BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

[buckeye_in_sc]

well from tOSU's perspective

08/09 USC
10/11 Miami of FLA
12/13 California
14/15 Va Tech
16/17 Oklahoma

plus they have added Army in 09/10 so they are keeping to the idea of a big OOC game every year...can't fault tOSU for trying...

in college basketball with all the pre-season tourneys and what not you get to see a lot of good OOC games every year...in fact IZZO never usually ducks anyone and neither do a lot of coaches...sure they play their fare share of creampuffs but I look at this years tOSU sked in basketball

UNC - ACC/BIG 10 challenge
FLA
Tennessee
Cincy

4 very good OOC games in Basketball...I applaud any coach who isn't afraid to schedule some form of heavyweight no matter what sport...I mean we had SC/NU, Oregon/Oklahoma, Colorado/Georgia just sad Colorado is so down, etc...there are quality games out there just not enough of them...personally I think the NCAA should mandate 1 quality intersectional game a year...

just my opinion...

pile on

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

How do you define "quality," though? Just being in a major conference?

I'm sure a few years ago, scheduling a team like Maryland or Colorado was considered a quality opponent (and both teams will be again, some day, probably sooner than later).

But this year, not so much. WVU gets a lot of heat for their cupcake OOC, and deservedly so, but had Maryland stayed on track, that would've helped their case a lot.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

^Heh. Ouch.

[Van]

If there was a playoff, say goodbye to any sort of tough OOC schedule for any of your teams. Texas/OSU? Nope. USC/Nebraska? Bye-Bye. That's what you risk if you add a play off to the mix.

Say goodbye to the tough OOC games? I don't know what world you're living in bro, but we DID say goodbye a long time ago. The Texas/OSU-type matchups happen about one Saturday a year, and one could argue that is the best non-running rivalry OOC game we've seen in YEARS. Look around - that shit ain't the norm, it's in the bottom 10%. The rest of everybody else is playing the lower level MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC teams. Think about it -- what incentive does a top ten team have to play another top ten team? None, whatsoever. With the "one and done" mentality, the risk of losing such a game heavily outweighs the gain of winning. It comes down to fear. Fear dictates scheduling. Fear of losing that one game is precisely why most everybody plays a cupcake OOC schedule. If you're already highly ranked, you won't need a strong strength of schedule. You won't need to climb up in the polls. You just need to "maintain," and then everything else will work itself out. You'd much rather play teams you know you can beat, and then hope to god you get through conference play unscathed. With a playoff, you can afford the risk of battle-testing yourself, and still be playoff-elegible. With the current system, the risk is too severe. A playoff means we'll see more competitive OOC games.

There's just no way the disgrace that is the current OOC schedules could get any worse than they are now.

Great post.

Dunno where Killian gets the idea that a playoffs would kill OOC games. If anything, it'd decrease the risk factor of losing early/"one and done" so ADs might actually be wiling to put on at least a few more decent matchups...

Our current system couldn't be much worse. There's no incentive to play anybody and the NCAA provides no disincentive to programs willing to schedule absolute garbage...

All we need are two easy changes:

-Mandatory balanced schedules. 6-6 schedules, and any OOC games must be home/home series.

-Plus One

Put those two simple changes into effect and the only thing left for us to bitch about would be, "Oregon, or Ringling Bros? Worst Unis?"

[SoCalTrjn]

If there was a playoff, say goodbye to any sort of tough OOC schedule for any of your teams. Texas/OSU? Nope. USC/Nebraska? Bye-Bye. That's what you risk if you add a play off to the mix.

Say goodbye to the tough OOC games? I don't know what world you're living in bro, but we DID say goodbye a long time ago. The Texas/OSU-type matchups happen about one Saturday a year, and one could argue that is the best non-running rivalry OOC game we've seen in YEARS. Look around - that shit ain't the norm, it's in the bottom 10%. The rest of everybody else is playing the lower level MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC teams. Think about it -- what incentive does a top ten team have to play another top ten team? None, whatsoever. With the "one and done" mentality, the risk of losing such a game heavily outweighs the gain of winning. It comes down to fear. Fear dictates scheduling. Fear of losing that one game is precisely why most everybody plays a cupcake OOC schedule. If you're already highly ranked, you won't need a strong strength of schedule. You won't need to climb up in the polls. You just need to "maintain," and then everything else will work itself out. You'd much rather play teams you know you can beat, and then hope to god you get through conference play unscathed. With a playoff, you can afford the risk of battle-testing yourself, and still be playoff-elegible. With the current system, the risk is too severe. A playoff means we'll see more competitive OOC games.

There's just no way the disgrace that is the current OOC schedules could get any worse than they are now.

USC's OOC schedule for 2006 is Arkansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame. There are no directional instate schools whose budget they are trying to pump up. There are no 1aa or d2 teams filling in for a team that backed out. There are no 7 or 8 home games and just 4 or 5 roadies. Maybe every other team needs to have the balls that Mike Garrett has shown since taking over as AD at USC.

A playoff will not work under the current way teams make schedules. For a playoff to work every team will have to have equal amounts of home and road games and only play vs other teams that are also going to be considered for those playoffs. Cut divison 1 down to 64 teams and 8 conferences then only allow those 64 teams to play one another. 10 regular season games, 5 on the road and 5 at home, 7 conf games. Top 2 from each conference go to opposite sides of a playoff tree, that way if one conference has the 2 best teams, they can both still make the playoffs and play eachother in the title game.

a plus one is an even worse idea than the current BCS system. Youre going to give a team like, say Michigan, 6 weeks to prepare for a semi final game and then just 1 week to prepare for the title game? Thats absurd, thats like playing the superbowl on the monday night after the 2 conf championship games were played the day before

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Nah, it doesn't have to be that complicated. The entire method of scheduling wouldn't need to be overhauled.

Just continue to use a similar ranking system we have now, and pluck out the top 16 teams at the end of the year and have them compete in a playoff. I don't think we could look back on any year, and make a case that anyone past the top 16 was ever a legitimate title contender. With 16 teams, you're gonna get all the heavy hitters in there. You'll get every team people want to see. Or do it by conference affiliation, and some at-larges. Either way.

[Dinsdale]

Yeah, it sure is a good thing that that '04 Auburn team managed to get through all those super important regular season games unscathed only to play in a post season consolation game. That worked out GREAT for them.

That was actually pretty cool.

Try playing a road game every once in a while, SEC.

I'm quite OK with SEC teams being punished for their scheduling. They routinely try to manipulate the system that's in place, and in 2004 they paid for it.

Tough freaking titty. Play a road game at least once per decade.

[Killian]

How do I get that there would be even less OOC matchups? Simple.

Assuming we are all talking about a 4 team playoff, the incentive to play a strong OOC schedule drops. We all hear about the SEC playing such a tough conference schedule, so the Auburn/USC, Arkansas/USC, Tennessee/ND games go bye-bye. Look back at the last few years and see how many teams were in the top 4 with two losses? Possibly OSU last year and USC in '02. Where is the benefit in playing a strong OOC if there is a playoff?

As it stands, every team knows that right now, they have to go undefeated to have a shot at the NC. If they lose once, they have no shot. At the same time, if they play a shitty OOC schedule (see Auburn '04 and WVU this year), they will get hammered for their SOS. This forces most big name teams to schedule a decent OOC game.

If there are four guaranteed slots that play for the NC, the risk/reward isn't worth it for good teams to play a tough OOC schedule. There is at least one team in every conference that can jump up and bite the eltie teams, or there is another elite team in confrence that is a challenge. AD's will see that one potential loss, realize that they have to schedule a few WAC and Sun Belt teams and they can walk into the top 4.

The BCS may suck, but it at least forces a few good OOC games during the year. In this system, the risk/reward for tough OOC is very high, but needed to guarantee that your school isn't left out in the cold.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

The discussion seemed to be geared toward a 16 team playoff.

This forces most big name teams to schedule a decent OOC game.

Well, we need a system that will encourage schools to do more than just schedule one "decent" OOC game.

That's the problem with most of the power schools right now. They don't have the balls, or the incentive, to schedule more than one decent OOC game, because the risk of losing more than one game OOC, or otherwise, is too severe. They realize one good OOC game should be sufficient enough for their SOS, so if they can survive that one, it's then on to the Eastern Michigans, La Monroes, and New Mexicos of the world. Certainly we've seen exceptions recently like USC and Ohio St, but these teams make up a very, very small percentage. These are probably teams with ADs who won't change their scheduling philosophies regardless of what system is in place.

All the current system does is encourage teams to schedule no more difficult than they absolutely have to. With a 16 team playoff, you can lose 1-3 games and still vye for a playoff spot, which means you'll eliminate some of that fear that goes into OOC scheduling. There will be a greater incentive to play tougher teams knowing your title dreams won't be over if you lose.

[Carson]

Well, to be fair OU did snake Bowling Green off of Auburn's schedule, which is probably what he's trying to reference. The argument is a little bogus, though. "You guys only got in because your AD outfoxed ours" is more an indictment of Auburn's AD than it is the BCS system. The BCS did what it was designed to do in 2004-when there was a dispute about who the two best teams were, it went to strength of schedule. Playing the Citadel team just put Auburn in a deep hole when it came to SOS.

Had Auburn chosen to schedule a D-1 team as a replacement for Bowling Green, they might have passed OU in the computer rankings. The argument can be made that there was no time-but OU managed to pull it off.

Thanks for the clarification on Bowling Green, and yes, the same AD who tried to run Tuberville off was outfoxed by the OU AD. But don't think it's easy to schedule 1A teams at a moment's notice. Most all have conference schedules and must have a set number of home games in order to pay the bills and satisfy alums. Don't even get me started with the contract attorneys.

FYI: AU tried to start a series with VA Tech in the late 1990's but Beamer backed out.

[Terry in Crapchester]

How do I get that there would be even less OOC matchups? Simple.

Assuming we are all talking about a 4 team playoff, the incentive to play a strong OOC schedule drops. We all hear about the SEC playing such a tough conference schedule, so the Auburn/USC, Arkansas/USC, Tennessee/ND games go bye-bye. Look back at the last few years and see how many teams were in the top 4 with two losses? Possibly OSU last year and USC in '02. Where is the benefit in playing a strong OOC if there is a playoff?

As it stands, every team knows that right now, they have to go undefeated to have a shot at the NC. If they lose once, they have no shot. At the same time, if they play a shitty OOC schedule (see Auburn '04 and WVU this year), they will get hammered for their SOS. This forces most big name teams to schedule a decent OOC game.

If there are four guaranteed slots that play for the NC, the risk/reward isn't worth it for good teams to play a tough OOC schedule. There is at least one team in every conference that can jump up and bite the eltie teams, or there is another elite team in confrence that is a challenge. AD's will see that one potential loss, realize that they have to schedule a few WAC and Sun Belt teams and they can walk into the top 4.

The BCS may suck, but it at least forces a few good OOC games during the year. In this system, the risk/reward for tough OOC is very high, but needed to guarantee that your school isn't left out in the cold.

That's one of the problems with a four-team (or less) playoff. Another problem is turf protection. Simply put, the six conferences with automatic BCS bids aren't going to give up what the BCS provides for them without something similar in place.

For that reason, any playoff which includes four or fewer teams could only work as a post-bowl playoff system. If you're going to do Plus One, you need to revamp the BCS. As things currently stand, the 1 vs. 2 matchup would be an elimination team under a Plus One format, whereas the #3 team would be in a potential catbird seat.

Even if they keep the 12 games per season thing they can still fit in the playoffs and finish by New Years.

Disagree with this. Academics is the reason the university Presidents have hit upon for opposing a playoff. It's bullshit, and we all know it, but because it is at issue, any playoff proposal would have to address academics.

Fact is, most schools have finals in December. There's no way the kids on the football team could prepare for playoff games and prepare for finals at the same time. So you would have to push playoffs back until after finals.

My suggestion is a 16-team format starting New Year's Eve. Since most schools don't return until January, even under that format you would be down to no more than four teams still playing by the time everyone was back to school, so the effect on academics would be minimal.

[Killian]

If we're talking about a 16 team playoff, you're talking about 4 more games for 2 teams. If this were the case, I would assume that they would make a move for only 1 or 2 OOC games to cut down on the schedule.

The 16 team playoff is the only realistic (team wise) version of the proposed idea, but I don't think it's realistic given that the two teams in the championship would play 16 games. The NCAA would have a fit if that happened.

[Terry in Crapchester]

If we're talking about a 16 team playoff, you're talking about 4 more games for 2 teams. If this were the case, I would assume that they would make a move for only 1 or 2 OOC games to cut down on the schedule.

The 16 team playoff is the only realistic (team wise) version of the proposed idea, but I don't think it's realistic given that the two teams in the championship would play 16 games. The NCAA would have a fit if that happened.

Small point, but a team could hypothetically play 17 games, if it played Hawaii on the road and then went on to play for the national championship.

Having said that, a 16-team playoff would essentially extend the season by almost two months over the current regular season for the teams advancing to the finals. That might resolve the NCAA's concerns in that regard.

[SoCalTrjn]

the current system rewards schools that dont take risks OOC.
Any school that plays a 1AA or D2 team or has more home games than road games should be eliminated from any playoff that would crown a national champion

[Terry in Crapchester]

The 16 team playoff is the only realistic (team wise) version of the proposed idea, but I don't think it's realistic given that the two teams in the championship would play 16 games. The NCAA would have a fit if that happened.

Upon further review, I think a 12-team format would work as well. A 12-team format has the added advantage of permitting the top four seeds to have first-round byes. That would appease (somewhat) those who want a smaller field, and would also somewhat ease the NCAA's concerns, in that one of those teams would only play 15 games if they play in the championship game.

Of course, if you go with a 12-team format, you'd have to cut the automatic bids down to six or possibly seven, the current BCS conferences and possibly the highest-ranked team from a non-BCS conference. But unless you're talking about a post-bowl playoff format, anything less than 12 teams would never fly because of the aforementioned turf protection issues.

[RadioFan]

Do you grant home-field advantage and make (say) USC play in Nebraska in December?

IN

Sin,

Everyone but corporate sponsors/non-fans.

[King Crimson]

I have yet to see this question answered in anything approaching a reasonable way:

In a playoff, where are you going to hold the games?

Do you grant home-field advantage and make (say) USC play in Nebraska in December?

Do you play at the bowl sites? If you do, who's going to be able to travel to three different sites on three consecutive weeks on six days' notice each time? I know we're all 6'5" 210lb billionaires, but there's not enough of us to even fill one row of a stadium.

Please bear in mind that the average bowl stadium holds anywhere from five times to ten times as many fans as a typical basketball arena and that each NCAA subregional hosts four teams instead of two-and there's STILL empty seats at a lot of sessions.

froz makes some good points here. fans are going to travel once post-season. this also part of the reason that conference championship games are dumb. why drop coin to see your team play in Kansas City or Dallas or Atlanta when you MIGHT be playing for something in Pasadena or Miami or Tempe or San Diego.

and to the issue of the NCAA hoops tournament--the NCAA worked 9-11 in a very crass way to keep top seeds close to home with the proviso that it was all about "travel concerns" and thus the pod system....i know *for a fact* that the home honey floors were in the works for top seeds and "name" teams years before 9-11. my dad did legal work for OU's AD all through the mid 80's and 90's and it USED to be the philosphical position of the NCAA was to send top seeds far away...in the interest of neutral competition (except UNC and Duke, who always always played in Charlotte)....but that's all been changed now that "March Madness" is big ad money. watch some shit on ESPN classic and see UCLA and Kentucky playing on the campus of Weber State and the arena is empty.

[RadioFan]

why drop coin to see your team play in Kansas City or Dallas or Atlanta when you MIGHT be playing for something in Pasadena or Miami.

For the same reason there will be OU fans at Mizzou and at aTm two weeks in a row.

I don't see venues being an issue at all. If I lived in KC or Miami or Glendale, I'd sure as hell pay to see a college FB playoff game, even if I wasn't a fan of either team. Selling out the games nor TV revenue can't seriously be an issue. And logistics don't seem to be a problem for the lower division playoffs.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Selling out the games nor TV revenue can't seriously be an issue. And logistics don't seem to be a problem for the lower division playoffs.

Rack. Let's not forget the NCAA basketball tournament, in which teams have to go to remote locations, sometimes on as little as four days' notice. Sellouts aren't a problem there.

Of course, you're going to see more locals and/or corporate VIP's in attendance as opposed to the fans of the teams in the playoffs. That's the one relatively minor downside. But imho, fielding a true national champion would more than make up for that.

[RadioFan]

1. Basketball venues hold 1/5 to 1/10 of what a football stadium does.

True, but there's also a week between football games, as opposed to four days between basketball games and new venues in the NCAA tournament.

2. Four teams and three games vs. two and one.

Shouldn't be a problem, depending on the bracket. Other than the occational concert, it's not like the stadiums are going to be used for something else on Saturdays.

3. Sellouts may not be a problem, but one team is usually playing very close to home and there's a lot of empty seats for some of those early-round games.

In a playoff football game? Highly doubtful. Look at all of the venues that sell out even when traditional powerhouses are playing cupcakes.

Only feasible way I can see this playing out and not having massive empty-seat problems in the early rounds is holding the games at the home field of the lower seed.

Why reward a lower seed?

[RadioFan]

4. 1<2. Lower seed=better team. Probably should have just said "better seed" to avoid confusion.

Doh! You said it right, Froz. I just read it wrong.

Maimi fan doesn't count. :wink:

[RadioFan]

1. Er, yeah. The point, though, is that it's one hell of a lot easier to find 10,000 people to buy a ticket than it is 70,000-especially when travel is thrown in.

For a college football playoff game?

No way.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

4. 1<2. Lower seed=better team. Probably should have just said "better seed" to avoid confusion.

Although that makes sense, I've never heard anyone use it in that context before.

I've always assimilated "lower seed" or "lower rank" with "lesser" team and "higher seed" with "better team."

[Terry in Crapchester]

1. Er, yeah. The point, though, is that it's one hell of a lot easier to find 10,000 people to buy a ticket than it is 70,000-especially when travel is thrown in.

For a college football playoff game?

No way.

Let's not forget, a playoff has been discussed among college football's fanbase for quite some time. Certainly, that discussion goes way beyond the reaches of this board.

At least in the first year, the curiosity factor alone will guarantee sellouts.

[RadioFan]

At least in the first year, the curiosity factor alone will guarantee sellouts.

Exactly. Rack.

[Van]

So many good intentions here, and so many good ideas...

So many windmills to chase.

All these scenarios...never gonna happen. Too much change required, too many toes being stepped on before any of it could ever come to fruition.

Just go back to last year's system and then add Plus One. It'd look just like this year, what with this new extra game being played in Arizona following all the other traditional bowls.

Nothing else is necessary (except for the implementation of mandatory balanced schedules) and nothing else is ever going to fly.

One extra game, for all the marbles: the winner of #1 vs #4 plays the winner of #2 vs #3.

It's all we need and it's all we've ever needed and it's the best we could ever hope to get anyway.

[socal]

It's all we need and it's all we've ever needed and it's the best we could ever hope to get anyway.

Yeah, but that would mean nothing but SRV/Wingnut guitar and crotchrocket threads from January to August.

No thanks.

[Van]

Nah, socal. You'd be safe. This place is the only place where I post anymore. I stopped posting anywhere else a long time ago. Killed any and all bookmarks; no desire to ever go back.

Arguing just for argument's sake...dealing with all the bullshit from worthless trolls...unctuous wannabes trying like hell to form their pallid thoughts into something at least a bit compelling to the reader, and failing miserably.

Nah.

I'm done. I'm fine anymore simply doing without all the forced rancor. I already get more than enough of that crap here and nobody's actually writing anymore on any of the old goofball boards.

Here and elsewhere, it's mostly just a lot of bullshit vitriol. I'd rather just talk and discuss now; failing that, fuck it, I've no desire to bother with it.

Shame, too, since there was once a time on these boards when a decent lot of talented and creative writers really made for some quality reading. Shit just up and disappeared though in the morass of crassness so prevalent these days...

[socal]

Of all the words of tongue or pen, no sadder are these..."It might have been, dumbfuck.".

[Van]

Whittier meets Mvscal??

Or was that TVO?

Dins, perhaps...

Nah, not Dins. He's more colorful with his insults.

[Terry in Crapchester]

So many good intentions here, and so many good ideas...

So many windmills to chase.

All these scenarios...never gonna happen. Too much change required, too many toes being stepped on before any of it could ever come to fruition.

Just go back to last year's system and then add Plus One. It'd look just like this year, what with this new extra game being played in Arizona following all the other traditional bowls.

Nothing else is necessary (except for the implementation of mandatory balanced schedules) and nothing else is ever going to fly.

One extra game, for all the marbles: the winner of #1 vs #4 plays the winner of #2 vs #3.

It's all we need and it's all we've ever needed and it's the best we could ever hope to get anyway.

Van, with all due respect, you're presupposing something that never was.

It never was 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. In reality, it was 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. whoever, based on selection order of the remaining BCS bowls and the limited conference tie-ins. In fact, last year anyway, it was 3 vs. 22.

And like you have alluded, things have changed this year. But the extra game is not Plus One; rather, it adds two additional teams to the mix. Also, the rule changes regarding qualification for at-large bids have made it much easier for a non-BCS team to qualify for a BCS at-large bid; as I have mentioned in the past, under the rules currently in effect a non-BCS team would have qualified in six of the eight years the BCS has existed. So now you have the aforementioned turf protection issues if you try to convert the BCS Championship Game to a Plus One game.

Here's what you'd have to do, at this point, to get a true Plus One format. First, you would need to add an existing bowl to the BCS mix (if we're gonna do that, my vote is for the Cotton based on history) to get rid of turf protection issues. Then, you would need to tweak the BCS to make two of the bowls feeders for the Plus One game, with a 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 format.

Even then, you'd still have problems. If the BCS decides to go the Plus One route, the two feeder games would have to be played at least six days before the Championship Game. Thus, you'd have two or three BCS bowl games played between the feeder games and the BCS championship game which would have no bearing on the championship. Those games would be somewhat anti-climactic, and I suppose the ratings probably would reflect that fact.

[Van]

Terry, none of that is necessary.

Just make everybody play a mandatory balanced schedule, with any OOC series also being a mandatory home and home.

Next, using the title game in roughly the same way we're using it this year, add Plus One.

There would only be one necessary wrinkle. Here's how it would all work...

The BCS #1 plays in its traditional conference alignment bowl game.

The BCS #2, #3 and #4 all play in their traditional conference alignment bowl games too, even if it means pitting #1 against either #2 or #3 rather than pitting #1 against #4, which would be the usual method.

The BCS #2 will play #3 in #2's traditional conference champion's reward bowl game. Again, the one exception there would be if either #2 or #3 were to play #1 in the traditional bowl game shared by both. If all three teams share the same traditional bowl game then #3 gets the boot and they play #4 in one of the other traditional BCS bowl games of #3's choosing.

The winners of the two games play each other in the title game. One extra game, one week later, like we do it now. Done.

Now, if it were up to me I'd designate one locale to be the permanent home for the title game. I'd do it for the Super Bowl too. New Orleans is the best party locale for the Super Bowl anyway and the weather will never be a factor there (okay, assuming New Orleans doesn't again find itself under water.... ) so as a good will gesture to New Orleans following Katrina I'd simplify things and make New Orleans the permanent home for both the CF title game and Super Bowl.

In this scenario I'd also permanently move the Sugar Bowl to its SEC Conference Championship Game home, Atlanta.

Taking this year as an example, let's say the BCS's final standings are:

1-Ohio State
2-USC
3-Texas
4-Auburn

The Rose Bowl hosts Ohio State vs USC. The Fiesta would host Texas and Auburn. One week later we pit the winners of those two games against each other in New Orleans, in the title game.

Now, let's try it this way...

1-Ohio St
2-W. Virginia
3-ND
4-Florida

The Rose gets OSU-Florida and the Sugar gets W. Virginia-ND.

The only fly in the ointment, as always ( :-) ) would be...you fuckers...

...Notre Dame. What if ND is in the position of getting one of the two traditional bowl game slots? In the modern era ND's played in all the biggies except the Rose so what would be ND's traditional bowl game??

Fuck it. Until ND finally simplifies things for everybody by joining a conference we'll just go with the most direct route. Let 'em pick it themselves. If they're the BCS #1 they get their first choice of traditional BCS bowl locales. If they're not, ie, if they're the team who gets to decide the second traditional BCS bowl game locale, hey, they get to choose from what's left after #1 is slotted.

There's really not much change needed here. A team here and there may play in an unusual bowl game (for them, anyway), but that's already happening now whenever we see USC, Texas or OSU playing BCS title games away from their usual conference champion bowls...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry, none of that is necessary.

Sure it is. The BCS added a fifth game this season and added two more at-large teams to the mix. And in the process, they made it considerably easier for teams from non-BCS conferences to qualify for the BCS. You can't simply un-ring that bell. Turf protection . . .

Just make everybody play a mandatory balanced schedule, with any OOC series also being a mandatory home and home.

You're kidding, right? You've got a better shot at getting a 16-team playoff through than you do of getting that through. Sad but true.

Next, using the title game in roughly the same way we're using it this year, add Plus One.

There would only be one necessary wrinkle. Here's how it would all work...

The BCS #1 plays in its traditional conference alignment bowl game.

The BCS #2, #3 and #4 all play in their traditional conference alignment bowl games too, even if it means pitting #1 against either #2 or #3 rather than pitting #1 against #4, which would be the usual method.

The BCS #2 will play #3 in #2's traditional conference champion's reward bowl game. Again, the one exception there would be if either #2 or #3 were to play #1 in the traditional bowl game shared by both. If all three teams share the same traditional bowl game then #3 gets the boot and they play #4 in one of the other traditional BCS bowl games of #3's choosing.

The winners of the two games play each other in the title game. One extra game, one week later, like we do it now. Done.

Now, if it were up to me I'd designate one locale to be the permanent home for the title game. I'd do it for the Super Bowl too. New Orleans is the best party locale for the Super Bowl anyway and the weather will never be a factor there (okay, assuming New Orleans doesn't again find itself under water.... ) so as a good will gesture to New Orleans following Katrina I'd simplify things and make New Orleans the permanent home for both the CF title game and Super Bowl.

In this scenario I'd also permanently move the Sugar Bowl to its SEC Conference Championship Game home, Atlanta.

Taking this year as an example, let's say the BCS's final standings are:

1-Ohio State
2-USC
3-Texas
4-Auburn

The Rose Bowl hosts Ohio State vs USC. The Fiesta would host Texas and Auburn. One week later we pit the winners of those two games against each other in New Orleans, in the title game.

Three problems with that scenario:

1. The Sugar Bowl would lose some tradition if permanently moved out of New Orleans.
2. If you go back to the "traditional bowls" argument, Auburn, assuming they won the SEC, goes to the Sugar. And the Fiesta is hardly the "traditional" bowl site for the Big 12 champion, at least not from my perspective. It used to be that the Big 8 champ played in the Orange Bowl, and the SWC champ played in the Cotton Bowl. But you can't go back to that scenario.
3. Most importantly, the turf protection argument I've raised before applies not only to the schools and their conferences, but to the BCS bowls in question as well. I doubt you'd get the BCS bowls to go along with this, particularly when they run the risk of being shut out of the championship process for a number of years in a row.

Now, let's try it this way...

1-Ohio St
2-W. Virginia
3-ND
4-Florida

The Rose gets OSU-Florida and the Sugar gets W. Virginia-ND.

The only fly in the ointment, as always ( :-) ) would be...you fuckers...

...Notre Dame. What if ND is in the position of getting one of the two traditional bowl game slots? In the modern era ND's played in all the biggies except the Rose so what would be ND's traditional bowl game??

Prior to the advent of the Bowl Alliance and BCS, ND was always the designated visiting team in every bowl game they played, having no tie-in to any particular bowl game. That arrangement worked out fine in the 70's and 80's . . . not that ND played in a whole lot of bowl games during the 80's.

Fuck it. Until ND finally simplifies things for everybody by joining a conference . . .

You do realize that if ND joins a conference, that puts the USC series in jeopardy -- if the conference in question is the Big Ten, anyway. I don't think the Rose Bowl would be too happy about this series being played on an annual basis, since that very well could be the Rose Bowl matchup come January. Not to mention that if ND didn't get an annual matchup with Penn State out of the Big Ten, we'd have to make a point of scheduling at least two OOC games per year against schools from the northeast. And in any event, ND-USC would lose something in translation if it had to be moved to September.

Of course, we could join the Big East and leave the USC series pretty much intact, but I have no doubt that much bitching would ensue from that move, at least on this board. :wink:

[Vito Corleone]

I have yet to see this question answered in anything approaching a reasonable way:

In a playoff, where are you going to hold the games?

Do you grant home-field advantage and make (say) USC play in Nebraska in December?

Do you play at the bowl sites? If you do, who's going to be able to travel to three different sites on three consecutive weeks on six days' notice each time? I know we're all 6'5" 210lb billionaires, but there's not enough of us to even fill one row of a stadium.

Please bear in mind that the average bowl stadium holds anywhere from five times to ten times as many fans as a typical basketball arena and that each NCAA subregional hosts four teams instead of two-and there's STILL empty seats at a lot of sessions.

Here is a thought. How about the first couple of rounds be home and home with the last 2 rounds being at a single stadium. Once city gets 3 games the 2 semi and the finals. Thats what they do in the final 4 and I think it would work for this game. Even if the game is not your team that would be enough to encourage people to take a 10 day trip. Every game would be sold out and the hype would be unreal.

Or you could make every round but the finals a home and home.

[Van]

Terry, none of that is necessary.

Sure it is. The BCS added a fifth game this season and added two more at-large teams to the mix. And in the process, they made it considerably easier for teams from non-BCS conferences to qualify for the BCS. You can't simply un-ring that bell. Turf protection . . .

They've changed things so much that one more change won't matter.

Turf protection, shmurf protection. We're trying to fix things here with as simple of a solution as possible. Ultimately TPTB are going to have to pull their heads outta their asses if anything is to ever improve. We're working under the assumption here (mistaken, obviously) that these idiots will at some point pull their heads out.

We're talking ahere about what should happen, not what we're predicting will happen. I think we all realize that since we're dealing with the NCAA, the BCS and the Bowls this will remain nothing but a theoretical discussion.

Just make everybody play a mandatory balanced schedule, with any OOC series also being a mandatory home and home.

You're kidding, right? You've got a better shot at getting a 16-team playoff through than you do of getting that through. Sad but true.

Not saying it'll happen, I'm saying it needs to happen. It's the single most important change needed in CF. It's also the simplest and most logical. Making it mandatory to have a balanced schedule is the easiest way to prevent all the stupid Texas vs Sam Houston St games. Nobody but nobody ought to have a problem with that. If they do then they're laying their greed and cowardice right out there on the table for all to see.

Nope. We change the whole culture in CF. Everybody takes risks. It's okay to risk a losss when everybody else has to risk a loss too. Fuckabuncha Nebraska-McNeese St...

All this change would require is a little sack by the ADs around the country.

Next, using the title game in roughly the same way we're using it this year, add Plus One.

There would only be one necessary wrinkle. Here's how it would all work...

The BCS #1 plays in its traditional conference alignment bowl game.

The BCS #2, #3 and #4 all play in their traditional conference alignment bowl games too, even if it means pitting #1 against either #2 or #3 rather than pitting #1 against #4, which would be the usual method.

The BCS #2 will play #3 in #2's traditional conference champion's reward bowl game. Again, the one exception there would be if either #2 or #3 were to play #1 in the traditional bowl game shared by both. If all three teams share the same traditional bowl game then #3 gets the boot and they play #4 in one of the other traditional BCS bowl games of #3's choosing.

The winners of the two games play each other in the title game. One extra game, one week later, like we do it now. Done.

Now, if it were up to me I'd designate one locale to be the permanent home for the title game. I'd do it for the Super Bowl too. New Orleans is the best party locale for the Super Bowl anyway and the weather will never be a factor there (okay, assuming New Orleans doesn't again find itself under water.... ) so as a good will gesture to New Orleans following Katrina I'd simplify things and make New Orleans the permanent home for both the CF title game and Super Bowl.

In this scenario I'd also permanently move the Sugar Bowl to its SEC Conference Championship Game home, Atlanta.

Taking this year as an example, let's say the BCS's final standings are:

1-Ohio State
2-USC
3-Texas
4-Auburn

The Rose Bowl hosts Ohio State vs USC. The Fiesta would host Texas and Auburn. One week later we pit the winners of those two games against each other in New Orleans, in the title game.

Three problems with that scenario:

1. The Sugar Bowl would lose some tradition if permanently moved out of New Orleans.

How so, and so what even if it did? The Georgia Dome vs the Super Dome? Big deal. The Super Dome is getting the two huge bowl games so they'd have no reason to complain.

2. If you go back to the "traditional bowls" argument, Auburn, assuming they won the SEC, goes to the Sugar.

Right. What about it? That's as it should be.

And the Fiesta is hardly the "traditional" bowl site for the Big 12 champion, at least not from my perspective.

Then make it the Cotton Bowl. Either one, who cares? Texas won't, not as long as they're in line to play in the title game, which is all anybody's after here anyway. We're just tying these teams wherever possible to their traditional bowl games because that's what they grew up on and that's the reward they'd most prefer for winning their conference.

It used to be that the Big 8 champ played in the Orange Bowl, and the SWC champ played in the Cotton Bowl. But you can't go back to that scenario.

So? The Big XII winner now goes to the Fiesta Bowl. No biggie. That's what they're doing now, that's what they'd continue to do.

Look, we're changing some things here. What used to be the case doesn't matter now. They'll get over it. It's really not a big deal to tell Texas or Nebraska to go play in the Fiesta rather than the Cotton or Orange. Or, vice versa. None of it matters. They'll adapt and be just fine with any locale, just as long as they're going to the title game following their bowl game win.

3. Most importantly, the turf protection argument I've raised before applies not only to the schools and their conferences, but to the BCS bowls in question as well. I doubt you'd get the BCS bowls to go along with this, particularly when they run the risk of being shut out of the championship process for a number of years in a row.

They'd been doing it already, under the four year alternating BCS Title Game plan. Moreover, I don't give a fuck about the turf wars. I want this thing fixed. This Plus One addition leaves intact far more of the traditional bowl system than a 16 team playoffs would and we already know we're likely never going to see a 16 team playoffs anyway.

Plus One is the most expedient way to get this thing fixed. We'll never need more than the Top 4 teams to sort out the champion so let's not complicate things any more than necessary.

Now, let's try it this way...

1-Ohio St
2-W. Virginia
3-ND
4-Florida

The Rose gets OSU-Florida and the Sugar gets W. Virginia-ND.

The only fly in the ointment, as always ( :-) ) would be...you fuckers...

...Notre Dame. What if ND is in the position of getting one of the two traditional bowl game slots? In the modern era ND's played in all the biggies except the Rose so what would be ND's traditional bowl game??

Prior to the advent of the Bowl Alliance and BCS, ND was always the designated visiting team in every bowl game they played, having no tie-in to any particular bowl game. That arrangement worked out fine in the 70's and 80's . . . not that ND played in a whole lot of bowl games during the 80's.

That'd be fine with me now, too. ND's penalty for not joining a conference is the other team's traditional bowl game will be where ND plays the game. Fine with me. Path of least resistance here, folks.

Fuck it. Until ND finally simplifies things for everybody by joining a conference . . .

You do realize that if ND joins a conference, that puts the USC series in jeopardy -- if the conference in question is the Big Ten, anyway.

No reason it should. At least no good reason. USC is in a conference and they still maintain the rivalry. If ND joined the Big Ten or any other conference there's no reason they couldn't maintain the USC rivalry while replacing some of their other games with the necessary conference games. It's simply a matter of whether or not they'd have the balls to do it. USC would have no problem with it and really, there's no reason anything should change on ND's end either.

I don't think the Rose Bowl would be too happy about this series being played on an annual basis, since that very well could be the Rose Bowl matchup come January.

Too bad. Lotta shit has to happen before those two teams would meet in the Rose Bowl. Most years, they wouldn't. We don't scrap one of the three or four best rivalries in all of football, the only true intersectional rivalry, over the Rose Bowl's nose getting bent out of shape over the possibility of a repeat match up.

Too much worry here spent on people's sensibilities being offended...too much catering to turf protection.

Fuck 'em. Blow it all up and replace it with common sense. USC-ND stays, always. That's a no brainer. Nobody in their right mind would choose to end that tradition over jealousy and turf wars. If they would, hey, they need to be ignored and/or removed from a position of responsibility.

Not to mention that if ND didn't get an annual matchup with Penn State out of the Big Ten, we'd have to make a point of scheduling at least two OOC games per year against schools from the northeast. And in any event, ND-USC would lose something in translation if it had to be moved to September.

Let the "Big 11" go to the Pac 10's schedule, whereby every conference team plays every other conference team every year. That still leaves you with two slots for OOC games and you're damn right USC will be one of ND's two. Make it around Thanskgiving, every year. No reason to move it to September. Leave it alone. Done.

Of course, we could join the Big East and leave the USC series pretty much intact, but I have no doubt that much bitching would ensue from that move, at least on this board. :wink:

Big East or Big 10, it shouldn't matter. You're still going to need at least a couple/few OOC games. Bare minimum, ND will always play USC and Navy, since those are their two traditional rivalry/obligation-pay back games. People need to quit looking for reasons why shit won't work. Stop giving in to everybody's whining and excuse making. Just fix the thing, using common sense.

USC-ND is inviolate. Nobody should have a probem with that.

[Goober McTuber]

Van, I don’t understand why you’re wasting your time on this tired old argument when there’s a fresh Stevie Vai shreds/sucks thread on the main board.

[Van]

Van, I don’t understand why you’re wasting your time on this tired old argument when there’s a fresh Stevie Vai shreds/sucks thread on the main board.

More receptive audience, maybe?

Dunno. Good point.

:-)

[Van]

B-t-H, yep, my error. In my fevered noodle I was still thinking of the Big 10 as, well, ten. Not exactly sure how I was thinking that, since they didn't drop any teams after picking up PSU, but there ya' go.

So, really, isn't it about time they start calling it the Big 11?? To avoid conflict with the necks down south, hey, once ND joins 'em they could call it The Big Upper Midwest or some such shit.



Wouldn't change much though. Eleven Big 10 conference games instead of ten, plus USC around Thanksgiving, for a total of twelve games. That'd be a very nice schedule for ND, or for anybody.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry, none of that is necessary.

Sure it is. The BCS added a fifth game this season and added two more at-large teams to the mix. And in the process, they made it considerably easier for teams from non-BCS conferences to qualify for the BCS. You can't simply un-ring that bell. Turf protection . . .

They've changed things so much that one more change won't matter.

Turf protection, shmurf protection. We're trying to fix things here with as simple of a solution as possible. Ultimately TPTB are going to have to pull their heads outta their asses if anything is to ever improve. We're working under the assumption here (mistaken, obviously) that these idiots will at some point pull their heads out.

We're talking ahere about what should happen, not what we're predicting will happen. I think we all realize that since we're dealing with the NCAA, the BCS and the Bowls this will remain nothing but a theoretical discussion.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with this. I think a playoff is an entirely doable proposition, if there's truly interest in doing it, and if the fan base continues to hold the NCAA's feet to the fire on this. But you won't get a playoff if you don't concede the fact that certain entities will want to protect their own interests within the context of that discussion.

Just make everybody play a mandatory balanced schedule, with any OOC series also being a mandatory home and home.

You're kidding, right? You've got a better shot at getting a 16-team playoff through than you do of getting that through. Sad but true.

Not saying it'll happen, I'm saying it needs to happen. It's the single most important change needed in CF. It's also the simplest and most logical. Making it mandatory to have a balanced schedule is the easiest way to prevent all the stupid Texas vs Sam Houston St games. Nobody but nobody ought to have a problem with that. If they do then they're laying their greed and cowardice right out there on the table for all to see.

Nope. We change the whole culture in CF. Everybody takes risks. It's okay to risk a losss when everybody else has to risk a loss too. Fuckabuncha Nebraska-McNeese St...

All this change would require is a little sack by the ADs around the country.

I agree with you on this, with one proviso: I would allow each team to play a maximum of two neutral field games per year. One neutral field game could replace one home game or one road game. If you play two, then one must replace a home game and the other must replace a road game.

In the ND-Navy series, Navy's "home" game is always a neutral field game, and there's a very good reason for this. Usually (although not always), the neutral field game is played in the northeast, and that's a game where there's a pretty high ticket demand for ND fans who live in that region of the country. Navy's home stadium could not accommodate the demand. There are also several other college series that historically are played on a neutral field, and that's part of the tradition of those series. Texas-Oklahoma, Georgia-Florida and Army-Navy come to mind in that regard.

The neutral field option also protects some of the have-nots who need to continue their big paydays. For example, Buffalo could schedule a home-and-neutral field matchup with a team that has a pretty significant following in this area, such as Penn State, ND, Ohio State or Michigan, with Buffalo's "home" matchup in the series being played at Ralph Wilson Stadium rather than on campus. That way, they'd get their big payday without depriving the power of a payday in the rematch.

Having said all of that, it won't happen, unfortunately.

Next, using the title game in roughly the same way we're using it this year, add Plus One.

There would only be one necessary wrinkle. Here's how it would all work...

The BCS #1 plays in its traditional conference alignment bowl game.

The BCS #2, #3 and #4 all play in their traditional conference alignment bowl games too, even if it means pitting #1 against either #2 or #3 rather than pitting #1 against #4, which would be the usual method.

The BCS #2 will play #3 in #2's traditional conference champion's reward bowl game. Again, the one exception there would be if either #2 or #3 were to play #1 in the traditional bowl game shared by both. If all three teams share the same traditional bowl game then #3 gets the boot and they play #4 in one of the other traditional BCS bowl games of #3's choosing.

The winners of the two games play each other in the title game. One extra game, one week later, like we do it now. Done.

Now, if it were up to me I'd designate one locale to be the permanent home for the title game. I'd do it for the Super Bowl too. New Orleans is the best party locale for the Super Bowl anyway and the weather will never be a factor there (okay, assuming New Orleans doesn't again find itself under water.... ) so as a good will gesture to New Orleans following Katrina I'd simplify things and make New Orleans the permanent home for both the CF title game and Super Bowl.

In this scenario I'd also permanently move the Sugar Bowl to its SEC Conference Championship Game home, Atlanta.

Taking this year as an example, let's say the BCS's final standings are:

1-Ohio State
2-USC
3-Texas
4-Auburn

The Rose Bowl hosts Ohio State vs USC. The Fiesta would host Texas and Auburn. One week later we pit the winners of those two games against each other in New Orleans, in the title game.

Three problems with that scenario:

1. The Sugar Bowl would lose some tradition if permanently moved out of New Orleans.

How so, and so what even if it did? The Georgia Dome vs the Super Dome? Big deal. The Super Dome is getting the two huge bowl games so they'd have no reason to complain.

I was referring more to the atmosphere surrounding New Orleans with the Sugar Bowl than to the particular stadiums in which the game is played. Damn right some of the Sugar Bowl's tradition would die in this arrangement.

I'm not arguing that a greater good would not be achieved, but you'd still see a complaint out of the Sugar Bowl.

3. Most importantly, the turf protection argument I've raised before applies not only to the schools and their conferences, but to the BCS bowls in question as well. I doubt you'd get the BCS bowls to go along with this, particularly when they run the risk of being shut out of the championship process for a number of years in a row.

They'd been doing it already, under the four year alternating BCS Title Game plan. Moreover, I don't give a fuck about the turf wars. I want this thing fixed. This Plus One addition leaves intact far more of the traditional bowl system than a 16 team playoffs would and we already know we're likely never going to see a 16 team playoffs anyway.

That was exactly my point. Under the BCS, up until last year, the BCS bowls rotated in hosting the championship game. Each bowl knew it was getting the championship game once every four years. If the feeder bowls for a Plus One game became the bowls with traditional tie-ins to the top teams, those bowls would now be dependent upon the finish of the conference champion in the conference which has the tie-in. Some might not host a feeder bowl for Plus One for several years.

Plus One is the most expedient way to get this thing fixed.

If by "expedient", you mean "the option that everybody is most likely to approve", then we agree on this point.

We'll never need more than the Top 4 teams to sort out the champion

This is where we disagree. The fourth team that gets in is only two games away from the championship. If there's a controversy as to who that fourth team should be, you're completely shutting out one (or more) other equally deserving teams from any shot at the national championship whatsoever. And while you'd be correct in saying that one potentially could make this argument ad infinitum, this particular argument gets weaker as the pool of teams in a playoff gets larger.

Now, let's try it this way...

1-Ohio St
2-W. Virginia
3-ND
4-Florida

The Rose gets OSU-Florida and the Sugar gets W. Virginia-ND.

The only fly in the ointment, as always ( :-) ) would be...you fuckers...

...Notre Dame. What if ND is in the position of getting one of the two traditional bowl game slots? In the modern era ND's played in all the biggies except the Rose so what would be ND's traditional bowl game??

Prior to the advent of the Bowl Alliance and BCS, ND was always the designated visiting team in every bowl game they played, having no tie-in to any particular bowl game. That arrangement worked out fine in the 70's and 80's . . . not that ND played in a whole lot of bowl games during the 80's.

That'd be fine with me now, too. ND's penalty for not joining a conference is the other team's traditional bowl game will be where ND plays the game. Fine with me. Path of least resistance here, folks.

Fuck it. Until ND finally simplifies things for everybody by joining a conference . . .

You do realize that if ND joins a conference, that puts the USC series in jeopardy -- if the conference in question is the Big Ten, anyway.

No reason it should. At least no good reason. USC is in a conference and they still maintain the rivalry. If ND joined the Big Ten or any other conference there's no reason they couldn't maintain the USC rivalry while replacing some of their other games with the necessary conference games. It's simply a matter of whether or not they'd have the balls to do it. USC would have no problem with it and really, there's no reason anything should change on ND's end either.

I don't think the Rose Bowl would be too happy about this series being played on an annual basis, since that very well could be the Rose Bowl matchup come January.

Too bad. Lotta shit has to happen before those two teams would meet in the Rose Bowl. Most years, they wouldn't. We don't scrap one of the three or four best rivalries in all of football, the only true intersectional rivalry, over the Rose Bowl's nose getting bent out of shape over the possibility of a repeat match up.

Too much worry here spent on people's sensibilities being offended...too much catering to turf protection.

Fuck 'em. Blow it all up and replace it with common sense. USC-ND stays, always. That's a no brainer. Nobody in their right mind would choose to end that tradition over jealousy and turf wars. If they would, hey, they need to be ignored and/or removed from a position of responsibility.

Not to mention that if ND didn't get an annual matchup with Penn State out of the Big Ten, we'd have to make a point of scheduling at least two OOC games per year against schools from the northeast. And in any event, ND-USC would lose something in translation if it had to be moved to September.

Let the "Big 11" go to the Pac 10's schedule, whereby every conference team plays every other conference team every year. That still leaves you with two slots for OOC games and you're damn right USC will be one of ND's two. Make it around Thanskgiving, every year. No reason to move it to September. Leave it alone. Done.

Of course, we could join the Big East and leave the USC series pretty much intact, but I have no doubt that much bitching would ensue from that move, at least on this board. :wink:

Big East or Big 10, it shouldn't matter. You're still going to need at least a couple/few OOC games. Bare minimum, ND will always play USC and Navy, since those are their two traditional rivalry/obligation-pay back games. People need to quit looking for reasons why shit won't work. Stop giving in to everybody's whining and excuse making. Just fix the thing, using common sense.

USC-ND is inviolate. Nobody should have a probem with that.

Coupla points on this one:

First, if you're serious about going "path of least resistance," as you said earlier, you should have no problem with ND remaining independent. That is, after all, the path of least resistance as far as ND is concerned.

I'm not naive or arrogant enough to say "never" when it comes to conference membership for ND. But at the same time, ND has, or should have, made it quite clear by now that they're not interested in joining a conference. In the best-case scenario for ND to join a conference, the benefits of membership in that conference would have to substantially outweigh the benefits of continued independence. In the worst-case scenario, ND would consider joining a conference only as an absolute last resort. And I think that if ND were interested in joining a conference, they would prefer the Big East to the Big Ten if they're convinced that the Big East is viable in the long term.

I agree with you that ND-USC should remain as is. But don't kid yourself for a moment -- there would be problems with doing that if ND were to join the Big Ten. Yeah, you're correct that a lot would have to happen for those two teams to meet in the Rose Bowl, but it would be a definite possibility, and I think for that reason the Rose Bowl would have a problem with that series. As it is, you don't see many OOC matchups between the Big Ten and Pac-10, and ND-USC wouldn't exactly be the equivalent of an annual matchup between Illinois and Oregon State, in terms of likelihood of a Rose Bowl rematch.

If nothing else, the Big Ten would put pressure on ND to move the game to September. Have you ever noticed that ND plays its games against Big Ten teams during the month of September? There's a reason for that, and it's not of ND's choosing -- the Big Ten wants its member schools to finish their OOC schedule during the month of September. If the Big Ten is unwilling to make that concession for ND -- and make no mistake about it, ND is, far and away, the biggest OOC matchup on the schedules of Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue -- what makes you think they'd be willing to make the concession for USC? If anything, an even number of schools in the conference might make the Big Ten less likely to make such a concession, since you don't necessarily have to have at least one school without a conference matchup in any given week.

Also, the Big Ten would never go to 11 conference games, even with a 12th member. At most, they'd follow the SEC's lead and add a ninth conference game.

Oh, and btw, as to playing ND-USC on Thanksgiving weekend every year -- you are aware that that's how it used to be, until John McKay decided that he'd rather visit ND in mid-October than late-November, due to weather reasons? :P

Sorry, had to throw that one in.

[Van]

Correction...

It'd be the path of least resistance for everybody except ND if ND would join a conference.

All the bowls, the BCS, the NCAA, pretty much everybody.

The Big 10 would love it and fans of CF would love it, especially if it meant an annual diet of ND-Michigan, ND-Ohio St, ND-Michigan St and ND-Wisconsin.

ND-Indiana is a natural.

ND in the Big 10 is a natural. They have no business cherry picking in the Big East. They're located smack dab in the heart of Big 10 country. They're nowhere close to most Big East schools. If Penn State could join the Big 10 rather than the Big East than ND would be a no brainer.

Hmmm, ND taking their rightful place in the Big 10...That may have to become my next CF crusade.

:-)

Also, late October or Thanksgiving, either time is fine with me for the USC-ND game. It just has to truly feel like Fall, so no September match ups, is all.