Honestly I think some of the games would end up being pretty bad, but I understand why people want that. I just don't think there are more than 8 teams in any given year that are likely to be the best team.

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

This.

my thoughts on a previous, similar thread..

so what makes it SO important to be able to claim a true, undisputed "national champion"?


Reply:isnt that the point of playing the games, to determne a champion

In college football? Not until the last 15-20 years or so. Yes, there was a "national champion," but every one accepted that in some respects it was mythical. Conference championships and rivalry games are what it was about... and those are nice to a degree. Instead all this talk of a national titles and BCS have reduced College Football into nothing more than a debate point, where the games have become somewhat secondary to "whats this going to do to the BCS" or "this just proves the need for a playoff.

I think ultimately a playoff will happen, and it wont be a bad thing...

I just dont understand why it is so important to be able to claim a "national champion" in a sport where they wont be able to have a large enough tournament to include all the potentially deserving teams... a 4 team tourney for a 120 team league, where you dont play over 90% of the other teams doesnt seem like it would solve much.

You're right, usually only three or four teams should get in...but what if only two deserve to get in...and then there are four or five teams even behind them that could sorta deserve to get in? I agree though. There will always be controversy (especially now), but as long as there is some playoff where the champ is decided ON THE FIELD...that is key.

yeah there will always be contraversy, but i'd rather the number 5 or 9 team get screwed than an undefeated number 3 team.

I just had another idea on how the BCS could easily nullify the threats and whining from the usual suspects of non-AQ teams. It wouldn't screw around too much with the existing conferences, either--except for one of them.

Add six teams to the Big 12 (Boise State, BYU, Utah, Colorado State, TCU, and Arkansas) and then split it up into two nine-team conferences. For practical purposes, I'll give them familiar names:

Big Nine:
Boise State
BYU
Colorado
Colorado State
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Utah

Southwest Conference:
Arkansas
Baylor
Missouri
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

This also resolves the looming Cotton Bowl showdown in getting included in the BCS by assigning it to the new SWC, and tying the Fiesta Bowl in with this new, geographically convenient Big Nine conference.

If you didn't want to break up the OU/NU and KU/Mizzou rivalries (they could set up annual non-conference agreements), you can swap Nebraska and Mizzou, but that may make things really unbalanced in competition (that is, if Nebraska ever gets regularly good again and Mizzou gets worse).

Then, replace Arky in the SEC with Louisville (giving them a serious booster in basketball), whose spot in the Big East gets filled by East Carolina, another common BCS buster threat.

The only serious team that gets shafted here is Fresno State. You could give them CSU's spot if you want, but the geography isn't really good for a California team over there.

I'm not surprised at all. The new York times had an excellent article about how all the conferences will soon consolidate into only 3 powerhouse conferences and that those would create their own football and basketball tourneys. The remaining small conferences would play in the current ncaa tourneys. Big East is poised to dissolve next.

I suppose it's inevitable. I'd rather see four conferences. 16 teams each to make the numbers round.

And leave Notre Dame out. F Notre Dame for holding out all this time...so keep 'em out.

in the general topic area, seems like boise's gonna join the mwc

my thoughts on a previous, similar thread..

so what makes it SO important to be able to claim a true, undisputed "national champion"?


Reply:isnt that the point of playing the games, to determne a champion

In college football? Not until the last 15-20 years or so. Yes, there was a "national champion," but every one accepted that in some respects it was mythical. Conference championships and rivalry games are what it was about... and those are nice to a degree. Instead all this talk of a national titles and BCS have reduced College Football into nothing more than a debate point, where the games have become somewhat secondary to "whats this going to do to the BCS" or "this just proves the need for a playoff.

I think ultimately a playoff will happen, and it wont be a bad thing...

I just dont understand why it is so important to be able to claim a "national champion" in a sport where they wont be able to have a large enough tournament to include all the potentially deserving teams... a 4 team tourney for a 120 team league, where you dont play over 90% of the other teams doesnt seem like it would solve much.