That's never going to happen. What would be more realistic (but still never going to happen) would be an idea I think that was posed by Stew Mandel: every team keeps a designated week open (like Week 2) on their schedule, and in January of each year a committee or representatives from each conference slot teams into an opponent based on the previous season (like the B1G-ACC challenge) as well as bowl games or whatever else. Would prevent situations where teams wind up playing someone that was good a decade ago but now are unranked, and would give national title contenders a resume boost, not to mention much better TV for everyone.
So school and coaches would have to relinquish power over their own schedule for the NCAA or some other body to simply appoint the schedule, which could be good or bad for the school and could be home or away? Never going to happen.
I do not get all the push for change and trying to make schedules and conferences exactly equal. First, they ar snot, and you are never going to Ave the parity in college football like you do in the NFL. And second, I really do not see the problem with the current system. Can tweaks be made, sure. But all of these radical ideas are silly to me. Teams and conferences can schedule who they want and will be evaluated based on that schedule at the end. Conferences will never be equal in strength, so it will never be an equal comparison in terms of schedule strength and season results.
It won't happen. For one thing the PAC gains nothing from aligning with the sinking ship that is the B12. And the PAC-B1G alliance, which actually did make sense given the long history between the 2 leagues, fell apart before it ever got legs.
I'll give Gee credit for always brainstorming stuff. He's coming from the perspective of someone who has a team in the weakest conference and is a weird fit in that conference, so he's trying to look for ways to keep his own school from being left behind.
The biggest issue, as the article states, is that there are valid reasons other than ducking tough games as to why the most powerful programs want to play at home as often as possible — because they can sell the tickets, and because (in the case of TOSU) football funds an enormous athletic budget. And the only way the big schools can play as many home games as they would like is to schedule some smaller schools.
The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.
The Pac 12 struggles to get paycheck games that people want to attend. That is why they moved to nine conference games. In this arrangement, they get six home games every year with at least one P5 opponent.
I also think Gee is looking toward the next TV contract when they could present a united front. It doesn't address the Pac 12 Network struggles or why Texas would want to participate given the LHN.
Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
I would be fun watching ND scramble from losing Stanford and USC.
This sounds like a wrestling stable...
I get it - both conferences are desperate for consistent national viability, but the logistics are far-fetched (the linked write-up offers a good chuckle regarding WVU-Wazzu).
I still the the Big 12 gets split up at some point (and super-conferences come into play), but they're holding onto Oklahoma staying/Texas (or insert another school here) becomes relevant.
I had to run away high, so I wouldn't come home low...
It would never happen, but assuming it did, both conferences would be kissing the playoffs goodbye, at least until the Playoff Committee decides to reward out of conference scheduling over number of losses.
SEC/ACC: 8 conference games, 4 non conference (lucky if 2 are P5 opponents)
Big 10: 9 conference game, 3 non conference (lucky if 2 are P5)
Proposed Big12/Pac12: 9 conference games, 3 non conference (2 P5)
Big10, Big 12 and Pac12 have already scheduled themselves 1 more potential loss (NW losing to Akron aside) by playing one more game against a P5 conference opponent; the proposed alliance would schedule 2 more potential losses those conferences.
Heck, the reason the Big10/Pac12 was cancelled was because the Big 10 was going to 9 conference games
I would not mind seeing a Fox playoff and championship that includes the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac 12. Let ESPN continue to host the SEC invitational. They always want two SEC teams in that playoff and try to justify that each year. The ACC has had one dominant team (first FSU, then Clemson) that make it every year from a weak conference. Then the other conferences have to struggle to get their champions into the playoff each year and feel lucky when they do. When will the current committee actually give any thought to seeding a team from the Big 10, Big 12, or Pac 12 as a #1 seed? The SEC never wants to play home and home series with anyone outside the footprint of their conference so why bother playing them at all?.
The ESPN/SEC championship: SEC, ACC, ND
The fox championship: Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12
This would keep the whole nation interested in college football playoffs (unlike this year when the large parts of the country represented by the Big 10 and Big 12 had no teams to root for)
I would love to never have to watch or give a shit about sec/acc nd rankings ever again. I'm beyond wanting to beat them to shut them up I just want paul fuckbaum and espn to just go away.
No objection from me. This sets up sort of like the WWF/WCW Monday Night Wars...perhaps the winner of each "championship" could meet on NBC to have a showdown? Both major networks get a playoff, more fanbases happy with being included, and we don't have to watch ESPN!
Is this the same Gee that called a tie with Michigan under the Cooper era "one of the greatest games in Ohio State football history?"