I don't think most would like this. . as it woudl tear apart existing conferences and their rivalries and 'coaching corners'
 

Either way, it's not as if the conferences would be entirely shook up. The most a conference would changes would be by two schools.

It's not a bad idea, I don't think its necessary. I believe you would have to ask all the coaches who currently own those teams and get their permission in each of the worlds to prevent any bad blood and to make sure they wouldn't mind being moved.

People need to relax though, he didn't say he hated the game. Girt, actually read his post before getting angry please, his proposal would keep conferences at 10 teams and you would have known this if you took two minutes to read the post before making yourself seem ignorant.

It's a good suggestion, may be hard to implement because of the coaches involved, but at least the scheduling would stay the same and it would reflect real life a little more as the NCAA changes in the next season or two.

Posted by salag on 2/13/2011 12:50:00 PM (view original):

It's not a bad idea, I don't think its necessary. I believe you would have to ask all the coaches who currently own those teams and get their permission in each of the worlds to prevent any bad blood and to make sure they wouldn't mind being moved.

People need to relax though, he didn't say he hated the game. Girt, actually read his post before getting angry please, his proposal would keep conferences at 10 teams and you would have known this if you took two minutes to read the post before making yourself seem ignorant.

It's a good suggestion, may be hard to implement because of the coaches involved, but at least the scheduling would stay the same and it would reflect real life a little more as the NCAA changes in the next season or two.

Posted by agentverde on 2/13/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
@girt25: Did you read the post? The conference numbers stay even. I wasn't trying to break the 12 team conference, just make it accurately reflect real life as much as possible.

Your concern over coaches choosing conference because of who's in the conference has been raised a few other times. Honestly, I don't get it. I pick teams based on the team (I like Oregon, for instance, so I coach them, and I would choose other schools based on the coaching experience they provide). I don't think I'd ever choose a conference based on who's coaching there, and I don't think I'm in the minority.

Either way, it's not as if the conferences would be entirely shook up. The most a conference would changes would be by two schools.

"I don't think I'd ever choose a conference based on who's coaching there, and I don't think I'm in the minority."

no disagreement on that. but its not about choosing a team by conference in the first place. its about liking the conference after you've been there a while, which, if you haven't experienced, definitely (hopefully?) puts you in the minority.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/13/2011 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by salag on 2/13/2011 12:50:00 PM (view original):

It's not a bad idea, I don't think its necessary. I believe you would have to ask all the coaches who currently own those teams and get their permission in each of the worlds to prevent any bad blood and to make sure they wouldn't mind being moved.

People need to relax though, he didn't say he hated the game. Girt, actually read his post before getting angry please, his proposal would keep conferences at 10 teams and you would have known this if you took two minutes to read the post before making yourself seem ignorant.

It's a good suggestion, may be hard to implement because of the coaches involved, but at least the scheduling would stay the same and it would reflect real life a little more as the NCAA changes in the next season or two.

second paragraph is a bit ironic... its 12 teams per conference, hehe :)

but anyway beyond that nitpick, i think what girt said is 100% valid. what about the big east? as he said, mimicking real life here is essentially impossible, because we are limited to having 12 teams per conference. the OP gets you part of the way there... but its not going to get it close, so i really fail to see the advantage.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/13/2011 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by agentverde on 2/13/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
@girt25: Did you read the post? The conference numbers stay even. I wasn't trying to break the 12 team conference, just make it accurately reflect real life as much as possible.

Your concern over coaches choosing conference because of who's in the conference has been raised a few other times. Honestly, I don't get it. I pick teams based on the team (I like Oregon, for instance, so I coach them, and I would choose other schools based on the coaching experience they provide). I don't think I'd ever choose a conference based on who's coaching there, and I don't think I'm in the minority.

Either way, it's not as if the conferences would be entirely shook up. The most a conference would changes would be by two schools.

"I don't think I'd ever choose a conference based on who's coaching there, and I don't think I'm in the minority."

no disagreement on that. but its not about choosing a team by conference in the first place. its about liking the conference after you've been there a while, which, if you haven't experienced, definitely (hopefully?) puts you in the minority.