Corey, that was pathetic. I openly said yesterday that I didn't understand the humor and it was a generational thing I guess and dropped it. To bad you have to fall back on crap like that. But you are right about one thing, I don't take this conversation serious and you continue to make illogical leaps and blme what you see as shortcomings in the system on one man and one conference. That my friend defies logic.
One man? According to this article here, it appears Dr Tom Osborne agrees with me. It appears that Congress just may agree as well. I am pretty sure the author agrees with me. I mean, she did say this.. granted, she's not a man but still. As for 'going there' I can see the backlash and admonishments (both public and private) just pouring out. I'm sure in your eyes, they're treated the same.
Uh-Oh. Corey broke out the Dr. Tom Card. Sorry guys, if Lord Osborne say's it's wrong, then it's wrong folks. In TOM we trust. OK?, it's settled now.
I don't think there is much disagreement that their should/will be changes made. Dodd's article says that also. The question is when and what the changes will be. However Corey my point with you has been you leap of logic about Kramer and the SEC. You're wrong that the BCS was formed by Kramer for the SEC. I don't see anything Dr. Tom said about agreeing with you on that topic. So you pick an area where it's kind of general, we need changes in the BCS, and find folks that agree with you on that, most of us do, and use that to say that they agree with you. Trying of course to link them to and their authority in agreeing with you on the more radical statements in some of your rants. That doesn't work.
Oh sorry, I had moved on. Kramer created the super conference AND the BCS. The BCS is so much his that he openly refers to it as 'his system' Those aren't my words, they are his. If you can't, or won't see that... Then we won't ever agree on it so I moved onto the next point that we were discussing. I'm not dodging anything. We just aren't ever going to agree and it is window dressing to the larger issue. That point is that this system discriminates and that Dodd uses a phony ass 'the house boy should feel lucky' argument to make his case. The only reason the house boy is inside is due to the BCS acting under threat of gun via Congressional anti-trust investigation. So the BCS moved... marginally to 'allow more access'. What they did was create another BCS game and call it the title game... Then they 'loosened' up a few restrictions on the non-BCS teams. Bowl subdivision College football is not some precious little snowflake. The arguments made against the playoff are based in greed and corruption. The BCS is not as well founded and protected as some of you might think. And for the record, once again, I would like to say that I have no problem with conferences, teams or systems acting in their own self-interest. Just don't tell me it is fair and right, or that it couldn't be done better.
Corey, I think no one is disagreeing with you about the fact that it could be done better. It's just that there's not a reasonable way (and by reasonable I mean, a way that everyone would actually agree to) that it will happen. However, I may have the solution. I wasn't very busy a couple of weeks ago and I came up with a plan. Here it is. You take all current 120 FBS teams and divide them into 6 conferences of 20 teams each. Further you divide the conferences into divisions and make it so that traditional rivalries are still practical as well as possible. With 10 teams in each division, you Pac-10 guys are going to like this one, each team plays 9 divisional games (playing each member of their division). Oh wait, there's something for the super conference format fans too. After everyone has played everyone else in their divisions, you play a CONFERENCE championship game pitting the two DIVISIONAL winners against each other. Oh wait, there's more. The conference champions of the 6 conferences would then compete in a mini playoff format using the "Big 4" bowls on an alternating basis. Yes, I have something for everybody. Those teams that are not conference champions are still left for the other bowl games. Here's an example of this format. Western Football Conference 1st Division .......... 2nd Division Arizona................Boise St. Ariz. St................ BYU Cal .....................Idaho Fresno St. ........... Oregon Hawaii................ Oregon St. SD St.................. UNLV SJ St................. Utah Stanford ............ Utah St. UCLA ................ Washington USC .................. Washington St. Northeastern Football Conference 1st Div. ................. 2nd Division Army.................... Akron BC..................... Cincy Buffalo ................ Kent St. UConn ................ Marshall Navy ..................... Miami, OH PSU........................Northwestern Pitt.........................Ohio Rutgers...................Virginia Syracuse ...............Virginia Tech Temple....................West Virginia Eastern Football Conference 1st Div.................... 2nd Div. Duke......................Clemson FIU..........................ECU Florida Atl............... Louisiana Tech FSU........................ Louisiana Lafayette Maryland.................. La.-Monroe Miami, FL................... Memphis NC St........................ Mid. Tenn. St. UNC .......................... South carolina UCF...........................USF Wake Forest...............West. Kentucky Southeastern Football Conference 1st Div.......................2nd Div. Alabama.................... Arkansas Auburn.......................Arkansas St. Kentucky.................... Florida Louisville ....................Georgia North Texas..................Georgia Tech SMU ...........................LSU Tennessee..................Miss. St. Troy ..........................Ole Miss UAB............................ Southern Miss. Vandy .......................... Tulane Southwest Football Conference 1st Div. .........................2nd Div. Baylor............................Colorado Houston ....................... Colorado St. Oklahoma......................Kansas Oklahoma St. .................K-State Rice............................... Missouri TCU..............................Nebraska Texas.............................Nevada Texas A&M .................... New Mexico Texas Tech ..................... New Mex. St. UTEP..............................Tulsa Midwest Football Conference 1st Div. ...........................2nd Div. Ball St..............................Air Force Bowling Green..................Illinois Central Mich.....................Iowa East. Mich.........................ISU Indiana............................Minnesota Michigan...........................Northern Illinois Mich. St.......................... Purdue Notre Dame......................Toledo Ohio St............................. Wisconsin West. Mich.........................Wyoming And the playoff would alternate like this: Year 1 Rd. 1 WFC Champ vs. Midwest Champ. at Rose Bowl Southeastern Champ. vs. Northeastern Champ. at Orange Bowl Rd. 2 Rose Bowl winner vs. Southwest Champ. at Fiesta Bowl Orange Bowl winner vs. Eastern Champ. @ Sugar Bowl Championship Fiesta Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner @ Rose Bowl Year 2 Rd. 1 Midwest Champ vs. Southwest Champ @ Fiesta Bowl Eastern Champ vs. Southeastern Champ @ Sugar Bowl Rd. 2 Fiesta Winner vs. Western champ. @ Rose Bowl Sugar Winner vs. Northeastern Champ @ Orange Bowl Championship Rose Winner vs. Orange winner @ Fiesta Bowl Year 3 Rd. 1 SW Champ vs. West. Champ @ Rose Bowl NE Champ vs. Eastern Champ @Orange Bowl Rd. 2 Rose winner vs. Midwest champ @ Fiesta Bowl Orange winner vs. Southeastern champ @ Sugar Bowl Championship Fiesta winner vs. Sugar winner @ Orange Bowl Year 4 Rd. 1 West. champ vs. Midwest champ @ Fiesta Bowl Southeastern champ vs. Northeastern champ @ Sugar Bowl Rd. 2 Fiesta winner vs. Southwest champ @ Rose Bowl Sugar winner vs. Eastern champ. @ Orange Bowl Championship Rose winner vs. Orange winner @ Sugar Bowl And there you have it folks. Everything the college football world wants (with a few rivalries sacrificed) all rolled into one. You've got a round robin, a super conference championship game, a playoff, and a bowl system all in one plan. This tells us two things: I think about college football too much and I have too much time on my hands. What do you guys think?
1. Nice work and fantastic use of free time 2. You can never think about college football too much. 3. I could live with that system over the BCS. 4. I still don't see why the playoff format is so impossible? Every other division of college football does it. 5. I do believe people disagree with me about the 'lesser' conferences having a sniff.
I've seen proposals similar to what Aquila did, and I'm all for it. However, I'd tweak his model slightly by swapping North Texas/SMU with Rice/TCU.
Corey, if you can't see how ludicrous that because someone had an idea to then say it was created by him for his conference so it's an SEC creation. Again everyone else would just have to be just plain dumb to go with the plan. No logic my friend and it cuts off the possibility of having reasonable discussion. Nice work Aquila, not much chance it would happen but it would work.
I'm happy that non BCS conference teams (including ND) all have a route to a guaranteed BCS bid. That route is tougher than any conference team for sure, a conference champion can have 4 or 5 losses and still get a guaranteed bid, but that's minor detail. :roll: What nobody can cure, and it wasn't better back in the day before evil Roy Kramer created the Bowl Coalition is that the voters in the 2 human polls and the computers determine the final 2 teams in the BCS. Those voters the ones that live in NY and the ones that live in Calif are not very likely to vote an undefeated Mtn West/WAC/CUSA team into the Nat'l Championship game unless there is no other option. I have to wonder if we had a flurry of upsets last year like we did in 2007, and Utah stayed undefeated would they have made it into the BCS Champ game? I think a lot of those voters would have had a hard time voting Utah #1 and their membership in a conference like the Mtn West would probably hurt them in the computers as well.
:? :? Terry, what would have happened last year if Utah had been unbeaten? That's a good question, and I think there would have been a good chance they would have made the championship game against Ohio State. Then if Ohio State had beaten them be a decent margin there would have been a hue and cry from LSU and S. Cal fans about them being better. It's a great question though? One thing that gets lost in some of these conversations though is the major Bowls and who they would be happy with coming to their bowls. Those bowls are mojor money makers for the communities where they are held.
Terry, You make a good point, however, it is still punishing someone because of WHO they are and not what they are. Quality is not a consideration. With Utah beating Alabama and Wyoming beating Tennessee in Knoxville, at what point in time do you stop calling them accidents? Sure.. UT was down... so was Wyoming. Two teams that were 'up' played and that went the way of the MWC as well. I just think it is a whole bunch of ******** that games are played on the field that don't seem to count for anything... Then a few years from now some SEC team will whack a MWC team and everyone will view that as some sort of 'vindication'... Its crap... Just like all the people this year who said Utah didn't stand a chance (which I do believe includes you Terry)... Hawaii getting their ass kicked the year before somehow replaced Utah and Boise State.. Those two wins were considered 'miracles' while the 'real thing' was what Georgia did to Hawaii. Well the 'little guy' is now 3-1 in BCS bowl games. Not that it matters in this system... As its creator said, we should be thankful for all the buzz his system created.
Boise State was a miracle. Cinderella story, kid outta nowhere, here at Augusta... Utah was a revelation.
Below is a good article that breaks down the non-conference games for the MWC in the past 4 years. One excerpt: "Over the last four seasons the Mountain West Conference has played 65 games against BCS opponents (including Notre Dame,) with eight of those being bowl games. Out of the 135 possible non-conference games the MWC teams have played, 57 of those have been against BCS opponents, for a rate of 42%. 42% of all the teams potential non-conference games have been scheduled against BCS conference opponents over the last 4 seasons. That represents a very aggressive attempt to prove their mettle against BCS teams. During that time span, only twice has a single team not had a BCS conference opponent (either a bowl or regular season game). Air Force in 2008 and UNLV in 2005. In all of those games the MWC has posted a 31-34 record against those opponents. Not a winning record, but respectable nonetheless, especially for a conference considered to be "mid-major." " http://bleacherreport.com/articles/115955-by-the-numbers-the-mountain-west-conferences-bcs-hopes To me it looks like the MWC has evolved into a BCS worthy conference but has a losing record vs. the rest of the BCS and therefore certainly isn't dominant by any means. They are essentially getting a foothold but they are far from the top of the mountain.
I have no problem with that. I know that this concept will most likely never happen nor will anything remotely close to it happen. However, consider the possibilities if it did. This format would preserve old rivalries and foster new ones. Imagine Notre Dame and Michigan playing every year with a divisional championship on the line or Florida playing Tennessee for a conference championship. How about Boise St. playing Oregon for a shot to get in a conference championship game or USC playing Utah for a conference championship. This would be good stuff, folks. In the end, for anything to change I think the NCAA has to be the one to bring down a heavy hand. Anything short of that happening and we're all just dreaming in my opinion. Yes, the BCS is better than what used to be. I don't see how anyone can truly argue that they would rather see the system go back to what it was 15 years ago. We're guaranteed to have two of the top teams in the land square off for a national championship on the field. Is it always without a doubt the right two teams? NO, but it always is two great teams. Even the years when Ohio St. got blown out, they were one of the top teams in America. Those years sure beat Ohio St. going to the Rose Bowl while the top ranked team from the SEC would have gone to the Sugar to face who knows what team? You would have still had split opinions and hurt feelings but at least after those blow outs you had a good idea how good Florida and LSU were. I agree with Corey that USC too often seems to get the shaft although they always show up for the big games and I hope to see them play a top SEC school for the championship really soon so we can not end this debate but at least have a better idea where they stack up.
So they have played 42% of their noncon games (not counting the bowls) against BCS conference schools. I wonder what the breakdown would look like if I took a peek at the BCS conference schools. Using that 4 year timeline: I took a peek at the SEC East and they played 33 games vs BCS conference foes out of 90 possible noncon games.What's that 36%? Against BCS conference opponents in noncon games they are 19-24. That is 44% I would like to add that of those 19 wins, 11 of them come from Florida (5-0) and Georgia (6-1) in that time frame. And to think they thought the MWC was top heavy Reading the comments are a bit of a joke as well. One clown claims that the MWC should only schedule ranked BCS teams if they want to prove how good they are. Very, very indicative of the mindset that I was speaking of when it comes to these non-BCS conferences.
It's probably the evil Roy Kramer's fault. :roll: :roll: One of my big complaints about the ACC and the Big East before the ACC added some decent teams was that it was easier for those teams, at the time Miami and FSU, to schedule tough out of conference games that for SEC/Big 10/Big 12 to schedule tough out of conference games. And that any comparison of out of conference games without talking about the conference schedule was comparing apples to oranges. Besides, as I said it's the evil Roy Kramer and the SEC's fault anyway. :wink: :wink:
Even though it is the evil Roy Kramer and SEC's fault, the biggest barrier at this point is probably the PAC 10/Rose Bowl/Big 10 who would be the most difficult sells. In fact I believe the Big 10 Commissioner has stated there will be no playoff. I think he is probably the evil Roy Kramer in a disguise. :wink: :wink:
Interesting take Bill, I eagerly anticipate your next 50 posts dedicated to the evil Roy Kramer. So do all conference commissioners acting in the best interest of their own conference fall under the category of evil, or just him? That being said... The case was being made for and against the MWC using their noncon schedules vs BCS teams. I was just showing that the premier Division in the premier Conference in the last 4 years actually has numbers that are no better than the MWC using that same metric. I think the Pac10 and Big10 feel like they bought a lemon with the BCS and won't be as trusting again. I agree that the NCAA has to take the heavy hand here. Only the bowl subdivision of College Football has its major decisions made by outside forces. The NCAA determines the championship method for the rest.