No, it's not about not leaving just anyone out. It's abut not leaving anyone who is at your same classification or set of rules out, which in this case would be the FBS level.

I don't think fbs schools should be allowed to play fcs in regular season games (although I would support one fbs/fcs exhibition game each August, but that's another debate).

(12-15-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I disagree with you. But I'm not going to continue to debate the point any longer. I'm never going to convince you away from your opinion on the matter. You aren't going to persuade me either.

So let's just agree to disagree.

This we can agree on. I appreciate when others will give each other the courtesy of stating an opinion and then not feel the need to personally attack the other. And it is fine to state an opinion that opposes the original statement.

(12-15-2013 05:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 05:32 AM)army56mike Wrote:  I did say it was an apples to oranges comparison to start with.

Let me play devils advocate here. I agree that those teams mentioned have vitrually 0% chance of competing for a national title.

But, if conference champions were given an auto bid into a playoff system, would more players decide to attend a wider variety of schools with the understanding that they could have a shot at getting to the playoffs? Would this level the football playing field to a degree?

For example, two kids want to play at Florida St. One kid gets the scholarship. The other needs to find places to play. He can get immediate playing time at say UAB, and understand they have a better chance at making the playoffs there.is pure socialism

In time wouldn't the playing field be leveled a bit and competition nationwide be brought up?

IMO that that is pure socialism....take from those that have earned it and spread it around to those that didn't.

Mmm, I see it less as socialism and more as free market. Everyone has a right to determine their future and the freedom to pursue excellence. Of course as in any free market, the cream will rise to the top. But no one is excluded from even trying to succeed.

(12-15-2013 10:31 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I suppose all of the FCS conferences could say they want to be included on this level playing field and have their champ in the playoff and possibly some other conferences could start up .....that is if you are going to be all inclusive and leave no one out.

If the FCS conferences wanted to raise their scholarship numbers up and comply with the other expectations of becoming an FBS school then yes. However, many schools are content playing at the level they are at.

If I am a home owner and sell my house with the desire to purchase a new bigger house in a better neighborhood, shouldn't I be able to? Why should my potential neighbors tell me, "no you can't move into my neighborhood"?

(12-16-2013 09:03 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 10:31 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I suppose all of the FCS conferences could say they want to be included on this level playing field and have their champ in the playoff and possibly some other conferences could start up .....that is if you are going to be all inclusive and leave no one out.

If the FCS conferences wanted to raise their scholarship numbers up and comply with the other expectations of becoming an FBS school then yes. However, many schools are content playing at the level they are at.

If I am a home owner and sell my house with the desire to purchase a new bigger house in a better neighborhood, shouldn't I be able to? Why should my potential neighbors tell me, "no you can't move into my neighborhood"?

Buying a new house in a new neighborhood is just fine as long as you pay for it and do not expect your neighbors help you pay for it.

(12-16-2013 08:51 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 05:32 AM)army56mike Wrote:  I did say it was an apples to oranges comparison to start with.

Let me play devils advocate here. I agree that those teams mentioned have vitrually 0% chance of competing for a national title.

But, if conference champions were given an auto bid into a playoff system, would more players decide to attend a wider variety of schools with the understanding that they could have a shot at getting to the playoffs? Would this level the football playing field to a degree?

For example, two kids want to play at Florida St. One kid gets the scholarship. The other needs to find places to play. He can get immediate playing time at say UAB, and understand they have a better chance at making the playoffs there.is pure socialism

In time wouldn't the playing field be leveled a bit and competition nationwide be brought up?

IMO that that is pure socialism....take from those that have earned it and spread it around to those that didn't.

Mmm, I see it less as socialism and more as free market. Everyone has a right to determine their future and the freedom to pursue excellence. Of course as in any free market, the cream will rise to the top. But no one is excluded from even trying to succeed.

When the big schools have to sustain the little schools until they catch up...that is not free enterprise

(12-15-2013 08:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  [quote='army56mike' pid='10170580' dateline='1387017167']
I did say it was an apples to oranges comparison to start with.

Let me play devils advocate here. I agree that those teams mentioned have vitrually 0% chance of competing for a national title.

But, if conference champions were given an auto bid into a playoff system, would more players decide to attend a wider variety of schools with the understanding that they could have a shot at getting to the playoffs? Would this level the football playing field to a degree?

For example, two kids want to play at Florida St. One kid gets the scholarship. The other needs to find places to play. He can get immediate playing time at say UAB, and understand they have a better chance at making the playoffs there.is pure socialism

In time wouldn't the playing field be leveled a bit and competition nationwide be brought up?

IMO that that is pure socialism....take from those that have earned it and spread it around to those that didn't.

If the NCAA ran the CFB postseason and had a 16 school playoff with 1 autobid per conference with the rest of the teams filled in by a committee or BCS-like formula, and then distributed revenue in a similar manner to the basketball tournament, it would not hurt the power conferences very much at all while providing a huge influx of revenue for the "poorer" schools.

The current power conferences would fill in 95% of the at large bids and win 95% of the first round games, thus keeping the majority of the cash. But the difference is that the "other conferences" would at least have a chance to get paid when they earned it (unlike it the current system, where TCU of the MWC won the Rose Bowl but received less BCS money (not counting other conference revenue) than 0-12 Washington State that year.

The cash difference between P5 and G5 the regular season TV contracts would keep the big boys on top, financially and on the recruiting front.
[/quote


If it was run like the basketball tourney the small schools would get a lot more and the big schools less. The way the basketball tourney is run is exactly why the BCS was formed.....to prevent that from happening. It would cost the big dogs too much.

(12-16-2013 11:22 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  When the big schools have to sustain the little schools until they catch up...that is not free enterprise

Please explain what you mean by sustain?

mike, the five Go5 schools in your initial example are UCF, Louisiana-Lafayette, Fresno State, Rice and Bowling Green, with UCF holding the highest ranking of the five. In the BCS system, all teams from the Go5 had the same opportunity to reach a BCS bowl (and theoretically, the national championship game) by being the highest ranked team of the Go5. That was their inclusion in the process and it was more than fair. Allowing the other four into a playoff by virtue of winning their conference is giving them a better shot than they have earned.

Had a 16 team playoff been in place this season, those four would have made it over multiple teams that would be more deserving by virtue of their play on the field. Each had the same opportunity as UCF this year, but they failed to measure up. Just take a look at what those teams did this season versus P5 teams. ULL was beaten by 20 by SEC West last place Arkansas and by 21 to Big XII fifth place Kansas State (and that doesn't even take into consideration their season-ending losses to ULM 31-28 and USA 30-8). Fresno State had no games played against P5 schools, but they did eke out a 1-point overtime win over 6-6 Rutgers, a future Big 10 school. Bowling Green had a narrow loss to 6-6 Mississippi State, but was curbstomped 42-10 by 5-7 Indiana. Rice is the only school of the four that did beat a P5 school, a 23-14 victory over the Big XII's last place Kansas, which followed a 19-point loss to Texas A&M.

The Go5 schools had a route to a BCS bowl and even the championship (theoretically). Now I believe their odds of landing a big bowl are reduced. With a 16-team playoff, these conference champions would have access to a title game that they frankly haven't earned. An individual school might have a shot in the four-team playoff, if their body of work justifies it and they play a schedule that shows they deserve it. You just can't say a team deserves a shot at the title by playing a Go5 schedule when the P5 teams have had a much tougher gauntlet to navigate.

(12-16-2013 11:34 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:22 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  When the big schools have to sustain the little schools until they catch up...that is not free enterprise

Please explain what you mean by sustain?

I was referring to the argument that if the smaller programs were allowed to participate in the playoffs and share in the proceeds, that would in time level the playing field and they would be able compete with the big boys.