Fans of BCS schools

[CJHawkeyes]

Would you like to see BCS schools form their own classification and compete solely against one another or would you be in favor of an equitable system for all I-A schools? Personally, I could not care less if a nonBCS school ever wins the national title. However, I think they should have the same opportunity to do so, but if BCS schools have no intention of providing that opportunity and a large number of BCS fans do not want them to, why continue to compete against them? Do fans gain satisfaction from beating teams that have the deck stacked against them?

[HellYeahHokie]

All they have to do is finish #1 or #2 in the polls and they have as much chance as a BCS school to get to the MNC game. Utah was very close to being in the MNC in 2004.

I'm not pretending there isn't some bias in the formula, because of voter perception, but as far as the formula is concerned they have the same opportunity.

If the BCS teams only play themselves, the non-BCS have zero opportunity.

Given that, I see no reason why BCS schools should only play themselves. I'd rather the Hokies have a chance to play a team like Utah or BYU on occassion as much as I like the Hokies are playing LSU and aTm. The structure of the BCS has no bearing on who I hope the Hokies will play. If VT can find competitive and complelling opponents outside the BCS, I see no reason to restrict those options.

[Blue Hen]

Your reference to the polls, HYH, is exactly why the non BCS league schools are not allowed to compete for BCS PNCs. They simply are not allowed to be pre season ranked high, and will never rise to #1 or 2 in the final polls. That's the whole reason the BCS formed.....to exclude 45% of D1A from the big $ and glory.

[EvilVodka]

They simply are not allowed to be pre season ranked high, and will never rise to #1 or 2 in the final polls.

ridiculous statement...a number of non-BCS schools start out the year in the top 25

the problem is consistency...most teams that are ranked in the top 10 are consistent winners year in and year out...if Boise State was returning most of their team from last year, they'd probably be top 10 IMO

[HellYeahHokie]

Hen, you know there were 4 undefeated teams in 2004. An extreme rarity. Usually there are 2 or fewer. If 2 of those teams had lost, Utah would have played in the MNC game.

Yes, it was out of their hands, because they started behind all the other 3 teams. But it was just dumb luck that their undefeated season coincided with 3 other teams' undefeated seasons.

Non-BCS schools that return lots of players and their coach do get ranked high enough in the initial Top 25 polls. But like most every other team, to make it up to #1 or #2, it usually takes those teams ahead of them to lose.

It's harder for BCS schools, but it's most certainly possible.

Utah got cheated out of the MNC game not because their was a conspiracy against non-BCS teams, but because there wasn't a playoff to accomodate the four undefeated teams.

[GatorGrad]

If a non BCS team went 12-0 and scheduled and beat several (say 3) top 25 type of teams, especially if they were non conference games, they most certainly would have a great shot at finishing in the top two and playing for the MNC. Most of the time when a non BCS team goes unbeaten, they have played 1 or no ranked teams all season so they wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt when compared to other BCS teams that have played tougher schedules.

[CJHawkeyes]

All they have to do is finish #1 or #2 in the polls and they have as much chance as a BCS school to get to the MNC game. Utah was very close to being in the MNC in 2004.

I'm not pretending there isn't some bias in the formula, because of voter perception, but as far as the formula is concerned they have the same opportunity.

If the BCS teams only play themselves, the non-BCS have zero opportunity.

Given that, I see no reason why BCS schools should only play themselves. I'd rather the Hokies have a chance to play a team like Utah or BYU on occassion as much as I like the Hokies are playing LSU and aTm. The structure of the BCS has no bearing on who I hope the Hokies will play. If VT can find competitive and complelling opponents outside the BCS, I see no reason to restrict those options.


First of all, the question about BCS teams only playing themselves was just about them having their own league in the event they don't want to actually allow nonBCS schools to compete. That said, only one nonBCS school has ever finished in the top 2 at the end of the season since I-A was created. Therefore, saying that is all that I have to do ignores the fact that there is no blueprint for them to do so. Someone else suggested they play three very strong OOC opponents, but the BCS does not give its best teams an incentive to play these teams. Even if they do play the required schedule, the odds of attracting the talent necessary to succeed are very limited. Recruits know that the odds of winning it all at a nonBCS school are slim and none. As for Utah, I believe they were ranked behind a one-loss team at the end of 2004. Besides that, there is no way to know for certain that they would have leapfrogged a hypothetical one-loss USC, Oklahoma, or Auburn especially if these teams had lost earlier in the year before Utah established itself. Finally, Utah is the second highest ranked nonBCS school since 1978 and they have not built off of their success. As always happens, their coach left for a school where he could contend for a national title and recruits still ignore nonBCS schools. There is simply way too much that has to fall into place for a nonBCS school to ever make the top 2 under this system.

[GatorGrad]

To answer your question, of course I wish all teams had "equal access" somehow with a full 16-team tourney involving all 11 conf champs. Or even creating a new division by breaking away. But it's just not going to happen anytime soon. I'm just hoping for the 4-team BCS Playoff. I honestly think that a mid major team that went unbeaten and played a decent schedule would finish in the top 4 in most years. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

There have been a number of non-BCS teams in recent years that had the talent to win a D-IA national championship tournament.

However, Blue Hen is correct -- it is impossible for a non-BCS team, no matter how talented and no matter how deserving, to ever end the season ranked #1 or #2.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Question for GatorGrad: Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the best team in the nation is a non-BCS team that went undefeated versus a very weak schedule.

Which should govern as to whether this team should have an opportunity to compete for the national championship: the quality of the team or the strength of its schedule?

Keep in mind that the given assumption is that the team is the best in the nation. I bet that I can predict your answer!!

[CJHawkeyes]

Question for GatorGrad: Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the best team in the nation is a non-BCS team that went undefeated versus a very weak schedule.

Which should govern as to whether this team should have an opportunity to compete for the national championship: the quality of the team or the strength of its schedule?

Keep in mind that the given assumption is that the team is the best in the nation. I bet that I can predict your answer!!


I'll answer this by stating that the "best team" is entitled to nothing simply because it is the best team. I'm sure PowerSweep is screaming somewhere upon reading this but the purpose of competition is to determine a winner. It is not to identify the best team. Clearly, the best team does not win every football game. Therefore, why would it be entitled to win a competition just because it is the best team rather than because it is the most successful team according to the agreed upon rules?

[GatorGrad]

There have been a number of non-BCS teams in recent years that had the talent to win a D-IA national championship tournament.

However, Blue Hen is correct -- it is impossible for a non-BCS team, no matter how talented and no matter how deserving, to ever end the season ranked #1 or #2.

This is nonsense. It is not "impossible." If a non-BCS team finished unbeaten, looked dominating doing so, played a decent schedule, etc they certainly could finish in the top 2. One major problem is that whenever these non-BCS schools finish unbeaten, no one is ever impressed by who they have beaten. I'm not saying it's 100% their fault, but it is what it is.

[GatorGrad]

Question for GatorGrad: Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the best team in the nation is a non-BCS team that went undefeated versus a very weak schedule.

Which should govern as to whether this team should have an opportunity to compete for the national championship: the quality of the team or the strength of its schedule?

Keep in mind that the given assumption is that the team is the best in the nation. I bet that I can predict your answer!!

How in the world would you be able to say that a team that played a very weak schedule and went unbeaten was "the best" team? How could you prove it if they haven't beaten anyone? And what does "the best" even mean? It is nothing more than opinion.

You have to reward the most DESERVING teams and if a team plays a legit schedule and goes unbeaten, they will usually get the benefit of the doubt over a team who some THINK are better, but played a weak schedule and didn't really get a chance to prove it. The team that has survived a hard schedule has proven to be a great team. The other team with the weak schedule has not.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

You answered exactly as I had expected, GatorGrad!

Your standard is not the quality of the team, but rather strength of schedule. You contend that the best team could be excluded from an opportunity to compete for the national championship.

We have already witnessed a non-BCS conference team defeat 4 BCS teams by an average score of 36 to 12, win a BCS bowl championship and still be excluded from competing for a national championship.

Several other non-BCS conference teams have had undefeated seasons. Yet none have come close to an opportunity to compete for a national championship. None ever will. There will always be a contorted rationales and ready excuses to prevent deserving non-BCS conference teams from an opportunities to compete for national championships.

[CJHawkeyes]

This is nonsense. It is not "impossible." If a non-BCS team finished unbeaten, looked dominating doing so, played a decent schedule, etc they certainly could finish in the top 2. One major problem is that whenever these non-BCS schools finish unbeaten, no one is ever impressed by who they have beaten. I'm not saying it's 100% their fault, but it is what it is.


Impossible no, but highly improbable. NonBCS teams are already less likely to go unbeaten versus the average nonBCS schedule than BCS teams versus the average BCS schedule because the former face more parity in and out of conference. Basically, the BCS has guaranteed its best teams the talent necessary to succeed versus the required schedule while simutaneously making it more difficult for nonBCS teams to go unbeaten versus the schedules do play. Add to this the fact that 1984 BYU is the only unbeaten non-major to finish the regular season ranked ahead of a one-loss major in the past 29 years. Therefore, nonBCS teams that go unbeaten versus average nonBCS schedule likely need 65 of 66 BCS teams to lose twice and that has never happened.

Of course, stronger OOC schedules could improve a nonBCS team's chances, but just how much stronger? Suppose Boise State played the top 25's last four BCS schools, Oregon State, Georgia, Penn State, and Tennessee. Is that enough? Furthermore, how likely is it that Boise State could get this schedule or a better one if they tried? After all, the BCS system does not give strong majors an incentive to play strong non-majors. And how many weak non-majors have even managed to acquire the neccessary OOC schedule?

Now, even supposing the best nonBCS team happens to play the required schedule, it is drawing its talent from a pool that already makes it significantly less likely to go unbeaten versus the average nonBCS schedule. And even if a nonBCS team overcomes its talent deficit, it needs there to be less than two unbeaten majors.

There is simply no way a reasonable person that can conclude that the BCS is equitable. Whereas I can tell you exactly what Boise State needed to do to make the top 2 under the rules I favor, the BCS provides no blueprint for these teams to make the BCS top 2. College football needs transparent objective rules that encourage strong majors to play strong mid-majors and that encourage recruits to choose nonBCS schools because the recruits can see that you can win at a nonBCS school. Of course, BCS schools and many of their fans do not want this which is why I asked the questions I did.

[CJHawkeyes]

You answered exactly as I had expected, GatorGrad!

Your standard is not the quality of the team, but rather strength of schedule. You contend that the best team could be excluded from an opportunity to compete for the national championship.

We have already witnessed a non-BCS conference team defeat 4 BCS teams by an average score of 36 to 12, win a BCS bowl championship and still be excluded from competing for a national championship.

Several other non-BCS conference teams have had undefeated seasons. Yet none have come close to an opportunity to compete for a national championship. None ever will. There will always be a contorted rationales and ready excuses to prevent deserving non-BCS conference teams from an opportunities to compete for national championships.

To be fair to GG, even if I thought being the best team had any value, its unlikely that any nonBCS team would ever be thought of as the best team if it played a weak schedule. Such a team would have to have that type of a respect to start the year. Yet, how many nonBCS teams have anywhere near that type of respect going into a season? Has a nonBCS school ever started the year ranked in the top 10?

[GatorGrad]

Look, I am all for an all inclusive 16-team tournament in college football. But I also don't think that it would lead to a bunch of mid majors winning NCAA Championships either like some of you seem to believe. The NCAA Tournament in Basketball is all inclusive, but since when do mid majors win NCAA Championships? I honestly think it will be the same teams winning national titles no matter what format you use.

[CJHawkeyes]

Look, I am all for an all inclusive 16-team tournament in college football. But I also don't think that it would lead to a bunch of mid majors winning NCAA Championships either like some of you seem to believe. The NCAA Tournament in Basketball is all inclusive, but since when do mid majors win NCAA Championships? I honestly think it will be the same teams winning national titles no matter what format you use.


You may be correct. However, while the NCAA tournament is inclusive, CBB is still very biased in favor of major schools simply because they are major schools. Six conferences make up half of the NCAA tournament on annual basis and that doesn't even take into account the lopsided seeding. Therefore, the deck is still stacked against mid-majors in CBB. Even then we have seen mid-majors reach the title game, final four, and elite eight several times in recent years. They have the opportunity and are getting very close. No such opportunity exists in football and that is all required. If no such team ever wins under an equitable system, so be it.

For the record, the purpose behind this thread was not to stump for a 16 team playoff even though that is my preference. I just wanted to know if BCS fans were interested in an equitable competition that includes all of I-A.

[EvilVodka]

College football isn't about the best team per se....the standard in college football is the Perfect Season

Who was the best team last year? In a playoff, I like LSU's and USC's chances as much as Florida's...Florida had the best season though

The problem with the National Championship isn't solely a non-BCS issue...Miami '00, Oregon '01, USC '03, and Auburn '04 were all left out of the title game....along with Tulane '98, Marshall '99, Utah '04, and Boise State '06

The field needs to be expanded...a four team playoff, if done right, could solve alot of problems

Step 1 -- select the top 3 in the final BCS poll
Step 2 -- select a "wild card" team that follows certain criteria, such as:
-----1. the highest rated, undefeated non-BCS conference champ (Navy, Army, and Temple included in this grouping)
-----2. the highest rated conference champ or Notre Dame

Criteria 1 pretty much assures a non-BCS team that goes undefeated will make the final four playoff...if they don't go undefeated, they could still qualify as the highest ranked conference champ

1998
SUGAR: #1 Tennessee vs. #10 Tulane
ORANGE: #2 Florida St. vs. #3 Kansas St.

1999
ORANGE: #1 Florida St. vs. #12 Marshall
FIESTA (OR COTTON): #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska

2000
FIESTA: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
ORANGE: #2 Florida St. vs. #3 Miami

2001
ORANGE: #1 Miami vs. #4 Oregon
FIESTA: #2 Nebraska vs. #3 Colorado

2002
ORANGE: #1 Miami vs. #6 Washington St.
ROSE: #2 Ohio State vs. #3 Georgia

2003
FIESTA: #1 Oklahoma vs. #2 LSU
ROSE: #3 USC vs. #4 Michigan

2004
ROSE: #1 USC vs. #6 Utah
FIESTA: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

2005
ROSE: #1 USC vs. #3 Penn State
FIESTA: #2 Texas vs. #6 Notre Dame

2006
ROSE (OR COTTON): #1 Ohio State vs. #8 Boise State
SUGAR: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan

(note on seedings: PAC 10 and Big 10 would meet to preserve the Rose Bowl if both champs are available)

[GatorGrad]

You may be correct. However, while the NCAA tournament is inclusive, CBB is still very biased in favor of major schools simply because they are major schools. Six conferences make up half of the NCAA tournament on annual basis and that doesn't even take into account the lopsided seeding. Therefore, the deck is still stacked against mid-majors in CBB. Even then we have seen mid-majors reach the title game, final four, and elite eight several times in recent years. They have the opportunity and are getting very close. No such opportunity exists in football and that is all required. If no such team ever wins under an equitable system, so be it.

For the record, the purpose behind this thread was not to stump for a 16 team playoff even though that is my preference. I just wanted to know if BCS fans were interested in an equitable competition that includes all of I-A.

Of course I am interested in an equitable competition that includes all of I-A. But let's be honest - that isn't happening anytime soon. Give me the 4-team playoff for now. I could live with that. It would almost guarantee a BCS school that goes unbeaten gets a shot, and it would give any mid major that goes unbeaten with a legit schedule a shot as well I believe. If a mid major that schedules good teams like Fresno St were to go unbeaten while beating a team like USC on the way, you bet your bottom dollar they finish in the top four. But when mid majors, who already for the most part play in weaker conferences, don't schedule solid teams out of conference, they really don't have much beef over a BCS team that played a real schedule. Just my two cents.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Since you asked, GatorGrad.

Beware!

Funny things can happen when an NCAA championship tournament is open to all teams that deserve an opportunity to compete.

And, BTW, you'd better watch out for Memphis (C-USA) in 2008.

"Mid-Major and lower" NCAA basketball tournament champions:
CCNY (Independent)
Holy Cross (Independent)
La Salle (Independent - Mid Atlantic)
Loyola-Chicago (Independent)
Marquette (Independent)
Oklahoma A&M (Missouri Valley) TWICE
San Francisco (West Coast) TWICE
Texas Western (Independent)
UNLV (Big West)
Utah (Mountain States)
Wyoming (Mountain States)


"Mid-Major and lower" NCAA basketball tournament runners-up:
Bradley (Missouri Valley)
Bradley (Independent)
Dartmouth (Ivy) TWICE
Dayton (Independent)
Georgetown (Independent)
Jacksonville (Independent)
La Salle (Independent - Mid Atlantic)
Marquette (Independent)
Memphis State (Missouri Valley)
NYU (Independent)
Oklahoma A&M (Missouri Valley)
Seattle (Independent)
St. John's (Independent)
Utah (Western Athletic)
Villanova (Independent)


"Mid-Majors and lower" in NCAA basketball championship final four
CCNY (Independent)
Charlotte (Sun Belt)
DePaul (Independent) TWICE
Drake (Missouri Valley)
Duquesne (Independent)
George Mason (Colonial)
Holy Cross (Independent)
Houston (Independent) TWICE
Marquette (Conference USA)
Massachusetts (Atlantic 10)
Memphis State (Metro)
New Mexico State (Independent)
NYU (Independent)
Oklahoma A&M (Missouri Valley)
Pennsylvania (Ivy)
Princeton (Ivy)
Providence (Independent)
San Francisco (West Coast)
Santa Clara (Independent)
St. Bonaventure (Independent)
St. Joseph's (Middle Atlantic)
Temple (Independent - Mid Atlantic) TWICE
UNLV (Independent)
UNLV (Pacific Coast)
UNLV (Big West)
Utah (Mountain States)
Utah (Western Athletic)
Villanova (Independent)
Western Kentucky (Ohio Valley)
Wichita State (Missouri Valley)

[Blue Hen]

This 'hard schedule' stuff is part of the problem of the two class system. In general, the non BCS programs don't have the opportunities to play the 'perceived' hard schedules of the 'chosen' 66
The system dictates that the final 2 will always be from the 6 BCS conferences + ND....no way around it. The other 53 are not alloweed to play for BCS MNCs. When it happens I'll believe it...but it an't gonna happen.

[Blue Hen]

..the difference, right there, between real championship college sports and this criminal BCS system that excludes 45% of D1A from competing for it's fantasyland national championship.

[GatorGrad]

Florida Herd Fan,

Out of all of those NCAA Championships, only UNLV in 1990 was in the modern era (three point line and 64 teams in the tournament.) All others were during a completely different time that cannot even be compared to today. Heck, you have Marquette who was in the 70's and then all of the rest of those champs were in the 60's or earlier. Can't really compare that to now.

In the modern era, since the tournament expanded to 64 teams and the three point shot was installed, the big boys still dominate even though the field is completely open to all conference champs. Only UNLV in 1990 with a special coach and set of players was able to break through. I think you would see the same trend in college football if you expanded a playoff to 16 teams. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it. But you're still going to see the same 15-20 college football programs dominate in most years.

[EvilVodka]

Just for the record, I'm completely against a 16 team playoff...there's no reason 8-4 Sun Belt champs deserve a chance at the National Championship, and 16 teams lets "second chance" teams in as at-large teams...such as Texas & Cal '04, and LSU & USC '06...second chance teams only water down the regular season

If you're just dying for a playoff system, watch the NFL, they've got a great playoff system

[Blue Hen]

GG, what if your 06 MBNC Florida Gators were forced to play ..oh..Colorado State's schedule(for example)....featuring not many highly ranked teams, and posted a 12-0 or 11-1 record. In your mind, that team shouldn't have MNC opportunities ( based on your schedule requirements )......yet the Gators would have the same exact players, same coaches, same skill level, same team. But the team wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt because it didn't have a privledged schedule.. So this same exact team playing an SEC` schedule should have MNC opportunities but this same exact team playing a MWC schedule should not have MNC opportunities ????.....that's the unfairness and fraud of the two class system.

[GatorGrad]

Then we should have tried harder to schedule tougher teams. If these mid majors wanted to prove themselves, they could do a better job scheduling better opponents. I've heard the excuses, but I don't buy them all of the time. Fresno State has done a GREAT job scheduling top teams. If they went unbeaten while knocking off USC the year they almost did, they could have played for the MNC. I understand that the system is not 100% fair, but it's not nearly as bad as many of you would like to think and has more to do with having only 2 teams in the playoff instead of 4 or 8 which would open it up and allow more room for error when it comes to differences in schedules and such.

[CJHawkeyes]

GatorGrad,

Under my own ranking system, which is considerably more favorable to nonBCS teams than the BCS formula, only 150 nonBCS schools in 29 seasons have played schedules whereby an undefeated season would have placed them in the top two if other results remained the same. However, many of those schedules included an extra game or two and most of the teams that played them came nowhere near finishing unbeaten. Furthermore, I suspect most fans would not give most of these schedules the respect my system does.

The point is that is very difficult for nonBCS schools to acquire the required schedule under a system that is much more favorable. Yet, under the BCS, these teams are expected to play 3-4 OOC games versus ranked BCS teams that have no incentive to play them and beat them with recruits taken from a pool of players mostly unwanted by BCS schools. The odds of a nonBCS school acquiring the schedule needed to contend plus the odds of acquiring the players needed to go unbeaten versus said schedule plus all the other things that have to fall into place are remote.

[Blue Hen]

Right......so San Jose State or Central Michigan can call up Florida or Tennessee today and announce that it has scheduled a 4 year 'home and home' with each......just like that...nothin to it. The mega win-at-all-cost factories dictate non conference schedules, not the 'mids'. C'mon GG, you know that.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

I knew that over 50 examples of "mid-majors and lower" teams advancing to the NCAA basketball championships final four wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, GatorGrad. You only asked me to produce only one example.

Should teams from so-called "mid-major" conferences deserve an opportunity to participate in NCAA championship tournaments? The record is clear. Teams from small conferences have a tremendous record of success in NCAA basketball championships. Don't forget that I have forewarned you, GatorGrad, about "mid-major" Memphis from C-USA in 2008.

The same would be the case if deserving "mid-major" conference teams were permitted to compete for true NCAA football championships. A number of mid-major teams in recent years have had the potential to win NCAA D-IA football championship tournaments. There will be more in the future.

The BCS can ill afford to permit a true NCAA football championship tournament, because teams from "mid-major" conferences would be certain to embarrass BCS schools -- just as they have when allowed to compete in BCS bowl games.

[GatorGrad]

Right......so San Jose State or Central Michigan can call up Florida or Tennessee today and announce that it has scheduled a 4 year 'home and home' with each......just like that...nothin to it. The mega win-at-all-cost factories dictate non conference schedules, not the 'mids'. C'mon GG, you know that.

There have been plenty of mid majors who have scheduled the big boys, and these mid majors never seem to go unbeaten. All of the big time schools host a cupcake or two (or more.) All it would take is for one of these schools to shock the world and win those games and go unbeaten...then they would have a legit chance. That's all I am saying. The San Jose State's, the Central Michigan's, etc DO get chances against the big boys. Yes, it's on the road 99% of the time, but it's still a chance. And 99% of the time they fail.

Again, I'm all for an all inclusive 16-team tournament. Don't think I am not. The system is definitely flawed. But some of you think that it would automatically mean that mid majors would be winning NCAA Titles left and right, and I simply strongly disagree. You would still have the have's and have nots, you would still have the BCS vs non BCS comparisons (just like we still do in college basketball.) Giving all schools "equal opportunity" really won't do as much as some of you would like to think it would.

And as flawed as the current system is, a mid major could certainly finish in the top two if it happened to go unbeaten with a legit schedule. Most of the mid majors that have gone unbeaten in recent history (TCU, Tulane, Boise St, Utah, etc) have done so without beating many top 20 type of teams. I understand that these schools are limited financially and in their ability to schedule, but hey...no one said that the playing field in sports at any level was 100% fair.

Anyways, if the field is expanded to 4 teams, that would open it up even more and unbeaten mid majors would have an even better shot. That's what you mid major cheerleaders should be rooting for. It's the next step in this process to getting what we all ultimately want.

[GatorGrad]

I knew that over 50 examples of "mid-majors and lower" teams advancing to the NCAA basketball championships final four wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, GatorGrad. You only asked me to produce only one example.

Should teams from so-called "mid-major" conferences deserve an opportunity to participate in NCAA championship tournaments? The record is clear. Teams from small conferences have a tremendous record of success in NCAA basketball championships. Don't forget that I have forewarned you, GatorGrad, about "mid-major" Memphis from C-USA in 2008.

The same would be the case if deserving "mid-major" conference teams were permitted to compete for true NCAA football championships. A number of mid-major teams in recent years have had the potential to win NCAA D-IA football championship tournaments. There will be more in the future.

The BCS can ill afford to permit a true NCAA football championship tournament, because teams from "mid-major" conferences would be certain to embarrass BCS schools -- just as they have when allowed to compete in BCS bowl games.

Of course they didn't satisfy me because from the very start, I was talking about NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS. Not 3rd or 4th place finishes. Mid majors can do that in college football too under the current system. Our argument was based on the ability of a mid major to win an NCAA Championship in the current NCAA Basketball setup vs a proposed NCAA Football 16-team tournament setup. As your own data proved, only ONE mid major school has won an NCAA Basketball Title in the modern era (3 point line and 64 or more teams in the tourney) despite "fair and open access" to mid majors. My point is that I don't think it would be much different if football had such a tournament. The big boys would still dominate. Probably even more so in football with all of the depth and advantages the big boys have vs basketball where all you need is 2-3 studs to compete with anyone. It's much easier for a small school to compete with a big boy in basketball than it would be for football where it takes more than 2-3 stud players to compete. That's why you see so many more upsets in hoops.

[CJHawkeyes]

Gator Grad.

It has nothing to do with the expectation that nonBCS schools would win if there were an equitable system or even a desire to see them win one. I certainly never said they would nor do I care if they ever do. The fact is that it is next to impossible for them to do so now. Again, the odds of a nonBCS school acquiring the required schedule and the players needed to go unbeaten versus said schedule are remote. The system is setup so that it is significantly easier for a BCS conference champion to go unbeaten than a nonBCS champion to do so. The former face less parity in and out of conference than pat themselves on the back for being "courageous" enough to play a BCS schedule as if it were difficult for them to so. Recruits know that BCS schools are essientially ranked best to worst record whereas nonBCS teams need to overcome astronomical odds. Why not rank everyone best to worst record? Although this idea would not be my first choice, why not see how parity would be impacted if recruits know they can pick any I-A school and be guaranteed a title shot if one of less than three unbeatens? The "easiness" of nonBCS schedules is relative. And if recruits think winning a national title would be easier to accomplish at nonBCS schools due to "weak" schedules, wouldn't this increase parity?

Put another way, suppose all I-A teams played 12 regular season games versus I-A competition only, are ranked best to worst record, opponents' record, and so on, and the top two play for the national title. What would be the problem? Arguing schedules is weak because we already know BCS schools are statistically more likely to go unbeaten than nonBCS schools against their respective average schedules. But more than that, if you are a recruit and you know these are the rules and you make a school choice with that in mind, what argument do you have if it the results don't work out in your favor? Why can't a recruit choose to go to a nonBCS school with the same confidence that an unbeaten season will earn them a shot at the title as a BCS school? The answer is that BCS schools do not want to play fair.

[Blue Hen]

wrong GG,
There have not been plenty of Mids that have scheduled the 'Big Boys'...the 'Big Boys' have scheduled the mids and 98 % of time the mids are required to hit the road or forget it.....very unfair. You make it sound like Utah State can call up Florida and say "we've decided to play you..so be here in Logan, Utah, next Sept.30, and we'll come to Gainsville the following season"

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

As I said, GatorGrad, there is no amount of evidence that could satisfy you. You will always have a ready excuse. 27 "mid-major and lower" teams have advanced to the NCAA basketball championship game. 11 "mid-major and lower" teams have won NCAA basketball championships.

I repeat my warning to you about Memphis in 2008. Funny things can happen when elitists get too big of a head. Check out this article that ran shortly before George Mason defeated #1-seed UConn in the 2006 NCAA championship tournament: http://sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9334971

The bottom line is that the same thing can and would happen if there was a true NCAA national championship tournament that was sufficiently inclusive (at least a 16-team field) to allow deserving "mid-majors" to compete. Non-BCS conference schools would play for NCAA national football championships, and non-BCS conference schools would win NCAA football championships. The BCS cannot allow that possibility to happen because the BCS cartel and the BCS myth would be destroyed.

[GatorGrad]

wrong GG,
There have not been plenty of Mids that have scheduled the 'Big Boys'...the 'Big Boys' have scheduled the mids and 98 % of time the mids are required to hit the road or forget it.....very unfair. You make it sound like Utah State can call up Florida and say "we've decided to play you..so be here in Logan, Utah, next Sept.30, and we'll come to Gainsville the following season"

I said this in my last post. I said that 99% of the time, they have to hit the road. Nothing new there. But that doesn't prove that mid majors would start rattling off NCAA Titles if given the chance in a 16 team tournament which is all I am saying. I don't see the correlation.

It's not the big boys' fault that they have the money, resources, advantages, etc to schedule these teams at home with no return trip. And even though these teams have to play on the road, they almost never EVER win. You can only blame so much of thise on home field advantage. All it would take is for a mid major to step up and upset a couple of big names in one season and go unbeaten and they would get their shot. It doesn't happen. Why? Because they just aren't as good. Period. They still wouldn't be as good even with the crazy proposals some of you are throwing out.

None of the proposed changes will ever make it 100% "fair." There will always be schools with more money, more tradition, better facilities, etc than others. There will always be good programs, average programs, and bad programs. That's the way it is. That's business. That's sports. That's life. Changing the rules won't affect all of this as much as some of you think it would. That's all I am saying.

[GatorGrad]

As I said, GatorGrad, there is no amount of evidence that could satisfy you. You will always have a ready excuse. 27 "mid-major and lower" teams have advanced to the NCAA basketball championship game. 11 "mid-major and lower" teams have won NCAA basketball championships.

I repeat my warning to you about Memphis in 2008. Funny things can happen when elitists get too big of a head. Check out this article that ran shortly before George Mason defeated #1-seed UConn in the 2006 NCAA championship tournament: http://sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9334971

The bottom line is that the same thing can and would happen if there was a true NCAA national championship tournament that was sufficiently inclusive (at least a 16-team field) to allow deserving "mid-majors" to compete. Non-BCS conference schools would play for NCAA national football championships, and non-BCS conference schools would win NCAA football championships. The BCS cannot allow that possibility to happen because the BCS cartel and the BCS myth would be destroyed.

As seen in your own data, only ONE (1) mid major has won the NCAA Basketball Championship in the modern era. ONE! And you think this proves that mid majors can consistently compete with majors in a "fair and open" tournament? It would be no different if football had a 16-team tournament. Especially since football requires depth and a lot of players to compete vs basketball which just requires 2-3 studs who happen to get hot at the right time, hit some big 3's, etc. Football would be even more difficult for the mid majors to compete with the big boys. No doubt about it in my mind.

[GatorGrad]

By the way, this entire discussion is why I TRY not to even care or worry about the BCS and all of this nonsense. To me, it's all about the SEC. That's my college football world. We have 12 teams, 8 games, 2 division winners meeting in Atlanta for the rings based on actual game results and standings. There's nothing better than celebrating an SEC Championship in the Georgia Dome. I had more fun in Atlanta for the SEC Title Game this year than I did celebrating our MNC in Glendale. The MNC just doesn't mean that much to me.

That said, I just think that the BCS vs nonBCS argument is old and over-rated. Even if there was no BCS, those conferences would still be more prestigious, still get more money via their bowl and TV contracts, and the big boys would still be the big boys. It doesn't matter what system you use. The power programs will still dominate college football recruiting and on the field.

You guys think the answer is a 16-team tournament. Even if your wish was granted, you would then say it was unfair because the seeds and home field always favor the big schools (who have big stadiums and will actually bring in money.) Then it will be unfair because of scheduling or resources or facilities, etc. It will never end. IT WILL NEVER BE FAIR. Life, business, and sports is not fair.

Just hope for a 4 team playoff. A 16 team tourney isn't coming anytime soon.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

A 4-team playoff would be the latest BCS ploy to forestall if not avoid a true NCAA national championship tournament.

I repeat, GatorGrad, it matters not a whit how much evidence I present. You will always be able to come up with another lame excuse. You judiciously ignore the significant recent accomplishments of teams from small schools, such as George Mason's win over #1-seed UConn to advance to the 2006 final four. You have also ignored the powerhouse team that "mid-major" Memphis will put on the court this coming season.

The BCS cartel fears inevitable NCAA football tournament victories by non-BCS conference teams -- just as non-BCS teams have prevailed in recent BCS bowl games. And, the BCS fears the distinct likelihood that small schools' teams would -- gasp -- advance to national championship games. And that small schools' teams would actually win national championships.

Your beloved SEC is part of the cowardly BCS crew.

[CJHawkeyes]

I said this in my last post. I said that 99% of the time, they have to hit the road. Nothing new there. But that doesn't prove that mid majors would start rattling off NCAA Titles if given the chance in a 16 team tournament which is all I am saying. I don't see the correlation.

It's not the big boys' fault that they have the money, resources, advantages, etc to schedule these teams at home with no return trip. And even though these teams have to play on the road, they almost never EVER win. You can only blame so much of thise on home field advantage. All it would take is for a mid major to step up and upset a couple of big names in one season and go unbeaten and they would get their shot. It doesn't happen. Why? Because they just aren't as good. Period. They still wouldn't be as good even with the crazy proposals some of you are throwing out.

None of the proposed changes will ever make it 100% "fair." There will always be schools with more money, more tradition, better facilities, etc than others. There will always be good programs, average programs, and bad programs. That's the way it is. That's business. That's sports. That's life. Changing the rules won't affect all of this as much as some of you think it would. That's all I am saying.


No one is making the arguments you are suggesting. No one is crying about money or resources and no one is suggesting these teams will rattle off a bunch of titles. The argument is that the rules to the competition are stacked in favor of BCS schools to the point of effectively eliminating nonBCS teams from national title contention. The system allows BCS schools to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees each member plays the required schedule, guarantees that their success is actually easier to come by, and places nonBCS teams at the mercy playing at those BCS schools willing to schedule them. The very fact that nonBCS teams must play the best BCS teams to have the slightest chance is an incentive for the latter to avoid playing them. How can you win when the very teams you need to play don't need to play you?

And assuming my suggestion of ranking all teams best to worst record is what you would call crazy, why is that? If nonBCS teams still wouldn't be any good under them, then there is no reason not to play by them. But if more recruits choose nonBCS schools with the knowledge that being one of two unbeatens guarantees them a shot, wouldn't this close the gap between BCS and nonBCS teams? It is not as if anyone doing so is taking an easier road to the title. Again, this isn't my favorite idea, but why is it crazy? Why shouldn't a recruit be allowed to choose any I-A school and have the same confidence that an unbeaten season will earn his team a title shot? And if all recruits know these are the rules and choose their schools accordingly, who can complain no matter what the results are?

[Blue Hen]

Exactly, CJH, exactly. Some just don't get the fact that this 'two class' system (BCS/Mids) does not offer equal opportunity..a basic concept in the American way of life. All other NCAA sports (including FB) offer much greater 'equal opportunity'.

[GatorGrad]

No one is making the arguments you are suggesting. No one is crying about money or resources and no one is suggesting these teams will rattle off a bunch of titles. The argument is that the rules to the competition are stacked in favor of BCS schools to the point of effectively eliminating nonBCS teams from national title contention. The system allows BCS schools to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees each member plays the required schedule, guarantees that their success is actually easier to come by, and places nonBCS teams at the mercy playing at those BCS schools willing to schedule them. The very fact that nonBCS teams must play the best BCS teams to have the slightest chance is an incentive for the latter to avoid playing them. How can you win when the very teams you need to play don't need to play you?

And assuming my suggestion of ranking all teams best to worst record is what you would call crazy, why is that? If nonBCS teams still wouldn't be any good under them, then there is no reason not to play by them. But if more recruits choose nonBCS schools with the knowledge that being one of two unbeatens guarantees them a shot, wouldn't this close the gap between BCS and nonBCS teams? It is not as if anyone doing so is taking an easier road to the title. Again, this isn't my favorite idea, but why is it crazy? Why shouldn't a recruit be allowed to choose any I-A school and have the same confidence that an unbeaten season will earn his team a title shot? And if all recruits know these are the rules and choose their schools accordingly, who can complain no matter what the results are?

Not you, but Florida Herd fan is (suggesting that mid majors would rattle off titles.) And please tell me what I called your ranking system crazy. I didn't do that. I actually LIKE your ranking system and would be all for it. It's not crazy. Not sure where you got that from my prior posts. But none of these changes would satisfy the mid major school people like Florida Herd Fan. There would always be one more "unfair advantage" that needs to be fixed for them to be happy and it would never end. And these changes wouldn't change the fact that the big boys would still dominate college football regardless of the system you choose. This has been my only point all along. I'm all for a 16-team tourney. I just don't think much would change, and then the mid major fans would find something else to complain about. It's like real life where no matter what rules you change or tax laws you imeplement, the rich will always find a way to be rich, and the poor will always find a way to stay poor no matter how many laws are changed to help "level the playing field." The poor are always demanding more government help, programs, and tax benefits. But things rarely change. Sorry for my side political rant. I know we have enough of that on here already!

[GatorGrad]

A 4-team playoff would be the latest BCS ploy to forestall if not avoid a true NCAA national championship tournament.

I repeat, GatorGrad, it matters not a whit how much evidence I present. You will always be able to come up with another lame excuse. You judiciously ignore the significant recent accomplishments of teams from small schools, such as George Mason's win over #1-seed UConn to advance to the 2006 final four. You have also ignored the powerhouse team that "mid-major" Memphis will put on the court this coming season.

The BCS cartel fears inevitable NCAA football tournament victories by non-BCS conference teams -- just as non-BCS teams have prevailed in recent BCS bowl games. And, the BCS fears the distinct likelihood that small schools' teams would -- gasp -- advance to national championship games. And that small schools' teams would actually win national championships.

Your beloved SEC is part of the cowardly BCS crew.

If a mid major went unbeaten while playing and beating 2-3 top 25 teams, you don't think they could finish in the top 4? I strongly disagree. A 4-team playoff would be exciting for all. And I'm not "ignoring" George Mason or Memphis in 2008. But neither has one an NCAA Championship so I'm not sure what your point is. Aren't we discussing the ability of mid majors to win NCAA Championships in basketball and football in a "fair and open field?" George Mason got hot at the right time with a veteran team and finished 3rd/4th in the country - good for them! It was a great story. But they didn't win it all nor is that the norm. Nor would it be the norm in football.

[CJHawkeyes]

Gator Grad,

I won't speak for the fans that will never be satisifed. Of course, there are intangible advantages that cannot be eliminated such as one school simply being a more popular choice or putting more resources into their progam. I'm not concerned with advantages such as those. My problem is that the BCS system has the effect of ranking teams best to worst record after nonBCS teams are assigned a one game penalty. This effectively eliminates nonBCS schools as an option for the most desirable recruits which subsequently eliminates them from national title contention. Subsequently, there is no reason for these schools to put more resources into their programs and their programs cannot grow their fanbase when they cannot win short of a perfect storm of events happening in their favor.

As for my suggestion to rank teams by records, you mentioned that someone was offering crazy proposals and I was only wondering IF you included my idea, which no doubt would be considered crazy by most fans, and working on the assumption that you would consider it crazy too, I asked why. I didn't know whether or not you considered it crazy, I just assumed it for the sake of asking the question. I didn't intend to accuse you of anything.

All that said, even if college football met my definition of an equitable system, I wouldn't expect nonBCS teams to rattle off national titles although I think they would inevitably come much closer more often than they could ever dream of now. I think recruits would be more inclined to choose nonBCS schools than they do now if they can see that the blueprint for winning a national title allows nonBCS schools the same opportunity. However, I do not actually care if a nonBCS school ever wins. If the rules apply equally to all and nonBCS schools fail, so be it. But as things stand, nonBCS schools fail because the system is designed that way.

[CJHawkeyes]

Florida Herd Fan,

Out of curiousity, suppose I-A schools agreed to play equal games versus I-A competition only, rank teams best to worst record, and the top four advanced to a playoff. Would this format satisfy you? If not, why not? Remember, Marshall would have qualified in 1999.

[GatorGrad]

Another scenario for Florida Herd Fan:

Say your dream came true and there was a 16-team tournament including all 11 conference champs. You do realize that neutral site bowl games would not be used for every game, and that the higher seeded teams would likely be hosting these games on campus, right? At least for the 1st and/or 2nd rounds as I am 100% sure that bowl games would not be used for all 15 games in a 16-team tournament.

Guess who would normally be the higher seeded teams? The big boys. Just like the NCAA Basketball Tournament. So if a mid major that is seeded 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 in a 16-team tournament had to win FOUR games, all away from home, to win an NCAA Championship against likely top 10 teams...do you really still think that these teams would be bringing home NCAA Titles left and right? That was my point - even with a 16 team tournament, you have something ELSE to complain about.

Mid majors would be forced to play road games at places like The Swamp, Death Valley, Austin, Norman, The Coliseum, etc. And as already discussed, mid majors get these road games against the big boys all the time during the regular season and lose well, almost ALL of the time. So what makes you think that a mid major would win FOUR such games in a row? What would this really solve? It would be fun, and exciting, but mid majors would still be on the outside looking in when it comes to the National Title race more often than not. Even more so than in basketball (where only one mid major has won an NCAA Title in the modern era as you pointed out.)

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

I see no reason to reinvent the wheel, CJ. The NCAA has a championship playoff system that has been tried and proven over decades in D-IAA, D-II and D-III football. I see no reason to create a new system for D-IA football when we know that the system that has been used for other football divisions works, and works very well.

The overlooked aspect to an NCAA playoff system is that the BCS could co-exist. The BCS could keep its bowls and BCS championship concurrent with an NCAA tournament. A team invited to both the NCAA tournament and a BCS bowl would have its choice. A similar situation happened in the D-IAA championships in 1995 when Florida A&M opted to play in the Heritage Bowl, and the 17-seed moved into the NCAA tournament.

[CJHawkeyes]

Another scenario for Florida Herd Fan:

Say your dream came true and there was a 16-team tournament including all 11 conference champs. You do realize that neutral site bowl games would not be used for every game, and that the higher seeded teams would likely be hosting these games on campus, right? At least for the 1st and/or 2nd rounds as I am 100% sure that bowl games would not be used for all 15 games in a 16-team tournament.

Guess who would normally be the higher seeded teams? The big boys. Just like the NCAA Basketball Tournament. So if a mid major that is seeded 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 in a 16-team tournament had to win FOUR games, all away from home, to win an NCAA Championship against likely top 10 teams...do you really still think that these teams would be bringing home NCAA Titles left and right? That was my point - even with a 16 team tournament, you have something ELSE to complain about.

Mid majors would be forced to play road games at places like The Swamp, Death Valley, Austin, Norman, The Coliseum, etc. And as already discussed, mid majors get these road games against the big boys all the time during the regular season and lose well, almost ALL of the time. So what makes you think that a mid major would win FOUR such games in a row? What would this really solve? It would be fun, and exciting, but mid majors would still be on the outside looking in when it comes to the National Title race more often than not. Even more so than in basketball (where only one mid major has won an NCAA Title in the modern era as you pointed out.)

Don't you think if nonBCS schools have direct access to the playoffs via an automatic berth that this would allow them to attract better talent? Again, I think fans like Florida Herd Fan are only demanding a realistic opportunity. The difference between Utah being the sixth seed in a 16 team tournament and playing in a glorified consolation game is infinite. If Utah doesn't win, so be it, but is easier to build off of a playoff berth than a bowl game that only reemphasizes that Utah really has no shot at the national title.

[GatorGrad]

Could they attract better talent? Perhaps. Enough to consider mid majors a serious threat to consistently be able to win FOUR straight games away from home against top 10 teams to win an NCAA Championship? Nah. There will always be a big difference between the big boys and the little guys. No matter what rules or post-season format anyone implements. Just my opinion.

[CJHawkeyes]

I see no reason to reinvent the wheel, CJ. The NCAA has a championship playoff system that has been tried and proven over decades in D-IAA, D-II and D-III football. I see no reason to create a new system for D-IA football when we know that the system that has been used for other football divisions works, and works very well.

The overlooked aspect to an NCAA playoff system is that the BCS could co-exist. The BCS could keep its bowls and BCS championship concurrent with an NCAA tournament. A team invited to both the NCAA tournament and a BCS bowl would have its choice. A similar situation happened in the D-IAA championships in 1995 when Florida A&M opted to play in the Heritage Bowl, and the 17-seed moved into the NCAA tournament.


I didn't ask for the purpose of reinventing the wheel. I just wanted to know if knowing Marshall is guaranteed a shot at the national title if one of less than five unbeatens would be an acceptable format. Marshall wouldn't be at the mercy of BCS schools agreeing to play them. They simply have to go unbeaten versus any schedule and hope that no more than three other teams do likewise.

[CJHawkeyes]

Could they attract better talent? Perhaps. Enough to consider mid majors a serious threat to consistently be able to win FOUR straight games away from home against top 10 teams to win an NCAA Championship? Nah. There will always be a big difference between the big boys and the little guys. No matter what rules or post-season format anyone implements. Just my opinion.

Perhaps not. Although I don't think it would necessarily be four straight road games. For starters, I imagine the title game would be at a neutral site. Furthermore, Utah would have played its first round game at home in 2004. And if, for example, teams were ranked best to worst record, Boise State would have homefield throughout the semifinals. Of course, I think the latter is unlikely, but if college football ever pulls its head out of its backend and agrees on a transparent objective ranking system, nonBCS teams would have a blueprint for earning higher seeds than their best teams do now. That said, I still think it is the opportunity that matters to nonBCS fans. If I'm a Utah fan, being the sixth seed in a playoff is far more attractive than playing Pittsburgh in a consolation game no matter how likely it is that the Utes run the table because the chances are still infiniitely greater than the BCS provides.

[GatorGrad]

Fair enough. I agree it would mean a lot to the mid majors and their "hope" for winning an NCAA Championship would be improved. But I still don't think they would bring home titles save once every blue moon. Just my take.

[CJHawkeyes]

Fair enough. I agree it would mean a lot to the mid majors and their "hope" for winning an NCAA Championship would be improved. But I still don't think they would bring home titles save once every blue moon. Just my take.

I'm not sure they would either, but if you figure at least five nonBCS teams in the playoffs every year, once in a blue moon is far less important than these teams controlling their destinys.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

My advice, GatorGrad, is that you do some homework and learn how the NCAA already selects sites for football championship tournament games in other divisions. From experience, I know how it works. I'm sure that Blue Hen also knows. If you do a little research, all of your questions will be answered. The NCAA has been handling football championship tournaments for decades. They know what they are doing.

As to seedings -- I could care less whether my team is seeded #1 or #16. The NCAA has its own system for seedings, and the seedings are not always consistent with the polls. We know that in a field of 16 teams the odds are very high that the best team in the nation will be among the seeded teams. If the team that is playing the best football at tournament time is seeded #16, it has a better chance of winning the championship than the team seeded #1.

One fallacy of polls and computer ratings is that they rank teams according to performances over the course of games played. But -- championships are won by teams that are playing the best at the end of the season. Is it possible for a team with more that 10 losses to win a national basketball championship? You might be surprised if you take a few minutes and do a little research on Jim Valvano's championship Wolfpack team.

[CJHawkeyes]

My advice, GatorGrad, is that you do some homework and learn how the NCAA already selects sites for football championship tournament games in other divisions. From experience, I know how it works. I'm sure that Blue Hen also knows. If you do a little research, all of your questions will be answered. The NCAA has been handling football championship tournaments for decades. They know what they are doing.

As to seedings -- I could care less whether my team is seeded #1 or #16. The NCAA has its own system for seedings, and the seedings are not always consistent with the polls. We know that in a field of 16 teams the odds are very high that the best team in the nation will be among the seeded teams. If the team that is playing the best football at tournament time is seeded #16, it has a better chance of winning the championship than the team seeded #1.

One fallacy of polls and computer ratings is that they rank teams according to performances over the course of games played. But -- championships are won by teams that are playing the best at the end of the season. Is it possible for a team with more that 10 losses to win a national basketball championship? You might be surprised if you take a few minutes and do a little research on Jim Valvano's championship Wolfpack team.

How is it a fallacy to rank teams according to performances over the course of games played? All sports do that in some capacity.

[GatorGrad]

My advice, GatorGrad, is that you do some homework and learn how the NCAA already selects sites for football championship tournament games in other divisions. From experience, I know how it works. I'm sure that Blue Hen also knows. If you do a little research, all of your questions will be answered. The NCAA has been handling football championship tournaments for decades. They know what they are doing.

As to seedings -- I could care less whether my team is seeded #1 or #16. The NCAA has its own system for seedings, and the seedings are not always consistent with the polls. We know that in a field of 16 teams the odds are very high that the best team in the nation will be among the seeded teams. If the team that is playing the best football at tournament time is seeded #16, it has a better chance of winning the championship than the team seeded #1.

One fallacy of polls and computer ratings is that they rank teams according to performances over the course of games played. But -- championships are won by teams that are playing the best at the end of the season. Is it possible for a team with more that 10 losses to win a national basketball championship? You might be surprised if you take a few minutes and do a little research on Jim Valvano's championship Wolfpack team.

I am well aware of how the playoff systems work in college football. Not sure what your point is there. I am also well aware of Jimmy V's run with NC State. Funny how you point out NC State's title and UNLV's title as your examples to prove certain points (10 loss teams or mid majors winning NCAA Titles) when both have proven to be very rare occurences which pretty much DISPROVE the points that you are trying to make.

[EvilVodka]

My point is that I don't think it would be much different if football had such a tournament. The big boys would still dominate. Probably even more so in football with all of the depth and advantages the big boys have vs basketball where all you need is 2-3 studs to compete with anyone. It's much easier for a small school to compete with a big boy in basketball than it would be for football where it takes more than 2-3 stud players to compete. That's why you see so many more upsets in hoops.

Absolutely...schools like Notre Dame and Alabama have too much tradition from winning for decades...no tournament is suddenly going to shift recruiting and create a balanced dispersal of recruits, which is what alot of the pro-playoff people here think will happen...

What do recruits want? They want to win championships...they're going to flock to teams that have a tradition of winning

[EvilVodka]

If the team that is playing the best football at tournament time is seeded #16, it has a better chance of winning the championship than the team seeded #1.

I don't really see a need to fixate on 16 teams...and the above rational is just absurd...when in college football has the #16 team been playing better the best football? and if they did so during the tournament, wouldn't that pretty much make the regular season a joke?? kind of like college basketball's regular season


But -- championships are won by teams that are playing the best at the end of the season. Is it possible for a team with more that 10 losses to win a national basketball championship? You might be surprised if you take a few minutes and do a little research on Jim Valvano's championship Wolfpack team.

This won't fly in Division IA football...like I said earlier, DIA college football focuses on the team with the best overall season, the team that's closest to the perfect season, not the team thats playing the best at the end of the season

[Blue Hen]

Not suddenly, Evil, but perhaps gradually. There are athletes out there who might like a University of Utah, for example.....but they tell the coach "look, I like your school, your coaches and your facilities but you're not BCS..I want to play for national championships"
If the MWC champ was eligible to play for national championships, schools in that league would most likely draw better talent.

[Blue Hen]

You are aware that the regular D1 basketball season eliminates 269 teams from NCAA championship consideration, aren't you ? That's 81% of all teams. Maybe it's not quite the complete joke that some perceive it to be.

The regular D1A football season eliminates only 46% of the 119 teams from post season play....but that's not a joke ?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

You couldn't be more wrong, GatorGrad. Championships are always won by teams that are playing the best at tournament time. NC State proves my point perfectly. There were any number of teams that had better overall seasons than NC State, but Valvano's team was playing the best when it counted.

It is the same in all other sports at any level. The team or individual performing the best at championship time will prevail. How often have you seen a team that runs all over regular season opponents only to totally collapse at "crunch time"? Witness 2003 and 2004 Oklahoma. Better yet, witness the anemic performance of undefeated 2006 Ohio State vs. your Gators. Or even better than that, witness the utter collapse of your undefeated 1995 Gators in the Fiesta Bowl.

Each of these frauds would probably have been exposed early on had there been a 16-team championship tournament.

As to your question, EvilVodka: When has the #16 team been playing the best football? There is no way of knowing. But we do know that teams seeded below #8 have won NCAA championships in other sports. That is the rationale for a 16 team field. The NCAA realizes this, and that is why all NCAA football championships have fields of at least 16 teams.

If you really believe that a championship tournament would render the regular season a joke, then you have cause to try to end championship tournaments and playoffs in all sports. In your world, that would mean no Super Bowl, no World Series, no World Cup, no Olympics, no Little League Baseball World Series, no NCAA championships in any sports, no NBA playoffs, no boxing championship bouts, etc. Good luck on your campaign.

[EvilVodka]

If you really believe that a championship tournament would render the regular season a joke, then you have cause to try to end championship tournaments and playoffs in all sports. In your world, that would mean no Super Bowl, no World Series, no World Cup, no Olympics, no Little League Baseball World Series, no NCAA championships in any sports, no NBA playoffs, no boxing championship bouts, etc. Good luck on your campaign.

Why would I try and end tournaments in other sports? My good brain tells me that all sports are unique and deserve their own methods of producing their champ, that there isn't a universal rule for all...

IMO, DIA college football may have one of the weaker post seasons, but it definately has the most exciting regular seasons...I think a 16 playoff would degrade the quality of DIA football more than enhance it ("second chance" teams degrade the regular season)...I like the concept of the perfect season, I like to reward teams that actually qualify by earning it on the field

And be real, the regular season in NCAA basketball is a joke...the March madness tournament is a huge bloated playoff that includes enough teams to compensate for the apathetic regular season...personally, I like the NBA playoffs way better, and using a series of games to determine a winner between two teams is much more accurate for basketball, where teams succumb much more to hot and cold games

[EvilVodka]

It is the same in all other sports at any level. The team or individual performing the best at championship time will prevail. How often have you seen a team that runs all over regular season opponents only to totally collapse at "crunch time"? Witness 2003 and 2004 Oklahoma. Better yet, witness the anemic performance of undefeated 2006 Ohio State vs. your Gators. Or even better than that, witness the utter collapse of your undefeated 1995 Gators in the Fiesta Bowl.


In all your examples, the said teams lost to National Champion BCS teams...I don't see how this is arguing for mid-major inclusion

[CJHawkeyes]

I certainly respect anyone's preference for a regular season with limited room for error, but why do people insist on using college basketball's regular season as an argument for what will happen to college football's regular season if a 16 team playoff becomes a reality? For starters, 19% make the NCAA tournament in CBB whereas 13% would make a football playoff. At 19%, a football playoff would include 24 teams. That said, nearly half of all BCS schools make the NCAA tournament on an annual basis. I agree that CBB's regular season is diminished, but the playoff isn't the reason, but rather a lopsided, unaccountable, and biased selection and seeding process in favor of BCS schools whereby these teams know finishing in the top half of their conferences is all it takes most years. 18-12 Stanford qualifying let alone being seeding higher than mid-majors that are 8-9 games better is ridiculous. But when the committee chairman only needs to say, "well, another committee may have selected differently" to justify the selection, the regular season is diminished further.

As for football, assuming an auto bid for all conferences, the most BCS member playoff teams in a given year would be 11. Obviously, 11 is much less than 33. Furthermore, if the format involves homefield advantage and reseeding through the semifinals, a strong regular season has more value than it does in CBB.

The bottom line is that the differences between a 16 team CFB playoff and a 65 team CBB tournament are substantial:

1. A 16 team playoff is eight less teams than a statistically equivalent CBB playoff.

2. A CFB playoff would include 16% of all BCS members at most. Even if there are no auto bids, and all 16 playoff teams could be BCS members, that is still only 24% compared to the near annual 50% that make the NCAA tournament.

3. And homefield advantage and easier opponents in each round makes a stronger season more important. The Michigan-Ohio State game likely meant the difference between hosting the 4th seed in a semifinal as opposed to playing at the 2nd seed. That difference is much greater than any consequences resulting from any CCB regular season game.

Of course, these differences may not change anyone's opposition to a 16 team playoff. Nevertheless, it is important that those opposed recognize that the comparison between the two playoffs is not valid.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Why would I try and end tournaments in other sports? You are the one who said that playoffs would render the regular season meaningless. If so, doesn't it logically follow that you would want to put an end to all championship playoffs?

In all your examples, the said teams lost to National Champion BCS teams...I don't see how this is arguing for mid-major inclusion You have incorrectly assumed that I am arguing for mid-major inclusion. Rather, I am arguing for the NCAA to treat D-IA football exactly as it treats D-IAA, D-II and D-III football, basketball at every level and every other sport at every level. For D-IA, I would prefer a seeding system that that includes the 16-top teams, according to the NCAA's ranking system, regardless of conference affiliations. If no "mid-majors" qualify, then so be it. If several "mid-majors" qualify that is also fine.

I think a 16 playoff would degrade the quality of DIA football more than enhance it ("second chance" teams degrade the regular season) We know from long experience that 16-team playoffs have not degraded regular seasons in D-IAA, D-II and D-III football. To the contrary, regular seasons are filled with suspense and excitement as teams battle to be awarded tournament seeds. Keep in mind that there are no movements to abolish 16-team playoffs in D-IAA, D-II and D-III. We also know from long experience that playoffs work in virtually every other NCAA sports at every level, as well as in every other sport at every level from Little League to high schools to the pros.

One more point, EvilVodka -- if your school does not want to participate in an NCAA football championship tournament, all it has to do is to decline an invitation. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever why the BCS cannot continue, exactly as is, alongside NCAA playoffs.

[GatorGrad]

Herd Fan:

Please tell me what "NCAA Ranking System" you would use to determine the 16 teams in your proposed 16-team NCAA Football Tournament that apparently would not include all 11 conference champs. Your argument would hold more weight to me if you wanted all 11 conference champs to get auto bids. I can see that point as I understand that the ability to "control your own destiny" regardless of conference is important. That's the main reason I would love to see a 16-team tournament too.

But if you're just going to use "rankings" then how is this any different than what we have now with the BCS? The BCS IS a playoff. It's just a 2-team playoff. They are going to discuss doubling it to 4 teams which I would love to see. You are basically saying that you want it to expand to 16 teams based on "rankings?" Then your system is no better than what we have now as far as being "fair." Conference champs that finish unbeaten could still finish outside of the top 16 of whatever "rankings" you are talking about. And then the issue is not resolved. Not to mention 3 and 4 loss teams would get in to the playoff and yes that would slightly diminish the importance of the regular season. If you're going to go strictly by "rankings," then I would say 4 or 8 max would be fine. No way should you go to 16 teams based on "rankings" without including all 11 conference champs. That would be silly.

[CJHawkeyes]

Herd Fan:

Please tell me what "NCAA Ranking System" you would use to determine the 16 teams in your proposed 16-team NCAA Football Tournament that apparently would not include all 11 conference champs. Your argument would hold more weight to me if you wanted all 11 conference champs to get auto bids. I can see that point as I understand that the ability to "control your own destiny" regardless of conference is important. That's the main reason I would love to see a 16-team tournament too.

But if you're just going to use "rankings" then how is this any different than what we have now with the BCS? The BCS IS a playoff. It's just a 2-team playoff. They are going to discuss doubling it to 4 teams which I would love to see. You are basically saying that you want it to expand to 16 teams based on "rankings?" Then your system is no better than what we have now as far as being "fair." Conference champs that finish unbeaten could still finish outside of the top 16 of whatever "rankings" you are talking about. And then the issue is not resolved. Not to mention 3 and 4 loss teams would get in to the playoff and yes that would slightly diminish the importance of the regular season. If you're going to go strictly by "rankings," then I would say 4 or 8 max would be fine. No way should you go to 16 teams based on "rankings" without including all 11 conference champs. That would be silly.

Again, this is not my first choice, but for the sake of argument, a 16 team playoff involving the top 16 based on records would include the following teams:

1 -Ohio State
2 -Boise State
3 -Florida
4 -Michigan
5 -Louisville
6 -Wisconsin
7 -Southern California
8 -Louisiana State
9 -Auburn
10 -Oklahoma
11 -Notre Dame
12 -West Virginia
13 -Rutgers
14 -Virginia Tech
15 -Wake Forest
16 -Brigham Young

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Please tell me what "NCAA Ranking System" you would use to determine the 16 teams in your proposed 16-team NCAA Football Tournament that apparently would not include all 11 conference champs. Good question, GatorGrad. The answer is very simple. The NCAA would make that decision, just as it does for the D-IAA, D-II and D-III seedings.

My personal preference would be for the top-16 teams according to the NCAA's ranking system, regardless of conference affiliation. However, if the NCAA opts for another system, such as the 11 conference champions plus the 5 top rated at-large teams, that also would be ok.

Keep in mind that no school would be obligated to participate. If, for example, the #5-seed declines the playoffs invitation, the #6 through #16-seeds would each move up a notch, and the #17-seed would move in.

[CJHawkeyes]

Good question, GatorGrad. The answer is very simple. The NCAA would make that decision, just as it does for the D-IAA, D-II and D-III seedings.

My personal preference would be for the top-16 teams according to the NCAA's ranking system, regardless of conference affiliation. However, if the NCAA opts for another system, such as the 11 conference champions plus the 5 top rated at-large teams, that also would be ok.

Keep in mind that no school would be obligated to participate. If, for example, the #5-seed declines the playoffs invitation, the #6 through #16-seeds would each move up a notch, and the #17-seed would move in.

Do you have a specific ranking system you favor? I don't think you should trust that the NCAA will come up with rules favorable to your team. Anything that involves the use of subjectivity should be eliminated as a possibility.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Also, Gatorgrad, I am not advocating abolishing the BCS system in favor of a 16-team playoff system.

I could care less what the BCS chooses to do. If the BCS wants a 2-team playoff, that is fine with me. If the BCS wants a 4-team playoff, that also is fine with me. The winner of any BCS playoff would be the BCS champion.

But, I am advocating that the NCAA host a 16-team national championship playoff for D-IA, just as it does for all other football divisions. The winner of the NCAA tournament would be the NCAA D-IA national champion.

[Blue Hen]

I agree, GG. In an all inclusive CF playoff, conference championships have to mean something and be the auto qualifying ticket. The selection comittee can look at assorted rankings to guide them in the at-large selections, but no logical way around the conference champ qualifiers.

[Don]

Would you like to see BCS schools form their own classification and compete solely against one another or would you be in favor of an equitable system for all I-A schools? Personally, I could not care less if a nonBCS school ever wins the national title. However, I think they should have the same opportunity to do so, but if BCS schools have no intention of providing that opportunity and a large number of BCS fans do not want them to, why continue to compete against them? Do fans gain satisfaction from beating teams that have the deck stacked against them?

Whether you include them or not is really irrelevant IF there is going to be ANY reasonable playoff system. That system cannot be large enough to include all conference champions so some sort of selection "tool" will be used and that "tool" WILL eliminate the non-BCS schools (unless it involves random selections). Even a 16 team playoff IS TOO SMALL to include all conference champions. IN basketball there are 65 teams that participate out of over 300 D1A bb schools and that equates to 26 teams out of 120 fb D1A teams (too many). Conversely, IF the BB tournament had only 40 teams (16/120*300 = 40) do you think that the smaller conferences would still have auto-bids? Remember that in BB the 16 seeds are ALWAYS conference champs and have NEVER won a single game. ANY system will include some sort of SOS/RPI/whatever and that WILL be the end to almost all non-BCS schools participation in the playoffs.

IF that is what is going to happens then why not separate the BSC and non-BCS schools so that each can play for a championship?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Do you have a specific ranking system you favor? I don't think you should trust that the NCAA will come up with rules favorable to your team. No, CJ, I don't have a specific ranking system in mind. Actually, I do trust the NCAA to come up with a fair system for determining the seedings for a 16 team championship tournament -- just as it has done for D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs for many years.

I do not want rules that are favorable to my team. I want a system that is fair and equitable for all teams.

[CJHawkeyes]

No, CJ, I don't have a specific ranking system in mind. Actually, I do trust the NCAA to come up with a fair system for determining the seedings for a 16 team championship tournament -- just as it has done for D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs for many years.

I do not want rules that are favorable to my team. I want a system that is fair and equitable for all teams.

I didn't mean to suggest rules that are biased in favor of your team, but rather rules that are more respectful of nonBCS schools. For example, nonBCS schools typically finish higher under the rules I favor than they do in polls or under the BCS formula while still falling well short of making the top 2.

[CJHawkeyes]

Whether you include them or not is really irrelevant IF there is going to be ANY reasonable playoff system. That system cannot be large enough to include all conference champions so some sort of selection "tool" will be used and that "tool" WILL eliminate the non-BCS schools (unless it involves random selections). Even a 16 team playoff IS TOO SMALL to include all conference champions. IN basketball there are 65 teams that participate out of over 300 D1A bb schools and that equates to 26 teams out of 120 fb D1A teams (too many). Conversely, IF the BB tournament had only 40 teams (16/120*300 = 40) do you think that the smaller conferences would still have auto-bids? Remember that in BB the 16 seeds are ALWAYS conference champs and have NEVER won a single game. ANY system will include some sort of SOS/RPI/whatever and that WILL be the end to almost all non-BCS schools participation in the playoffs.

IF that is what is going to happens then why not separate the BSC and non-BCS schools so that each can play for a championship?


Admittedly, auto bids for all conference champions has some problems, but I do think a 16 team playoff is enough to allow auto bids for all. Furthermore, I believe NCAA rules require auto bids for all conference champions in CBB which why the ridiculous play-in game was added to compensate for an additional champion without eliminating an at-large berth.

[EvilVodka]

I want a system that is fair and equitable for all teams.

I don't want to sacrifice quality for fair and equitable

There's only been a handful of non-BCS teams that have really had an argument to play for a National Championship

Personally, I don't really care how the NCAA has implemented a playoff for Div IA, II, III

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree

[EvilVodka]

I agree, GG. In an all inclusive CF playoff, conference championships have to mean something and be the auto qualifying ticket. The selection comittee can look at assorted rankings to guide them in the at-large selections, but no logical way around the conference champ qualifiers.


You've gotta have conference champs mean something...otherwise you really make the regular season meaningless

[EvilVodka]

Nevertheless, it is important that those opposed recognize that the comparison between the two playoffs is not valid.

But its valid to cite the college basketball tourney as an example why college football should have a playoff?

cmon now...

IMO, its pretty stupid to compare the two sports at all

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Fair enough, EvilVodka. So, let's just compare football to football:

The NAIA has a 16-team championship playoff
NCAA D-III has a 32-team championship playoff
NCAA D-II has a 24-team championship playoff
NCAA D-IAA has a 16-team championship playoff
The NFL has a 12-team championship playoff
There are hundreds of high school playoffs across America

In American football, only NCAA D-IA does not have a football championship playoff.

My question to you:
Why would you even care if the NCAA hosted a championship playoff for D-IA football if the BCS would remain free to operate as it pleases postseason?

[Don]

Admittedly, auto bids for all conference champions has some problems, but I do think a 16 team playoff is enough to allow auto bids for all. Furthermore, I believe NCAA rules require auto bids for all conference champions in CBB which why the ridiculous play-in game was added to compensate for an additional champion without eliminating an at-large berth.

16 teams IS NOT large enough for inclusion of all conference champions. In BB there are MORE at-large bids than there are conference champs. That is the only reason that those smaller conferences get in (that and the fact that the payouts depend on how far a team gets into the tournament so that the payout to those little conferences in VERY small compared to what the teams get that advance to say the sweet 16). Those small conferences will take home $1.06M (out of $132.1M or less than 1%) for 6 units compared to the SEC which is projected to receive $13.1 million for 74 units from the NCAA, tied with the Pac-10 for fourth most. The Big East ($14.9 million), Big 12 ($14.3 million) and ACC ($14.1 million) will receive more.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/10/giving-out-the-ncaa-tournament-cash/

In FB to have more at-large berths would require the field to be at least 24 teams and 23 games (this would still give the small conferences MUCH more money than the NCAA BB tournament).

By the way, here is an interesting article on the SEC in 2005-2006 season.

https://www.lindyssports.com/content.php?id=221

"....Broken down by categories and rounded off, the $116.1 million was derived from $47.4 million from football television, $20.7 million from bowls, $13.2 million from the SEC Football Championship, $12.1 million from basketball television, $4.4 million from the SEC Men's Basketball Tournament and $18.3 million from NCAA Championships. ..."

That speaks volume about Conference Championship Games, $13.2M!

[GatorGrad]

Yes, I love the 12-team conference w/ 2 divisions and conference championship game. There's nothing like winning a true UNDISPUTED championship, especially in a league like the SEC. No shared titles, and the title is based on game results and standings. Nothing like winning in the Georgia Dome. That's our Super Bowl. I actually enjoyed our 2006 SEC Title in Atlanta more than winning in Glendale. The SEC race is what it's all about to me. I care much more about the SEC race than I do the BCS race.

[CJHawkeyes]

But its valid to cite the college basketball tourney as an example why college football should have a playoff?

cmon now...

IMO, its pretty stupid to compare the two sports at all


I don't believe I have ever made the argument that college football should have one because college basketball does. I would also agree that comparing the sports is stupid. My desire for a college football playoff is unrelated to my interest in any other sport.

[CJHawkeyes]

16 teams IS NOT large enough for inclusion of all conference champions. In BB there are MORE at-large bids than there are conference champs. That is the only reason that those smaller conferences get in (that and the fact that the payouts depend on how far a team gets into the tournament so that the payout to those little conferences in VERY small compared to what the teams get that advance to say the sweet 16). Those small conferences will take home $1.06M (out of $132.1M or less than 1%) for 6 units compared to the SEC which is projected to receive $13.1 million for 74 units from the NCAA, tied with the Pac-10 for fourth most. The Big East ($14.9 million), Big 12 ($14.3 million) and ACC ($14.1 million) will receive more.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/10/giving-out-the-ncaa-tournament-cash/

In FB to have more at-large berths would require the field to be at least 24 teams and 23 games (this would still give the small conferences MUCH more money than the NCAA BB tournament).

By the way, here is an interesting article on the SEC in 2005-2006 season.

https://www.lindyssports.com/content.php?id=221

"....Broken down by categories and rounded off, the $116.1 million was derived from $47.4 million from football television, $20.7 million from bowls, $13.2 million from the SEC Football Championship, $12.1 million from basketball television, $4.4 million from the SEC Men's Basketball Tournament and $18.3 million from NCAA Championships. ..."

That speaks volume about Conference Championship Games, $13.2M!


Actually, 11 fits into 16 nicely and I think an NCAA run playoff would require all conferences be treated equally. That fact is why BCS schools are currently opposed to a playoff. They have no desire to share the pot of gold and they can't circumvent the rules of their own organization in order to implement a lopsided format. While it may not be done due to greed, a 16 team playoff can easily involve auto bids for all conferences.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't want to sacrifice quality for fair and equitable

There's only been a handful of non-BCS teams that have really had an argument to play for a National Championship

Personally, I don't really care how the NCAA has implemented a playoff for Div IA, II, III

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree


How would fair and equitable sacrifice quality? And could the lack of nonBCS teams "that have really had an argument to play for a National Championship" be due to the lack of a fair and equitable system?

This actually relates well to my reason for starting this thread. If BCS schools and their fans do not wish to complete against nonBCS on equal terms, why compete at all?

[Don]

Actually, 11 fits into 16 nicely and I think an NCAA run playoff would require all conferences be treated equally. That fact is why BCS schools are currently opposed to a playoff. They have no desire to share the pot of gold and they can't circumvent the rules of their own organization in order to implement a lopsided format. While it may not be done due to greed, a 16 team playoff can easily involve auto bids for all conferences.

It doesn't fit in nicely. The BCS schools will breakoff and form their own division rather than give all 11 conferences auto-bids.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!! The ONLY reason they get auto bids in BB is because the field is so large that the $ received by these little conferences is less than 1% per conference of the total.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

That is plain silly, Don. BCS conference schools cannot arbitrarily "breakoff and form their own division". They are obligated contractually to follow NCAA rules and procedures. However, BCS conference schools do have the option to drop out of the NCAA and form their own college sports association. In such event, I would suggest that the NCAA prohibit competition in any sport against schools that are not NCAA members.

Although I prefer a D-IA national championship playoffs format where initial invitations would be extended to the 16 highest-rated teams, regardless of conference affiliation, I cannot imagine why any BCS conference school would object to an "11 autobid" national championship playoff format. No team is ever compelled to participate in an NCAA national championship tournament. If an invited school doesn't like the format, all it has to do is to decline the invitation. Thus, even with D-IA national championship playoffs, the BCS would be free to continue to operate as it pleases.

[Blue Hen]

Great way of looking at that, GG. The SEC championship is absolutely real ( no voting or opinions necessary ). The BCS championship is strictly 'mythical'.

[Don]

That is plain silly, Don. BCS conference schools cannot arbitrarily "breakoff and form their own division". They are obligated contractually to follow NCAA rules and procedures. However, BCS conference schools do have the option to drop out of the NCAA and form their own college sports association. In such event, I would suggest that the NCAA prohibit competition in any sport against schools that are not NCAA members.

Although I prefer a D-IA national championship playoffs format where initial invitations would be extended to the 16 highest-rated teams, regardless of conference affiliation, I cannot imagine why any BCS conference school would object to an "11 autobid" national championship playoff format. No team is ever compelled to participate in an NCAA national championship tournament. If an invited school doesn't like the format, all it has to do is to decline the invitation. Thus, even with D-IA national championship playoffs, the BCS would be free to continue to operate as it pleases.


Why couldn't they just walk? IF the 66 (if my count is correct) BCS teams left that would be the end of D1A and if the NCAA objected then that would be the end of the NCAA. The NCAA budget would be ~zero. The remaining ~54 teams and the NCAA could hold a playoff with the same coverage as the NCAA women's gymnastics tournament gets (or the same as the current D1AA playoff gets). And don't go on about getting Congress involved. IF those 66 teams left so would all of the political power. Make no mistake about it - the BCS teams WILL decide the future of D1A including who is included and who isn't.

[GatorGrad]

That is plain silly, Don. BCS conference schools cannot arbitrarily "breakoff and form their own division". They are obligated contractually to follow NCAA rules and procedures. However, BCS conference schools do have the option to drop out of the NCAA and form their own college sports association. In such event, I would suggest that the NCAA prohibit competition in any sport against schools that are not NCAA members.

Although I prefer a D-IA national championship playoffs format where initial invitations would be extended to the 16 highest-rated teams, regardless of conference affiliation, I cannot imagine why any BCS conference school would object to an "11 autobid" national championship playoff format. No team is ever compelled to participate in an NCAA national championship tournament. If an invited school doesn't like the format, all it has to do is to decline the invitation. Thus, even with D-IA national championship playoffs, the BCS would be free to continue to operate as it pleases.

Why do you always feel the need to point out that teams wouldn't HAVE to participate in the NCAA Football Tournament? You know that both would not exist. If the NCAA stepped up and created an NCAA Football Tournament, it WOULD replace the BCS. Until then, the BCS is the best that we have. This isn't like the old days in hoops where teams actually chose between the NIT or NCAA Tourney. The landscape is much different.

Also, what's to stop the 6 BCS Conferences from forming their own "Super Conference" or their own league with their own playoff in the future? It might still be the BCS or a 6-team or 8-team BCS Playoff. I could see that happening. Given the huge financial differences between the BCS and nonBCS leagues, I could definitely see something like this happening someday.

[CJHawkeyes]

It doesn't fit in nicely. The BCS schools will breakoff and form their own division rather than give all 11 conferences auto-bids.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!! The ONLY reason they get auto bids in BB is because the field is so large that the $ received by these little conferences is less than 1% per conference of the total.


You may be correct. It may never happen due to greed, but that doesn't mean 11 doesn't fit into 16. And you are wrong about CBB. It used to be that only conference champions made the NCAA tournament. The number of at-large berths grew in order to get more major teams into the tournament. NCAA rules require all conferences be treated equally. The Big Six may be able to leave the NCAA if they wanted to, but as NCAA members, they don't get to deny auto bids to the other conferences. Why do you think the NCAA isn't in charge of college football's postseason? Because the BCS could not exist in its present form if run by the NCAA.

Of course, your argument relates to my premise for this thread. Do you want a competition that treats all I-A schools and conferences equally? And if not, do you want your own "league"? Why continue to compete against teams you don't allow to compete on a level playing field?

[Don]

Impossible no, but highly improbable. NonBCS teams are already less likely to go unbeaten versus the average nonBCS schedule than BCS teams versus the average BCS schedule because the former face more parity in and out of conference. Basically, the BCS has guaranteed its best teams the talent necessary to succeed versus the required schedule while simutaneously making it more difficult for nonBCS teams to go unbeaten versus the schedules do play....

ANY "parity" in those small conferences is due to the fact that most of them suck! (not because they are good).

... Add to this the fact that 1984 BYU is the only unbeaten non-major to finish the regular season ranked ahead of a one-loss major in the past 29 years. Therefore, nonBCS teams that go unbeaten versus average nonBCS schedule likely need 65 of 66 BCS teams to lose twice and that has never happened.

It shouldn't have happened that year either! BYU played a crap scheduled and got away with it. They are the ones that caused the big schools to change the rules. In 1984 BYU played NOT ONE TEAM that ended the year ranked. In fact using Mr. Howell's ranking system, the highest ranked opponent was AF at #25. Ranking AF #25 seems a reach as AF beat 2 teams all year that had winning records (7-5 ND and 8-4 VT who only beat 2 teams with winning records). BYU next best opponent was #41 Hawaii. This is compared to say (drum roll please) UF who played 5 teams that ended up AP ranked (the AP ranked only 20 teams then) and if you use Mr. Howell's system UF played 6 teams (out of 11) that were higher ranked than ANY team BYU played. In fact 8 out of UF 11 opponents were ranked in the top 35 in the Howell system.

There is simply no way a reasonable person that can conclude that the BCS is equitable. Whereas I can tell you exactly what Boise State needed to do to make the top 2 under the rules I favor, the BCS provides no blueprint for these teams to make the BCS top 2.

What? Beside actually play a meaningful schedule!

College football needs transparent objective rules that encourage strong majors to play strong mid-majors and that encourage recruits to choose nonBCS schools because the recruits can see that you can win at a nonBCS school. Of course, BCS schools and many of their fans do not want this which is why I asked the questions I did.

Those mid-majors CAN play strong BCS teams but the problem is the mid-majors want home-and-home which isn't going to happen. The mid-majors NEED to play tough opponents so the onus is on the mid-major to play AT the tough opponent site. Last year, UF played AT Tennessee, AT Auburn, and AT Florida State (all of which are rated higher than any opponent BSU played away). I'm sure these teams wouldn't object IF Boise State asked to play AT Tennessee, AT Auburn, and AT Florida State. Just think IF BSU had played those games away AND had gone 12-0 BSU and NOT UF would have played OSU!

[CJHawkeyes]

ANY "parity" in those small conferences is due to the fact that most of them suck! (not because they are good).



It shouldn't have happened that year either! BYU played a crap scheduled and got away with it. They are the ones that caused the big schools to change the rules. In 1984 BYU played NOT ONE TEAM that ended the year ranked. In fact using Mr. Howell's ranking system, the highest ranked opponent was AF at #25. Ranking AF #25 seems a reach as AF beat 2 teams all year that had winning records (7-5 ND and 8-4 VT who only beat 2 teams with winning records). BYU next best opponent was #41 Hawaii. This is compared to say (drum roll please) UF who played 5 teams that ended up AP ranked (the AP ranked only 20 teams then) and if you use Mr. Howell's system UF played 6 teams (out of 11) that were higher ranked than ANY team BYU played. In fact 8 out of UF 11 opponents were ranked in the top 35 in the Howell system.



What? Beside actually play a meaningful schedule!



Those mid-majors CAN play strong BCS teams but the problem is the mid-majors want home-and-home which isn't going to happen. The mid-majors NEED to play tough opponents so the onus is on the mid-major to play AT the tough opponent site. Last year, UF played AT Tennessee, AT Auburn, and AT Florida State (all of which are rated higher than any opponent BSU played away). I'm sure these teams wouldn't object IF Boise State asked to play AT Tennessee, AT Auburn, and AT Florida State. Just think IF BSU had played those games away AND had gone 12-0 BSU and NOT UF would have played OSU!

1. I agree that BYU played a weak schedule in 1984, but so did everyone ranked near the top that year. Based on my own ranking system, BYU's 1984 resume would have placed them between 4th and 7th in all years since 1978. In fact, there are three-loss teams that have earned more points under my system. That said, BYU's resume was strong enough to win in 1984 and 1984 only. As for Florida, my system had the 9-1-1 Gators ranked first through the regular season, but probation kept them out of a bowl game. Subsequently, BYU and Washington were able to pass them in the standings.

2. Parity in small conferences is not simply due to those teams being weak but rather is the result of a system designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS schools down. There is nothing brave about playing the average BCS schedule compared to the average nonBCS schedule when the system guarantees that the best BCS members have the talent to succeed at a higher rate than nonBCS members against their respective schedules.

3. The nonBCS teams can and should play top BCS teams argument is extremely flawed. For starters, the system does not allow nonBCS schools to attract the talent needed to compete on a consistent basis. It is rather simple to assume that prized recruits would still choose BCS schools over nonBCS schools at the same rate. However, when the system simply does not allow nonBCS schools to win notwithstanding one million things falling into place, there is no choice but a BCS school. If I were a recuit, I'd choose Duke over Boise State with this system in place. Furthermore, the system does not give the best BCS schools an incentive to play the best nonBCS schools. Even if nonBCS schools should expect to play these games on the road, they wouldn't even have to ask if the BCS created an incentive to play such games because the best BCS schools would be falling over themselves trying to schedule them. Fact is, there is no real diffference between scheduling Boise State and Idaho for a BCS school. With the BCS, we have a system that allows BCS schools to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees their members play the required schedule, guarantees their best members face less parity, then requires the best nonBCS teams play teams that do not need to play them, and then BCS fans act as if their teams have it so hard while blaming nonBCS schools for failing to compete under a system designed to ensure their failure.

[CJHawkeyes]

BTW, you neglected to mention that Howell's system placed BYU first. Why use a system to argue against BYU placing first when that system placed them first too?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Don, you asked why the BCS schools couldn't walk. You need a new pair of reading glasses. I said that the BCS schools could indeed drop out of the NCAA and form a new college sports association. I was disputing your silly assertion that the BCS schools could arbitrarily form a new division within the NCAA.

Would the NCAA collapse, as you contend, if the BCS schools formed their own college sports association? I think not. The NAIA does just fine, thank you.

You might find a surprise at the end of the rainbow, Don, if you do a bit of research before spouting off. You are wrong on almost everything you claim to be fact. Here is one more example: Those mid-majors CAN play strong BCS teams but the problem is the mid-majors want home-and-home which isn't going to happen. Check out this link and learn something: http://nationalchamps.net/NCAA/future_schedules/eastcarolina_future.htm I could give you many more examples of BCS schools signing home-and-home deals with non-BCS schools. But, you will learn better if you do the homework yourself.

[EvilVodka]

Don, you asked why the BCS schools couldn't walk. You need a new pair of reading glasses. I said that the BCS schools could indeed drop out of the NCAA and form a new college sports association.


Doesn't matter if you say it or not, its not going to happen and is far removed from reality

[EvilVodka]

2. Parity in small conferences is not simply due to those teams being weak but rather is the result of a system designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS schools down. There is nothing brave about playing the average BCS schedule compared to the average nonBCS schedule when the system guarantees that the best BCS members have the talent to succeed at a higher rate than nonBCS members against their respective schedules.

3. The nonBCS teams can and should play top BCS teams argument is extremely flawed. For starters, the system does not allow nonBCS schools to attract the talent needed to compete on a consistent basis. It is rather simple to assume that prized recruits would still choose BCS schools over nonBCS schools at the same rate. However, when the system simply does not allow nonBCS schools to win notwithstanding one million things falling into place, there is no choice but a BCS school. If I were a recuit, I'd choose Duke over Boise State with this system in place. Furthermore, the system does not give the best BCS schools an incentive to play the best nonBCS schools. Even if nonBCS schools should expect to play these games on the road, they wouldn't even have to ask if the BCS created an incentive to play such games because the best BCS schools would be falling over themselves trying to schedule them. Fact is, there is no real diffference between scheduling Boise State and Idaho for a BCS school. With the BCS, we have a system that allows BCS schools to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees their members play the required schedule, guarantees their best members face less parity, then requires the best nonBCS teams play teams that do not need to play them, and then BCS fans act as if their teams have it so hard while blaming nonBCS schools for failing to compete under a system designed to ensure their failure.

What a jumble of bad opinions and generalized statements...

Like I said earlier, if you had a 16 team playoff, its not going to create an even dispersal of recruits...they're still going to flock to the winning powerhouses...

And you picking Duke over Boise State is purely subjective...I'd pick Boise State over Duke any day(assuming you're talking football)...Duke isn't going to do squat in football, you'd really pick a team that will be lucky to get a couple wins vs. a team that has a chance to play in the BCS?? You can still order the Fiesta Bowl on DVD, tell me Duke will ever get that far...

With the BCS, we now have a system that has objective rules for a non-BCS team to make a major Bowl...Without the BCS, Utah and Boise State don't get in to the Fiesta

You're also generalizing the scheduling....Air Force, Utah, and BYU are able to schedule nationally home-and-home series...BYU has played USC and Notre Dame at home...Utah plays UCLA at home and Louisville on the road this year....Wyoming has been able to schedule home-and-home with Ole Miss and Virginia...

The BCS system (which isn't soley the National Championship game) isn't designed to ensure failure, and I haven't seen anything besides pure opinion to support this...

[GatorGrad]

For the record, I would have no problem with the six BCS Conferences forming their own super conference, division, league, or whatever you want to call it. Imagine if the Big Ten, PAC 10, and Big East all got up to 12 teams just like the ACC, SEC, and BIG 12. Then you would have a 72-team BCS League with six 12-team conferences, all having their own conference title games on "Championship Saturday." You then take the six conference champions and play it off from there with the top two teams getting a bye. Or add two wildcards for a nice perfect little 8-team bracket. Wonderful. Then the nonBCS guys can have their own tournament and be happy. Of course, once they realize that the TV deal, money, and interest in their own tournament would be closer to that of D1-AA's tournament than the current BCS setup, they will realize that they actually used to have it pretty good in the BCS!

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

For once, I agree with you EvilVodka.

You are correct that it is indeed very unlikely that BCS schools would drop out of the NCAA to set up a competing college sports association. Such a move would be a total disaster for the BCS schools, in the court of public opinion and otherwise.

I trust that you are smart enough, EV, to realize that I was simply educating Don that BCS schools cannot arbitrarily create a new NCAA division, but that they do have the option to leave the NCAA.

[CJHawkeyes]

What a jumble of bad opinions and generalized statements...

Like I said earlier, if you had a 16 team playoff, its not going to create an even dispersal of recruits...they're still going to flock to the winning powerhouses...

And you picking Duke over Boise State is purely subjective...I'd pick Boise State over Duke any day(assuming you're talking football)...Duke isn't going to do squat in football, you'd really pick a team that will be lucky to get a couple wins vs. a team that has a chance to play in the BCS?? You can still order the Fiesta Bowl on DVD, tell me Duke will ever get that far...

With the BCS, we now have a system that has objective rules for a non-BCS team to make a major Bowl...Without the BCS, Utah and Boise State don't get in to the Fiesta

You're also generalizing the scheduling....Air Force, Utah, and BYU are able to schedule nationally home-and-home series...BYU has played USC and Notre Dame at home...Utah plays UCLA at home and Louisville on the road this year....Wyoming has been able to schedule home-and-home with Ole Miss and Virginia...

The BCS system (which isn't soley the National Championship game) isn't designed to ensure failure, and I haven't seen anything besides pure opinion to support this...

1. If I wanted to win a national title, I have a better chance of Duke catching lightening in a bottle than I do Boise State. Boise State went undefeated but finished behind a couple of two loss teams including USC who lost to a team the Broncos blew out. Duke, on the other hand, controls its destiny and there are teams that have been down for as long as Duke and have managed to contend for a national title.

2. I never said a 16 team playoff would create an even dispersal of recruits. That said, generations of kids growing up and only knowing an equitable system may eventually close the gap. If recruits could see that winning at a nonBCS school were a reasonable possibility, it is ridiculous to assume the gap wouldn't close. After all, the name schools within the BCS do not always remain on top. If Wake Forest can win a conference that includes Florida State and Miami, there is no reason to assume nonBCS schools cannot recruit and compete much more consistently given the opportunity.

3. The BCS may be an improvement over previous systems for nonBCS schools, but those improvements still do not equate to a level playing field.

4. So there are a handful of exceptions to the rule regarding scheduling. There is still no incentive for BCS schools to play the top nonBCS schools. Otherwise, as I claim, BCS schools would be falling over themselves to schedule Boise State. After all, it would be an "easy" valuable win. As for Wyoming scheduling Virginia and Mississippi, what does that get them? Bottom line is that nonBCS schools should not be at the mercy of BCS schools agreeing to schedule them due to the system forced upon them.

[EvilVodka]

1. If I wanted to win a national title, I have a better chance of Duke catching lightening in a bottle than I do Boise State. Boise State went undefeated but finished behind a couple of two loss teams including USC who lost to a team the Broncos blew out. Duke, on the other hand, controls its destiny and there are teams that have been down for as long as Duke and have managed to contend for a national title.

2. I never said a 16 team playoff would create an even dispersal of recruits. That said, generations of kids growing up and only knowing an equitable system may eventually close the gap. If recruits could see that winning at a nonBCS school were a reasonable possibility, it is ridiculous to assume the gap wouldn't close. After all, the name schools within the BCS do not always remain on top. If Wake Forest can win a conference that includes Florida State and Miami, there is no reason to assume nonBCS schools cannot recruit and compete much more consistently given the opportunity.

3. The BCS may be an improvement over previous systems for nonBCS schools, but those improvements still do not equate to a level playing field.

4. So there are a handful of exceptions to the rule regarding scheduling. There is still no incentive for BCS schools to play the top nonBCS schools. Otherwise, as I claim, BCS schools would be falling over themselves to schedule Boise State. After all, it would be an "easy" valuable win. As for Wyoming scheduling Virginia and Mississippi, what does that get them? Bottom line is that nonBCS schools should not be at the mercy of BCS schools agreeing to schedule them due to the system forced upon them.

1. the ability to control your own destiny is one factor among many in a stirpot of criteria to win a National Championship...Duke has high academic standards, Boise State is probably a couple steps away from community college status...seriously, who do you think could recruit the best players between the schools?

2. Wake Forest didn't win the ACC due to recruiting....but you are partially right...the key is coaches (not primarily recruiting)...coaches like Urban Meyer may be more inclined to stay at a Utah if there is direct access to the BCS...but the big traditional powerhouse schools will still draw the best coaches, win the most, and get the best recruits...How many times did Petrino at Louisville court SEC programs? How bout Rodriquez at West Virginia? You can't change the deck thats stacked against programs like Idaho because the deck is based on history and years of winning...the BCS isn't the cause, its the effect of this....Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma....they will always recruit better than Southern Miss, East Carolina, Rice, Central Michigan, San Jose State, because the best coaches flock to the highest profile schools

3. I'll agree with that

4. I don't think the system is "forced upon them"....if that were the case, why are programs still trying to make the jump from IAA to IA?? Why are they leaving behind the fair and equitable Championship division that sports a playoff, and voluntarily (basically pleading the NCAA) joining the Bowl division that is supposedly "slanted" against them?

[EvilVodka]

For once, I agree with you EvilVodka.

You are correct that it is indeed very unlikely that BCS schools would drop out of the NCAA to set up a competing college sports association. Such a move would be a total disaster for the BCS schools, in the court of public opinion and otherwise.

Otherwise being that it would be a huge monumental hassle and alot of work to try and start from ground zero with all their other sports...women's softball, tennis, basketball, baseball, wrestling, lacrosse, soccer, etc.

it would be a mess to try and work out

[CJHawkeyes]

EV,

I have always said that I don't care if a nonBCS school ever wins the national title nor I do I pretend to know how much such schools would benefit from a system that meets my defintion of equitable. But I do know the BCS, which is just an extension of previous systems, is designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS schools down. Any gains nonBCS schools have received from the creation of the BCS are simply scraps thrown their way to avoid lawsuits.

That said, why is it that haves and have-nots in the marginal sports compete on a level playing field? I saw recently where IPFW played for the men's volleyball title, John Hopkins is a lacrosse power, Rice and Cal State Fullerton and others are baseball powers. There are examples like these in other minor sports. However, in the money sports, there is a chasm between the have and have-nots because the former have been able to implement system after system that has created a culture whereby recruits know the odds of winning it all at a mid-major school are astronomical.

I made the argument that the effect of the BCS is that all teams are ranked best to worst record after nonBCS teams are assigned a one game penalty to start the competition. In fact, the BCS is worse than that. Now, suppose all recruits could choose any I-A school with the same confidence that an unbeaten season would earn them a shot at the title no matter the uniform they wear. What impact would that have on recruiting? I understand that fans would be opposed to ranking all teams by records because they don't want to see weak schedules encouraged and rewarded and I'm not actually advocating such rules. However, the point is that schedule strength only impacts nonBCS schools to the point of eliminating them from realistic contention whereas BCS teams are ranked by the records. The fact that that BCS teams play more talented competition in conference is negated by the fact that BCS conference champions are guaranteed to have the talent necessary to succeed at a higher rate by the system they setup to do just that. These schools are not being brave by playing more talented competition when they have setup a system that guarantees in doing so that their best actually face less parity.

[Don]

2. Parity in small conferences is not simply due to those teams being weak but rather is the result of a system designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS schools down. There is nothing brave about playing the average BCS schedule compared to the average nonBCS schedule when the system guarantees that the best BCS members have the talent to succeed at a higher rate than nonBCS members against their respective schedules.

You keep stating that the system is designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS school down. Please explain what you are talking about and how it happens.

3. The nonBCS teams can and should play top BCS teams argument is extremely flawed. For starters, the system does not allow nonBCS schools to attract the talent needed to compete on a consistent basis. It is rather simple to assume that prized recruits would still choose BCS schools over nonBCS schools at the same rate. However, when the system simply does not allow nonBCS schools to win notwithstanding one million things falling into place, there is no choice but a BCS school. If I were a recuit, I'd choose Duke over Boise State with this system in place. Furthermore, the system does not give the best BCS schools an incentive to play the best nonBCS schools. Even if nonBCS schools should expect to play these games on the road, they wouldn't even have to ask if the BCS created an incentive to play such games because the best BCS schools would be falling over themselves trying to schedule them. Fact is, there is no real diffference between scheduling Boise State and Idaho for a BCS school. With the BCS, we have a system that allows BCS schools to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees their members play the required schedule, guarantees their best members face less parity, then requires the best nonBCS teams play teams that do not need to play them, and then BCS fans act as if their teams have it so hard while blaming nonBCS schools for failing to compete under a system designed to ensure their failure.

Again, you keep going on about how the system is rigged against the nonBCS schools. Please explain what you are talking about and how it happens.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you decry the fact that BCS teams play poor OOC games to "pad" their schedules and on the other you also expect the world to give in and seat the nonBCS teams at bowltime with the BCS teams. EVERY COMPUTER RANKING SYSTEM has the nonBCS conferences at the bottom of the heap in rankings (with the occasional exception for the MWC). Therefore, it could be argued that the nonBCS teams have "padded" their schedules by playing an entire schedule of poor opponents in-conference. How is that fair?

Teams like BSU NEED to play BCS teams on the road and BEAT them! BSU has been in D1A for 11 years and has the 12th best W-L record over that span and yet have played only 15 BCS teams (2-13). Of the 15 games 11 were on the road (0-11). How is this fair?

Compare this to USF which has been in D1A for only 7 years and 5 of those as a nonBCS team. USF is 10-16 against BCS teams (5-13 on the road). It didn't take USF long to get going. They scheduled on the road (as a nonBCS team) Kentucky, Baylor, Pittsburgh, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and South Carolina during their first 5 years. They even beat a BCS team on the road that had a winning record (something BSU STILL hasn't done). That's the difference, USF actually beat someone on the road and BSU can't.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

What a genius you are, Don. USF, with its distinguished 7-year D-IA history and its big road win over a BCS conference team with a winning record, certainly earned its way to be among the privileged BCS schools.

No doubt Fresno State's BCS conference invitation is in the mail...

[CJHawkeyes]

You keep stating that the system is designed to prop up BCS schools and keep nonBCS school down. Please explain what you are talking about and how it happens.



Again, you keep going on about how the system is rigged against the nonBCS schools. Please explain what you are talking about and how it happens.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you decry the fact that BCS teams play poor OOC games to "pad" their schedules and on the other you also expect the world to give in and seat the nonBCS teams at bowltime with the BCS teams. EVERY COMPUTER RANKING SYSTEM has the nonBCS conferences at the bottom of the heap in rankings (with the occasional exception for the MWC). Therefore, it could be argued that the nonBCS teams have "padded" their schedules by playing an entire schedule of poor opponents in-conference. How is that fair?

Teams like BSU NEED to play BCS teams on the road and BEAT them! BSU has been in D1A for 11 years and has the 12th best W-L record over that span and yet have played only 15 BCS teams (2-13). Of the 15 games 11 were on the road (0-11). How is this fair?

Compare this to USF which has been in D1A for only 7 years and 5 of those as a nonBCS team. USF is 10-16 against BCS teams (5-13 on the road). It didn't take USF long to get going. They scheduled on the road (as a nonBCS team) Kentucky, Baylor, Pittsburgh, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and South Carolina during their first 5 years. They even beat a BCS team on the road that had a winning record (something BSU STILL hasn't done). That's the difference, USF actually beat someone on the road and BSU can't.

It should self-evident after 29 I-A seasons including nine years of the BCS that major college football is grossly lopsided in favor of major conference schools. There is simply no way that this much disparity would exist between two groups of teams competing in the same classification if an equitable system were in place. If not, then one would have to believe that Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida moving to the Big East did nothing to improve their chances of winning it all. However, those schools, by virtue of being BCS members, have access to talent they would not have had if the they remained in C-USA had the ACC did not expanded. Recruits now know that an unbeaten season at one of those schools guarantees a title berth if 64 other BCS schools lose once.

[Blue Hen]

"ranked, ranked, ranked ,ranked, ranked' ......meaningless

[Don]

What a genius you are, Don. USF, with its distinguished 7-year D-IA history and its big road win over a BCS conference team with a winning record, certainly earned its way to be among the privileged BCS schools.

No doubt Fresno State's BCS conference invitation is in the mail...

I must be, as USF IS a BCS school and BSU NEVER WILL BE!!!

USF played a non-D1A schedule during their first 2 years (they only played 8 and not 9 D1A teams).
But in the 3 years prior to becoming a BE team USF played a significantly tougher schedule than BSU even though BSU was 36-3 over that span.

Apparently they showed SOMETHING that BSU didn't! (GUTS?)

FYI, Fresno State is 4-18 on the road vs BCS teams (including a win over eventual #9 Colorado) over the same span that BSU is 0-11!

Fresno State is MUCH more deserving of an invitation than BSU!!!

[CJHawkeyes]

I must be, as USF IS a BCS school and BSU NEVER WILL BE!!!

USF played a non-D1A schedule during their first 2 years (they only played 8 and not 9 D1A teams).
But in the 3 years prior to becoming a BE team USF played a significantly tougher schedule than BSU even though BSU was 36-3 over that span.

Apparently they showed SOMETHING that BSU didn't! (GUTS?)

FYI, Fresno State is 4-18 on the road vs BCS teams (including a win over eventual #9 Colorado) over the same span that BSU is 0-11!

Fresno State is MUCH more deserving of an invitation than BSU!!!

I think you missed the point. South Florida did not earn its way to a BCS membership. It lucked into one by way of the ACC raiding the Big East and the Big East needing members and favoring South Florida to take the spot vacated by Miami. BTW, that Fresno State team that won at Big 12 champion Colorado had its unbeaten season ended at home against...........Boise State.

[Don]

It should self-evident after 29 I-A seasons including nine years of the BCS that major college football is grossly lopsided in favor of major conference schools. There is simply no way that this much disparity would exist between two groups of teams competing in the same classification if an equitable system were in place. If not, then one would have to believe that Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida moving to the Big East did nothing to improve their chances of winning it all. However, those schools, by virtue of being BCS members, have access to talent they would not have had if the they remained in C-USA had the ACC did not expanded. Recruits now know that an unbeaten season at one of those schools guarantees a title berth if 64 other BCS schools lose once.

They NEVER could compete! So you're saying that from 1977 to 2006 there was this conspiracy by the "big" conferences to keep small conferences down. What total crap. Miami and FSU were not in a conference prior to 1991. Yet their programs somehow managed to flourish, why?

Some schools have never shown any ability to compete.

Here is a list of schools over the span of 1947-76 (the 29 year span prior to D1A) that were at the bottom in winning percentage (zero wins) against ranked teams.

Buffalo (0-2-0
Toledo (0-5-0)
Kent St. (0-12-0)
Louisiana Tech (0-1-0)
Northern Ill. (0-3-0)
East Caro. (0-6-0)
Western Mich. (0-7-0)
Ball St. (0-1-0)
Eastern Mich. (0-1-0)
Bowling Green (0-7-0)
Connecticut (0-4-0)
Idaho (0-23-0)
Marshall (0-7-0)
Fresno St. (0-5-0)
Ohio (0-12-0)
UTEP (0-20-0)
New Mexico St. (0-12-0)
Arkansas St. (0-2-0)
Hawaii (0-6-0)
Rutgers (0-5-0)
San Diego St. (0-4-0)

Notice which schools?

Also, Boise State played ZERO ranked teams but had the 3rd best w-l record over this span (according to Sportslink network http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?teamname=ALL&confname=.ALL.&fry=1948&thy=1976&grl=01&grh=25&tgrl=01&tgrh=25&yrl=01&yrh=25&tyrl=01&tyrh=25&mdf=&mdt=&wpl=0.701&wph=1.000&twpl=0.501&twph=1.000&nwl=07&nwh=20&tnwl=07&tnwh=20&nll=07&nlh=20&tnll=07&tnlh=20)

Somethings never change.

[CJHawkeyes]

They NEVER could compete! So you're saying that from 1977 to 2006 there was this conspiracy by the "big" conferences to keep small conferences down. What total crap. Miami and FSU were not in a conference prior to 1991. Yet their programs somehow managed to flourish, why?

Some schools have never shown any ability to compete.

Here is a list of schools over the span of 1947-76 (the 29 year span prior to D1A) that were at the bottom in winning percentage (zero wins) against ranked teams.

Buffalo (0-2-0
Toledo (0-5-0)
Kent St. (0-12-0)
Louisiana Tech (0-1-0)
Northern Ill. (0-3-0)
East Caro. (0-6-0)
Western Mich. (0-7-0)
Ball St. (0-1-0)
Eastern Mich. (0-1-0)
Bowling Green (0-7-0)
Connecticut (0-4-0)
Idaho (0-23-0)
Marshall (0-7-0)
Fresno St. (0-5-0)
Ohio (0-12-0)
UTEP (0-20-0)
New Mexico St. (0-12-0)
Arkansas St. (0-2-0)
Hawaii (0-6-0)
Rutgers (0-5-0)
San Diego St. (0-4-0)

Notice which schools?

Also, Boise State played ZERO ranked teams but had the 3rd best w-l record over this span (according to Sportslink network http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?teamname=ALL&confname=.ALL.&fry=1948&thy=1976&grl=01&grh=25&tgrl=01&tgrh=25&yrl=01&yrh=25&tyrl=01&tyrh=25&mdf=&mdt=&wpl=0.701&wph=1.000&twpl=0.501&twph=1.000&nwl=07&nwh=20&tnwl=07&tnwh=20&nll=07&nlh=20&tnll=07&tnlh=20)

Somethings never change.

Miami and Florida State were major independents during those years. They were in the "club" that existed because they were desired by major bowls simply for the name on their jersey. Miami's homefield is the Orange Bowl. It is ridiculous to compare their plight to that of teams that bowls did not want. Hey, Penn State wasn't in a conference until 1993. I wonder how they managed to compete against all odds. Please. The fact that there was no BCS designation prior to the BCS does not mean the haves and have-nots were unknown prior to it. That is how they knew who to pick for the BCS club.

As for the teams you listed, Louisiana Tech has a road win versus SEC champ Alabama and I believe won there on another occasion. Northern Illinois has won at Alabama recently as well. East Carolina has won at Miami. Bowling Green has won at Purdue and Missouri. Marshall won at Big 12 champ Kansas State. Fresno State won at Big 12 champ Colorado. As for the rest, so what? I certainly have never suggested that an equitable system will guarantee everyone is going to compete. There are BCS schools that seemingly never win. That said, the system in place all but guarantees that these teams cannot win. There is simply no way nonBCS schools can attract the talent needed to win on a consistent basis.

Beyond that, if there were rules that would knowingly produce the same level of parity between all conferences that currently exists between the BCS conferences, BCS members would be against them because they do not want to play fair.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Don -- I don't have the time or the patience to continually educate you. Your contention that USF actually earned its BCS conference invitation exposes your ignorance.

I know all about USF. USF is a 20-minute drive from my home and my daughter is a USF alumni. I have witnessed the development of USF's football program from the very beginning.

USF's invitation to join C-USA and, in short order, a BCS conference, has absolutely nothing to do with merit or achievements on the field of play. Rather, it has everything to do with the Tampa Bay TV market, which is larger than the TV markets of Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cleveland, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Denver, Sacramento, Orlando, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and many other NFL, NBA and MLB cities.

[EvilVodka]

I certainly have never suggested that an equitable system will guarantee everyone is going to compete. There are BCS schools that seemingly never win. That said, the system in place all but guarantees that these teams cannot win. There is simply no way nonBCS schools can attract the talent needed to win on a consistent basis.

Beyond that, if there were rules that would knowingly produce the same level of parity between all conferences that currently exists between the BCS conferences, BCS members would be against them because they do not want to play fair.

Alright this is my last post on this thread...I'm tired of beating my head against this

I'll agree that two different groups have clearly emerged from the BCS (obviously by the labels, you're either BCS or non-BCS), but there's no evidence that a 16 team playoff will create an even dispersal of recruits, or that the BCS is purposely trying to keep the non-BCS down...these responses are just subjective, biased opinions that are often very generalized

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

You are half-right, EV. You are absolutely correct that there is no evidence that a 16-team playoff will create an "even dispersal of recruits". In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Success attracts recruits: schools that have dominated D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs over the years attract the best recruits. Top coaches attract recruits: Urban Meyer at Utah and now at Florida, John Calipari at UMass, the Nets and now at Memphis. Recruits are motivated by a wide array of factors.

However, you are wrong in your contention that the BCS is not purposely trying to keep the non-BCS schools down. That is the entirety of the rationale as to why the BCS schools fear NCAA D-IA championship playoffs. If the BCS would be unaffected by a playoff system, why else would the BCS stridently oppose D-IA championship playoffs? The reason is simple and obvious -- a D-IA playoff system, even if BCS schools do not participate, might just strengthen non-BCS football programs.

[GatorGrad]

You are half-right, EV. You are absolutely correct that there is no evidence that a 16-team playoff will create an "even dispersal of recruits". In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Success attracts recruits: schools that have dominated D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs over the years attract the best recruits. Top coaches attract recruits: Urban Meyer at Utah and now at Florida, John Calipari at UMass, the Nets and now at Memphis. Recruits are motivated by a wide array of factors.

However, you are wrong in your contention that the BCS is not purposely trying to keep the non-BCS schools down. That is the entirety of the rationale as to why the BCS schools fear NCAA D-IA championship playoffs. If the BCS would be unaffected by a playoff system, why else would the BCS stridently oppose D-IA championship playoffs? The reason is simple and obvious -- a D-IA playoff system, even if BCS schools do not participate, might just strengthen non-BCS football programs.

No...it's because of MONEY. You really think that BCS teams "fear" a 16-team playoff because they are scared of nonBCS teams? Hilarious. They have no reason to be scared of nonBCS teams. And I predict that the big boys will still be dominating the sport with or without a 16-team tournament. Thanks for the laugh this morning...I needed it!

[GatorGrad]

CJ - You are playing down teams that used to be independent like FSU, Miami, and Penn St by saying they were already "part of the club" and bowls wanted them, etc. Well maybe that's because they EARNED THEIR WAY TO THAT STATUS OVER TIME. They were not part of a conference, and there was no BCS. FSU was nothing...NOTHING when Bobby Bowden took over. What did he do? He scheduled anyone anywhere. FSU played on the road at big time schools without getting a return trip. That got them on TV, got them exposure, and eventually helped build the program. What did FSU do that nonBCS teams are not doing? They pulled off these road wins over teams like Michigan, Auburn, etc. This is with no BCS and this was before they were a "big boy."

Miami and Penn State also built programs as independents. The current nonBCS schools have the same opportunity, whether you want to admit it or not. If a school really wanted to make a name for itself, start playing at the big boys and WINNING. You have to start somewhere. Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, etc is not going to hand you anything and start playing a home and home with you when there is no competitive or financial reason to do so. FSU hit the road, played the big boys, started winning, and EARNED their way to big boy status. That's the way it should be. Are you a small program that wants to be big time? Earn it. This crying about "fairness" gets old. History has proven that small programs can become big over time. It's hard to do, but it can be done. There aren't any free rides in life.

[Don]

Miami and Florida State were major independents during those years. They were in the "club" that existed because they were desired by major bowls simply for the name on their jersey. Miami's homefield is the Orange Bowl. It is ridiculous to compare their plight to that of teams that bowls did not want. Hey, Penn State wasn't in a conference until 1993. I wonder how they managed to compete against all odds. Please. The fact that there was no BCS designation prior to the BCS does not mean the haves and have-nots were unknown prior to it. That is how they knew who to pick for the BCS club.

FYI....FSU didn't begin to play football until 1949 (the data covers the period from 1948 to 1976) and FSU wasn't much of anything until Bowden got there in 1976, THEN they became something. A team becomes a "major" independent by WINNING! An arguement could be made for PSU also. Prior to Paterno, PSU was 8-35-4 against ranked opponents from 1925 to 1965 but are 73-77-1 (0.48675) vs ranked opponents under Paterno from 1966-2006. This is the 3rd best behind Nebraska 0.49315 and FSU 0.48944. Paterno MADE them "major" by winning.

I certainly have never suggested that an equitable system will guarantee everyone is going to compete. There are BCS schools that seemingly never win.

Does this mean the BCS is conspiring against those BCS teams that can't compete as you are claiming it is conspiring against the smaller conferences? Just because a team can't compete doesn't mean the system is NOT equitable. Provide anything beyond conjecture to prove the BCS is not equitable.

[Don]

I trust that you are smart enough, EV, to realize that I was simply educating Don that BCS schools cannot arbitrarily create a new NCAA division, but that they do have the option to leave the NCAA.

How have you "educated" me by providing your OPINION on the matter?

IMHO, money talks, and by even your admission the BCS teams have the money! IF they wanted to form a new division it would happen. You are allowed to have your own OPINION on the matter.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Those were not my opinions, Don -- they are FACTS.

BCS conference schools are constrained by the terms of their contracts with the NCAA from arbitrarily forming a new NCAA division. That is a FACT. It is also a FACT that BCS conference schools can leave the NCAA to form their own collegiate sports association -- if they are ever inclined to be so foolish.

Even though it is true, I never said -- or admitted -- that BCS conference schools have the money, Don. You really need to quit making things up.

[CJHawkeyes]

CJ - You are playing down teams that used to be independent like FSU, Miami, and Penn St by saying they were already "part of the club" and bowls wanted them, etc. Well maybe that's because they EARNED THEIR WAY TO THAT STATUS OVER TIME. They were not part of a conference, and there was no BCS. FSU was nothing...NOTHING when Bobby Bowden took over. What did he do? He scheduled anyone anywhere. FSU played on the road at big time schools without getting a return trip. That got them on TV, got them exposure, and eventually helped build the program. What did FSU do that nonBCS teams are not doing? They pulled off these road wins over teams like Michigan, Auburn, etc. This is with no BCS and this was before they were a "big boy."

Miami and Penn State also built programs as independents. The current nonBCS schools have the same opportunity, whether you want to admit it or not. If a school really wanted to make a name for itself, start playing at the big boys and WINNING. You have to start somewhere. Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, etc is not going to hand you anything and start playing a home and home with you when there is no competitive or financial reason to do so. FSU hit the road, played the big boys, started winning, and EARNED their way to big boy status. That's the way it should be. Are you a small program that wants to be big time? Earn it. This crying about "fairness" gets old. History has proven that small programs can become big over time. It's hard to do, but it can be done. There aren't any free rides in life.

Independents used to dominate college football. Florida State was treated as a big boy since I-A began. The Seminoles were a top four team in 1979 without beating a ranked opponent and they played in the Orange Bowl. There were also two unbeaten mid-majors that year. One was ranked nineth and the other was not even ranked. Yeah, Florida State really had to overcome a great deal. That said, it is apparently a coincidence, that nearly half of I-A, the same half, never contends for the national title despite having the same "chance" as the big boys. Right. You need talent to win and recruits know two things. An unbeaten season at a BCS school virtually guarantees a shot at the national title and one million things need to fall into place for a nonBCS school to earn the same opportunity. Hmmmm. Tough choice. Now, tell me that a nonBCS school's ability to attract talent would not improve dramatically if recruits had the same confidence that an unbeaten season would earn a shot at the national title.

[CJHawkeyes]

FYI....FSU didn't begin to play football until 1949 (the data covers the period from 1948 to 1976) and FSU wasn't much of anything until Bowden got there in 1976, THEN they became something. A team becomes a "major" independent by WINNING! An arguement could be made for PSU also. Prior to Paterno, PSU was 8-35-4 against ranked opponents from 1925 to 1965 but are 73-77-1 (0.48675) vs ranked opponents under Paterno from 1966-2006. This is the 3rd best behind Nebraska 0.49315 and FSU 0.48944. Paterno MADE them "major" by winning.



Does this mean the BCS is conspiring against those BCS teams that can't compete as you are claiming it is conspiring against the smaller conferences? Just because a team can't compete doesn't mean the system is NOT equitable. Provide anything beyond conjecture to prove the BCS is not equitable.

So, direct access to the top five bowls versus no direct access is equitable? A 6-5 team going to a bowl while a 10-1 team that beat them sits at home is equitable? Several higher ranked nonBCS teams playing in lesser bowls versus lesser opponents is equitable? None of this leads to a culture whereby recruits have absolutely no confidence in a nonBCS school's ability to compete for the national title? Right. A team becomes a "major" by winning? South Florida accomplished nothing and now they are seated at the big boys table and they can thank the ACC for that. There is no way anyone can reasonably believe major college football is equitable. That the same half of college football just can't win because the other half is so much more popular and that alone explains the gap between the two groups is ridiculous.

[CJHawkeyes]

Alright this is my last post on this thread...I'm tired of beating my head against this

I'll agree that two different groups have clearly emerged from the BCS (obviously by the labels, you're either BCS or non-BCS), but there's no evidence that a 16 team playoff will create an even dispersal of recruits, or that the BCS is purposely trying to keep the non-BCS down...these responses are just subjective, biased opinions that are often very generalized

And I never claimed there would be an even dispersal. However, in my subjective and biased opinion, it would be significantly easier for nonBCS schools to attract the talent needed to win it all if they had direct access to a playoff berth or if there were transparent objective rules in place that allowed these schools and recruits to see exactly what they needed to win.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Right you are, CJ! Recruits are drawn to successful football programs, and there is no better indicator of success than performing well in a championship tournament.

The BCS is bending to public pressure. That is why the lock-out of non-BCS programs from BCS bowls has come to an end. That is why the BCS is trying to assuage continuing public pressures by contrived stop-gap measures such as a 4-team BCS championship playoff.

BCS schools realize that a true NCAA 16-team championship would inevitably result in victories by small schools over supposed BCS powers -- just as Winthrop, George Mason, Memphis and other small schools have excelled in recent NCAA D-I basketball championship tournaments.

We have already winessed a portend with Utah's and Boise's BCS bowl victories.

[CJHawkeyes]

Right you are, CJ! Recruits are drawn to successful football programs, and there is no better indicator of success than performing well in a championship tournament.

The BCS is bending to public pressure. That is why the lock-out of non-BCS programs from BCS bowls has come to an end. That is why the BCS is trying to assuage continuing public pressures by contrived stop-gap measures such as a 4-team BCS championship playoff.

BCS schools realize that a true NCAA 16-team championship would inevitably result in victories by small schools over supposed BCS powers -- just as Winthrop, George Mason, Memphis and other small schools have excelled in recent NCAA D-I basketball championship tournaments.

We have already winessed a portend with Utah's and Boise's BCS bowl victories.

Even if others disagree, it seems obvious to me that major college football has never been equitable. I don't claim that an equitable system will lead to an even dispersal of talent and success. That isn't even a goal or a desire. However, I do not believe popularity alone explains the two class system in I-A. If you want to win a national title, BCS schools are not just the popular choice, they are the only choice.

[GatorGrad]

FSU was nothing before Bowden came. He then took the "we'll play anyone anywhere" mentality which got them exposure, got them on TV, and when they actually WON GAMES on the road against top teams, they got respect. That's why they are a big boy today. Nothing was given to them. They flat out EARNED it the exact same way some of you are saying is not possible. And this is coming from a FLORIDA fan who is as biased AGAINST Florida State as anyone. If a nonBCS team started playing big boys on the road AND WINNING, they would get their respect over time and eventually become a big boy. So please stop acting like it's just not possible for a hane-not to become a have because history has proven that this is just not true.

[GatorGrad]

By the way, I am from Tampa and am a Devil Rays fan. In Major League Baseball, there is a clear-cut formula for making the playoffs: either win your division or have the best record in the AL among non-division winners to earn the wildcard. There is then a wildcard playoff, ALCS, and then World Series. We have a fair shot mathmatically. Yet, my Devil Rays still finish in last place every single year. Why? Well, I don't know...it could have something to do with the fact that we have no tradition, no money, a terrible stadium, etc. I believe that our payroll is less than what the Yankees are paying A-ROD alone!

There's no BCS in baseball...it's "fair" (although I think a salary cap would make it more fair.) But the powers and tradition-rich teams like Boston, New York, etc are always in the playoffs while my Devil Rays can't get a shot. Just like the have-nots in college football would still be have-nots even if there was a "fair" system in place. The big boys would STILL get the top recruits, have the most money, have the best facilities, etc. Having a "fair system" doesn't mean that there won't always be two classes in college football. Just like baseball when there is no salary cap. Herd Fan is acting like mid majors would start beating top 10 type teams FOUR GAMES IN A ROW to win NCAA Football Championships. This is just not going to happen IMO.

[CJHawkeyes]

FSU was nothing before Bowden came. He then took the "we'll play anyone anywhere" mentality which got them exposure, got them on TV, and when they actually WON GAMES on the road against top teams, they got respect. That's why they are a big boy today. Nothing was given to them. They flat out EARNED it the exact same way some of you are saying is not possible. And this is coming from a FLORIDA fan who is as biased AGAINST Florida State as anyone. If a nonBCS team started playing big boys on the road AND WINNING, they would get their respect over time and eventually become a big boy. So please stop acting like it's just not possible for a hane-not to become a have because history has proven that this is just not true.

I do not believe Florida State had to come from the same place that nonBCS teams have to today. Again, #4 AP ranking in 1979 and Orange Bowl berth and their best win came against 8-3 South Carolina. Beyond that, it is absurd that anyone has to earn respect over time in order to get a fair shake.

[CJHawkeyes]

By the way, I am from Tampa and am a Devil Rays fan. In Major League Baseball, there is a clear-cut formula for making the playoffs: either win your division or have the best record in the AL among non-division winners to earn the wildcard. There is then a wildcard playoff, ALCS, and then World Series. We have a fair shot mathmatically. Yet, my Devil Rays still finish in last place every single year. Why? Well, I don't know...it could have something to do with the fact that we have no tradition, no money, a terrible stadium, etc. I believe that our payroll is less than what the Yankees are paying A-ROD alone!

There's no BCS in baseball...it's "fair" (although I think a salary cap would make it more fair.) But the powers and tradition-rich teams like Boston, New York, etc are always in the playoffs while my Devil Rays can't get a shot. Just like the have-nots in college football would still be have-nots even if there was a "fair" system in place. The big boys would STILL get the top recruits, have the most money, have the best facilities, etc. Having a "fair system" doesn't mean that there won't always be two classes in college football. Just like baseball when there is no salary cap. Herd Fan is acting like mid majors would start beating top 10 type teams FOUR GAMES IN A ROW to win NCAA Football Championships. This is just not going to happen IMO.


What is the clear cut formula for nonBCS schools? Suppose I-A agreed to rank all teams best to worst record, do you believe the gap in talent and success would remain unchanged? If not, why not? Could it be that more recruits would choose to play nonBCS schools than they do now knowing that unbeaten season has the same value everywhere? And if nothing changed, there would be no reason not to adopt these rules.

[GatorGrad]

I do not believe Florida State had to come from the same place that nonBCS teams have to today. Again, #4 AP ranking in 1979 and Orange Bowl berth and their best win came against 8-3 South Carolina. Beyond that, it is absurd that anyone has to earn respect over time in order to get a fair shake.

Why is it absurd? That's life. Whether it's business, school, or sports...sometimes you have to earn respect over time. A team like the Yankees have built an amazing tradition. Because of this, they have a great TV deal, sell out every game, make a lot of money on sponsorships, and free agents WANT to play there. Unlike my Devil Rays who fall behind the Yankees in pretty much all of the above categories. And if there's a free agent trying to decide between the Yankees and Devil Rays, if we both offer the free agent the same amount of money, guess where he's going 90% of the time? He's going to the Yankees. Even if we offer him MORE money in some cases! Is that fair? Are we on an "even playing field?" No. Life isn't always "fair."

[GatorGrad]

What is the clear cut formula for nonBCS schools? Suppose I-A agreed to rank all teams best to worst record, do you believe the gap in talent and success would remain unchanged? If not, why not? Could it be that more recruits would choose to play nonBCS schools than they do now knowing that unbeaten season has the same value everywhere? And if nothing changed, there would be no reason not to adopt these rules.

The formula for nonBCS teams is the same as it is for BCS teams - finish in the top 2 and you play for the MNC. To do that requires (usually) going unbeaten with a legit schedule. I realize that it's tougher for nonBCS teams to schedule top talent, but it can be done by agreeing to go on the road and "play anyone anywhere anytime" like Bowden did when FSU was nobody. The next step is WINNING these games when you have these opportunities, something most nonBCS teams fail to do. Win games against good opponents consistenly over time, and you WILL get recognized and you WILL gain respect. Simple as that.

[CJHawkeyes]

Why is it absurd? That's life. Whether it's business, school, or sports...sometimes you have to earn respect over time. A team like the Yankees have built an amazing tradition. Because of this, they have a great TV deal, sell out every game, make a lot of money on sponsorships, and free agents WANT to play there. Unlike my Devil Rays who fall behind the Yankees in pretty much all of the above categories. And if there's a free agent trying to decide between the Yankees and Devil Rays, if we both offer the free agent the same amount of money, guess where he's going 90% of the time? He's going to the Yankees. Even if we offer him MORE money in some cases! Is that fair? Are we on an "even playing field?" No. Life isn't always "fair."

The Devil Rays do not have earn a fair shake over time. They already have it. All they have to do is win. Put nonBCS teams in the same boat even with all the intangible disadvantages and I'll agree with you here. If BCS teams want teams to meet a minimum amount of schedule difficulty, so be it. Playing the required schedule should be a sure thing for everyone. Pretending that acquiring such a schedule is as simple as asking is unreasonable. Again, no one has addressed the fact that there is no incentive for strong BCS teams to schedule strong nonBCS teams. The difference between playing Boise State and a I-AA opponent is argubably non-existent under this system for a BCS school. And since Boise State needs the BCS school more than the BCS school needs Boise State, there is actually almost a disincentive to play Boise State.

[CJHawkeyes]

The formula for nonBCS teams is the same as it is for BCS teams - finish in the top 2 and you play for the MNC. To do that requires (usually) going unbeaten with a legit schedule. I realize that it's tougher for nonBCS teams to schedule top talent, but it can be done by agreeing to go on the road and "play anyone anywhere anytime" like Bowden did when FSU was nobody. The next step is WINNING these games when you have these opportunities, something most nonBCS teams fail to do. Win games against good opponents consistenly over time, and you WILL get recognized and you WILL gain respect. Simple as that.

Finish in the top 2 doesn't tell a nonBCS school exactly what is expected of it to make the top two. And the FSU argument is still apples and oranges. They had access to the major bowls. All they had to do was win. There are several major conference teams that have struggled for years. All they had to do is win once and they were in. Point out a mid-major that has ever played in the Orange Bowl without beating a ranked opponent. Beyond that, it is one example from 30 years ago. If it is so easy to do, why hasn't the feat be repeated since? Popularity alone does not explain the gap between the have and have-nots.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

GatorGrad, your Florida State/Bobby Bowden example is well-taken. However, being a fellow Tampa Bay resident, I assume that you are familiar with USF's brief and undistinguished college football history before being invited to join a BCS conference.

Yes, as Don pointed out, USF did have a road win over a BCS team. But, in 2006, so did New Hampshire (34-17 over Northwestern), Montana State (19-10 over Colorado), Southern Illinois (35-28 over Indiana) and Richmond (13-0 over Duke). Fortunately in 2006, Minnesota with its 10-9 win over North Dakota State, Iowa State with its 28-27 win over Northern Iowa and Kansas State with its 24-23 win over Illinois State saved face for the mighty BCS.

If merit really mattered, Fresno State, BYU and a long list of other schools would have been offered BCS conference membership ahead of USF.

Your point, GatorGrad, about MLB is also on target. Yes, it is unlikely that our Devil Rays will win the 2007 World Series, but at least the Rays will have an opportunity. The same is true for any team in any sport at any level -- except for D-IA football.

[GatorGrad]

GatorGrad, your Florida State/Bobby Bowden example is well-taken. However, being a fellow Tampa Bay resident, I assume that you are familiar with USF's brief and undistinguished college football history before being invited to join a BCS conference.

Yes, as Don pointed out, USF did have a road win over a BCS team. But, in 2006, so did New Hampshire (34-17 over Northwestern), Montana State (19-10 over Colorado), Southern Illinois (35-28 over Indiana) and Richmond (13-0 over Duke). Fortunately in 2006, Minnesota with its 10-9 win over North Dakota State, Iowa State with its 28-27 win over Northern Iowa and Kansas State with its 24-23 win over Illinois State saved face for the mighty BCS.

If merit really mattered, Fresno State, BYU and a long list of other schools would have been offered BCS conference membership ahead of USF.

Your point, GatorGrad, about MLB is also on target. Yes, it is unlikely that our Devil Rays will win the 2007 World Series, but at least the Rays will have an opportunity. The same is true for any team in any sport at any level -- except for D-IA football.

USF played their cards right and was in the right place at the right time. Good for them. I sense a little jealousy. That's life - sometimes people get something they don't deserve. Sometimes people get promoted for no reason. Sometimes teams get fortunate (USF getting into the Big East.) You guys are funny. I mean in your perfect world, I guess every American makes the same amount of money?

I don't understand what the big deal is. Everyone understands that college football is not perfect. But we all watch and will continue to watch regardless. Just relax and enjoy it. Besides, what do you nonBCS people care about the National Championship? It technically doesn't even exist! It's all mythical. Just worry about your own conference race. Otherwise, if winning an "NCAA Championship" is such a big deal to you, write your school president and request to move down to D1-AA. Then you can compete for an NCAA Championship all you want!

I'm done with this debate. It's been fun. But it's taken up too much of my time already.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Wrong, GatorGrad. USF did not play its cards right. In fact, USF did nothing to merit BCS conference membership. USF just has the good fortune to be located in one of the largest TV markets in the country and to be able to play in an NFL stadium.

I am jealous of USF, you claim? Despite the fact that you know next to nothing about me? I have paid tuition to USF -- have you? My daughter is a USF alumnus. I regularly attend USF games. I have followed USF football from its very conception. I am very pleased that USF is in the Big East, even though it has done nothing on the field of play to merit BCS conference membership.

The big deal is that every sport at every level has championship playoffs -- except for D-IA football. While you are correct that a national championship does not exist for D-IA football -- that doesn't mean that it shouldn't. Since no team is required to participate in NCAA tournaments, the BCS would be totally unaffected by a D-IA playoff system -- that is, unless BCS schools begin to betray the BCS by opting to participate in NCAA tournaments. And, that is exactly what I think would occur, and that is why BCS schools fear NCAA D-IA championship playoffs. BCS schools realize that the BCS cartel cannot survive in a free market.

You have lost the debate, GatorGrad, only because the facts are lined up against you.

[GatorGrad]

Wrong, GatorGrad. USF did not play its cards right. In fact, USF did nothing to merit BCS conference membership. USF just has the good fortune to be located in one of the largest TV markets in the country and to be able to play in an NFL stadium.

I am jealous of USF, you claim? Despite the fact that you know next to nothing about me? I have paid tuition to USF -- have you? My daughter is a USF alumnus. I regularly attend USF games. I have followed USF football from its very conception. I am very pleased that USF is in the Big East, even though it has done nothing on the field of play to merit BCS conference membership.

The big deal is that every sport at every level has championship playoffs -- except for D-IA football. While you are correct that a national championship does not exist for D-IA football -- that doesn't mean that it shouldn't. Since no team is required to participate in NCAA tournaments, the BCS would be totally unaffected by a D-IA playoff system -- that is, unless BCS schools begin to betray the BCS by opting to participate in NCAA tournaments. And, that is exactly what I think would occur, and that is why BCS schools fear NCAA D-IA championship playoffs. BCS schools realize that the BCS cartel cannot survive in a free market.

You have lost the debate, GatorGrad, only because the facts are lined up against you.

I just got the sense that you were a Marshall fan jealous of USF being in the Big East while your team is stuck in a conference that nobody really cares much about. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly. Speaking of USF, of course they played their cards right. Do you really not think that their move into the Big East wasn't orchestrated and planned by their administration? They made a good business move getting into the Big East. They saw an opportunity and they took advantage of it. There was plenty going on under the table behind the scenes that helped USF get the invite into the Big East. Kudos to them. And I don't see what your daughter attending USF has to do with any of this. My uncle and several friends attended USF. Does that mean I know more about USF Football? But since you asked, no I do not pay tuition to USF - my money goes to one school and one school only. But I do know a former USF Associate Athletic Director, but hey your daughter went to USF so you obviously know more.

And what do you mean I've "lost" this debate? I've lost a debate that we share different opinions on? Because you "THINK" that the only reason we don't have an NCAA Tournament is because the big boys "fear it?" That's funny. I've said from the start of this thread that I am all for a 16-team NCAA Tournament including all 11 conference champs. It would be great. My only point has been that it still wouldn't solve all of the problems nonBCS fans seem to have, nor would it lead to mid majors consistently winning NCAA Championships. I stand by that opinion, and nothing you have said has changed my mind on it. In fact, the data you listed about NCAA Basketball actually SUPPORTED my opinion considering that your own data showed only ONE (1) NCAA Champion coming out of a mid major conference in the modern era of college basketball (64 or more teams in the tournament, 3 point line, etc.) And the fact that football is even harder for a have-not to compete with a big boy consistently due to the depth needed in football vs needing just 2-3 studs to get hot at the right time in basketball. I just don't see mid major teams consistently beating four consecutive top 10 teams in a tournament to win an NCAA Championship. You can have whatever system you want: BCS, 4-team playoff, or 16-team playoff. It won't matter because the major schools will still dominate recruiting and dominate on the field of play.

[Blue Hen]

I don't think the FSU example has that much relevance to today's two class system climate. No doubt, FSU & Bowden skyrocketed to glory. Bowden took great advantage of the huge 'speed' supply down there and combined with his 'zero' academic standards for recruiting and retaining players, he was quickly able to stock the talent to be 'giant killers'. FSU , being a Southern FB Independent also had access to the Southeastern PSEGs.......Peach, Tangerine, Gator, Orange, etc..In today's climate, non BCS leagues have mandated tie-ins to 2nd and 3rd tier PSEGs. As an Independent, with no conference schedule to play , Bowden was free and available to be a road opponent for the big names. Other than Navy, there are no 'have not' , non BCS independents today. Do you, realistically, think that a non BCS team today - from one of the 5 'Mids' leagues could get 5 consecutive road games scheduled with Nebraska, Ohio state, Notre Dame, Pitt & LSU, like Bowden did in 81 ?
FSU FB is a great story and Bowden is a great 'winning' coach but there is very little relevance to today's 'opportunities' for programs that are denied the magic 'BCS' moniker. Like Herd Fan pointed out...........getting selected for membership in a BCS league is the only real opportunity for equality ( L'ville, USF etc.)

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The topic of the debate, Gatorgrad, is whether D-IA football should have NCAA championship playoffs. Your ever-changing bizarre rationale diminishing the noteworthy achievements of numerous small schools in NCAA D-I basketball tournaments notwithstanding, you have failed to produce a single legitimate justification for D-IA football being the only team sport at any level not to have championship playoffs.

I have put forward a proposal that would establish a D-IA football playoff system that would not affect in any way whatever the BCS wishes to do postseason. The BCS could continue with its BCS bowls, a 2-team BCS championship game, a 4-team BCS championship playoff or anything else small minds can conjure up. The best of the remaining 100-plus D-IA teams would have the option to participate in the 16-team NCAA D-IA national championship tournament. In fact, there would be enough teams left with qualifying records to field at least 16 additional bowl games.

Not one person, including you GatorGrad, has yet to come up with a valid reason why this could not and should not be done. That is why you have lost the debate.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't think the FSU example has that much relevance to today's two class system climate. No doubt, FSU & Bowden skyrocketed to glory. Bowden took great advantage of the huge 'speed' supply down there and combined with his 'zero' academic standards for recruiting and retaining players, he was quickly able to stock the talent to be 'giant killers'. FSU , being a Southern FB Independent also had access to the Southeastern PSEGs.......Peach, Tangerine, Gator, Orange, etc..In today's climate, non BCS leagues have mandated tie-ins to 2nd and 3rd tier PSEGs. As an Independent, with no conference schedule to play , Bowden was free and available to be a road opponent for the big names. Other than Navy, there are no 'have not' , non BCS independents today. Do you, realistically, think that a non BCS team today - from one of the 5 'Mids' leagues could get 5 consecutive road games scheduled with Nebraska, Ohio state, Notre Dame, Pitt & LSU, like Bowden did in 81 ?
FSU FB is a great story and Bowden is a great 'winning' coach but there is very little relevance to today's 'opportunities' for programs that are denied the magic 'BCS' moniker. Like Herd Fan pointed out...........getting selected for membership in a BCS league is the only real opportunity for equality ( L'ville, USF etc.)

I think you said it better than I did regarding Florida State. 29 years of polls and bowls heavily biased in favor of brand names even when less successful has resulted in institutionalized unwritten rules. For BCS schools, an unbeaten season plus losses by 64 BCS rivals virtually guarantees a national title shot. For nonBCS schools, an unbeaten season versus an undefined and often unattainable schedule with players unwanted by BCS schools plus losses by 65 BCS members is "all" it takes. Again, not my first choice, but why not rank all teams best to worst record? Without players, all schedules are inherently equal. If all recruits know an unbeaten season plus losses by 118 I-A rivals guarantees a national title berth no matter their uniform, any scheduling advantages or disadvantages resulting from their school choices are the result of free will. If these rules lead prized recruits to believe that winning a national title at nonBCS schools is easier due to "weak" schedules, wouldn't this lead to more talented nonBCS teams? And if these rules do not significantly impact school choices, what harm can come from using them anyway? Despite "tougher" schedules, eight times as many BCS schools have posted perfect regular seasons in 29 I-A seasons. Twice has many have posted perfect conference seasons versus schedules that average one more game. If recruits make the same choices and schools play the same schedules, the advantages go to BCS schools. Any pretense that that these rules are unfair to BCS schools because they play "tougher" schedules due to recruits favoring them is intellectually dishonest.

[EvilVodka]

Point out a mid-major that has ever played in the Orange Bowl without beating a ranked opponent. Beyond that, it is one example from 30 years ago. If it is so easy to do, why hasn't the feat be repeated since? Popularity alone does not explain the gap between the have and have-nots.

Actually, the BCS has opened the field more in this regard...the new clear cut rules are for a non-BCS team to finish in the top 12, or top 16 if they're above a BCS Champ

Boise State made it to the Fiesta Bowl in the first year of these rules :eek:

[EvilVodka]

Your ever-changing bizarre rationale diminishing the noteworthy achievements of numerous small schools in NCAA D-I basketball tournaments notwithstanding, you have failed to produce a single legitimate justification for D-IA football being the only team sport at any level not to have championship playoffs.


Gatorgrad hasn't lost the debate at all lol....

And you haven't proposed anything but a bunch of heavily biased opinions on how the college football postseason should be structured

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

"Heavily biased opinions", EV? All I am advocating is that the NCAA treat D-IA football exactly as it treats every other football division and every other NCAA team sport in every division. That is what you call "heavily biased opinions"?? What planet are you living on?

I am content with the NCAA determining the method for seeding teams for a 16-team D-IA national championship playoff system. I don't care if the BCS continues, or whether BCS teams opt to compete in the NCAA D-IA football championship playoffs. I am for the free market deciding the future of the BCS and the NCAA D-IA football championships playoffs.

As Bobby Pruett used to say, "If you're scared, go buy a dog".

[GatorGrad]

I think you said it better than I did regarding Florida State. 29 years of polls and bowls heavily biased in favor of brand names even when less successful has resulted in institutionalized unwritten rules. For BCS schools, an unbeaten season plus losses by 64 BCS rivals virtually guarantees a national title shot. For nonBCS schools, an unbeaten season versus an undefined and often unattainable schedule with players unwanted by BCS schools plus losses by 65 BCS members is "all" it takes. Again, not my first choice, but why not rank all teams best to worst record? Without players, all schedules are inherently equal. If all recruits know an unbeaten season plus losses by 118 I-A rivals guarantees a national title berth no matter their uniform, any scheduling advantages or disadvantages resulting from their school choices are the result of free will. If these rules lead prized recruits to believe that winning a national title at nonBCS schools is easier due to "weak" schedules, wouldn't this lead to more talented nonBCS teams? And if these rules do not significantly impact school choices, what harm can come from using them anyway? Despite "tougher" schedules, eight times as many BCS schools have posted perfect regular seasons in 29 I-A seasons. Twice has many have posted perfect conference seasons versus schedules that average one more game. If recruits make the same choices and schools play the same schedules, the advantages go to BCS schools. Any pretense that that these rules are unfair to BCS schools because they play "tougher" schedules due to recruits favoring them is intellectually dishonest.

I don't think ranking teams based on nothing but overall record would be good for college football because then ALL of the emphasis is on going unbeaten. Thus, what's the point of playing tough OOC games or even being in a tough conference? I could accept a system that ranked teams based on a combination of overall record, opponent overall record, opponent opponent overall record, etc. Which if I am not mistaken is what you (CJ) have offered all along. Simply ranking teams based on nothing but overall record would be silly. This isn't the NFL with only 32 teams, all of which are pretty close in talent. There are over 100 teams here and everyone plays different schedules so you can't always compare a school that was 12-0 in one conference to another school that was 11-1 in another conference based on nothing but overall record.

[GatorGrad]

The topic of the debate, Gatorgrad, is whether D-IA football should have NCAA championship playoffs. Your ever-changing bizarre rationale diminishing the noteworthy achievements of numerous small schools in NCAA D-I basketball tournaments notwithstanding, you have failed to produce a single legitimate justification for D-IA football being the only team sport at any level not to have championship playoffs.

I have put forward a proposal that would establish a D-IA football playoff system that would not affect in any way whatever the BCS wishes to do postseason. The BCS could continue with its BCS bowls, a 2-team BCS championship game, a 4-team BCS championship playoff or anything else small minds can conjure up. The best of the remaining 100-plus D-IA teams would have the option to participate in the 16-team NCAA D-IA national championship tournament. In fact, there would be enough teams left with qualifying records to field at least 16 additional bowl games.

Not one person, including you GatorGrad, has yet to come up with a valid reason why this could not and should not be done. That is why you have lost the debate.

Actually, the "topic of debate" and what this entire thread was supposed to be about is NOT whether or not we should have a Football Playoff. Go read CJ's first post of this thread to be refreshed. I don't see anyone here debating whether or not we would like to have a playoff. In fact, I have said numerous times in this thread that I would LOVE to see a 16-team NCAA Football Tournament. It would be great. It would be fun. Although I must say your suggestion that we just use 'rankings' to determine the top 16 teams instead of 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids is silly in my opinion, but that's besides the point. I'm not against a 16-team playoff. I am for it!

All I am saying is that IN MY OPINION it would not change much of anything in regards to who competes for and wins National Championships as much as mid major fans like yourself are led to believe. Just like there has only been ONE (1) mid major that has won an NCAA Basketball Championship in the modern era per your own data, football would be no different. If anything, football would be tougher for small schools to consistently compete when compared to basketball for reasons that I have already noted. Sure once a blue moon a mid major might rise up and find a way to win four straight games against top ten teams. But it wouldn't be a regular occurrence. There is no evidence to support that this would happen as most of the time, when mid majors play top 10 BCS schools, they lose. The big boys would still dominate college football, both off the field in recruiting, and on the field during actual games. They have more money, more tradition, better facilities, etc.

So you see Mr Herd Fan, I am not TRYING to come up with a reason why a 16 team tournament could or should not be done as you implied. I don't know why you continue to think this. I think my school would compete for championships under any system we use so I'm not too worried about it, nor do I care to debate it, nor am I debating it. Sure, let's have the tournament! I AGREE with you. But my OPINION is that not much would change and you mid major types would then have something else to complain about and you still would not view college football as "fair." Again, this is my only main point and opinion. I'm NOT debating what you seem to think I am debating. Show me one post where I said a 16-team tournament would be bad for college football.

Frankly, I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your posts, how you create "debates" out of thin air, and then tell people that they have "lost the debate" or are "wrong" just because they have a different OPINION that you do. How can someone's opinion be "wrong?" That's nothing but your own opinion anyways. You should follow the lead of people like Blue Hen, CJ, and the rest who are capable of having friendly banter and discussion while maintaining a level of respect.

[Blue Hen]

"opened the field", evil, only because of the threat of lawsuit. It kills the BCS bowl people to have to give a no name an occasional slot.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't think ranking teams based on nothing but overall record would be good for college football because then ALL of the emphasis is on going unbeaten. Thus, what's the point of playing tough OOC games or even being in a tough conference? I could accept a system that ranked teams based on a combination of overall record, opponent overall record, opponent opponent overall record, etc. Which if I am not mistaken is what you (CJ) have offered all along. Simply ranking teams based on nothing but overall record would be silly. This isn't the NFL with only 32 teams, all of which are pretty close in talent. There are over 100 teams here and everyone plays different schedules so you can't always compare a school that was 12-0 in one conference to another school that was 11-1 in another conference based on nothing but overall record.

You are correct. That is what I have advocated all along. I prefer rules that encourage stronger scheduling. I only make the best records argument because it is basically accepted among BCS schools. Therefore, why not give recruits the same choice for all schools?

[CJHawkeyes]

Actually, the BCS has opened the field more in this regard...the new clear cut rules are for a non-BCS team to finish in the top 12, or top 16 if they're above a BCS Champ

Boise State made it to the Fiesta Bowl in the first year of these rules :eek:

I agree. They opened it up to avoid a lawsuit due to the inequities of the BCS. Even then, Boise State was never in contention for the national title. That said, I have no vested interest in a nonBCS school ever winning anything. I also have no problem with requiring national title contenders to play a "legitimate" schedule. However, I think such a schedule should have a fixed definition and be easily attainable.

[CJHawkeyes]

On a side note, I wanted to ask those debating against my position, what would Boise State's OOC schedule need to look like last year for you to support their inclusion in the title game? Just curious.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

If the best college football team plays a weak schedule, does that team deserve an opportunity to compete in a national championship playoff?

The answer, of course, is not only YES, but that team should be awarded the number-one seed. What sense could it possibly make for a tournament to knowingly exclude the best team in the nation? What sense would it make to knowingly seed an inferior team higher than the best team in the nation?

This whole debate over SOS is dumb. The NCAA has long experience at seeding teams for tournaments and is competent at sorting through performances relative to comparative schedules. The SOS non-issue is just another in the long line of pathetic excuses to deny deserving teams opportunities to compete for the most important championships.

[EvilVodka]

On a side note, I wanted to ask those debating against my position, what would Boise State's OOC schedule need to look like last year for you to support their inclusion in the title game? Just curious.

Boise State would have made my 4 team playoff for the championship as stated on page 2...I've stated before that the field needs to be opened and non-BCS teams like Tulane '98, Marshall '99, Utah '04, and Boise State '06 need to be invited along with BCS teams such as Miami '00, Washington '00, Oregon '01, USC '03, and Auburn '04

A 4 team playoff covers this, and at most, a 6-8 team playoff would definately cover the whole field worthy of playing for a National Championship...I believe this would provide the clear cut path for non-BCS teams you're looking for, while conforming to the current bowl system

:cool:

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Almost true, EV.

But, history has proved on a number of occasions that the best team is not always among the top 8 seeds. Syracuse, NC State and other NCAA basketball champions, for example, would have been excluded from the NCAA tournaments if the fields had been limited to the top 8 seeds. There is good reason why the NCAA D-IAA, D-II and D-III football playoffs have fields of at least 16 teams.

One thing we do know with certainty is that tournament seedings, polls and computer ratings are almost always wrong. That is why they actually play the games, rather than simply awarding the championship trophy to the top seed.

[CJHawkeyes]

If the best college football team plays a weak schedule, does that team deserve an opportunity to compete in a national championship playoff?

The answer, of course, is not only YES, but that team should be awarded the number-one seed. What sense could it possibly make for a tournament to knowingly exclude the best team in the nation? What sense would it make to knowingly seed an inferior team higher than the best team in the nation?

This whole debate over SOS is dumb. The NCAA has long experience at seeding teams for tournaments and is competent at sorting through performances relative to comparative schedules. The SOS non-issue is just another in the long line of pathetic excuses to deny deserving teams opportunities to compete for the most important championships.


I don't think the "best" team should ever get credit for being the best team. Determining the winner of a competition and determining the best team are not the same thing. That said, I think it is unfornuate if SOS denies unbeaten teams the opportunity to play for the title. Finally, I do not agree that the NCAA has done a competent job seeding teams.

[CJHawkeyes]

Almost true, EV.

But, history has proved on a number of occasions that the best team is not always among the top 8 seeds. Syracuse, NC State and other NCAA basketball champions, for example, would have been excluded from the NCAA tournaments if the fields had been limited to the top 8 seeds. There is good reason why the NCAA D-IAA, D-II and D-III football playoffs have fields of at least 16 teams.

One thing we do know with certainty is that tournament seedings, polls and computer ratings are almost always wrong. That is why they actually play the games, rather than simply awarding the championship trophy to the top seed.


Those teams weren't the best teams. They were simply the winners. Of course, that is all that matters, but being the winners does not make a team the best team. Houston probably beats NC State 8 or 9 times out of 10 games. Furthermore, seedings, polls, and computers are not proven wrong by upsets. Using my system as a reference, the standings indicate most to least successful according to the relevant rules. The first place team is just that......the first place team. The standings make no other claim. Therefore, if the first place team as the top seed in a playoff is beaten at any point during the playoff, the result does not invalidate the standings.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Of course they were the best teams -- on the only day that really mattered. Championships are won by the teams that are playing the best ball at the end of the season. A team with more talent that is off its peak at tournament time usually goes home without the hardware.

The problem I have with your system CJ is that it is your system -- no offense intended. If and when the NCAA finally decides to host D-IA football championship playoffs, it would be right and proper for the NCAA to develop its own system for seedings, in an independent manner that is unaffected by the preferences of outside interests. The NCAA should not pay any attention to your ideas, my ideas, or GatorGrad's, EV's, Don's, or Blue Hen's, or ideas from coaches, schools, conferences, politicians, fans or sportswriters.

[CJHawkeyes]

Of course they were the best teams -- on the only day that really mattered. Championships are won by the teams that are playing the best ball at the end of the season. A team with more talent that is off its peak at tournament time usually goes home without the hardware.

The problem I have with your system CJ is that it is your system -- no offense intended. If and when the NCAA finally decides to host D-IA football championship playoffs, it would be right and proper for the NCAA to develop its own system for seedings, in an independent manner that is unaffected by the preferences of outside interests. The NCAA should not pay any attention to your ideas, my ideas, or GatorGrad's, EV's, Don's, or Blue Hen's, or ideas from coaches, schools, conferences, politicians, fans or sportswriters.

I only referenced my system to point out that upsets do not prove the things you listed wrong because those things don't make the claims you assign to them nor do the results of tournament prove that the winner is the best team. The winner is the winner. Whatever else may be true about the winner is irrelevant. The label "best team" simply has no meaning. Texas wasn't any more or less a better team than USC because Vince Young converted a fourth down to win the game. But they were the winners and that is why games are played.

That said, I think it would be right and proper for the NCAA to listen to all ideas. They may not like our ideas, but it makes no sense to dismiss them outright becasue they don't come from within the NCAA. The same people running the BCS have a great deal of influence and if the BCS formula is their example of a good idea, they should actually dismiss their own ideas and only listen to those of us outside the NCAA.

[Don]

your statements can't go unchallenged.

I do not believe Florida State had to come from the same place that nonBCS teams have to today. Again, #4 AP ranking in 1979 and Orange Bowl berth and their best win came against 8-3 South Carolina.

You don't know history! The rest of college football HAS HAD TO EARN RESPECT. It wasn't "granted" to them the way it was for 04 Utah and 06 BSU!

First, FSU ended up #6 not #4 in 1979.

Second, FSU went through the entire 1979 regular season UNdefeated playing a tougher schedule (0.644 SOS, Howell) by far than the '04 Utah team (0.504 SOS, Howell) or the '06 BSU team (0.425 SOS, Howell).

Third, FSU worked it way into the polls in prior seasons by playing more "BCS" teams on the road in THREE years than BSU (11 opponents) has played on the road in 11 years. Not to mention that they actually won a few of these games! (Utah has played 12 "BCS" teams on the road in 11 years!)

1976 (0.636 SOS, Howell)
9/18/76 @ Miami
9/25/76 @ Oklahoma
10/9/76 @ Boston College
10/23/76 @ Auburn

1977 (0.732 SOS, Howell)
9/17/77 @ Kansas State
10/1/77 @ Oklahoma State
11/5/77 @ Virginia Tech
11/19/77 @ San Diego State (10-1)
12/23/77 vs. Texas Tech (7-5) W 40 17 @ Orlando, FL Tangerine Bowl

1978 (0.671 SOS, Howell)
9/9/78 @ Syracuse
9/23/78 @ Miami (Florida)
10/14/78 @ Mississippi State
10/21/78 @ Pittsburgh
10/28/78 @ Southern Mississippi

Fourth, they still wouldn't have got a sniff of a MNC game if there was one because there WERE teams that played MUCH tougher schedules ahead of them (e.g., Alabama 11-0, OSU 11-0, USC 10-0-1).

Fifth, check out FSU in 1980 and 1981.
1980 (0.910!!***** SOS, Howell)
9/6/80 @ Louisiana State (7-4) W 16 0
9/27/80 @ Miami (Florida) (9-3) L 9 10 (SURPRISE!!)
10/4/80 @ Nebraska (10-2) W 18 14
10/11/80 vs. Pittsburgh (11-1) W 36 22
1/1/81 vs. Oklahoma (10-2) L 17 18 @ Miami, FL Orange Bowl

That's 2 losses by 1 point each and they ended up #5 in 1980.
And you think respect was GIVEN to FSU???


And how about these for consequtive AWAY games for FSU in 1981?
1981 (0.784 SOS, Howell)
9/19 @ Nebraska (9-3)
10/3 @ Ohio State (9-3)
10/10 @ Notre Dame (5-6)
10/17 @ Pittsburgh (11-1)
10/24 @ Louisiana State (3-7-1)
FSU was 3-2 in these games (they beat OSU).

And how about the away games for FSU in 1982?

10/2 @ Ohio State (9-3)
10/30 @ Miami (Florida) (7-4)
11/20 @ Louisiana State (8-3-1)
FSU was 2-1 against these (lost to LSU).

1983?

9/10 @ Louisiana State
10/1 @ Auburn (11-1) L 24 27
10/8 @ Pittsburgh (8-3-1) L 16 17
10/29 @ Arizona State

1985?

9/7 @ Nebraska (9-3)
10/12 @ Auburn (8-4)
11/30 @ Florida (9-1-1)
FSU beat Nebraska

1986?

9/6 @ Nebraska (10-2)
9/27 @ Michigan (11-2)
11/1 @ Miami (Florida) (11-1)


Those are some bigtime AWAY games that deserve respect.


As for your statement,
Beyond that, it is absurd that anyone has to earn respect over time in order to get a fair shake.

Not only is it NOT absurd, but the rest of D1A realizes that respect cannot be demanded but rather commanded by earning it on the field against good teams over a length of time. After 1980, FSU never made it back to the top 10 until 1988 when they began their string of 13 straight years in the top 5.

FSU has EARNED their way into Bigtime status. BSU and Utah haven't. End of story.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

You don't even understand my position. Florida State already had the schedules and access to the top bowls. All that was left was to win. Duke and Vanderbilt already have the schedules and access to the bowls. All that is left is to win. NonBCS teams do not have the schedules, acquiring them is easier said than done, and they do not have equal access to the best bowls and convincing the talent needed to succeed against undefined legitimate schedules out of their reach is next to impossible.. Therefore, I don't think Florida State had to overcome the same obstacles that have faced mid-majors all these years. They were a major school that may not have won. So what? Even before Bowden, they were playing in bigger bowls against other major teams that mid-majors had no access to. The comparison is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous that you have to earn respect over years. Respect should have nothing to do with who wins a competition. BCS schools can lose 100 straight games and next year, if they go unbeaten, they are playing on the big stage. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, and South Florida just have to be invited into a BCS conference and the system automatically respects them.

Also, Florida State finished fourth to end the regular season in 1979. Despite no wins versus ranked opponents, they were in the Orange Bowl. They were in the Orange Bowl the following year. They were wanted by major bowls the moment they became successful. In 1977, they lost to 10-1 San Diego State 41-16. Florida State went to a bowl game. San Diego State did not. Florida State also finished ranked higher. Clearly, Florida State and San Diego State were treated the same by the system then as they are now. Utah and Boise State got their shots only to avoid a lawsuit which you would think would be readily dismissed if the BCS were equitable. Nevertheless, you don't think access to fewer bowls and no access to the major bowls didn't help create the gap the exists today? If, during the past 29 seasons, teams were ranked best to worst record after assessing mid-majors a one game penalty, mid-majors would have actually fared better than they did in the polls. And I'm suppose to believe popularity alone explains why one half of college football never contends for the national title.

[CJHawkeyes]

Just for record, I'm not suggesting Florida State did not earn or deserve their bowl berths and rankings. My position is that they had access to the talent, schedules, and bowls all along.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Don -- you are totally correct about FSU having earned respect. The same can be said about Virginia Tech. The very opposite is true for USF.

With respect to 2004 Utah and 2006 Boise State, you have fallen into the illogic of measuring the schedule rather than the quality of the team. A team that goes undefeated vs. a weak schedule might very well be superior to a team that goes undefeated vs. a strong schedule.

2004 Utah and 2006 Boise State deserve enormous respect. Each of these teams defeated a BCS conference champion in a BCS bowl. You might argue that the BCS conference champions they defeated were weak teams, but that would only serve to illustrate that the BCS is not all that it is cracked up to be.

[CJHawkeyes]

BTW, Alabama, Ohio State, and USC did not play much tougher schedules than Florida State in 1979. All four teams played objectively weak schedules that were nearly equal. Florida State and Alabama had five common opponents.

OPPONENTS' RECORDS and OPPS' OPPS' RECORDS VS I-A
Florida State (50-68-3)(697-585-21)
Ohio State (49-69-2)(706-591-18)
USC (53-62-5)(715-569-32)
Alabama (47-71-2)(698-578-21)

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

I don't think the "best" team should ever get credit for being the best team. Really, CJ? Everyone can celebrate because................I am speechless.

[CJHawkeyes]

Really, CJ? Everyone can celebrate because................I am speechless.


So, the best team wins every game? Therefore, the best team is entitled to win every competition? Winners get to celebrate. If you want to assume the winning team is necessarily the best team, so be it. However, if the best team (most talented) gets credit for simply being the best team, then the games serve no purpose because the best team is still that regardless of what the scoreboard reads. Besides that, the best team cannot be quantified. Its identity is a matter of opinion. The best team is irrelevant. If yours is the best team, it is its responsibility to achieve the level of success required by the relevant rules in order to win the competition it is participating in. It doesn't get to show up, announce it is the best team as if that "fact" has any value, and have the trophy handed to it. In all objectively determined standings, teams are ranked most to least successful, not best to worst team.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

I hope that you are working on a comedy routine, CJ. You can't be serious.

I don't think the "best" team should ever get credit for being the best team. I still can't get over that one. But, this one ranks a close second: In all objectively determined standings, teams are ranked most to least successful, not best to worst team. I must have missed the final polls that had my 1999 Marshall team ranked number one (and the final polls that had 2004 Utah ranked #1, 2006 Boise State #1 and 1998 Tulane #1).

[CJHawkeyes]

I hope that you are working on a comedy routine, CJ. You can't be serious.

I still can't get over that one. But, this one ranks a close second: I must have missed the final polls that had my 1999 Marshall team ranked number one (and the final polls that had 2004 Utah ranked #1, 2006 Boise State #1 and 1998 Tulane #1).

I didn't realize that polls are objectively determined standings. Furthermore, most to least successful does not necessarily mean best to worst record. That said, please point out to me any team that was ever declared champion specifically because it was the best team and show me how it was determined that the best team was indeed the best team. If, according to you, the winner is the best team, then this debate is just semantics. However, if the best team is the most talented team, that team deserves nothing in the standings for it.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

That is way too easy, CJ.

1996 Marshall was easily the best team in D-IAA and proved it by dominating the NCAA national championship playoffs.

Montana was 14-0 and had won 21 consecutive games, including a 35-14 thrashing at Oregon State earlier in the 2006 season. Montana defeated Nichols State 48-3 in round one of the championship playoffs, East Tennessee 48-14 in the quarterfinals and Troy 70-7 in the semifinals. Many regard the 2006 Montana team as the second-best team in D-IAA history.

Marshall coach Bobby Pruett "called the dogs off" with Marshall leading Montana 46-6 halfway through the third quarter, and the subs earned some valuable experience the rest of the way.

That season, 10 Marshall players were first or second team All-Americans. 17 were first or second team All-Conference. Randy Moss went on to become a Heisman finalist. Starting QB Eric Kresser was All-American, but backup QB Chad Pennington also went on to become a Heisman finalist. Bobby Pruett was named Chevrolet Coach of the Year.

BTW -- the records belie how dangerous the Kresser to Moss combination really was, because Moss was frequently pulled from the game early in the third quarter. Blue Hen can attest that in round one of the national championship playoffs vs. his very talented Delaware team, Moss set an all-time D-IAA playoff record with 288 yards receiving. However, the record book does not reflect that Moss only played one series in the second half. Moss also had 220 yards receiving vs. Montana in the championship game before being pulled halfway through the thrid quarter.

Oh -- and this will probably shock you, CJ -- Marshall was ranked #1 in all of the final polls that season, as it was throughout the season.

That is the best example that comes to my mind, but some of the John Wooden's basketball teams at UCLA weren't too shabby either.

BUT -- for the life of me, I can't begin to understand what point you are trying to make. Your arguments are bordering on the bizarre.

[CJHawkeyes]

That is way too easy, CJ.

1996 Marshall was easily the best team in D-IAA and proved it by dominating the NCAA national championship playoffs.

Montana was 14-0 and had won 21 consecutive games, including a 35-14 thrashing at Oregon State earlier in the 2006 season. Montana defeated Nichols State 48-3 in round one of the championship playoffs, East Tennessee 48-14 in the quarterfinals and Troy 70-7 in the semifinals. Many regard the 2006 Montana team as the second-best team in D-IAA history.

Marshall coach Bobby Pruett "called the dogs off" with Marshall leading Montana 46-6 halfway through the third quarter, and the subs earned some valuable experience the rest of the way.

That season, 10 Marshall players were first or second team All-Americans. 17 were first or second team All-Conference. Randy Moss went on to become a Heisman finalist. Starting QB Eric Kresser was All-American, but backup QB Chad Pennington also went on to become a Heisman finalist. Bobby Pruett was named Chevrolet Coach of the Year.

BTW -- the records belie how dangerous the Kresser to Moss combination really was, because Moss was frequently pulled from the game early in the third quarter. Blue Hen can attest that in round one of the national championship playoffs vs. his very talented Delaware team, Moss set an all-time D-IAA playoff record with 288 yards receiving. However, the record book does not reflect that Moss only played one series in the second half. Moss also had 220 yards receiving vs. Montana in the championship game before being pulled halfway through the thrid quarter.

Oh -- and this will probably shock you, CJ -- Marshall was ranked #1 in all of the final polls that season, as it was throughout the season.

That is the best example that comes to my mind, but some of the John Wooden's basketball teams at UCLA weren't too shabby either.

BUT -- for the life of me, I can't begin to understand what point you are trying to make. Your arguments are bordering on the bizarre.


Again, it is only your opinion that those teams were the best teams and I'll even stipulate that they were. They still did not win their respective titles specifically because they were the best team. Marshall won four consecutive playoff games. If they hadn't, being the best team wouldn't mean anything. Of course, if the identity of the best team changes with each result, then what value does being recognized as such have? The Utah Jazz are still alive in the NBA playoffs, but they aren't suddenly a better team than Dallas or Phoenix. My arguments are only bizarre if you want to suggest that nearly all sports have been doing it wrong since the beginning of time. The best team in baseball is who? And how is being the best team rewarded in the standings? Again, if you presume the winning team is the best team, go right ahead. However, the idea that NC State is suddenly a better team than Houston because one player was in the right place to dunk an airball is ridiculous. That play never happens if the shot hits the rim. Villanova playing a perfect game to beat Georgetown after two earlier losses to the Hoyas does not make the Wildcats a better team. Bottom line is that NC State and Villanova are the champions because they won. That is all that matters. I'm under the impression that you believe Team A should be ranked ahead of Team B if the former is simply perceived to be a better team. If so, my position is that should never be the case and where objectively determined standings are concerned, it never is the case.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

They still did not win their respective titles specifically because they were the best team. Very weird. Very, very strange, CJ.

[GatorGrad]

A few thoughts...

1) CJ said OBJECTIVE STANDINGS. By that, he meant real win/loss records in leagues where standings determine place. Herd Fan bringing up college football "rankings" had nothing to do with what CJ was saying.

2) "Best team" discussions are pointless. Irrelevant. When someone says that a team is the "best team" that is nothing more than opinion. It really doesn't matter as RESULTS on the field are what count. There are winners and losers in regular season and tournament games, and we accept the results for what they are and that's that. I don't see what all the fuss over "best teams" is about. I would rather be a winner of a game or a champion of a tournament than a "best team" that lost a game or failed to win a tournament. Some people may call a team that won a game or tournament the "best team" and someone else may still think that the losing team or team that didn't win the tournament is still the "best team." That's why it's pointless to even discuss.

2) That Marshall team was sick. They can half thank former Gators Eric Kresser and Bobby Pruitt. I remember after winning their championship game, both said "Go Gators" in reference to the upcoming Sugar Bowl between Florida and Florida State which ultimately ended with a Florida 52-20 win and their first MNC. Randy Moss playing in D1-AA was just the silliest thing I have ever seen. He was a man amongst boys.

[CJHawkeyes]

Very weird. Very, very strange, CJ.


Show me where the rules of any competition specifically state that the best team is entitled to win said competition. Then show me how it is determined that the best team is the best team. I'm not suggesting that the best team never wins a competition. In fact, the best team may win most competitions. My point is that the best team has to be more successful than all other teams according to a competition's rules in order to be the champion. Under objective rules, being the best team counts for nothing. This is common sense.

[CJHawkeyes]

Thank you Gator Grad. Your second point is what I have been trying to say all along. Apparently, I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself. I think I'll copy your post for future use.

[Don]

Don,

You don't even understand my position. Florida State already had the schedules and access to the top bowls. All that was left was to win. Duke and Vanderbilt already have the schedules and access to the bowls. All that is left is to win. NonBCS teams do not have the schedules, acquiring them is easier said than done, and they do not have equal access to the best bowls and convincing the talent needed to succeed against undefined legitimate schedules out of their reach is next to impossible.. Therefore, I don't think Florida State had to overcome the same obstacles that have faced mid-majors all these years. They were a major school that may not have won. So what? Even before Bowden, they were playing in bigger bowls against other major teams that mid-majors had no access to. The comparison is ridiculous.

Yes and it was earned over years of playing BCS teams. Recall that they started playing in 1949 and became so bigtime (according to Howell) in 1954. We're talking 20+ years later for Bowden. BSU started D1A in 1996 and still hasn't played a decent schedule. The comparison is NOT ridiculous.



It is also ridiculous that you have to earn respect over years. Respect should have nothing to do with who wins a competition. BCS schools can lose 100 straight games and next year, if they go unbeaten, they are playing on the big stage. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, and South Florida just have to be invited into a BCS conference and the system automatically respects them.

Again, USF scheduled 8 BCS teams ON THE ROAD in their first 5 years (non-Big East) and actually beat someone. BSU to date in 11 years has played only 11 teams ON THE ROAD and hasn't beatene anyone!!

Also, Florida State finished fourth to end the regular season in 1979. Despite no wins versus ranked opponents, they were in the Orange Bowl.... Utah and Boise State got their shots only to avoid a lawsuit which you would think would be readily dismissed if the BCS were equitable. Nevertheless, you don't think access to fewer bowls and no access to the major bowls didn't help create the gap the exists today?

Where were BSU and Utah ranked at the end of the regular season? All 3 were undefeated at the end of the regular season. All three got "major" bowl invites. Recall that FSU SOS was actually higher than either BSU's or Utah's. How were BSU and Utah treated worse than FSU? And your contention that it was the threat of a lawsuit that made the difference is merely speculation on your part.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

Florida State has played 50% or more of their schedule versus other major teams since 1955. They were in the club back then and only had to win once to get an invite to the better bowls. FSU was in the Gator Bowl in 1965. The last time a mid-major team appeared in that bowl was Tulsa in 1953. Wash. & Lee is the only other mid-major to play the Gator Bowl. Again, FSU was in the same position then as Duke and Vanderbilt are now. They have access to the schedules and bowls. They just have to win. Boise State has never had guaranteed access to the schedules or bowls. They are unable to play a decent schedule from your point of view because they and their conference rivals are in the same boat. They can't attract the recruits needed to succeed because 60 years of self-fufilling polls and limited access to bowls has demonstrated to recruits that these teams cannot win due to lopsided treatment.

What amazes me is that you give Florida State credit for playing San Diego State on the road in 1977 when you would otherwise dimiss the Aztecs for their schedule. You also ignored the fact that the Aztecs won by 25, posted a better record, and stayed at home while Florida State played in a bowl. But these teams played the same "rules" then as they do now apparently.

Boise State's performance is also irrelevant to this discussion. I don't care if the Broncos succeed or fail. My position is that bowls and polls have been biased in favor of the major conferences forever and this explains the gap between BCS and nonBCS schools. Therefore, Boise State's results are not surprising.

As for the lawsuit, I only know what I remember reading. Of course, I suppose BCS schools added a fifth bowl and made it easier for nonBCS schools to qualify out of the goodness of their hearts.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Show me where the rules of any competition specifically state that the best team is entitled to win said competition. Whoever made that silly claim, CJ? Of course no team is ever "entitled" to win a game or a tournament. You really need to quit making things up.

Yes, Don, Marshall did benefit from getting Kresser and Pruett from Florida, just as Florida benefitted from getting Billy Donovan and Jason Williams from Marshall. But, I think that the 2006 Marshall football team would have done just fine anyway, thank you, with Chad Pennington at QB -- even though coach Jim Donnan, backup TE Jermaine Wiggins and backup RB Olandis Gary had moved to Georgia. As much as I like Bobby Pruett, he had the good fortune to have inherited Jim Donnan's players and recruits.

And, Don, you could do better than to keep trying to rationalize USF's BCS conference invitation. With all of its advantages, USF never even qualified for the 16-team D-IAA championship tournament, and never came even remotely close to winning a C-USA conference championship. USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before being invited to join the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.

[CJHawkeyes]

Whoever made that silly claim, CJ? Of course no team is ever "entitled" to win a game or a tournament. You really need to quit making things up.

Yes, Don, Marshall did benefit from getting Kresser and Pruett from Florida, just as Florida benefitted from getting Billy Donovan and Jason Williams from Marshall. But, I think that the 2006 Marshall football team would have done just fine anyway, thank you, with Chad Pennington at QB -- even though coach Jim Donnan, backup TE Jermaine Wiggins and backup RB Olandis Gary had moved to Georgia. As much as I like Bobby Pruett, he had the good fortune to have inherited Jim Donnan's players and recruits.

And, Don, you could do better than to keep trying to rationalize USF's BCS conference invitation. With all of its advantages, USF never even qualified for the 16-team D-IAA championship tournament, and never came even remotely close to winning a C-USA conference championship. USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before being invited to join the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.

How am I making things up? You appeared to have been arguing that being a better team is reason enough to rank one team higher than another. If not, then I have no idea what value you are placing on being the better team. For example, you have argued that SOS is silly and that an undefeated team playing a weaker schedule may be a better team than one that played a stronger schedule. My point is what relevance does it have as being the better team does not entitle them to a higher ranking. Given that I have apparently explained myself so badly, just read what Gator Grad posted in his second point. He said what I have been trying to all along.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

How am I making things up? "Show me where the rules of any competition specifically state that the best team is entitled to win said competition." You made that up, CJ. No one said anything like that.

You appeared to have been arguing that being a better team is reason enough to rank one team higher than another. Yes -- I am saying exactly that! Score one for CJ! It is common sense.

[CJHawkeyes]

"Show me where the rules of any competition specifically state that the best team is entitled to win said competition." You made that up, CJ. No one said anything like that.

Yes -- I am saying exactly that! Score one for CJ! It is common sense.

You have just contradicted yourself. Winning a higher ranking for being the better team is the same thing as winning a competition for being the better team. If, for example, two teams are in contention for the final playoff berth and you award it to the better team for that reason, you are doing exactly what I'm arguing against. You accuse me of making things up by saying no one made the claim in my first quote than turn around and admit to doing just that following the second quote. Again, my position is that no team should be awarded anything based being a better team. How is saying that a better team is entitled to a higher ranking for being the better team any different than simply awarding a competition to the better team? If we agree that the better team isn't entitled to win a competition for being the better team, how it is common sense to suggest that the better team is entitled to a higher ranking for being the better team?

[Don]

BSU has been playing D1A ball since 1996. In the WAC here are the number of BCS teams that each member has played in that interval

Nevada 13
BSU 15
Utah St 20
Hawaii 21
New Mexico St 21
Idaho 23
Fresno St 28
San Jose St 31

Compare the 15 BCS teams played by BSU to
Cincinnati 24
Louisville 34
Connecticut 22 (in 8 yrs = 30 in 11 yrs)
USF 12 (in 7 yrs = 19 in 11 yrs)


All four have played more ranked opponents than BSU has.
Cincinnati 24
Louisville 16
USF 11 (in 7 yrs = 17 in 11 yrs)
Connecticut 10 (in 8 yrs = 14 in 11 yrs)
Utah 9
BSU 7


The Sport Link Network considers FSU to have been major since 1952.

From 1952 to 1962 (first 11 years) FSU played 42 "major" opponents (BSU has played 15) including. FSU has played 13 ranked opponents (6 for BSU). FSU never played in a major bowl until 1979 (28th year).

Face it BSU is getting away with murder in their scheduling!

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Wow, CJ, I hardly know where to begin. This time I will go very slow -- just for you.

A championship tournament ideally would include the best 16 teams. The team considered to be the very best should not be entitled to anything, except for an opportunity to compete on equal terms with the other 15 seeded teams for the championship. There is a reason why the games are actually played in championship playoffs -- polls, computer ratings and tournament seedings are invariably WRONG.

Don -- Boise State defeated the best that the Big 12 had to offer in a BCS bowl. However, I have never argued that Boise State deserves to be invited to join a BCS conference. All I have contended is that the NCAA should treat D-IA football exactly as it treats all other football divisions, and all other team sports in all divisions, by hosting 16-team D-IA national football championship playoffs. The BCS would be free, if it so chooses, to continue with its post-season bowls and BCS championship.

Your point that FSU football has earned respect is excellent. Your contention that USF has earned an invitation to become a member of a BCS conference is ludicrous.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

I'm not defending Boise State's schedule nor am I suggesting their ranking should necessarily be higher, but they aren't getting away with anything. They play eight conference games in a conference with teams like themselves. Teams that as a group cannot meet the definition of a legitimate schedule like BCS conferences automatically do because years of competing under lopsided rules has shown recruits that these teams cannot win. That leaves them with four games in which they are apparently expected to schedule four road games versus strong BCS teams that have no incentive to play Boise State. If Boise State is expected to play these teams, shouldn't the rules actually encourage the USCs to schedule Boise State rather than I-AA competition? Fresno State and Nevada are the only WAC teams listed that have had any real success. Who wouldn't schedule Utah State and New Mexico State over Boise State when, as a BCS member, you just have to finish undefeated?


The lopsided nature of college football has resulted in major teams monopolizing the talent pool, guaranteeing their members play the required schedule, guaranteeng their best members face less parity than the best nonBCS teams, then criticizing nonBCS schools for "getting away with murder in scheduling." There is nothing brave about being a BCS school playing a BCS schedule.

Basically, acquiring the required schedule is easier said than done when the teams you need to play don't need to play you and access to less bowls and lesser bowls even when more successful severely limits their ability attract the talent needed to succeed versus the required schedule even if they get it adds up to no realistic shot at the national title.

Out of curiosity, suppose college football defined what a legitimate schedule is, guaranteed that all members played said schedule, guaranteed that a better season earns a better bowl, and all recruits know an unbeaten season has the same value everywhere. What might that do to parity in college football and a nonBCS school's chances of winning it all?

[CJHawkeyes]

Wow, CJ, I hardly know where to begin. This time I will go very slow -- just for you.

A championship tournament ideally would include the best 16 teams. The team considered to be the very best should not be entitled to anything, except for an opportunity to compete on equal terms with the other 15 seeded teams for the championship. There is a reason why the games are actually played in championship playoffs -- polls, computer ratings and tournament seedings are invariably WRONG.

Don -- Boise State defeated the best that the Big 12 had to offer in a BCS bowl. However, I have never argued that Boise State deserves to be invited to join a BCS conference. All I have contended is that the NCAA should treat D-IA football exactly as it treats all other football divisions, and all other team sports in all divisions, by hosting 16-team D-IA national football championship playoffs. The BCS would be free, if it so chooses, to continue with its post-season bowls and BCS championship.

Your point that FSU football has earned respect is excellent. Your contention that USF has earned an invitation to become a member of a BCS conference is ludicrous.


Polls, computer rankings, and seedings are only "wrong" if they think like you and place a team higher for being a better team. A championship tournament should include the 16 most successful teams according to agreed upon rules, not the 16 best teams.

[GatorGrad]

Whoever made that silly claim, CJ? Of course no team is ever "entitled" to win a game or a tournament. You really need to quit making things up.

Yes, Don, Marshall did benefit from getting Kresser and Pruett from Florida, just as Florida benefitted from getting Billy Donovan and Jason Williams from Marshall. But, I think that the 2006 Marshall football team would have done just fine anyway, thank you, with Chad Pennington at QB -- even though coach Jim Donnan, backup TE Jermaine Wiggins and backup RB Olandis Gary had moved to Georgia. As much as I like Bobby Pruett, he had the good fortune to have inherited Jim Donnan's players and recruits.

And, Don, you could do better than to keep trying to rationalize USF's BCS conference invitation. With all of its advantages, USF never even qualified for the 16-team D-IAA championship tournament, and never came even remotely close to winning a C-USA conference championship. USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before being invited to join the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.

1) It was me talking about Florida/Marshall...not Don.

2) The year I'm talking about was 1996, not 2006.

3) Face it...Marshall owes their 1996 NCAA Championship to the Gators. Kresser couldn't beat out Wuerffel, so we sent him your way! :)

4) Billy Donovan's Asst Coach Donnie Jones just joined Marshall as the Head Basketball Coach. I think he'll do a fantastic job. Great guy.

[GatorGrad]

OK this thread has gone on long enough. Why don't we all post what we would do if we were 100% in charge of college football. Of course we're all biased, but it could be fun. Here's what I would love to see:

1) The six BCS Conferences either leave the NCAA, or the NCAA makes them the real D1, and the nonBCS Conferences make up their own division.

2) All six BCS Conferences are required to get up to 12 teams. Just for fun, let's say that the PAC 10 adds Utah and BYU, the Big Ten finally adds Notre Dame, and the Big East adds several east-coast football programs to go along with the SEC, BIG 12, and ACC who already have 12 team conferences. This gives you a new "league" of 72 teams.

3) All six 12-team conferences must follow the two-divisions of six teams format with 8 conference games (5 division games + 3 non-division games.) The other 4 non conference games must with teams within the six BCS Conferences.

4) All six conferences would have conference title games between their two division winners on "Championship Saturday" during the first weekend in December.

5) The six conference champions + two at large bids selected by a committe form an eight-team playoff using neutral bowl game sites for each game to determine the National Champion.

I know it's only a fantasy and not realistic. But that would be my college football fantasy. What's yours?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

At the risk of being redundant...

The BCS conferences can leave the NCAA or stay -- I don't care which.

In either event, the NCAA should treat D-IA football exactly like it treats all other football divisions, as well as all other teams sports in all divisions, by hosting 16-team national championship playoffs.

As with other football divisions and other NCAA team sports, each school extended an invitation to compete in the playoffs has the option to decline. Thus, if BCS conferences schools prefer to remain in the NCAA, the BCS can continue to operate post-season any way it wishes.

It can be that simple.

[GatorGrad]

At the risk of being redundant...

The BCS conferences can leave the NCAA or stay -- I don't care which.

In either event, the NCAA should treat D-IA football exactly like it treats all other football divisions, as well as all other teams sports in all divisions, by hosting 16-team national championship playoffs.

As with other football divisions and other NCAA team sports, each school extended an invitation to compete in the playoffs has the option to decline. Thus, if BCS conferences schools prefer to remain in the NCAA, the BCS can continue to operate post-season any way it wishes.

It can be that simple.

Where would those 15 playoff games in your 16-team tournament be played? On campus, bowl games, or a combination of the two?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Excellent question, GatorGrad.

For D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoff games, the NCAA awards the championship game, based on proposals received, to a stadium at least a year in advance. The proposals typically come from schools that have top football programs in their respective divisions, although all stadiums are welcome to submit proposals. The sites for games in preliminary rounds are also awarded based on bids, but only as playoffs are in progress. It is not unheard of for a school to be the visiting team playing in its own stadium (the higher seed is the home team)!

The NCAA could similarly seek proposals from stadiums for D-IA playoff games. However, the interest might be such that NFL stadiums and bowls might wish to compete with college stadiums for the rights to host playoff games. If, for example, the BCS conferences schools were to ultimately decide to participate in the D-IA championship playoffs, it would not be beyond the realm of possibilities for the major bowls to rotate hosting quarterfinal, semifinal and championship games with smaller bowls hosting first round games.

The NCAA relies on the free market. Richer schools do have an advantage in bidding, but the field will always be 100 yards long, and each team will have 11 players on the field at any given time.

Keep in mind that NCAA championship playoffs would not spell doom for non-BCS bowls. If the BCS schools were to decide to continue post-season as is and the NCAA hosted championship playoffs, together the BCS bowls and NCAA plaoffs would only involve a total of 26 of the approximately 58 to 60 teams that would be bowl eligible. Thus, there would be room for as many as 16 minor bowl games in addition to the BCS bowls and the NCAA playoffs.

[EvilVodka]

OK this thread has gone on long enough. Why don't we all post what we would do if we were 100% in charge of college football. Of course we're all biased, but it could be fun. Here's what I would love to see:

1) The six BCS Conferences either leave the NCAA, or the NCAA makes them the real D1, and the nonBCS Conferences make up their own division.

2) All six BCS Conferences are required to get up to 12 teams. Just for fun, let's say that the PAC 10 adds Utah and BYU, the Big Ten finally adds Notre Dame, and the Big East adds several east-coast football programs to go along with the SEC, BIG 12, and ACC who already have 12 team conferences. This gives you a new "league" of 72 teams.

3) All six 12-team conferences must follow the two-divisions of six teams format with 8 conference games (5 division games + 3 non-division games.) The other 4 non conference games must with teams within the six BCS Conferences.

4) All six conferences would have conference title games between their two division winners on "Championship Saturday" during the first weekend in December.

5) The six conference champions + two at large bids selected by a committe form an eight-team playoff using neutral bowl game sites for each game to determine the National Champion.

I know it's only a fantasy and not realistic. But that would be my college football fantasy. What's yours?

I'd go with a 6 team playoff, where the #1 & #2 seeds get first round byes...probably something like this:

#1 & #2 - first round byes
#3 & #4 - host 1st round
And 2 "WildCard" teams - selected from undefeated non-BCS team, next highest Conference Champ provided they have at least 10 wins, and next #5

2004
dec 26
liberty bowl: #3 Auburn vs. #9 Boise State
alamo bowl: #4 Texas vs. #6 Utah

jan 1
rose: #1 USC vs. __________ (liberty or alamo bowl winner)
sugar: Georgia vs. Miami
fiesta: California vs. Michigan
orange: Virginia Tech vs. Pitt
cotton: #2 Oklahoma vs. ___________(liberty or alamo bowl winner)

jan 8
national championship: (rose bowl winner vs. cotton bowl winner)


2006
dec 26
liberty bowl: #3 Michigan vs. #8 Boise State
alamo bowl: #4 LSU vs. #5 USC

jan 1
rose: #1 Ohio State vs. __________(liberty or alamo bowl winner)
sugar: #2 Florida vs. __________(liberty or alamo bowl winner)
fiesta: BYU vs. Notre Dame
orange: Wake Forest vs. Louisville
cotton: Oklahoma vs. West Virginia

jan 8
national championship: (rose bowl winner vs. sugar bowl winner)

BOLD = playoff games
ITALICS = wildcard teams

I'd also add the Cotton Bowl to the BCS, and give the Mountain West Conference an autobid

I just think that this is the solution that would appease the most college football fans, presidents, coaches, etc. It would apply a playoff to the current bowl structure without changing the season at all, or conference affiliations. It would provide byes to ease travel costs, and provide incentive to play tough schedules. It would open the field to non-BCS conference champions, and to BCS teams that are just on the fringe of playing for a National Championship. It would still have many exciting match-ups for teams that didn't make the playoff. And most importantly, it would provide clear guidelines and an equitable system without watering down the postseason or regular season.

[ktffan]

USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before being invited to join the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.


That's not true. USF was invited to join the Big East in 2003. If your looking at why they were invited, you shouldn't be including results of games that happened after the invite.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before joining the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.

There, does that minor edit suit you, ktffan? Talk about grasping at straws.

USF accomplished nothing on the field of play to merit an invitation to become a BCS conference member. With all of its advantages, USF couldn't even qualify for the D-IAA tournament. USF never challenged for the C-USA title.

But, in 2003 USF did defeat Nichols State and Charleston Southern. Maybe it was those big wins that caught the eye of the Big East...

[ktffan]

USF was a combined 11-11 the 2 years before before joining the BE, and 8-8 in C-USA. USF won 3 OOC in the 2 years before being invited to join a BCS conference: over Tennessee Tech, Nichols State and Charleston Southern. USF lost its other 3 OOC games by a combined score of 117 to 34.

There, does that minor edit suit you, ktffan? Talk about grasping at straws.

USF accomplished nothing on the field of play to merit an invitation to become a BCS conference member. With all of its advantages, USF couldn't even qualify for the D-IAA tournament. USF never challenged for the C-USA title.

But, in 2003 USF did defeat Nichols State and Charleston Southern. Maybe it was those big wins that caught the eye of the Big East...

You are purportedly here looking for reasons why South Florida was invited to join the Big East. In that context, looking at what happned after the invitation is either dishonest or stupid. Given that you are treating this with sarcasm and obviously don't care to find the answer which you claim to be seeking it's probably a pointless excercise, but I'll give it a try.

First of all, either your guilty of tunnel vision, or you are just plain being deceptive. South Florida joined the Big East for all sports, so looking at the results of two football games is not going to get you much closer to the answer I suspect you don't want anyways. If you are looking for football reasons, I suspect that a 50-25 all-time record, 6 of 7 years with a winning record, and a big time win over Big East member Pitt were all factors.

As for "all the advantages", South Florida had, what exactly were those? It's well known that being an independent is a disadvantage for I-AA teams trying to get into the playoffs, so that's not one. South Florida had one year in which they could have qualified for the playoffs and went 7-4. That's hardly a scathing indictment of the program, but again seems a little dishonest in the manner in which you present it.

[CJHawkeyes]

ktffan,

The issue here is that some believe Florida State earned its place at the big boys table by playing and winning several road games versus major programs and this is "all" it takes for nonBCS teams to do the same. I believe Florida State was always at the big boys table having had access to the schedules, bowls, and talent, and simply failed to take real advantage until Bowden arrived on campus. That said, even assuming Florida State did earn its place, I believe no one should have to earn fair treatment. It should be every schools's right to compete under an equitable system. Of course, not everyone agrees that things are inequitable. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that several BCS schools did not earn their place in the BCS including newcomers Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, and South Florida. I'm quite certain location was the overriding factor in South Florida's case and while the Big East is free to invite whomever it likes, this goes to show that no one has to earn its place at the big boys table, it simply has to be invited. If, for example, BCS members agreed to grant an auto BCS berth to the MWC champion, the ability of those teams to compete for the national title would improve from slim and none to just go unbeaten.

[ktffan]

ktffan,

The issue here is that some believe Florida State earned its place at the big boys table by playing and winning several road games versus major programs and this is "all" it takes for nonBCS teams to do the same. I believe Florida State was always at the big boys table having had access to the schedules, bowls, and talent, and simply failed to take real advantage until Bowden arrived on campus. That said, even assuming Florida State did earn its place, I believe no one should have to earn fair treatment. It should be every schools's right to compete under an equitable system. Of course, not everyone agrees that things are inequitable. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that several BCS schools did not earn their place in the BCS including newcomers Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, and South Florida. I'm quite certain location was the overriding factor in South Florida's case and while the Big East is free to invite whomever it likes, this goes to show that no one has to earn its place at the big boys table, it simply has to be invited. If, for example, BCS members agreed to grant an auto BCS berth to the MWC champion, the ability of those teams to compete for the national title would improve from slim and none to just go unbeaten.

Looking at this objectively, as I did when I read his post, I can see two things. When the invite went out, USF had decent football credentials (plus the Florida market, less we forget), and since joining the Big East have done fairly decent compared to other Big East teams. Hard to critisize the move from either of those angles, although USF tanking shortly after getting the invite did make it look like possibly a bad choice.

Count me among those who feel taking USF was risky, and I'll buy they didn't 'earn' it, but what was the Big East to do? They probably needed another Florida team to replace Miami and the Florida market, and how many 'proven' teams are there out there? The choice of UCONN remains a more question football choice, but there was the basketball connection already.

[CJHawkeyes]

Looking at this objectively, as I did when I read his post, I can see two things. When the invite went out, USF had decent football credentials (plus the Florida market, less we forget), and since joining the Big East have done fairly decent compared to other Big East teams. Hard to critisize the move from either of those angles, although USF tanking shortly after getting the invite did make it look like possibly a bad choice.

Count me among those who feel taking USF was risky, and I'll buy they didn't 'earn' it, but what was the Big East to do? They probably needed another Florida team to replace Miami and the Florida market, and how many 'proven' teams are there out there? The choice of UCONN remains a more question football choice, but there was the basketball connection already.


I don't disagree with anything you say here. My point is that Don has argued that Florida State earned the major label by performing well against other majors and he apparently demands the same from nonBCS schools while ignoring that several schools did not earn the major label but simply benefited from being in the right place at the right time including South Florida.

[ktffan]

I don't disagree with anything you say here. My point is that Don has argued that Florida State earned the major label by performing well against other majors and he apparently demands the same from nonBCS schools while ignoring that several schools did not earn the major label but simply benefited from being in the right place at the right time including South Florida.

What did Virginia Tech, Rutgers or Temple do to earn the major label?

[HellYeahHokie]

What did Virginia Tech, Rutgers or Temple do to earn the major label?

Well, for the Hokies, I think it involves 18 straight years of bowl games, beating Texas in the Sugar Bowl, and playing in a MNC game. Can't speak for the other schools

I think CJ is confusing a "major" football team with a "major" conference. The Florida schools are "major" programs whether they are in a "major" conferences or not. They earned that reputation by who they played and beat. South Florida is not a "major" program just because it's in the Big East, any more than Duke being a "major" program because it's in the ACC.

[ktffan]

Well, for the Hokies, I think it involves 18 straight years of bowl games, beating Texas in the Sugar Bowl, and playing in a MNC game. Can't speak for the other schools


Virginia Tech held a 'major' designation before any of that happened. They came along for the ride and made the best of it.

[CJHawkeyes]

What did Virginia Tech, Rutgers or Temple do to earn the major label?


Nothing, which is the point. Just by belonging a major conference, they automatically have access to the schedules, bowls, and talent needed to compete for a national title. Of course, Temple has since lost the major label follwoing their eviction from the Big East.

[CJHawkeyes]

Well, for the Hokies, I think it involves 18 straight years of bowl games, beating Texas in the Sugar Bowl, and playing in a MNC game. Can't speak for the other schools

I think CJ is confusing a "major" football team with a "major" conference. The Florida schools are "major" programs whether they are in a "major" conferences or not. They earned that reputation by who they played and beat. South Florida is not a "major" program just because it's in the Big East, any more than Duke being a "major" program because it's in the ACC.

South Florida and Duke are major in the sense that they have direct access to the top bowls and schedules needed to contend for a national title. Regardless of past success, recruits know an unbeaten season at either school virtually guarantees a shot at the national title as a result of belonging to BCS conferences. On the flip side, recruits know that 1984 BYU is the only non-major school to ever win a national title unless you include a couple of Army teams during the war years. The Big East includes two schools new to I-A. Cincinnati has never finished ranked. Rutgers was one step above Temple until these last two years. Pittsburgh has lost at least three games every year since 1984. Louisville, Syracuse, and West Virginia have had some great years, but none has set the world on fire. However, this group of teams has a competitive advantage over nonBCS conferences as a result of the BCS label that some argue doesn't exist.

[HellYeahHokie]

The notion that <b>any</b> recruit that goes to Duke or South Florida believes they have a shot at the National Championship is completely absurd. I can assure that a recruit that had a choice between Duke and Utah would believe he had a better chance at the MNC game at Utah than at Duke. Because there's no way in hell that Duke will go undefeated, but Utah has a chance.

[Blue Hen]

I think USF can contend for BE championships and thus pretend BCS national championships...........just like VT when we were given a chance. Utah is not allowed to contend for BCS MNCs.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

As for "all the advantages", South Florida had, what exactly were those? I know USF very well, ktffan. USF is within a short drive of my home and I paid my daughter's tuition to attend USF. I have followed the development of USF's football program closely since the idea was first introduced, and I regularly attend USF home games (although I root for WVU when the Mountaineers visit USF).

USF has one key advantage that has absolutely nothing to do with its success or failure on the football field: Tampa Bay is one of the largest TV markets in the U.S. -- larger than that of most cities with NFL teams. Another major advantage: USF also plays its home games in Tampa Stadium. BTW -- the weather isn't too bad here either.

But, USF accomplished nothing on the field of play to merit an invitation to become a member of a BCS conference.

[EvilVodka]

I think USF can contend for BE championships and thus pretend BCS national championships...........just like VT when we were given a chance. Utah is not allowed to contend for BCS MNCs.

Just not true

Until you find a specific rule or clause that specifically states that "non-BCS teams are ineligible for the BCS NC bowl game", then you're flat out wrong

[EvilVodka]

Nothing, which is the point. Just by belonging a major conference, they automatically have access to the schedules, bowls, and talent needed to compete for a national title. Of course, Temple has since lost the major label follwoing their eviction from the Big East.

And isn't Temple a flaw in your argument? Having BCS resources doesn't automatically make you a winner

[EvilVodka]

But, USF accomplished nothing on the field of play to merit an invitation to become a member of a BCS conference.

you're right, but what was the Big East supposed to do? Add BYU?

[GatorGrad]

you're right, but what was the Big East supposed to do? Add BYU?

In Herd Fan's world, they were probably supposed to add Marshall.

[CJHawkeyes]

The notion that <b>any</b> recruit that goes to Duke or South Florida believes they have a shot at the National Championship is completely absurd. I can assure that a recruit that had a choice between Duke and Utah would believe he had a better chance at the MNC game at Utah than at Duke. Because there's no way in hell that Duke will go undefeated, but Utah has a chance.

If Northwestern can finish third and be a botched snap away from an unbeaten season, Duke can do it too. Kansas State is another example of a program that came from nothing. Utah goes unbeaten, wins a BCS bowl, loses its coach, and recruits see that you can't win a national title at a nonBCS school.

[CJHawkeyes]

Just not true

Until you find a specific rule or clause that specifically states that "non-BCS teams are ineligible for the BCS NC bowl game", then you're flat out wrong

There isn't a specfic rule. Just years of unaccountable biased polls and greater postseason access has demonstrated that nonBCS schools cannot win it all. FWIW, based on my own ranking system, since 1978, the average highest ranked mid-major team without a bowl berth is 24th. During that same time, the average lowest major team with a bowl berth is 54th. Kind of tough to compete for recruits when 24th is worth less than 54th because of the uniform you wear or the conference you compete in. Even if you give no weight to these numbers, there are several examples of 9-2 or better mid-majors with no bowls while 6-5 teams go bowling. In 1998, 10-1 Miami-Ohio beat 6-5 North Carolina but the Tar Heels went to a bowl while M-O watched.

[CJHawkeyes]

And isn't Temple a flaw in your argument? Having BCS resources doesn't automatically make you a winner


Never said it did. However, having no access or very limited access makes it significantly more difficult.

[HellYeahHokie]

Virginia Tech held a 'major' designation before any of that happened. They came along for the ride and made the best of it.

That's news to me. Because I remember vividly when VT teams that were 9-2 didn't get invited to a bowl game, but a 6-5 Notre Dame team did. I know we didn't really feel like we held a major designation. Occassional successful seasons, like the Hokies had before 1992, do not make a team major.

And certainly when the joined the Big East, nobody consider them a major program. It was Miami and the other guys. When I went to the Sugar Bowl in 95, the Longhorn fans couldn't believe that they were playing only Virginia Tech.

So I don't know where you get this idea that VT was considered a major, because any Hokie who was a fan before 1992 knows better.

But you are absolute correct that they took advantage of their opportunities while in the Big East, while Temple did not. So how did they become a major program? Because they won football games, not because they were annointed.

[HellYeahHokie]

Never said it did. However, having no access or very limited access makes it significantly more difficult.

There you go. It makes it more difficult. I don't believe anyone would argue that. But it's not impossible. And Notre Dame is the perfect example. Notre Dame is not in a "major conference". They aren't in a conference at all. And while they have negotiated a deal with the Big East affiliated bowls, they don't have any other right to the MNC game than Utah (or Florida for that matter).

And there is absolutely no doubt that Notre Dame could get to a MNC game, without the benefits of being in a BCS conference. So this notion that being in a BCS conference is the only way into the MNC is just wrong.

You guys want parity in college football. That's basically what you are asking for. But that's just never, ever going to happen. Any more than Donald Trump is going to start sharing his money with me. The only thing that can be hoped for is at least an 8-team playoff system. That would include most of the major players, and any other non-major program that has a good year an opportunity to play for a championship. But it's still not going to change the balance of power in college football. The best players are still going to go to USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, LSU, Florida State, etc. And these teams are going to continue to win most of their games, particularly against non major teams.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

you're right, but what was the Big East supposed to do? Add BYU?In Herd Fan's world, they were probably supposed to add Marshall.The Big East had every right to invite USF or any other school it wished, EV and GatorGrad. But, the contention that USF merited an invitation to become a BCS conference member based on its performance on the field of play is a laughable farce.

Never once have I advocated BCS conference membership for BYU or Marshall. It is a sign of weakness when the two of you, like CJHawkeyes, resort to making things up.

That notwithstanding, if the NCAA were to have national champion playoffs for D-IA football similar to the D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, with a fair seedings system, then conference affiliation would be a non-factor and a non-issue.

[CJHawkeyes]

There you go. It makes it more difficult. I don't believe anyone would argue that. But it's not impossible. And Notre Dame is the perfect example. Notre Dame is not in a "major conference". They aren't in a conference at all. And while they have negotiated a deal with the Big East affiliated bowls, they don't have any other right to the MNC game than Utah (or Florida for that matter).

And there is absolutely no doubt that Notre Dame could get to a MNC game, without the benefits of being in a BCS conference. So this notion that being in a BCS conference is the only way into the MNC is just wrong.

You guys want parity in college football. That's basically what you are asking for. But that's just never, ever going to happen. Any more than Donald Trump is going to start sharing his money with me. The only thing that can be hoped for is at least an 8-team playoff system. That would include most of the major players, and any other non-major program that has a good year an opportunity to play for a championship. But it's still not going to change the balance of power in college football. The best players are still going to go to USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, LSU, Florida State, etc. And these teams are going to continue to win most of their games, particularly against non major teams.


I'm not concerned about parity nor do I care if a nonBCS school ever wins it at all. I simply do not believe all I-A college football teams do not nor have they ever competed under an equitable system.

[CJHawkeyes]

Herd Fan,


Once again, I did not make anything up. The pursuit of playoff berths and higher seeds are themselves competitions. If, as you claim, it is common sense to award a playoff berth and/or higher seed to a better team solely on the basis of being a better team, then you are saying that a better team is entitled to win a competition for being a better team. That you do not apply this logic to football games or tournaments, and I never actually said you did, does not change the fact that you are entitling a better team to win a competition just for being the better team. Your inability to recognize the pursuit of playoff berths and higher seeds as competitions does not mean I made anything up.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

you are entitling a better team to win a competition just for being the better team.Actually, CJ, you incessantly make things up! Never once have I said or even remotely implied that a better team is ever entitled to win anything just for being a better team. There is a reason that the games are actually played.

While it is indeed true that I do prefer that the best 16 teams receive the top 16 playoff seeds, which is indeed common sense, I would not object to any well-defined NCAA seedings system that is fair and reasonable.

[Blue Hen]

What are you talking about, HYH :-)..???? Notre Dame is a 'one team' BCS conference. It's one of the priviledged 66. Comparing ND's post season opportunities to Utah's ?...c'mon. Also, a Notre Dame is eligible for high pre-season poll rankings (generally necessary for MNCs). Utah is not.

[Blue Hen]

sorry to butt in here.....
In a legitimate NCAA CF championship the first three rounds would be played on campus. The championship game location would be bid out .

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

That is indeed the way it has been for the D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, Blue Hen.

But, I think that the NCAA awards the host stadium for each game leading up to the championship game to the highest bidder. Although the highest bidder has always been one of the schools facing one another in a given round, I think that other bids would be considered.

The site for the championship game is typically awarded at least one year in advance.

[GatorGrad]

That is indeed the way it has been for the D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, Blue Hen.

But, I think that the NCAA awards the host stadium for each game leading up to the championship game to the highest bidder. Although the highest bidder has always been one of the schools facing one another in a given round, I think that other bids would be considered.

The site for the championship game is typically awarded at least one year in advance.

So...are you saying that USC could be playing Oklahoma in a semi-final game in The Swamp in Gainesville, FL? That would be a big mistake. It would be a gamble as far as ticket sales go as you are asking two fanbases that are far away to fill up a 90,000 seat stadium. Keep in mind that not many fans can afford or have the time to travel to four different cities for four different games to follow their team through an NCAA Tournament Bracket. Which is why many would wait and save their money and vacation time until the semis or title game before going.

Thus, I agree with Hen that the first three rounds would need to be on campus, but I also think the higher seed should be hosting the game. A higher seed playing on the road would be silly. Of course then, mid majors would have something else to complain about - the fact that they are usually the lower seeds and forced to play and beat three top 10 type teams on the road back to back to back just to get to the neutral site championship game. History has shown that this would be very unlikely to happen and thus the big boys would still dominate college football contrary to what some of you would like to believe.

[Stumpy Stew]

I'm not sure about Div. II and III, but in the last few years for the FCS
(Div. I-AA) games, the higher seeds get to host, with no bidding on the game, but they must pay a specific amount to the NCAA. Appalachian, because we were a 1 & 2 seed, hosted all it's early round games the last 2 years.

[GatorGrad]

The Big East had every right to invite USF or any other school it wished, EV and GatorGrad. But, the contention that USF merited an invitation to become a BCS conference member based on its performance on the field of play is a laughable farce.

Never once have I advocated BCS conference membership for BYU or Marshall. It is a sign of weakness when the two of you, like CJHawkeyes, resort to making things up.

That notwithstanding, if the NCAA were to have national champion playoffs for D-IA football similar to the D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, with a fair seedings system, then conference affiliation would be a non-factor and a non-issue.

"Sign of weakness?" What are you talking about? I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that I was joking with the Marshall to Big East comment. Why is everything to you here a serious debate that must be won or lost? When are you going to realize that not everyone shares your opinions 100% on everything and just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that they are wrong. Hate to break it to ya, but you're not the only one here that follows college football. You are entitled to your opinions, and others are entitled to theirs. That's what a message board is for. You are funny.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

So...are you saying that USC could be playing Oklahoma in a semi-final game in The Swamp in Gainesville, FL?I did not say that. But, if the NCAA procedure for D-IA playoffs would be to award the game site to the highest bidder, that would be a possibility. The same thing happens every year in D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, and the world has survived!

A gamble, you say? If so, it would be a gamble only by the University of Florida. But not much of one. We already know that D-IAA, D-II and D-III fans are willing to travel to playoff games on as many as four consecutive weekends. And, you already know that Ben Hill Griffin Stadium easily sells out for the Gators vs. lesser opponents than Oklahoma. So, I doubt that it would be much of a gamble on the part of Florida.

Keep in mind that TV revenues would be enormous. Also keep in mind that Oklahoma would have an opportunity to bid for the right to host the game, and I suspect that other stadiums, including bowls, would also have the right to submit competitive bids.

Your "joke" was a lame effort to distract from the substance and merits of the discussion. That is a clear sign of weakness.

My question: why is it so important to BCS supporters to deny schools not participating in the BCS bowls an opportunity to compete in NCAA playoffs?

[CJHawkeyes]

"Show me where the rules of any competition specifically state that the best team is entitled to win said competition." You made that up, CJ. No one said anything like that.

Yes -- I am saying exactly that! Score one for CJ! It is common sense.


Incessantly making stuff up? Your inability to understand the point I'm making does not equate to me making stuff up. I have no reason to make anything up. There's nothing to gain. I wrote: "You appeared to have been arguing that being a better team is reason enough to rank one team higher than another." You followed with the second quote above. Again, if it is common sense to award a better team a higher ranking for that reason alone than you are entitling a better team to win a competition for being a better team. Teams compete for higher rankings. The reason we are even having this discussion is because you continue to say that polls, computer rankings, and seedings are invariably wrong about the best teams. I responded by saying those things are wrong if they are even concerned about the best teams because better teams are entitled to nothing just because they are better teams.

[GatorGrad]

I did not say that. But, if the NCAA procedure for D-IA playoffs would be to award the game site to the highest bidder, that would be a possibility. The same thing happens every year in D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, and the world has survived!

A gamble, you say? If so, it would be a gamble only by the University of Florida. But not much of one. We already know that D-IAA, D-II and D-III fans are willing to travel to playoff games on as many as four consecutive weekends. And, you already know that Ben Hill Griffin Stadium easily sells out for the Gators vs. lesser opponents than Oklahoma. So, I doubt that it would be much of a gamble on the part of Florida.

Keep in mind that TV revenues would be enormous. Also keep in mind that Oklahoma would have an opportunity to bid for the right to host the game, and I suspect that other stadiums, including bowls, would also have the right to submit competitive bids.

Your "joke" was a lame effort to distract from the substance and merits of the discussion. That is a clear sign of weakness.

My question: why is it so important to BCS supporters to deny schools not participating in the BCS bowls an opportunity to compete in NCAA playoffs?

Sorry, but to compare the other divisions and just assume that the same structure would work for D1 is ignorant. The stadiums are bigger, the fanbases are bigger, and there is a lot more money involved. When money is not a big deal, and when the stadiums and fanbases are smaller like they are in the lower divisions, the playoff structure you described can work. What you are describing will never be implemented in D1.

There is no way that fans are going to be able to fill up stadiums in every game for every round, with the exception of the title game and possibly the semifinal games, unless one of the two schools is hosting the game. And it would only make sense for the higher seed to host. You can't make #2 play at #15 just because #15 won a bid. Please tell me you are joking. Any 16-team NCAA Tournament would need to include all 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids, would need to be seeded somehow, and the higher seed would need to host the games on campus for at least the first two rounds. Your 16-team proposed format does not follow this format which is why I disagree with it.

Also, such a structure would need to prove to make more money for all involved than the current bowl system. I'm not saying it is right, but D1 is different. There's a lot of money involved unlike the lower levels whether we like it or not. This is why you are much more likely to see a simple 4-team BCS Playoff that fits within the current structure than a real 16-team tournament anytime soon.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

If University of Florida coaches and administration feel the same way you do, GatorGrad, then the Gators could simply decline an NCAA playoffs invitation. If University of Florida fans will not follow the Gators through the playoffs, then the Gators would indeed be wise to stay home. Gator fans could still enjoy watching other teams compete on TV.

This is where my favorite Bobby Pruett quote comes in, "If you're scared, get a dog".

I wouldn't make the #2 seed play at the #15 seed. In fact, I have no interest in making the rules at all. I have full confidence that the NCAA could construct a playoffs system that is fair to all -- just as it has done for all team sports in all divisions, and for football in D-IAA, D-II and D-III for many, many years.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with your concept of the 11 conference champs plus five at-large teams. To me, that would be a fair and reasonable system. And, if the NCAA decided to require that first and second round games be played at the stadium of the higher-seeded teams, that also would be fine with me.

But, keep in mind that the NCAA might just come up with a very different methodology for selecting the seeded teams and for awarding the sites for hosting the games. The NCAA would be in charge -- not fans, not schools and not conferences.

Finally, the NCAA playoffs would not need to make more money than the current bowl system. Teams that accept invitations to compete in the playoffs would do so with their eyes wide open. They might make more money or they might make less money. Ultimately, the free market would decide.

[GatorGrad]

You really are downplaying the impact of money in big time college football too much. It might not be right, but it is what it is - money talks. If you don't think that money is going to play a large role in whatever the BCS or NCAA decide to do in the future regarding the college football post-season, you are sadly mistaken.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The BCS conferences would be free to do as they choose. BCS schools could:
* totally boycott NCAA playoffs and continue with BCS bowls and a BCS championship, or
* participate fully in NCAA playoffs, or
* allow BCS conference teams to decide for themselves.

If the money is not right for the Gators, Florida would have every right to decline an invitation to compete in NCAA playoffs. But, what possible objections could you have for other schools having the right to decide for themselves?

It is highly unlikely that the NCAA would develop a playoff system that would suit your every whim. I certainly wouldn't expect the NCAA to satisfy all of my preferences. But, I would accept whatever systems the NCAA decides upon for selecting the seeded teams and the game sites.

[Blue Hen]

I agree with GG, here. An all inclusive 16 team NCAA CF championship would likely have to feature 'home' games for the higher seeded teams....at least up to the semi-finals. Also, imo the NCAA championship would , in time, draw the big TV money and the exhibition games (bowls) would eventually die out....thank goodness. Teams will value NCAA championship trophies over corn chip trophies.
As to the "simple 4 team BCS playoff"....thumbs down. 'BCS' and 'playoff' = oil & water. Can't have a break-away, renegade cartel running a championship for an entire NCAA FB division.

[GatorGrad]

The BCS conferences would be free to do as they choose. BCS schools could:
* totally boycott NCAA playoffs and continue with BCS bowls and a BCS championship, or
* participate fully in NCAA playoffs, or
* allow BCS conference teams to decide for themselves.

If the money is not right for the Gators, Florida would have every right to decline an invitation to compete in NCAA playoffs. But, what possible objections could you have for other schools having the right to decide for themselves?

It is highly unlikely that the NCAA would develop a playoff system that would suit your every whim. I certainly wouldn't expect the NCAA to satisfy all of my preferences. But, I would accept whatever systems the NCAA decides upon for selecting the seeded teams and the game sites.

How many times are you going to point out the fact that schools would be free to choose to participate in whatever post-season they would like? You say as much in at least every other post. We get that. We also all know that they would not both co-exist in the long-term. Which is why money is a factor. Changing the entire structure of college football's D1 Bowl Division post-season is not something you just snap your fingers and it is done. Installing a 16-team tournament would likely mean the end of the bowl system, and definitely mean the end of the BCS. If the powers that be were convinced that more money would be made with a 16-team tournament replacing the BCS and bowl structure, then we would already have a tournament.

I have no objection to other schools having the right to play in an NCAA Tournament. And until a 16-team playoff is established, if nonBCS schools have problem with the Bowl Division of D1 Football, and competing for a legit "NCAA Championship" is so important, then why do these schools remain in the Bowl Division? Why did schools like Marshall move up to D1 in the first place? Obviously, there are a lot of positives to remain in D1's Bowl Division, even if you are nonBCS and there is no playoff. Otherwise, all of these schools wouldn't continue to stick around.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

You have conceded that the BCS is incapable of competing against playoffs? Amazing! I am shocked and astounded! But, you might very well be right, GatorGrad.

I just wonder what America would be like today if the U.S. government banned every evolving better idea that, in the free market, would threaten to surplant an existing concept or technology. The telegraph and telephone threated the U.S Post Office, horseless carriages threatened buggy-makers, television threatened radio, talking pictures threatened silent movies, automation threatened the jobs of millions of low-paid workers.

Somehow America not only survived all of this, but has prospered. I rather suspect that the same would be the case with the NCAA and D-IA playoffs.

[GatorGrad]

Of course the BCS would not be able to compete with a real NCAA Playoff long-term. When did I ever suggest otherwise? The bowl games would basically become college football's version of the NIT...it would just be teams that weren't good enough to make the playoff. Which is why such a dramatic change is risky and won't happen over night. There is simply too much money involved without any guarantee that a playoff would make as much money. Who doesn't WANT a real playoff? I sure do. I think we all do. That argument was never a question. You're beating a dead horse there.

All I have ever said is that 1) the big schools would still dominate no matter which format you use, 2) mid majors would still have something "unfair" to complain about such as usually getting lower seeds and having to play on the road vs basketball which are at least neutral sites, and 3) it's not as easy as saying "well the other divisions have a playoff" so we should have one too. There is a lot more money involved in this division, more than I think you realize. You want to just generalize and pretend that it would be easy to just ditch the bowl system, a proven money maker that has been around forever, and go to a real 16-team playoff...just because other divisions can do it. You are not coming to grips with the fact that this division is completely different than the the other NCAA Divisions, and you are ignoring the financial implications as if they do not exist.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

1. Your assertion that "big schools" might dominate NCAA playoffs might be right, but recent history has taught us that it might be wise to wait and see. The only comparable we have to go on thus far is the record in BCS bowls:
non-BCS conference teams: 2 -- BCS conference teams: 0

2. If the NCAA impartially administers the seedings process, no team has a leg to stand on in terms of disputing seedings. But, don't be surprised if some of the "big schools" do their fair share of whining when "small schools" earn higher seeds and have the opportunity to host "big schools" in their "small school" stadiums. This nightmare would be certain to happen -- perhaps more often than you might wish to think.

3. Sure it would be easy. The NCAA has decades of experience in administering playoffs. I have never once suggested ditching the bowl system. To the contrary, I have repeatedly advocated retaining the bowl system, including and especially the BCS bowls.

I will agree with you on one point. The change would indeed be very risky -- for the future of the BCS. But, the free market would ultimately make that decision. If the "big schools" are all they claim to be, then the BCS should survive and prosper. If not, then the BCS might just end up in the trash heap of history, along with silent movies.

[GatorGrad]

1. Your assertion that "big schools" might dominate NCAA playoffs might be right, but recent history has taught us that it might be wise to wait and see. The only comparable we have to go on thus far is the record in BCS bowls:
non-BCS conference teams: 2 -- BCS conference teams: 0

2. If the NCAA impartially administers the seedings process, no team has a leg to stand on in terms of disputing seedings. But, don't be surprised if some of the "big schools" do their fair share of whining when "small schools" earn higher seeds and have the opportunity to host "big schools" in their "small school" stadiums. This nightmare would be certain to happen -- perhaps more often than you might wish to think.

3. Sure it would be easy. The NCAA has decades of experience in administering playoffs. I have never once suggested ditching the bowl system. To the contrary, I have repeatedly advocated retaining the bowl system, including and especially the BCS bowls.

I will agree with you on one point. The change would indeed be very risky -- for the future of the BCS. But, the free market would ultimately make that decision. If the "big schools" are all they claim to be, then the BCS should survive and prosper. If not, then the BCS might just end up in the trash heap of history, along with silent movies.

1. A two game sample? Come on - I hope you're smarter than that. Mid Majors would probably win NCAA Titles in football as often, if not less often, than they have been winning them in basketball where UNLV has been the only school to do so in the modern era. Especially if a seeding process was in place requiring a mid major to win four big games, all away from home...which is the way it would be a lot of the time.

2. That wouldn't be a nightmare and would certainly happen sometimes. Teams like Boise St last year and Utah in 2004 would definitely be deserving of a top 8 seed and thus a home game or two in a playoff format. I don't think anyone would complain about that and they certainly could win a game like that at home. No disagreement there.

3. No...it would not be "easy." Not when you consider the business side of everything which you cannot seem to grasp. Bowl Division Football is much different than the other divisions of the NCAA. There are millions of dollars at stake. This is common sense. It's all about the money. All other excuses such as too many games, too much class time missed, etc are cover-ups. It's all about the money and until the powers that be are convinced that a 16-team tournament would bring in more money than the current proven money generating bowl system, nothing will change...unfortunately of course.

You and I are not all that different. We both would like to see a 16-team tournament. The difference between you and I is that you live in some fantasy football world where you think it's as easy as the NCAA snapping their fingers and <poof> here we have a 16-team tournament. Whereas I understand the reasons, mostly financial, for why we don't have one yet and why we won't have one anytime in the near future.

Which is why instead of worrying too much about it, I choose to enjoy the SEC race, and hope for the next babystep in the BCS...which is doubling what is now technically a 2-team playoff to a simple 4-team playoff. If that works out well, then who knows...maybe an 8 or even 16 team tournament could be in the future. But they will never go from 2 to 16 teams. So you might as well spend your energy hoping for a 4 or 8 team tournament first. Babysteps...

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The BCS "baby steps" are nothing more than BCS excuses to forestall and hopefully defeat the public demand for D-IA national championship playoffs.

Organizing and administering D-IA playoffs would be a piece of cake for the NCAA. We could have very easily have D-IA playoffs by 2009. And, you might be surprised to discover that the money to D-IA schools would actually increase dramatically. The big problem is that "small schools" would finally have merit-based opportunities to compete on equal footing for the big money.

You might bemoan and belittle the fact that top "small schools" have actually whipped the "big schools" in BCS bowls. You know full well why there are only two examples -- the BCS was forced, kicking and screaming, by public opinion into recently allowing a tiny opening for "small schools" to compete in the BCS bowls. The Utah and Boise victories were not upsets and they were not flukes. And, it is entirely possible that the "small schools'" undefeated record would have been much more substantial had other powerful "small schools" teams from recent history had an opportunity to compete in BCS bowls.

I admire you for admitting that the BCS would not be able to compete in the court of public opinion with NCAA playoffs. I am still waiting for the first supporter of the two-tier system to demonstrate a measure of intellectual honesty by admitting that what they really fear is "small schools" continuing to dispel the "big schools" myth.

There is a danger for the BCS in continuing to tell "small schools" that they have to sit in the back of the bus. If the BCS continues to defy public will, there will come a day when "small schools" will organize a monstrous antitrust lawsuit that would seek a staggering monetary remedy for damages.

[GatorGrad]

As a fan of a "big school," I can tell you that I honestly don't "fear" mid major teams in the least bit, no matter what post-season system we use. I don't remember the last time we've lost to one. When we play, we smoke them. Period. That includes teams like Marshall who we beat 49-14 in I believe 2001. So sorry, I don't fear them. You can make the excuse that they usually have to play on the road, and that's true. But they would also usually play on the road in a 16-team tournament...so why would things be all that different? I remember big bad Boise State going Between the Hedges to play Georgia in 2005. To this day, they still probably don't know what hit them. Would they upset some teams here and there and have a team make a run once in a while? Possibly. But would they consistently be able to beat four big boys, all away from home to win an NCAA Tournament? In my opinion, no. Which is why while I am all for a real playoff format because I think it would be exciting and fun, not because I think it will actually lead to mid majors rattling off NCAA Championships. The cream will rise to the top, regardless of what post-season format is implemented.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The record that counts is: Non-BCS 2 -- BCS 0

You have a memory of convenience, GatorGrad. You cannot deal with the fact -- proven -- that the best non-BCS conference teams are perfectly capable of playing head-to-head with the top BCS conference teams, and winning. In addition to the perfect record of non-BCS teams in BCS bowls, I can cite any number of victories by non-BCS teams over the supposed BCS conference powers -- starting with Fresno State's dismissal of Colorado, Oregon State and Wisconsin on consecutive weeks.

The danger of playoffs is that the best non-BCS conference teams would be in the tournament field -- at least 5 if the NCAA adopted your concept. And, some would embarrass and knock presumed BCS powers out of the tournament. That is certain. There have been a number of non-BCS conference teams in recent years that have had the talent, coaching and cohesion to win a D-IA champion tournament. But, these great non-BCS conference teams were denied an opportunity to compete for a championship by the BCS cartel.

Did you happen to notice one thing about the "baby steps" you favor? All of the decisions are being made by the BCS -- not by the NCAA. In case you haven't noticed, D-IA is a division of the NCAA. You might feel a little different about things, GatorGrad, if you were the one over the years who was being told to sit in the back of the bus.

If you are really as brave as you pretend to be, GatorGrad, then you should be anxious for an opportunity for your Gators to be able to prove themselves against all comers.

[ZOOMBAG]

If a non BCS team went 12-0 and scheduled and beat several (say 3) top 25 type of teams, especially if they were non conference games, they most certainly would have a great shot at finishing in the top two and playing for the MNC. Most of the time when a non BCS team goes unbeaten, they have played 1 or no ranked teams all season so they wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt when compared to other BCS teams that have played tougher schedules.

And who decides who is a "top 25" team? By what criteria is a team a "top 25" team? Because someone "anointed" a list before a single game was played?

[ZOOMBAG]

The best team in the history of college football was the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers. Beat 8 teams that finished in the final AP top 25 by an average of 38 points per game. Had they played in the Sun Belt conference instead of the Big 12, they still would have been the greatest team to ever take the field in college football.

[ZOOMBAG]

Equity in scheduling would FORCE teams like Florida to play AT places like La Monroe. That is how you force equity into the system. Take the money off the table and force the big schools to play ROAD games at some small schools.

[GatorGrad]

Equity in scheduling would FORCE teams like Florida to play AT places like La Monroe. That is how you force equity into the system. Take the money off the table and force the big schools to play ROAD games at some small schools.

That's just not going to happen. It doesn't happen in basketball either so why would it happen in football? Basketball proves that you don't need to have 'balaned schedules' to have a good and fair end of the season tournament to determine a true national champion. Mid Majors play road games against the big boys all the time in basketball without return trips, just like in football. Some schools just have more money and can afford to pay money to get a school that needs the money to come and play one game without a return trip. Just the way it is...

[GatorGrad]

The record that counts is: Non-BCS 2 -- BCS 0

You have a memory of convenience, GatorGrad. You cannot deal with the fact -- proven -- that the best non-BCS conference teams are perfectly capable of playing head-to-head with the top BCS conference teams, and winning. In addition to the perfect record of non-BCS teams in BCS bowls, I can cite any number of victories by non-BCS teams over the supposed BCS conference powers -- starting with Fresno State's dismissal of Colorado, Oregon State and Wisconsin on consecutive weeks.

The danger of playoffs is that the best non-BCS conference teams would be in the tournament field -- at least 5 if the NCAA adopted your concept. And, some would embarrass and knock presumed BCS powers out of the tournament. That is certain. There have been a number of non-BCS conference teams in recent years that have had the talent, coaching and cohesion to win a D-IA champion tournament. But, these great non-BCS conference teams were denied an opportunity to compete for a championship by the BCS cartel.

Did you happen to notice one thing about the "baby steps" you favor? All of the decisions are being made by the BCS -- not by the NCAA. In case you haven't noticed, D-IA is a division of the NCAA. You might feel a little different about things, GatorGrad, if you were the one over the years who was being told to sit in the back of the bus.

If you are really as brave as you pretend to be, GatorGrad, then you should be anxious for an opportunity for your Gators to be able to prove themselves against all comers.

Again, you are using a two-game sample which is irrelevant. My example of not "fearing" mid majors is based on a lot of games my school has played and won against mid majors. Not just two. There are many more instances in regular season play of top BCS teams beating Mid Majors than vice versa. Look it up.

What do you mean "I can't deal with the fact" that mid majors can compete with the big boys? I don't deny that for one second. Of course anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Sure a great mid major team like Boise St in 06 or Utah in 04 could knock off BCS teams in a tournament. I have never argued against that. You are creating arguments out of thin air now.

All I have ever said is that not much would change, regardless of what format is used. With a 16-team tournament, mid major teams wouldn't win the NCAA Title any more often than they do in college basketball's modern era. Probably less given how much tougher it is in football to compete. Then people like you would find something else to complain about. This is no different than life or business...just the way it is.

As far as your 'brave' comment, I'm not sure where that came from. Haven't I said over and over that I would love to see a 16-team tournament? I FAVOR such a tournament to take on 'all comers.' So where you got that I am scared to play mid majors in an NCAA Tournament, I do not know. You are silly.

[Blue Hen]

It's been fun watching you guys go round 'n round on all this.


GG,
It's great that you favor a 16 team championship......I believe most 'thinking' CF afficionados do. Now, do favor an NCAA 16 team championship or something run by the BCS or somebody else ?

[GatorGrad]

It's been fun watching you guys go round 'n round on all this.


GG,
It's great that you favor a 16 team championship......I believe most 'thinking' CF afficionados do. Now, do favor an NCAA 16 team championship or something run by the BCS or somebody else ?

Hen,

I would be fine with the NCAA taking it over and running a 16-team tournament made up of all 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids. The NCAA would have a committee, similar to college basketball (someone who is accountable and can explain why they did this or that,) that would select the 5 at large teams and seed all 16 teams 1-16. The higher seeded teams would then host all games in the first three rounds, with the winners advancing to the NCAA Championship Game at a neutral site. Note: It doesn't have to be a committee...I wouldn't have a problem with using objective standings/rankings like CJ has recommended.

That would be my ideal 16-team tournament. Of course, I think that the major teams would usually be seeded the higher which means that mid majors would be forced to win 4 big playoff games against top teams, all away from home, to win an NCAA Championship. Which is why I do not believe many mid majors would win NCAA Titles, just like they don't do in the current modern era of college basketball.

Also, such a tournament in the near future is very unlikely given the financial implications. The bowl system would certainly die, and whether or not more money would be made is up for debate. This is why you are much more likely to see some sort of mini playoff that finds a way to incorporate the bowls...such as the 4-team BCS Plus-One deal that I think you see in 2010. Is it perfect? No. Is it a step in the right direction that we all should be rooting for if we hope to ever see a 16-team tournament? Absolutely.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

You keep saying that you favor a 16-team D-IA playoffs, GatorGrad, but you have an extensive litany of excuses why the NCAA should not proceed.

You can't have it both ways. Somehow you have apparently determined, exemplified by your "baby-steps" concept, that the BCS has a God-given right to decide for all of the NCAA D-IA. Do you seriously believe that would eventually lead to a 16-team playoff system, where all D-IA teams would have a fair opportunity to earn a spot in the field based on merit? If so, then I have a great deal on some Florida swamp land for you.

The BCS reinvents itself on an ongoing basis -- just enough to forestall and obstruct public pressures by tossing a few crumbs to the D-IA outcasts. I trust that you are smart enough to realize that the BCS can keep doing this indefinitely. You, perhaps unwittingly, are a spokesperson for the BCS road to nowhere.

[Blue Hen]

Nice post, GG

I would agree.....the current 'mids' would likely experience spotty success if 5 of them were allowed to compete for a real NCAA FB champioinship....HOWEVER, this 'opportunity'to compete would likely give these 'mids' access to better talent and over time ( maybe a couple of decades) the two class system would be less distinct and there would be more overall parity...basically the CJH theory. Anyway, it's not really about who would win, it's about equal opportunity and doing the right thing.
Your last paragraph is probably realistic. The mega win-at-all-cost factories and the mega $ 'bowls' will , likely, continue to control the post season....and the post season will continue to be more 'exhibition' than sport. It would be wonderful if the bowl system would just die and free big time CF to become a truly great 'championship' sport.
BTW, your vision of the 16 team NCAA playoff ( 11+5) with only the champ game bid out to a neutral site, the selection & seeding committees ...yeah, that's about the most perfect scenario, IMO. It's nice to have a fan from one of the mega WAAC- BCS powers in favor of that.

[Blue Hen]

I don't think that's completely fair to GG, Heard Fan. From what I'm reading, he knows what the 'right thing' to do is, but just doesn't think it, realistically, will happen anytime soon. He's in our 'equal opportunity' camp....ideology wise.

[ktffan]

I did not say that. But, if the NCAA procedure for D-IA playoffs would be to award the game site to the highest bidder, that would be a possibility. The same thing happens every year in D-IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs, and the world has survived!



Athletic budgets aren't relying on IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs. Even I-AA have several teams relying on I-A athletic budgets now. Any system in I-A that gives away games that could make money for I-A teams risks a lot. If any playoff game doesn't make the money that bowls do, or even might not, a playoff will not be risked.

I-A teams need to have thousands of fans going to each game in order for the current system to continue. Like it or not, it won't continue unless the same money can be brought in. Teams will play one bowl game away because fans will have their vacations there and follow the teams. It's less likely that a fanbase will continue to follow a team to 3 different exotic locations and if they won't, the system will not be allowed to take place.

No comparison to the other divisions can be made.

[ktffan]

Hen,

I would be fine with the NCAA taking it over and running a 16-team tournament made up of all 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids.


1. The NCAA collecting the money for a playoff would not be tolerated by the BCS schools.

2. NCAA rules in all sports prohibit more than half of the playoff bids being 'automatic' bids. They could change the rule, but since it's been in place for all sports, I don't see it happened (particularly since the money-making schools would lose money).

3. Play-in games would take another week, which the schedule does not have.

[GatorGrad]

Athletic budgets aren't relying on IAA, D-II and D-III playoffs. Even I-AA have several teams relying on I-A athletic budgets now. Any system in I-A that gives away games that could make money for I-A teams risks a lot. If any playoff game doesn't make the money that bowls do, or even might not, a playoff will not be risked.

I-A teams need to have thousands of fans going to each game in order for the current system to continue. Like it or not, it won't continue unless the same money can be brought in. Teams will play one bowl game away because fans will have their vacations there and follow the teams. It's less likely that a fanbase will continue to follow a team to 3 different exotic locations and if they won't, the system will not be allowed to take place.

No comparison to the other divisions can be made.

Thank you for explaining this simple concept to Herd Fan (again.) He wants to ignore the differences between the Bowl Division and other NCAA Football Divisions including the most important difference: Money

[GatorGrad]

1. The NCAA collecting the money for a playoff would not be tolerated by the BCS schools.

2. NCAA rules in all sports prohibit more than half of the playoff bids being 'automatic' bids. They could change the rule, but since it's been in place for all sports, I don't see it happened (particularly since the money-making schools would lose money).

3. Play-in games would take another week, which the schedule does not have.

Agreed...which is why we're much further away from a 16-team tournament than a lot of us would like to admit. Which is why I choose to focus on the SEC race and hope for a 4-team BCS Playoff. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would certainly be better than the 2-team playoff we have now and would certainly be better than any system we've had to date. Who knows - if everyone gets a "taste" of playoff football, it could open some eyes.

[GatorGrad]

You keep saying that you favor a 16-team D-IA playoffs, GatorGrad, but you have an extensive litany of excuses why the NCAA should not proceed.

You can't have it both ways. Somehow you have apparently determined, exemplified by your "baby-steps" concept, that the BCS has a God-given right to decide for all of the NCAA D-IA. Do you seriously believe that would eventually lead to a 16-team playoff system, where all D-IA teams would have a fair opportunity to earn a spot in the field based on merit? If so, then I have a great deal on some Florida swamp land for you.

The BCS reinvents itself on an ongoing basis -- just enough to forestall and obstruct public pressures by tossing a few crumbs to the D-IA outcasts. I trust that you are smart enough to realize that the BCS can keep doing this indefinitely. You, perhaps unwittingly, are a spokesperson for the BCS road to nowhere.

Herd Fan - These are not MY "excuses" of why the NCAA should not proceed with a playoff. These are just the real life reasons why they do not. I'm not defending these reasons or saying that they are right. Just pointing them out since you don't seem to grasp them. You choose to ignore the differences between this division and other divisions of NCAA Football, and you completely ignore the financial implications. That's fine - you can keep banging your head against a wall wondering why something is "so easy" to do and wondering why it's not happening anytime soon. Have fun! And I do not think that the BCS should determine college football as you state. I would love to see the end of the BCS, as a matter of fact. Our own president is pushing for a playoff too. I'm not sure what you want me to say.

Blue Hen - I agree that over time, mid majors would have a chance to improve if given an opportunity. I am all for an equal opportunity. I think it would be great. I just still think that mid majors would usually be lower seeds and thus the big time programs would still be the ones winning most of the NCAA Championships. The difference of course is that when we win our championships, there will by nothing "mythical" about it. Which is one of the big reasons I would be in favor of it. I hate the fact that while our recent Back to Back NCAA Basketball Championships are legit NCAA Titles, our 1996 and 2006 Football National Championships are not legit NCAA Titles. That is a shame. Which is why I value our seven SEC Championships a great deal.

[Blue Hen]

#1 is the absolute 'bottom line' in this whole issue. GREED( basically BCS greed ).............and unless it changes, big time CF will continue to be more of a show business/exhibition than a genuine championship sport......makes no difference how many teams the BCS system 'votes' to play for its title.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

ktffan: I don't care what methodologies the NCAA employs to select tournament seeds or sites, just as long as they are fair and impartial.

The NCAA collecting the money for a playoff would not be tolerated by the BCS schools. What utter arrogance! You would have had a reasonable point if you had said that the NCAA collecting the money for a playoff would not be tolerated by D-IA schools. Fear not, big paydays are assured for all participants in D-IA playoffs.

You are right, however, that "play-in" game are unnecessary.

Yes, I have been a bit hard on GatorGrad, Blue Hen, but I have a bad habit of telling it like it is. I won't patronize someone who is only halfway committed to fairness.