Out of the mouths of basketball coaches

Holy Mother of Crap, John Calipari, I think you’re on to something:

… In Calipari’s deal, you would create a new division with 64 or 72 schools from the big conferences inside that division would be four super conferences consisting of 16-or-18 teams. These super conferences would be based on geography with the West (Pac-12, Big 12), North (Big Ten, Big East), East (ACC, Big East) and South (SEC, Big 12).

In football, those teams would play in a playoff within their own league with the four winners advancing to a semifinals of a football championship. All other teams would play in traditional bowls.

Works for me.

I wonder if this is something he’s prepared to push to draw attention to it, or if (dare I hope?) it reflects on some level a certain conventional wisdom on the part of his peers.  Obviously, it’s little more than a pipe dream unless Slive, Delany, et al. are willing to give it any consideration, but at least Calipari’s not some unshaven guy typing posts in his mom’s basement.



Filed under BCS/Playoffs

22 responses to “Out of the mouths of basketball coaches

  1. Rusdawg

    I hate the idea of a playoff…..but that is something I could actually get behind.


  2. will

    the main disadvantage that I see is that only one of the top 4 seeds nin the NCAA football semifinals could be an SEC team, when often we have 2 of the best teams in the country.


    • That’s not really any different than the status quo. You’ll never have a BCS title game with two teams from the same conference facing off if that conference has a championship game.


      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        We might have had that in 2007 if the WWL hadn’t done its sales job against UGA and if something bad had happened to tOSU at the end of the season. Since 2 teams from a BCS conference can play in BCS bowls it is theoretically possible for 2 SEC teams to meet in the same bowl game, why not the BCSCG. Suppose UGA goes undefeated and is ranked #1 in the BCS and plays Bama which is also undefeated and ranked # 2 in the SECCG. UGA wins remaining undefeated. Arkansas was ranked #3 in the final poll of the regular season with only 1 loss–to Bama. Arkansas would move up to #2 and I can see how a BCSNCG matchup between UGA and Arkansas is not only a possibility but a high likelihood. Hypothetically speaking, of course.


  3. Hogbody Spradlin

    Those EDSBS guys are really out there.


  4. TennesseeDawg

    How does that solve the problem of the Boise States who will claim they were left out of the big boy playoff?


    • Problem? What problem?

      Either schools like Boise find a safe haven as Utah and TCU have, or they don’t get in. In other words, they’ll have to make themselves attractive enough in the marketplace to justify inclusion.


      • TennesseeDawg

        They can do that now without a playoff. (I’m not a playoff fan)


      • ScoutDawg

        No problem to me. Nothing at all here to see. Move along please.


      • GreenDawg

        As an economist, I’m generally in favor of letting the free market dictate itself. Any new conference that was allowed to cherry pick any western teams they want would be almost guaranteed to leave out Boise. Football is seriously all they’ve got. There is no big TV market, academics, or other sports(save maybe wrestling) that would warrant Boise being in the conference. Hard to complain about being left out of the playoff when you weren’t even good enough to make the league. They’d whine about that all day, but really who cares?


  5. TennesseeDawg

    If I had a choice, and I don’t, I’d rather see the big boys break completely away from the NCAA and create their own super conferences and govern themselves.


  6. haws1178

    I was a fan of the playoff idea until it was brought to my attention that all it would create is a stacked bracket for the east. With the west filled with its maybe 6 so called power houses on the opposing side. The only way to avoid this situation would be to use a lotto type filling of the brackets and make it a luck of the draw for your opponent. Yes it could end up at two teams from the same conference playing each other but that’s what a national championship game should be about to find the best team not east verses west


  7. Sanford222View

    Cal must have just consumed a Red Bull. Brilliant!


  8. Merk

    Well the main problem with a 16-18 team conference and a 12 game season is how many conference games you could play. If you have 16 so 8:8 on both sides. (This would pretty much mean the conferences would have to cut the bottom feeders…ie Vandy, Kansas, Ole Miss). Thus I would say go back to a 10 game season.

    Take the SEC-B12 set up: Due to Neb. departure a SEC team would move to B12 (I pick Ark due to vicinity).
    SEC division: UF, UGA, USC, Bama, AU, UK, Tenn, MSU

    B12 division: UT, TTU, Missouri, OU, OSU, TAM, Ark, KSU

    While these teams match up well overall, the problem is scheduling. If your going to take the top 4 teams then would the best bet be to have a set up like this:

    Yearly teams played: 7 other division teams. Then play 2 from the opposite division. The two would be one home and one away game, which would rotate the next year before moving to the next 2 in the opp. division. This leaves one game left. This game would have to come from one of the other 3 Conferences and would be scheduled as a 2 year event of 1 home and 1 away.

    Now for who from the conference gets to go:

    Top 4 teams from a division will play. The setup will be #1 v #4 and #2 v #3. The 2 SEC winners and the 2 B12 winners will be the 4 to go to the playoffs.

    To keep fans happy there could be bowl games setup for the teams that did not get into the playoff. These games would be played the weekend between the conference elimination games and when playoffs start. Who gets into the bowl games will be decided by overall conference rank based on W-L. You would have the top 8 teams from each division removed due to them playing each other for playoff spots. Thus the #9-#12 teams from each conference would be sent to bowl games based off setting up the best match ups. #12s and #11s play before playoffs and #10s and #9s play in during the week 5 off-week for the playoffs.

    Time slotted like this:
    Noon: #12 v #12
    3:00: #11 v #11
    6:00: #12 v #12
    8:00: #11 v #11

    At this point it would be early-December and Playoffs would begin and the teams would be ranked by W-L, for teams with the same record a tie-breaker would be used:

    16 teams set up like a normal bracket. 1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc.

    This would be a 6 week event starting the second weekend of December. Weeks 1 & 2 the the first 8 match ups are played. Week 3 the 8 winners play in 4 games. Week 4 the 4 winners play in 2 games. Week 5 the is the second weekend of (bowl) games for the # 10 and #9 teams. This is setup like the #12 and #11 games. Week 6 is the championship game. The week off is so that players in the playoffs can rest and have time off for holidays.


    • Not sure I follow your logic. With a conference championship game, there’s no need for a round-robin schedule. But I also don’t think you’ll see a move to reduce the number of regular season games, if for no other reason than schools won’t give up that money.

      I don’t think it’s that hard to fashion a 12-game regular season schedule format for a 16-school conference comprised of two 8-team divisions. As I suggested at the linked post, a 7-3-2 arrangement would work fine.


  9. Go Dawgs!

    Calipari’s deal also mentions that in basketball, you’re allowed to recruit players from diploma mills.


  10. sUGArdaddy

    The only problem I have is predetermined quarterfinals. I just don’t see why you couldn’t take the eight champions of the superconferences, seed them accordingly and have 1 host 8 and so forth. If seeding has no bearing on playoff opponent or location, then we have no motivation or good reason to try to go undefeated or to play starters or schedule tech other than the fact that we hate them.


    • First of all, there are eight division winners under this scenario, not eight conference champs. You need the division winners in a championship game to get to four finalists in a national title playoff.

      And if you look at my link, you’ll see I have a limited role for seeding. I’d play the semis at the home campuses of the highest rated teams.


  11. Dawgaholic

    The system should be left alone unless you have a tiebreaker system that breaks ties based on wins and losses. Round robin leaves you open to 3 11-1 teams in a division who each beat each other. (The UGA beats UF, UF beats UT, UT beats UGA scenario.) If that happens, then one team gets to move forward because of what people or computers think. Tiebreakers between 9-3 teams are inconsequential as those teams don’t deserve to go forward. Tiebreakers between 11-1 teams are not inconsequential.

    If you want to make it right, it needs to ALWAYS be decided on the field.


  12. In basketball 64 teams would only allow enough room for the Big East teams.


  13. Pingback: DawgsOnline » What June 27, 1984 meant to college football