FBS Can Learn from FCS, Div II

[TexasTerror]

I am not one for posting links to Bleacher Report, but love when someone brings this up...


With all of the pomp and pageantry of the BCS Championship game, it's easy to miss one central point: The team that wins is not the National Champion.

In fact, the NCAA is the first to point out that Division I FBS football is the only NCAA sport in which the NCAA does not sponsor a championship.

The NCAA does not award a trophy. The NCAA doesn't put up a banner for the winning team in its Hall of Champions. The only "Championship" recognition the winner gets is from the BCS.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/321737-what-the-fbs-could-learn-from-the-fcs-and-division-ii?search_query=FCS

[EKU05]

People are free to debate the system all they want. It has many faults, and a lot needs to be changed. Still, one fact remains.

This article states that the winner is not the national champion. That is not the case. They are not the NCAA National Champions, but that doesn't prevent another ogranization from awarding a championship that is national in scale.

You can disagree with the method of determining the champion all you want. As I've said...I have many problems with it myself. But all the same, the BCS title is a championship. The sooner we focus on real issues and stop making statements that sound grand and inspiring but are ultimately factually incorrect the quicker the real problems can become the focus and something might actually change!

[Big Al]

I always refer to it as the "trophy" game because, while you're right in that they can call it a championship, I find the use of the word championship to be a misrepresentation.

[EKU05]

I see what you're saying, but ultimately it's all just semantics...which is the original problem. People are trying to make the debate not about the system itself but about what you call it, and that's just a waste of time. Is anyone complaining that the IBF boxing championships aren't "World Titles" because the WBA or WBC don't sponsor them? Is anyone complaining because there wasn't a bracketed tournament to figure out who the champion should be?

[Big Al]

No, because everyone knows that boxing is crooked to begin with. Sort of like the BCS.

;)

[CollegeSportsInfo]

People are free to debate the system all they want. It has many faults, and a lot needs to be changed. Still, one fact remains.

This article states that the winner is not the national champion. That is not the case. They are not the NCAA National Champions, but that doesn't prevent another ogranization from awarding a championship that is national in scale.

You can disagree with the method of determining the champion all you want. As I've said...I have many problems with it myself. But all the same, the BCS title is a championship. The sooner we focus on real issues and stop making statements that sound grand and inspiring but are ultimately factually incorrect the quicker the real problems can become the focus and something might actually change!

xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx

Great points, I feel the same way. Sure, a playoff would be great. But FBS does not have one. The playing of the game at that level is the best in the country. And just because there isn't a playoff, it doesn't take that away from all those players...which make up the bulk that you see playing on Sundays after 4 years.

[Big Al]

Well, if the FCS were a conference, it would have more alumni in the NFL playoffs this year than the SEC.

http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2010/01/which-conference-dominates-playoffs.html

Just sayin'.

[EKU05]

That depends how many players are from D2, but probably yes...that is correct.

I'm not sure that's really anything to brag about though. If you do the Math it's basically like saying that the average FCS team puts on player into the NFL playoffs for every ten that the average SEC team puts in.

[Syntax Error]

They are not the NCAA National Champions, but that doesn't prevent another ogranization from awarding a championship that is national in scale.

The BC$ can call their bowel game winner anything they want. I don't care and I did not watch a single FBS game this year. Their brand of football is pretty meaningless except as a feeder for pro football (and I didn't watch a single game of that this year either).

I did, however, watch hundreds of games involving the highest level of NCAA championship football this year. xtwocentsx

[proasu89]

The BC$ can call their bowel game winner anything they want. I don't care and I did not watch a single FBS game this year. Their brand of football is pretty meaningless except as a feeder for pro football (and I didn't watch a single game of that this year either).

I did, however, watch hundreds of games involving the highest level of NCAA championship football this year. xtwocentsx


Congrats.

[EKU05]

The BC$ can call their bowel game winner anything they want. I don't care and I did not watch a single FBS game this year. Their brand of football is pretty meaningless except as a feeder for pro football (and I didn't watch a single game of that this year either).

I did, however, watch hundreds of games involving the highest level of NCAA championship football this year. xtwocentsx

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone that wanted to could use the same call it what you want argument against you? Look, I love FCS football...a lot. We all do. That's why we post here. But this whole "highest level of NCAA championship football" thing is also just a matter of what you call it. Are you really proud to be at the highest level of one of the most ineffectively and crokkedly run organizations this country has? It's only the "highest level" because the teams playing at the higher level don't want to let the NCAA in on their financial pie. People say that phrase as though the NCAA is some omnipitent organization that realizes that FCS is the good guys and FBS is out to get us all. It's just a sour grapes attitude.

People who really love FCS football have no need to do all this holier than thou brow beating against the BCS, or FBS, or the bowl system, or whatever they've decided to label as the Anti-Christ during any particular week. I enjoy each level of football for what it is (I'll agree with you that the NFL isn't that much fun, but my point remains).

[Syntax Error]

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone that wanted to could use the same call it what you want argument against you? Look, I love FCS football...a lot. We all do. That's why we post here. But this whole "highest level of NCAA championship football" thing is also just a matter of what you call it. Are you really proud to be at the highest level of one of the most ineffectively and crokkedly run organizations this country has? It's only the "highest level" because the teams playing at the higher level don't want to let the NCAA in on their financial pie. People say that phrase as though the NCAA is some omnipitent organization that realizes that FCS is the good guys and FBS is out to get us all. It's just a sour grapes attitude.

People who really love FCS football have no need to do all this holier than thou brow beating against the BCS, or FBS, or the bowl system, or whatever they've decided to label as the Anti-Christ during any particular week. I enjoy each level of football for what it is (I'll agree with you that the NFL isn't that much fun, but my point remains).

Hey, I agreed with you and said the BC$ can call their thing whatever they want.

What you now say --this whole "highest level of NCAA championship football" thing is also just a matter of what you call it-- is wrong. It IS the "highest level of NCAA championship football" and there is no disputing it. I am proud that we play a tournament like everyone else (except you know who) and it is the highest one in NCAA football. Aren't you?

Then you go on to rant about how crooked the organization that is made up of all the schools is. I care nothing about that but don't believe you are right either. Same as I don't care if the FB$ does everything for money. Let them.

You are railing against something not involved here with the "crooked," "sour grapes," and "holier than thou" stuff.

I know it really bugs FB$ fans that the FCS can rightfully say they are the "highest level of NCAA championship football" but I just don't care. No need to bash the fans of the FCS. It is what it is. xtwocentsx

[EKU05]

It doesn't "bug" FBS fans. FCS doesn't even register with them. Also, I wouldn't say that I'm "proud" of the FCS tournament. It's one way of conducting a post-season, and it works for us. But there isn't anything wrong with doing things a different way. The BCS as an organization is a joke, but the idea of having bowl games rather than a singular tournament isn't necessarily awful. It gives a lot of teams a chance to go and celebrate the accomplishments of their team for what they are rather than making it an all or nothing proposition.

There are a lot of problems with tournaments as well. For one thing, having a 16 or 20 team playoff opens up the possibility of a team winning that clearly did not have the best overall season. It isn't always the most accurate way of determining the best team.

I enjoy both levels of football, and I enjoy different aspects of each style of post-season. I'm not more "proud" of one than the other. It's not a situation where pride comes in to play in my eyes. That to me would be like if I had two children and one liked to paint and one liked to play piano...and then I decide to only be "proud" of the one that plays piano because I like music more than portaits.

Playoffs work well for our situation in FCS, but I do not support and FBS playoff. I don't think it would be in the best interest of football at that level. Some things need to be fixed, but I'd stop short of scrapping the idea of bowl games altogether.

[Syntax Error]

FCS does register with them and they think and say we are crap. Good for them.

Didn't say there is anything wrong/awful with the BC$ way, just that I don't care. If you're not proud of the FCS, the highest level of NCAA championship football where EKU is legendary then good for you. Just different opinions.

I like the quote of Coach Kidd you have in your sig. He gave that to me from his cell phone at a grocery store parking lot. True story. xpeacex

[JohnStOnge]

There is a Bowl Championship Series champion. There is an Associated Press poll champion. Those are referenced as "national championships." And they are national in scope.

However, there is no "national championship" in the sense that the basic organization to which all the schools belong, the organization making the rules, the organization to which all the members send representatives to vote on rules, etc. does not declare a national champion for that level.

I don't complain about how boxing does things because I don't care about boxing. But I don't look at boxing as necessarily haveing a true "world" champion. When you have a true "world" or "national" champion there is potential for one and only one. With a playoff tournament such as in NCAA basketball or baseball or lower levels of football, there is no way to have more than one champion and also the champion is the champion according to the organization to which all he schools belong.

With the BCS system there is potential for having something like what happened with LSU and USC after the 2003 season. Both claimed to be "national champion" because one ended up 1st in the coaches poll and one ended up 1st in the AP poll. It's just an opinion.

[EKU05]

So John, I guess I can take from what you're saying that if a conference has co-champions in a given year (as many do) then that conference isn't really awarding a championship.

Also, forget about the AP for a second. There are rules and a formula to determine who gets invited to the BCS title game. A team wins that game. That team is the champion as recognized by the BCS organization. Technically speaking, it's a playoff that only invites two teams. That may frustrate you. You may think it sucks, but it's a championship game, and the winner gets a national championship trophy at the end before any polls have even come out. All of the teams, even those from outstide auto-bid conferences have input into the BCS as an organization. Is it a total democracy...no. But if you think the NCAA really is then you're kidding yourself.

Also, is there anything really wrong with having co-champions? If two teams had unbelievable seasons then let them both be recognized for their accomplishments. I think that's fantastic! I loved what that Boise State player said on the podium after their came. The reporter tried to get him to take the bate..."In your mind, should you guys be #1?" He answered, "Probably not." Then he talked about how that wasn't as important to him as celebrating what his team did accomplish...the second 14-0 season in the history of FBS football. I think that's a pretty good attitude.

Finally, this whole proud or not proud thing is ridiculous. It's not that I'm specifically "unproud" of the FCS post-season...it's just that I don't see it as a situation where that emotion is applicable. The type of post-season we use is just a fact of how things work, not some kind of accomplishment. It would be like saying that I'm proud of the SAT or something. It's just a test. I'm not proud of the test itself...it's just a measure of acheivement. I'm more apt to be proud of how I did on the test than the test itself.

So to answer Sytax's Question...I'm VERY proud of EKU's accomplishments, and I'm proud that they defeated some tremendous opponents in the process. I'm not "proud" of the format itself...it was the measure of acheivement, not the acheivement itself. If we had won national titles under a format that was voted upon I'd be proud of that as well.

All I'm really saying is that this really isn't a case of good vs. evil for me. There are two different systems, and I think they both produce very intersting college football seasons to watch. Isn't that enough?

[CollegeSportsInfo]

The BC$ can call their bowel game winner anything they want. I don't care and I did not watch a single FBS game this year. Their brand of football is pretty meaningless except as a feeder for pro football (and I didn't watch a single game of that this year either).

I did, however, watch hundreds of games involving the highest level of NCAA championship football this year. xtwocentsx



Reminds me of the guy who only will listen to music that nobody else listens to and thinks anything that ever gets any popularity is garbage, even when it's music he "used" to like.

If you find "meaning" in the NCAA, I pray for you, as it is one of the most inept groups we are forced to deal with. This is the same NCAA that gives the OK for the BCS to exist. The same NCAA that will clear an athlete to play, but then punish a school when it finds out that THEY, the NCAA, were in error for clearing said player in the first place.

So someone having pride in the NCAA is to me, even worse than someone being a Jonas Brothers fan (or Backstreet Boys is you are older)...to bring the music analogy full-circle. xtwocentsx

[CollegeSportsInfo]

FCS does register with them and they think and say we are crap. Good for them.

Didn't say there is anything wrong/awful with the BC$ way, just that I don't care. If you're not proud of the FCS, the highest level of NCAA championship football where EKU is legendary then good for you. Just different opinions.

I like the quote of Coach Kidd you have in your sig. He gave that to me from his cell phone at a grocery store parking lot. True story. xpeacex

Yet it was the same non FBS schools who cried and cried about changing the name from I-A and I-AA to FBS and FCS. And as we all know, the casual sports fan (and many more than casual sports fans) have no clue what FCS even is.

You know what FCS is? It's a fun little niche league that our teams are part of. If UMass were in D2, I'd be on the D2 site right now cheering for my team. If they were in FBS, I'd be on an FBS site. We're fans of a level of play because our schools are at that level. And if you're school moved to FBS, you'd be a passionate FBS fan. Unless you opted to be "too cool for the room guy", put your money where you mouth is and just stopped following your alma mater. But that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

[proasu89]

Yet it was the same non FBS schools who cried and cried about changing the name from I-A and I-AA to FBS and FCS. And as we all know, the casual sports fan (and many more than casual sports fans) have no clue what FCS even is.

You know what FCS is? It's a fun little niche league that our teams are part of. If UMass were in D2, I'd be on the D2 site right now cheering for my team. If they were in FBS, I'd be on an FBS site. We're fans of a level of play because our schools are at that level. And if you're school moved to FBS, you'd be a passionate FBS fan. Unless you opted to be "too cool for the room guy", put your money where you mouth is and just stopped following your alma mater. But that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

What he said! xsmileyclapx

[slycat]

Yet it was the same non FBS schools who cried and cried about changing the name from I-A and I-AA to FBS and FCS. And as we all know, the casual sports fan (and many more than casual sports fans) have no clue what FCS even is.

You know what FCS is? It's a fun little niche league that our teams are part of. If UMass were in D2, I'd be on the D2 site right now cheering for my team. If they were in FBS, I'd be on an FBS site. We're fans of a level of play because our schools are at that level. And if you're school moved to FBS, you'd be a passionate FBS fan. Unless you opted to be "too cool for the room guy", put your money where you mouth is and just stopped following your alma mater. But that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

Bingo. I care about Texas State football. If they move up I'll follow them. If they moved down I'd follow them.

Will I follow FCS football if Texas State leaves? Yes
Do I follow FBS football now? Yes

College football as a whole is a blast to watch. I enjoy all levels because its fun to watch young athletes play for pride. College football is college football no matter the level. The only difference is the players and postseason, which who really cares its college football.

[PhoenixMan]

All this bantering.....bottom line here. Villanova is the NCAA Div. 1 Football Champions. Alabama was VOTED the champion of the BCS. I think the bowl situation is a huge farce...but, I don't want FBS getting a playoff. That would take the luster off of the exact thing that is so cool about FCS!!

[jlcharles]

It doesn't "bug" FBS fans. FCS doesn't even register with them. Also, I wouldn't say that I'm "proud" of the FCS tournament. It's one way of conducting a post-season, and it works for us. But there isn't anything wrong with doing things a different way. The BCS as an organization is a joke, but the idea of having bowl games rather than a singular tournament isn't necessarily awful. It gives a lot of teams a chance to go and celebrate the accomplishments of their team for what they are rather than making it an all or nothing proposition.

There are a lot of problems with tournaments as well. For one thing, having a 16 or 20 team playoff opens up the possibility of a team winning that clearly did not have the best overall season. It isn't always the most accurate way of determining the best team.

I enjoy both levels of football, and I enjoy different aspects of each style of post-season. I'm not more "proud" of one than the other. It's not a situation where pride comes in to play in my eyes. That to me would be like if I had two children and one liked to paint and one liked to play piano...and then I decide to only be "proud" of the one that plays piano because I like music more than portaits.

Playoffs work well for our situation in FCS, but I do not support and FBS playoff. I don't think it would be in the best interest of football at that level. Some things need to be fixed, but I'd stop short of scrapping the idea of bowl games altogether.

Let me get this straight, you support the tee ball idea of everybody getting a trophy? You support celebrating mediocrity?

I didn't watch a single bowl game. They are absolutely meaningless outside of the BCS championship game, which I also didn't watch because the system is a farce.

There's been talk of us moving up and I do not and will not support it until there is a viable playoff system instituted. How can you support a system when multiple teams end the year undefeated? The championship game was determined by opinion and computers, not on the field. It is absolute garbage.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Let me get this straight, you support the tee ball idea of everybody getting a trophy? You support celebrating mediocrity?

I didn't watch a single bowl game. 1. They are absolutely meaningless outside of the BCS championship game, which I also didn't watch because the system is a farce.

2. There's been talk of us moving up and I do not and will not support it until there is a viable playoff system instituted. How can you support a system when multiple teams end the year undefeated? The championship game was determined by opinion and computers, not on the field. It is absolute garbage.

1. The FBS argument is that every week is a playoff. Rare seasons it's "double elimination" but usually it comes down to there being 2-3 undefeated teams at the end of the season. If you lose one week, your season is usually over. But like you said, the #1 vs #2 game is the only one that matters and it's good to see such a game exist when it didn't for years. I'm not a big fan of the other bowl games now either. But regardless, its the top tier for college football. In some years, we've seen FBS teams that were potentially stronger than some NFL teams. If someone is a football fan, you can appreciate all levels of the sport.

2. Really? By who? Certainly NOT by the administration at Villanova.

[jlcharles]

1. The FBS argument is that every week is a playoff. Rare seasons it's "double elimination" but usually it comes down to there being 2-3 undefeated teams at the end of the season. If you lose one week, your season is usually over. But like you said, the #1 vs #2 game is the only one that matters and it's good to see such a game exist when it didn't for years. I'm not a big fan of the other bowl games now either. But regardless, its the top tier for college football. In some years, we've seen FBS teams that were potentially stronger than some NFL teams. If someone is a football fan, you can appreciate all levels of the sport.

2. Really? By who? Certainly NOT by the administration at Villanova.

1. The every week is a playoff argument is nonsense. The regular season would be just as important for seeding purposes. I'm a football fan, but I can't take seriously a division that determines its champion in such a stupid way. I'll just keep on watching NFL and FCS games.

2. Father Peter (University President) is a big supporter of the football team. Had the talks happened under his watch, we'd probably, unfortunately, be FBS. If the changes anticipated in the Big East happen, he will make sure we jump to protect the damn basketball team. In fact, even the anti-football part (read most) of the administration will concede to moving up.

[EKU05]

All this bantering.....bottom line here. Villanova is the NCAA Div. 1 Football Champions. Alabama was VOTED the champion of the BCS. I think the bowl situation is a huge farce...but, I don't want FBS getting a playoff. That would take the luster off of the exact thing that is so cool about FCS!!

Yet, another factually incorrect statement from someone who's simply joined the herd of blindly opposing the bowl system.

Alabama was not voted the BCS national champion. They gain that title automatically by winning the game. They were voted #1 by the AP if you want to consider that as a seperate championshipa, but that trophy they got at the end of the game didn't have anything to do with how the AP voted the following week.

Also, the argument that the regular season is more meaningful under the current system is overblown, but not total BS. The seeding argument doesn't hold up because statistically getting a better seed only increases your chance of winning the title by a very small percentage. Under the current system one loss can immediately end your chance of winning the national title...it certainly would have this year (and did for many, many teams).

If you guys prefer a playoff system then that's a valid opinion for sure. There are many reasons to love what that system brings to the table, but there is a lot of misinformation as to what that system does and does not accomplish. One thing that is almost certain is that the playoff system results in the best team winning the title less often than the bowl system. Understand that I'm not saying that either system is perfect, or that either system has undeserving teams win on a yearly basis, but the bowl system allows less room for a team to simply "get hot" at the right time. It puts more emphasis on being the best team (or at least close to it) from moment one.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Yet, another factually incorrect statement from someone who's simply joined the herd of blindly opposing the bowl system.

Alabama was not voted the BCS national champion. They gain that title automatically by winning the game. They were voted #1 by the AP if you want to consider that as a seperate championshipa, but that trophy they got at the end of the game didn't have anything to do with how the AP voted the following week.

Also, the argument that the regular season is more meaningful under the current system is overblown, but not total BS. The seeding argument doesn't hold up because statistically getting a better seed only increases your chance of winning the title by a very small percentage. Under the current system one loss can immediately end your chance of winning the national title...it certainly would have this year (and did for many, many teams).

If you guys prefer a playoff system then that's a valid opinion for sure. There are many reasons to love what that system brings to the table, but there is a lot of misinformation as to what that system does and does not accomplish. One thing that is almost certain is that the playoff system results in the best team winning the title less often than the bowl system. Understand that I'm not saying that either system is perfect, or that either system has undeserving teams win on a yearly basis, but the bowl system allows less room for a team to simply "get hot" at the right time. It puts more emphasis on being the best team (or at least close to it) from moment one.


Great post.

I think it comes down to this: would every fan prefer a larger playoff system? Sure. But when they created the 2 team playoff with a #1 vs #2 championship game, they threw out the mess that was a "vote" based championship. Those Alabama players went out on the field, earned that victory, and walked off as the best college football team in the country...regardless of division.

[UMass922]

One thing that is almost certain is that the playoff system results in the best team winning the title less often than the bowl system. Understand that I'm not saying that either system is perfect, or that either system has undeserving teams win on a yearly basis, but the bowl system allows less room for a team to simply "get hot" at the right time. It puts more emphasis on being the best team (or at least close to it) from moment one.

I don't think this is necessarily true. When there are so many teams, and each team plays so few games, and schedules are so unbalanced, it's very difficult to tell which is the best team based on the regular season. In leagues like the NBA, NHL, and MLB, where you play a long season and play each other team many times, the "getting hot at the right time" theory is much more applicable. In those cases, it's much easier to tell who the best teams are based on the regular season (and as such, the long, drawn-out postseasons those sports have are unnecessary). In college football, though, because so many teams have so few common opponents, it's not at all clear that a zero- or one-loss team is necessarily better than a two- or three-loss team. Thus a playoff is much more necessary in college football than it is in any other sport. No other sport's regular season gives us so little information about the relative strength of teams, especially considering how few marquee inter-conference games are played these days. All the bowl system ensures is that the team with the best record wins the title most of the time, which is not necessarily the same thing as the best team winning it most of the time.

In any case, I would be about a thousand times more interested in the FBS regular season if it culminated in a playoff. When a team can go undefeated and still not have a chance to play for the national championship (and not just the Boises of the world--it happened to Auburn a few years back), then the regular season is not meaningful--it's meaningless.

[EKU05]

Only if you work under the assumption that any body of work not resulting in the overall championship is meaningless. If Patrick Ewing were here right now would you tell him that his entire NBA career was meaningless?

[seantaylor]

Only if you work under the assumption that any body of work not resulting in the overall championship is meaningless. If Patrick Ewing were here right now would you tell him that his entire NBA career was meaningless?


I would tell him he wasn't a champion. The FBS is the most garbage sport in the world. Worse than figure skating. Boise would have destroyed Alabama but they aren't called champs.

[darell1976]

Here is a question for all of you. If the FBS were to have a 4 team playoff and if it was Texas vs Alabama and Boise St. vs TCU how would the national title look and who wins? I say Texas (if McCoy didn't get hurt) vs Boise St. with the Broncos as Champions.

[seantaylor]

Here is a question for all of you. If the FBS were to have a 4 team playoff and if it was Texas vs Alabama and Boise St. vs TCU how would the national title look and who wins? I say Texas (if McCoy didn't get hurt) vs Boise St. with the Broncos as Champions.

Why make it a 4 team playoff? Why not go with the proven method of 16 teams. Every conference would be represented.

[UMass922]

Only if you work under the assumption that any body of work not resulting in the overall championship is meaningless. If Patrick Ewing were here right now would you tell him that his entire NBA career was meaningless?

For the purposes of determining a national champion, yes, the regular season is meaningless when you don't have control over your own destiny. Obviously I'm being a little hyperbolic here; there are of course many ways in which a season can be meaningful that have nothing to do with championships or won-lost records. I'm just bugged by the old arguments that FBS has "the only regular season that matters" or that a playoff would make the regular season "less meaningful." When you can go undefeated in a major conference and still not have a chance to play for the national championship, then something is wrong. A playoff would have made that Auburn team's season much more meaningful, not less.

To be clear, I have no problem with the bowl system, as long as no one tries to pretend that it determines a true national champion. I don't have an FBS team, so I have no great stake in the matter--though, as I said before, I would be a thousand times more interested in the FBS regular season if it culminated in a playoff.

[darell1976]

Why make it a 4 team playoff? Why not go with the proven method of 16 teams. Every conference would be represented.

There are 12 conferences that includes Independants which consists of ND, Army, and Navy. So 11 conference champs, the Independant team with the best record and 4 wildcards...that would make for some interesting football talk. I just chose 4 teams because i think Boise State has a right to play for a national title NOT Texas and Alabama. 4 losses in 4 years for BSU and no shot at a national title WTF!

[Big Al]

Only if you work under the assumption that any body of work not resulting in the overall championship is meaningless. If Patrick Ewing were here right now would you tell him that his entire NBA career was meaningless?

The problem is, what constitutes a "NC caliber" body of work is very poorly defined under the present system. Boise State is continually locked out despite winning all regular season games and yet they're told to play a "better schedule". LSU won a few years ago with 2 losses, leapfrogging several one-loss teams and a no-loss Hawaii. The absurdity and unfairness of the present system is, quite simply, impossible to defend and still maintain a straight face.

There is no question the winner of the BCS system earned the trophy they get in their final game but they got their not solely because of the results on the field but because a corrupt and intellectually dishonest system put them there.

Yes, under a playoff system, "undeserving" teams would have to be let in but at least we can say they got their shot.

[jlcharles]

Great post.

I think it comes down to this: would every fan prefer a larger playoff system? Sure. But when they created the 2 team playoff with a #1 vs #2 championship game, they threw out the mess that was a "vote" based championship. Those Alabama players went out on the field, earned that victory, and walked off as the best college football team in the country...regardless of division.

Boise has something to say about that.

And don't forget that Cincinnati went and did what they had to do, won all their games, and still didn't get a shot at a national championship. The whole system is subjective. A playoff takes the subjectivitiy out of it. 16 team playoff would be perfect. 11 conference winners, 5 at larges. I'm not sure I can say that the best independent should be an auto bid. The regular season is still terribly important because of how few at larges there are.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

There are 12 conferences that includes Independants which consists of ND, Army, and Navy. So 11 conference champs, the Independant team with the best record and 4 wildcards...that would make for some interesting football talk. I just chose 4 teams because i think Boise State has a right to play for a national title NOT Texas and Alabama. 4 losses in 4 years for BSU and no shot at a national title WTF!

That would be garbage. 4 "wild cards"? 40 of the top 50 teams at minimum are going to be from BCS conferences each year. So you're saying only 4 that don't win their conference would get in?

You'd see schools leave tough conferences like the SEc, Big Ten, Big 12 so they could have a shot. And an 8-4 MAC champion getting in over a 1 loss SEC team would be a joke.


If you want a playoff, sure, we all do. But you want everyone to get a fair shot, then it should be as simple as taking the BCS rankings and filling the seeds 1 - 16 base don ranking.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Boise has something to say about that.

And don't forget that Cincinnati went and did what they had to do, won all their games, and still didn't get a shot at a national championship. The whole system is subjective. A playoff takes the subjectivitiy out of it. 16 team playoff would be perfect. 11 conference winners, 5 at larges. I'm not sure I can say that the best independent should be an auto bid. The regular season is still terribly important because of how few at larges there are.

And they go blown away by a team ranked 'lower" then them. The point should be that Cincy should not have been there in the first place as they were a 2 tD underdog.

[jlcharles]

That would be garbage. 4 "wild cards"? 40 of the top 50 teams at minimum are going to be from BCS conferences each year. So you're saying only 4 that don't win their conference would get in?

You'd see schools leave tough conferences like the SEc, Big Ten, Big 12 so they could have a shot. And an 8-4 MAC champion getting in over a 1 loss SEC team would be a joke.


If you want a playoff, sure, we all do. But you want everyone to get a fair shot, then it should be as simple as taking the BCS rankings and filling the seeds 1 - 16 base don ranking.

You're out of the discussion now if you don't win your conference so how would this be different? I doubt you'd see Georgia leave the SEC for Conference USA and I doubt they'd allow them in anyway.


And they go blown away by a team ranked 'lower" then them. The point should be that Cincy should not have been there in the first place as they were a 2 tD underdog.

You can't have it both ways. Either the regular season is the playoff or it isn't. They did what they had to do and won all of their games.

[Big Al]

That would be garbage. 4 "wild cards"? 40 of the top 50 teams at minimum are going to be from BCS conferences each year. So you're saying only 4 that don't win their conference would get in?

Seems more than fair. Or go to 20 teams like FCS, if it makes you feel better.

The beauty of a 16 team playoff is it makes conference play paramount, and the meaningless OOC fluff games that currently pad most BCS team's schedules are minimized. Where OOC results would become important is when you're vying for one of the at-large spots. This would create an incentive for teams to schedule competitive OOC games, so they still can make an argument come playoff time if they don't win their conference.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

You're out of the discussion now if you don't win your conference so how would this be different? I doubt you'd see Georgia leave the SEC for Conference USA and I doubt they'd allow them in anyway.



You can't have it both ways. Either the regular season is the playoff or it isn't. They did what they had to do and won all of their games.


How is it any different? Because CMU, Troy and ECU aren't getting a tournament bid over more deserving teams. The BCS conference schedules (excluding the Big East) are tougher than the internal schedules for CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt even if those schools played the toughest OOC schedules in the country.

By your account, this would be the playoffs:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: Georgia Tech
Big 12: Texas
Pac 10: Oregon
Big Ten: Ohio St.
Big East: Cincy
MWC: TCU
WAC: Boise St.
CUSA: ECU (9-5)
Sunbelt: Troy (9-4)
MAC: CMU (11-2)

"Wildcards" (5) by BCS ranking:
#5 Florida
#10 Iowa
#11 Virginia Tech
#12 LSU
#13 Penn St

There is no way that these programs from CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt should be in over those left out. And in a year with a struggling Boise St., the WAC could be the same.

I'll say it again:
A playoff is fine, but the teams that are in it should be those that deserve it. Automatic bids just mean that you can be in a lower conference and still get in. So it makes little sense to stay in the SEC, Big Ten, etc.

This might be a fun little topic for you and others to discuss, but you can be sure of one thing: this has/will never be discussed by anyone with any connection to any of these universities.

[EKU05]

There have been many points of varying degrees of validity in this thread, but nothing I've ever read on this board has made me laugh harder than the notion of taking Notre Dame, Army, and Navy and simply handing a bid to a national championship tournament to whoever has the best record of that group. Are you serious?

[JohnStOnge]

I'll say it again:
A playoff is fine, but the teams that are in it should be those that deserve it. Automatic bids just mean that you can be in a lower conference and still get in. So it makes little sense to stay in the SEC, Big Ten, etc.

This might be a fun little topic for you and others to discuss, but you can be sure of one thing: this has/will never be discussed by anyone with any connection to any of these universities.

I tihnk there are reasons to be in a conference like the SEC other than how easy it would be to get an automatic bids. Automatic bids are part of every single NCAA playoff/tournament system. Conferences get automatic bids to the NCAA basketball tournament, the NCAA baseball tournament, and so on. Teams aren't going to leave the ACC because they want a better shot at getting an automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. They're going to stay in the ACC just by virtue of the fact that there's big money associated with being an ACC basketball team. Same with the SEC in football. The SEC has very lucrative arrangements for televising its regular season games and they share the money. A team isn't going to leave the gold mine that is SEC football just because it'd have a better shot at getting an automatic bid to a football tourney if it moved to CUSA. Plus if it moved to CUSA it could no longer use its SEC membership during recruiting so it'd probably go downhill in terms of team quality anyway.

[Big Al]

Bingo.


I tihnk there are reasons to be in a conference like the SEC other than how easy it would be to get an automatic bids. Automatic bids are part of every single NCAA playoff/tournament system. Conferences get automatic bids to the NCAA basketball tournament, the NCAA baseball tournament, and so on. Teams aren't going to leave the ACC because they want a better shot at getting an automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. They're going to stay in the ACC just by virtue of the fact that there's big money associated with being an ACC basketball team. Same with the SEC in football. The SEC has very lucrative arrangements for televising its regular season games and they share the money. A team isn't going to leave the gold mine that is SEC football just because it'd have a better shot at getting an automatic bid to a football tourney if it moved to CUSA. Plus if it moved to CUSA it could no longer use its SEC membership during recruiting so it'd probably go downhill in terms of team quality anyway.

[Big Al]

There is no way that these programs from CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt should be in over those left out. And in a year with a struggling Boise St., the WAC could be the same.

I'll say it again:
A playoff is fine, but the teams that are in it should be those that deserve it. Automatic bids just mean that you can be in a lower conference and still get in. So it makes little sense to stay in the SEC, Big Ten, etc.

StOnge did a better, more succinct defense of why a team would stay in their conference over jumping to an easier one, so I'll consider that topic dead. I will address, however, the idea that the "lower" conference champs don't deserve to be in the playoffs. Simply by virtue of winning their conference, they deserve a shot. 9 years out of 10, they will be one and done but it's that 1 year out of ten that gets people tuning into the BB tourney. It's silly to say it always will happen but to say it never could happen is even more specious.

Further, by controlling the BCS, the Big Six have colluded to make an illegal monopoly over postseason college football opportunity. It is fundamentally undemocratic and sticks in my craw because of how it rigs the system for the benefit of a few. Now, none of the other conferences or their members have the balls to take them on so directly, but I sure wish they would.


might be a fun little topic for you and others to discuss, but you can be sure of one thing: this has/will never be discussed by anyone with any connection to any of these universities.

Whoa, really? You mean to say Delaney of the Big Ten isn't glued to his monitor to see what deep, insightful thought I'll come up with next? I'm crushed.

I'm speaking my opinion to an audience that will listen. No harm in that and I have no illusions that it's anything greater, either.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

There have been many points of varying degrees of validity in this thread, but nothing I've ever read on this board has made me laugh harder than the notion of taking Notre Dame, Army, and Navy and simply handing a bid to a national championship tournament to whoever has the best record of that group. Are you serious?

I know, i couldn't take it seriously while even trying to entertain the notion of autobids. That's why I couldn't even fathom a scenario where there would be only 4 autobids (vs 5) with Notre Dame, Army and Navy as a conference. You could see an independent Georgia St. as the winner in a few years and beating out a 1 loss Big Ten team for a spot. xlolx

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I tihnk there are reasons to be in a conference like the SEC other than how easy it would be to get an automatic bids. Automatic bids are part of every single NCAA playoff/tournament system. Conferences get automatic bids to the NCAA basketball tournament, the NCAA baseball tournament, and so on. Teams aren't going to leave the ACC because they want a better shot at getting an automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. They're going to stay in the ACC just by virtue of the fact that there's big money associated with being an ACC basketball team. Same with the SEC in football. The SEC has very lucrative arrangements for televising its regular season games and they share the money. A team isn't going to leave the gold mine that is SEC football just because it'd have a better shot at getting an automatic bid to a football tourney if it moved to CUSA. Plus if it moved to CUSA it could no longer use its SEC membership during recruiting so it'd probably go downhill in terms of team quality anyway.

And there is big money in the BCS or playoff system. If a team got to keep it's BCS share, it in most cases is more than their TV revenue for the entire season (unless you are the Big Ten makign 20 million per school).

If you're Miami, you'd leave the ACC and go back to the Big East. There would be more money for you top to bottom than being in the ACC, if you knew you'd have an easier chance at the BCS/playoff bid and the money is would bring.


Look, I'm fine with a playoff. I think it would be great. But there needs to be some logic in what teams were included. It's a 12 game schedule each year, unlike basketball. Simply put, the best teams need to get in. Let the debate be the #16 team in the rankings getting in over the #17 team because they are ranked higher, despite #16 beating #17. The argument can't be #136 getting in over #16 (16 total spots) because #136, Louisiana - Monroe, happens to finish the year 7-5 by beating 5 weak OOC schools and winning a weak Sunbelt.

[DKHardee]

I did not watch a single FBS game this year. Their brand of football is pretty meaningless except as a feeder for pro football (and I didn't watch a single game of that this year either).

I did, however, watch hundreds of games involving the highest level of NCAA championship football this year. xtwocentsx

I find it hard to believe that you didnt watch any FBS or NFL games this year.