to agree with MBBF, though, that Texas - as desirable as it is, in theory - really has very limited options if keeping the LHN is a top priority.

[bronconick]

If FSU and VT don't want Texas, they can effectively block it, since UNC and Duke vote against all expansion every time.

[JeeberD]

I want the Big 12 to hurry up and implode so that CUSA and the MWC can start fighting over the scraps...

[corbes]

Probably other people have thought of this before me but I'm too lazy to check.

If it were up to me, we'd have sixteen pods of four teams arranged more or less in a sensible geographic format. Each team plays the other three teams in their pod every year, and then each pod plays two other pods on a rotating schedule like the NFL. That's 11 games per year.

At the end of the season you have 16 regular season pod-winners. Away we go with the playoffs.

And lastly to keep the small schools happy we'll have a limited system of promotion and relegation. Done and done, no?

I'll even suggest the pods:
(1) North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Clemson
(2) Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami
(3) Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, Georgia Tech
(4) Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
(5) LSU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
(6) Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU
(7) Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
(8) Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
(9) Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Illinois
(10) Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Ohio State
(11) Connecticut, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers
(12) Colorado, BYU, Utah, Boise State
(13) Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
(14) UCLA, USC, California, Stanford
(15) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Wake Forest
(16) Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas State, Iowa State

I know it falls apart in places (like the 16th pod) but really, who cares. Wouldn't this at least be more fun?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by corbes

Probably other people have thought of this before me but I'm too lazy to check.

If it were up to me, we'd have sixteen pods of four teams arranged more or less in a sensible geographic format. Each team plays the other three teams in their pod every year, and then each pod plays two other pods on a rotating schedule like the NFL. That's 11 games per year.

At the end of the season you have 16 regular season pod-winners. Away we go with the playoffs.

And lastly to keep the small schools happy we'll have a limited system of promotion and relegation. Done and done, no?

I'll even suggest the pods:
(1) North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Clemson
(2) Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami
(3) Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, Georgia Tech
(4) Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
(5) LSU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
(6) Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU
(7) Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
(8) Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
(9) Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Illinois
(10) Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Ohio State
(11) Connecticut, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers
(12) Colorado, BYU, Utah, Boise State
(13) Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
(14) UCLA, USC, California, Stanford
(15) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Wake Forest
(16) Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas State, Iowa State

I know it falls apart in places (like the 16th pod) but really, who cares. Wouldn't this at least be more fun?

I guess I'm just unclear on how promotion/relegation would work with this pod setup; would one pod be for teams to get promoted into each year? Would you rearrange the pod setup on a yearly basis to put teams in danger of relegation (presumably for failing to meet a competitive standard for X number of years consecutively, say) and have new teams promote into that and then join other pods as they establish their bona fides?

I like the pod system idea. I just don't know how workable it would be in conjunction with relegation/promotion.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by corbes

Probably other people have thought of this before me but I'm too lazy to check.

If it were up to me, we'd have sixteen pods of four teams arranged more or less in a sensible geographic format. Each team plays the other three teams in their pod every year, and then each pod plays two other pods on a rotating schedule like the NFL. That's 11 games per year.

At the end of the season you have 16 regular season pod-winners. Away we go with the playoffs.

And lastly to keep the small schools happy we'll have a limited system of promotion and relegation. Done and done, no?

I'll even suggest the pods:
(1) North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Clemson
(2) Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami
(3) Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, Georgia Tech
(4) Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
(5) LSU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
(6) Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU
(7) Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
(8) Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
(9) Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Illinois
(10) Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Ohio State
(11) Connecticut, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers
(12) Colorado, BYU, Utah, Boise State
(13) Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
(14) UCLA, USC, California, Stanford
(15) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Wake Forest
(16) Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas State, Iowa State

I know it falls apart in places (like the 16th pod) but really, who cares. Wouldn't this at least be more fun?

But the beauty of college football is how it has always grown organically.

It's like an ancient European city; the streets are way to narrow, the buildings are to small, and the plumbing is horrible but taken as a whole it's beautiful. A new interstate through downtown might clear up the traffic jams, but it will ruin the whole town.

[molson]

Originally Posted by corbes

Wouldn't this at least be more fun?

There would be advantages but I wouldn't call one of them "fun". It seems sterile to me, like any pro league. Too much centralization. But hell, I'd prefer pro sports if the leagues has less power, and the teams were more free to schedule, align themselves with different teams and venues, play games outside the league, develop and continue organic rivalries. etc. Not total freedom, but I think we take for granted this idea that the league controls every action of the teams in the league and everything has to be exactly balanced and exactly structured a certain way. It never quite works when a league says "we're putting these two teams in the same division so they'll be rivals!"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by corbes

Probably other people have thought of this before me but I'm too lazy to check.

If it were up to me, we'd have sixteen pods of four teams arranged more or less in a sensible geographic format. Each team plays the other three teams in their pod every year, and then each pod plays two other pods on a rotating schedule like the NFL. That's 11 games per year.

At the end of the season you have 16 regular season pod-winners. Away we go with the playoffs.

And lastly to keep the small schools happy we'll have a limited system of promotion and relegation. Done and done, no?

I'll even suggest the pods:
(1) North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Clemson
(2) Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami
(3) Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, Georgia Tech
(4) Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State
(5) LSU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
(6) Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU
(7) Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
(8) Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
(9) Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Illinois
(10) Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Ohio State
(11) Connecticut, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers
(12) Colorado, BYU, Utah, Boise State
(13) Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
(14) UCLA, USC, California, Stanford
(15) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Wake Forest
(16) Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas State, Iowa State

I know it falls apart in places (like the 16th pod) but really, who cares. Wouldn't this at least be more fun?

The pods would need to be bigger or you'd lose too many rivalries. For example, I have no interest in yearly WV and Pitt games and a Michigan game once every few years.

Balance is also going to be an issue. ND seems likely to walk away with their pod every year while some of them look like real dogfights. I know it's only three games a year, but the disparity is great.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I guess I'm just unclear on how promotion/relegation would work with this pod setup;

It would work like this - when a school is up for relegation, they hire Ken Starr.

[corbes]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The pods would need to be bigger or you'd lose too many rivalries. For example, I have no interest in yearly WV and Pitt games and a Michigan game once every few years.

Balance is also going to be an issue. ND seems likely to walk away with their pod every year while some of them look like real dogfights. I know it's only three games a year, but the disparity is great.

I thought about bigger pods but if you add too many teams it starts to look like a conference. The point was to initiate a conversation about a 64-team college league composed of pods.

And yes, there are competitive balance problems. I decided to ignore those and simply group by geography as much as possible. How would you arrange 16 four-team pods if it were up to you?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Florida State forming a committee to "explore the university's options."

FSU preparing for realignment possibilities, such as moving to SEC or welcoming Texas into ACC

FWIW Clemson formed the same committee last year and it continues to meet.

While I have no knowledge outside of my little world (Clemson) I feel I am pretty well connected to it. I feel very sure, that Clemson feels like they have an agreement with FSU that neither will leave without the other and wherever one goes they will require room for the other.

Now FSU may have no intent on honoring this agreement, but Clemson folks at the BOT and President level feel like this pact is in place.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I can't imagine FSU, UF, UGA, and Miami agreeing that only 1 of them is going to make the playoffs in any given year. Or that one of Louisville/UK/GT/UT or UConn/BC/Syracuse/Rutgers will always make it.

[CU Tiger]

osu to 8
purdue to 10
minn to 9
and I like your pods much better...
of course Duke and vandy are probably pissed to be excluded

[corbes]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, I can't imagine FSU, UF, UGA, and Miami agreeing that only 1 of them is going to make the playoffs in any given year. Or that one of Louisville/UK/GT/UT or UConn/BC/Syracuse/Rutgers will always make it.

How would you organize the pods?

[corbes]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

osu to 8
purdue to 10
minn to 9
and I like your pods much better...
of course Duke and vandy are probably pissed to be excluded

Good suggestions. Duke and Vanderbilt have played their way out of this lineup. They can play their way back in if they want.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by corbes

How would you organize the pods?

As geographic conferences.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

osu to 8
purdue to 10
minn to 9
and I like your pods much better...
of course Duke and vandy are probably pissed to be excluded

Move Michigan State to 9 instead of Minnesota. Michigan already has OSU rivalry in place and that way you don't break up the Minnesota/Wisconsin rivalry.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As geographic conferences.

Yeah. I think you'd need at least 8 team pods with 16 a possibility. Of course a 16 team pod would functionally be two 8 team pods.

[molson]

I'd rather have 120 independents and have a committee let 12 or 16 into a tournament. Maybe some of the tournament criteria could be geography- based (X number of teams from each region). Teams could setup their own rivalry games or even mini-tournaments to make up their season (like in basketball). I think that's the essence of college football - your team agrees to play my team at this place on this date...We could see an 8-team "Florida championship" tournament or whatever during the season before we even got to a playoff.