While everybody is tossing around playoff/bowl hypotheticals...

[milohimself]

There's really a bigger issue that nobody ever wants to seem to address.

Since determining the national champion is the deeply flawed process that it is, going so far as to require us to completely disregard regular season results as we just did with Alabama and LSU, what's the fix?

To me, the root of the problem is the sheer number of teams in FBS. The NFL and other pro sports leagues do a better job of determining their champ because they have a much smaller group to work with. Every title can be determined entirely by on the field results without the application of subjectivity at any point in the process (my absolute favorite is English Premier League. Everybody plays everybody else and whoever did the best in those games in the champ, the end. How brilliant?!)

Why does FBS need to be so big? The problem keeps getting crazier. If I'm not mistaken, FBS will be going up from 120 to 124 or 125 teams this next season, with some new additions in the WAC.

With the strong (and understandable) opposition to something like a 16 team playoff, and the extreme subjectivity that goes into determining a national champion out of just two or four teams, I don't see the point in having conferences like the SEC, Pac-12, Big XII or Big Ten competing in the same division as the WAC, Sun Belt or MAC. With a poll-determined national championship, those in the latter group effectively have no shot to ever win the national championship. Troy, for instance, could rise to power in its own right, win every game they play for the next decade, but as long as they're in the Sun Belt, they could never win a championship. What's the point of that? It would be like having minor league teams become separate entities and start competing against the AL East for titles.

The NCAA has clearly outgrown its four divisions, and needs to be further split up. It would serve for the weaker conferences to compete for their own national title, and greatly reduce the number of teams at the top level, thereby greatly reducing the level of subjectivity needed to crown a national champion.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I still think it comes down to, if you don't win your conference or through a conference championship... you have no business being in playoff system.

People are going to get bored if it ends up with 3 of the 4 teams being in the playoffs from the same conference. The conference schedule is there to figure out who is the best and they put in a championship game also.

The playoffs should start the 1st game of the year.

The lower division of college football have playoffs and they have plenty of teams.

 

[n_huffhines]

I agree there are too many teams. Maybe you have to average at least 40,000 fans for past 3 seasons...if not you get bumped down a division. Something like that? 60 teams averaged 40,000 this season, to give you an idea of where that would put us as far as # of teams.

 

[bamawriter]

The majority of "mid-majors" don't care about competing for titles. They make more money by playing in the FBS (or they lose less money, which may be more accurate). That's why most teams make the jump as soon as they're able to.

The BCS conferences pretty much compete in a different division, anyway. But being a member of the FBS allows the smaller schools to offer more scholarships, and I don't see how that's really a bad thing. Plus, having those small schools in FBS makes scheduling easier for the big boys.

And by the way, no one disregarded any results this season.

 

[bamawriter]

I still think it comes down to, if you don't win your conference or through a conference championship... you have no business being in playoff system.

People are going to get bored if it ends up with 3 of the 4 teams being in the playoffs from the same conference. The conference schedule is there to figure out who is the best and they put in a championship game also.

The problem with that theory is that, however unlikely it may be, a team that finishes 8-4 could be a conference champ while an 11-1 team in the same conference might not have won its division.

To assume that you have to be the winner of your conference to be the best team in the country is to assume that all conference championships are created equal.

 

[milohimself]

I still think it comes down to, if you don't win your conference or through a conference championship... you have no business being in playoff system.

People are going to get bored if it ends up with 3 of the 4 teams being in the playoffs from the same conference.

The playoffs should start the 1st game of the year.

I agree, that would be my favorite solution to the post season, a single elimination tournament among conference champions. The seeding would have to be based on poll results, but at least teams would have to earn it on the field.

Couple of issues with implementing that into the current scheme though -- which conference champions get in and which don't? You can invite all of them, but then Arkansas State would have a shot on the field while Stanford and Alabama wouldn't. That would raise hell around these parts. Conversely, you could have it among the BCS conferences, or six selected big time conferences, but why invite the Big East champ and leave the MWC champ out, when the common perception is that the MWC is the better of the two (possibly the ACC as well). Then you're left in the same boat, Arkansas State could win every game for the next ten years and never get a shot at the title.

If you have a pared down top level, maybe with the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII and SEC, maybe even the MWC and ACC, then it's a lot easier to just put all the conference champions into a post season tournament.

The main concern here, though, is the enormous competitive gulf that exists between the upper and lower echelon conferences in FBS. There's no reason to have all of them competing for the same championship.

 

[milohimself]

The majority of "mid-majors" don't care about competing for titles. They make more money by playing in the FBS (or they lose less money, which may be more accurate). That's why most teams make the jump as soon as they're able to.

The BCS conferences pretty much compete in a different division, anyway. But being a member of the FBS allows the smaller schools to offer more scholarships, and I don't see how that's really a bad thing. Plus, having those small schools in FBS makes scheduling easier for the big boys.

And by the way, no one disregarded any results this season.

Ask any number of mid-majors that have gone undefeated in the BCS era how they felt about having no shot at being determined the best. It matters.

And there's no reason that scholarships have to be reduced, or that scheduling has to differ for that matter. BCS teams regularly play FCS teams already.

 

[milohimself]

The majority of "mid-majors" don't care about competing for titles. They make more money by playing in the FBS (or they lose less money, which may be more accurate). That's why most teams make the jump as soon as they're able to.

The BCS conferences pretty much compete in a different division, anyway. But being a member of the FBS allows the smaller schools to offer more scholarships, and I don't see how that's really a bad thing. Plus, having those small schools in FBS makes scheduling easier for the big boys.

And by the way, no one disregarded any results this season.

And, what your team just did is the primest of examples of the issue people have with the BCS, that you can not win your own conference but be crowned national champions. It's absolutely stupid, but I know Bammer fans are comfortable with that sort of logic.

 

[bamawriter]

Ask any number of mid-majors that have gone undefeated in the BCS era how they felt about having no shot at being determined the best. It matters.

You're correct, and that's why i said "majority". Obviously the Boise States, Utahs, and TCUs of the world care a great deal, and that's why they've made the effort and investment required to move up. But the majority of WAC, MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MWC teams aren't in the same boat.

And there's no reason that scholarships have to be reduced, or that scheduling has to differ for that matter. BCS teams regularly play FCS teams already.

Yes, but you're only allowed to count one FCS team towards bowl eligibility. So it really doesn't make sense for your average FBS team to schedule more than one. You could change that rule, but then most FBS programs wouldn't schedule the teams that are currently respectable mid-majors, they'd double or triple up on the teams that are currently stinking it up in FCS.

 

[bamawriter]

And, what your team just did is the primest of examples of the issue people have with the BCS, that you can not win your own conference but be crowned national champions. It's absolutely stupid, but I know Bammer fans are comfortable with that sort of logic.

I'm not defending the system in any way. But there was nothing stopping it from happening before the BCS ever came along. It just didn't happen for 75 years. But like I said, no one disregarded results. And it's entirely possible that, in a flukey year, the best team in the country won't win their conference.

 

[milohimself]

You're correct, and that's why i said "majority". Obviously the Boise States, Utahs, and TCUs of the world care a great deal, and that's why they've made the effort and investment required to move up. But the majority of WAC, MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, and MWC teams aren't in the same boat.



Yes, but you're only allowed to count one FCS team towards bowl eligibility. So it really doesn't make sense for your average FBS team to schedule more than one. You could change that rule, but then most FBS programs wouldn't schedule the teams that are currently respectable mid-majors, they'd double or triple up on the teams that are currently stinking it up in FCS.

Either way, reasonable rule changes can always be made. Mobility can still happen as well.

Again, when you've got North Texas and Ohio State at the same level of competition in football, something is amiss.

I'm not defending the system in any way. But there was nothing stopping it from happening before the BCS ever came along. It just didn't happen for 75 years. But like I said, no one disregarded results. And it's entirely possible that, in a flukey year, the best team in the country won't win their conference.

Actually, the old system was the same at it. It was better at preventing rematches because bowl promoters didn't want that to happen, and conference champions were always put into the best bowl games. If we were still under the old system, LSU could have lost the Sugar Bowl and Bama could have won the Fiesta Bowl or whatever and still been named national champs, maybe split, but it's no better than what we've got now. There have been split championships under the BCS, and this year was damn near another.

 

[bamawriter]

Actually, the old system was the same at it. It was better at preventing rematches because bowl promoters didn't want that to happen, and conference champions were always put into the best bowl games. If we were still under the old system, LSU could have lost the Sugar Bowl and Bama could have won the Fiesta Bowl or whatever and still been named national champs, maybe split, but it's no better than what we've got now. There have been split championships under the BCS, and this year was damn near another.

I agree with you there. I much prefer the old bowl system, for a number of reasons. I think the BCS has taken a lot of the fun out of bowl season, because it's really not more satisfying than the old system, and multiple bowl games were relevant pre-BCS. Now there's only one game that means anything.

 

[JokermanVol]

"The bigger issue" isn't anything relating to a playoff system or the number of teams, but rather the fact that the NCAA is a bogus organization. Nothing can be done until they are regulated or a new association is created.

 

[dreVol]

What about relegation like European soccer leagues?