Here is a take I heard on local sports radio in Lawrence today. There will be the 4 Superconferences made up of 16 teams each. Each Conference will have four divisions ie. North South East West. Each division would play their confernce plus another ie. The north teams would play each other once as well as everyone from the south once. This would mean 7 scheadueld game. The 8th game of the season would put The number one team from the north vs the number 1 team from the east and so and so 2 vs 2. The winners of the 1 v 1 games would play in the conference championships. This would leave us with the final four teams and basically a four team playoff. What is eveyones take?

Why 4 sub divisions? Each conference would have two divisions, they play in the championship game. The four winners advance to the 4 team playoff.

This would actually lead to better non conference games since the only 7 that matter are within your division.

Sonofanump wrote: Why 4 sub divisions? Each conference would have two divisions, they play in the championship game. The four winners advance to the 4 team playoff.

This would actually lead to better non conference games since the only 7 that matter are within your division.

Most of your major schools would still schedule as many home non-conference games as possible, so it would limit good non-conference games.

You simply couldn't have a four team playoff where the conference champions from the four super conferences were the only ones who could qualify. The only reason that the BCS is legal (and I mean from an actual legal standpoint, not a rules or fairness standpoint) is because technically every D-1A schools has a fair shot at the national championship because the only stipulation for making the title game is being ranked first or second in the final BCS poll. The reason that the automatic qualifiers for spots in BCS bowls is legal is because it is no different than a certain bowl having an affiliation with a specific conference (thus eliminating teams from other conferences from being eligible). The title game itself is technically open to everyone.

If there were to only be a four team playoff involving the champions of the super conferences, then they would technically need to form a separate division from the rest of D-1A, since the D-1A schools not in those conferences would never be allowed to compete for the national championship and that would be illegal. If there is a playoff, either all conference champions would need to be guaranteed entry, or none (meaning it would all be at-large).

krambman wrote:...then they would technically need to form a separate division from the rest of D-1A

I actually thought that to be a good idea. The 64 majors would be a division. The remaining 55 could have their own little conferences (MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, remaining schools of WAC/MWC) and have a actual playoff. They could add a few FCS schools. I also think that schools who do not give schollies should be D3.

I believe so.

From the radio report the super conferences would break away from the NCAA or form their own division. They also said there would be the four divisions meaning 7 regular season game an additional regular season game for everyone which would be 1v1 2v2 format and finally a conference championship game.

Or we could just fucking accept the fact the BCS is better than the previous system and leave it at that.

lhslep134 wrote: Or we could just fucking accept the fact the BCS is better than the previous system and leave it at that.

I agree that the BCS is much better than the previous system, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it. What would the world be like if we weren't constantly trying to improve it?

Boise State has two undefeated season, both of which they proved they could beat the "big boys" and yet have nothing to show for it. They weren't even given the opportunity to win a championship.

Utah and TCU are in the same boat, Hawaii had one season like this, but got exposed in their bowl game.

goosebumps wrote:

lhslep134 wrote: Or we could just fucking accept the fact the BCS is better than the previous system and leave it at that.

I agree that the BCS is much better than the previous system, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it. What would the world be like if we weren't constantly trying to improve it?

Boise State has two undefeated season, both of which they proved they could beat the "big boys" and yet have nothing to show for it. They weren't even given the opportunity to win a championship.

Utah and TCU are in the same boat, Hawaii had one season like this, but got exposed in their bowl game.

I agree. Any team that goes undefeated deserves the opportunity to keep playing for a championship until they are beaten.

Or they could play a tougher OOC schedule. It's easy to go undefeated when your opponents are the WAC and MWC teams. MWC of late has been getting a little better but overall their SOS are pathetic. There's a reason they're so low in the computer (OBJECTIVE) rankings. Granted last year was possibly the first that I would legitimately say there NEEDS to be a playoff, but other than that I've had no problems with who is playing in the championship game.

Hell, sometimes even champs of BCS conferences don't deserve to be in BCS games, cough cough Cincinnati.

Super conferences won't immediately lead to a play-off for the reason already mentioned - there's still close to 60 other teams that would be left out. The next thought would be to include the champs of the little conferences and that'd be retarded as well.

Agree with whoever said that just because the BCS is better than the old system doesn't mean it is acceptable. I still prefer a play-off as a fan, but I can't rationalize the move away from the current system for non-fan reasons (money). It'd be nice if this re-org led to something resembling a play-off, but even if these conferences splintered off (they won't), it wouldn't be perfect. I don't care what anyone says, if a 12-0 team loses the conference "title" game to an 8-4 weak division champ, that 8-4 team still doesn't deserve to be in a semi-final play-off game over the other team.

What "big boys" did TCU, Utah, and/or Boise State beat? I remember a few teams that won "A" big game...as in ONE big game in season, but which of those teams had multiple "big" wins in one season. And by that, I mean wins that you'd count as big for a team from one of the Big Six conferences. (For example, do not try to sell TCU as legit for beating 3-9 Virginia and 5-loss Clemson when you'll turn around and talk about how the ACC should lose its autobid to the MWC...either those wins are big for everyone or for no one...by default, 6 or 7 ACC teams have twice as many big wins if that's what those are, not to mention the fact that they played at least 8 more big games than TCU).

lhslep134 wrote: Or they could play a tougher OOC schedule. It's easy to go undefeated when your opponents are the WAC and MWC teams. MWC of late has been getting a little better but overall their SOS are pathetic. There's a reason they're so low in the computer (OBJECTIVE) rankings. Granted last year was possibly the first that I would legitimately say there NEEDS to be a playoff, but other than that I've had no problems with who is playing in the championship game.

Hell, sometimes even champs of BCS conferences don't deserve to be in BCS games, cough cough Cincinnati.

Would you schedule Boise as an OOC game? Most teams won't, thats why they can't get a decent OOC game. When they get a chance at a big OOC game they've taken advantage and won. If they beat Va Tech this year at Fedex field then run the table do you think they deserve to be in a title game?

and Cincinnati isn't the first conference champion from a BCS conference to get smoked in a bowl game... they won't be the last either.

enigmaax wrote: Super conferences won't immediately lead to a play-off for the reason already mentioned - there's still close to 60 other teams that would be left out. The next thought would be to include the champs of the little conferences and that'd be retarded as well.

Agree with whoever said that just because the BCS is better than the old system doesn't mean it is acceptable. I still prefer a play-off as a fan, but I can't rationalize the move away from the current system for non-fan reasons (money). It'd be nice if this re-org led to something resembling a play-off, but even if these conferences splintered off (they won't), it wouldn't be perfect. I don't care what anyone says, if a 12-0 team loses the conference "title" game to an 8-4 weak division champ, that 8-4 team still doesn't deserve to be in a semi-final play-off game over the other team.

What "big boys" did TCU, Utah, and/or Boise State beat? I remember a few teams that won "A" big game...as in ONE big game in season, but which of those teams had multiple "big" wins in one season. And by that, I mean wins that you'd count as big for a team from one of the Big Six conferences. (For example, do not try to sell TCU as legit for beating 3-9 Virginia and 5-loss Clemson when you'll turn around and talk about how the ACC should lose its autobid to the MWC...either those wins are big for everyone or for no one...by default, 6 or 7 ACC teams have twice as many big wins if that's what those are, not to mention the fact that they played at least 8 more big games than TCU).

In '06 Boise's first undefeated season, they beat Oregon State 42-14 who went 10-4 (with a win over USC) and of course Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. In '09 they of course beat TCU and PAC-10 champion Oregon. They can only play the teams that will schedule them. This year they get Oregon State and Va. Tech.

Utah went undefeated in '04 beating:
7-5 Texas A&M
6-6 North Carolina
8-4 Pittsburgh

Their smallest margin of victory that season was 17 points. Thats the closest any team got to beating them. Sorry, but you can't tell me they weren't good enough to compete for a title. They won most of their games by 25+.

Can't defend TCU quite as well bc they lost to Boise last year.

No it wouldn't. If you want a playoff like they have in the lower divisions you don't want to see realignment on the scale being discussed currently. All those new conferences would do is co opt the current system, call it something different and run it much has it has been in the past.

goosebumps wrote: In '06 Boise's first undefeated season, they beat Oregon State 42-14 who went 10-4 (with a win over USC) and of course Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

So they had ONE "big" win before the postseason. And three other teams beat their one big win, but those teams had to play a schedule full of similar competition (instead of a schedule full of teams that win about 15% of their games against that type of competition). How would those teams have fared in the WAC?

If Boise State had lost to Oregon State in '06, would you say they still deserved a BCS bowl bid?

goosebumps wrote: In '09 they of course beat TCU and PAC-10 champion Oregon.

So they had ONE "big" win before the postseason and beat a team similar to them in a bowl.

goosebumps wrote:Utah went undefeated in '04 beating:
7-5 Texas A&M
6-6 North Carolina
8-4 Pittsburgh

Their smallest margin of victory that season was 17 points. Thats the closest any team got to beating them. Sorry, but you can't tell me they weren't good enough to compete for a title. They won most of their games by 25+.

Again, Pittsburgh was the bowl game so you are touting a team with two wins over barely .500 schools who finished in the middle or lower level of their BCS conference? Again, what about the teams above them who beat 8 or 9 similar teams?

For example, you think Utah's resume is more impressive with those two wins than say, 10-1 Texas who lost to undefeated Oklahoma, beat the same Texas A&M team, as well as five or six other schools equal to or better than North Carolina (and at least nine schools better than any other team Utah played)?

Here's another question - if this superconference thing happens and Utah, TCU, and Boise State all become one of the "big boys", then New Mexico State runs through the WAC remnants undefeated in a season, are they going to deserve a shot at the title?

It still amazes me how people use Boise State's 6 all-time wins against BCS schools as some kind of proof that they belong....completely ignoring the 17 losses. Or the fact that MWC teams have had a couple okay wins and the top three teams in the league year-to-year still struggle to go .500 overall against BCS competition.

When a team goes undefeated we don't know how good they really are. The sky is the limit. You can argue that they aren't good enough and someone else can argue they are good enough. There is no way to know how good they truely are until they lose. Unfortuanately without a Tournament we will never know who "deserves" a shot at the title, because we can end up with 3 or 4 undefeated teams a year. I hate the BCS because it doesn't allow a team to prove whether they are contenders or not. Hell BYU has won National Titles before, but the BCS threw them under the bus and into a conference where they won't get the chance at another NT.

Yes Boise State may be 6-17 (I'm assuming those are the right numbers) but they are over differenct seasons. They could be 1-100 against BCS teams, but if that 1 is during an undefeated season, its a travesty that they will never get the chance to find out if they were the "best" in college football that year.

I've always said that you can't judge the quality of a team based on the quality of their opponents. That would be like saying that Tiger Woods wasn't really very good in 2000 because there weren't really any other good players on tour. The quality of his opponents didn't determine how good he was. The same is true in college football.

It's extremely difficult to compare teams from different conferences in college football. In the NFL there are 32 teams and each team plays 16 games against 13 different teams. That means everyone plays nearly 50% of the other teams. That makes it very easy to compare teams with similar records because there are so many common opponents. In college football there are nearly 120 different teams and each school plays 12 different opponents. That is only 10% of the other D-1A teams. Since there are so few common opponents with respect to teams outside of your own conference it is difficult to compare teams from different conferences. We assume that teams like Boise State would be middle-of-the-road teams in any BCS conference, simply because they have never played in those conferences. The truth is, we don't really know. In the past whenever Boise has played a team from one of those conferences Boise has almost always won. They may be very successful in one of those conferences or they might be what we think they are. This is why voters tend to look not only at a teams record, but also at who they beat and how. Unfortunately for Boise State they don't play in a BCS conference so they don't play top opponents week-in and week-out. However, they win all of their games and usually in convincing fashion. We shouldn't hold them responsible for being in a bad conference, but we also can't ignore the fact that they don't play a schedule as difficult as some other teams. Boise has said that they will play any team, any time, any place. They have said they will go anywhere and they don't even require a return visit to Boise by that school. They are doing everything they can to prove their legitimacy, but major teams won't schedule them because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

krambman wrote: I've always said that you can't judge the quality of a team based on the quality of their opponents. That would be like saying that Tiger Woods wasn't really very good in 2000 because there weren't really any other good players on tour. The quality of his opponents didn't determine how good he was. The same is true in college football.

It's extremely difficult to compare teams from different conferences in college football. In the NFL there are 32 teams and each team plays 16 games against 13 different teams. That means everyone plays nearly 50% of the other teams. That makes it very easy to compare teams with similar records because there are so many common opponents. In college football there are nearly 120 different teams and each school plays 12 different opponents. That is only 10% of the other D-1A teams. Since there are so few common opponents with respect to teams outside of your own conference it is difficult to compare teams from different conferences. We assume that teams like Boise State would be middle-of-the-road teams in any BCS conference, simply because they have never played in those conferences. The truth is, we don't really know. In the past whenever Boise has played a team from one of those conferences Boise has almost always won. They may be very successful in one of those conferences or they might be what we think they are. This is why voters tend to look not only at a teams record, but also at who they beat and how. Unfortunately for Boise State they don't play in a BCS conference so they don't play top opponents week-in and week-out. However, they win all of their games and usually in convincing fashion. We shouldn't hold them responsible for being in a bad conference, but we also can't ignore the fact that they don't play a schedule as difficult as some other teams. Boise has said that they will play any team, any time, any place. They have said they will go anywhere and they don't even require a return visit to Boise by that school. They are doing everything they can to prove their legitimacy, but major teams won't schedule them because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

This + 1,000,000,000.

The one edit I would make is that is actually Fresno State and coach Pat Hill who made that saying famous (playing anyone, anywhere, anytime) which is how they got the USC game in 2005. I think Petey had heard enough and got pissed off enough and said come down to LA and we'll beat your ass...which of course almost backfired bigtime. However, you are correct in saying that Boise has for a long time scheduled the "big boys" on the road with no return trip required, and also had contacted several traditional powers that have no interest in playing them, the most notorious being a team that wears red and white and plays in the Big12 (as of right now).

The biggest problem for mid-majors who become to successful is that they don't fit anywhere...obviously Boise State is the model, but also a team like Utah comes to mind. It's tough to get games when you're still considered a "midmajor" but a midmajor that's really good and who can beat us. That's not something the big boys want. Let's face it, the system is set up to reward the teams who start out in the top 10 every year. You don't have to go out and play anyone impressive. All you have to do if you're Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, USC etc. is NOT LOSE. So WHY would you schedule a team like Boise State, when you could schedule a team like Utah State out of the same conference, and on paper it looks like you're playing basically the same team? Because they play in the same conference, the computer basically gives you the same rating for playing Boise as it does for playing the 0-12 team at the bottom of their conference. If I was a big school, I'd sure as hell schedule Utah State, who has basically 0 chance of winning, over Boise State from the same conference, who has about a 50% chance to beat you.
And that's the problem as I originally stated: nowhere to go. The big schools DON'T want to let a mid-major in their club, but they also don't want to play them; and the WAC just isn't strong enough to compete with Boise. So the Broncos are too big/powerful for their conference, and too "new" and not enough of a traditional power for the big boys. So someone tell me what are they supposed to do?

goosebumps - It isn't a travesty. There are two slots available in the title game and the resume is all you got. I've never said Boise State isn't good enough, but I maintain they don't DO enough to earn it. You can be the smartest guy in the world, but if you don't go to college or you don't have experience, you aren't going to get certain jobs. Other people's resumes look better and that's what is available to make decisions.

If Florida suddenly joined the Sun Belt or Michigan/Ohio State suddenly joined the MAC, what would be the response the first time one of them went undefeated? Would everyone agree they deserve a shot at the national title? It is easy to get caught up in the underdog, but really, it isn't about fairness by any stretch.

Interesting side notes to your BYU reference. Did you know that BYU didn't beat a single team that ended the season ranked in the top 25? (By the way, the NCAA didn't throw them under the bus at all - they were in the WAC when they won that title.) Their biggest wins were against then-#3 Pitt (who failed miserably the rest of the season) and 6-5 Michigan, a team that eventual #2 Washington also beat (when Michigan was ranked #2 early in the season). Washington had one loss (USC) and was #3 going into the bowl games and should have actually played #1 BYU in that Holiday Bowl. Washington chose money over the chance to beat #1, instead beating #2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.

krambman - I agree with most of what you said. Maybe the only thing I disagree with is that we can't hold a team's conference against them. That is their choice and generally those choices are for good reason. While we don't "know" how some of these teams would fare in a BCS conference in a given year, historical results give us a pretty good idea of where they are overall. BYU got their one title and has generally been a WAC/MWC powerhouse. But look at what happened to their best teams most of the time when they faced real competition. TCU spent 40 years at the bottom of a BCS-level conference and I'm supposed to believe that all of a sudden they're a top program because they dominate a conference they moved DOWN to?

There is a pretty clear divide between the BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences and there are plenty of results that prove it. Now, I know you and several other people say, "no one will schedule Boise State", including Boise State. But I still have yet to hear which schools turned them down and the reasons. Boise State is no different than any other team in that they are working with a select number of open dates due to their conference. Obviously some teams already have schedules made, already have an adequate OOC schedule put together, etc. I don't get where Boise State gets this sense of entitlement that leads to their somehow being cheated. "Hey, we've beat up on a bunch of little guys and now all the big boys are afraid of us." Riiiiight.

red skin - Always enjoy this debate with you. The problem with the teams you mentioned is that they already play a schedule full of challenges. In most cases, those teams also play at least one other "big" non-conference game to go along with eight conference games. Those teams don't have a responsibility to legitimize Boise State.

Besides that, the point isn't that Boise State doesn't get any games with those teams. They've played Oregon and Oregon State. They're playing Virginia Tech. The point is that it is ONE game. Even if they added two or three of those games, they still get seven or eight incredibly weak conference games. People ripped Texas last season for their OOC schedule because it had 4 cupcakes. But those people wanted to reward Boise State who played 11 cupcakes? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Also, that play anyone, anywhere really put Fresno's relative strength into perspective, eh? (By the way, I was at that USC-Fresno game - awesome game in many ways. Really sent Fresno into a tailspin, though.)

enigmaax wrote:
There is a pretty clear divide between the BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences and there are plenty of results that prove it. Now, I know you and several other people say, "no one will schedule Boise State", including Boise State. But I still have yet to hear which schools turned them down and the reasons. Boise State is no different than any other team in that they are working with a select number of open dates due to their conference. Obviously some teams already have schedules made, already have an adequate OOC schedule put together, etc. I don't get where Boise State gets this sense of entitlement that leads to their somehow being cheated. "Hey, we've beat up on a bunch of little guys and now all the big boys are afraid of us." Riiiiight.

The problem I have with the first part of your statement is a your generalization. There IS a pretty clear divide between most BCS conference schools and most non-BCS conference schools...but when you're referring to a school like Boise State or Utah, who have already cracked the BCS and won 2 (each) BCS bowl games, that's not your average midmajor (not to mention all the years they've finished in the top 7-8 teams in the country).

And the second part? Well ill let that speak for itself...This was obviously written during this past season, but there problem they face still remains.

"Boise is 44-4 over the past four seasons, including 4-1 against major conference opponents. Yet that doesn’t guarantee the Broncos a slot in a big money BCS bowl due to the level of competition they play in the Western Athletic Conference.

The school acknowledges it needs to play tougher teams. Yet how can they beat quality opponents if quality opponents won’t play them?

What Boise is left with is games like Friday’s here. They traveled 2,000 miles to beat Louisiana Tech 45-35, a conference game, and improve to 9-0 on the season. For that they practically had to apologize because it wasn’t a blowout.

“That’s how it always is when we play,” coach Chris Petersen said. “It’s never good enough. It’s good enough for us, we won. If you’re looking to win by so much, if you’re looking for style points, if you’re looking to play for the polls, which we’re not, it’s not going to be good enough.”

Petersen has had it with arguing about whether the Broncos deserve a BCS bid. All he can do is win games. His team beat the one major opponent that would play them this year – a 19-8 victory over Oregon in the season opener.

Yet he deals with questions about who his team plays in the WAC. Boise won consecutive games this year by a combined score of 99-16 and dropped from No. 4 to No. 7 in the BCS standings. Petersen said he wouldn’t be surprised if they dropped again this week. They may again put together a perfect season only to be left out".

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709

also, this article addresses the issue you brought up of teams with "full schedules" and teams that have openings.

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/11/04/bmurphy/no_incentive_bcs_conference_teams_play_boise_state

the only SuperConference is the SEC !!!!!!!!

red skin - Here's all I need to say: "His team beat the one major opponent"

I don't care about sytle points in the WAC or any other conference for that matter. I do not buy the "nobody will play us", however. They get eight games scheduled for them by their choice of conference and those simply do not measure up to the competition that other teams have to face. I've said it several times...if you can't get into a major conference, go independent and put together the toughest schedule you can. Just because OSU, USC, Florida, etc. don't have room for them doesn't mean that no one would play them. Playing middle of the pack (or even lower level) BCS schools in more than one game a season would completely change things for them and how they are viewed. Junior varsity for 90% of your season doesn't earn you anything.

enigmaax wrote: red skin - Here's all I need to say: "His team beat the one major opponent"

I don't care about sytle points in the WAC or any other conference for that matter. I do not buy the "nobody will play us", however. They get eight games scheduled for them by their choice of conference and those simply do not measure up to the competition that other teams have to face. I've said it several times...if you can't get into a major conference, go independent and put together the toughest schedule you can. Just because OSU, USC, Florida, etc. don't have room for them doesn't mean that no one would play them. Playing middle of the pack (or even lower level) BCS schools in more than one game a season would completely change things for them and how they are viewed. Junior varsity for 90% of your season doesn't earn you anything.

Almost no one can survive as an independent anymore. The three schools that do it now, Notre Dame, Navy and Army are just about the only schools that can pull it off today. Competing in big time college sports now requires TV money, and a lot of it. None of the mid majors could venture out on their own and hope to make it by negotiating their own independent TV deals, they just don't have the clout or the resources to pull it off.