NCAA National Championship

[Dutch]

Right now, it's possible that we could see four undefeated teams come bowl season.

1. VT
2. USC/UCLA
3. Texas
4. Georgia/Alabama

Wouldn't a playoff system be awesome right about now?

[KWhit]

But the BCS system works great!

[/sarcasm]</SARCASM>

[WSUCougar]

But the bowls have so much tradition!

[/sarcasm]

[QuikSand]

A playoff would solve all our problems!

[/sarcasm]

[KWhit]

I hope 3-4 teams make it through the season undefeated again. If this happens more consistantly, maybe the powers that be will come to their senses and we can get some real talk going on a playoff system.

But I have a feeling it won't happen that way. I think both of the SEC teams are likely to lose and VT has a tough schedule from here on out, so we'll probably have 2 unbeaten teams and the BCS folks can say, "See? The system works."
:rolleyes:

[KWhit]

A playoff would solve all our problems!

[/sarcasm]
Actually, I think it would absolutely solve the main problem.

[MalcPow]

I think both of the SEC teams are likely to lose and VT has a tough schedule from here on out, so we'll probably have 2 unbeaten teams and the BCS folks can say, "See? The system works."
:rolleyes:

Where are these BCS folks? Why don't they show themselves? I picture them hiding in that bunker with Dick Cheney, blaming everything on those damn computers.

[albionmoonlight]

Just throwing this out there for discussion--

In any given year, if there were one slot left in a playoff system (or championship game or whatever exists to determine "the champion" "on the field") and you had to choose between

a one-loss Alabama team who played a tough SEC schedule, a tough non-conference schedule, lost one game by one point to Auburn, and was ranked #5 in the AP poll

OR

an undefeated North Texas team who rolled over a weak Sun Belt conference and didn't have any tough non-conference opponents and was outside of the AP top 25

Who would you say deserves to go to the playoff?

(I'm not trying to trip anyone up with this question or argue anyone into a corner. I am just generally curious.)

(And the answer to this question can't be "they both should go." This is a hypothetical and you have what you have).

[KWhit]

To answer your restrictive question, I would say the 1 loss Alabama team. Easily.

Personally, I think a complete overhaul is in order - a new, much smaller division 1 with a few conferences. The Sun Belt would be part of another division, competing for their own title.

[rjolley]

I'd say the one loss team has the right to be there by the #5 ranking and the toughness of the schedule they played.

As much as it's hated, mid-major conferences are not what the NCAA Div-1A football championship is about. When was the last time a team from a mid-major conference won it all in football? Unless the playoff system included 16 teams or 8 teams with one spot dedicated to the mid-majors, the best shot one has at winning is doing what they've been trying to do the last few years...get ranked, get intot he BCS rankings, win all of your games, and get into the BCS games. Otherwise, the challengers will always come from the main 6 conferneces.

[Dutch]

The conference makeup is the big problem, I agree.

[dawgfan]

Actually, I think it would absolutely solve the main problem.

Not really. You'd still have arguments about how many teams should be in the playoffs and arguments about who gets in and who is left out (just like we have now). What's more, you'd have the after the fact arguments talking about what a fluke it was the team X with the worst record of the playoff teams got hot/lucky and won the playoffs, but team Y really was the better team.

I enjoy tournaments, but I'm under no illusions that they prove which is the "best" team. I think the NBA probably comes the closest to crowning the "best" team as champion, as I think a best of 7 series in pro basketball is probably the closest thing to 'fair' in terms of balancing out luck, though I'm sure there have been many instances in the past where a team you could argue as the "best" that season didn't win the title.

But 1-off tournaments like March Madness are really about the moment and not as much about the breadth of accomplishments over the course of the season.

I thought the bowl system was great, though I had some quibbles with the process some of them used for filling their slots. I liked the whole system better before the BCS was implemented. If it were me in charge and you forced me to add some kind of championship game to the system, I'd keep the bowls in place and appoint an NCAA committee to pick the 2 best teams at the conclusion of the bowls to play a college "Super Bowl" a week or two after the January 1st games. Otherwise I'd just scrap the BCS and return to the normal bowl system.

I really don't see what the big deal is in leaving the "who's the best team" argument up for debate.

[KWhit]

I really don't see what the big deal is in leaving the "who's the best team" argument up for debate.
Then why play any games at all? Just have teams announce their rosters at the beginning of the year and let people vote on who they think the best team is.

Most people like their champions to be crowned on the field.

[QuikSand]

Most people like their champions to be crowned on the field.

And most people are perfectly willing to completely trash everything we got from an extended regular season, in the name of an exciting tournament of playoffs. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament is exciting, but it renders the regular season essentially meaningless in terms of the national championship (unless your top team gets a key player injured during one of the many pointless regular season games, and he becomes unavailable or impaired during the six games that actualy matter).


The more emphasis you place on some sort of short-term playoffs or tournament, the less value there becomes to the regular season. It's a trade off. It may be worth making in many cases, but there is a loss when you de-emphasize the regular season.

In college football, if you grant a pretty good 9-2 team the same bid to the final tourney as a dominant 11-0 team... what incentive was there for the latter team to actually play that well? Why not pull your starters for the last game or two? Who cares if you actually win that game in week four of the season? And if that 9-2 team beats the 11-0 team in the opening round of the playoffs... now the 11-0 team is just done because they lost the wrong game?

It's excitement versus justice. It's a trade off.

[rkmsuf]

College football is close enough with the bcs. Generally the best two teams will be in the championship game.

Besides it's only the NFL farm system. What's the big deal.

[Dutch]

The more emphasis you place on some sort of short-term playoffs or tournament, the less value there becomes to the regular season. It's a trade off. It may be worth making in many cases, but there is a loss when you de-emphasize the regular season.

I'm guessing the NHL is a great example of this. And the all or nothing race to the finish for the MLB pennant isn't so hot anymore either. Since now the runner up usually gets to go the playoffs anyway.

[rkmsuf]

I'm guessing the NHL is a great example of this. And the all or nothing race to the finish for the MLB pennant isn't so hot anymore either. Since now the runner up usually gets to go the playoffs anyway.

The ridiculous part of baseball is playing 162 games and then a best of 5 game series. Ludicrous.

[ISiddiqui]

I thought the bowl system was great, though I had some quibbles with the process some of them used for filling their slots. I liked the whole system better before the BCS was implemented. If it were me in charge and you forced me to add some kind of championship game to the system, I'd keep the bowls in place and appoint an NCAA committee to pick the 2 best teams at the conclusion of the bowls to play a college "Super Bowl" a week or two after the January 1st games. Otherwise I'd just scrap the BCS and return to the normal bowl system.
Not a bad idea at all. I think people should stop thinking that we'll ever really get a true national championship on the field and keep the whole 'regular-season-actually-means-something' stuff that college football fans like.

Go back to the traditional bowls, with their conference tie ins. The problem is that people get dismayed that the polls can't choose a 'true' national champion, so having a Superbowl would be a great middle ground. Forget the +1 with the BCS bowl games. Get the BCS out of the big time traditional bowls. The Pac 10 and Big 10 are MEANT to play in the Rose Bowl, dammit!

[KWhit]

Not really. You'd still have arguments about how many teams should be in the playoffs and arguments about who gets in and who is left out (just like we have now).
I've never understood this argument. Yes, your statement is technically true. But I would much prefer a 1, 2, or 3 loss team that was ranked #9 or #17 to be left out of a playoff than the silly system we have now in which you can have a power program from a top conference win every game and not get to play for the ultimate prize.


What's more, you'd have the after the fact arguments talking about what a fluke it was the team X with the worst record of the playoff teams got hot/lucky and won the playoffs, but team Y really was the better team.
But who's to say that the team with the poor record was the worse team? Maybe they just played in a killer conference. Or had an injury at a key position and lost a game or two.

One of the things a playoff would help with is the fact that we aren't really able to compare conferences. I know USC is a very good team, but many people in the southeast think that the Pac10 is a fairly weak conference. There is a regional bias and a lot of people think that if USC had to play an SEC or ACC schedule that they would slip up and lose a game. I have no idea if this would happen or not since they did wax Arkansas early in the year, but a playoff would at least make sure a team would have to beat 2-3 top teams from other conferences to win a championship. This would make it less likely for a team to just coast through a weak conference.

[VPI97]

And if that 9-2 team beats the 11-0 team in the opening round of the playoffs... now the 11-0 team is just done because they lost the wrong game?Yep. That's one of the big reasons I don't want to see a playoff.

[WSUCougar]

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but do you guys also dislike the NFL playoff system?

[KWhit]

The more emphasis you place on some sort of short-term playoffs or tournament, the less value there becomes to the regular season. It's a trade off. It may be worth making in many cases, but there is a loss when you de-emphasize the regular season.
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. How many games this week are actually "important" in determining who will become a national champion?

USC vs WS
Texas vs Ok St
VT vs BC
UGA vs UF
Bama vs Utah St
UCLA vs Stanford

And that's pretty much it. Technically, the 1 loss teams are still alive, but it will take a lot to get one of them into the title game.

So for most of college football, they are playing for nothing this week. They have no chance at a title.


However, with a playoff system, a lot more teams would still be alive. It would make the undefeated teams' games less important this week since they would likely still get in with 1 loss. But it makes a lot of other games super-important. Teams like Miami, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Florida State, Penn State, Notre Dame, LSU, and others would all have a real shot to make a playoff and would be in do or die situations right now.


The thing that gets me is that most teams in Div 1 football literally cannot win a national championship even if they win every game. In fact, after the very first game of the season, probably 40% of teams in the nation have no shot at the national title because they lost in week one. Sure some teams can make it to the title game with 1 loss, but not many. So after 1 stinkin week tons of teams are out of it! That seems to make a whole lot of games "less valuable" to me.

[Dutch]

If only 4 teams are invited, you won't see any 2 loss teams there. So any 10-1 teams that beat an 11-0 team can say, "Yeah, we both lost one game, but we beat your sorry asses."

[rkmsuf]

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but do you guys also dislike the NFL playoff system?


smart ass.


*I love the NFL system. It works. But then again the NFL is superior to college football in every way.

[Dutch]

The NFL system works because you are rewarded in the playoffs for being better during the regular season. (Homefield advantage and bye weeks)

[rkmsuf]

The NFL system works because you are rewarded in the playoffs for being better during the regular season. (Homefield advantage and bye weeks)

Right, it's better.

[QuikSand]

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but do you guys also dislike the NFL playoff system?

I think the NFL playoffs are exciting, and very entertaining.

I think the system in place of bye weeks for the top teams, and home field for the more highly-seeded teams is a good factor to make the regular seaosn meaningful. On balance, it's better than some playoff systems.

I do, however, get a twinge of anger when a mediocre team nips a tam that assembled a great regular season in the playoffs and sends them home. I understand that's how it's done... I'm not complaining that the "better' team should actualy get a bye or anything regardless... but it is frustrating to see sometimes.

If you're going to have playoffs, the more you do to reward the teams who play best during the regular season and realy earn some meaningful advantages in the playoffs, the more likely I am to support it. The NFL does a pretty good job.

[KWhit]

I've always followed the Georgia Bulldogs and consider myself a football fan, but as soon as I know that they can't win the national title, my interest drops considerably.

Yes, there is still pride in winning. Yes, you still have the conference title to go after, but it's not the same. I'll still watch the games (usually), but I really don't care so much after that first loss or two because I know that the ultimate prize is out of reach.

If we would have lost to South Carolina (game 2 of our schedule this year) my interest level would have dropped about 50%. That doesn't seem like a good system to me where that could happen after just 2 games of the season.

[QuikSand]

And as I suggested before, it's basically about excitement versus justice.

It may be more exciting to keep lots of teams' hopes alive for a long time, by having lots and lots of teams still "in the hunt" even after one or two or three losses - since a final tournament will really settle everything anyway. But it's not a very efficient way to award the title to the "best" team (an admittedly subjective notion anyway).

[KWhit]

But there is no justice in the current system either. Auburn deserved a shot last year as much as any team.

[QuikSand]

If only 4 teams are invited, you won't see any 2 loss teams there. So any 10-1 teams that beat an 11-0 team can say, "Yeah, we both lost one game, but we beat your sorry asses."

And this, to me, is the logical follow-up. If a huge tournament doesn't sufficiently differentiate between the very top teams and those who just barely get in... make it a smaller tournament, and narrow the field of who even qualifies.

For someone like me (who likes the importance of the regular season) you have a better sales pitch with a 4-team event than with a 16-team event. I still don't much care for the last team getting in having an equal shot (I'd probably prefer home field advantage be granted to the top seeds, at least) -- but at least this limits the spread among those who qualify for the final stage.

I really have no major problem with the idea of an extra game played after the bowls, or even a four-team tournament done so... it's when you start to talk about 12 or 16 teams, lots of little division champions, and a bunch of teams who have candidly already been vanquished in the regular season each getting a fresh shot at it -- then you really start to lose my support.

[GrantDawg]

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but do you guys also dislike the NFL playoff system?
They must.

[GrantDawg]

I think the NFL playoffs are exciting, and very entertaining.

I think the system in place of bye weeks for the top teams, and home field for the more highly-seeded teams is a good factor to make the regular seaosn meaningful. On balance, it's better than some playoff systems.

I do, however, get a twinge of anger when a mediocre team nips a tam that assembled a great regular season in the playoffs and sends them home. I understand that's how it's done... I'm not complaining that the "better' team should actualy get a bye or anything regardless... but it is frustrating to see sometimes.

If you're going to have playoffs, the more you do to reward the teams who play best during the regular season and realy earn some meaningful advantages in the playoffs, the more likely I am to support it. The NFL does a pretty good job.

If that gives you a "twinge" of anger, imagine having your team go undefeated and not even be given a chance to win it all because one of teams they scheduled had a off year. It is totally out of your hands, but you are still screwed. If a winning team beating another winning team gives you a twinge, what does that level of injustice do to you?

[GrantDawg]

And as I suggested before, it's basically about excitement versus justice.

It may be more exciting to keep lots of teams' hopes alive for a long time, by having lots and lots of teams still "in the hunt" even after one or two or three losses - since a final tournament will really settle everything anyway. But it's not a very efficient way to award the title to the "best" team (an admittedly subjective notion anyway).

Really? Then why does every other sport do it then? I find it much better way than allowing pencil-necked geeks "vote" for a championship.

[Huckleberry]

In a hurry at work so I'll just throw some thoughts out there (pardon the probably crappy grammar and organization everybody)

1.) I agree that it's more just to have fewer teams in the playoff. We already have a 2-team playoff. The problem, as I see it, is teams like Auburn and Utah. They went undefeated. If you call the regular season the de facto playoff, how can they justifiably be eliminated when they won every game in their "playoff"?

2.) With that in mind, teams that have lost a game don't have as much right to complain, IMO. If they'd won, they would have been in. See 2000 Miami, 2001 Oregon, etc.

3.) Only just solution for everyone is an adjustable system that invites a different number of teams each season depending on what has taken place. Logistically difficult.

4.) We have to remember that the NCAA is a bureaucracy and really nothing more than a governmental system. To not give bids to conference champions when you recognize them as conferences would be impossible.

My solution:

The NCAA big guns need to split off into a 60-, 63- or 64-team super division. 5 12-team conferences, 7 9-team conferences, or 8 8-team conferences. With 60 teams the 5 conference champions and 3 at-large teams get into the 8-team playoff. With the other two setups there will be a debate on an 8- or 16-team playoff. So really my best scenario is the 60 team super division.

[KWhit]

And if an 11-0 team truly is the best let them prove that on the field against that 9-2 team. If the 9-2 team wins, maybe they really are the better team but played in a much tougher conference.

(In response to Quik and VPI - not Huck).

[GrantDawg]

In a hurry at work so I'll just throw some thoughts out there (pardon the probably crappy grammar and organization everybody)

1.) I agree that it's more just to have fewer teams in the playoff. We already have a 2-team playoff. The problem, as I see it, is teams like Auburn and Utah. They went undefeated. If you call the regular season the de facto playoff, how can they justifiably be eliminated when they won every game in their "playoff"?

2.) With that in mind, teams that have lost a game don't have as much right to complain, IMO. If they'd won, they would have been in. See 2000 Miami, 2001 Oregon, etc.

3.) Only just solution for everyone is an adjustable system that invites a different number of teams each season depending on what has taken place. Logistically difficult.

4.) We have to remember that the NCAA is a bureaucracy and really nothing more than a governmental system. To not give bids to conference champions when you recognize them as conferences would be impossible.

My solution:

The NCAA big guns need to split off into a 60-, 63- or 64-team super division. 5 12-team conferences, 7 9-team conferences, or 8 8-team conferences. With 60 teams the 5 conference champions and 3 at-large teams get into the 8-team playoff. With the other two setups there will be a debate on an 8- or 16-team playoff. So really my best scenario is the 60 team super division.

I agree completely that what you suggest is exactly what is needed. Sadly, it will never happen.

[WSUCougar]

One aspect I'd like to see in a playoff is a concrete idea of whether you're team is in or not. None of this hocus-pocus (see: Texas in over Cal) that depends on voters and wacky formulas.

Send the conference champions to an 8-team playoff:

Pac-10
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
SEC
Big East
Play-in #1: MAC/USA
Play-in #2: Mountain West/WAC

[Pumpy Tudors]

In my (limited) experience, many people who want a playoff do so because they find the current system only produces a "mythical" champion anyway. So why does it matter whether an undefeated team wins the championship, since this "championship" doesn't even exist?

[WSUCougar]

dola

If a team is in Division I, it should damn well be eligible for its championship game. Otherwise what's the point of having a division at all?

[KWhit]

Send the conference champions to an 8-team playoff:
I agree. I don't know what's so hard about that. It works in every other sport (including every other football league).

*Though I might quibble a little with your exact setup, WSU.

[WSUCougar]

*Though I might quibble a little with your exact setup, WSU.
I might, too, actually...I just threw it in there as an example. :D

[scooper]

I might, too, actually...I just threw it in there as an example. :D
I might as well, for obvious reasons. :D

[Huckleberry]

So is there an issue with the at-large teams in the basketball tournament?

[dawgfan]

I agree largely with Quik - I place a lot of value on the regular season, and depending on the size of a post-season tournament, the value of the regular season decreases.

One of the problems I see with a larger tournament that includes all the conference champs is that there is the inequity of the conferences. Should the winner of the MAC or the WAC get a bid over the 2nd place team from a major conference? Some conferences have a championship game, some don't - is this equitable?

Even with some sort of system in place like WSUCougar suggests, you'll have controversy over which teams get in - it's inevitable.

Additionally, with a larger pool like this you extend the playoffs that many more games. Does this playoff system replace the bowls? If so, I think college football loses something very important to its history and uniqueness. With bowls, you give fans a chance to be able to plan ahead to go to the game, knowing that's their one opportunity to see their team play after the season ends and to make a fun trip around it. The bowls go out of their way to put on a good show, and at the end of the bowl you have the winners of each game feeling good going in to the off-season on a high note.

If you do some sort of system post bowls, I think it needs to be small so as to not extend the season too long.

I guess I just don't feel cheated in college football not having an "official" champion. Sure, it would've been fun to see who would've won between Washington and Miami in 1991 for example, but is the alternative so bad? Have the debates ever since about who was better diminished the sport any?

[Huckleberry]

One of the problems I see with a larger tournament that includes all the conference champs is that there is the inequity of the conferences. Should the winner of the MAC or the WAC get a bid over the 2nd place team from a major conference? Some conferences have a championship game, some don't - is this equitable?
No argument that it's not just. That it's impossible to avoid if they are a champion of a recognized conference within your organization. This is why I argue for the big conferences to split off.

Does this playoff system replace the bowls? If so, I think college football loses something very important to its history and uniqueness. With bowls, you give fans a chance to be able to plan ahead to go to the game, knowing that's their one opportunity to see their team play after the season ends and to make a fun trip around it. The bowls go out of their way to put on a good show, and at the end of the bowl you have the winners of each game feeling good going in to the off-season on a high note.
1.) You can still have bowl games for non-playoff teams.

2.) How can you plan ahead for bowls more than anything else? You don't know what bowl you're going to until late November at the earliest.

Sure, it would've been fun to see who would've won between Washington and Miami in 1991 for example, but is the alternative so bad?
That really wouldn't have been all that much fun. Washington would have won no question. Where's the debate? ;)

[VPI97]

With bowls, you give fans a chance to be able to plan ahead to go to the game, knowing that's their one opportunity to see their team play after the season ends and to make a fun trip around it.That's the big reason I prefer the bowl system. More often than not, we finish the year by taking 4-5 days to go to the VT bowl game. We always have a good time, win or lose, and I'd hate to miss out on that every year. Things like that are more important to me that having a 'true' national champion. If VT goes undefeated and gets left out of the Rose Bowl this season, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it enough to enjoy a trip to Miami to see the Orange Bowl.

[dawgfan]

No argument that it's not just. That it's impossible to avoid if they are a champion of a recognized conference within your organization. This is why I argue for the big conferences to split off.

Easier said than done. The conference affiliations are all about market share and generating the most TV revenue. If you forced the Big-12 to lose some teams, you think they're going to be OK with Oklahoma or Texas leaving? No, they're going to want to boot Iowa State or Baylor or someone like that. So if conferences drop in size by sloughing off their lesser members, how does that help the situation?

2.) How can you plan ahead for bowls more than anything else? You don't know what bowl you're going to until late November at the earliest.

My point on this topic is that, in a playoff system, it's tough for fans of a particular team to follow them through multiple rounds. With a bowl system, you know there's one game and you can plan a holiday trip around that game. You could do the same for the playoffs for the first round, but I doubt it would be the same as with the bowls in terms of the overall experience, and only the most rabid (and wealthy) fans could feasibly continue following their team throughout the playoffs as they advance.

That really wouldn't have been all that much fun. Washington would have won no question. Where's the debate? ;)

You've now moved waaaay up on my list of favorite FOFC posters :)

[WSUCougar]

You've now moved waaaay up on my list of favorite FOFC posters :)
:p









:D

[Samdari]

Uh - there is no NCAA championship in football.

[WSUCougar]

Uh - there is no NCAA championship in football.
You tend to sprinkle that into these discussions like it's a big scoop every time. Okay, we get it. Call it whatever you want.

[Huckleberry]

Plus he's wrong. There are 3 NCAA Championships in football. Burn. :p

dawgfan -

I see and agree with your point on one bowl game versus multiple playoff games. However, that can be handled by having homefield in all playoff games until the championship.

And here's a potential 60-team alignment. Teams were selected as follows:

1.) Current top 5 conferences were the starting point.
2.) Crappy teams were kicked out if they're not the only private school.
3.) Replacements sought based on my ratings for the current year only.

ACC:

Virginia Tech
Miami FL
Florida St
West Virginia
Boston College
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Maryland
North Carolina
Virginia
Wake Forest
North Carolina St

Midwest 12:

Penn State
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Notre Dame
Minnesota
Michigan
Northwestern
Michigan St
Iowa
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois

Great Plains 12:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Missouri
Texas A&M
Iowa St
Baylor
Kansas St
Arkansas
Kansas
Oklahoma St

Pacific 12:

Southern Cal
Oregon
UCLA
Fresno St
Colorado
Arizona St
California
Oregon St
Stanford
Washington St
Washington
Arizona

SEC:

Alabama
Georgia
LSU
Florida
Auburn
Tennessee
Louisville
South Carolina
Vanderbilt
Mississippi
Mississippi St
Kentucky

[dawgfan]

:p









:D

Heh, I didn't forget about you.

You think the Apple Cup is going to be the Pac-10 "Toilet Bowl" this year, or can either or both of our teams start gaining a little redemption in the last part of the season?

[dawgfan]

dawgfan -

I see and agree with your point on one bowl game versus multiple playoff games. However, that can be handled by having homefield in all playoff games until the championship.

And here's a potential 60-team alignment. Teams were selected as follows:

1.) Current top 5 conferences were the starting point.
2.) Crappy teams were kicked out if they're not the only private school.
3.) Replacements sought based on my ratings for the current year only.

ACC:

Virginia Tech
Miami FL
Florida St
West Virginia
Boston College
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Maryland
North Carolina
Virginia
Wake Forest
North Carolina St

Midwest 12:

Penn State
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Notre Dame
Minnesota
Michigan
Northwestern
Michigan St
Iowa
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois

Great Plains 12:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Missouri
Texas A&M
Iowa St
Baylor
Kansas St
Arkansas
Kansas
Oklahoma St

Pacific 12:

Southern Cal
Oregon
UCLA
Fresno St
Colorado
Arizona St
California
Oregon St
Stanford
Washington St
Washington
Arizona

SEC:

Alabama
Georgia
LSU
Florida
Auburn
Tennessee
Louisville
South Carolina
Vanderbilt
Mississippi
Mississippi St
Kentucky

It makes sense from a football perspective, but it won't fly in reality. The NCAA being what it is, they (rightfully) maintain that football is something done as an adjunct to the main mission of the schools, that of course being education. In the case of the Pac-10, admission to the conference is about more than just program strength in the major sports - it's also about academic prestige. They pride themselves on being a conference of strong academic reputation. As such, certain Universities would have a hard time gaining acceptence into the Pac-10. In your example, Fresno State would make sense from a football perspective (and maybe baseball, I don't follow that as closely). They would suffer some in basketball. But more importantly (to Pac-10 Presidents) is I don't think Fresno State would pass muster from an academic viewpoint.

Extrapolate that example across all of the conferences and I'm sure you'd find other issues that would hinder such a re-alignment.

The base issue is that, unlike the professional leagues, University Presidents are less apt to make decisions strictly based on athletics. You have to consider the ramifications to the other sports that the conferences govern as well as the higher mission of how these decisions affect the academic landscape.

If the NCAA were strictly about athletics, you'd have a commissioner in charge with the authority to construct re-alignments as you've proposed and present a more level playing field to bring some parity to the football landscape. I just don't see that happening though.

[digamma]

Aside from the fair weather Georgia fans who quit watching after the Dawgs lose ;), do people really think college football is that broken that we need to revamp the entire system and materially change the game?

[dawgfan]

Aside from the fair weather Georgia fans who quit watching after the Dawgs lose ;), do people really think college football is that broken that we need to revamp the entire system and materially change the game?

That's how I feel as well. It seems to me things worked pretty damn well under the old bowl system, and the attempts since then to "clarify" the mythical national championship have only served to fuck things up, and attempts to get closer to a true championship system seemed doomed to failure given the realities of the NCAA.

[Passacaglia]

Aside from the fair weather Georgia fans who quit watching after the Dawgs lose ;), do people really think college football is that broken that we need to revamp the entire system and materially change the game?

No. It never was. Why college football was able to go on like this for so long, then suddenly have so much outcry and knee-jerk response baffles me.

[Dutch]

What about keeping everything that is in place right now, scrap the BCS, scrap college requirements to go to a certain bowl (if it's used for the championship playoffs) and have the top 4 teams (as voted by....their peers?) compete in a 4-game championship at the end of the season?

Every university gets to give it's Top 4 ranking privately to the Board of Directors. Then the directors will publicly show all votes.

All 1st place votes get 10 points
2nd place gets 5 ponts.
3rd place 3 points.
4th place 1 point.

The top four colleges have then earned the right (based on the regular season) to attend the playoffs and are seeded by total points. #1 gets to host #4. #2 gets to host #3. Championship is held at a bowl.

For all intent and purposes, the first round could even be held immediately after the conference championships so it doesn't interfere with the Bowl Seaon and the losers can proceed on to play in a Bowl somewhere while the two winners rest up to play in the last bowl of the year-- the Big Championship Bowl Game between the newly ranked #1 and #2 teams.

[Samdari]

You tend to sprinkle that into these discussions like it's a big scoop every time. Okay, we get it.

As long as people keep referring to the NCAA football championship, no, you don't actually get it.

[GrantDawg]

Aside from the fair weather Georgia fans who quit watching after the Dawgs lose ;), do people really think college football is that broken that we need to revamp the entire system and materially change the game?

Yes, anything can be improved, and this would be a major improvement.

[st.cronin]

I would be happy with any change to the system that gives teams like Texas more of an incentive to play teams like Ohio State. Those glamorous out of conference matchups seem to be a lot rarer these days.