Life of Riley - National Champion

[slightly shotgunned]

i agree with the article...but who cares?

surely not people in charge, who are too busy counting all the money that you've given then this year and years past to give a rat's ass about anything negative anyone has to say about the BCS.

you want change? don't watch the games. not the "meaningful" regular season. not the "meaningful" bowl games. none of it.

either that or protest all year, not just the end of the season if/when the team you follow somehow gets screwed by the system. talk about playoffs, diss the rankings, complain about how unfair and illigitamate the polls are, insult the leaders of the system in AUGUST, not November and regardless of whether or not your team gets screwed out of a bcs bowl.

at this point, bcs supporters don't even have to say anything in defense of their system because come the first saturday of games, all the people bitching now will shut up and watch every game until we begin this whole debate again towards the end of next season.

the BCS won't listen until they start losing money and they won't lose money so long as we, the casual fans, the former players, the alumni, the die-hard fans, the people that use the games as an excuse to get smashed at a local bar, keep the system supported with our money, our interest, and our lives.

you want change right? quit whining and DO something.

[BlueSky]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

Like the BCS conferences can claim differently? The Big Ten has Indiana, the Pac Ten has Washington, the Big XII has Iowa State and Baylor, the Big East has Syracuse, the SEC has Mississippi State, and the ACC has Duke. Every conference has exceptionally bad teams, so stop saying that the BCS 6 are "tougher".

You can't because it's simply not true. Sure all the BCS Conferences have at least one exceptionally bad team, but the mid-majors have at least 4 who are probably worse than those teams. (Possibly with the exception of the MWC) You can't have Wyoming and New Mexico instead of Ole Miss and Auburn or Texas Tech and Nebraska and call it equal. I would be willing to bet a fairly large amount that if Utah played in the SEC instead of Florida they would lose at least once too while if Florida played in the MWC I can't imagine them losing either. To me the depth of the BCS conferences is extremely important and just tips the scale, and while I can't point out anything Utah did wrong to hurt themselves, they just can't convincingly win given their situation.

Exactly. Toyotas and Yugos are both cars but one will clearly last longer and be better overall. Anyone who can't look at these conferences and see that there are obvious differences in overall quality just isn't being objective. People are taking a conference's best team on its best day beating another conference's team and saying that proves something. The only thing it proves is that one team was better on that one day, you can't use one game as a yardstick to compare entire conferences.

And someone said college football doesn't owe us a National Champion. True. So here's a thought: stop naming one, and stop pretending that the title game is between the two best and most deserving teams each year. I'm a Sooner fan but I can see Texas' point this year, I can see USC's point, I can see Utah's point (though I disagree with it), and last season I could sure see OU's point when they knocked off #1 Missouri - convincingly - and didn't even get a sniff of the title game. Every year somebody gets screwed.

[infrared41]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

I am all for that. It would have improved Ohio State's chances considerably.

By about 50%!

Unfotunatly for Ohio State that still is a 0 chance.

For the record, Oklahoma's performance in BCS championships and BCS Bowl games is worse than Ohio State's. Oddly enough, you don't hear anyone bashing The Sooners after they lost their third attempt at winning a BCS championship and 5th straight BCS game. Everyone around here is simply writing it off The Sooners championship game performances to the fact that they lost to such "great" teams.

And unfortunately has both an "r" and an "e" chief.

[Epiphanic]

Bill James on the BCS.

[jkrdevil]

Yes, the current system is completely unfair.

The National Champion should be decided by a coin toss.

I am all for that. It would have improved Ohio State's chances considerably.

By about 50%!

Unfotunatly for Ohio State that still is a 0 chance.

For the record, Oklahoma's performance in BCS championships and BCS Bowl games is worse than Ohio State's. Oddly enough, you don't hear anyone bashing The Sooners after they lost their third attempt at winning a BCS championship and 5th straight BCS game. Everyone around here is simply writing it off The Sooners championship game performances to the fact that they lost to such "great" teams.

And unfortunately has both an "r" and an "e" chief.

Fixed, I hate my laptop sometimes.

[Sport]

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

You're confusing the reason for the lack of interest in Division III football. People don't care because it's division III not because they have a playoff and the regular season games don't mean anything. And it was Mount Union by the way, google free, I swear.

I don't like the argument that regular season games wouldn't be interesting. If only 8 teams make the playoff then it means 2 losses and you're out, one loss in some cases. That would still be compelling and people would still talk about it August through January because this is America and we love football. That won't suddenly go away during the regular season months. We still talk about the NFL regular season even. How is it any different? An 8 team playoff can't definitively decide who the best team, you're right about that, but it is a hell of a lot more definitive than a 2 team playoff.

[infrared41]

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

You're confusing the reason for the lack of interest in Division III football. People don't care because it's division III not because they have a playoff and the regular season games don't mean anything. And it was Mount Union by the way, google free, I swear.

I don't like the argument that regular season games wouldn't be interesting. If only 8 teams make the playoff then it means 2 losses and you're out, one loss in some cases. That would still be compelling and people would still talk about it August through January because this is America and we love football. That won't suddenly go away during the regular season months. We still talk about the NFL regular season even. How is it any different? An 8 team playoff can't definitively decide who the best team, you're right about that, but it is a hell of a lot more definitive than a 2 team playoff.

I am not against a playoff. I am against any playoff that doesn't begin and end with a team needing to win their conference to get in. I just don't believe there is really any other way to do it without causing moire problems than we already have. If an 8 team playoff is instituted then all the emphasis has to be on winning your conference. Otherwise we'd be watching 2 "other" teams play the best 6 teams in the SEC and Big XII each season.

Take this year for example, if we had an 8 team playoff based on anything other than conference championships the teams would have likely been; Alabama, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Utah, and Texas Tech. 2 SEC teams, 3 Big XII, and 3 "others." You think that wouldn't have caused far more complaining than the BCS did this season? And no one's regular season outside The SEC and Big XII would have meant .

No one likes the idea that polls and subjective opinion decide the title most of the time. How does an 8 team playoff change any of that? If anything, simply picking the 8 best teams will make things even worse than they already are. There would be some seasons where it would be possible for all 8 teams to come from two conferences. That's great if your team plays in The SEC or happens to play their home games in the LA Coliseum. Otherwise, we all become the College Football equivalent of Kansas City Royals fans.

Unless the only way in is through a conference championship, any playoff is just going to create 3 or 4 Utahs every season. Yeah we all talk about the NFL but would we even care if the same 8 teams made the playoffs every season? We sure bitch about enough when it's happening in baseball.

Find me a way to make it so the only teams involved are conference champs and I'll sign on to a playoff tomorrow. Until then, we're just asking for more trouble by putting the fate of 6 more teams into the hands of idiot sports writers and uninterested coaches. They can't get it right with two teams yet we're willing to hand them an entire playoff?

[Epiphanic]

Find me a way to make it so the only teams involved are conference champs and I'll sign on to a playoff tomorrow.

Challenge accepted.

A 12-team field with 11 spots going to the conference champions of every FBS conference getting a spot with 1 at-large bid (for independents/exceptional losers) has it all. One loss could still knock you out of the tournament/national title hunt so the importance of every regular season game isn't diminished. Hell, USC was close to not winning the Pac-10 with their one loss. The at-large bid is chosen by selection committee. Yeah it's subjective, and the "13th" team is gonna get snubbed, but you know what? I don't care. Simply put, if a team isn't tops in it's conference then why should it deserve a shot to prove it's tops in the country? If a team doesn't win it's conference then they are at the whim of the flying finger of fate.

I will also submit that a 12-team playoff would be more exciting than the current "championship" system. March Madness is so fun because of upsets. How awesome would it have been if Troy State upset Virginia Tech to advance to the next round?

A 12-team playoff also fits ever so nicely in that 4-week void between the final game of the regular season and New Year's Weekend.

[jkrdevil]

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

You're confusing the reason for the lack of interest in Division III football. People don't care because it's division III not because they have a playoff and the regular season games don't mean anything. And it was Mount Union by the way, google free, I swear.

I don't like the argument that regular season games wouldn't be interesting. If only 8 teams make the playoff then it means 2 losses and you're out, one loss in some cases. That would still be compelling and people would still talk about it August through January because this is America and we love football. That won't suddenly go away during the regular season months. We still talk about the NFL regular season even. How is it any different? An 8 team playoff can't definitively decide who the best team, you're right about that, but it is a hell of a lot more definitive than a 2 team playoff.

I am not against a playoff. I am against any playoff that doesn't begin and end with a team needing to win their conference to get in. I just don't believe there is really any other way to do it without causing moire problems than we already have. If an 8 team playoff is instituted then all the emphasis has to be on winning your conference. Otherwise we'd be watching 2 "other" teams play the best 6 teams in the SEC and Big XII each season.

Take this year for example, if we had an 8 team playoff based on anything other than conference championships the teams would have likely been; Alabama, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Utah, and Texas Tech. 2 SEC teams, 3 Big XII, and 3 "others." You think that wouldn't have caused far more complaining than the BCS did this season? And no one's regular season outside The SEC and Big XII would have meant .

No one likes the idea that polls and subjective opinion decide the title most of the time. How does an 8 team playoff change any of that? If anything, simply picking the 8 best teams will make things even worse than they already are. There would be some seasons where it would be possible for all 8 teams to come from two conferences. That's great if your team plays in The SEC or happens to play their home games in the LA Coliseum. Otherwise, we all become the College Football equivalent of Kansas City Royals fans.

Unless the only way in is through a conference championship, any playoff is just going to create 3 or 4 Utah's every season. Yeah we all talk about the NFL but would we even care if the same 8 teams made the playoffs every season? We sure bitch about enough when it's happening in baseball.

Find me a way to make it so the only teams involved are conference champs and I'll sign on to a playoff tomorrow. Until then, we're just asking for more trouble by putting the fate of 6 more teams into the hands of idiot sports writers and uninterested coaches. They can't get it right with two teams yet we're willing to hand them an entire playoff?

Well first off a couple post ago I gave you away to select "at-large" teams without having to rely on coaches or sportswriters. You simply go by record with strength of schedule (use the old BCS SOS formula) as a tie-breaker. No voting, opinion, or bias involved. There is non of this politicking because it is straight forward you are either in or out. You can't change the numbers.

Second while I agree with you somewhat in regards to needing to win your conference, there is going to be a need for at large teams for 2 reasons. First their are 11 Div. 1 FBS conferences. An 11-team tournament is awkward. Second, whether Willmorris likes it or not there are Independents still in college football. So if you require needing a conference championship to get into such a playoff then you automatically lock those teams out which basically defeats the purpose of a playoff.

Personally, I favor a 16 team playoff with all the conference winners and 5 at-large teams. I don't think it would render the regular season meaningless, in fact it would do the opposite. All those Pac-10, Big 10, Big East, ACC, MWC ect. games that were basically meaningless from a national standpoint this year become meaningful because you are playing for entry. Plus if you lose 1 or 2 games that puts you on the bubble for an at-large so the need to win every game is still there.

[See Red]

I'm sure this idea's been brought up before. There's about 14 BCS Playoff ideas posted on a daily basis so this has to be copying one of them.

How about making the the Mountain West a BCS Conference because, frankly, the MWC is getting to the point where it deserves to be a BCS Conference anyway, and becoming a BCS Conference would only make MWC teams more attractive to kids out of High School, so they'd become even more competitive... in theory. Now, with that...

An eight team playoff. One seed for each BCS Conference Champion. The Eighth seed going to the highest ranked, qualifying (top 15 or higher?) non-BCS Conference school. Seeded by where they finished in the BCS Standings.

This years would've looked like...

1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champion)

8 Virginia Tech (ACC Champion)

4 Utah (Mountain West Champion)

5 Penn State (Big Ten Champion)

3 USC (Pac 10 Champion)

6 Boise State (Highest ranked non-BCS school)

2 Florida (SEC Champion)

7 Cincinnati (Big East Champion)

... eh it, I like the chaos of the current system!

[infrared41]

I've posted this a million times so I apologize to those who have read it a million times but I have added a few improvements. My playoff solution...

8 teams. Here's how we get there.

The NCAA takes the reins on this thing and tells the BCS to hit the road.

We take the 6 highest ranked conference champs and two at large bids. The bowl tie-ins remain exactly as they are. This would solve the issue of fans not knowing where their team is going to play and end that argument. It also keeps the rest of the bowl system in place.

Each bowl would have contingency tie-ins. In other words, if the Big Ten champ isn't among the 6 highest ranked then the MWC takes their spot etc. We'd keep the contingency tie-ins as regional as possible. The Rose Bowl remains The Rose Bowl but it is also a playoff game. The playoff match ups may feature the same two conferences 90 times out of 100 but if the tie-ins worked as a bowl game all these years the same setup will work as a playoff game.

After reading the Bill James article that JQK posted I believe it this part would be easy to do. At large teams and rankings will be selected based on a computer points system set up by actual statisticians. It has worked for years in Ohio High School football and no one seems to complain about getting screwed by the computer. Points would be awarded for strength of schedule, common opponents, etc. One added benefit of the system might be teams scheduling tougher non conference opponents. For example, a Georgia loss to Texas in non conference play would hurt less than a Bulldogs win over The Fighting Eyeballs of The Chicago Optical Institute might help.

Let the media and coaches keep their polls and they could even play a very minor role in the computer system but they will no longer be the be all end all factor they are now.

The semi-finals and championship game sites are awarded just like The Super Bowl or MLB All-Star game. We would know well in advance where each game would take place every season.

That's it. I think it adds emphasis to the regular season and it just might make it so we aren't stuck watching Florida hang 70 on The Citadel or Ohio State hang 24 on Youngstown State for the first 3-4 weeks of college football every season.

[Sport]

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

You're confusing the reason for the lack of interest in Division III football. People don't care because it's division III not because they have a playoff and the regular season games don't mean anything. And it was Mount Union by the way, google free, I swear.

I don't like the argument that regular season games wouldn't be interesting. If only 8 teams make the playoff then it means 2 losses and you're out, one loss in some cases. That would still be compelling and people would still talk about it August through January because this is America and we love football. That won't suddenly go away during the regular season months. We still talk about the NFL regular season even. How is it any different? An 8 team playoff can't definitively decide who the best team, you're right about that, but it is a hell of a lot more definitive than a 2 team playoff.

Unless the only way in is through a conference championship, any playoff is just going to create 3 or 4 Utahs every season. Yeah we all talk about the NFL but would we even care if the same 8 teams made the playoffs every season? We sure bitch about enough when it's happening in baseball.

I think when people say "college football playoff" then it's generally assumed that it would depend on winning your conference to make the field of 8. I've never heard anyone bring up a plan where the 8 best records regardless of conference make the playoff.

Here's how you do it:

- 8 team playoff if you can't win your conference then you don't deserve the National Championship. If you're Notre Dame then you must be undefeated to take a playoff spot from one of the lower ranked conferences or you have to join the Big Ten.

-lose the 13th game, we only need 12 regular season games. If you play in a conference championship game and then make the national championship game then you will have played 16 regular season games which isn't completely unreasonable.

-We need to forget about the big 4 bowl games being integrated as part of the playoff. It is ridiculous to ask fans to travel to 3 different places in a month's span to watch their team through the playoffs. You saw the crowds at some of these bowls this year, it's hard to get people to go to one. I think you make the first two rounds home games for the higher seeded team. This may result in fewer upsets, but it will increase attendance. Then the National title game is in a pre-determined location that takes place 2 weeks after the semi-final games.

- You'll still have a bowl season, but this is for teams outside of the playoff 8. it would lower the prestige and impact of the big 4 but any team would rather go to the playoff than play in the Rose Bowl if it doesn't mean anything. And with the Added BCS NCG these bowls basically don't mean anything these days anyway.

[illwauk]

Usually I can't stand Reilly (especially on TV), but I totally agree on this one. If you dont' lose a game, how can you NOT be the best in the nation?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If I'm Utah, I'm asking how you can call the BCS game a national championship when an entire fifth of the states in the union don't have any teams in the BCS conferences? The Mountain West is the top conference in four of these states (Utah, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming) and the WAC is in two of them (Idaho and Hawaii). As much as I feel that the Big East is underrated, a conference composed of so many "unproven" programs (read: weren't national powerhouses 50 years ago) would NEVER be part of the BCS if not for the huge media markets it brings in.

Just more evidence that major college football can give two s__ts about credibility, as long as they get their grimy hands on more money they don't even need.

[tBBP]

Can I throw a monkeywrench into all this here?

FWIW, count me in the camp that'd like to see a 12-team playoff (11 conference champs +1 at-large for the independents). There...now that I got that out the way...

...Imma float this one out there, and see how y'all like this here.

The main sticking point, as far as I can see with D-1 (FBS--whatever they call it) is this: big bowls = big money. Is that not part of the reason all these traditional bowl tie-ins are still in existance? If one asked me, I'd say the NCAA should borrow an idea from D-1AA (or, at the very least, the HBCU world), and do a dual option.

Here's how it'd conceivably work: throughout the season, all teams battle for supremacy within their conference; eventually 11 teams will win their respective conference's championship; the "best" independent team at the end of the season would win the 12th spot. Now, to keep the "big bowl game" draw option alive, the bowl selection committee can do as it does at the end of the season as usual and select whatever teams it wishes to see in a respective bowl game. Say such-and-such Bowl picks such-and-such conference champion XYZ University. XYZ university can elect to accept the bowl invite. OR...XYZ university can elect to enter into the NCAA playoff field "Field of Twelve". Should XYZ university elect to accept the bowl invite, then the second-place team out of XYZ university's conference would then go into the Field of Twelve. Should the reverse occur and XYZ University elect to enter the Field of Twelve, then the Bowl Committee can then pick another team to fill XYZ University's spot.

Conversely, and let's use the SEC as an example, let's say U of Florida wins the SEC championship, followed by U of Georgia and Bama in third place. Let's say the Chick Fil-A Bowl, which has ties to the SEC and ACC (unless something's changed) opts to pick Georgia over Florida, presumably since they'd get better fan turnout, being that UGA is pretty much right in ATL's backyard rather than down in the Big Bend of Florida. UGA takes it. Okay--no problem--ain't like they won the conference; UF did, and as such, they elect to enter the "Field of Twelve" with the 10 other conference champion and the "best" of the independents as the 12th contestant.

Is this kinda making sense to anyone?

What this would essentially do is keep the "traditional bowl ties" and all that goes along with it active while also affording the opportunity for those teams that wish to enter the "Field of Twelve"the chance to battle it out, single-elimination style, for undisputed supremacy where it counts most--on the field. So basically, it'd become "take the money" or "take the glory"--kinda follow me here? Being that bowl games are essentially a "reward" game for schools, anyway, if a school's team was chosen for a bowl game, it could accept the reward or test its chances against the rest of the Field of Twelve and see how good they really are. This would then eliminate the whole argument about coaches' polls, USA Today polls, Sagarin computer rankings, and all the other calculus that seems to go into picking a #1 in current day college football.

That's just my idea from out of left field...feel free to argue its merits...or tear it all to shreds. I just figured I'd float the idea out there to hit this discussion from another angle...

[infrared41]

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

You're confusing the reason for the lack of interest in Division III football. People don't care because it's division III not because they have a playoff and the regular season games don't mean anything. And it was Mount Union by the way, google free, I swear.

I don't like the argument that regular season games wouldn't be interesting. If only 8 teams make the playoff then it means 2 losses and you're out, one loss in some cases. That would still be compelling and people would still talk about it August through January because this is America and we love football. That won't suddenly go away during the regular season months. We still talk about the NFL regular season even. How is it any different? An 8 team playoff can't definitively decide who the best team, you're right about that, but it is a hell of a lot more definitive than a 2 team playoff.

Unless the only way in is through a conference championship, any playoff is just going to create 3 or 4 Utahs every season. Yeah we all talk about the NFL but would we even care if the same 8 teams made the playoffs every season? We sure bitch about enough when it's happening in baseball.

I think when people say "college football playoff" then it's generally assumed that it would depend on winning your conference to make the field of 8. I've never heard anyone bring up a plan where the 8 best records regardless of conference make the playoff.

Here's how you do it:

- 8 team playoff if you can't win your conference then you don't deserve the National Championship. If you're Notre Dame then you must be undefeated to take a playoff spot from one of the lower ranked conferences or you have to join the Big Ten.

-lose the 13th game, we only need 12 regular season games. If you play in a conference championship game and then make the national championship game then you will have played 16 regular season games which isn't completely unreasonable.

-We need to forget about the big 4 bowl games being integrated as part of the playoff. It is ridiculous to ask fans to travel to 3 different places in a month's span to watch their team through the playoffs. You saw the crowds at some of these bowls this year, it's hard to get people to go to one. I think you make the first two rounds home games for the higher seeded team. This may result in fewer upsets, but it will increase attendance. Then the National title game is in a pre-determined location that takes place 2 weeks after the semi-final games.

- You'll still have a bowl season, but this is for teams outside of the playoff 8. it would lower the prestige and impact of the big 4 but any team would rather go to the playoff than play in the Rose Bowl if it doesn't mean anything. And with the Added BCS NCG these bowls basically don't mean anything these days anyway.

That's the problem. If you don't incorporate the Bowls it's never going to happen. There is way too much money involved. The Rose Bowl is never going to allow anyone but the Rose Bowl to determine what teams play every year on January 1. Sure, you could tell them to go off and they'll take their 20 million bucks and a -load of sponsors with them.

It just isn't as simple as finding the perfect tournament layout. You have to take all the other factors like money, sponsors, and TV into account as well. In my business the first question asked with any new project is this "how do we pay for it?" Once you've answered that one, the rest is easy. None of the proposals I've seen here are bad ideas but none of them address the real issue either which is "how do we pay for it?" That's one reason (and it's a big one) why we can't just trash the big 4 bowl games and forge ahead.

You always gotta pay the freight my friend.

[Epiphanic]

Word, Mr. Odis. Word.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time.

[STL_Ian]

I am by no means a college football fanatic. Hell, I'm by no means a football fanatic. However, it is clear to me that radical changes would have to be made to the college football system so that any sense could be made of it. I have an idea that will never happen, but I think should if the goal is really to entertain fans of the game & fairly determine a national champion.

Adopt a system like the English Football System. As a first step, the conferences are destroyed. It's each school fending for itself.

There are currently 120 teams in the FBS. That would be divided into 5 groups of 24 teams. Inside of a group, the 24 teams would be divided into two divisions of 12 teams. Each of those 12 teams would play each other intra-division team once, for an 11 game schedule. Every team's strength of schedule (inside of a division) would therefore be even. The only inconsistency would be home/away, but that's how it is today anyway. The 6 home, 5 away could be rotational...I think.

The teams with the best record in each division at season's end would then play in the national title game. The bottom 6 schools (3 from each division) are relegated to tier 2 & the top 6 from tier 2 join tier 1 & likewise through each of the 5 tiers. This will allow each school the opportunity to play into the top tier & have a chance for a national title.

To keep the divisions fresh, before the next season, their would be a sort of lottery to determine which division each school would fall into for each tier. For tier one in particular, this would seem to provide a great opportunity for media fare.

Clearly the question arises as to how the tiers would initially be determined. There's no one way without flaw, but I think perhaps each school's winning percentage over the previous 10 regular seasons could be as good as any to get this off the ground.

There's no playoff, but who cares when each week a team is playing to position themselves to win the division or to keep out of relegation or, in the case of the lower tiers, to move into promotion?

Clearly, like I said before, the NCAA would actually have to want to choose to put the integrity of the competition before money for something like this to happen, but I believe it's about as close to a perfect system as there practically can be for football. Obviously, this would destroy traditions such as rivalry games (to some extent), conferences, and bowl games. Are those traditions, which facilitate the current money grubbing system, worth more than a much more fair competition, though?

Let the reaming commence.

[infrared41]

I am by no means a college football fanatic. Hell, I'm by no means a football fanatic. However, it is clear to me that radical changes would have to be made to the college football system so that any sense could be made of it. I have an idea that will never happen, but I think should if the goal is really to entertain fans of the game & fairly determine a national champion.

Adopt a system like the English Football System. As a first step, the conferences are destroyed. It's each school fending for itself.

There are currently 120 teams in the FBS. That would be divided into 5 groups of 24 teams. Inside of a group, the 24 teams would be divided into two divisions of 12 teams. Each of those 12 teams would play each other intra-division team once, for an 11 game schedule. Every team's strength of schedule (inside of a division) would therefore be even. The only inconsistency would be home/away, but that's how it is today anyway. The 6 home, 5 away could be rotational...I think.

The teams with the best record in each division at season's end would then play in the national title game. The bottom 6 schools (3 from each division) are relegated to tier 2 & the top 6 from tier 2 join tier 1 & likewise through each of the 5 tiers. This will allow each school the opportunity to play into the top tier & have a chance for a national title.

To keep the divisions fresh, before the next season, their would be a sort of lottery to determine which division each school would fall into for each tier. For tier one in particular, this would seem to provide a great opportunity for media fare.

Clearly the question arises as to how the tiers would initially be determined. There's no one way without flaw, but I think perhaps each school's winning percentage over the previous 10 regular seasons could be as good as any to get this off the ground.

There's no playoff, but who cares when each week a team is playing to position themselves to win the division or to keep out of relegation or, in the case of the lower tiers, to move into promotion?

Clearly, like I said before, the NCAA would actually have to want to choose to put the integrity of the competition before money for something like this to happen, but I believe it's about as close to a perfect system as there practically can be for football. Obviously, this would destroy traditions such as rivalry games (to some extent), conferences, and bowl games. Are those traditions, which facilitate the current money grubbing system, worth more than a much more fair competition, though?

Let the reaming commence.

It sounds like a softball league I used to play in. If you won your division you moved up. If you sucked you moved down. It worked well in keeping things competitive for a city with 335 softball teams and nothing but pride and an occasional trophy on the line. Call me crazy but I don't think it will fly with College Football fans.

Besides, you lost me when you used what I am assuming is a soccer league as an example.

[The_Admiral]

I didn't read all that, so I'll just repeat myself.

BCS teams (Bigs Ten, 12, East, Pac-10, ACC, ESS-EE-SEE REAL MURKIN FOOTBAW, Notre Dame, service academies) are the only teams allowed to contend for a BCS national championship. They may only play against fellow BCS teams, and then run their spreadsheets and coach polls to determine a fake national champ while staying true to the great tradition of the Nokia Sugar Bowl. Mid-majors can play amongst themselves and run a playoff for a real NCAA championship.

[WJMorris3]

The 11 team playoff works - Notre Dame would just have to join a conference (maybe the Big East?) to get into the playoffs.