(01-05-2018 09:55 AM)Wedge 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.

That might be fair if each conference championship was equally difficult to win. If not, then equally rewarding each conference champ would be "unfair" to teams competing in conferences that are more difficult to win.

And that's one reason why the bolded statement above is correct.

Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

(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.

Agreed.

Diluting the competition just to make others feel better has never been a good solution.

(01-05-2018 11:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:55 AM)Wedge 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.

That might be fair if each conference championship was equally difficult to win. If not, then equally rewarding each conference champ would be "unfair" to teams competing in conferences that are more difficult to win.

And that's one reason why the bolded statement above is correct.

Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

Read the whole thread. The thread is not about UCF deserving a playoff more than Bama.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 10:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:55 AM)Wedge 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.

That might be fair if each conference championship was equally difficult to win. If not, then equally rewarding each conference champ would be "unfair" to teams competing in conferences that are more difficult to win.

And that's one reason why the bolded statement above is correct.

You aren't eligible to be hired because you don't have a job.

You can't enter the hospital if you are sick.

We can't mitigate the disparities in FBS football because there are disparities in FBS football.

Tired excuses to maintain the status quo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Welcome to reality, those who have power will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo.

One man's "keeping the status quo" is another man's "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".....

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In real sports you generally have division champions and a couple of wildcards. This is not unusual or "unfair".

What makes it seem "unfair" in college football is that the cartel structure has stunted any potential parity between conferences and widened the gap.

LSU, Bama, and the rest of the elites have extreme institutionalized recruiting advantages, one of which is the fact that they have playoff access and others do not.

How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea of a "non-cartel" LSU or Alabama would be a system that allows Arkansas State to share in the brand value and wealth generated by LSU and Alabama (and others) over those years without having worked for it, including forcing them to play against you even if they don't want to.

Hint: That's not how LSU and Alabama built their programs. They didn't go to Notre Dame and Princeton in 1915 and say "hey you guys, you better schedule us and let us play against you for championships, or else you're running a cartel that is holding us down!".

(01-05-2018 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lots of truth in that. E.g., when i compare the FCS post-season and the FBS post-season, I just like FBS lots more. It's a lot more fun watching all those bowl games than watching the FCS playoffs. I don't watch any FCS playoffs until the semis and maybe not then, the only one i watch for sure is the final.

Any playoff expansion that wipes out bowl season is IMO too high a price to pay to create more 'fairness' or whatever. Bottom line is that the current setup produces the best team as champ anyway.

And you really can't compare FCS games to FBS. How many of those FCS players reasonably expect to have even a shot at a pro career? How many players on a given FCS team could be legitimate starters for an FBS team? With pro careers on the line, any lengthening of the season would be met with tons of pushback from the players. They aren't being paid now and risking a potential pro career to satisfy some people's perception of "fairness" just ain't going to happen without big changes to the rules. All you have to do is look at how many potential NFL draftees are skipping their senior years, much less bowl games. That number would mushroom with more teams added to the playoffs.

As I have said many times before, I don't want any playoff. The mythical national championships provided by the polls worked well for years and arguments about the valid title holder hasn't vanished with the creation of the BCS or four-team playoff. Things wouldn't change if were an eight-team playoff. There will always be someone believing that their team or conference was unfairly treated by the selection process.

@Quo

They have it built in because of media bias, among other things. What was the difference between BYU and Miss. State 25 years ago? If anything, BYU was much more prominent but that stupid SEC and Big 12 tag changed everything.

It wasn't all that long ago Louisville, Cincinnati and Marquette were treated like minors and the BCS tag meant everything for Baylor, Texas A&M and Ole Miss, who never meant anything in basketball and were exalted above them.

(01-05-2018 11:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  All conference champs in is only "fair" if comparable schedules.

What i would really like is a de-emphasis on the national title and more emphasis on the major bowls. We are at risking of hurting a lot of thinga that make college football sppecial

This doesn't sound right coming from a fan of a team in the conference which...
...broke up the Pitt/Penn State rivalry
...then broke up the Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry
...then pulled Maryland from it's 50-year conference home

With all those disruptions to OTHER conferences, pardon me if I just don't see the Big Ten as the champions of college football tradition.

Tradition is a matter of perspective.

The kids currently enrolled at PSU weren't even born when their rivalry with Pitt was at it's peak. I'm sure those same kids could care less about it. Give it another decade and the same thing will happen at Nebraska.

The only thing realignment has done is create the opportunity for NEW rivalries and traditions. My guess is that in that next decade, the Nebraska/Wisconsin rivalry will be what's focused on, not what once was.

(01-05-2018 11:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:55 AM)Wedge 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.

That might be fair if each conference championship was equally difficult to win. If not, then equally rewarding each conference champ would be "unfair" to teams competing in conferences that are more difficult to win.

And that's one reason why the bolded statement above is correct.

Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

Read the whole thread. The thread is not about UCF deserving a playoff more than Bama.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

That statement pretty much says exactly that......

Unless the plan is to expand to 16 teams.

(01-05-2018 11:46 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  @Quo

They have it built in because of media bias, among other things. What was the difference between BYU and Miss. State 25 years ago? If anything, BYU was much more prominent but that stupid SEC and Big 12 tag changed everything.

Things ebb and flow. 50 years ago, Ole Miss was a national power and nobody ever heard of BYU.

Surely, the major conferences provide major platforms for their members. They've gotten very good at maximizing revenue since the NCAA cartel was busted in 1984 and exceptionally good at it the last 10 years. That has definitely worked to the advantage of schools that weren't traditional powers but are members of those conferences.

Then again, minor schools have literally never had it better, in terms of money, media, and bowl access, then they have it today. For an Arkansas State, there is way more money, exposure, and bowl opportunities than there was in 1992, or 1972.

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  All relevant points. But you also cannot ignore the institutionalized advantages that an Alabama has over a UCF.

Due to the system Alabama has a recruiting advantage over UCF because it has playoff access and UCF does not.

Due to the system Alabama generally has additional home games against ranked foes built-in that UCF does not enjoy.

There are others.

So yes, Alabama is a much better team than UCF is, there is no denying it. But the system is set up to make it easy for Alabama to be a much better team than UCF...in fact almost certain to be a much better team than UCF...every year...no matter what UCF does.

So you have to take that into account when you judge their relative accomplishments.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe UCF should be judged on some sort of sliding scale because of inherent disadvantages created by "the system?"

Yes, Alabama has advantages over G5 schools. Do you believe that began with the advent of the playoff structure? Do you sincerely believe the Arkansas State would magically recruit as well as Arkansas if ASU had a legitimate path to the playoffs?

Alabama does not have a recruiting advantage over UCF because it has playoff access and UCF does not. It has a recruiting advantage because of many factors, including having played big boy championship football long before UCF started competing in Division I in 1996. Gifting the G5 schools a playoff spot doesn't change the fact that most highly recruited players are going to want to play in the SEC, Big 10, or ACC instead of the Sun Belt, AAC, or CUSA.

The notion that Western Michigan would somehow begin to recruit on the same level as Michigan if they only had a path to the national championship is patently absurd.

Your assertion about home games against ranked opponents is another straw man. That is a direct result of conference membership. Why do you think any G5 school would jump at the chance to move up to a P5 conference? It isn't because they would have a shot at the national title.

By virtue of their time as major conference football programs (as well as things like flagship status), most P5 schools will maintain recruiting advantages over G5 schools and "the system" won't have anything to do with it. Even when UCF and or USF join a P5 conference (which I expect within the next 7-8 years), they will still have Florida, Florida State and Miami to recruit against, plus all of the other P5 schools that recruit Florida. I would guess that they would still be years away from recruiting at the same level as those schools.

I think very highly of the things that UCF and USF have accomplished in their short time in Division I football. IMO, they will one day be national forces to contend with and "the system" will work in their favor. These schools have played DI football for around 20 years or less, so a little patience seems to be in order.

There's only so many rooms at the inn. Not everyone can be a national power. There's only about 5 who can outside the club, BYU and pretty much anyone that's already been on the inside, like UConn.

(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

I absolutely agree with you in spirit but that would simply result in the power conferences breaking off and forming their own sub-division. We all know that they are not going to share the money equally with schools whom they don’t believe help create said wealth.

I believe that the best solution for all concerned is an eight-team playoff with guaranteed berths to the major conference champions and a guaranteed spot for at least one of the non-power conference schools.

If more than one qualifies, then they get in as well. Maybe there will be a year where Central Florida and Western Michigan each girl 13-0 in the same year? In that case, they should both get in.

However, if there is a push for true egalitarianism, that will ensure a break up.

(01-05-2018 11:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In real sports you generally have division champions and a couple of wildcards. This is not unusual or "unfair".

What makes it seem "unfair" in college football is that the cartel structure has stunted any potential parity between conferences and widened the gap.

LSU, Bama, and the rest of the elites have extreme institutionalized recruiting advantages, one of which is the fact that they have playoff access and others do not.

How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea of a "non-cartel" LSU or Alabama would be a system that allows Arkansas State to share in the brand value and wealth generated by LSU and Alabama (and others) over those years without having worked for it, including forcing them to play against you even if they don't want to.

Hint: That's not how LSU and Alabama built their programs. They didn't go to Notre Dame and Princeton in 1915 and say "hey you guys, you better schedule us and let us play against you for championships, or else you're running a cartel that is holding us down!".

I'm proposing that FBS post-season operate like any other rational and legitimate sports league on the face of the earth and not have half of its divisional title holders excluded prior to any games being played.

If you think you are too rich and too branded to have a real legitimate sports league with current membership then by all means break away and only play each other.

Just stop lording it over members of your league for being "lesser" when you actively rig the system to keep them that way.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 11:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

Is it? It used to be no one could make the NCAA Tournament except conference champions.

(01-05-2018 11:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  In real sports you generally have division champions and a couple of wildcards. This is not unusual or "unfair".

What makes it seem "unfair" in college football is that the cartel structure has stunted any potential parity between conferences and widened the gap.

LSU, Bama, and the rest of the elites have extreme institutionalized recruiting advantages, one of which is the fact that they have playoff access and others do not.

How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea of a "non-cartel" LSU or Alabama would be a system that allows Arkansas State to share in the brand value and wealth generated by LSU and Alabama (and others) over those years without having worked for it, including forcing them to play against you even if they don't want to.

Hint: That's not how LSU and Alabama built their programs. They didn't go to Notre Dame and Princeton in 1915 and say "hey you guys, you better schedule us and let us play against you for championships, or else you're running a cartel that is holding us down!".

I'm proposing that FBS post-season operate like any other rational and legitimate sports league on the face of the earth and not have half of its divisional title holders excluded prior to any games being played.

If you think you are too rich and too branded to have a real legitimate sports league with current membership then by all means break away and only play each other.

Just stop lording it over members of your league for being "lesser" when you actively rig the system to keep them that way.

The current system was agreed to by the all 10 FBS leagues, the Sun Belt included.

If the Sun Belt feels the system is rigged against them, they are free to band with other like-minded groups and form their own system. That's free competition.

(01-05-2018 11:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer 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

I absolutely agree with you in spirit but that would simply result in the power conferences breaking off and forming their own sub-division. We all know that they are not going to share the money equally with schools whom they don’t believe help create said wealth.

I believe that the best solution for all concerned is an eight-team playoff with guaranteed berths to the major conference champions and a guaranteed spot for at least one of the non-power conference schools.

If more than one qualifies, then they get in as well. Maybe there will be a year where Central Florida and Western Michigan each girl 13-0 in the same year? In that case, they should both get in.

However, if there is a push for true egalitarianism, that will ensure a break up.

Nobody is asking for sharing money equally. People are asking for access to post-season like any other sports league.

If that access causes more parity and G5 schools naturally become more attractive and relevant and thus gain more wealth, so be it. If not, so be it.

And if you are not willing to have a real sports league in FBS...then yes...break away. But be prepared to not have control over those you leave behind and don't expect not to break away in all sports and don't expect to have as many home games, etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

This is patently untrue. I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, the ACC was not considered on the same level as the Big 10 or SEC, but it certainly is now. Penn State and Florida State had to win their way to respectability, but they weren't given "top program" status because someone gave it to them to achieve "fairness."

The advantages aren't "frozen in place" if there is upward mobility. The schools that have been added to the P5 conferences over the years proves that nothing has been static and that programs that commit to their athletics programs have eventually been rewarded with membership to the big boy club. Certainly you can see that nothing is frozen in place if schools like Louisville and Utah get invitations to P5 conferences, as well as returners like TCU. The only thing holding Houston back is demographics or they would already have returned to the club. There is upward mobility, so all of the chest beating about the lack of fairness is just untrue.

(01-05-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:54 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:35 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How many wild cards? Not enough to cover the disparity. The NCAA hoops tourney works because there are enough "wild cards" to let all reasonably deserving non-champs in. Football can't do that so auto-bids for champs is a no-go.

Recruiting? LSU and Bama have massive recruiting advantages over Ark-State because they have built up huge fan bases over 120 years of playing football and thus have created an extremely attractive platform - in terms of home attendance, TV, and media attention - for players to play on.

And they maintain those advantages by having a cartel that freezes those advantages in place and limits others from following and acheving the same level of success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea of a "non-cartel" LSU or Alabama would be a system that allows Arkansas State to share in the brand value and wealth generated by LSU and Alabama (and others) over those years without having worked for it, including forcing them to play against you even if they don't want to.

Hint: That's not how LSU and Alabama built their programs. They didn't go to Notre Dame and Princeton in 1915 and say "hey you guys, you better schedule us and let us play against you for championships, or else you're running a cartel that is holding us down!".

I'm proposing that FBS post-season operate like any other rational and legitimate sports league on the face of the earth and not have half of its divisional title holders excluded prior to any games being played.

If you think you are too rich and too branded to have a real legitimate sports league with current membership then by all means break away and only play each other.

Just stop lording it over members of your league for being "lesser" when you actively rig the system to keep them that way.

The current system was agreed to by the all 10 FBS leagues, the Sun Belt included.

If the Sun Belt feels the system is rigged against them, they are free to band with other like-minded groups and form their own system. That's free competition.

It may happen some day. Of course then it would be two competing leagues not under the same umbrella and they'd have to play by a lot of the legal requirements the government requires about fairness and business practices and all that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:46 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  @Quo

They have it built in because of media bias, among other things. What was the difference between BYU and Miss. State 25 years ago? If anything, BYU was much more prominent but that stupid SEC and Big 12 tag changed everything.

Things ebb and flow. 50 years ago, Ole Miss was a national power and nobody ever heard of BYU.

Surely, the major conferences provide major platforms for their members. They've gotten very good at maximizing revenue since the NCAA cartel was busted in 1984 and exceptionally good at it the last 10 years. That has definitely worked to the advantage of schools that weren't traditional powers but are members of those conferences.

Then again, minor schools have literally never had it better, in terms of money, media, and bowl access, then they have it today. For an Arkansas State, there is way more money, exposure, and bowl opportunities than there was in 1992, or 1972.

Some of those minor schools have been around way longer. Who was more prominent in 1972, Tulane or Miami?

As you noted, ebb and flow, musical chairs. Like the CEO or co-founder that built it up and then got fired or forced out. And yes, I am speaking on some level of frustration over how Houston got left behind.

(01-05-2018 11:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Hit that SQUARELY on the head.

To think that the Conference USA champ is more deserving of a playoff spot that this years Bama (1 loss, not a conference champ) is absurd and simple minded.

Is it? It used to be no one could make the NCAA Tournament except conference champions.

Not exactly. There were spots reserved for independents, e.g. in 1973, before the Big East formed, Syracuse and Providence played in the tournament as independents.

But no conference could send more than 1 team to the tournament.

Why did that system break down and was replaced more than 40 years ago? Because too many top-level teams that didn't win their conference were being left out.

So no going back to that. The only way a "all conference champs in" system will fly is if all reasonably deserving non-champs get in too, and I'm not sure that is workable.