D-IA football, way too crowded, unfair

UATrewqaz · #1 11-10-2006, 12:59 AM

Rutgers is going to prove that having 118'ish D-1 A football teams is a complete joke.

There are only 40'ish teams who have any chance in hell of winning the national title. The other 80 stand no chance. Doesn't matter what they do, who they beat, etc. Pretty much every single non-BCS conference team has no chance and every many big conference teams don't

If Vanderbilt goes undefeated, they won't go to the title game, there will be about six 1 loss teams in front of them due to the god awful travesty of preseason rankings.

Same story for Baylor, same story for Duke, etc.

Not only do you have to have a great year (undefeated or 1 loss) but you also need a certain "pedigree"

So my question to those 80 teams is, why belong to a group that refuses to let you win the title? Is money the reason?

They really should split up D-IA football into groups like 1 and 2.

Have 4 super conferences containing the big 48 teams, those 4 conference champs play a national title playoff. The other 80 or so current D-IA guys can go do their own thing.

It's a pipe dream I know...

Assani Fisher · #2 11-10-2006, 01:02 AM

there are a ton of problems with college football. If they fixed them I would be die hard fan like I am with the NFL. But as long as they have it like it is now with no playoffs and a number of problems, I refuse to go to games or spend my money or time on it...I'll watch the key games but thats it.

But tons of you out there continue to support it even though the rules suck. Why do they need to change if you guys will support them no matter what? Stop watching, and maybe we could get some changes.

ridonkulous · #3 11-10-2006, 01:05 AM

Money is definately the reason, Ball State got a ton of cash for playing at Michigan last week.

MyTurn2Raise · #4 11-10-2006, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
there are a ton of problems with college football. If they fixed them I would be die hard fan like I am with the NFL. But as long as they have it like it is now with no playoffs and a number of problems, I refuse to go to games or spend my money or time on it...I'll watch the key games but thats it.

But tons of you out there continue to support it even though the rules suck. Why do they need to change if you guys will support them no matter what? Stop watching, and maybe we could get some changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny...I think it's the NFL that has the issues and I can barely stand to watch it compared to college

Assani Fisher · #5 11-10-2006, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are a ton of problems with college football. If they fixed them I would be die hard fan like I am with the NFL. But as long as they have it like it is now with no playoffs and a number of problems, I refuse to go to games or spend my money or time on it...I'll watch the key games but thats it.

But tons of you out there continue to support it even though the rules suck. Why do they need to change if you guys will support them no matter what? Stop watching, and maybe we could get some changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny...I think it's the NFL that has the issues and I can barely stand to watch it compared to college

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't want to hijack too much, but I actually think the NFL is in the best shape of any league right now. They have great parity, a growing fan base, several marketable and likeable stars...what more do you want?

Baseball has the salary cap issue, the steroid issue, the constant cheating issues, etc.

Hockey has problems attracting fans

College football has the playoff issue

The NBA has constant image problems.

NCAA basketball is in pretty good shape, but other than that I can't think of a league that is better run that the NFL. What exactly do you dislike about it?

#6 11-10-2006, 01:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Rutgers is going to prove that having 118'ish D-1 A football teams is a complete joke.

If Vanderbilt goes undefeated, they won't go to the title game, there will be about six 1 loss teams in front of them due to the god awful travesty of preseason rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have a good point, but you picked a really bad example. If Vanderbilt goes undefeated this year they are going to the NC game for sure. Look at their schedule. If they went undefeated they would/will have beat the follwing teams (with their current BCS ranking in brackets).

Michigan (2)
Tennessee (16)
Florida (4)
Arkansas (11)

Boise would have been a better example or an undefeated team not going to the NC game. Vanderbilt would have been a shoe-in.

gusmahler · #7 11-10-2006, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Rutgers is going to prove that having 118'ish D-1 A football teams is a complete joke.

There are only 40'ish teams who have any chance in hell of winning the national title. The other 80 stand no chance. Doesn't matter what they do, who they beat, etc. Pretty much every single non-BCS conference team has no chance and every many big conference teams don't

If Vanderbilt goes undefeated, they won't go to the title game, there will be about six 1 loss teams in front of them due to the god awful travesty of preseason rankings.

Same story for Baylor, same story for Duke, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If any of the BCS teams goes undefeated, they are guaranteed a BCS berth and are highly likely to go to the NC game. Vandy is a perfect example. If they were undefeated, that means they beat Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the SEC title game. How can a team that does that NOT get the NC game? (assuming only 1 other undefeated team, of course.)

Case in point: Arizona State in 1996. The previous year, they were 6-5. The year before, they were 3-8. But in 96, they beat Nebraska and ran the table on an unimpressive Pac-10. Still were #2 in the nation and would have been in the NC game had the BCS been in existence. Merely because they were undefeated from a major conference (and there was only 1 other undefeated).

It's true that a team like Utah will probably never make the NC game. But any Pac 10, Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 (probably not the ACC and Big East this year) team that finished undefeated would be ahead of all 1-loss teams.

Dudd · #8 11-10-2006, 01:50 AM

Rutgers is far from guaranteed to make the title game, even if they beat WVU, and just ask how Auburn about what an undefeated season gets you. College football is broken, and I don't see how anyone can say anything different.

gusmahler · #9 11-10-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Rutgers is far from guaranteed to make the title game, even if they beat WVU, and just ask how Auburn about what an undefeated season gets you. College football is broken, and I don't see how anyone can say anything different.

[/ QUOTE ]

College FB is definitely broken. But the Auburn example isn't applicable to OP's question. OP said that a 1-loss team would go ahead of Vandy. Auburn had to deal with 2 undefeated teams. Totally different.

UATrewqaz · #10 11-10-2006, 01:54 AM

Say Baylor (Big 12) begins the year unranked (not even in others receiving votes) and goes undefeated.

You seriously don't think there would be 1 loss teams in front of them?

I stick by my Vandy argument, sure if they started the year ranked or became ranked quickly they MIGHT get up into the top #2, however say hypothetically Notre Dame starts the year in the top 3 and loses their 2nd game and wins out, you really think Vandy ever leap frogs them?

But specific hypothetical scenarios aside, my basic point was you have way too many teams in division 1-A, more than half of them have 0 chance of winning anything nationally and just exists to be punching bags for the bigger schools and make more $