College Football Week 9 discussion

[Logan]

You pay off the cupcake to play you, and you keep the rest of the money (tickets, concessions, TV revenue, etc). You try to bring in a more high-profile team, you have to pay them back with a road game which would replace either another home game (more money) or a neutral site game (sharing a bigger piece of the pie).

One of the issues for BCS programs that aren't upper echelon is that the big boys make so much money that they will simply pay more to get the non-BCS conference teams to take up a home game. That's how we end up scheduling I-AAs...there's just not enough teams to go around.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

How was Florida scheduling Charleston Southern done for financial reasons? A game against any higher-profile opponent would bring more fans and more attention/publicity. IMO, it's annoying for Florida to schedule cupcakes, but it's not being done for their financial benefit.

Scheduling an FCS opponent allows you to keep a larger portion of the financial windfall from the game. You also don't need to give up a home game the following year. It's also an automatic win which increases your chances of making a top bowl game.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

You pay off the cupcake to play you, and you keep the rest of the money (tickets, concessions, TV revenue, etc). You try to bring in a more high-profile team, you have to pay them back with a road game which would replace either another home game (more money) or a neutral site game (sharing a bigger piece of the pie).

There a lot of teams in the gap between Charleston Southern and an opponent Florida would have to reciprocate a home game with. (Even looking at their own state, you don't think USF would pay their own way to play Florida?)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There a lot of teams in the gap between Charleston Southern and an opponent Florida would have to reciprocate a home game with. (Even looking at their own state, you don't think USF would pay their own way to play Florida?)

What's the incentive for either team? USF a borderline bowl team that doesn't want to throw a likely loss on their schedule that could cost them bowl eligibility. Florida doesn't benefit at all by bringing in a tougher school from a major conference. And USF is still a Big East school that can draw 60,000+ a game. They aren't giving up a home game for nothing.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's the incentive for either team? USF a borderline bowl team that doesn't want to throw a likely loss on their schedule that could cost them bowl eligibility. Florida doesn't benefit at all by bringing in a tougher school from a major conference. And USF is still a Big East school that can draw 60,000+ a game. They aren't giving up a home game for nothing.

Sure there are different levels, but each level costs an equivalent increase payout. I do not know Florida's budget, but for example Clemson played Coastal Carolina Saturday (A team I believe is in the same league/conference as Charleston Southern) that game cost us $305,000 (incidentally equal to the total gate CCU anticipates collecting on all five home games combined). Go back in time a month and TCU came to town, a FBS 1 game non reciprocal schedule and it cost us $1mm. I as a supporter would just as soon see the univrsity keep the $700k and not come calling next year with their handout. It keeps my ticket, donor and associated costs down.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Despite numerous non-BCS teams going undefeated, not one has come remotely close to the title game. You can pretend that they have a shot, but it's just talk. The system was built so that those teams could not make a championship game.

The "system" was designed to pit the two best teams in the championship game. And while it's arguable whether that happens, none of the undefeated non-BCS teams had resumes that were better than the teams that made the title games:

2004 Utah: Very good team, decent conference, respectable OOC schedule. They just had the misfortune of doing it the same year that USC and Oklahoma were undefeated, and once again, strength of schedule wins out.

2006 Boise State: Nice win against a good Oregon State team, and a good win against a decent Utah team. Should they have played undefeated Ohio State instead of 1-loss Florida? I suppose you can make an argument for it, but the strength of schedule for Florida over Boise is a strong one.

2007 Hawaii: Weak schedule. Barely beat a 4-9 UW team. Only decent win was over Boise State. Maybe if they'd played anyone decent in their OOC schedule they might've had more of an argument to get in over the 2-loss teams (LSU, USC), but their performance in the Sugar Bowl that year suggests they were the fraud* most of us figured they were.

*Fraud in the sense of being a BCS title contender - they had a great season that Hawai'i fans should be very proud of

2008 Utah: Decent conference. Close wins over a bad Michigan team and a good Oregon State team. Really hurt by the fact that Michigan was such a bad team last year, otherwise there would've been a real question about whether Utah should crash the party over Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

So looking at the above, I'm struggling to see a case of real injustice. Utah in 2004 had bad timing; Utah in 2008 had the misfortune of Michigan being so bad.

The "system" recognizes that not all conferences are created equal, so if you play in a weaker conference, you'd better have a very good OOC schedule to make up for it.

As for scheduling Texas and Alabama, it's easier said than done. There are only so many of those teams out there and a lot of teams wanting to play them.

I will agree that strong BCS conference teams, even if offered one-off games at home, have some incentive to duck Boise State - but not all. USC never shies away from tough games. A creative, determined Boise athletic director could get it done if he really wanted to and it was a priority for the school. But I don't think it is - I think they're happy being the kings of a weak conference, putting up 11+ wins seasons on a regular basis, taking a shot at one BCS conference team every year and hoping they can slide into a BCS bowl for the big money. They know they are unlikely to get into a BCS title game so long as they are in the WAC unless they bust their butts to form a tough OOC schedule. And why do that? The downside might be worse than the upside...

[Chief Rum]

Side story to this of some interest, although it probably won't help UCLA, one of only three BCS teams currently who have never scheduled an FCS/Division 1-AA (or below) opponent (the others are UDub and USC, and UDub falls from that list next year when they play, I think, Eastern Washington).

UCLA was scheduled next year for a pretty tough non-conference season, going to Texas as their "big game", hosting Houston (which is unexpectedly much better than they have been in the past) and travelling to K-State, which has been poor. Bill Snyder is infamous for not wanting to play anyone tough in non-conference, so K-State was trying to weasel out of both this year's game and next year's ever since he got hired (P.S. pathetic...). Anyway, UCLA allowed K-State to buy out of next year's back end game and replaced them with...a road game to TCU.

Ouch. Gonna be a tough year next year for UCLA, and that's with playing two non-BCS teams on top of Texas.

[Noop]

Florida has not played a non-conference game out of the state of Florida in a long time.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Noop

Florida has not played a non-conference game out of the state of Florida in a long time.

Yup, they are the modern Bill Snyder of universities.

EDIT: Actually, to be fair, that they play Florida State (and did play Miami), it's not quite as bad as Bill Snyder. That said, yeah, if they nutted up and left the state for a non-conference game, it would help outsiders' view of them.

I view it actually as a bit of an SEC thing. Last year's trip to ASU was Georgia's first in, what 20-25 years? LSU likes to play northwest Pac 10 teams (OSU, Washington), so they have sometimes ventured out (more than others), but they are also pretty guilty of scheduling LA directionally-named schools and Sun Belt teams.

Historically, the SEC is awful at scheduling meaningful non-conference games and excuse it because of the tough conference schedule.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sure there are different levels, but each level costs an equivalent increase payout. I do not know Florida's budget, but for example Clemson played Coastal Carolina Saturday (A team I believe is in the same league/conference as Charleston Southern) that game cost us $305,000 (incidentally equal to the total gate CCU anticipates collecting on all five home games combined). Go back in time a month and TCU came to town, a FBS 1 game non reciprocal schedule and it cost us $1mm. I as a supporter would just as soon see the univrsity keep the $700k and not come calling next year with their handout. It keeps my ticket, donor and associated costs down.

I don't think BCS teams should be faulted if they play one FBS team a year with the 12 game schedule, as long as they make an effort to schedule one or two quality non conference opponents. I'm very happy that recently Minnesota has finally upgraded their non conference schedule, they've recently lined up home and home series with USC, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Colorado after playing fewer BCS opponents in non conference than any other BCS conference school. As long as they keep that up I'm not going to complain about playing a FBS school from the region to ensure three home non conference games and the money the athletic department brings in for a cheap opponent.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The "system" was designed to pit the two best teams in the championship game. And while it's arguable whether that happens, none of the undefeated non-BCS teams had resumes that were better than the teams that made the title games:

2004 Utah: Very good team, decent conference, respectable OOC schedule. They just had the misfortune of doing it the same year that USC and Oklahoma were undefeated, and once again, strength of schedule wins out.

2006 Boise State: Nice win against a good Oregon State team, and a good win against a decent Utah team. Should they have played undefeated Ohio State instead of 1-loss Florida? I suppose you can make an argument for it, but the strength of schedule for Florida over Boise is a strong one.

2007 Hawaii: Weak schedule. Barely beat a 4-9 UW team. Only decent win was over Boise State. Maybe if they'd played anyone decent in their OOC schedule they might've had more of an argument to get in over the 2-loss teams (LSU, USC), but their performance in the Sugar Bowl that year suggests they were the fraud* most of us figured they were.

*Fraud in the sense of being a BCS title contender - they had a great season that Hawai'i fans should be very proud of

2008 Utah: Decent conference. Close wins over a bad Michigan team and a good Oregon State team. Really hurt by the fact that Michigan was such a bad team last year, otherwise there would've been a real question about whether Utah should crash the party over Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

So looking at the above, I'm struggling to see a case of real injustice. Utah in 2004 had bad timing; Utah in 2008 had the misfortune of Michigan being so bad.

The "system" recognizes that not all conferences are created equal, so if you play in a weaker conference, you'd better have a very good OOC schedule to make up for it.

And it rarely if ever pits the two best teams. USC has missed out many years when they were clearly better than others. Ohio State was an embarassment in the title games against Florida.

And you knock the non-BCS schools who played in BCS games. They are 3-1 in those games which is a better win percentage than any other conference. The 2008 Utah team slaughtered what many had listed as the #1 team in the country going into the final regular season week last year. In fact, they beat them much worse than the National Champion Gators did.

If these teams were getting crushed in their BCS games I'd take your argument. But they are winning. They are performing much better than teams from the ACC and Big East.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I will agree that strong BCS conference teams, even if offered one-off games at home, have some incentive to duck Boise State - but not all. USC never shies away from tough games. A creative, determined Boise athletic director could get it done if he really wanted to and it was a priority for the school. But I don't think it is - I think they're happy being the kings of a weak conference, putting up 11+ wins seasons on a regular basis, taking a shot at one BCS conference team every year and hoping they can slide into a BCS bowl for the big money. They know they are unlikely to get into a BCS title game so long as they are in the WAC unless they bust their butts to form a tough OOC schedule. And why do that? The downside might be worse than the upside...

Like I said, there's a handful of top 10 teams that will play anyone. There are a lot of mid-major schools that would like to play them. Otherwise you're scheduling a team and praying that they do well against their opponents.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I don't think BCS teams should be faulted if they play one FBS team a year with the 12 game schedule, as long as they make an effort to schedule one or two quality non conference opponents. I'm very happy that recently Minnesota has finally upgraded their non conference schedule, they've recently lined up home and home series with USC, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Colorado after playing fewer BCS opponents in non conference than any other BCS conference school. As long as they keep that up I'm not going to complain about playing a FBS school from the region to ensure three home non conference games and the money the athletic department brings in for a cheap opponent.

I have no problem with scheduling them. They should not count towards bowl eligibility however.

Note: I believe FBS is the only sport in college that uses games against other levels in their criteria for postseason play.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yup, they are the modern Bill Snyder of universities.

EDIT: Actually, to be fair, that they play Florida State (and did play Miami), it's not quite as bad as Bill Snyder. That said, yeah, if they nutted up and left the state for a non-conference game, it would help outsiders' view of them.

I view it actually as a bit of an SEC thing. Last year's trip to ASU was Georgia's first in, what 20-25 years? LSU likes to play northwest Pac 10 teams (OSU, Washington), so they have sometimes ventured out (more than others), but they are also pretty guilty of scheduling LA directionally-named schools and Sun Belt teams.

Historically, the SEC is awful at scheduling meaningful non-conference games and excuse it because of the tough conference schedule.

If Florida had a choice they would not play Florida State or Miami ever. I believe they were required through legislation to play Florida State. You are correct it is an SEC thing but to their credit they have been making an effort to play teams in other parts of the country. Florida however refuses to play anyone with a pulse (minus Florida State and Miami although recent history shows both have been bad to very bad) if I am not mistaken it has been almost 20 years since they have left the state for a non-conference game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Noop

If Florida had a choice they would not play Florida State or Miami ever. I believe they were required through legislation to play Florida State. You are correct it is an SEC thing but to their credit they have been making an effort to play teams in other parts of the country. Florida however refuses to play anyone with a pulse (minus Florida State and Miami although recent history shows both have been bad to very bad) if I am not mistaken it has been almost 20 years since they have left the state for a non-conference game.

Pretty sure it's 1991 at Syracuse. My brother is a student at UF and I give him shit about it.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Pretty sure it's 1991 at Syracuse. My brother is a student at UF and I give him shit about it.

Almost twenty years.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's the incentive for either team? USF a borderline bowl team that doesn't want to throw a likely loss on their schedule that could cost them bowl eligibility. Florida doesn't benefit at all by bringing in a tougher school from a major conference. And USF is still a Big East school that can draw 60,000+ a game. They aren't giving up a home game for nothing.

Florida wouldn't have much incentive unless they lose out to a 1-loss Texas or something. USF on the other hand loves any chance to go up against one of the 3 established Florida teams. Their goal is to prove they belong in the same sentence as those teams. (And also, while they get ~60,000 for WV and Cincy, they got ~40,000 for their two weak opponents - 25,000 less fans paying them money - they're largely a commuter school that can't schedule a 1-AA like a Clemson can and still sell out.)

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Side story to this of some interest, although it probably won't help UCLA, one of only three BCS teams currently who have never scheduled an FCS/Division 1-AA (or below) opponent (the others are UDub and USC, and UDub falls from that list next year when they play, I think, Eastern Washington).

Is Notre Dame not considered a BCS team for this, or did they play a 1-AA team when I wasn't paying attention?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Is Notre Dame not considered a BCS team for this, or did they play a 1-AA team when I wasn't paying attention?

Don't get your panties in a wad. I was going off the top of my head. If Notre Dame belongs in the group, mea culpa.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

USF on the other hand loves any chance to go up against one of the 3 established Florida teams. Their goal is to prove they belong in the same sentence as those teams.

They're also a team criticized for playing creampuffs themselves.
Orlando Sentinel - USF football never met a cream puff it wouldn't attempt to schedule by Tim Stephens

Is Notre Dame not considered a BCS team for this, or did they play a 1-AA team when I wasn't paying attention?

The list I've seen floating around mention ND and Cal as the other two D1 teams that haven't played I-AA opponents (unless Cal has since a couple of articles were posted earlier this year)

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I have no problem with scheduling them. They should not count towards bowl eligibility however.

They don't.
The once every 3 exception was eliminated. A team needs a min of 6 FBS wins to qualify for a bowl, I thought.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They're also a team criticized for playing creampuffs themselves.
Orlando Sentinel - USF football never met a cream puff it wouldn't attempt to schedule by Tim Stephens

That's not criticism. That's a bunch of bullshit coming from a clown who is pissed that USF stopped playing UCF. Who gives a crap what level of bad team you play when you are taking on Florida State and Miami that same year? Would it be better if Western Kentucky and Wolford were replaced by bottom rung BCS schools?

In 2008, USF played Kansas (ranked 11th at the time) and NC State. In 2007, they played at Auburn. They're not one to back down and schedule mostly patsies, and that's coming from someone who has criticized his team for pretty much doing just that (near-term, at least).

The fact is that the Big East is at an automatic disadvantage when it comes to scheduling due to the size of the conference, so those teams will be playing at least one more OOC game than the other conferences, which makes finding legitimate teams to play even harder. That's how you get 2 I-AAs on the schedule.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Would it be better if Western Kentucky and Wolford were replaced by bottom rung BCS schools?

Some seem to say it would (I'm not a huge critic of them myself, but some are)

[Kodos]

The Indiana - Iowa game was pure torture. The thing with Indiana is that no lead is safe. EVER. We can and will find a way to lose. Against Iowa, the refs helped us lose repeatedly. Even better than Michigan's "interception" that kept us from trying to mount a game-winning drive. Indiana football is simply cursed. At least Northwestern's comeback from 28-3 was not aided by the refs. Coach Bill Lynch simply cannot make adjustments, and we always get killed in the second half, even if we look good in the 1st half.

How to do intercept a guy 4 times in the third quarter with a nice lead, and still lose in a blowout?

[Butter]

I couldn't believe some of those calls that were overturned or NOT overturned. The most egregious one to me, being the TD along the sideline in the end zone where the guy clearly dragged his foot along the black end zone that was overturned. How could that be overturned? I thought the catch along the back of the end zone was a good non-overturn since he seemed to still be gathering the ball in while stepping out of bounds.

The sideline end zone TD overturn really made me wonder if the Big Ten had some influence on the outcome of the calls to keep Iowa undefeated. It was that bad. Then Iowa had the fluke "pinball" INT return for a TD, and IU fell apart. If I were an IU fan, I would be on suicide watch for a while.

Sorry, Kodos.

[Kodos]

Yeah, it was pretty obvious that the team gave up in the 4th. But I can hardly blame them after the series of calls and bad breaks that went against them. A ton of it is on Coach Lynch. He simply cannot make a second half adjustment to save his life. Big leads blown against Michigan, Northwestern, and now Iowa. We do a ton to kill ourselves. And then when the refs are helping the self-destruction, what chance do we have? It's so disheartening. And then our AD said our crap-ass coach will be back next year. The suffering never ends.

[Noop]

9-0!!!!!!!!!!! #4 in the BCS

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And it rarely if ever pits the two best teams. USC has missed out many years when they were clearly better than others. Ohio State was an embarassment in the title games against Florida.

This is taking the debate in a different direction. I would agree that the "best" teams aren't always paired up, if by "best" you mean the teams most likely to win a game.

And by that criteria, those non-BCS teams would rarely even be in the discussion.

And you knock the non-BCS schools who played in BCS games. They are 3-1 in those games which is a better win percentage than any other conference.

Wow, 4 games worth of data - that sure must be conclusive!

Utah in both 2004 & 2008 had some level of argument for being in the discussion. But as noted, Utah's resume in 2004 wasn't better than USC or Oklahoma. Do you dispute this? Utah last year had an argument, but they only had one good OOC win (over Oregon State). They also probably weren't given enough credit for their win over TCU. But by the same token, they barely edged both Oregon State and TCU, not to mention a bad Michigan team.

I will grant you that Utah's team last year had a good argument, but they're the only ones.

Like I said, there's a handful of top 10 teams that will play anyone. There are a lot of mid-major schools that would like to play them. Otherwise you're scheduling a team and praying that they do well against their opponents.

The scheduling issue is tied to a different problem, namely that big-time schools aren't being punished for playing patsies. The changes to the rules about scheduling FCS teams and having those wins count towards bowl eligibility were bad for the game - now big-time teams have no real incentive to schedule challenging games.

And to be fair, we as fans are part of the problem too - if we continue to buy tickets to shams like Florida vs. Charleston Southern and watch those games on TV, there's no financial pressure on AD's to schedule tougher opponents.

I still contend that if it's really important for teams like Boise State and Utah to be considered for a BCS title game, they can make it happen to get the OOC schedules they need.

[MrBug708]

Never ceases to amaze me. SOS rankings from Sagarin

#1. Washington
#2. UCLA
#5. Southern Cal
#6. Washington State
#8. Oregon
#9. Arizona
#15. Oregon State
#16. Cal
#20. Stanford
#50. Arizona State

[k0ruptr]

wow, the Pac10 has a hell of a schedule

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And to be fair, we as fans are part of the problem too - if we continue to buy tickets to shams like Florida vs. Charleston Southern and watch those games on TV, there's no financial pressure on AD's to schedule tougher opponents.

We're largely getting what we want I think. For teams whose fans stress through every conference game, at least one complete laugher per year isn't such a bad thing to a lot of people I don't think. Hell, it's also a chance to give away seats for the season ticket holders who may not want to sit in the rain and watch UGA vs TN Tech but will take the brownie points for giving someone those tickets.

I still contend that if it's really important for teams like Boise State and Utah to be considered for a BCS title game ...

But it isn't, so it's all relatively good. The presence of either in the title game does nothing except damage the popularity of the game.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But it isn't, so it's all relatively good. The presence of either in the title game does nothing except damage the popularity of the game.

What I meant was if it's important to those schools to get into the title game.

And actually, I disagree about Boise or Utah making the title game being bad for the popularity of the game. It would be a huge story, and it would provide hope for fans of many more schools rather than the traditional powers.

[Chubby]

Comments on Mike Williams leaves Syracuse football team | Today in Central New York - Page 2 -

what a dope, he deserves to be bagging groceries.

My guess is it's related to his suspension...

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

They don't.
The once every 3 exception was eliminated. A team needs a min of 6 FBS wins to qualify for a bowl, I thought.

They do, one per year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

They don't.
The once every 3 exception was eliminated. A team needs a min of 6 FBS wins to qualify for a bowl, I thought.

No, 1 game a season against an FCS opponent counts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But it isn't, so it's all relatively good. The presence of either in the title game does nothing except damage the popularity of the game.

And that's fine if that's how people want it. But it shouldn't be treated as a legitimate sport and instead be treated more like professional wrestling.

Getting that out of the way would allow them to schedule games that people want to see instead of being driven by what actually happens on the field. That way we can get Notre Dame in a big bowl game even if they win 3 games and matchup the two biggest media darlings in the championship regardless of how they do.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And that's fine if that's how people want it. But it shouldn't be treated as a legitimate sport and instead be treated more like professional wrestling.

Getting that out of the way would allow them to schedule games that people want to see instead of being driven by what actually happens on the field. That way we can get Notre Dame in a big bowl game even if they win 3 games and matchup the two biggest media darlings in the championship regardless of how they do.

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how throwing 64 teams into a single elimination tournament makes a champion any more legit. In my mind that's a slight upgrade on simply pulling winners out of a hat.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And that's fine if that's how people want it. But it shouldn't be treated as a legitimate sport and instead be treated more like professional wrestling.

Getting that out of the way would allow them to schedule games that people want to see instead of being driven by what actually happens on the field. That way we can get Notre Dame in a big bowl game even if they win 3 games and matchup the two biggest media darlings in the championship regardless of how they do.

More like MMA/boxing than professional wrestling. That's the way things have been in college football forever. Though I wish it was MORE like those sports (because then in early 2007, maybe we could have had Boise St v. Florida after the Fiesta/NC Games.)

I appreciate the uniqueness of college football before it inevitably falls into line with everything else.

The "national championship" in college football is mythical, it always has been. Different teams have stated their claims in various years. This phenomenon wasn't something that people felt warranted congressional investigations until pretty recently (just about the time that the BCS started a #1 vs. #2 game)

[Atocep]

To add to what I posted above, I think one of the biggest problems people have with college football's system is it removes the professional wrestling-type stories from the game. I don't think anyone would argue that George Mason was one of the four best teams in college basketball in '06, but they found themselves in the final four that year and people ate up the story aspect of it.

College basketball's regular season is nothing more than posturing and trying to look good because the sport weighs single elimination tournaments much more heavily. In the end, the teams are arbitrarily seeded in some order and a random champion is spit out. This opens the door for more plots, subplots, and stories for people to follow once the real games are played in March.

College football largely eliminates the George Masons, because even though they play at the same level, it's incredibly unlikely that they're going to be one of the top 8 or so teams in the country.

[molson]

Remember the old Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition that started all this whining? All it was was an agreement among the bowls to create a #1 v. #2 matchup of the teams from four conferences (no big 10, no pac-10, no smaller conferences).

The agreement evolved, the Pac-10 and big 10 got involved, and they even threw a bone to the mid-majors, who have pretty decent access now to the bcs, if not the title game.

It's just an agreement of bowls and conferences. If the mid-majors don't like it, they can try to make their own deal. That's at the essence of what college football has been forever - making deals regarding post season opportunities and scheduling. But they don't have the same value to anyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how throwing 64 teams into a single elimination tournament makes a champion any more legit. In my mind that's a slight upgrade on simply pulling winners out of a hat.

Well college basketball has many more teams competing in the top level so 64 teams as big as having a 64 team tournament in FBS.

And what you're pointing out is the potential of "cheapening" the regular season which is a valid point. But still, their National Champion is determined by what happens on the court. Every team has a shot to win the National Championship.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

To add to what I posted above, I think one of the biggest problems people have with college football's system is it removes the professional wrestling-type stories from the game. I don't think anyone would argue that George Mason was one of the four best teams in college basketball in '06, but they found themselves in the final four that year and people ate up the story aspect of it.

College basketball's regular season is nothing more than posturing and trying to look good because the sport weighs single elimination tournaments much more heavily. In the end, the teams are arbitrarily seeded in some order and a random champion is spit out. This opens the door for more plots, subplots, and stories for people to follow once the real games are played in March.

College football largely eliminates the George Masons, because even though they play at the same level, it's incredibly unlikely that they're going to be one of the top 8 or so teams in the country.

In college football's system, we wouldn't have had Derrick Rose and Memphis in the title game. Dwayne Wade and Marquette in the Final Four. The dynasty from UNLV. The system arbitrarily dismisses teams for no reason and doesn't judge their talent or ability as a factor in the decision. So should Memphis have been left out of the tournament two years ago because they play in a crappy conference?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

Remember the old Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition that started all this whining? All it was was an agreement among the bowls to create a #1 v. #2 matchup of the teams from four conferences (no big 10, no pac-10, no smaller conferences).

The agreement evolved, the Pac-10 and big 10 got involved, and they even threw a bone to the mid-majors, who have pretty decent access now to the bcs, if not the title game.

It's just an agreement of bowls and conferences. If the mid-majors don't like it, they can try to make their own deal. That's at the essence of what college football has been forever - making deals regarding post season opportunities and scheduling. But they don't have the same value to anyone.

Definitely. They might as well just create a division between I-A and I-AA, and let the non-BCS schools compete for their own "national title" -- have fun getting your ass handed to you by Boise State and TCU, Irish!

[Kodos]

Yeah, if determining a champion on the court / field is so pointless, why play sports at all?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So should Memphis have been left out of the tournament two years ago because they play in a crappy conference?

If they only beat teams from their own crappy conference, and there were only 16 teams invited to the basketball tournament (probably the max number of teams possible in any 1-A college football playoff), they wouldn't have been invited.

But, they also beat Oklahoma, UConn, USC, Arizona, Cincinnatti, Georgetown - so they probably would have been invited to a 16-team tournament based on that out-of-conference schedule.

If Boise St beat anyone besides Oregon, they'd be a lock for the 8-team BCS, and would have a better than 50/50 chance at the championship game.

Basketball's easy because there's 64 teams. But you can't guarantee access to everyone with an 8 or 16 team playoff and the number of existing division 1 college football teams. Just like no college basketball team is gauranteed to be a top-4 seed (i.e. top 16 in the tournament), even if they go undefeated.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Definitely. They might as well just create a division between I-A and I-AA, and let the non-BCS schools compete for their own "national title" -- have fun getting your ass handed to you by Boise State and TCU, Irish!

That division pretty much exists now, except they leave open the door for a REALLY impressive "lower-division" team to get in a big bowl.

But I bet people would be less irritated if they thought of it like that. BCS conferences are division 1-A, everybody else is I-AA.

If the BCS didn't throw the occasional bone to to the WAC/MWC, a bowl could probably do really well just setting up a I-AA championship between the WAC/MWC Champions (or #1 v. #2 from all the "1-A" teams). Hell, a couple of bowls could get together and setup a 4-team 1-AA playoff featuring the champs of the WAC/MWC/C-USA/S-Belt. They could have their own champion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That division pretty much exists now, except they leave open the door for a REALLY impressive "lower-division" team to get in a big bowl.

But I bet people would be less irritated if they thought of it like that. BCS conferences are division 1-A, everybody else is I-AA.

If the BCS didn't throw the occasional bone to to the WAC/MWC, a bowl could probably do really well just setting up a I-AA championship between the WAC/MWC Champions (or #1 v. #2 from all the "1-A" teams). Hell, a couple of bowls could get together and setup a 4-team 1-AA playoff featuring the champs of the WAC/MWC/C-USA/S-Belt. They could have their own champion.

You are still judging the talent and ability of a team based on conference history and not how they perform on the field. No different than saying the NFC South has been a weak division for years so no team should be allowed to make the playoffs from that division no matter what they do during the season.

I'm not against the current system if that's what people want. I just don't think we should treat it as a real sporting league.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are still judging the talent and ability of a team based on conference history and not how they perform on the field. No different than saying the NFC South has been a weak division for years so no team should be allowed to make the playoffs from that division no matter what they do during the season.

I'm not against the current system if that's what people want. I just don't think we should treat it as a real sporting league.

Well, yeah. Some conferences are better than others. This is already being done by not including Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III schools -- they have absolutely no chance to be considered the best school in the land. Why is everyone so concerned about the 4 or 5 conferences who have some chance to win it all, but a very slight one?

[Chief Rum]

Every year we have this discussion, and the same posters came around sticking their heads in the sand, saying, "I like it how it is, I like it how it is, I like it how it is!" Not sure why another such discussion is needed. Why doesn't someone just provide a link to last year's discussion and save the board all the pointless typing.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Every year we have this discussion, and the same posters came around sticking their heads in the sand, saying, "I like it how it is, I like it how it is, I like it how it is!" Not sure why another such discussion is needed. Why doesn't someone just provide a link to last year's discussion and save the board all the pointless typing.

I don't think anyone actually likes how it is. The problem is that everyone disagrees on how it should be.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are still judging the talent and ability of a team based on conference history and not how they perform on the field. No different than saying the NFC South has been a weak division for years so no team should be allowed to make the playoffs from that division no matter what they do during the season.

The NFC South has up years and down years. There's nothing inherently about the NFC South that will make it good or bad.

The Sun Belt v. SEC is a completely different thing. It's like if you had an NFL division that consisted soley of AFL2 teams, who only pay their players $200/game. Is it fair to treat that division the same as the AFC East with regards to playoffs?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Well, yeah. Some conferences are better than others. This is already being done by not including Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III schools -- they have absolutely no chance to be considered the best school in the land. Why is everyone so concerned about the 4 or 5 conferences who have some chance to win it all, but a very slight one?

Championships should not be handed out to the best conference but the best team.