The more elite teams added to conferences then the more losing records ----

— for the bottom half of those rapidly growing conferences. If OU and TexAss play at a winning level, then two more current SEC teams will be pushed down below 500 guaranteed. Everyone gets more money, but the ever growing teams with losing records (the bottom half of any conference) will struggle to recruit players, fans, coaches, etc. The idea of one or two, etc. SUPER conferences only playing each other just seems flawed. There needs to be other conferences to supply the extra wins, not fewer non-conference games, so that more teams in the elite conferences end up with winning, overall, records. I think the idea of requiring 9 or 10 conference games for the elite conferences is flawed. That doesn’t leave enough non-conf wins to give more programs the appearance of success, a winning record.

1 Like

I think we may have to adjust expectations. In the NFL 14-3 is a helluva record, 12-5 is pretty damn good. CFB under super conferences may be similar.


I agree with you and Swine. We would have less wins, but more money–and that is the ultimate goal–more money, much more money. Everybody’s happy; coaches and administrators have elevated salaries, as do the whole coaching staff, expanded as it would be. MORE MONEY!!!

less wins

The 15-0 teams may be a thing of the past. Lots of 7-2 conference records could make some tiebreaker scenarios a bit tricky. Not really a fan of the expansion, nil or the transfer portal but nobody asked me my opinion.

I am talking about losing seasons for more and more teams. Not just 3 or 4 losses. If they go to super conferences with more and more of the top teams in the same conference, playing ten conference games a year to pacify TV demands, leaving only two non-conference games, almost half of those super conference members each year are going to have losing seasons. Hard to recruit fans, players, boosters, nor TV viewers with losing seasons. I just think they are going too far. Football needs cinderellas just like the basketball tournament does even if it is just to make more teams season record look good for TV and recruits. JMVVVVHO

There are risks. TV does not care about any of that. Neither does Greg Sankey.

There is a trick. Get you a good coach.


It isn’t just TV demands. We the fans have spoken by staying home/not buying tickets for the rent-a-wins. If we’re not going to show up, they don’t want to play those games.

And, frankly, they discovered in 2020 that the world isn’t going to blow up if we play 10 conference games. Don’t want a losing record? Don’t lose 7 conference games.

I don’t think we’re going to end up with 10 conference games right away, but I do think we’ll have 9. So I looked at the 2021 B1G which did have 9 games. Nine of the 14 teams had winning records, even with some bowl losses like Penn State’s.

But altered expectations also apply to the difference between 6-6 and 5-7. It may be that bowl eligibility will have to be revised as a result – if the minor bowls survive CFP expansion.

1 Like

I will go a step further; investment in a good head coach provided access to hire and retain good coordinators and assistant coaches who can coach and recruit. The goal for quality and depth is much clearer where the season is more similar to the NFL without rent-a-team games, and perfect seasons are subjects for debates of about seasons long ago. It seems to me in the old SWC losing a game did not end the season but heightened the competition in those November runs.

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.