Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

[ QUOTE ]
so it would be possible for teams from the same conference being in the super conferences? Even winners of the same conference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there are going to be 20 teams in the super conferences, it would have to be possible for teams from the same conference to be in the super conference (there are only 11 conferences).

It would not be possible for a team to win its regular conference in the same year as it wins a super conference because in years when you compete in a super conference, you would not compete in the regular conference (though you still could play some of those teams as non conference games).

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

I think we'd be better off accepting that college football isn't set up to crown a national champion (its governing body, as far as I know, does not recognize a champion like it does in, say, basketball), go back to the old bowl system, and let the dozens of organizations that want to declare their own national champions (and there are a lot) do so.

-McGee

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's wrong with debating the merits of 1991 Miami v 1991 Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the '84 Huskies and '84 BYU...

b

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

Just think how close we came to having Michigan play Ohio in the National title game last year. As is happened, Florida blew out Ohio state.

The flaw that worried me is that it came really close to the world not knowing how strong Florida was relative to Michigan.

I am in favour of a 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 in bowls games, with the BCS title game to follow that. Not perfect, but considering last year (and other years), we need it.

And for the team that is ranked 5 and thinks they should be 4, too bad. Can't fix everything.

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

Make it all year round.

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah that would be sweet. It should probably be 24 teams, 11 games in each league. Winners of each league play for the title. Bottom two drop. Would be insanely sick. I don't think most US sports fans realize how awesome this would be. Even better than the NFL IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was actually thinking of having the bottom half (or more) drop. I think you would need to keep chaning it up to ensure that Freshmen from all 117 schools have a slightly better than mathematical possibility of making it to the top before they graduate.

Any promotion system would be awsome though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My idea has always been to take the 119 FBS teams, add one to make it an even 120 (App st. perhaps) then divide them into 4 40 team subdivisions. Teams have to schedule teams from there subdivision in their schedule each year with one "out of division" game allowed.

Each year, drop the bottom 5 and raise the top 5. This allows plenty of movement year-to-year and also means that the schedules from each division will be largely comparable.

Cody

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, i would be a fan of a 16 team, 11 conf champs...

so there is no reason that the big schools can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of reasons, you just don't agree with them.

Why should an 8-3 MAC or CUSA champ get an autobid over a better 11-1 PSU or USC or Texas team? Which conf champ - regular season or conf playoff winner?

The current system is much better. Unlike the old days, computer rankings are used. The combination of humans and data has worked well.
List of prior champs:
FSU
Okla
Miami
Ohio
LSU
USC
Texas
Florida.

Nobody thinks Boise was better than Fla last year. No one thought anyone was better than Okla or Miami or Texas or etc.

The system works. Making the reg season meaningless so some 8-3 MAC team or 9-2 Big East team only has to get hot for 4 weeks over holidays is not an improvement.

After all, if you wanted a real, comprehensive playoff, you'd include 128 teams. Is that better?

Is making fans travel 4x to 4 diff playoff games, to Boise, Birmingham, Miami, and Arizona during finals weeks and holidays a good thing? I say no. You can disagree, but it's all hot air unless College Presidents decide they want one. They do not.

And the other 30 bowls that wouldn't host the title game would be legitimately devalued. Saying no one cares about Tenn v PSU last year is simply wrong. But changing to a 'playoff bowl' v 'meaningless bowl' system reduces interest and lowers revenues.

I am a huge cfb fan. I love the current system.

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

Just to tie this up, If the super conference had been implimented this year, the super conferences might look like this:

EAST
Arkansas
Auburn
Florida
Louisville
LSU
Houston
Ohio State
Rutgers
Troy
West Virginia

WEST
Boise St
BYU
California
Central Michigan
Michigan
Oklahoma
Texas
Wake Forrest
Wisconsin
USC

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's wrong with debating the merits of 1991 Miami v 1991 Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the '84 Huskies and '84 BYU...

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I still cannot believe Illinois was passed over in 2001...they had one regular season loss but the computers chose someone else...BAH

Re: \"Fixing\" college football -- let\'s see your solution
 

I already put in the master answer to this question

</discussion>