For all the great discussions on this board on conference realignment and the possiblity of a 1-A play-off, nobody seems to be discussing or answering the questions that determine what these should look like.

So, individual conferences aside, I’d like to throw out some questions abut the structure of the sport that might give some real meaning to conference realignment and the BCS. In other words, what do you believe...and therefore, what do you want.

If your are interested, I’d love to read your responses to:

1. What is more important to you: giving many teams a shot at the post-season (as in a six team division) or having a more entertaining race between many opponents (as in an 11 or 12 team-divisionless confernce)? In other words: how important is the regular season in relationship to the post-season?

2. In a tournament, should conference schools that did not win their conferences be eligible, or should only the conference champ be so? Is it a good idea to have a national champion not win its own conference (as in a wild card winning the WS or SB)

3. how important is a round-robin schedule? would an 11-team round robin schedule for a 12 team conference (a feasible 11 + 2 = 13 schedule) be preferable to the current divisional set up with unbalanced schedules? If 11 conf games are, in fact, reasonable, should we be shooting at that number?

or is an 8 team conference with 7 round robin games and 5 non-conf (with opponents from across the country) the best way to go?

4. should conference champions be compared to each other in seeding for a potential national championship, or is this unfair based on:

the inconsistency in how ooc games are scheduled and their appearance early in the season, making conf comparisons inaccurate

that a legue is an entity of its own and internal competition determines records (as in NL vs. AL in WS or NFC vs. AFC in Sup Bowl for pros)??

5. what is the optimum size for a conference and what should it structure (division, no divisons) be: 8, 10, 12, 16? and why?

aside from lack of common opponents, would a 16 school league fail to provide its members with "identity"?

6. How many teams: 2, 4, 8, or 16 belong in a national championship tournament (if we were to have one) and what is the goal of that championship: would limiting it to 4 teams eliminate worthy and deserving opponents? would 16 be too much with teams that do not belong given a chance (given that the NCAA hoops is not selective so, by nature, has no “undeserving teams”....it’s just a tournament. football does not have that luxury; by limitations it will be an exclusive field of teams and not just a general invitiational)?

7. Should college football require a conf set-up for any possible play-off or would it be fair to let schools like ND operate in a way different from the rest? Do you have to have a compatable "super structure" of conference set-ups to make this truly work? are we at a point where we are willing to say: independents don't work (even if they are not wearing gold and blue)?

8. Is it important for conferences to have a strong geographic foot-print or should they spread into other markets? if every confernce stuck to its own region, would this be a positive for idenity purposes with no negatives because of the lack of competition to enter others' footprints (assuming some degree of equity in TV contracts to allow this to happen)

9. what elements of structure make things important to you in:

keeping your team competitive and alive through as much of the season as possible?

providing interesting races and true championships, even if it means your team is out of the picture earlier than you want it to be.

As I said, I’d be interested in your responses to some or all of these questions.

Boy, some of these feel loaded though I understand the need to come off of any fence. Thus, I'll see what spouts off the top of my head here.

1. What is more important to you: giving many teams a shot at the post-season (as in a six team division) or having a more entertaining race between many opponents (as in an 11 or 12 team-divisionless confernce)? In other words: how important is the regular season in relationship to the post-season?
I'm confused by your wording here, but it may be the lack of sleep in me. I think the regular season for football carries tremendous weight right now, and that needs to remain intact. So if the question is conf. title game: pro or con?, I'm leaning slightly towards the title game. Done right it adds flair and pomp to the game, similar to the big bowls. A divisionless conference doesn't guarantee a more entertaining race. It is more fair, though, that I recognize.

2. In a tournament, should conference schools that did not win their conferences be eligible, or should only the conference champ be so? Is it a good idea to have a national champion not win its own conference (as in a wild card winning the WS or SB)
Definitely no to the wild card scenario. As I've stated before, it sucks to be the better team all season long and then blow it in the conference championship. Price you pay. If that's how your conference defines it's champion, have at it. Perhaps it is the variety of options being used today that adds more character to the game. The PAC 10's clear champ vs. a dubious Big 12 champ, so to speak.

3. how important is a round-robin schedule? would an 11-team round robin schedule for a 12 team conference (a feasible 11 + 2 = 13 schedule) be preferable to the current divisional set up with unbalanced schedules? If 11 conf games are, in fact, reasonable, should we be shooting at that number? or is an 8 team conference with 7 round robin games and 5 non-conf (with opponents from across the country) the best way to go?
Fairly important. The appeal of a conference championship demands the absence of a round-robin schedule. Would I be satisfied as a fan in giving up the conf. title game in return for 13 game regular seasons? Maybe. I do think that in lieu of a conf. title game round robin should be mandatory (Hello, Big 10).

4. should conference champions be compared to each other in seeding for a potential national championship, or is this unfair...
If you're having a national championship playoff, then there should either be a) seeding based on strength (polls, past perfromance, whatever.) or b) predetermined match-ups (PAC 10-Big 10, eastern conference A vs. eastern conference B, etc.)

5. what is the optimum size for a conference and what should it structure (division, no divisons) be: 8, 10, 12, 16? and why? Aside from lack of common opponents, would a 16 school league fail to provide its members with "identity"?
Again, depends on the situation as a whole. I don't consider a playoff a top priority, erego I don't feel a need for uniformity among conference shapes and sizes. I do think that when considering other sports, 12 is the fine line between too big and too small. 16 may work out financially or logistically, but not only is the regionalism potentially sacrificed, there is, IMO, more likely to be a stronger caste structure then is experienced within the 12 team set up. If there were a playoff, I would consider 9 or 11 the optimum size for a conference.

6. How many teams: 2, 4, 8, or 16 belong in a national championship tournament (if we were to have one) and what is the goal of that championship?
If this is done, the goal would be to crown the champion among champions. 8 conference champions, seeded according to the past performance of their conferences. If a conference is not represented, then they need to upgrade in ooc success to qualify.

7. Should college football require a conf set-up for any possible play-off or would it be fair to let schools like ND operate in a way different from the rest?
In the absence of bowls and polls, it would be much more difficult to discern how an independent should qualify. Assuming fairness, IMO, then participants in a national playoff must have accomplished something. A conference title is more clear than going 10-2 against solid, albeit non-conference opponents. Conference games demand intensity, whereas ooc games can sometimes be used to prep for the conference season.

8. Is it important for conferences to have a strong geographic foot-print or should they spread into other markets?
Your comments about the TV money are crucial. I'm a huge proponent of regionalism or other shared affiliation. But this is not as important for a playoff concern but for an overall revenue and appeal standpoint.

9. what elements of structure make things important to you in... keeping your team competitive and alive through as much of the season as possible?

...providing interesting races and true championships, even if it means your team is out of the picture earlier than you want it to be.
Is this a "Which is more important" question? I hope my teams play competitively every game, even if we've thrown the post-season away in September. In this I look for the squad to play full-out, learn from their mistakes and lose because the other team was better. As far as the interesting races goes I also hope to see that every year, with or without my Jackets in the mix.

------

I may add to these later, but wanted to respond on first notice. It'll be interesting to see where everyone stands.

thanks for such excellent and rational commentary, gunnerfan; i got a lot out of that.

as for question one, my meaning was:

a small group of schools (i.e. the six in a division) gives one of the best chances for your school to end up on top. it doesn't, however, necessarily promote an interesting race, particularly for fans of programs outside the division. the parallel would be in MLB a four team division like the AL West. Who really cares if the it's the A's, Angels, Mariners, or Rangers who wins. It's like the wild cards in MLB and NFL....they haven't won a d**ned thing, but they're there.

a large group of schools (i.e. the 11 in the B10) provide an exciting race, even if Indiana and Illinois are out of it after the first games of the conf. season.

in summary, small gives you a good chance, big makes for excitement and a quality winner.

This could be several different threads. There are a lot of good questions.

1. I think the optimum is between 6 and 10. The Big 10 +1 has too many. So the Pac 10 is exciting and so are the Big 12 North and South. And I like championship games. I guess my answer is that its about even between the 2 choices.

2. Yes. Given the few number of games, I think it is ok if a non-champion wins the tournament, although I usually will root for a champion over a non-champion in that situation. I think the NCAA bb tourney goes WAY overboard. Teams can have a mediocre regular season or a bad one and still get a chance in the conference tournament. Then if they are mediocre in a strong conference they get another shot in the NCAA. I would cut about 6 conferences and about 10 wildcards in the NCAA.

3. Round robin is not important as long as schedules are reasonably close (like with the Big 12 where you rotate every other team in the other division and play round robin within). The SEC with 2 every year opponents from the other division was too unbalanced. Auburn got Georgia and Florida every year putting them at a disadvantage compared to a Mississippi St. whose every year opponents were Vandy/UK and South Carolina. Its a little better now with only 1 every year opponent from the other division. The Big 10 with 2 opponents not on the schedule consistently has unbalanced schedules. Teams that miss 2 out of the Big 3 consistently, surprisingly, show up near the top of the standings. Again, I like division setups with 6 teams playing 8 league games and 3 ooc up to 10 team leagues playing 8 games and 3 ooc. I don't like the idea of 9, 10 or 11 game conference schedules.

4. Yes they should be seeded and its not that difficult.

5. I think 12 is the best size with 2 divisions. I think 10 in a single division is the 2nd best size. 9 doesn't work well for other sports than fb and makes scheduling a little complicated in fb with the bye week, but it would be my third choice. 8 is too few. 16 can provide identity, its just that it is like 2 separate conferences for fb. Several division II conferences have gone above 12. But 12 does still give a better sense of being one conference and for Div I with TV revenue makes a lot more financial sense in most situations.

6. 16 teams. Every other division in college fb does at least 16. That would include 8 to 10 conference champs and 6 to 8 wildcards. Again, given the short season, it gives a deserving team another shot.

7. Teams should be allowed to be independent and make the playoffs. Just make sure the bowls don't choose the teams. I suspect ND would quickly end up in the Big 10 if a playof started.

8. Yes, I think it is important for a conference to have a regional identity, even if it is a broad region (i.e. Atlantic Coast-BC may not fit, but if Syracuse and Rutgers were in the ACC, they would not be so out of place and their would be a regional identity even if it did cross the Mason-Dixon line.

9. We don't need everyone in the playoffs as in bb, so you can get knocked out early. However, 10-1 is not deserving of being knocked out.