T1B

IU definitely got screwed. I'm not sure they're even better than WMU or Virginia so how should that count against them? UVA is a mid tier BCS team, and WMU has been one of the better "mid majors" over the years. IU will battle Purdon't for dead last in the Big Ten.

Games against I-AA teams: ACC (29 percent), Big East (25 percent), SEC (23 percent), Big Ten (21 percent), Big 12 (19 percent), Pac-10 (13 percent).

Games against non-BCS, I-A teams: Big 12 (58 percent), Big Ten (48 percent), SEC (48 percent), Pac-10 (37 percent), Big East (35 percent), ACC (29 percent).

Games against BCS teams: Pac-10 (50 percent), ACC (42 percent), Big East (40 percent), Big Ten (32 percent), SEC (29 percent), Big 12 (23 percent).

Yup. Despite playing a full nine game conference schedule the Pac 10 still has the lowest percentage of OCC D1-AA games, by far, and the highest percentage of OOC games against BCS conference teams, by far.

Surprised to see ASU in their Top 10 shittiest OOC schedules, when they only play three games and one of 'em is at Georgia. The other two games are bad, definitely, but when one of your three games is very good your OOC schedule isn't among the ten worst in the nation. Not even close.

I know Duke is Duke, but North Carolina Central? I've never even heard of them...now THAT'S the ultimate benchmark for bad.

Yup. Despite playing a full nine game conference schedule the Pac 10 still has the lowest percentage of OCC D1-AA games, by far, and the highest percentage of OOC games against BCS conference teams, by far.

We get it already, dude. You're just tooting your own horn at this point. Now all the Pac 10 needs is a compelling game outside of USC/Oregon St and people might start to give a shit.

sC should exit the Pac 10 and play an OOC slate composed of ONLY BCS-quality teams. They'd go undefeated every year, because they'd be motivated every week. As long as they have to go through an uninspiring conference season, they'll drop a game or two every year. That's how it works when you temporarily suit up the nation's best talent.

MNCs are won by teams that have talent AND players who can focus each and every week (not necessarily the most talented players).

PSU, if that's the case then why did last year's national champ lose at home to unranked Ole Miss, and why did the national champion from the year before lose at home in the final game of the season to unranked Arkansas; a loss which, at the time time, seemed to knock them out of the national title chase. That same national champ also lost a second time that season, to unranked Kentucky.

USC has been no more guilty than the other title contenders, in terms of losing to teams they shouldn't lose to. The difference is simply perception. USC was perceived as having no margin for error, while the SEC champ was forgiven its similarly inexplicable losses. Same thing, in '03. OU was forgiven getting steamrolled by K St in the Big XII CCG, while USC wasn't forgiven its triple OT loss in Berkeley. (Well, sort of. At season's end both polls did have USC ranked #1. It was the screwy BCS system that forgave LSU and OU their losses, but not USC.)

Otherwise, hell yeah, as long as UCLA and ND remain on the schedule, I love your idea. I'd be all for USC being like ND. USC would schedule a lot more ambitiously, obviously, but that's a great idea. Six home games against all BCS conference teams from across the county, and six roadies, to places like Columbus, South Bend, Boulder, Tuscaloosa, Louisville and Wake Forest?

Sign me up.

In fact, let's all do that. Everybody, just scrap the conferences, and everybody plays everybody. Then we'd really find out what's up.

That'd be awesome. Best idea ever.

Yes, Trixie's finest won the title despite dropping a game that Jesus H. Tebow couldn't motivate himself for - but back to USC for a second. They are held to a higher standard because they are capable of more than any other team, when they are fired up. Also, they play in a conference that probably will never have 3-4 MNC contenders in late October of a season.

Petey's a rather experienced and freakishly determined fluffer, but even he can't keep them at full mast for the 9 game cockblock that is the Pac 10 conference slate.

PSU wrote:They are held to a higher standard because they are capable of more than any other team, when they are fired up.

Two things, there.

1-If they are held to a higher standard, they shouldn't be. When push comes to shove they aren't given the same respect as certain other teams. Those teams should be held to the same standard.

2-If they are held to a higher standard, I'd like to see some benefit from it. If the presumption is that they're capable of doing more than any other team when they're fired up then it's pretty fucking stupid to keep passing them over when it comes time to choose the title game participants. If people think they're the best, and their record is at least identical, then choose them.

It just seems like a lose-lose situation. They're supposed to be better, so they're never allowed to lose, even though others are. Meanwhile, people thinking they're better never seems to help them.

It's not so much that they're held to a higher standard as much as they're hit with a double standard.

i see Rutgers has assfucked themselves traveling to Maryland. kickoff is prolly at 3 AM. Fear the Turtle.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Now all the Pac 10 needs is a compelling game outside of USC/Oregon St and people might start to give a shit.

Huh ?


http://www.thecouchqb.com/post/19

Screw_Michigan wrote:And why isn't U-M ranked? Four home games, one against I-AA Del St, WMU, a 3-9 Notre Dame, and Eastern Michigan. Talk about pathetic.

ND wasn't 3-9 last year. I'll agree that a 1-AA and two MAC games is a pathetic OOC schedule, though, regardless of who your fourth opponent is.

Van wrote:In fact, let's all do that. Everybody, just scrap the conferences, and everybody plays everybody. Then we'd really find out what's up.

That'd be awesome. Best idea ever.

Now you're talking.

Blueblood wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Now all the Pac 10 needs is a compelling game outside of USC/Oregon St and people might start to give a shit.

Huh ?


http://www.thecouchqb.com/post/19

I definitely agree with the guy there. If Cal is ever going to beat USC and win the conference, this has to be the year. Everything is lining up as well as it ever could for them. If you don't do it this year, Cal, just quit playing football, 'cause you're never gonna win dick.

Terry, is that not the single best idea ever? No more conferences, no more bullshit perceptions, no more Meatgrinders, no more conference tie-ins to bowl games.

Free-for-all. Keep your rivalry games, otherwise just throw everybody in one big BCS pile, and let's just get after each other. Let teams lose games, without it ending their seasons. Nobody ought to be penciled in as going undefeated, the way so many teams are now.

Teams lose, because they risk losses in tough match-ups, and then they keep going. Eventually the cream rises to the top, and then we have a real playoffs.

Beautiful. Just beautiful. If Dave was a chick I'd have to cum on his tits for having such a great idea.

Van wrote:Terry, is that not the single best idea ever? No more conferences, no more bullshit perceptions, no more Meatgrinders, no more conference tie-ins to bowl games.

Free-for-all. Keep your rivalry games, otherwise just throw everybody in one big BCS pile, and let's just get after each other. Let teams lose games, without it ending their seasons. Nobody ought to be penciled in as going undefeated, the way so many teams are now.

Teams lose, because they risk losses in tough match-ups, and then they keep going. Eventually the cream rises to the top, and then we have a real playoffs.

Beautiful. Just beautiful. If Dave was a chick I'd have to cum on his tits for having such a great idea.

You mean deciding it on the field?

Never heard of that before.

Blueblood wrote:Huh ?

What's so hard to understand? The Beav's have taken SC two out of the last four. Your last win was in 03, and you needed 3 overtimes to do it. The only thing that makes Cal-SC compelling is witnessing your myriad excuses and spin jobs after the inevitable Urine Uni beatdown.

I am not at all a fan of scrapping the conferences. I just want to see a complete overhaul of out of conf scheduling.

Of course it would never happen, but what would be the downside if it did?

6-6 schedules, no stupid CCGs, everyone plays the same group of BCS conference-level teams.

LSU travels to the Coliseum. OU travels to Bama. ND goes to Ohio St.

It'd be endless. Every week there'd be killer games, and all the yammering crap about the conferences vanishes.

What's not to like?

Oh, under that scenario I could manage. Absolutely. It just wouldn't be my ideal system. My ideal system would be for balanced OOC schedules, and have every conference play a round robin format. I think it's possible to have our cake and it it too -- to maintain the conference affiliations so many of us love, and to also see better and bigger games out of conference. I love some of the traditions and histories associated with the conferences, and the endless bickering amongst fans over conference supremacy... that will never get old to me. The day that died would be a sad day for me.

I'm tired of the predictability of the conferences. I don't need USC to load up on Wazzou and Cal, and I don't need Florida to load up on MSU and Vandy. If Ohio St never plays Indiana again, that'd be fine with me.

If I never see Illinois in the Rose Bowl again, same thing.

All these conference obligation games could take a dirt nap, as far as I'm concerned. I want programs to stare each other down, all across the board. Let Kentucky play Purdue, and let Arizona play K St. Let everybody see different things, different people, different parts of the country.

Fuck yeah, let's make Florida leave the southeast, for once in their lives.

I disagree, I don't mind some of the David v Goliath match ups within the conferences. If you scrap that entirely it waters down some of the drama, imo. The chance of upset, that glimmer of hope for a fighting, scrapping team...when the best in the conference is on the ropes late in the fourth quarter against a hapless 1-win team...that's compelling stuff. Stanford over USC? MSU over OSU in 98? Oh yeah, that's some good shit. Those results don't happen often, which is why it doesn't hurt the game, but when they do, history is made, and people will talk about it as long as they're alive. Nobody will remember a run of the mill USC over Virginia victory though, unless something really memorable happens within the game, like Pete Carroll slicking back his hair, and creating a gust of wind that pushes his running back over the goal line on 4th and inches to win it all.

Fine, but for every fourteen straight years OSU rolls Indiana we could've instead been watching them play down on the bayou, or out in the desert.

Instead of waiting for Mississippi St to beat Florida once every quarter century we could simply let other people around the country enjoy their own memories of the time when Tebow came to town and they beat 'im.

Everyone benefits, and nobody need remain a perennial doormat to the same seven or eight other teams.

I hate it when I look on the schedule and I notice Ohio St, LSU and USC have byes against Indiana, Vandy and Washington St. I'm much more intrigued by USC traveling to Virginia. Even if it's still a blowout it's still a cooler experience than seeing them roll Wazzou again, plus the people in Virginia got to see something different, too.

Fine, but for every fourteen straight years OSU rolls Indiana we could've instead been watching them play down on the bayou, or out in the desert.

With balanced, mandated OOC schedules, you'll get those cross regional matchups. Ohio St having IU on their schedule isn't going to stop OSU from playing LSU in the bayou.

Everybody has got their idea of the perfect system. In the end, what most of us have in common is that we all want complete abolition of the BCS. Once that happens, hey, I'd consider any number of scenarios.

Still, that being said...

We don't need to do away with conferences. That's not anywhere close to being one of the serious issues here. USC vs Washington St. Ohio St vs Indiana. Those games aren't a detriment to the overall enjoyment of the product. Those types of David V Goliath match ups are few and far between, anyway. Most of the CFB landscape consists of mediocrity. And the bad-to-middling teams in CFB are a cyclical bunch. Sure, you've got your small handful of programs that will probably always be cellar dwellers, but those programs make up a very small % of D1 football. That consists of one, maybe two teams, from each major conference. That doesn't call for complete elimination of all conferences. And again, once in a decade when those guys do shock the world against a top 10 team, it's exciting, and it shakes things up.

Nah, leave the conferences alone. I love the concept of regional affiliation, regional rivalry, regional supremacy. Big Ten vs The Meatgrinder. Big Ten vs Pac 10. Meatgrinder vs Big 12. That stuff fuels a rage in people that makes the product so much more exciting and interesting. Some people don't care, but a lot of people do feel some sort of attachment to the conference their team represents, and it develops greater rooting interests beyond their own team. Perhaps, if anything, some realignment is in order, but outright eliminating conferences? No. Fuggin. Thanks. Let's focus on the real issues, like: unbalanced OOC schedules, unbalanced conference schedules, and lack of a post season playoff. That's all we really need, right? Hell, just implement ONE of those things, and I'm a lot happier, and the game is a lot better off. But anything above and beyond all that? That's just unnecessary repair.

Of course I agree with your basic points. I'd take those, since I know Dave's idea was merely I joke with which I wholly agree.

This, though....

Mgo wrote:Those types of David V Goliath match ups are few and far between, anyway.

Not sure what games you're watching but USC is a 20-45 point favorite in nearly every game they play. It's just ludicrous. Even their "tough" games usually see them being a two TD pick.

Same with OU, or Florida.

Far from being few and far between, the overwhelming majority of games played in BTPCF are David vs Goliath. Even the mediocre teams assure themselves of this, through meticulous scheduling of steaming piles of turd.

It's either that, or you're the steaming pile of turd, nearly every week. It's rare that an Iowa St isn't either a huge favorite or a huge underdog. There's little to no middle ground there. They're either playing Weathervane Tech or they're cannon fodder themselves to someone who's already up by twenty before they ever get off the bus.

There simply aren't a whole lotta Pick Em type games in BTPCF. Most games are projected blowouts.

why do we have to rip Vandy everytime this kind of thing comes up?

the Commodores beat BC last year in a bowl, that's not good enough to keep out of the crap-pile for just one year?

:D

the overwhelming majority of games played in BTPCF are David vs Goliath

Remember, I'm referring to CONFERENCE GAMES.

That being in mind, no, David v Goliath match ups do NOT represent the majority of games played, and it's not even close, primarily because the truly elite teams, like the ones you mentioned, make up an extremely small % of the cfb landscape.

Even the mediocre teams assure themselves of this, through meticulous scheduling of steaming piles of turd.

Conferences do the scheduling, not the teams.

Again, I was referring to conference games, not OOC. I already addressed OOC by calling for balanced, mandated schedules.

No, the "overwhelming majority" of games played simply are not David v Goliath type match ups in-conference. The majority of the match ups are mediocre teams vs mediocre teams, simply because there are more mediocre teams than there are elite teams and cellar dwellers. I don't even see how this can be debated.

If it's just conference games then yes, it evens it up quite a bit. Even in conference play though there are still way too many blowouts, along with too many streaks of more than ten years since one team beat another, with no end in sight.

The problem is there aren't enough elite teams to go around in order to ensure epic match ups each and every week -- and the middling teams, which represent the majority of the cfb landscape -- are pretty cyclical. And there's just no way to shun those teams from BTPCF, they're too prevalent. What seems like a good match up in 09 could easily be a blowout in 2010. Oh, you'll still see plenty of blowouts. Unless SC, OU, and UF are playing each other on rotate, those guys will be 20 point favorites over just about anyone else they play. You said that yourself. USC can beat WAZZOU by 50 or they can beat Virginia by 30. What's the diff? I agree there'd be fewer blowouts on the whole, if the scheduling was done right, but is the prospect of a few less blowouts so enticing that you really want to completely eliminate all the conferences, and the immeasurable greatness associated with them, like calling SEC Ballsucking Homer an SEC Ballsucking Homer? I'm no cfb purist, but that's way too radical for me, man.

Mgo, look, sure, I have as much fun with the SECBSH stuff as anybody.....until the middle of December rolls around, and once again USC gets the shaft because they're not part of the Almighty Meatgrinder, or the godfucked Big XII.

Then, no, I'm not too goshdarned thrilled with conference play.

I'm also not thrilled with it when at least seven wins can be penciled in every year, for the top teams.

I'd MUCH rather replace those games with roadies to weird locales, where weird things happen. Make Florida have to travel to Iowa City in November, rather than to Starkville, and I like my chances of seeing a potential upset a whole lot more.

I also think Iowa fans would be a whole lot more thrilled to see the Gators roll into town, rather than being stuck watching another desultory affair with Northwestern.

As it stands now there's little intrigue to most of the season.

Take this season, for example. Short of some huge injuries, Florida's going to the title game. Just go ahead and book it. Because their conference will suck so badly this year, and because their conference will nevertheless once again be treated by the media as if they're all the '78 Steelers, Florida's in.

That's all because of their conference. Because of their conference, everyone but the Big XII winner is shut out of the title chase this year, and the Big XII winner is only there because of their conference.

Meanwhile, Florida won't play anybody worth a bucket of spit all year. They will not be tested, at all. Not once. It won't be until the SEC CCG where they may get tested, if by some chance Ole Miss should come really good this year.

Otherwise, nope. They don't face Ole Miss during the season. They don't face Bama during the season, and Bama's way overrated anyway. They face a thoroughly depleted LSU, with a rookie QB. Georgia isn't Georgia, not this year.

Doesn't matter. Florida will fucktard every team they face. They'll be favored by 20 or more, quite a bit, in conference. They'll be a two TD favorite over FSU.

They're in. Because of conferences.

Let's say Texas beats OU. That's their only game this season. Win the RRS, and they're in. Same with OU.

There isn't a damn thing any other team in Amercia will be able to do about it.

Because of conferences.

Then there's Jim Delany, and his stranglehold on, well, everything, and it's because he speaks for the Big 10 conference. Because of him, because of conferences, we get three loss Illinois in the Rose Bowl.

Conferences are good for just one thing: rivalries.

Great. Maintain the rivalries. Beyond that, ditch the seven to eight automatic wins. Make people go out and risk losing.

There's the irony, too, at least where USC is concerned. Besides the Texas game the only people who can beat USC are in the Pac 10. One gets the feeling that if USC got to play under Dave's idea they'd revel in it, while some of the more provincial programs (cough, SEC, cough, Texas) would struggle their asses off if they were forced to give up their home games in lieu of traveling multiple time zones to play someone besides Lousiana-Monroe or Rice.

It doesn't really matter... since $C is going down for cheating.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... =5&t=32164


Don't look for $C to be relevant for another 15 years after this shit goes down...

... and look for Vannie to disappear from the "College Football Forum" after Cal ass-rapes 'em in 09'.... and at the same time they lose games, titles, scholarships, and miss out on upcoming bowl games.


How'd that cheating work out for ya ???

1 MNC since Cheaty Petey arrived... and just weeks away from their fan base wishing for an NFL team.

Van,

I agree that getting rid of the conferences will never happen. But then again, when have you, of all people, ever let that stop you from advocating something? At least within the foreseeable future, that idea is no more unrealistic than is your idea of ND joining the Big Ten.

The conference structure that serves college athletics so well in most varsity sports leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to football. I see no shame in admitting that.

Get rid of all the conferences. I like the idea. Every team becomes an independent. Let each team have two, maybe three, traditional rivalries, then you scramble to get the best of the rest on your schedule. Not only that, this idea might reinstate some of the traditional great rivalries that the current status quo has destroyed. I'm thinking Nebraska-Oklahoma and Penn State-Pitt in that regard.

Of course, there would be some bugs that might have to be ironed out. For example, if you give every team three choices, USC might still wind up playing most of the Pac-10; Ohio State might wind up playing all the MAC teams in Ohio, and ND probably would still play most of the regular teams on its schedule. But the general idea is great, at least in theory.

That having been said, as a practical matter, I still think the KISS solution usually works best. That's the reason why I think we should have a 16-team playoff. That would eliminate a lot of the problems that currently exist with respect to scheduling inequities, etc., without having to blow up the entire system and start over.

There is simply no reason to go to 16 teams for a playoff. Anybody who's not even in the top ten has no business playing for a national title.

Just make it eight, with no automatic conference bids. The top eight teams in the final BCS rankings. That's it.

Just make it eight, with no automatic conference bids. The top eight teams in the final BCS rankings. That's it.

Wow, we actually agree on something. That's exactly what I want to see happen as well.

Then either we're both right, or we're both wrong.

Van wrote:Just make it eight, with no automatic conference bids. The top eight teams in the final BCS rankings. That's it.

Nice. If you can get it. Only problem is, in the real world, you can't. The six BCS conferences would shoot down a proposal like that the moment it came up. You know it and I know it.

The only possible way you get an 8-team playoff with no automatic bids is in a post-bowl scenario. You'd have to nuke the entire BCS and return to the old format (or at least, as close to the old format as you can possibly get, given changes to the college football landscape since that time). Keep the Pac-10 champ and Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, Meatgrinder champ in the Sugar Bowl, move the Big XII champ to the Cotton Bowl (a better geographic fit than either the current Big XII/Fiesta Bowl tie-in, or the old Big 8/Orange Bowl tie-in), and the ACC champ goes to the Orange Bowl.

Of course, there are still a few problems. Given the longstanding tie-in between the SEC and the Sugar Bowl, might the Sugar Bowl invite a tomato can to ensure that the Meatgrinder champ makes the post-bowl playoff? Alternatively, if the bowls play it straight, you have a de facto 16-team playoff, with the bowl games comprising the first round.

Or you could have a four-team post bowl playoff. Tweak the BCS slightly and make it the de facto first round of the playoff. Eliminate the 1 vs. 2 matchup, and the BCS championship game, add a fifth bowl (most likely the Cotton) to placate the non-BCS teams. Of course, with 5 BCS games the first round would be more a play-in round than a playoff round.

Or you could scrap the BCS entirely and go with an 8-team playoff, giving automatic bids to the 6 BCS champions. Of course, that puts you right back to where you were under the old BCS system, with the non-BCS schools threatening a lawsuit on antitrust grounds. And maybe this time ND joins them. And maybe the lawsuit is successful. Not a good scenario.

I'm not quite sure why the opposition to a 16-team playoff, or even a 12-team playoff for that matter. Especially coming from someone who follows (or at least, used to follow when the Sacramento Kings were doing well) the NBA as closely as you do/did. Of the six major spectator team sports in this country, BTPCF would have, far and away, the smallest percentage of participants in its postseason playoff even in a 16-team format. For comparison:

BTPCF: 16/120
NCAA Division I mens' basketball: 65/300-something (the number changes every year, I can't keep up with it)
MLB: 8/30
NFL: 12/32
NBA: 16/30 (WTF? Why not nuke the entire regular season and put everyone in the playoffs, if you're going to do this?)
NHL: 16/30 (see NBA)

Fwiw, here's what the first round of a 16-team playoff might have looked like last year (assuming either 7 automatic bids, one to each of the BCS conference champs plus the highest-ranked non-BCS conference champ; or alternatively, automatic bids to every conference champ that finishes in the Top 25)

#1 Oklahoma vs.
#16 Virginia Tech

#8 Penn State vs.
#9 Boise State

#4 Alabama vs.
#13 Oklahoma State

#5 USC vs.
#12 Cincinnati

#6 Texas Tech vs.
#11 TCU

#3 Florida vs.
#14 Georgia Tech

#7 Utah vs.
#10 Ohio State

#2 Texas vs.
#15 Georgia

(Note: I swapped rankings of Texas and Florida, as well as of Texas Tech and Utah, to avoid first-round rematches of two regular-season games: Florida-Georgia and Utah-TCU).

Against that backdrop, it's tough to argue that a 16-team playoff format cheapens the regular season. But if you still want to make that argument, you definitely can't make it about a 12-team format, since that actually would reward the top 4 teams with a first-round bye. If you had a 12-team format with seven automatic bids, it might have looked like this:

#8 Penn State vs.
#9 Boise State

Winner vs. #1 Oklahoma

#5 USC vs.
#12 Virginia Tech

Winner vs. #4 Alabama

#6 Utah vs.
#11 Cincinnati

Winner vs. #3 Texas

#7 Texas Tech vs.
#10 Ohio State

Winner vs. #2 Florida

What's not to like about either of those scenarios? In either event, it's much better than what we get now.

I thought I made my reasoning pretty clear: If you're not even in the top ten, you have no business playing for the national title.

Besides, my idea is no more far-fetched and unlikely to gain approval from the conferences than a 16 team playoff is, considering the conferences are shooting that down too.

It's all unlikely to happen. So what? We're talking what we'd like to see, not what we predict will happen.

Eight teams, based on the final rankings. No auto conference bids, and no auto bids to certain bowls, though clearly common sense would come into play there. If a Pac 10 or Big 10 team is one of the top four seeds, you stick them in the Rose Bowl, and the corresponding 5-8 seed travels to Pasadena. Same with an SEC team in the Sugar, a Big XII or MWC team in the Fiesta or a Big East or ACC team in the Orange. The top four seeds choose their bowl. If more than one team from a conference is in those top four seeds then the higher seed gets the favored bowl. So, if Florda is #1 and LSU is #2, and Florida chooses the Sugar, LSU gets the Rose, Fiesta or Orange.

It's 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. We use the same four BCS bowl games currently in place. We're only adding one extra weekend of football, involving only two games. Those two play the following week, for all the marbles.

Couldn't be any easier, and only a few teams which have absolutely no business being there will ever be involved. Sure, sometimes your 6-8 seeds probably shouldn't be there, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and extending it out any further is pointless. At least nobody outside the top ten is there.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Even better, Van, NHL used to have 16 of 24 teams make the playoffs.

...completely rendering useless the regular season.

Sorry, Terry, but no, we don't need to see teams like Cincinnati, Va Tech or Georgia playing for the national title.

Van,
What exactly makes you think that scrapping conferences would "make" the Floridas and LSUs of the world go anywhere? Hell, they'd probably just start scheduling 12 home games a year against regional mid-majors. That way the former Meatgrinder teams could finally have the TWO MNC spots they so rightfully deserve.

As far as the playoff thing goes, I agree that 16 teams is too many, but I also agree with Terry that there's no way the BCS conferences are going to go with a plan that just takes the Top 8 teams. I think a good compromise would be to give automatic bids to the 6 highest ranked conference champions (including all the mid-major confs) and then take the two highest at-large teams. Independent teams would basically count as their own "conferences," so if, for example, Army or Navy finished #3, they would get one of the auto-bids and only the top 5 conf champs would get in.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Or you could scrap the BCS entirely and go with an 8-team playoff, giving automatic bids to the 6 BCS champions. Of course, that puts you right back to where you were under the old BCS system, with the non-BCS schools threatening a lawsuit on antitrust grounds. And maybe this time ND joins them. And maybe the lawsuit is successful. Not a good scenario.

If you scrap the auto bids and just go with the top 8, there would be almost no grounds for an antitrust suit. You can just point to last season where Utah finished in the top 8 of the BCS. Under that scenario, Utah would've played for a national title last season. Under the current system, however, a non-BCS school has almost no chance of finishing in the top 2. If antitrust actions aren't effective now -- under a system that pretty much completley excludes them from the BCS title game -- they wouldn't be anymore effective under the aforemetioned scenario.

Mike, I could probably live with your idea of the six highest ranked conference champs, plus two wild cards.

What I can't live with is a three or four loss ACC champ getting in over a much better one loss Texas team, or an undefeated Utah.