Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
13 Feb 2012
According to CBS' Brett McMurphy, the two leagues are dissolving to form a 18- to 24-team conference that will start in 2013-2014.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 13 Feb 2012
16 comments, Last at
19 Feb 2012, 6:24pm by
Aaron Brooks Good Twin
If all this expansion, transferring and merging in the end leads to one big college football league; I'm all for it.
I could see it happen that college football ends up in soccer style leagues with a relegation and promotion system.
But then again, since when has that system proven to be successful.
It would be really cool because colleges wouldn't have to worry about political borders in forming their leagues. So it would just be so abstract and crazy.
Getting relegated to the Big 10's 2nd division? Maybe move to the Big East where it will easier to get promoted.
Just decouple it from academia, and it would be enormously fun to watch.
College football (well, D-1 anyway) was decoupled from academia a long time ago.
Hey c'mon. They're all student-athletes. Some even attend class.
You can make a defensible argument that without college athletics, the poor would never have been allowed to attend.
I don't buy it. What's the defensible argument?
Poor people generally get bad grades both before and in college?
The federal government has long-standing BEOG and SEOG programs (both since re-named). Most schools also have need-based assistance programs. None of these programs evaluate students with a tape measure. The number of students who attend college through need-based assistance programs dwarfs the number of students who could only attend college via athletic scholarship. Without college athletics, the only people who would be otherwise deprived of enrollment are those who are poor, stupid, and unathletic.
Thank God I wasn't poor.
Pell got started in 1965. I'm talking an effect that started in the 19th century.
Why not just make public college free? It was free in California in the 1960's, when my father went. It's free in many countries around the world.
It's important for universities to build up their endowments so the alumni have money to play with on the stock market.
At least, that seems to be the purpose of the Harvard endowment.
Because if your goal is the sort of level of attendance widely seen as desirable, the cost of provision would be astronomical. See for example the UK, where massive expansion of higher education provision has led (with some lag) to vast fee rises, to be paid primarily by means of government loans to students.
There's no such thing as free.
It was way easier to make college free back when only people who actually had the talent and motivation for academics wanted to attend (well, and the wastrel sons of the upper class, but their parents could afford it). Now that we're in a shitty signalling equilibrium where you have to have an undergraduate degree to work in the goddamn mailroom, the enrollment numbers are much too high to just have the public foot the bill straight up.
Speaking as someone who grew up in San Diego, it's too bad what the BCS has done to the Mountain West conference. If you have Boise State, TCU, Utah, BYU, SDSU, and maybe someone like Houston in the same conference, you have a chance for a pretty decent football league.
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties