(01-07-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And no football playoff system will be any different.

Unless if the NCAA goes to a NFL-style scheduling model, but that would mark the end of conferences as we know them. Intersectional matchups would also be extremely rare or possibly non-existent during the regular season.

(01-07-2018 10:57 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And no football playoff system will be any different.

Unless if the NCAA goes to a NFL-style scheduling model, but that would mark the end of conferences as we know them. Intersectional matchups would also be extremely rare or possibly non-existent during the regular season.

Yes, but if anyone thinks that getting the big bowls to accommodate first the BCS and now the CFP has been like removing barnacles with tweezers, breaking up the conferences will be a non-starter, never happen. The conferences run college football.

I do see a lot less hype than normal from ESPN on this game than usual.

On the other hand, its non-stop in Atlanta.

(01-07-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, it's always been that way in college football nothing new, and it's that way in college hoops as well. Tune in to ESPN the day before Selection Sunday, and you'll see loads of interviews with coaches of 20-12 teams that finished 6th in their conference explaining (lobbying) why they think their team did enough to get off the bubble and in to the tournament.

And no football playoff system will be any different.

Except what you didn't see last March was Steve Alford of 29-4 UCLA (ranked 11th overall in the tourney) making his case that they should've been in the ten-team March Madness. Which as stated before, is how large it would be if you took the current proportion of CFP spots to FBS teams and applied it to college basketball. After all, why should Texas Southern be included in the tourney when the SWAC is awful and all the bubble teams left out would probably beat them by twenty?

Sure in a football playoff there'd be lobbying by coaches to get in, but if you determine at-large bids and seeding exclusively with a transparent formula (like college hockey has done for years) the only way to legitimately complain would be to argue over how the equations are set up. That's a system I'd like to see basketball to move to as well, any time you have people making the decisions with so much money at stake you'll get a lot of human bias involved; while there's inherent 'computer bias' in how a formula is set up, at least everyone knows the rules and the best path to get in.

(01-07-2018 01:17 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, it's always been that way in college football nothing new, and it's that way in college hoops as well. Tune in to ESPN the day before Selection Sunday, and you'll see loads of interviews with coaches of 20-12 teams that finished 6th in their conference explaining (lobbying) why they think their team did enough to get off the bubble and in to the tournament.

And no football playoff system will be any different.

Except what you didn't see last March was Steve Alford of 29-4 UCLA (ranked 11th overall in the tourney) making his case that they should've been in the ten-team March Madness. Which as stated before, is how large it would be if you took the current proportion of CFP spots to FBS teams and applied it to college basketball. After all, why should Texas Southern be included in the tourney when the SWAC is awful and all the bubble teams left out would probably beat them by twenty?

Sure in a football playoff there'd be lobbying by coaches to get in, but if you determine at-large bids and seeding exclusively with a transparent formula (like college hockey has done for years) the only way to legitimately complain would be to argue over how the equations are set up. That's a system I'd like to see basketball to move to as well, any time you have people making the decisions with so much money at stake you'll get a lot of human bias involved; while there's inherent 'computer bias' in how a formula is set up, at least everyone knows the rules and the best path to get in.

We've already been down that path: Before 2004 or so, the computers had a heavy influence on the BCS formula, and outcries happened because the formulas would produce results that beggared belief from an "eye test" point of view, like choosing 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma to play in the BCS title game even though they just got clobbered in their conference title games. So in response the formula was tweaked such that even though the computers were still in there, it was very unlikely that anyone but the #1 and #2 in the human polls would make the title game.

Formulas can produce outcomes that can seem weird, e.g., last year, at least 30 computers in the Massey Composite declared Alabama, not Clemson, to be National Champ even though Clemson beat Alabama in their title game.

So what sport or conference "fairly" names its champion?

In the NFL you only have to win your division to make the playoffs. If you go 4-2 in division, you can lose the other 10 games and at 4-12 you are in. Maybe at the expense of a 4-12 team. But it is still a single elimination tournament.

The NBA and MLB are better with a series format but you still only need to win your division to get in.

College basketball is no better. Get hot and win your conference tournament and you are in. The NCAAT is single elimination so a team like Kentucky goes 40-0 but loses 1 game and they are out.

I don't believe an 8 team playoff is enough to accommodate automatic qualifiers. It sounds good because UCF might have gotten in. There is also the possibility that Duke wins the ACC and Clemson gets an at-large, and UCF loses the AAC so they are still out.

(01-07-2018 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 01:17 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Except what you didn't see last March was Steve Alford of 29-4 UCLA (ranked 11th overall in the tourney) making his case that they should've been in the ten-team March Madness. Which as stated before, is how large it would be if you took the current proportion of CFP spots to FBS teams and applied it to college basketball. After all, why should Texas Southern be included in the tourney when the SWAC is awful and all the bubble teams left out would probably beat them by twenty?

Sure in a football playoff there'd be lobbying by coaches to get in, but if you determine at-large bids and seeding exclusively with a transparent formula (like college hockey has done for years) the only way to legitimately complain would be to argue over how the equations are set up. That's a system I'd like to see basketball to move to as well, any time you have people making the decisions with so much money at stake you'll get a lot of human bias involved; while there's inherent 'computer bias' in how a formula is set up, at least everyone knows the rules and the best path to get in.

We've already been down that path: Before 2004 or so, the computers had a heavy influence on the BCS formula, and outcries happened because the formulas would produce results that beggared belief from an "eye test" point of view, like choosing 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma to play in the BCS title game even though they just got clobbered in their conference title games. So in response the formula was tweaked such that even though the computers were still in there, it was very unlikely that anyone but the #1 and #2 in the human polls would make the title game.

Formulas can produce outcomes that can seem weird, e.g., last year, at least 30 computers in the Massey Composite declared Alabama, not Clemson, to be National Champ even though Clemson beat Alabama in their title game.

There's a legit argument against formulas, but at the very least it gives a clear standard that everyone knows they have to reach. If Pomeroy was used for basketball, programs would know that they couldn't schedule DII or NAIA teams without consequence and would try to run up scores in wins and limit blowout losses. It's not perfect but hockey has made it work, and when you're dealing with a dozen or so teams instead of two like the BCS it dampens the impact.

Nevertheless, that doesn't address the core issue: if conferences are inherently unequal in collegiate athletics and some non-conference champs are clearly superior to lower conference champs (both statements I'd agree with), why do all other college sports aside from FBS football have playoffs at all? Miami plays in the NCHC for hockey and if the postseason started today seven of our eight teams would be in the tourney (sixteen make it) with the only one on the outside tied for 19th, why should the Atlantic Hockey champ get a spot when their best team is 31st right now?

(01-07-2018 01:30 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So what sport or conference "fairly" names its champion?

In the NFL you only have to win your division to make the playoffs. If you go 4-2 in division, you can lose the other 10 games and at 4-12 you are in. Maybe at the expense of a 4-12 team. But it is still a single elimination tournament.

The NBA and MLB are better with a series format but you still only need to win your division to get in.

College basketball is no better. Get hot and win your conference tournament and you are in. The NCAAT is single elimination so a team like Kentucky goes 40-0 but loses 1 game and they are out.

I don't believe an 8 team playoff is enough to accommodate automatic qualifiers. It sounds good because UCF might have gotten in. There is also the possibility that Duke wins the ACC and Clemson gets an at-large, and UCF loses the AAC so they are still out.

My OP was clearly sarcastic, despite anything I've said in this thread. I'm pretty much pointing out it's never been fair.

(01-07-2018 01:30 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  So what sport or conference "fairly" names its champion?

In the NFL you only have to win your division to make the playoffs. If you go 4-2 in division, you can lose the other 10 games and at 4-12 you are in. Maybe at the expense of a 4-12 team. But it is still a single elimination tournament.

Actually that’s not true. All of the games a NFL team plays counts towards its playoff seeding. Unless if the entire division finishes at 4-12 or worse, a team that went 10-6 in spite of being 0-6 against its division rivals would finish ahead of them.

What’s bad about the NFL playoffs is that Divison Champions always host. The Saints had to play at Seattle one year because of that, even though the Saints has a better record.

(01-07-2018 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 01:17 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, it's always been that way in college football nothing new, and it's that way in college hoops as well. Tune in to ESPN the day before Selection Sunday, and you'll see loads of interviews with coaches of 20-12 teams that finished 6th in their conference explaining (lobbying) why they think their team did enough to get off the bubble and in to the tournament.

And no football playoff system will be any different.

Except what you didn't see last March was Steve Alford of 29-4 UCLA (ranked 11th overall in the tourney) making his case that they should've been in the ten-team March Madness. Which as stated before, is how large it would be if you took the current proportion of CFP spots to FBS teams and applied it to college basketball. After all, why should Texas Southern be included in the tourney when the SWAC is awful and all the bubble teams left out would probably beat them by twenty?

Sure in a football playoff there'd be lobbying by coaches to get in, but if you determine at-large bids and seeding exclusively with a transparent formula (like college hockey has done for years) the only way to legitimately complain would be to argue over how the equations are set up. That's a system I'd like to see basketball to move to as well, any time you have people making the decisions with so much money at stake you'll get a lot of human bias involved; while there's inherent 'computer bias' in how a formula is set up, at least everyone knows the rules and the best path to get in.

We've already been down that path: Before 2004 or so, the computers had a heavy influence on the BCS formula, and outcries happened because the formulas would produce results that beggared belief from an "eye test" point of view, like choosing 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma to play in the BCS title game even though they just got clobbered in their conference title games. So in response the formula was tweaked such that even though the computers were still in there, it was very unlikely that anyone but the #1 and #2 in the human polls would make the title game.

Formulas can produce outcomes that can seem weird, e.g., last year, at least 30 computers in the Massey Composite declared Alabama, not Clemson, to be National Champ even though Clemson beat Alabama in their title game.

To be more accurate, they didn't declare that Alabama was National Champ, but rather that they were the stronger team. And there is nothing inconsistent or incongruous about such an assessment.

In 1983, after NC State won the NCAA basketball tournament, I would certainly have voted for Houston as #1 if I had a poll vote. And, unless somebody rigged the results, I suspect most computer models would have had the same result. It wouldn't have been surprising if NC State didn't make it into the top five.

There is no arguing about who is the tournament champion. That's settled in the arena. But who is "best" is almost never settled.

As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

(01-05-2018 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:56 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

..to prove my point

Yeah. Some get a shot at a championship and some don't causing an absurd two-tier system of elites and non-elites unlike any other alleged sport on earth. You solve this by having all conference champions get playoff access like every other sports league on earth does. Then the conferences start looking more like each other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

You can call it "looking more like one another," but I would call it a race to the bottom.

It's all a matter of perspective.

yeah you just want to make it the Alabama Invitational every year.
Its funny I never hear the NFL FCS, Div 2, Div 3, or NAIA Football teams ever complain about inviting all the conference champs and some at large
teams to their playoffs as being unfair.

None of the excuses that Bill Handcock or anyone else make any sense.

(01-07-2018 06:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

The NCAA basketball tournament is anything but fair. Many teams that prove their consistency and worth over 30 regular season games get almost nothing from it, other than what amounts to the chance to play Russian roulette up to six times. But the tournament is entertaining in spite of being unfair to the best teams, because it's one-and-done and a mediocre team can beat a great team on any given day by luck or because the great team had a bad game (which is good luck for the mediocre team, to catch them on that day).

Giving everyone "a chance" isn't being fair; it's more like passing out lottery tickets. It can be entertaining, like March Madness usually is, but it's not fair in the sense of being meritorious.

I have proposed double elimination pods in the NCAA Tournament before for that very reason.

That said, again, they earned it on the court. They beat the teams they needed to. We didn't just assume anything, it played out. The best teams from the regular season put themselves in a good position to win it all. That's all you can ask for short of the assumption/arbitrary games we get at the top level of college football.

Why not give everyone a chance? Why is it unfair for a team that wins all of their regular season games or even their division/conference to have a chance to win a chapionship? How is it fair that teams with a limited sample size of games get to not even win their intraconference division yet play for it all? How to is it fair Western Michigan knows it won't be playing in the college football playoff next year, even if they beat Michigan by 50 and win the rest of their games?

(01-07-2018 07:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 06:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

The NCAA basketball tournament is anything but fair. Many teams that prove their consistency and worth over 30 regular season games get almost nothing from it, other than what amounts to the chance to play Russian roulette up to six times. But the tournament is entertaining in spite of being unfair to the best teams, because it's one-and-done and a mediocre team can beat a great team on any given day by luck or because the great team had a bad game (which is good luck for the mediocre team, to catch them on that day).

Giving everyone "a chance" isn't being fair; it's more like passing out lottery tickets. It can be entertaining, like March Madness usually is, but it's not fair in the sense of being meritorious.

I agree. There are too many teams in the NCAA basketball tourney (both conferences and wild cards) and too few in the CFP.

48 would be about right for the tourney. And it would be nice if about 10 conferences moved down to Division II where they belong. Get rid of 10 conferences and 10 mid-pack P6 teams.

(01-07-2018 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 07:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 06:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

The NCAA basketball tournament is anything but fair. Many teams that prove their consistency and worth over 30 regular season games get almost nothing from it, other than what amounts to the chance to play Russian roulette up to six times. But the tournament is entertaining in spite of being unfair to the best teams, because it's one-and-done and a mediocre team can beat a great team on any given day by luck or because the great team had a bad game (which is good luck for the mediocre team, to catch them on that day).

Giving everyone "a chance" isn't being fair; it's more like passing out lottery tickets. It can be entertaining, like March Madness usually is, but it's not fair in the sense of being meritorious.

I agree. There are too many teams in the NCAA basketball tourney (both conferences and wild cards) and too few in the CFP.

48 would be about right for the tourney. And it would be nice if about 10 conferences moved down to Division II where they belong. Get rid of 10 conferences and 10 mid-pack P6 teams.

There are roughly 130 FBS schools. There are 65 in the P5. How is it that half is not sufficient for an upper division, especially since the top earner last year brought in 191 million and the 65th place school brought in around 66 million and the 72nd position is the last before you drop below 50 million.

It seems to me the dividing line is about right. That it might be more distinctive around 60th position, and that a case could be made for inclusion to the 72nd position.

The simple fact is that as long as the NCAA refuses to fact check those moving up to the FBS level to make sure they have the required attendance and funding, that we are carrying about 24 schools too many in the FBS and that 2 maybe 3 tiers need to exist if the NCAA refuses to police those wanting admission.

The NCAA tournament absolutely needs to cull some conferences. And as long as they have a payout for the CFP for those not included there will be more snout applying for the trough.

This is why the NCAA either needs to reform, or we need to leave.

(01-07-2018 06:52 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:56 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

..to prove my point

Yeah. Some get a shot at a championship and some don't causing an absurd two-tier system of elites and non-elites unlike any other alleged sport on earth. You solve this by having all conference champions get playoff access like every other sports league on earth does. Then the conferences start looking more like each other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

You can call it "looking more like one another," but I would call it a race to the bottom.

It's all a matter of perspective.

yeah you just want to make it the Alabama Invitational every year.
Its funny I never hear the NFL FCS, Div 2, Div 3, or NAIA Football teams ever complain about inviting all the conference champs and some at large
teams to their playoffs as being unfair.

None of the excuses that Bill Handcock or anyone else make any sense.

That's idiotic.

If we had done it my way we would be watching Clemson and OU play tomorrow.

My way? That was to just keep the BCS and let it pick the two best teams in the country.

But, nope, people wanted a playoff and now they are butthurt that the two best teams played their way into it.

(01-07-2018 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 07:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 06:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

The NCAA basketball tournament is anything but fair. Many teams that prove their consistency and worth over 30 regular season games get almost nothing from it, other than what amounts to the chance to play Russian roulette up to six times. But the tournament is entertaining in spite of being unfair to the best teams, because it's one-and-done and a mediocre team can beat a great team on any given day by luck or because the great team had a bad game (which is good luck for the mediocre team, to catch them on that day).

Giving everyone "a chance" isn't being fair; it's more like passing out lottery tickets. It can be entertaining, like March Madness usually is, but it's not fair in the sense of being meritorious.

I agree. There are too many teams in the NCAA basketball tourney (both conferences and wild cards) and too few in the CFP.

48 would be about right for the tourney. And it would be nice if about 10 conferences moved down to Division II where they belong. Get rid of 10 conferences and 10 mid-pack P6 teams.

There are roughly 130 FBS schools. There are 65 in the P5. How is it that half is not sufficient for an upper division, especially since the top earner last year brought in 191 million and the 65th place school brought in around 66 million and the 72nd position is the last before you drop below 50 million.

It seems to me the dividing line is about right. That it might be more distinctive around 60th position, and that a case could be made for inclusion to the 72nd position.

The simple fact is that as long as the NCAA refuses to fact check those moving up to the FBS level to make sure they have the required attendance and funding, that we are carrying about 24 schools too many in the FBS and that 2 maybe 3 tiers need to exist if the NCAA refuses to police those wanting admission.

The NCAA tournament absolutely needs to cull some conferences. And as long as they have a payout for the CFP for those not included there will be more snout applying for the trough.

This is why the NCAA either needs to reform, or we need to leave.

I'm fine with you separating as long as it is a complete severance in all sports and you form your own semi-pro league.

You only play P5 home-and-home...no 7 or 8 home games...play only each other in track, baseball, golf, etc. You only play each other in bowl games and no more buy games for your bottom dwellers to get bowl eligible.

We make our own rules, including those you don't like and vice versa.

But both would also need to play fair.... you would then be a separate organization in the same sports market instead of under one voluntary legal umbrella...would have to watch out and not do anything to restrict trade or other monopolistic business behaviors.

I bet they don't really want to try all that. But who knows.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-07-2018 11:48 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 07:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 06:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As much as I hate to say it, regardless of all logic, at least NC State beat some really good teams on their way to the title. They weren't the best team on paper but they earned their title by going through some great teams, both in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments.

And that's exactly what I mean by this idiotic logic of just assuming things rather than earning them on the field of play. Had they just assumed things, Houston would have won the national title before the Tournament began and the Final Four would have been UH, Louisville, Virginia and either St. John's or UNC (only because they were reigning national champs with Jordan).

But they played the games and luck or not, they earned everything they got. So who cares about improbability, earn it on the field. If the so-called best team doesn't win it, then that's their fault, in every sport except college football.

The NCAA basketball tournament is anything but fair. Many teams that prove their consistency and worth over 30 regular season games get almost nothing from it, other than what amounts to the chance to play Russian roulette up to six times. But the tournament is entertaining in spite of being unfair to the best teams, because it's one-and-done and a mediocre team can beat a great team on any given day by luck or because the great team had a bad game (which is good luck for the mediocre team, to catch them on that day).

Giving everyone "a chance" isn't being fair; it's more like passing out lottery tickets. It can be entertaining, like March Madness usually is, but it's not fair in the sense of being meritorious.

I agree. There are too many teams in the NCAA basketball tourney (both conferences and wild cards) and too few in the CFP.

48 would be about right for the tourney. And it would be nice if about 10 conferences moved down to Division II where they belong. Get rid of 10 conferences and 10 mid-pack P6 teams.

There are roughly 130 FBS schools. There are 65 in the P5. How is it that half is not sufficient for an upper division, especially since the top earner last year brought in 191 million and the 65th place school brought in around 66 million and the 72nd position is the last before you drop below 50 million.

It seems to me the dividing line is about right. That it might be more distinctive around 60th position, and that a case could be made for inclusion to the 72nd position.

The simple fact is that as long as the NCAA refuses to fact check those moving up to the FBS level to make sure they have the required attendance and funding, that we are carrying about 24 schools too many in the FBS and that 2 maybe 3 tiers need to exist if the NCAA refuses to police those wanting admission.

The NCAA tournament absolutely needs to cull some conferences. And as long as they have a payout for the CFP for those not included there will be more snout applying for the trough.

This is why the NCAA either needs to reform, or we need to leave.

I'm fine with you separating as long as it is a complete severance in all sports and you form your own semi-pro league.

You only play P5 home-and-home...no 7 or 8 home games...play only each other in track, baseball, golf, etc. You only play each other in bowl games and no more buy games for your bottom dwellers to get bowl eligible.

We make our own rules, including those you don't like and vice versa.

But both would also need to play fair.... you would then be a separate organization in the same sports market instead of under one voluntary legal umbrella...would have to watch out and not do anything to restrict trade or other monopolistic business behaviors.

I bet they don't really want to try all that. But who knows.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

If the lower divisions aren't kept from playing, and are subject to market forces, there is no restriction of trade. You aren't being kept from producing and trying to sell your product, and the fact that you exist means we aren't legally a monopoly. We are just a collection of schools that generate comparable revenue, have comparable investment in the sports business, and can expect to comparably travel to each others venues and capitalize on the standards of the product we put out. The consumer judges by what they pay for.

And that is how it works.

(01-07-2018 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The NCAA tournament absolutely needs to cull some conferences. And as long as they have a payout for the CFP for those not included there will be more snout applying for the trough.

This is why the NCAA either needs to reform, or we need to leave.

Cut some conferences, are you serious? Just more 65 (and Big East) arrogance.

Many of those conferences have schools that have been D-I or playing college basketball as long, if not longer than some of you guys. St. Francis College of the NEC comes to mind.

I'd be fine with more opening round games to cut some of the fat in the opening rounds but the NCAA belongs to every member, not just you 65 (75) and it always has. Like I said, just expand the opening rounds.