T1B

If no playoff is ever going to happen, then why not tweak the system like they always do by creating a 7th major conference with the best mid-major schools.

I am off work today, so I took the average ranking of all the mid-major schools over the past five seasons and came up with a top 12.

Why did I go back five years? Because it was the last time we had a major conference realignment.

This is what I came up with:




Twelve schools divided into two divisions.

East
Central Michigan
East Carolina
Houston
Southern Miss
Troy
Tulsa

West
Boise St.
BYU
Fresno St.
Nevada
TCU
Utah


Conference Champion is guaranteed a BCS bid AND they get into NC discussion because of their SOS in conference play. Not only that, but the recruiting would pick up for these schools as a major conference.

Most of these schools would definitely go for it, except for possibly Boise St.

This would only be for football, not for any other sport. The conferences remain the way they are for all other athletics.

Oh yeah. I used the Congrove Rankings in case anyone was wondering how I came up with these figures.

Nah, we'll keep it being a beauty contest, because money has nothing to do with it...and we don't want to reward teams that schedule patsies...

sincerely,

dumbfuckingcuntsatncaa

The West would totally pwn the East in that alignment.

At first, yeah.

But Houston and Tulsa both being in a major conference would be huge for their recruiting.

That would be a conference deserving of an automatic bid. No question.

The problem I see with it, though, is that the left over teams would not really even be division 1 worthy and would only get worse (for the same reason that recruiting would improve for the super-majors). There is some value in each of the mid-major conferences having 1 or 2 formidable teams.

But if this happened, we'd almost be back at that "Superconference" idea, cutting half of D1 out of the picture entirely.

I think whatever was left over would work itself out. I'm not a fan of diminishing D-1 football by placing all of the shit schools together and having them play in another division. Some of these schools could catch lightning in a bottle and make a run in any given year.

My point being, the non-BCS contenders are usually the same players and the only way to get them in the discussion for a MNC with the current system is to merge them into a super mid-major and see what happens. This might fade them out of the discussion if they are having to play legit competition week in and week out. It would be equivalent to the SEC, but on a smaller level obviously.

Maybe one school would emerge as a major player on the national stage, but at least this aspect of the BCS would leave us with answers rather than more questions.

Nothing like going cross country for a conference game.



Sorry Rumps, good idea, bad execution.

Is it really?

Look at some of the mid-majors now?

La Tech has to travel to the west coast probably once a year for a conference game and vice versa.

UTEP has to travel to East Carolina or UCF and vice versa.

So yeah, East Carolina having to take a trip to Fresno State once every 4 years is a bit of a nuisance, but it's not all that different then what some of mid-majors are doing already.

Boise St.
BYU
Fresno St.
Nevada
TCU
Utah

In any 12 team conference, you play your division all 5 games and 3 form the other. So, each year, ECU will play 3 of these teams that are basically west coast aside from TCU. Alternate 1 and then 2 road games....neh. Also count in if they want to have 1-2 decent OOC games a year where they have to go home and home and more possible travel cross country.

I see where you're going with this. Mainly, as a way to get an IN for Houston. Just don't think it is feasible or reasonable.

It really has nothing to do with Houston. Regardless of where Houston ended up in my research, I was going to post it anyways.

This is more about the current system never letting a mid-major school represent in the MNC.

Even if Florida loses to S. Carolina, 'Bama to LSU, Texas to Ok State, Iowa to Ohio St., Cincy to Pitt, Boise St. and TCU don't still don't get in.

A 7th BCS conference with all the mid-major players answers the critics.

Well, the only way your system would work is if the schools in this "mid major" conference get reevaluated each year. Meaning, you went back 5 years in your example. What if a team had a good squad for 4 years and then went back to suck? Central Michigan in your example. What if they go back to just flat out sucking and a school like UTEP (for examples sake ;) ) rises up to be the new hot mid major?

So, you'd have to rotate the "quality" mid majors on a rolling basis. THis creates a scheduling nightmare both in conference and out of conference.

Addressing one of the biggest concerns voiced here, why not just cut the conference down to eight teams?

Boise State
BYU
Fresno State
Houston
Nevada
TCU
Tulsa
Utah

Travel considerations would be cut down considerably. No concerns about disparity of divisional alignment. Yeah, Central Michigan gets royally screwed, but that happens sometimes.

Of course, with a 7-game conference schedule, these schools might still have to do some pretty impressive OOC scheduling to get consideration from the big boys.

Terry,

I just think most conferences have "wised up" to the fact that a CCG is a must. The Big 10 is possibly going to see that this year. Unless it is Michigan or Ohio St., they most likely won't ever get consideration for the BCS championship game unless the SEC, Big XII and U$C has a couple losses. In other words, I just don't ever seeing there be a flash in the pan BCS Championship team. You have to sustain top 5 finishes for a few years to get the high preseason rank and then keep rolling. It's not right. It's just the way it is.

IndyFrisco wrote:Terry,

I just think most conferences have "wised up" to the fact that a CCG is a must. The Big 10 is possibly going to see that this year. Unless it is Michigan or Ohio St., they most likely won't ever get consideration for the BCS championship game unless the SEC, Big XII and U$C has a couple losses. In other words, I just don't ever seeing there be a flash in the pan BCS Championship team. You have to sustain top 5 finishes for a few years to get the high preseason rank and then keep rolling. It's not right. It's just the way it is.

I agree with the second half of your post, but I honestly don't see how a CCG fits in to that. As a practical matter, either tOSU or USC played for the national championship in four straight years from 04-07. By contrast, the ACC has never sent its champion to the BCS championship game despite having had a CCG for the last four years (admittedly, both of the ACC's traditional powers, FSU and Miami, have been in a down cycle in that time).

Not all conferences are looking to get to 12. The Big East, for example, likely would water itself down further if it tried to expand, unless they were able to pull off at least one of the following possibilities: (a) convince BC to come back; (b) nab Penn State from the Big Ten; or (c) convince ND to join the conference for football as well. None of these looks terribly promising. An argument could also be made that the Pac-10 would water down its product through expansion, although with Utah and Boise State looming as possible expansion teams, that's not quite so obvious.

As for the Big Ten, I see them being stuck at eleven for awhile. It seems to me that they want ND as their twelfth member and won't accept any substitutes. ND is not interested in the Big Ten. Or at least, the overwhelming majority of its fanbase isn't interested in the Big Ten. As alluded to in Killian's thread about Western Michigan, the Administration may be another matter. But if ND's negotiations with the ACC are any sort of guide, if ND ever does show interest in joining the Big Ten, it most likely will be a gradual, toes-in-the-water type approach.

In any event, the conference we're talking about here would be about getting an automatic BCS bid, not a bid in the BCS championship game. I don't see how limiting the conference to eight would hurt them, particularly where, as here, it cuts down on intra-conference travel and also takes out most of the weaker sisters at the same time.

Central Michigan is benefitting from Brian Kelly's recruits, but once Dan Lefevour and co. are gone, I won't be surprised to see CMU drift back into irrelevancy. They are not a good football "program," like a Boise, TCU, or Utah. If I'm thinking long-term over short-term I'd take WMU over Central.

That being said, if I'm putting together a super mid major conference, I'd be weary of taking anybody from the MAC because of how cyclical the teams at the top are. Off the top of my head, Miami of OH, Bowling Green, Toledo, CMU, WMU, NIU...have all churned out big seasons over the last few years, but haven't been able to sustain much. WMU has probably been the most consistent, but even that's not saying much.

Mgo,

I understand what you are saying about taking a MAC team, but if a MAC team moves into a BCS conference, that team will benefit on recruiting heavily. So I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that a MAC team could keep a quality program if moved to a BCS conference.

Other than adding Boise St to a conference which already includes Utah, BYU and TCU, these various proposed Super WACs don't significantly alter the status quo. Those four teams are the only four who matter. Adding your MAC teams and your C-USA teams is just wishful thinking for Coogs, who wants to find a way to make Houston and their ilk nationally relevant, but none of those teams are even close to being perennial national-level players.

The addition of Boise is the only thing which would lend this proposed conference any real additional cache.

So, would a conference which includes Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise - minus all those WAC, MWC and C-USA corpses like New Mexico St, New Mexico and Tulane - be worthy of an automatic BCS bowl bid?

Utah
BYU
Boise
TCU
Fresno St
Tulsa
Houston
Nevada

Sure it would. Why not? This conference would be as good as the ACC or the Big East. Besides, there wouldn't be much reason to create this thing if it isn't going to be accompanied by an auto-bid.

Would this conference really elevate itself much, in terms of its conference members receiving more serious consideration for the title game? Nope. Nothing really changes. All that really happens here is Boise gets brought back down to earth a bit. They don't get to automatically see 12-0 with a never-ending home winning streak against nothing but cupcakes as an annual expectation. They'd actually play some real teams every year during the regular season, and they'd lose some games.

They'd also hang losses on those other perennial "BCS Busters," bringing them back down to earth, as well.

So, once Boise has been brought back down to earth, where does that leave the conference? It leaves them with Utah, TCU and BYU, same as always. Boise adds some spice, and the rest of the conference can hope to burp up the occasional one-year/short term wonder, like a Houston or Hawaii.

Assuming Boise can hang, this is really just a four team conference, and none of those four ever receive any serious consideration for the title game anyway. This new conference does little to change that.

It really only accomplishes two things: 1-It either diminishes or solidifies Boise. 2-It gives this conference a guaranteed "least attractive" BCS bowl game, which is something we pretty much already have now. Every year lately, there's the chase to see who will be the "BCS Buster," and that's not about to change, so really nothing much changes with this idea. These days, the top undefeated non BCS conference team is going to a lower-level BCS bowl game anyway.

IndyFrisco wrote:Mgo,

I understand what you are saying about taking a MAC team, but if a MAC team moves into a BCS conference, that team will benefit on recruiting heavily. So I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that a MAC team could keep a quality program if moved to a BCS conference.

There's some truth to the recruiting angle, but that same advantage would exist for the other competing programs as well, therefore not necessarily giving said MAC team any real leg up on the competition. I think sustained success, first and foremost, has more to do with the infrastructure of individual programs, i.e., the people running the show. For example, Boise plays in the WAC and feeds off obscure parts of the CFB landscape for players, giving them no real recruiting advantages, yet that's a program that is a top 25 mainstay because it has an identity and knows how to evaluate and mold talent.

Boise State is essentially the Gonzaga of college football. They're kind of an obscure program that's recently had some success and got some nice exposure from the postseason...much like Gonzaga had early on in the Dan Monson years where they started off a Cinderella but eventually became a perennial top 20 program. They probably won't ever get to the point of being a powerhouse but they're at least in the conversation as a very good program. They're probably going to be one of those BCS-busters for a while because they've got an effective offensive system and they've been able to win with multiple coaches.

What is "mid-major" anyway? Does anyone call the lower teams in the FBS as "low-majors" and call the BCS conference teams as the "high-majors"? "Major" in terms of what? Is "minor" anything outside the FBS? To me, you have three tiers...the six BCS/power conferences and Notre Dame, then you have the secondary conferences like the Mountain West, WAC, MAC, and C-USA (the BCS-busters) and then the third tier with the Sun Belt and the rest of the independents (sans Notre Dame).