Why not break College Football Div 1 into two divisions of 64 teams each?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

We could put the 64 most powerful teams in the new Div 1 and have 4 conferences of 16 teams each. The top two ranked teams from each conference at the end of the season would go to an 8 team playoff. This would be more likely to produce a fair outcome than the present 120-something team division 1 where half the teams are currently considered inferior anyway. And everyone should start with equal rank and don't even bother ranking the teams until at least 6 games have been played each season. It's stupid that pre-season rankings bias week 6 rankings even after half the pre-season favorites end up laying an egg in week 1.

Oh yeah, SEC SUCKS this year. They ended up with only one good team apparently, which is Ole Miss. I swear, after Indiana destroyed Alabama, they need to cut their entire team and replace them with new recruits. They GAVE UP in that game and looked like a bunch of middle schoolers instead of NIL-paid college, semi-pro athletes they are supposed to be.

[abc3643]

That won't happen because college football isn't like the NFL. The NFL is akin to a federation like the United States. College football is more of a confederation, like the EU. The NCAA may be something of a central governance body, but the individual conferences (which are federations) negotiate their own TV deals, etc. There is no monolithic "league" that truly speaks with authority for all its members like the US federal government does for all the states regarding international affairs.

Personally, I think the College Football Playoff ought to expand to 16 teams so no team gets a bye. I'd even welcome 32 teams; whatever, as long as its a power of 2. The current CFP is showing the weakness in "strong programs". The expanded playoffs, the transfer portal, and the "name, image, likeness" ruling have all eroded the notion of the traditionally strong and weak programs. This season particularly illustrates this since the #2, #3, #4 teams were all eliminated during the quarterfinal (they're first games since they got byes). So far in the past 2 or 3 season, many of the teams with byes have generally not done well and been eliminated.

So, no, I don't see a need to 2 divisions of 64 teams each. For another thing, it eliminates rivalries and you can't have a round robin schedule.

[OlderAndWiser]

"We could put the 64 most powerful teams in the new Div 1 and have 4 conferences of 16 teams each." We? Who is going to do that?

"This would be more likely to produce a fair outcome than the present 120-something team division 1 where half the teams are currently considered inferior anyway." What recent national champion did ot deserve to be national champion?

"And everyone should start with equal rank and don't even bother ranking the teams until at least 6 games have been played each season." Who is going to enforce that rule, and by what means?

College football is all about the revenue and you have completely ignored that facet of the game.

[AI Opinion]

Reforming college football's Division 1 with two divisions of 64 teams could enhance competitiveness. With conferences and playoffs, a clearer path to victories could emerge. Rankings based on performance rather than pre-season biases could promote fairness. College football benefits from a competitive landscape, and focusing on teams' adaptability throughout the season over traditional powerhouses may boost interest. Regarding Ole Miss and Alabama, unexpected wins and losses are natural and fan excitement thrives on such unpredictability. 🏈

[Twalli]

The preseason rankings this season were a massive fuckup. UT ranked #1 preseason didn't even make it to the 12-team postseason, and even if we didn't have Tulane and JMU in it, they'd still be ranked outside the top 12.