NCAA Postseason Proposal

[slack]

I've been anti-bowl games for sometime now (See Auburn, 2003). Here is my proposal with a little help from NFL Network's Rich Eisen. (I heard him give his idea in 2002 at Ohio University)

 

First all Conference champs get in the tourney. If there are Co-Champs, they must play in a play-in game during Conf. Championship Weekend. 20 total teams go to the tourney

 

13 Week season, (12 games) Start last weekend in August the season runs through the last weekend of November. Post season starts the 2nd week of December and runs through beginning of January.

 

Four lowest seeds play in two play-in games to play the top two seeds in the next round. That gives you 17 playoff games. You can use the venues of the current bowl games to play these games.

 

The current system has over 30 bowl games, which means over 60 teams play in the postseason (most games with little value outside alumni) thats 60 out of 119 teams. Almost half! The NCAA Basketball post-season tourney is 65 out of over 300 teams! Football puts more teams out there.

 

I think the target number of wins is 10. If you don't win your conference, 10 wins should get you in or considered (like 20 in NCAA basketball.)

 

Lets take a look at the BCS

 

BCS Standings

RK TEAM RECORD

1 Alabama 13-0

2 Texas 13-0

3 Cincinnati 12-0

4 TCU 12-0

5 Florida 12-1

6 Boise State 13-0

7 Oregon 10-2

8 Ohio State 10-2

9 Georgia Tech 11-2

10 Iowa 10-2

11 Virginia Tech 9-3

12 LSU 9-3

13 Penn State 10-2

14 Brigham Young 10-2

15 Miami (FL) 9-3

16 West Virginia 9-3

17 Pittsburgh 9-3

18 Oregon State 8-4

19 Oklahoma State 9-3

20 Arizona 8-4

21 Stanford 8-4

22 Nebraska 9-4

23 Utah 9-3

24 USC 8-4

25 Wisconsin 9-3

 

I think if you take the top 16 there, plus Central Michigan (MAC Champ) and Troy (Sun Belt Champ)

 

You put Pitt vs. Oregon St, winner plays Texas and Central Mich vs. Troy winner plays Alabama.

 

So here you go:

 

Bama vs. (Troy-CMU)

 

TCU vs. Penn State

 

Boise State vs. V Tech

 

Ohio State vs. GT

 

Oregon vs. Iowa

 

Florida vs. LSU

 

Cinn vs. BYU

 

Texas vs. (WVU vs. Miami)

 

Obviously this is make believe, but I think those match-ups look better than most of the things you see this season.

 

Conference Representation:

 

SEC: 3

 

Big Ten : 3

 

Big East: 2

 

WAC: 3!

 

Big 12: 1

 

ACC: 3

 

Pac 10: 1

 

MAC: 1

 

Sun Belt: 1

 

I'm sure the Big 12 and PAC 10 Officials wouldn't be happy this year, but this gives more non-power conferences more power with 5 of the 16 bids this season. Of course, that won't always be a case. The tourney gives a snapshot of the season and which Conferences were good.

 

Ok, so thats my proposal. Chop it up, call me an idiot, just please, give me something better than the current system.

[PeterHilton]

<p>Too many teams. </p><p> </p><p>

We all know realistically that not all conferences are the same. I would love a playoff system, but any more than 12 teams and you're bringing in some undeserving teams. </p><p> </p><p>

Also, if you establish a target number of wins, it just encourages the bs that some schools pass off as their nonconference schedule.</p>

[slack]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Too many teams. <p> </p><p> We all know realistically that not all conferences are the same. I would love a playoff system, but any more than 12 teams and you're bringing in some undeserving teams. </p><p> </p><p> Also, if you establish a target number of wins, it just encourages the bs that some schools pass off as their nonconference schedule.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Right now, over half of the NCAA plays in the post season, that cuts it dwon from over 60 to 20. </p><p> </p><p> I see what your saying, though. Thanks for the feedback.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="slack" data-cite="slack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Right now, over half of the NCAA plays in the post season, that cuts it dwon from over 60 to 20. <p> </p><p> I see what your saying, though. Thanks for the feedback.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Um.... how about all 11 conference champions, and 5 at large bids?</p>

[jesterx7769]

<p>What about taking the conference winner from the 6 BCS conferences (since the BCS isn't going anywhere soon with all their contracts) then take the two at large bids to keep rankings important asides from seeding and can give the non BCS schools a chance to prove themselves i.e. TCU/Boise</p><p> </p><p>

You can also cut down on the regular season by a game (come on, too many teams play useless games) in order to make for the extra time for bowls and then the extra money can be spread out in a revenue sharing form to make up for that lossed game.</p><p> </p><p>

And I know someone will say "well what about Notre Dame" screw em, they can either join the big ten (to make it 12 and give the conference a title game) or stay by themselves w/their NBC contract and not sharing money and hope to be an at large bid.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="slack" data-cite="slack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Right now, over half of the NCAA plays in the post season, that cuts it dwon from over 60 to 20. <p> </p><p> I see what your saying, though. Thanks for the feedback.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah..but the postseason doesn't mean anything really. The bowls are exhibition games to generate revenue and provide content in a slow TV month. </p><p> </p><p> That's actually part of the problem: any plan that eliminates TOO MUCH of the traditional bowl schedule will catch holy hell from the schools and sponsors tied in to these low and mid level bowls. </p><p> </p><p> IMO, eventually they'll go to a top 8...that gives you seven games to crown a National Champion. The BCS already incorporates 5 (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Title) so they would just need to add two more (probably the Cotton and Capitol One, although as a Pac-10 fan I'd hope for another bowl out west).</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jesterx7769" data-cite="jesterx7769" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> And I know someone will say "well what about Notre Dame" screw em, they can either join the big ten (to make it 12 and give the conference a title game) or stay by themselves w/their NBC contract and not sharing money and hope to be an at large bid.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I really don't think anyone has to worry about ND being a title ocntender any time soon.</p><p> </p><p> Also..I like your set up except I think it's time the Mountain West gets a BCS berth. Especially if Boise State jumps. The last few seasons they've easily been as legit as the Big 12, Big 10, or Big East. </p><p> </p><p> Seven conference winners. One at-large bid. Every conference MUST have a title game. And if you want don't win your conference, hopefully you played some REAL competition so you can make a case for thar last slot.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I really don't think anyone has to worry about ND being a title ocntender any time soon.<p> </p><p> Also..I like your set up except I think it's time the Mountain West gets a BCS berth. Especially if Boise State jumps. The last few seasons they've easily been as legit as the Big 12, Big 10, or Big East. </p><p> </p><p> Seven conference winners. One at-large bid. Every conference MUST have a title game. And if you want don't win your conference, hopefully you played some REAL competition so you can make a case for thar last slot.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> what about the other 4 conference winners?</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="NickC13573" data-cite="NickC13573" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>what about the other 4 conference winners?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> IIRC thats the WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA...?</p><p> </p><p> They suck. Go kick rocks until basketball season starts </p><p> </p><p> (not being flip..but those conferences simply don't spend the funds or play football at the over-all level of the major conferences)</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>IIRC thats the WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA...?<p> </p><p> They suck. Go kick rocks until basketball season starts </p><p> </p><p> (not being flip..but those conferences simply don't spend the funds or play football at the over-all level of the major conferences)</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> but, just like the basketball postseason, why don't they deserve a SHOT at an upset?</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="NickC13573" data-cite="NickC13573" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>but, just like the basketball postseason, why don't they deserve a SHOT at an upset?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They do. That's what the at-large is for. </p><p> </p><p> The regular season is only 12 games. Adding potentially 4 more games to win a title is a little much. </p><p> </p><p> You have to cut off the number somewhere and IMO 8 is most manageable. </p><p> </p><p> I'd love 12 teams to get in, because some conference runner-ups deserve a chance, but I think 8 is most realistic and works best within the framework of the current system.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>They do. That's what the at-large is for. <p> </p><p> The regular season is only 12 games. Adding potentially 4 more games to win a title is a little much. </p><p> </p><p> You have to cut off the number somewhere and IMO 8 is most manageable. </p><p> </p><p> I'd love 12 teams to get in, because some conference runner-ups deserve a chance, but I think 8 is most realistic and works best within the framework of the current system.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 12 could work, with the top 4 getting bye's. All 11 Conference champions and an AT-Large</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="NickC13573" data-cite="NickC13573" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>12 could work, with the top 4 getting bye's. All 11 Conference champions and an AT-Large</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Twelve is four more bowl games you have to break ties with.</p><p> </p><p> Like I said...my opinion is that eight is more manageable and those other conferences don't deserve an automatic bid.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Twelve is four more bowl games you have to break ties with.<p> </p><p> Like I said...my opinion is that eight is more manageable and those other conferences don't deserve an automatic bid.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> but, in my opinion, they all should be rewarded for winning their conferences.</p>

[CQI13]

<p>Couple solutions:</p><p> </p><p>

Don't release any rankings until October.</p><p>

Don't let BCS schools play non-BCS schools...you need a tune up game so bad, schedule Baylor, Washington, or WSU.</p>

[Astil]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah..but the postseason doesn't mean anything really. The bowls are exhibition games to generate revenue and provide content in a slow TV month. <p> </p><p> That's actually part of the problem: any plan that eliminates TOO MUCH of the traditional bowl schedule will catch holy hell from the schools and sponsors tied in to these low and mid level bowls. </p><p> </p><p> IMO, eventually they'll go to a top 8...that gives you seven games to crown a National Champion. The BCS already incorporates 5 (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Title) so they would just need to add two more (probably the Cotton and Capitol One, although as a Pac-10 fan I'd hope for another bowl out west).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Umm, what's stopping you from playing these mid/low level bowls? Under his system they can still be held. Just like any BCS playoff system, you can still have the bowls be a NIT of sorts for the "other" teams.</p><p> </p><p> And before you go trashing these "terrible" teams, there is an Appilachin St. sized upset possible every week. If Troy beats Texas in a playoff, than Troy is more deserving. And more exciting. Meaning more money.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Couple solutions:<p> </p><p> Don't release any rankings until October.</p><p> Don't let BCS schools play non-BCS schools...you need a tune up game so bad, schedule Baylor, Washington, or WSU.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> another solution. Keep the bowls and add 12 games (12 team playoff) to the fold.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Astil" data-cite="Astil" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Umm, what's stopping you from playing these mid/low level bowls? Under his system they can still be held. Just like any BCS playoff system, you can still have the bowls be a NIT of sorts for the "other" teams.<p> </p><p> And before you go trashing these "terrible" teams, there is an Appilachin St. sized upset possible every week. If Troy beats Texas in a playoff, than Troy is more deserving. And more exciting. Meaning more money.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> exactly, but I have to leave all of you for tonight. Don't go on having an award-winning discussion until I awake. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[randomfreeze]

<p>Bowls will never be done away with, because universities want to make money and anything besides that is a second rate suggestion. But, as long as we are making suggestions that will never happen and we don't consider financial factors, here is mine which no one should read without half a pack of cigarettes and a full cup of coffee. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Get rid of all conferences. No SEC, Big East, Pac-10, none of it. Everyone from Florida to Florida International is just in Division 1 Football. Putting conference labels on teams automatically makes you think some teams are superior to others, which is what I want to get rid of. Also, no preseason rankings. Your regular season schedule is determined by the following...</p><p> </p><p>

1) <strong>5 games determined from last year's regular season record.</strong> All determined on random.org ...because the NBA uses a bingo machine to determine draft picks and the NFL uses a coin toss for overtime, random.org is no less civilized. Just start with the first team alphabetically, and move on down. I don’t care who graduated, who left the program, what stud that team recruited …all that matters is your regular season record the previous year and in this bizaorre universe, everyone agrees this makes sense. </p><p> </p><p>

*1a) 3 game against opponents who had the same win/loss record as you last year. </p><p>

*1b) 1 game against an opponent who had one more loss than you did last year. If you didn’t win a game last year, this is substituted for a one win team.</p><p>

*1c) 1 game against an opponent who had one more win than you did last year. If you didn’t lose a game last year, this is substituted for a nine win team.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>2) 3 games against your "biggest rivals".</strong> This of course is subjective, and schools consider games against certain schools more important than others. In this perfect world though, people agree! These three games are set in stone, and happen every year regardless of how good or bad teams might be. But, this keeps major rivalries in college football which is one of the only reasons now it’s any good.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>3) 2 games against regional opponents.</strong> What wrestling fans don't want a football territorial system? Two teams that are close in proximity but not rivals because of previous conference differences or other circumstances will play. There would be endless possibilities for teams to match up, besides Hawaii, but just stick them in Cali and that works. This will help new rivalries grow. Every two years after playing a home/away series, the two teams will rotate with other regional matchups. This hopes to inspire new rivalries. </p><p> </p><p>

There. Ten game regular season. I had a number’s nerd friend of mine figure out the number of teams needed for this schedule to work that was semi-close to the amount of teams in division 1 now, and I think it was 110 (I don’t remember it exactly right now). So some teams will have to say bye bye to division 1, but there is a good playoff system in division two they can dream about. </p><p> </p><p>

Anyways, each team gets two byes, one at during the first five game stretch, and one during the second. After that first group of five games determined by the previous year’s schedule are played, then team’s are ranked based just off those five games (see below for ranking system). Then weekly rankings for the next five. Again, not determined by coaches, computers, or media…but just your team’s record. This sets up a 16 team seeded tournament, which means a 14 game season for only the championship team and the runner up. This year, six teams will play a 14 game season, so this solution is actually less strain on student/athletes. </p><p> </p><p>

Alright, now for the ranking system. Rule One. No one at 9-1 is better than someone at 10-0. The NFL uses this amazing system where the team with more wins is more deserving to go to the playoffs (unless we are talking wildcards, but we aren‘t, because we don‘t have divisions! Yay for this version of college football). I agree with it. Still, you need to determine the seeding of the tournament and teams will be tied for some amount of playoff spots, so this criteria is used to determine which teams go and how they are ranked. Once one criteria is meet, obviously you don’t keep going.</p><p> </p><p>

<strong>1) Head-to-head sweep.</strong> If three or more teams played each other, and one team defeated all of them this season, the other teams are eliminated/lower on ranking. </p><p> </p><p>

<strong>2) Head-to-head.</strong> If two teams have the same record and played each other, the losing team is eliminated/lower on ranking. </p><p> </p><p>

<strong>3) Winning Margin.</strong> Whoever has the largest winning margin this year advanced/is higher in the ranking. This will encourage every team to play hard the entire game regardless if they are up by five touchdowns or not. Remember, this premise is based around all the schools agreeing the scheduling system works so “they played easier teams than us” is not an argument. And as I said before, teams are playing ten game seasons now, which is actually shorter than what their seasons are now…so they can afford to play 60 minutes instead of 55 and kneel the ball. You know going in the goal is to crush opponents. Do it. </p><p> </p><p>

<strong>4) Combined Opponents Record. </strong>Whoever played the team with more wins advances/is higher in the ranking.</p><p> </p><p>

5) I don’t know, <strong>flip a coin at this point </strong><img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

Now that the playoffs are set, a standard 16 team tournament is in place with the higher ranked team getting home field advantage in the first two rounds. In the spirit of 90 year old men who love the bowl system, the final four are given bowl names. The two semi-finals can be the neutrally located Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl as well as a neutral National Championship game. </p><p> </p><p>

I’m probably miss some vital part of this formula because I typed this quickly…but this is my perfect scenerio. But as I said in the beginning, we are never getting rid of the bowl system so it really doesn’t matter anyways. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Astil" data-cite="Astil" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> And before you go trashing these "terrible" teams, there is an Appilachin St. sized upset possible every week. If Troy beats Texas in a playoff, than Troy is more deserving. And more exciting. Meaning more money.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I hate this argument..</p><p> </p><p> Yes. It's sports. So a huge upset is possible at any time. </p><p> </p><p> That's not the question.</p><p> </p><p> The question is: does winning a conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA mean as much as winning the SEC or PAC-10.</p><p> </p><p> No. It doesn't. They don't play the same level of competition. The schools don't have the same budget. On a team-by-team basis there's no comparison when you look at the difference in the conferences. </p><p> </p><p> If they have a great season, go undefeated, and get a couple of big wins against BCS schools ( like Boise St) they get an at-large.</p><p> </p><p> But they don't deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY included in any national title discussion or even a national title tournament.</p>

[NickC13573]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I hate this argument..<p> </p><p> Yes. It's sports. So a huge upset is possible at any time. </p><p> </p><p> That's not the question.</p><p> </p><p> The question is: does winning a conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA mean as much as winning the SEC or PAC-10.</p><p> </p><p> No. It doesn't. They don't play the same level of competition. The schools don't have the same budget. On a team-by-team basis there's no comparison when you look at the difference in the conferences. </p><p> </p><p> If they have a great season, go undefeated, and get a couple of big wins against BCS schools ( like Boise St) they get an at-large.</p><p> </p><p> But they don't deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY included in any national title discussion or even a national title tournament.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> for them, Winning the sun belt WOULD be like winning the Big Ten</p>

[CQI13]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I hate this argument..<p> </p><p> Yes. It's sports. So a huge upset is possible at any time. </p><p> </p><p> That's not the question.</p><p> </p><p> The question is: does winning a conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA mean as much as winning the SEC or PAC-10.</p><p> </p><p> No. It doesn't. They don't play the same level of competition. The schools don't have the same budget. On a team-by-team basis there's no comparison when you look at the difference in the conferences. </p><p> </p><p> If they have a great season, go undefeated, and get a couple of big wins against BCS schools ( like Boise St) they get an at-large.</p><p> </p><p> But they don't deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY included in any national title discussion or even a national title tournament.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Problem is, no BCS school is going to want to play these big smaller schools. After getting thumped twice, you think Oregon will want a third game with Boise St? In what seems ages ago, Boise St went to Georgia to play the Bulldogs after one of their (BSU) undefeated seasons. They got trounced. UGA never reciprocated. And I can't think of any school other than Oregon that would be considered a quality win that has played BSU.</p><p> </p><p> So the BCS schools keep ducking good non-BCS schools because of ranking, and they keep scheduling the Troys, FIUs, FAUs, etc. And of course, if Troy had beaten Nebraska a few years back (they played them close a couple years), people would have said "Yeah, but it's Nebraska, and Nebraska hasn't been good since Tom Osborne left." Or "C'mon, that was a lucky victory" (like when Alabama lost to Lousiana Tech or LA Lafayette).</p><p> </p><p> And if the BCS schools are so elite, then you have to rearrange the conferences. The Big East doesn't belong (at least not in its current form), and several teams of EACH BCS conference must be replaced by better schools. Get rid of Baylor and add in TCU. Get rid of UW or WSU and add Boise State. Get rid of Duke and Vandy and replace them with other teams. They're essentially mooching off the conference when they're not very good. I'd remove crappy teams every couple years, so we don't end up with someone like Baylor every year. You suck that bad for that long, work your way back up to the good conference.</p>

[darthsiddus2]

<p>take a look at this</p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns" rel="external nofollow">http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns</a></p><p> </p><p>

he rips on the BCS again and he's right!</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="NickC13573" data-cite="NickC13573" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>for them, Winning the sun belt WOULD be like winning the Big Ten</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> How the heck does that matter? </p><p> </p><p> So because they FEEL just as important they deserve an automatic shot at a national title?? </p><p> </p><p> That's sweet. <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[Astil]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I hate this argument..<p> </p><p> Yes. It's sports. So a huge upset is possible at any time. </p><p> </p><p> That's not the question.</p><p> </p><p> The question is: does winning a conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA mean as much as winning the SEC or PAC-10.</p><p> </p><p> No. It doesn't. They don't play the same level of competition. The schools don't have the same budget. On a team-by-team basis there's no comparison when you look at the difference in the conferences. </p><p> </p><p> If they have a great season, go undefeated, and get a couple of big wins against BCS schools ( like Boise St) they get an at-large.</p><p> </p><p> But they don't deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY included in any national title discussion or even a national title tournament.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Then kick then down to d-2. Otherwise all D1 conference champs deserve a shot.</p>