NCAA Football re-alignment?

[grassbass]

Very true. Ok, so let's hear a proposal form someone that includes some sort of playoff, a balance of power between the conferences, and a playoff.

 

For some reason, your sentence reminded me of "I'll have a bloody mary, a steak sandwich, and a steak sandwich."

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do we have conferences such as the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, etc in Division IA if none of the teams that compete in them can have a shot to beat Ohio State or USC in a national title game?

 

A: That's not true

B: Why is the only thing that matters to you the national championship?

 

The concept of a national title game is very new in college football. The fact that a Boise State hasn't played one yet doesn't mean they never can. Under the current system they have to play the toughtest schedule they can find and win them all to have a chance. In a slightly tweaked one they have to win a big bowl game at the end of the year and then a national championship game. In a slightly more tweaked one, they win a couple playoff games. But you don't blow up the entire system so that Boise State can have a better shot at a title.

[Guest]

Very true. Ok, so let's hear a proposal form someone that includes some sort of playoff, a balance of power between the conferences, and a playoff.

Are you looking for realignment or simply a playoff system that works? Take the top 16 teams in the country, regardless of conference (vast majority will be money teams from power conferences), have a four round playoff that runs throughout the current bowl season. The rest of the teams could go to second tier playoff systems or continue the current bowl structure.

 

Even that simple of a proposal is way too radical for the NCAA.

[CliftonHanger]

The concept of a national title game is very new in college football. The fact that a Boise State hasn't played one yet doesn't mean they never can. Under the current system they have to play the toughtest schedule they can find and win them all to have a chance.

 

If they have to play a tough schedule to get a shot at the title, then, yes, it is possible, but HIGHLY unlikely. This is why I re-aligned the conferences to begin with.

 

I am not only concerned with the national title. I am concerned with creating a better balance of power. This system would allow EVERY team in the country to play a balanced, but competitive schedule. It is a very radical idea, but I don't think that it is a horrible idea like you do. Sure there is probably a better way to do it than the way I did, but honestly, it wasn't all that scientific.

 

I think that if a commitee of really smart guys (smarter than me, or even you jersey) could get together to take into account things like other sports, geography, revenue sharing, TV rights, academics, tradition, etc. we might, just might have a better system than the one that is in place.

[jersey cubs fan]

Very true. Ok, so let's hear a proposal form someone that includes some sort of playoff, a balance of power between the conferences, and a playoff.

 

I don't understand the motivation for getting a balance of power for conferences. There's no reason for it. As was pointed out before, there are other sports and the elite teams aren't the same in each. I think you take the top four teams and have the winners of their bowl games play each other. The other option is after the current BCS you just take the top 2 and have them play. Or, you could just go with a 8 team playoff using current bowl games as the first round, and add three more games in early January. I think 16 games is pointless. There's no reason why the 13th ranked team needs to be involved in the competition for postseason, and there's absolutely no way you can justify trying to pull some 64 team tournament off.

[CliftonHanger]

I agree that 64 is too many. But I don't think 16 is too many. Condider this scenario... Ohio State is 11-1. Their only loss is in double overtime against Michigan. Michigan goes undefeated, as does Alamama, as does Boise State. There are 3 other teams that only have 1 loss, and 14 more with 2 losses. I think that ANY of these teams COULD be the best team in the country, but in our current system, Only Michigan and Alabama get a shot at the title because the guys who write articles about sports think that they are the 2 best teams.

[CliftonHanger]

oh, and some computers...

[bukie]

In the current system, sportswriters have zero say. The coaches poll gets 1/3 of the weight, the Harris poll gets 1/3 of the weight, and all the computer models put together get 1/3 of the weight.

 

Steadily taking away the computer influence in the process has led to it becoming more and more subjective. At least the computer models were objective in their reasoning, even if the only thing it determines now is who played the toughest schedules.

 

The best way to give every team a reasonable shot at a national championship in football is to have a playoff. Even with an 8-team playoff that favors the big 6, there is enough wiggle room for a Boise State/TCU/Utah/Hawaii to grab a spot in that playoff on regular occasion. If you have to have a 16 team playoff to include all current FBS conferences a-la the NCAA Basketball Tournament, get ready for some blowouts in the first round involving Sun Belt/MAC/WAC/CUSA teams.

 

"Balancing" conferences is a pointless endeavor that is made worse by the effort to balance them based on how teams/programs are currently performing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree that 64 is too many. But I don't think 16 is too many. Condider this scenario... Ohio State is 11-1. Their only loss is in double overtime against Michigan. Michigan goes undefeated, as does Alamama, as does Boise State. There are 3 other teams that only have 1 loss, and 14 more with 2 losses. I think that ANY of these teams COULD be the best team in the country, but in our current system, Only Michigan and Alabama get a shot at the title because the guys who write articles about sports think that they are the 2 best teams.

 

Yeah, we get the make believe scenarios, but an 8 team playoff easily solves any situation where some team could reasonably be called the best in the country.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary.

 

All you want is for people to focus on the positive aspects of your proposal? That's absurd. It's a bad proposal and the fact that it has no chance of coming to fruition does not make it unnecessary to point out that it's a bad proposal.

I think you just like to argue. I wanted feedback. That includes positive and negative feedback. If you think it is a bad proposal, fine, tell me why. Don't just say "this is lame."

I think it's a bad proposal because it's lame.

[CliftonHanger]

NSBB: Where if you don't agree with my opinion, you are stupid.

[bukie]

CliftonHanger: Where if you don't agree with my opinion, you are stupid.

Fixed.

 

See how that works?

[jersey cubs fan]

NSBB: Where if you don't agree with my opinion, you are stupid.

 

You aren't expressing an opinion, you are proposing an unnecessarily crazy overhaul of college football. And it's stupid.

[Guest]

NSBB: Where if you don't agree with my opinion, you are stupid.

People are saying the idea you are proposing is stupid and unnecessary. They're probably not being as nice or gentle as they could be in their phrasing.

 

But if you feel that they are calling you stupid, that is entirely in how you are taking things. There's not been one single personal insult in the thread.

[SouthSideRyan]

Like the Sun Belt would ever accept Missouri

[NCCubFan]

NSBB: Where if you don't agree with my opinion, you are stupid.

There's a difference between saying an idea is stupid vs. saying the person is stupid. Smart people can still come up with some stupid ideas. I doubt there's a single one of us that hasn't come with a stupid idea at some point, but that doesn't make us stupid.

[EhDubya]

Looks like you want Auburn to never lose a conference game again. And I hate you for wasting my time with this.

[SouthSideRyan]

Remember that Bradley made the sweet 16 a few years ago? Or Gonzaga's program for the past 10 years?

 

Neither of which have gone as far in the postseason as Boise State has.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

 

ACC

 

Army

Navy

North Carolina

North Carolina State

Temple

Virginia

Virginia Tech

Marshall

Wake Forest

East Carolina

 

Big 10

 

Illinois

Iowa

Iowa State

Minnesota

Indiana

Northwestern

Wisconsin

Ball State

Toledo

Northern Illinois

 

Big 12

 

Texas

Texas A&M

Texas Tech

TCU

Oklahoma

Oklahoma St.

Houston

North Texas

SMU

UTEP

 

Big East

 

Syracuse

Boston College

Connecticut

Penn State

West Virginia

Maryland

Akron

Ohio

Kent State

Buffalo

 

C-USA

 

Purdue

Baylor

Auburn

Vanderbilt

Clemson

Duke

Rice

Tulsa

Troy

Rutgers

 

MWC

Washington

Washington St.

Oregon

Oregon St.

Boise St.

Nevada

Utah

Utah St.

Nevada

San Jose St.

 

PAC 10

 

USC

UCLA

California

Arizona

Arizona St.

Fresno St.

Hawaii

Stanford

San Diego St.

UNLV

 

SUN BELT

 

Kentucky

Tennessee

Louisville

Missouri

South Carolina

Cincinatti

Memphis

Tulane

Middle Tennesee

Western Kentucky

 

WAC

 

Nebraska

Kansas

Kansas St

Colorado

BYU

Colorado St.

Air Force

Wyoming

New Mexico

New Mexico St.

 

SEC

 

Florida

Florida State

South Florida

Miami

Georgia

Georgia Tech

Florida International

Central Florida

Florida Atlantic

Central Florida

 

MAC

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan St.

Notre Dame

Pitt

Central Michigan

Westen Michigan

Eastern Michigan

Bowling Green

Miami (OH)

 

New Conference

 

Alabama

Mississippi

Mississippi St.

Arkansas

LSU

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana - Monroe

UAB

Southern Mississippi

Arkansas St.!!

 

Here's my critique of your proposal. First, it will never happen. There's a lot of reasons for that, but it just won't. So, while you might think it's a good idea, it's a fantasy idea with little chance of happening. It's too radical.

 

Second, it focuses the conferences strictly with a focus on football. There's a lot more to some of the conference alignments than just that.

 

Third, some of your conferences seem haphazard at best. I know that you have a somewhat geographic idea...but trying to even out the powerhouse schools is an impossible task.

 

For example, you C-USA has teams from Indiana, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey....what were you doing there....

 

yet, other conferences seem geographically grouped. Why split Alabama from Auburn? If you're going geographic, go all the way. In your big 12, you lump most Texas schools, yet then spin some like Baylor out to other conferences.

 

Even if your idea was plausible, and it's not, you're application of it is flawed. You need a much more logical way of grouping the schools. What you have fails miserably.

[TruffleShuffle]

there are going to be power conferences and non-power conferences. that's just the way it is. you cannot just wave a magic wand, putting (just to use one of your choices) alabama in a conference with louisiana-monroe and arkansas st, and say that things will become equal. alabama is a huge state school with a ton of history, generous boosters, top-of-the-line facilities, a gigantic stadium and top-tier coaches. arkansas st is in the middle of nowhere and has second-rate everything. putting them in a conference with teams like alabama and lsu will just result in them getting routinely embarrassed every year. instead of huge attendance when alabama plays at tennessee or florida, you'll maybe get a sellout of 30,000 to see them beat ULM or arkansas st by 50 points. louisiana tech, ULM, ASU, southern miss and UAB are never going to win that conference, and mississippi state sucks to, so instead of alabama having to beat a heap of good teams to finish on top of the SEC, they really just have to be better than LSU, arkansas and ole miss.

 

yes, it's annoying that schools like utah and boise st are going undefeated and not getting a crack at the national championship. but there are other ways to remedy this problem. schools like alabama, texas, ohio st, they're always going to have national championship aspirations, and will frequently be in the conversation. arkansas st, utah st, akron, these schools are never going to contend for a national championship, and really they don't even aspire to win a title, so what's the point in thrusting them into a situation where they have to compete with teams to which they are and forever will be vastly inferior?

[TruffleShuffle]

Second, it focuses the conferences strictly with a focus on football. There's a lot more to some of the conference alignments than just that.

 

seriously, it's like he didn't even consider what senator nancy pelosi might think.

[EhDubya]

I say if Boise St or TCU want to compete for a BCS title, then their OOC games need to be all BCS schools. They don't have to be world-beaters, just middle of the pack BCS schools who are up to the challenge.

 

Va Tech and Oregon St is nice, but Wyoming and Toledo? C'mon.

 

-Va Tech

-Ok St

-Oregon St

-Michigan St

 

Get through something like that undefeated, and you may have my respect.

 

(I understand scheduling is done years in advance and money issues are large, but if Boise St or TCU want to be taken seriously, then find a way to play more than 1 and a half teams all year.)

[Banedon]

I say if Boise St or TCU want to compete for a BCS title, then their OOC games need to be all BCS schools. They don't have to be world-beaters, just middle of the pack BCS schools who are up to the challenge.

 

Va Tech and Oregon St is nice, but Wyoming and Toledo? C'mon.

 

-Va Tech

-Ok St

-Oregon St

-Michigan St

 

Get through something like that undefeated, and you may have my respect.

 

(I understand scheduling is done years in advance and money issues are large, but if Boise St or TCU want to be taken seriously, then find a way to play more than 1 and a half teams all year.)

 

How about this? If you think that Boise State or TCU are unworthy, petition the AD of your favorite major conference school to play them.

 

IMO it shouldn't be on Boise State or TCU to somehow convince others that they are worthy. It should be on others to prove that they're better than Boise State or TCU. Thus far...not many are willing to take that risk.

[javy knows my name]

I say if Boise St or TCU want to compete for a BCS title, then their OOC games need to be all BCS schools. They don't have to be world-beaters, just middle of the pack BCS schools who are up to the challenge.

 

Va Tech and Oregon St is nice, but Wyoming and Toledo? C'mon.

 

-Va Tech

-Ok St

-Oregon St

-Michigan St

 

Get through something like that undefeated, and you may have my respect.

 

(I understand scheduling is done years in advance and money issues are large, but if Boise St or TCU want to be taken seriously, then find a way to play more than 1 and a half teams all year.)

Also take into account that those would likely have to be all road/neutral games, with no benefit of a home game next year for either. I think it's a bit much to ask

[Guest]

IMO it shouldn't be on Boise State or TCU to somehow convince others that they are worthy. It should be on others to prove that they're better than Boise State or TCU.

 

It's not others that have 4-5 actual games on their schedule each year, it's Boise.