Sorry another thread, Why 16?

[buckley503]

I know most say it is for scheduling but are the decision makers starting to slow down a little and say you know 16 doesn't work, the money just isn't there.
Is it clearly the magic #?

For our sake it better be, but if not "Uh-oh"

 

[gioff23]

Can't have a playoff w/o an NCAA sanction. Commissioners don't want to share pie with NCAA (a la BB). Get to 4 16 team conferences. Have winners from each play in a modified BCS, w/a +1. Next.

 

[ctchamps]

Interesting question. I would guess that four conferences of 64 teams is the magic number some people have decided makes the number of teams diversified enough to reach most markets, keep interest with diversification, and set up these conferences in a format that is similar to NCAA basketball for playoff interest. The next step will be to set up their own governing board and remove the existing governing board (NCAA) from governance of their sports.

But I would love to hear someone who has knowledge where the rational for four super conferences with 16 teams developed, and the purpose for settling on this model.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Espn says so.

 

[jbdphi]

Here's an interesting quote from an interview with the AD at East Carolina that addresses this very question.

Why is the 16-team model better?

TH: The 12-team format allows the divisional championship to be determined by what can be unequal schedule strength for games played against the other division. In other words, ECU could go 5-0 vs. its East Division opponents and then go 0-3 against the toughest teams in the West Division (5-3 overall) while one of the teams we defeated goes 3-2 against the East teams but 3-0 against easiest West teams (6-2 overall) and wins the East Division, taking our place in the championship game.

In a 16-team format in the Big 12 (just for example), every team would play seven full round-robin games against their divisional opponents and one game against a team from the other division. The game against the other division would not count toward the divisional championship.

Let's say that Texas is 6-1 in their division and Oklahoma is 6-1 in the West division. OU and UT then play each other even though in different divisions (Can be a permanent "crossover game" -- same team every year if Texas and Oklahoma need to play each other or it can be a rotating "crossover game" -- against a different opponent every year). Even if Texas loses, they would still be the divisional champion and the two teams would play each other for the conference championship.

This provides seven annual permanent games that can be developed into excellent rivalries and the eighth game can be a permanent crossover game so that it can also be developed into a good rivalry game. In a 12-team conference there are only the five divisional games that are played every year so it's harder to develop rivalries when your fans only see the six west teams once every four years (three teams each year).

My only question is then why isn't 18 better than 16 since that allows for perfectly even scheduling? I feel like that scene in There's Something About Mary when they're talking about introducing 7 minute Abs and Ben Stiller asks why someone wouldn't do 6 minute Abs. "Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel."

 

[tzznandrew]

My only question is then why isn't 18 better than 16 since that allows for perfectly even scheduling? I feel like that scene in There's Something About Mary when they're talking about introducing 7 minute Abs and Ben Stiller asks why someone wouldn't do 6 minute Abs. "Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel."

I actually posted at a different point that I think 18 is better.

Hell, if you're leaving the NCAA, 20 might be best for money purposes:

4 divisions of 5; 5 games against a different division; 4 team playoff.