A lot of people compare NCAAFB to the NFL. This is bad because the NFL only has 30 teams and talent is evenly dispersed. Others compare it to the NCAABB tournament, and that's silly because we aren't going to have a 64 team tournament and 5 players getting hot in a mostly non-contact sport is a lot different than 22 guys getting hot in a hugely physical sport.
The only sport I could think of that has 100+ teams in different leagues that seldom play each other is European soccer. And the event to look at is the Champions league. Here is how the 2024/25 Champions League selects its participants.
---Twenty-five of the 36 teams automatically qualify for the Champions League through their domestic league finishes. Member associations ranked first to fourth as per the UEFA coefficient have four spots each.
For the UCL 2024-25 season, these top four associations are England, Spain, Germany and Italy.
Fifth and sixth-ranked associations have been awarded three and two spots, respectively. Associations ranked seventh to 10th have one spot each for their domestic champions.
At UCL 2024-25, France and the Netherlands are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively. Portugal, Belgium, Scotland and Austria are seventh to 10th in that order.
Two spots have been reserved for the Champions League and Europa League holders. Rebalancing will be required if either or both title holders also qualify through their domestic league standings.---
I think this is a great model for CFB. Just like the Champions league, we have conferences who are clearly stronger than others. So if we are sticking with 12 teams, lets give the SEC 3 spots, the B1G 3 spots, 2 ACC, 1 B12, 1GO5, and 2 at large spots. The leagues themselves can decide who to send and allocation can be adjusted each year based on conference performance (but no more than 4 guaranteed spots for any conference if the total of teams stays at 12, not including the at large spots).
This has a few benefits:
1) Teams can freely schedule exciting OOC games knowing that conference play is the way to get auto qual. Tough OOC games ~should~ matter for the at large spots.
2) The re-allocation of spots annually means that no conference gets permanent preferential treatment.
The only downside I can think of is that people won't like the starting allocations but thats why point #2 exists.
Why is this a bad idea?
The only sport I could think of that has 100+ teams in different leagues that seldom play each other is European soccer. And the event to look at is the Champions league. Here is how the 2024/25 Champions League selects its participants.
---Twenty-five of the 36 teams automatically qualify for the Champions League through their domestic league finishes. Member associations ranked first to fourth as per the UEFA coefficient have four spots each.
For the UCL 2024-25 season, these top four associations are England, Spain, Germany and Italy.
Fifth and sixth-ranked associations have been awarded three and two spots, respectively. Associations ranked seventh to 10th have one spot each for their domestic champions.
At UCL 2024-25, France and the Netherlands are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively. Portugal, Belgium, Scotland and Austria are seventh to 10th in that order.
Two spots have been reserved for the Champions League and Europa League holders. Rebalancing will be required if either or both title holders also qualify through their domestic league standings.---
I think this is a great model for CFB. Just like the Champions league, we have conferences who are clearly stronger than others. So if we are sticking with 12 teams, lets give the SEC 3 spots, the B1G 3 spots, 2 ACC, 1 B12, 1GO5, and 2 at large spots. The leagues themselves can decide who to send and allocation can be adjusted each year based on conference performance (but no more than 4 guaranteed spots for any conference if the total of teams stays at 12, not including the at large spots).
This has a few benefits:
1) Teams can freely schedule exciting OOC games knowing that conference play is the way to get auto qual. Tough OOC games ~should~ matter for the at large spots.
2) The re-allocation of spots annually means that no conference gets permanent preferential treatment.
The only downside I can think of is that people won't like the starting allocations but thats why point #2 exists.
Why is this a bad idea?
