A small IMPARTIAL committee would be great. But what we'll probably end up with is a small PARTIAL committee...

(04-03-2012 12:47 PM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 12:24 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 12:03 PM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 11:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm confused.

In your first post at the top of this thread...you said: "Yes I am a football fan and no I dont give a damn about the polls or computers".

Now...you suddenly moved Wisconsin to the "4th rated conference champion", obviously based off some type of rank or computer ranking.

So which is it?

Therein lies the problem! I keep seeing the argument that conference championships mean more than an "arbitrary" ranking system, but in any 4-team playoff scenario, we still have to use an "arbitrary" ranking system in order to determine which particular conference champions are supposedly worthy. Knowing that we can't just say, "Let's use an 8-team or 16-team playoff instead", we're going to have an "arbitrary" ranking problem with a 4-team playoff no matter what.

Another example of why the 4 school playoff/plus-one is a bad idea. TPTB can keep trying to hold on to the old ways but it is a losing proposition and only a matter of time before they are "tweaking" the system. Which of course is going to lead to an 8 school playoff. Why not get ahead of the problem and be remembered as visionary instead of flat footed reactionaries that only slowed progress?

Wouldn't there have to be a ranking system or some selection committee process involved with an 8-team or 16-team playoff as well?

Cheers,
Neil

My preference is the 5 (6?) major conference champions be included automatically. And as I said on Frank's blog, but don't remember mentioning here, the independents, winners of conferences without a CCG and non-division winners selected should have a play-in game, or games, the same weekend that the CCG's are played. Why should teams get a bye? Especially those that haven't even won their divisions?

I MUCH prefer a small committee for seeding and selecting at-large schools. We don't need large groups of guys who haven't seen many of the schools play and may have biases, if not outright motives, voting teams in.

If you use the same BCS set-up you solve nothing. Either have all Conference Champs or go with final Top 4/8/16. if you used Top 4 or 8 method the only "major" conference champs that might be left out would be the ACC and BE.

From earlier articles and speculation when the superconference idea started to come back into play through the more recent articles and news---

The situation appears to be that they aren't going to more than a four team playoff. Most likely it will involve conference champions only-or the top four teams period. There aren't going to be 8 teams or 16 teams--but four. The conferences will be what are the top conferences now--probably 5 conferences but could very well be 4 as originally speculated. These conferences will have more interconference games for television rights and they will have different NCAA rules than the other divisions--or they will break off and form their own division. There may be a few schools currently in the top division that are left out in the end.

For those who say it has to be more because there are more conferences? It wouldn't be fair. Most conferences aren't really going to have a chance at this top of college football championship--and to make sure they are not, the NCAA will oblige by splitting 1-A football into yet another division. It will be based on money from early reports. The MAC's, WAC's, CUSA's, MWC's, etc. and very likely whatever form is the Big East as well in the next few years--these leagues will be able to hold their own championship at their division--but not at the highest level or with the top teams and conferences.

As for tv deals--the top 4 or 5 conferences will receive the bulk of the tv money and or exposure. Independents may exist--but will probably be rolled over into the superconferences.

(04-03-2012 02:14 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  From earlier articles and speculation when the superconference idea started to come back into play through the more recent articles and news---

The situation appears to be that they aren't going to more than a four team playoff. Most likely it will involve conference champions only-or the top four teams period. There aren't going to be 8 teams or 16 teams--but four. The conferences will be what are the top conferences now--probably 5 conferences but could very well be 4 as originally speculated. These conferences will have more interconference games for television rights and they will have different NCAA rules than the other divisions--or they will break off and form their own division. There may be a few schools currently in the top division that are left out in the end.

For those who say it has to be more because there are more conferences? It wouldn't be fair. Most conferences aren't really going to have a chance at this top of college football championship--and to make sure they are not, the NCAA will oblige by splitting 1-A football into yet another division. It will be based on money from early reports. The MAC's, WAC's, CUSA's, MWC's, etc. and very likely whatever form is the Big East as well in the next few years--these leagues will be able to hold their own championship at their division--but not at the highest level or with the top teams and conferences.

As for tv deals--the top 4 or 5 conferences will receive the bulk of the tv money and or exposure. Independents may exist--but will probably be rolled over into the superconferences.

I wonder if the much maligned Notre Dame is the only thing standing between what we have now and the 4 Super Conference Armagedon.

(04-03-2012 02:17 PM)ConanX Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 02:14 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  From earlier articles and speculation when the superconference idea started to come back into play through the more recent articles and news---

The situation appears to be that they aren't going to more than a four team playoff. Most likely it will involve conference champions only-or the top four teams period. There aren't going to be 8 teams or 16 teams--but four. The conferences will be what are the top conferences now--probably 5 conferences but could very well be 4 as originally speculated. These conferences will have more interconference games for television rights and they will have different NCAA rules than the other divisions--or they will break off and form their own division. There may be a few schools currently in the top division that are left out in the end.

For those who say it has to be more because there are more conferences? It wouldn't be fair. Most conferences aren't really going to have a chance at this top of college football championship--and to make sure they are not, the NCAA will oblige by splitting 1-A football into yet another division. It will be based on money from early reports. The MAC's, WAC's, CUSA's, MWC's, etc. and very likely whatever form is the Big East as well in the next few years--these leagues will be able to hold their own championship at their division--but not at the highest level or with the top teams and conferences.

As for tv deals--the top 4 or 5 conferences will receive the bulk of the tv money and or exposure. Independents may exist--but will probably be rolled over into the superconferences.

I wonder if the much maligned Notre Dame is the only thing standing between what we have now and the 4 Super Conference Armagedon.

All the big conferences would like to have ND as a member but honestly, ND doesn't hold that kind of power in CFB anymore. Does anyone really think Slive or Delaney, or any of the other power brokers are sitting around holding their breath for ND?

No, they are moving ahead just as they have talked about for the last couple of seasons and the NCAA-fearful of them splitting off is going along. They may decide to leave a spot for ND as an independent--but its highly doubtful with only 4 teams being able to play. Delaney has specifically stated he doesn't want the playoff to grow beyond four and the others seem happy for this as well. With four spots--none of these power brokers is too concerned with ND unless somehow they can make more money by having ND remain independent and still have a "shot"--no matter how unlikely that shot has of ever occurring.

the "holdup" is that conferences aren't simply dissolving, no members in the current top leagues are just willingly being left out, and there are still some decisions being made about just who can be one of the four teams--also what happens to the bowls.

(04-03-2012 02:17 PM)ConanX Wrote:  I wonder if the much maligned Notre Dame is the only thing standing between what we have now and the 4 Super Conference Armagedon.

Notre Dame, Texas, ESPN and FOX, and the academic snobbery of the BiG and the ACC are the major contributing factors as to why there is likely never to be a 4 Super Conference Armaggedon.

However, if such an Armaggedon did indeed take place, history tells me that at some point after that, it will either implode or we somehow get back to smaller more regional compact conferences (or divisions within one Super College Athletic Conference).

Cheers,
Neil

(04-03-2012 02:23 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  All the big conferences would like to have ND as a member but honestly, ND doesn't hold that kind of power in CFB anymore. Does anyone really think Slive or Delaney, or any of the other power brokers are sitting around holding their breath for ND?

No, they are moving ahead just as they have talked about for the last couple of seasons and the NCAA-fearful of them splitting off is going along. They may decide to leave a spot for ND as an independent--but its highly doubtful with only 4 teams being able to play. Delaney has specifically stated he doesn't want the playoff to grow beyond four and the others seem happy for this as well. With four spots--none of these power brokers is too concerned with ND unless somehow they can make more money by having ND remain independent and still have a "shot"--no matter how unlikely that shot has of ever occurring.

the "holdup" is that conferences aren't simply dissolving, no members in the current top leagues are just willingly being left out, and there are still some decisions being made about just who can be one of the four teams--also what happens to the bowls.

From the Big Ten perspective: the Big Ten is much much much much much much much much much more bothered by access and money being granted to any of the non-AQ conferences than anything about Notre Dame. ND is a red herring for us message board-types. They're a revenue generator, so they're in the club. Period. There shouldn't be any question about that. It's the conferences that want revenue but don't really generate any that REALLY tick Delany and Slive off.

(04-03-2012 02:23 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 02:17 PM)ConanX Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 02:14 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  From earlier articles and speculation when the superconference idea started to come back into play through the more recent articles and news---

The situation appears to be that they aren't going to more than a four team playoff. Most likely it will involve conference champions only-or the top four teams period. There aren't going to be 8 teams or 16 teams--but four. The conferences will be what are the top conferences now--probably 5 conferences but could very well be 4 as originally speculated. These conferences will have more interconference games for television rights and they will have different NCAA rules than the other divisions--or they will break off and form their own division. There may be a few schools currently in the top division that are left out in the end.

For those who say it has to be more because there are more conferences? It wouldn't be fair. Most conferences aren't really going to have a chance at this top of college football championship--and to make sure they are not, the NCAA will oblige by splitting 1-A football into yet another division. It will be based on money from early reports. The MAC's, WAC's, CUSA's, MWC's, etc. and very likely whatever form is the Big East as well in the next few years--these leagues will be able to hold their own championship at their division--but not at the highest level or with the top teams and conferences.

As for tv deals--the top 4 or 5 conferences will receive the bulk of the tv money and or exposure. Independents may exist--but will probably be rolled over into the superconferences.

I wonder if the much maligned Notre Dame is the only thing standing between what we have now and the 4 Super Conference Armagedon.

All the big conferences would like to have ND as a member but honestly, ND doesn't hold that kind of power in CFB anymore. Does anyone really think Slive or Delaney, or any of the other power brokers are sitting around holding their breath for ND?

No, they are moving ahead just as they have talked about for the last couple of seasons and the NCAA-fearful of them splitting off is going along. They may decide to leave a spot for ND as an independent--but its highly doubtful with only 4 teams being able to play. Delaney has specifically stated he doesn't want the playoff to grow beyond four and the others seem happy for this as well. With four spots--none of these power brokers is too concerned with ND unless somehow they can make more money by having ND remain independent and still have a "shot"--no matter how unlikely that shot has of ever occurring.

the "holdup" is that conferences aren't simply dissolving, no members in the current top leagues are just willingly being left out, and there are still some decisions being made about just who can be one of the four teams--also what happens to the bowls.

we've got a regular Nostradamus on our hands here.

Maybe this is a really stupid question.....but what's so damn awful about current non-AQ's getting "equal" access to a football championship. I mean, damn are the leaders of the Big 10 that insecure? WTF is so terrible about it? They've (and SEC and Pac12) already have almost every conceivable advantage you can think of as it is.

It's not like we'd ever REALLY get equal treatment. We'd get screwed in the polls, never get a home field advantage, etc. Only get one school in there with a legit shot. I get that much but I don't get why they're so opposed to the access itself. It's got to be more than just money because we all know the top leagues are somehow going to work this to where they still pocket the most no matter what.

It's freaking pathetic what college sports has become. I'm just about to the point I honestly don't care about college sports (or professional sports) at all anymore. Depending on how this turns out I might be there 100% sooner rather than later. It's disgusting really.

(04-03-2012 05:17 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Maybe this is a really stupid question.....but what's so damn awful about current non-AQ's getting "equal" access to a football championship. I mean, damn are the leaders of the Big 10 that insecure? WTF is so terrible about it? They've (and SEC and Pac12) already have almost every conceivable advantage you can think of as it is.

I don't think it's about equal access to the championship games. It's about equal access to the money.

That's one reason I think the new system will be a post-bowl plus one. The Big Ten and PAC don't have to share the Rose Bowl money with anybody, the SEC will take the lion's share of the Sugar Bowl money (no more even splits), the Big XII will take the lion's share of the Cotton Bowl money. If ECU goes undefeated in C-USA, they can go to the Sugar or Cotton Bowl, and if they win, they (probably) go to the National Championship Game. The NCG money gets divided up equally among the FBS conferences, or among the FBS schools, less some kind of a payment to the two participants.

(04-03-2012 05:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 05:17 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Maybe this is a really stupid question.....but what's so damn awful about current non-AQ's getting "equal" access to a football championship. I mean, damn are the leaders of the Big 10 that insecure? WTF is so terrible about it? They've (and SEC and Pac12) already have almost every conceivable advantage you can think of as it is.

I don't think it's about equal access to the championship games. It's about equal access to the money.

That's one reason I think the new system will be a post-bowl plus one. The Big Ten and PAC don't have to share the Rose Bowl money with anybody, the SEC will take the lion's share of the Sugar Bowl money (no more even splits), the Big XII will take the lion's share of the Cotton Bowl money. If ECU goes undefeated in C-USA, they can go to the Sugar or Cotton Bowl, and if they win, they (probably) go to the National Championship Game. The NCG money gets divided up equally among the FBS conferences, or among the FBS schools, less some kind of a payment to the two participants.

Ok, access to the money, basically all comes out in the wash. Whatever. What's so bad about us having equal access to the money? It's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. The B1G, SEC, PAC12, ACC and B12 will be making a bare minimum 15 times what we're making on our our television deal and most of those schools have endowments close to and in some cases well over $1 billion. Most of us non-AQ's are lucky if we're breaking $150 Million endowments.

How much more money do these schools really need to have more advatage? Seems like there's a point of diminishing returns here. At some point we're so far behind we can never catch up. We're pretty much there right now and the gap will continue to widen.

(04-03-2012 03:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 02:23 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  All the big conferences would like to have ND as a member but honestly, ND doesn't hold that kind of power in CFB anymore. Does anyone really think Slive or Delaney, or any of the other power brokers are sitting around holding their breath for ND?

No, they are moving ahead just as they have talked about for the last couple of seasons and the NCAA-fearful of them splitting off is going along. They may decide to leave a spot for ND as an independent--but its highly doubtful with only 4 teams being able to play. Delaney has specifically stated he doesn't want the playoff to grow beyond four and the others seem happy for this as well. With four spots--none of these power brokers is too concerned with ND unless somehow they can make more money by having ND remain independent and still have a "shot"--no matter how unlikely that shot has of ever occurring.

the "holdup" is that conferences aren't simply dissolving, no members in the current top leagues are just willingly being left out, and there are still some decisions being made about just who can be one of the four teams--also what happens to the bowls.

From the Big Ten perspective: the Big Ten is much much much much much much much much much more bothered by access and money being granted to any of the non-AQ conferences than anything about Notre Dame. ND is a red herring for us message board-types. They're a revenue generator, so they're in the club. Period. There shouldn't be any question about that. It's the conferences that want revenue but don't really generate any that REALLY tick Delany and Slive off.

I think it's true for most if not all the power conferences Frank. Some act as though some of these changes are being specifically targeted to "force" ND to do something--the truth is probably more towards that ND isn't being thought of that much. The big conferences are looking out for their best interests first and foremost. If the result is ND does something--then any would of course be happy to accept them.

(04-03-2012 12:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, the best ranking system would be one that didn't start ranking teams until about half the seaon has been concluded. That would remove a lot of bias from the system, since there would already be a good sample of games to judge teams by...

Terry, I'll give you that one. But my point still stands. Kelly has never won the big game...

Any ranking system is a farce. It doesn't matter when in the season it is implemented, it is still a farce. The polls (bolstered by media hype) are used to get networks better matchups for viewership and ad money, not champions. There are only two ways around this problem.

The first is to do away with conferences and to geographically group schools into 4 regions of 4 divisions each. The division could be comprised of 5 teams. That covers all the major institutions, the service academies, and a few marginal schools.

Take the four divisional champions and have a regional champion. The four regional champions play for the national title.

The second way is to consolidate further by pairing down into 4 superconferences of size ranges from 16-24 teams each, without making everyone comply to the same number. Everyone would have to have a minimum of 16, but beyond that the number should be left up to the conferences. If you choose not to be in a conference you will not be included in a playoff. Take the four conference champions and play for a national title. One or two schools should not be permitted to hold up the progress of many.

By utilizing this model marginal programs might help to fill out some conferences' market profile, while other conferences may have all they need, or want, with 16.

To go with fewer than 16 would encourage undue elitism as some schools would choose an easier path for a guaranteed playoff spot.

Every team finishing their season with 7 wins, or more, who have not made the championship round, would be eligible for a bowl.

Fans want a true champion. They want the regular season to matter. They are sick of polls, media bias, and tilted avenues to titles. It is part of the zeitgeist. Bias is implied in all political angles, it is made manifest in unfair trade practices, in local cheerleader selections, and football banquet awards. College football could become a touchstone for national reform if we let them settle things on the field, not in the network boardroom.

Idealism is good. It brings hope. Americans want to compete with hope. They don't want another dodge. Any poll driven selection is a dodge! Remember the internet is free, but some who post here draw income from advertising on their blogs. Even their opinions may be subject to some form of bias.

If Notre Dame doesn't want to join a conference then their reward for their season is private NBC money in the bank. But, no playoff.

I proposed the first solution because inevitably we will march down that road whether we call it conference realignment, or not. Overhead will demand it for both the fans and the schools. Those regional matchups are also the games that fans care about the most. Conferences too will be consolidated until there are only two. First we will go to four. Then as we've previewed there will be a partnership between those four. Then there will be just two. Cutting overhead and collective bargaining will see to that. It will remain at two to avoid becoming a monopoly.

Until we are truly serious enough to make the necessary changes needed to provide the highest revenue yeild, save the most in expenses, and maintain the goodwill of respective fan bases, we will continue like lemmings to run toward oblivion out of fear, uncertainty, and greed. We will allow others to tell us what our product is worth, and how it should be presented. We will be carved up, boiled down, and labeled. Then the survivors will be packaged and sold as the best thing ever. Meanwhile, on the floor behind those who survive will be the strewn corpses of once cherished institutions who died due to declining viewership. Remaining will be the apathy of an angered fan base, declining revenue, and the death of a true American icon. Collectively we are better than the sum of our parts. If the scenario sounds familiar check out Howard Beal, he died the same way, but only in fiction JR

JR, it'll never happen. The various schools would rather cut their own throat than do what is in everyone's best interest. They need to find a way to elevate themselves above the rest...

(04-03-2012 06:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  JR, it'll never happen. The various schools would rather cut their own throat than do what is in everyone's best interest. They need to find a way to elevate themselves above the rest...

While I do not doubt the probability that your assessment will likely be the outcome, I still feel compelled to point to solutions and hope. Humanity would already be extinct if there were not those who kept vigil and sounded alarms when danger approached.

I still believe that ideas, if circulated enough, eventually permeate the meninges of the alpha sociopaths we call leaders and are reinvented as their property. Receiving the lions share of recognition they move on to exploit new situations, but the remedy remains. Humility becomes the fertilizer that prospers the public. The idea is given life through their charisma and lives out its usefulness well past their cache. It is the way progress is made in an imperfect world.

Those who simply say it can't be done are passively resistant to change at best, and at worst apathetic. Their inertia is overcome by time and necessity. JR

I'd love to see something along that line explored. But I'm a realist, and the only place that stands a chance of happening is in some alternate universe. Humanity isn't evolved enough in this one for it to stand the snowball's chance...

(04-03-2012 07:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd love to see something along that line explored. But I'm a realist, and the only place that stands a chance of happening is in some alternate universe. Humanity isn't evolved enough in this one for it to stand the snowball's chance...

I was once a realist as well, until it dawned on me one day that being one had become my way of avoiding the conflicts that needed to be engaged. I may get killed, but by God, I'll die trying and content to have had the opportunity to make a difference. I've stood over the graves of too many realists and activists who were my friends. They arrive at the same destination, but the activists have better eulogies. If you are a realist you'll never be disappointed in humanity's ability to fail. If you are an activist you are occasionally surprised by humanity's ability to stumble into achievement. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised, how bout you?

I do agree with most of your posts, and find your work to be fair and reasonable. But don't short sell hope. It's a great tonic for dire times. JR

I fight the battles I can win, and let others take on the rest. I've been killed 3 times already, but managed to be resusitated each time so far. I'd prefer to avoid a 4th attempt. So now I let other fight the good fight...

But every once in a while you read a story that gives you hope. Genius is where you find it. But when you find it, all of mankind benefits...

But it would be a lot simpler if the rest of the world didn't resent people more intelligent than they are...

(04-03-2012 07:56 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I fight the battles I can win, and let others take on the rest. I've been killed 3 times already, but managed to be resusitated each time so far. I'd prefer to avoid a 4th attempt. So now I let other fight the good fight...

But every once in a while you read a story that gives you hope. Genius is where you find it. But when you find it, all of mankind benefits...

But it would be a lot simpler if the rest of the world didn't resent people more intelligent than they are...

Well gotten war wounds deserve a respite. I always refer to it as dry dock and I've been in it a few times myself. No matter how sturdy the vessel, all battle damage is cumulative and terminal if not repaired.

Those with vision are not resented by everyone, quite the contrary. They are misunderstood by most. But, those who are hostile recognize your genius and seek to silence it so that they may remain in control. They are always in the minority. There world isn't big enough for others.

It's just that being the sociopaths (a word I do not use lightly) that they are, their radar is always up for another agressor. Any agenda, or idea, that does not serve them is seen as agression. They strike out of narcissism and the constant fear that surrounds it. In reality they are weaker. Because of their lack of empathy their ruthlessness and disregard for anything else always catches us by surprise.

The best ally of a visionary is another. May your horizon be met by many! JR

I hereby bet Buck $100 that ND will remain an independent and still have access to the playoffs when these latest BCS "tweaks"are finished.

Do you take me up on that bet, Buck?