makes you wonder if they will opt for a "safer" trophy in the future
MKVI Shadow Metallic Blue 6 spd 4 door GTi
MKVI Uni Black 6 spd Jetta TDi
Roll Tide & War Eagle but stuck in LSU Country
UAB Blazer Basketball
Saints - WHO DAT! ROAD WIN?!
Orioles - Thank You Showalter & all the O's!
Now that we are going to get a 4 team playoff, I have some thoughts on eligibility of the 4 teams...
1. Conference champ only? No... I know this will please the SEC contingent here but I actually think that winning the conference is not a necessary requirement because **** happens. If you have 4 conferences full of duds (like last year when only SEC, Pac12, and Big12 had "playoff worthy" teams), it limits the field too much with the conference champ requirement. We may end up with a mediocre ACC or Big East champ instead of a 1-loss powerhouse SEC or Pac12 team. That's not what we want to see. Which leads me to #2...
2. How about we make winning a division a requirement? This preserves the idea that you need to "take care of business" during the regular season. If you can't even win your division, you have no business playing for the national champ (yes, that would mean Alabama will be left out last year, a scenario I'm perfectly happy to accept, based on the evidence the title game absolutely sucked). However, if we impose the division champ rule, it will mean...
3. All conferences should be required to split into divisions and play a title game. Crown your conference champ on the field. I actually think this will happen anyway without any rules with Big East close to reaching 12 teams and Mountain-USA amalgamation. Sunbelt and WAC can similarly form a football only alliance and play an extra game.
4. What about conferences playing different number of games? Let's fix that too. Pac12, Big12, and Big Ten want to play 9 game conference schedule. Personally, I think that's ok if only SEC does the same. But we all know that ain't happening so let's mandate each conference MUST play 8 conference games (4 home and 4 away... no exceptions!). The remaining 4 games are reserve for non-conference play - but (and this is important) at least 1 of those non-conference game must be away game at another FBS school. And if you schedule a FCS home game, you must play 2 FBS away games. Now, we can't stop SEC teams from beating up on Troy or UAB but I think overall, this sort of scheduling requirements will even the field a bit.
5. So what about teams not in a conference? They can't win a "division" (see #2 above) so they can't qualify for playoffs. We have to come up with an "equivalent" litmus test. Here is how to do it - Notre Dame and BYU (let's not beat around the bush) have to play a competitive schedule. If they want to be in the final 4, their strength of schedule cannot be lower than the weakest strength of schedule of any teams ranked in the top 10. Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary but these schools chose not to be in a conference in an arbitrary decision so if they want the "normal" rules, they can join a conference.
Anyway, this is just something I've been thinking about in terms of eligibility to participate in the final 4 playoff. Now, I don't want to go into on how the rankings or polls should be administered but I'm sure you'll find no shortage of opinion on the internet.
We agree on most here.
Honestly - im torn on the conference winner part. If they would do a proper 8 team playoff then it is no big deal.
This really would have helped in 2006 when you had Michigan and Ohio state with USC and Florida.
Do you rank them based on BCS # and 1 v 4 and 2 v 3?
I would have to say that if there were 5 teams (which i do not think this has been a problem but it could be) and 4 are conf winners and the other is like last years Alabama - how do you pick Bama over the conf winners?
And if you do then you basically are going to force a 6 or 8 school playoff.
Like you said everyone has an opinion.
Personally id go with a 6 school. Rank an overall strength for the 6 power conferences. Top 4 conferences get the auto bids. The last 2 spots would be determined by the BCS formula. That way the Big East does not get an auto bid for being bad but if 3 or 4 schools became elite the winner would get their shot.
It is nice to see the Rose Bowl P12 and B1G are not standing in the way this time
Make it three yards mother****er and we'll have an automobile race
The reason I didn't want to go into how the rankings will be determined is because it is a different question than eligibility. My post only concern eligibility... the BCS formula is a mess and it will have to be reformed as well.
I think the bare minimum would be that coaches poll need to be eliminated from BCS formula. You can't have self-interested parties voting on something that determines a playoff. The second most obvious change that needs to happen is that the computer rankings need to be transparent (so mistakes can be spotted), and needs to be statistically meaningful (so margin of victory HAS to be part of the formula). The secret computer rankings has no place in the revised BCS formula.
Ha, OK. If you believe that it was only the last 18 months that had anything to do with the WAC failing, well I guess we can end the conversation. FWIW, the WAC's fall started in the late 70's when both Arizona schools left for the new PAC-10. That's when they lost their major bowl tie, the Fiesta. Conference membership changes are not a new trend, the money tied to the auto-bids and bowl affiliations are. I suppose you could point the finger at Jim Delaney; I just have a hard time blaming someone for doing their job by acting proactively to protect the viability of their conference when the writing has been on the wall since the birth of the BCS.
I'd love to hear your argument that supports your original statement though...
The latest round of conference realignment started with Nebraska leaving the Big 12. I like to hear you debate that was not the domino that start it all this time around. But the domino wouldn't have fell all the way down to FCS leagues had Texas not decide to move ahead with the Longhorn Network. I'm not saying these are bad things... or pointing fingers. I'm just saying that these 2 events lead to the demise of WAC football.
I agree with most of your post, but still feel the WAC (along with most of the other "have not" conferences) were doomed from the inception of the BCS. They over expanded in response and had schools with relatively small budgets traveling thousands of miles to play. Yes, this round of expansion was started with Nebraska and fueled by the LHN like you stated. I felt like your initial post was a bit short sighted is all (in wording).
Last edited by LinkATX; 05-07-2012 at 11:53 PM.
I bet Landry Jones is regretting not entering the draft after this...
If these guys don't return, I believe that will leave Jones one receiver that has recorded a catch previously!
Florida State's President makes a statement:
You know the collective alumni/booster community has completely lost its head and common sense when the President of an University has to write a letter like that. Even for Free Shoe University, this is a new low.
And what happened to the gentleman's agreement to never take an academic pot shot at another conference? It's ironic to hear FSU making a fuss about the inferior academics of Big 12. They certainly did their part to lower the academic perception of ACC.
There are so many implications from this. College football be a changing'!