If You were 100% "in charge" of college football...

[Blue Hen]

... what would you do ? ( a thread suggested by Gator Grad to end the 'Fans of BCS Schools' thread)

If I was the all powerful dictator :

A) Put the college football post season fully in the control of the NCAA which does a very good job of managing 'real' sports championships. This means offering an all inclusive 16 team D1A football championship.....completely independent of 'bowls' or cartels of certain conferences. Qualifying teams can accept the playoff birth or go play in some PSEG ( post season exhibition game). In time, I believe the NCAA championship would thrive and the BCS mythical post season activity would become insignificant....sort of a FB NIT.

B) Have NCAA mandated balanced schedules. Makes no difference who you are.....everybody plays 6 home and 6 away games....versus D1A competition only.Maybe even let the NCAA make the non-conference schedules.

C) MASSIVE academic reform : Nobody sets foot on a college football field that can't score an 1100 on the SAT or post a 3.00 HS core GPA.. This 'tough love' policy will eliminate the need for academic fraud on campus and force the NFL to immediately install its own minor league system ( so not to lose all the great, but dumb, talent), like it should have been made to do 60 years ago.

There you go......CF is all fixed now.

[CJHawkeyes]

Your "B" would definitely be a part of my college football utopia. Transparent objective rules are also a necessity.

[Blue Hen]

.....and I would appoint you 'Director Of Competition', CJH...a man who views CF competition with logic and fairness ...;-)

[CJHawkeyes]

.....and I would appoint you 'Director Of Competition', CJH...a man who views CF competition with logic and fairness ...;-)

Thanks. Does the job have benefits?:D

[Blue Hen]

Many, CJH, many. The job should offer greater benefits than these Zillionaire head coaches get, but the main benefit is the personal satisfaction of helping to level the playing field in this sport. When can you start ?

[jeff4bucks]

Hen- I agree with A and B. C may be pushing it a little. General student body at most D1A schools don't have to meet those academic standards, believe it or not.

[HellYeahHokie]

1100 on the SATs? Good grief Hen, that's pretty steep. Why should the atheletes have to score higher than the general population.

How about, the SAT scores of atheletes should be within one standard deviation of the entering class average. And also, graduation rates should be within 5% of the general student population. This way atheletes are treated just like the regular students.

[Blue Hen]

true.....but you set higher standards and eventually higher performance follows. The opposite occurs if always lowering standards. College scholarship athletes actually should be more cerebrally and academically capable than the general student body because of the enormous demand on their time....which ...hhhmmmmm, maybe brings up another reform - D) reduce all football activity to 20 hours per week (or something like that) and enforce it. A college student has what ...12-16 hours of classes ? They don't need to be doing twice as much football time as class time as is the case , now.

[Blue Hen]

That wouldn't be fair, HYH, simply because all the schools with the lowest adacemic standards would acquire all the great dumb talent. We need a` straight, across -the- board, much HIGHER minimum NCAA initial eligibility standard. As in the reply to jeff4bucks, I think the demands of playing a major sport while being a 'real' college student demands a high cerebral and academic capability.

[HellYeahHokie]

A college student has what ...12-16 hours of classes ? They don't need to be doing twice as much football time as class time as is the case , now.

I know it's been a while since you've been to college, but the 12-16 hours (more like 15-18) is only the in-class time. Most classes require about 2-4 times the amount of class time per week for homework, projects, studying etc. So I can assure you that there is far more than 20 hours per week spent on academics for any full-time student.

[HellYeahHokie]

So lets just demand all schools only allow students with 1100 SATs into college. Everyone else should just get a trade and start working.

If it's not fair that atheletes can be held to a lower academic standard than the general population, than it's not fair to hold them to a high standard either.

This notion of "fair" you are confusing with "equal". Different schools have different academic standards because they serve different populations. There's nothing unfair about that. So if atheletes who aren't on their way to Harvard go to another school that meets their academic level, what's unfair about that? You are never going to have equality among schools or atheletes.

[Blue Hen]

Exactly, HYH, exactly
....and that further supports the arguement for better academically qualified students to carry the academic time load burden plus play a sport with all its workout, practice, film watching, and travel time demands.

..shoot, lets go for a minimum 1150 and 3.25 core gpa !!!

[EvilVodka]

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.

I just copied and pasted my answer from the other board

[Blue Hen]

I see your points. There is one NCAA initial eligibility standard right now....across the board, and it's way, way too low, imo. It lets anything out there receive athletic scholarships.....which requires all the fraud we have now in NCAA sports..........phony courses and majors, tutors doing the work, grade changing, etc.etc.. A much higher standard would eliminate most of that stuff. We must put 'scholar' back in 'scholarship'. A kid , reading on the 6th grade level and who can barely make an 800 SAT isn't going to be able to handle 30 hours of academic related work plus 30 hours of football per week (without fraudulant assistance)...that's why I advocate such a high standard for scholarship athletes.
BTW , your Harvard reference has zero relevance. The Ivy schools don't give FB scholarships.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Point by point:

A. You are 100% on target. Ultimately, the free market would decide the fate of the BCS.

B. This would certainly be more equitable

c. I am all for higher standards. However, while standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT are universal, a 3.0 GPA from one school might be very different than a 3.0 GPA from another school.

[TommyTrojan]

So lets just demand all schools only allow students with 1100 SATs into college. Everyone else should just get a trade and start working.

If it's not fair that atheletes can be held to a lower academic standard than the general population, than it's not fair to hold them to a high standard either.

This notion of "fair" you are confusing with "equal". Different schools have different academic standards because they serve different populations. There's nothing unfair about that. So if atheletes who aren't on their way to Harvard go to another school that meets their academic level, what's unfair about that? You are never going to have equality among schools or atheletes.

A 1100 on the new SAT format isn't asking for too much, is it?

BTW- 3.00 GPA is only steep for athletes. How many schools in this nation have average incoming frosh GPA below that. I know the #'s for USC Cal and UCLA are all 4.00, or even higher. It's getting so much more difficult to get into college these days.

[GopherGuy]

A 1100 on the new SAT format isn't asking for too much, is it?

BTW- 3.00 GPA is only steep for athletes. How many schools in this nation have average incoming frosh GPA below that. I know the #'s for USC Cal and UCLA are all 4.00, or even higher. It's getting so much more difficult to get into college these days.

On a standard scale, how do you get a GPA higher than 4.0? That's a perfect
A average.

[HellYeahHokie]

A 1100 on the new SAT format isn't asking for too much, is it?

BTW- 3.00 GPA is only steep for athletes. How many schools in this nation have average incoming frosh GPA below that. I know the #'s for USC Cal and UCLA are all 4.00, or even higher. It's getting so much more difficult to get into college these days.

I plead ignorance on the new SAT standards. I know an 1100 was a score above the national average. I don't know how the new SATs are scored and what constitutes a good score, but I'll go out on a limb and say that neither did BlueHen when he picked that number.

As far as the GPAs of incoming freshmen being higher than a 4.0, I would suggest that is more of an indictment on grade inflation in schools, than an indication that students are getting that much smarter. Grade inflation is becomming absurd. I believe that if an entire class of students averages above a 4.0 on their high school GPA, it's only because an average score has been changed from a "C" to a "B+". I think teachers are afraid to give appropriate grades, because it's not worth the hassle from the helicopter parents who would rather blame the teacher than blame their own kid's study habits.

[HellYeahHokie]

On a standard scale, how do you get a GPA higher than 4.0? That's a perfect
A average.

Student who take AP course in high school get bonus points. So an A in an AP course is worth more than a 4.0. (I'm not quite sure how much more, but clearly significantly more). I also believe that more high schools are adding AP courses that ordinarily would just be regular courses, but calling them AP courses helps their own reputation as an educational institution.

[Blue Hen]

I picked the 1100 based on the old SAT scale ( 400-1600 ). Remember, you get 400 points for signing the test. According to the last published NCAA admissions data, many D1 football programs'averaged' barely over 800 for its scholarship players. Your average 7th grader could probably score an 800. I won't mention VT's SAT #s from that 1998 report but they are, embarrassingly, among the very lowest in D1. Frank loves 'Vick ' types....speedy feet/dead brains. The dumbest D1 team was Georgia Southern University (822 average) and GSU won all those championships. Dumbth wins in big time College Sports...no good. And stockpiling dumbth requires academic fraud to retain it......that's what I want changed.

[HellYeahHokie]

I picked the 1100 based on the old SAT scale ( 400-1600 ). Remember, you get 400 points for signing the test. According to the last published NCAA admissions data, many D1 football programs'averaged' barely over 800 for its scholarship players. Your average 7th grader could probably score an 800. I won't mention VT's SAT #s from that 1998 report but they are, embarrassingly, among the very lowest in D1. Frank loves 'Vick ' types....speedy feet/dead brains. The dumbest D1 team was Georgia Southern University (822 average) and GSU won all those championships. Dumbth wins in big time College Sports...no good. And stockpiling dumbth requires academic fraud to retain it......that's what I want changed.

I understand that, but that's why I think there should be nothing wrong with the standard that atheletes should fall within one standard devation of the mean of all incoming students for that university. Maybe even two standard deviations. In that way, all incoming atheletes are on equal footing academically as all the other students in their class. And they are at an educational institution suited for their academic level.

Would that mean that more of the better players (but dumber) would just go to schools with lower academic standards? I'm sure. But so what? No college of any real academic integrity is going to try and lower it's academic standards of the entire freshman class to accomodate atheletes who aren't smart enough to get in otherwise.

I think this solution is perfectly reasonable and achieves your desired goal of making sure colleges don't recruit students who have no business in that college.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Pardon me for being politically incorrect, but efforts to raise qualifying test scores would likely provoke accusations of racism.

[ZOOMBAG]

A and B for sure. C is a bit extreme. On Academics, I would have an NCAA approved list of FULLY ACCREDIDATED academic majors and simply ensure the players are passing ALL of their courses. That would get rid of the hide-away majors and force them all to be at least acceptable students.

[ZOOMBAG]

That's the bottom line. Athletes should be treated no better or no worse than the typical student. They need to be college students who happen to play football vs playing the band or in student government or president of the ski club....

[Blue Hen]

I can see that approach......letting individual colleges set their own standard for athletes, but it would just encourage some schools that consider FB the most important thing on campus to simply lower its overall admissions standards just to draw athletic talent. The balance of power sure would change over the years. More logical, in my mind, is an across the board 'standard', just like the NCAA mandates now, only much, much, more stringent. this would tend to keep the playing field more level and prevent certain mediocre schools from stockpiling all the dumb talent.

Anyway, my final bare minimum qualifying offer :

1050 SAT ( old scale)
1500 ( new scale ).....plus a core HS 2.75 gpa.

This is non negotiable ;-)

[Blue Hen]

Good idea, Zoom, about the 'majors' thing, but that's still trying to address the problem from a retention/progress viewpoint. You know I'm a long time advocate of solving the problem at the point of admissions. If sub par ( cerebrally and academically prepared) kids are deemed 'not eligible' for NCAA scholarship sports, there would simply be no need for phony courses and majors, and thus no need for NCAA approved lists and monitoring and all that. Much cleaner and simpler to nip the problem at the bud.....admissions/initial eligibility.

["14-O" U.]

Only read the first post but I agree for the most part with all the points.

I would have a 16 team playoff. I might have the bowls involved in some way (not first round) for the traditional aspects, but they wouldn't have any power. It would be take it or leave it if they don't want to be a part of the playoffs. Teams not making the playoffs and bowls not part of the final 7 games would be free to continue with bowl games like we presently have.

I'm not sure what restrictions I'd have on scheduling (too many and it might make for some tough issues to work out), but I like the general idea. Oh, and I would reduce regular season to 10 games. Again, teams not making the playoffs could go to any bowl game willing to have them. Maybe some restrictions on record. With a 10 game season the two teams that reach the championship game would play 14 games. The losing teams in the semis would play 13 games. The losing teams in the quarterfinals would play 12 games. Everyone else would play 11 games max. I like the idea about 5 regular season home games and 5 away.

Also agree about MASSIVE academic reform (for the reasons in the original post). I would like it to be that the kids on the football teams are STUDENT athletes. Since athletics put additional demands on the student, it's reasonable that the academic standards be as high or higher than the average student.

I think this is a good topic. I plan on reading the other responses when I get time.

[Blue Hen]

Good, logical idea on the reduction of regular season games to allow for playoff games.

[Aggie99]

hmmm....total control? I am not sure I would change anything. I like the way college football is so "un-even." Not sure how to put my finger on it, but I would be very careful with what I did.....as to not upset the balance that is now in play.

Good question...I will have to think about it for a while.

However, maybe this is why there is no one completely in control of College Football, the way their is someone in control of the NFL.

.....!?