No College Conferences

What if, for whatever reason, college athletics (in America) never developed the conference schedule?

Think about it, no SEC, SWC/Big 12, no Notre Dame special treats (in football at least), no conference-television ties.

What does this do to athletics in terms of recurits, rivalries, divisions, games, and money?
 
What if, for whatever reason, college athletics (in America) never developed the conference schedule?

Think about it, no SEC, SWC/Big 12, no Notre Dame special treats (in football at least), no conference-television ties.

What does this do to athletics in terms of recurits, rivalries, divisions, games, and money?

I would imagine there would still be interstate rivalries a la' NMSU-UNM. Or rivalries between schools that are close to each oth (NMSU-UTEP)
 
Well rivalries would still be preserved...probably more than we have now, note that Note Dame (the only college team to not be confined by a set schedule) plays about 7 rivalry games a year. A&M plays 1 big one and three semi rivalries (Tech is the biggest emerging rivalry, Baylor and OU are sort ofs).

In this world I can see A&M having set games every year against Texas, Texas Tech, SMU, Houston, and LSU. (Note that OU doesn't become a big one because that only came along due to the Big 12, which won't exsist).

There would probably be more regionalism, even more than we already have.



This would also mean less chance for the "big boys" and Big conference to squeeze out the little guys. Look for "small" schools like the Gonzagas and Xaviers and the Houstons to jump to consistent "big boys" status in bball and look for football to be more open to little guys. Perhaps schools like TCU, Boise State, Utah, and BYU can make a more consistent run at being in the top 25 instead of always being underdogs. There would be no BCS for sure.
 
Conference Tournaments

No college conferences would mean no conference tourneys in Basketball, which would be a good thing. Those tournaments make the regular season insignificant. You wouldn't have any teams that were around or under.500 making the NCAA tournament, like the Lehigh team in 1985. They had an abysmal record(7-24 or something like that), but they won their conference tourney, and they won the right to play Georgetown and get killed. Although, speaking of 85, the Villanova thing may not have happened. They only got in because they beat Pitt in their conference tourney. Same thing for the 83 Wolfpack. If they don't win the ACC tourney that year, they don't go to the tournament, and the Phi Slama Jama Houston team probably would have won it all that year and would have went down as one of the best teams in College Basketball history with Akeem, Clyde, Larry "Mr. Mean" Micheaux, Benny Anders, and Alvin Franklin.

Also, speaking of College Basketball, here is another thing: UCLA may not have won as many championships in the 60's and 70's because they may have been playing against better teams. The tourney back then would only take the conference champ, and there were some good teams back then that didn't make the tourney because they lost in their conference tournament or didn't win their conference, like the 74 Maryland team or the 71 USC team or the 70 South Carolina team.
 
No college conferences would mean no conference tourneys in Basketball, which would be a good thing. Those tournaments make the regular season insignificant. You wouldn't have any teams that were around or under.500 making the NCAA tournament, like the Lehigh team in 1985. They had an abysmal record(7-24 or something like that), but they won their conference tourney, and they won the right to play Georgetown and get killed. Although, speaking of 85, the Villanova thing may not have happened. They only got in because they beat Pitt in their conference tourney. Same thing for the 83 Wolfpack. If they don't win the ACC tourney that year, they don't go to the tournament, and the Phi Slama Jama Houston team probably would have won it all that year and would have went down as one of the best teams in College Basketball history with Akeem, Clyde, Larry "Mr. Mean" Micheaux, Benny Anders, and Alvin Franklin.

Also, speaking of College Basketball, here is another thing: UCLA may not have won as many championships in the 60's and 70's because they may have been playing against better teams. The tourney back then would only take the conference champ, and there were some good teams back then that didn't make the tourney because they lost in their conference tournament or didn't win their conference, like the 74 Maryland team or the 71 USC team or the 70 South Carolina team.

All good points, and any universe where The Dream and Glide and Phi Slamma Jamma win the championship they deserve is good with me:D
 
Williams and Clyde

If PG Rob Williams and SG/SF Clyde Drexler would have came back for their senior seasons in 83 and 84, respectively, they may have won back-to-back, and might be known as the best ever team, even better than UCLA, who only won in the 60's and early 70's because of what I talked about before, as well as a man named Sam Gilbert who allegedly was giving their players gifts under the table.
 
I'd guess New Mexico's rivals other than UTEP and New Mexico State would be Texas Tech, maybe North Texas, Colorado State, Colorado, Air Force, Utah State, BYU, Utah, Arizona State, Arizona, Northern Arizona and possible UNLV.

But basketball would be a lot more fun and a lot more equal in some ways. For instance this year both New Mexico and San Diego State had 20+ win seasons and neither made the NCAA Tournament, but several school who had worse records did just because they won their conference tourneys.
 
Basketball could survive well, considering the large number of teams that qualify for the Division I playoffs.

Football presents a difficult situation. Only 65 teams meet BCS qualifications, and without conferences, these teams might be subject to an informal "mega-conference" with requirements to play a required number of opponents of a certain caliber. While it may be possible to dissolve conferences in the future, I doubt if the traditional programs could have evolved into what they are today without conferences.
 
I could see from time to time a Western Texas-Kentucky played out in football instead of basketball.
 
Penn St.

Without conferences, Penn St. probably would still be playing Pitt and Syracuse and WVU and those teams. Paterno allegedly wouldn't still feel betrayed at Pitt for joining the Big East instead of going into an all-sports conference with him in 1982.
 
Hard to imagine this...regional college conferences predated the NCAA and were, in the days before easy bus and air travel, the only way for teams to arrange regular competition schedules and establish championships. I suspect that, without conferences, college athletics in the US might have remained essentially at the club and intramural level. There would be no Penn States, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Alabamas playing in gigantic staduims infront of 80,000-100,000 fans at 80 bucks a pop, and independents like Notre Dame would not exist as well - since they could only become popular by playing other teams which grew in power and popularity because they were in conferences. The professional leagues would become important earlier - perhaps depending upon independent AAU programs and farm systems (not colleges) to develop most talent.

A more intersting question would be what if there never was a national organization such as the NCAA? Would there even be the concept of national championships? Would each league gradually introduce their own rules, creating regional variants of the sports as different as US and Canadian football or Rugby Union and Rugby league? Imagine the Big 10 playing a variety of football which allowed only lateral passes but had 4-pt field goals and the PAC 10 allowing unlimited numbers of forward passes, but having incompletions treated as free balls?
 
No NCAA=NFL and NBA Minor leagues

Without the NCAA, and with College Sports remaining at the club and intramural level, the NFL and NBA would have been relying on Minor Leagues to develop players just like the MLB and NHL have been for years.
 
Without the NCAA, and with College Sports remaining at the club and intramural level, the NFL and NBA would have been relying on Minor Leagues to develop players just like the MLB and NHL have been for years.

True, but you seem to be assuming college sports (football and basketball particularly) would exist at only the club level without an NCAA. That is manifestly untrue. "Big-time" College football (and later basketball) was in place before the NCAA was a factor. You may know that it was only in the 1950's when the NCAA Basketball tournament (16 teams at the time, I believe) eclipsed the NIT in terms of public interest and quality of teams participating.

Without the NCAA (and its rules supporting fair play, amateurism, scholarships, and recruiting limitations to level the field somewhat) I would suggest that professional football might never have become anything more than regional "alumni teams" for graduates of the big schools playing in tiny stadiums in second-tier cities. Heck, teams from big time schools like Ohio State and other powers might well have evolved into professional teams themselves, with student players paid a living stipend and then being hired on to continue playing past their 4 years of of student eligibility. Universities can allow professional student researchers in their labs, professional student musicians in their orchestras, professional student actors in their drama programs, and professional coaches for their athletic teams - why not paid student players as well. Until 1950 the only professional big city team sport that really mattered in the US was Major League Baseball. The rise of the NFL and NBA was not inevitable
 
Top