CliftonHanger

interested.

A: A. Dunn B: P. Fielder, A. Gonzalez C: C. Pena, E. Longoria, M. Stanton D: T. Colvin, K. Youkilis, I. Stewart, J. Morneau, J. Upton WC: PM'd

I am thinking that BSU will be around for a while. They have only lost 14 games in the last nine years. They haev only been in Div I since 1996!

I've heard it reported (on Sportscenter and the like, no links as proof however) that Boise has offered to play one-time games on the road with more prolific schools and has been turned down at each offer. From the reports, they're not content with the softer schedule. As far as simply getting teams better than Wyoming and Toledo, would people really give them credit for beating Kentucky at home or Duke at a neutral site? And what motivation do those teams have to play Boise when they have their own tough conference schedules to play, which they generally don't win much in anyway? Boise is in a unique spot (kind of along with Utah, BYU and TCU) where there's really no positives for major programs to play them, yet they need to play as many major programs as possible. As long as we have the BCS, there will be no reason for a major program to schedule Boise. Why a few do now I have no idea, because there's no real gain to it (except perhaps some monetary gain). ^^^This^^^

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

oh, and some computers...

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.

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.

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 never whined that I was being ctiticized. I never said focus only on the positives. I wanted to know what people thought about it. It's not like I spent weeks on this, I just think that there needs to be a better balance of power. 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? That is my main point. I realize that there are 100's of other factors at play (money from bowls, tradition, other sports, etc) but my goal was to create more of a balance of power. In basketball, schools from a mid-major have a shot at winning the title every year. Remember that Bradley made the sweet 16 a few years ago? Or Gonzaga's program for the past 10 years? THink about how the level of competition would change instead of having 6 "power" conferences to having all of them balanced....

So, you took Purdue, an Indiana school, out of the Big Ten, in which you kept IU, and stuck the Boilers with a bunch of schools from Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and decided to throw in a New Jersey school for good measure? And then replaced Purdue in the Big Ten with Ball State, another Indiana school? I'm really not seeing how that makes sense geographically. OK, you got me there. C-USA was comprised of schools from all over. No rhyme or reason there, but that's kind of how that conference is now.

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."

Good point. I love CFB for many reasons. One of them being the fact that Boise State can beat Oklahoma in a bowl game. A reason that I don't love it is that they will never have a chance of getting a title. Think about how awesome March Madness and the NCAA BB tournament is. We could have that TWICE A YEAR!!! Wouldn't that be AWESOME?

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary. Can we look at the positives of the proposal? I DO think that we need a change to the way the NCAA does things. Honestly, is the current BCS any less ludacris than this idea? While my "blowing up" of conferences is perhaps also unneeded, I DO think that there needs to be a better balance of power, by allowing teams such as Ball State or Boise State to have a legitamate shot at a title. Otherwise let's just eliminate the MAC, WAC, MWC, C-USA, and the Sun Belt from Division IA competition and give them their own division. I invite you to make a proposal that makes more sense than mine, or even one that's better than the one that is in place now. I was just thinking outside of the box...

Because you knew it was a bad idea? What makes it a bad idea? Because you said so? I think if it WOULD happen, (which it never will) that it's a GREAT idea.