(03-23-2018 01:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I miss the BCS. Every week mattered and the bowl games had meaning.

Just stop it, you people are so full of it you're constipated.

I've always had this opinion. The Boise State vs Oklahoma game was great. So was the Utah vs. Alabama. The UCF vs. Auburn got overshadowed because of the playoff. I don't care who is the national champion is. I just want great match-ups.

I agree that the playoff makes the other bowl games less significant. That's why we should expand the playoff to 8 or 12 teams.

(03-23-2018 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Why would they HAVE to be included? They have their own attendance and scholarship requirements, thus their own subdivision. Now a few FBS teams should be FCS but that doesn't mean you merge both levels.

For the same reason they are included in March Madness, they are Division I as well?

There's no rational basis for saying Alabama should have to play Eastern Michigan in a football playoff but not North Dakota State.

G5 fans are strident in demanding a playoff that includes their teams/conferences and are more than happy to exclude other D1 schools/conferences, but are shocked when P5 fans feel the same about G5. It's pretty hypocritical.

Of course there is. There is a subdivision there that created FBS and FCS. Those subdivisions were created by the NCAA. That’s not just something fans made up.

Two reasons why that makes no sense: First, surely "division" is a superior category to "subdivision", so on that basis the playoffs rationally should encompass the division, as they do in hoops and all other NCAA divisions and sports other than D1 football.

In fact, the only reason there are these subdivisions is because some D1 schools wanted to compete in a playoff format and others did not - the FBS schools. If the FBS schools suddenly change their minds and want a playoff too, then naturally that should mean re-merging with FCS to create a D1 playoffs, just like in hoops.

Second, while the NCAA created the FCS and FBS subdivisions, they absolutely did not create FBS - either in terms of defining who was in that subdivision or in terms of defining how schools could move from one subdivision to the other - for the purposes of establishing a distinct competitive league with playoffs among the teams to decide a champion. That part of it -the crucial part- is a fantasy created by fans of G5 schools who want their teams to be able to compete in a playoff vs the Power schools.

We know that for sure, because (a) when the subdivisions were created, it was as stated above explicitly to distinguish those schools that wanted to compete in a playoff format from those that did not, i.e., wanted to maintain the traditional bowl system, and (b) had the NCAA tried to create FCS and FBS for the purpose of organizing a playoff among the FBS schools as well, that plan would have been rejected by the NCAA membership, because the bowl schools did not want any such playoff.

The G5 has no case here, at least not one rooted in the FBS/FCS distinction.

I feel stupider for having read this. Division I football is split into two separate divisions. Thus they're called subdivisions.

But hey if you guys want to include FCS that's fine. Just wait until the FCS playoffs is over and include their champ.

A subdivision isn't the same thing as a division. By definition, the subs are part of the *same* division.

You have no case, but your bias keeps you from seeing that.

Truth is, your rationale for excluding FCS is no different than the P5 rationale for excluding the G5.

Which is ironic because the MAC champ isn't any more or less excluded from the CfP than the Big 10 is.

(03-22-2018 08:50 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The regional champion should have been Virginia. We already knew that before the tournament.

Rather than actually having to prove it on the court, they should have been awarded the south regional before a game was played. It sucks that Loyola won games and is nearly a game from the Final Four, because we already knew they couldn't compete with a Tennessee or Miami (notice I didn't say Nevada, since they aren't in one of those conferences).

I'm sorely disappointed about a Final Four not involving the top four seeds Villanova, Kansas, Virginia and Xavier. It's obvious those were the best four teams.

I actually prefer a modified World Cup soccer format. Round-robin Group Stage followed by the knockout, single elimination tournament.

Still keep the Play-In games to see who advances to the Group Stage. May be even add some Play-In games.

Each Region has four Groups. Each Group is a pool that plays each other once over 3 consecutive days at the same venue - Thursday-to-Saturday or Friday-to-Sunday. May be even start on Wednesday to stagger games for TV.

So the South Region has:
Group 1: (1)Virginia, (8)Creighton, (9)Kansas St., (16)UMBC
Group 2: (4)Arizona, (5)Kentucky, (12)Davidson, (13)Buffalo
Group 3: (3)Tennessee, (6)Miami, (11)Loyola-Chicago, (14)Wright St.
Group 4: (2)Cincinnati, (7)Nevada, (10)Texas, (15) Georgia St.

The Group Stage is followed by an 8-team South Region knockout tournament. Winner advances to the Final Four. Again, 3 games over 3 consecutive days - Thursday-to-Saturday or Friday-to-Sunday.

Despite early upsets, Virginia and Arizona still have a chance to advance to the South Region knockout stage if they beat the two other teams in their group. UMBC, Buffalo, and Loyola can't hang their hats on one signature upset win - they still have to prove it out by placing in the top-2 in their pool.

Based on games actually played, South Region Group standings:

Group 1:
Kansas St. 2-0
UMBC 1-1
Virginia 0-1
Creighton 0-1

Group 2:
Kentucky 2-0
Buffalo 1-1
Arizona 0-1
Davidson 0-1

Group 3:
Loyola-Chicago 2-0
Tennessee 1-1
Miami 0-1
Wright St. 0-1

Group 4:
Nevada 2-0
Cincinnati 1-1
Texas 0-1
Georgia St. 0-1

I note that Loyola still advances, even if they lose to Wright St. With wins over Miami and Tennessee, they finish at least 2-1 in the Group, with tie-breaking wins over the other 2 contenders. Buffalo could still advance if it beats Davidson. UMBC could still advance by beating Creighton.

Some huge Group games left, that determine whether a team advances to the Knockout Stage: Miami v. Tennessee, Virginia-Creighton, Cincinnati-Texas.

(03-23-2018 08:24 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To make the analogy more apt, college football would need FBS and FCS to merge and then auto-bid every single conference champion team into that playoff. You're talking at least a 32 team playoff at that point. 32->16->8->4->2 ... that's an entire MONTH of playoff if you give teams a week between games. And at that point you're telling the bowls to take a hike except the really big ones. It would have to be home of the higher seed until the round of 8 at the earliest.

Serious question... not specifically directed toward GTS, would you rather be in a 5-game playoff that paid $5 million/round with the end being a national championship or, a one-time game in a major bowl that paid $25 million?

I don't accept the hypothetical. A 32 team playoff would be worth well north of $5m/game even in the opening round. By the time you hit the Final Four you're talking $50m+ revenue games.

(03-23-2018 02:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For the same reason they are included in March Madness, they are Division I as well?

There's no rational basis for saying Alabama should have to play Eastern Michigan in a football playoff but not North Dakota State.

G5 fans are strident in demanding a playoff that includes their teams/conferences and are more than happy to exclude other D1 schools/conferences, but are shocked when P5 fans feel the same about G5. It's pretty hypocritical.

Of course there is. There is a subdivision there that created FBS and FCS. Those subdivisions were created by the NCAA. That’s not just something fans made up.

Two reasons why that makes no sense: First, surely "division" is a superior category to "subdivision", so on that basis the playoffs rationally should encompass the division, as they do in hoops and all other NCAA divisions and sports other than D1 football.

In fact, the only reason there are these subdivisions is because some D1 schools wanted to compete in a playoff format and others did not - the FBS schools. If the FBS schools suddenly change their minds and want a playoff too, then naturally that should mean re-merging with FCS to create a D1 playoffs, just like in hoops.

Second, while the NCAA created the FCS and FBS subdivisions, they absolutely did not create FBS - either in terms of defining who was in that subdivision or in terms of defining how schools could move from one subdivision to the other - for the purposes of establishing a distinct competitive league with playoffs among the teams to decide a champion. That part of it -the crucial part- is a fantasy created by fans of G5 schools who want their teams to be able to compete in a playoff vs the Power schools.

We know that for sure, because (a) when the subdivisions were created, it was as stated above explicitly to distinguish those schools that wanted to compete in a playoff format from those that did not, i.e., wanted to maintain the traditional bowl system, and (b) had the NCAA tried to create FCS and FBS for the purpose of organizing a playoff among the FBS schools as well, that plan would have been rejected by the NCAA membership, because the bowl schools did not want any such playoff.

The G5 has no case here, at least not one rooted in the FBS/FCS distinction.

I feel stupider for having read this. Division I football is split into two separate divisions. Thus they're called subdivisions.

But hey if you guys want to include FCS that's fine. Just wait until the FCS playoffs is over and include their champ.

A subdivision isn't the same thing as a division. By definition, the subs are part of the *same* division.

You have no case, but your bias keeps you from seeing that.

Truth is, your rationale for excluding FCS is no different than the P5 rationale for excluding the G5.

Which is ironic because the MAC champ isn't any more or less excluded from the CfP than the Big 10 is.

A subdivision FURTHER divides something.

If you were looking for the best looking person in the world would you have to include all apes because we're in the same family? All mammals? Granted an orangutan is not likely to win but if you had a best looking ape contest you'd have to allow them entry. If you said that your beauty contest was just for humans then it's understood and expected that you needed to walk upright to even be considered.

There are clearly defined regulatory divisions between the two subdivisions no less clear than between Div I & II or Div II & III. The only reason that it's considered a subdivision and not a whole different division is that it applies only to football and for all other sports the division does not exist. The reason is because football is such an expensive sport.

(03-23-2018 03:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 08:24 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To make the analogy more apt, college football would need FBS and FCS to merge and then auto-bid every single conference champion team into that playoff. You're talking at least a 32 team playoff at that point. 32->16->8->4->2 ... that's an entire MONTH of playoff if you give teams a week between games. And at that point you're telling the bowls to take a hike except the really big ones. It would have to be home of the higher seed until the round of 8 at the earliest.

Serious question... not specifically directed toward GTS, would you rather be in a 5-game playoff that paid $5 million/round with the end being a national championship or, a one-time game in a major bowl that paid $25 million?

I don't accept the hypothetical. A 32 team playoff would be worth well north of $5m/game even in the opening round. By the time you hit the Final Four you're talking $50m+ revenue games.

In the CFP, in each year in which a conference's "home bowl" is not a semifinal, each P5 conference gets about $90 million, ($50 million when home bowl is a semifinal). That's $230 million over 3 years, average is $76.7 million/year. Add $6 million more for each conference team in the playoff, plus, for the Big Ten or SEC, $27 million more if one of their teams is in a non-playoff Orange Bowl that season.

That's $8 million per Big 12 team, $6.7 million per Pac-12 team, $5.7 million per team for the other three. A larger playoff would have to pay each P5 conference much more than the average of $80 million-plus they make now, or they're not going to do it. Let's say that for an 8-team playoff it would take about another $4 million or so per team, that's about $250 million more TV would have to pay, plus more to cover the expenses of staging each extra game, plus more to give each G5 school a raise. That might mean another $400 million/year from TV on top of the $608 million/year ESPN already pays, a total of $1 billion/year.

So it would take about $1 billion/year to get an 8-team playoff; for 16 or 32 teams, it might take $2 billion or more per year from TV to get the P5 conferences to say yes. If that kind of money was on offer, the playoff would already be larger.

Conference contracts with bowls is stupid. Bowls should invite the best teams by virtue of who has the best payout. Everybody has always known the Silver Bowl or the Copper Bowl were never deciding the champion, but they used to have better match-ups. If you don’t have a winning record, you don’t deserve a bowl game or the money involved!!

(03-22-2018 10:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And for the record, I'm referring to the logic of Quo more than anyone in these debates, dating back to football season.

You can't add UCF to the playoffs or have a playoffs with an auto-bid for teams from outside the TPC because we already "know" they can't compete.

Hahahahaha....well done.

A few thoughts:

The FCS schools did not choose to be FCS--they were hastily and without warning booted out of the top tier and relegated to a second rate tier with a playoff. Some schools, like Wichita St, UT Arlington, and Villanova, we're so devestated by the move they dropped the sport entirely while others like UNT, LA Tech, and Arkansas St took decades to crawl back.

I think the premise behind March Madness is sound--to be crowned national champion a team needs to be able to take care of business when stakes are high, even if it's against a 16 seed. If you can't, you don't deserve the title.

As far as I'm concerned the ideal set up for a college football playoff is 8 teams--5 autobids for the 5 highest ranked conference champions and 3 spots for the 3 next highest. If a G5 produces a champ that's better than one from a P5 they should be able to steal an AQ.

Football will find it's way to 16 eventually IMHO. Too much money not to. I can see something 16-ish with play-in games as well, where the lowest conference champions are always in the play-in.

(03-23-2018 02:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Which is ironic because the MAC champ isn't any more or less excluded from the CfP than the Big 10 is.

The divide isn't from exclusion per se, it's lack of inclusion. FBS college football is literally the only major American team sport which is not decided by a broad playoff in which all champions of participating conferences automatically receive bids, but rather the Top 3% of teams are decided by a committee that can use whatever standards they want to decide bids. Sure March Madness uses a committee, but the tourney includes nearly 20% of DI and nearly half of those get auto-bids.

Of course, pro sports are different because they're for-profit franchises competing under a relatively equitable set of institutional rules, whereas colleges range anywhere between the likes of Rice and Texas. But given that those institutional differences exist, why should any college sport give auto-bids to conference champs? At one point in this college hockey season every one of the eight NCHC teams were ranked higher than the top Atlantic Hockey school in the Pairwise rankings - was Tennessee better than someone like Troy last year? I'd argue that while the difference between Alabama and FAU is large, it's narrower than North Dakota State and San Diego; even the FCS still lets non-scholarship Pioneer League teams into their playoff.

(03-23-2018 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Football will find it's way to 16 eventually IMHO. Too much money not to. I can see something 16-ish with play-in games as well, where the lowest conference champions are always in the play-in.

It would make for so many relevant late season games that there is no way it doesn't happen.

Right now, about 80% of FBS is playing for nothing after week 5. Today's kids are never going to attend/watch games that have no possibility of meaning something.

(03-23-2018 04:11 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 02:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Of course there is. There is a subdivision there that created FBS and FCS. Those subdivisions were created by the NCAA. That’s not just something fans made up.

Two reasons why that makes no sense: First, surely "division" is a superior category to "subdivision", so on that basis the playoffs rationally should encompass the division, as they do in hoops and all other NCAA divisions and sports other than D1 football.

In fact, the only reason there are these subdivisions is because some D1 schools wanted to compete in a playoff format and others did not - the FBS schools. If the FBS schools suddenly change their minds and want a playoff too, then naturally that should mean re-merging with FCS to create a D1 playoffs, just like in hoops.

Second, while the NCAA created the FCS and FBS subdivisions, they absolutely did not create FBS - either in terms of defining who was in that subdivision or in terms of defining how schools could move from one subdivision to the other - for the purposes of establishing a distinct competitive league with playoffs among the teams to decide a champion. That part of it -the crucial part- is a fantasy created by fans of G5 schools who want their teams to be able to compete in a playoff vs the Power schools.

We know that for sure, because (a) when the subdivisions were created, it was as stated above explicitly to distinguish those schools that wanted to compete in a playoff format from those that did not, i.e., wanted to maintain the traditional bowl system, and (b) had the NCAA tried to create FCS and FBS for the purpose of organizing a playoff among the FBS schools as well, that plan would have been rejected by the NCAA membership, because the bowl schools did not want any such playoff.

The G5 has no case here, at least not one rooted in the FBS/FCS distinction.

I feel stupider for having read this. Division I football is split into two separate divisions. Thus they're called subdivisions.

But hey if you guys want to include FCS that's fine. Just wait until the FCS playoffs is over and include their champ.

A subdivision isn't the same thing as a division. By definition, the subs are part of the *same* division.

You have no case, but your bias keeps you from seeing that.

Truth is, your rationale for excluding FCS is no different than the P5 rationale for excluding the G5.

Which is ironic because the MAC champ isn't any more or less excluded from the CfP than the Big 10 is.

A subdivision FURTHER divides something.

If you were looking for the best looking person in the world would you have to include all apes because we're in the same family? All mammals? Granted an orangutan is not likely to win but if you had a best looking ape contest you'd have to allow them entry. If you said that your beauty contest was just for humans then it's understood and expected that you needed to walk upright to even be considered.

There are clearly defined regulatory divisions between the two subdivisions no less clear than between Div I & II or Div II & III. The only reason that it's considered a subdivision and not a whole different division is that it applies only to football and for all other sports the division does not exist. The reason is because football is such an expensive sport.

In your analogy, FBS is Asian women and FCS is European women. They are both human women. Division I is "women".

The regulatory divisions between FBS and FCS were never designed to create an "FBS" that constituted a subdivision based on playoff compatibility, IOW's a "league" in that sense of the word. That's been explained already. If it was intended to be that, it (a) would have much more stringent requirements for FBS, and (b) wouldn't exist anyway because the schools wouldn't want it.

And if we look at the distinction, the only regulatory difference between them that actually touches on competitiveness is the 85 vs 63 cap in football schollies, and that is artificial, because all it would take to level that is to allow FCS to give up to 85 schollies. All the other regulatory differences, like attendance and 200 schollies across all sports, are irrelevant to football competitiveness.

IOW's, the FBS vs FCS distinction is an artificial creation, not an organic one reflecting a fundamental difference in 'species' so to speak. That's why at the margins, FBS schools like UMass look indistinguishable from FCS schools like James Madison. No Orangutan to human difference there.

(03-23-2018 02:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 08:50 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The regional champion should have been Virginia. We already knew that before the tournament.

Rather than actually having to prove it on the court, they should have been awarded the south regional before a game was played. It sucks that Loyola won games and is nearly a game from the Final Four, because we already knew they couldn't compete with a Tennessee or Miami (notice I didn't say Nevada, since they aren't in one of those conferences).

I'm sorely disappointed about a Final Four not involving the top four seeds Villanova, Kansas, Virginia and Xavier. It's obvious those were the best four teams.

I actually prefer a modified World Cup soccer format. Round-robin Group Stage followed by the knockout, single elimination tournament.

Still keep the Play-In games to see who advances to the Group Stage. May be even add some Play-In games.

Each Region has four Groups. Each Group is a pool that plays each other once over 3 consecutive days at the same venue - Thursday-to-Saturday or Friday-to-Sunday. May be even start on Wednesday to stagger games for TV.

So the South Region has:
Group 1: (1)Virginia, (8)Creighton, (9)Kansas St., (16)UMBC
Group 2: (4)Arizona, (5)Kentucky, (12)Davidson, (13)Buffalo
Group 3: (3)Tennessee, (6)Miami, (11)Loyola-Chicago, (14)Wright St.
Group 4: (2)Cincinnati, (7)Nevada, (10)Texas, (15) Georgia St.

The Group Stage is followed by an 8-team South Region knockout tournament. Winner advances to the Final Four. Again, 3 games over 3 consecutive days - Thursday-to-Saturday or Friday-to-Sunday.

Despite early upsets, Virginia and Arizona still have a chance to advance to the South Region knockout stage if they beat the two other teams in their group. UMBC, Buffalo, and Loyola can't hang their hats on one signature upset win - they still have to prove it out by placing in the top-2 in their pool.

Based on games actually played, South Region Group standings:

Group 1:
Kansas St. 2-0
UMBC 1-1
Virginia 0-1
Creighton 0-1

Group 2:
Kentucky 2-0
Buffalo 1-1
Arizona 0-1
Davidson 0-1

Group 3:
Loyola-Chicago 2-0
Tennessee 1-1
Miami 0-1
Wright St. 0-1

Group 4:
Nevada 2-0
Cincinnati 1-1
Texas 0-1
Georgia St. 0-1

I note that Loyola still advances, even if they lose to Wright St. With wins over Miami and Tennessee, they finish at least 2-1 in the Group, with tie-breaking wins over the other 2 contenders. Buffalo could still advance if it beats Davidson. UMBC could still advance by beating Creighton.

Some huge Group games left, that determine whether a team advances to the Knockout Stage: Miami v. Tennessee, Virginia-Creighton, Cincinnati-Texas.

That's way too much; it's too much for the athletes/coaches, too much for the fans to pay and travel, too much inventory for the TV/Radio announcers and networks. What they could do is set up the tournament like college baseball except have four teams for each superregional.

And while some form of round robin may be the fair way to do it, don't count on the current format changing much. Though I think round robin is more fair than a great season going totally to waste because of a bad game or a really good game by an underdog.

(03-23-2018 06:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 02:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Which is ironic because the MAC champ isn't any more or less excluded from the CfP than the Big 10 is.

The divide isn't from exclusion per se, it's lack of inclusion. FBS college football is literally the only major American team sport which is not decided by a broad playoff in which all champions of participating conferences automatically receive bids, but rather the Top 3% of teams are decided by a committee that can use whatever standards they want to decide bids. Sure March Madness uses a committee, but the tourney includes nearly 20% of DI and nearly half of those get auto-bids.

Of course, pro sports are different because they're for-profit franchises competing under a relatively equitable set of institutional rules, whereas colleges range anywhere between the likes of Rice and Texas. But given that those institutional differences exist, why should any college sport give auto-bids to conference champs?

Good question - they probably shouldn't. Auto-bids to conference champs only makes sense when, as you say, the franchises are structurally similar, such that over the long term, conference (or division) A is equal to B. We obviously don't have that in college athletics.

Given that, it makes sense for FBS to be subdivided into G5 and P5, as the P5 conferences are structurally superior. Separate playoffs for P5 and G5, to determine P5 and G5 champions.

D1 should have three champs: FCS, G5, and P5.

(03-22-2018 11:00 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I prefer football because it actually matters what you do for a season. It has issues, but no fewer than basketball which lets taleted teams play medicore until March and then be called national champs. I like every game having significance and I just never feel that with basketball till March.

Hilarious coming from the team that passed over Penn State who actually did win it on the field. The complete hypocrisy of the regular season argument was exposed when they took Ohio State over Penn State.

(03-23-2018 10:46 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:00 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I prefer football because it actually matters what you do for a season. It has issues, but no fewer than basketball which lets taleted teams play medicore until March and then be called national champs. I like every game having significance and I just never feel that with basketball till March.

Hilarious coming from the team that passed over Penn State who actually did win it on the field. The complete hypocrisy of the regular season argument was exposed when they took Ohio State over Penn State.

Not really. Winning your conference doesn't necessarily mean you had a better season. Ohio State had a better season than Penn State last year.

(03-23-2018 11:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:46 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:00 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I prefer football because it actually matters what you do for a season. It has issues, but no fewer than basketball which lets taleted teams play medicore until March and then be called national champs. I like every game having significance and I just never feel that with basketball till March.

Hilarious coming from the team that passed over Penn State who actually did win it on the field. The complete hypocrisy of the regular season argument was exposed when they took Ohio State over Penn State.

Not really. Winning your conference doesn't necessarily mean you had a better season. Ohio State had a better season than Penn State last year.

Then why even play the games? It's not like college basketball where you have no shortage of at-large spots, at least for teams that had a great season without winning an auto-bid.

Short of a team basically not winning any non-conference games, they presumably went 11-2 or better (no team in playoff contention is getting in at 10-3 or worse unless it's a really down/parity filled year). The only thing you could point to is unbalanced scheduling within conferences but that's their fault for overexpanding.

It's just further proof college football is a dog and pony show. I will add the caveat of head-to-head. As long as said proto 10-2 conference champion beat 11-1 non-champ, then 10/11-2 champion should be ahead. If not, especially if 11-1 champ won head-to-head, then place 11-1 team ahead. If from different conferences, then the non-champ should be far and away better.

Not that it's up to me. Still, at the very least, scenarios like that make a mockery of the argument that every week matters. What you do in the season matters, until it doesn't and the most fashionable or arbitrarily determined best team wins.

If college basketball had it's way like football, Loyola would be going to the Final Four...the NIT Final Four.

It’s not that hard. All ten conference champs and 6 at large. First two rounds are played on campus. Imagine all revenue from TV eyes those two weekends and all the revenue from ticket sales for the schools. These are played the week after conference championships and then the following week. You then go to New Year’s Day and the championship the week after. Very simple and very fair and would make for great tv and great games.

You don't even realistically need that. Just 5 conference champs and one auto-bid for the non-traditional power conferences. Do that and I don't think you'll ever hear a murmur from them about access again.