Fuck Jim Delany

[Goober McTuber]

As the world of college football plows steadily toward a likely four-team playoff, the Big Ten Conference offered, at best, lukewarm support on Monday for new proposals for determining a national champion.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman outlined the conference's point of view in a teleconference after a meeting on Sunday of the Big Ten's Council of Presidents/Chancellors.

Despite admitting the flaws of the current system — especially the rankings used in determining the Bowl Championship Series standings — Delany said, "We don't find the fault with the system a lot of others do. We think it has served us well, although, obviously, over time it's been battered and criticized."

Perlman said if the conference presidents were to vote now, it would be to maintain the current system, with adjustments about automatic qualifiers and how the top two teams are selected.

"We think it best serves college football," Perlman said. "We think it best protects our student-athletes. I don't think any of us are anxious to ask our student-athletes to play a 15th game. We think, in many respects, it's as good as you could do."

After that, Perlman said the "strong preference" would be for the plus-one system, in which the top two teams are selected after the traditional bowl games.

"It would provide maybe three, maybe four games, maybe more, within the bowl system that would be exciting games that could implicate the national champion," Perlman said.

Only after that, did the Big Ten get around to endorsing the idea a four-team playoff, with the stipulation it include the bowls for semifinal games.

The key issues for the Big Ten are continuing a connection with the Rose Bowl, giving credence to conference champions and making sure the regular season doesn't lose its significance.

Just how a new playoff system accomplishes all of that is still to be determined in discussions Delany said would probably continue into the fall.

Delany believes the plus-one model remains on the table, even as the overwhelming sentiment appears to be swinging toward a playoff. As to the difficulty of picking the top two teams after the bowl games, the Big Ten would argue all of the plans have flaws.

"If you go to the four-team playoff, it's going to be exceedingly hard to pick between four and five," Perlman said. "That's just the nature of the beast. It's easy to say you want the top-four teams, but defining the top-four teams is not something that can be done mathematically."

The Southeastern and Big 12 conferences want a four-team playoff featuring the top-four ranked teams. The Big 10, Pac-12, Atlantic Coast and Big East have expressed support for a plan that gives weight to conference champions.

The so-called "3-and-1" plan would include three conference champions and a wild card, which could be a non-champion or an independent such as Notre Dame or Brigham Young.

Delany didn't endorse any of the specific plans but suggested playing semifinal games at bowl games is a key element.

"We thought the bowl system, of those two methods, was the preferred method, not only on behalf of the Rose Bowl but on behalf of the 100-year bowl tradition," Delany said.

It was pointed out the Big Ten may have fared better in a playoff than the plus-one over the past 20 years. But Perlman said that should not be the focus.

"I think the presidents of the Big Ten are confident enough with the quality of the football we play that we'll do fine under any system," Perlman said. "To try and do a nuanced evaluation of what's going to be marginally better for us or marginally worse for us, I think is probably impossible.

"The past tells you what the past is. The future? We'll do fine under whatever system, so we need to look for something that's good for college football."

http://host.madison.com/sports/college/ ... 963f4.html

[Shoalzie]

I'm to the point where I just don't give a shit what they do with the postseason. I'll stop watching after the conference title games. What happens in January is going to keep changing from year to year while these clowns fight it out. A 8 to 16-team playoff and the end of the bowl system should be the route they go but each conference is gripping to their own stupid traditions and comfort zones. If college hoops was this stubborn, the NIT would still be relevant as a postseason event. I think we'll see peace in the Middle East before we see a resolution with college football. I'd like to see a bus full of bowl chairmen and conference commissioners go off a cliff and explode...I'll bring the marshmallows.

[Left Seater]

I'll take the current BCS, flaws and all before a 16 team playoff. There is zero need for 16 teams.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Fuck Jim Delany

Forum tagline updated.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Please. The Big Ten will always be relevant, even if getting slaughtered in BCS bowls. Right now the Big Ten is top dog in TV revenue pay out per school.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I meant as far as competing for a national title.

Competing? I wouldn't say the Big Ten is irrelevant in that department. It's not like they're CON-USA. OSU, UM, PSU and Nebraska all have the resources to compete for championships. MSU is on the rise. Obviously, the SEC is in a class of its own because they're actually WINNING them, but the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 12 are all basically in that second tier and have multiple teams capable of "competing" for a title.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Since Florida absolutely destroyed Ohio State in the MNC game a while back, I haven't seen too much indication that the top tier Big Ten teams match up well at all with the top tier SEC teams.

A team got waxed in an MNC game. Big deal. When I talk about "competing," I'm talking about the blue blood type programs with the resources to do so unfailingly over time. Programs that recruit well, have good infrastructure and coaching staffs and have cache with the pollsters. In other words, if you're a program that typically starts the season in the top 10-15 you can realistically "compete" for a national championship. If you want to reference isolated games, fine, but I'm talking about a bigger picture here. Programs capable of putting themselves in a position to play for a title.

Should be an interesting game when Michigan and Bama meet this coming season.

No, it shouldn't be. Michigan is still a couple years away from being potentially really good. Don't buy into the ESPN hype. They have a shit quarterback, no depth, and an average defense.

[SoCalTrjn]

I will support a 4 team playoff
IF

* The 4 teams selected are also conference Champions
* The 4 teams selected played no more than 6 home/neutral site games in their 12 game regular season schedule
* The 4 teams are selected by a panel that uses a RPI style ranking where W/L record is included but who the games were against, where the games were played, who the teams played against also played and their record vs those teams and where those games were played carry as much weight as the W/L record.
* The 4 teams selected have 0 games vs non 1A programs.

If all 4 of those points are not met then I see no reason to fix something broken with something else that is broken.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'd really like to know how Dave Brandon got runner-up for Big 11 AD of the year. The same jackass that got a bill of goods sold to him in the Jerry World game? Dude could get skooled in negotiations by a wet paper bag.

[M Club]

No, it shouldn't be. Michigan is still a couple years away from being potentially really good. Don't buy into the ESPN hype. They have a shit quarterback, no depth, and an average defense.

you left out the part about our awesome receivers aka backup qb is probably going to run routes 15-20 times a game.

[M Club]

I'd really like to know how Dave Brandon got runner-up for Big 11 AD of the year. The same jackass that got a bill of goods sold to him in the Jerry World game? Dude could get skooled in negotiations by a wet paper bag.

brandon is rob deer, basically: either hits a 450 foot bomb or strikes out. wish there were still people who would just run a fucking athletic program rather than worrying about brand management 200% of the time, especially at a school that reached the exposure saturation point sometime in the early 80s. funny thing here is that people were worried dickrod was going to turn us into a west virginia-type marketing gimmick yet here's a "i played for bo" michigan man making our football team dress up as a bunch of bumblebees.

[M Club]

denard's alright until his fundamentals break down, which duhhhhhhh, but he was recruited to run the dickrod ninja spread, so even though he was a junior last year it was still his first in a more conventional offense. i think he'll take a big enough step forward to be a pretty deece qb.

i think michigan will keep within striking distance most of the game, enough so that a break or two could make it interesting. but in the end i don't think those breaks will come and bama will pull away at the end.

[Shoalzie]

I'll take the current BCS, flaws and all before a 16 team playoff. There is zero need for 16 teams.

8 or 16 is fine with me...I just don't see it settling at 4. A big conference will be left out or some outcry will be for a power conference at large that was left out.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm trying to be nice.

I'm actually expecting a pretty big Bama win.

Good. When Bama wipes its dick on the drapes that is the Michigan Wolverines, I just don't need to see you going all "SEC! SEC! We beat down the Big Ten's best!" when Michigan is probably the third or fourth best team in the conference. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. And for M Club reading, this isn't just UM hating. I think this current team is mostly smoke and mirrors, but when Hoke gets all his recruits on the field, and an actual pro style QB, they will be pretty solid. Should be, anyway.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'll take the current BCS, flaws and all before a 16 team playoff. There is zero need for 16 teams.

At least with 16 teams you cover all your bases -- every team realistically good enough to win a championship is definitely in the dance. Sure, a vocal minority will whine about #17, but so what? Let 'em whine. An hour after the "selection show" people will forget about 9-3 NC State getting "jobbed."

You can't say the same thing with a system that involves just two teams. We know that, because we hear the controversy year after year. And it's actual, legitimate controversy (see: undefeated Auburn in 2004). Gripes over undefeated and 1-loss teams from major conferences are a MUCH bigger deal than gripes over 9-3 NC State.

And please save your "the regular season is the playoff" nonsense. Not, it isn't. Not with the wildly unbalanced scheduling that exists. Who's to say an 11-1 team who played nobody is better than a 10-2 team that challenged itself? We don't know, yet for some reason we accept it as fact that they are. It's silly.

There isn't a need for a 68 team playoff in college basketball either, but it's the most exciting event in sports. Never understood why people would complain over MORE college football, and not just more cfb, but cfb on the biggest stage possible. Um, yes, please.

There really isn't a need for NFL playoffs either, because the scheduling is pretty balanced across the board, unlike college football. Might as well just have a one-game playoff with the best team from each conference, right?

I don't think there's a "need" for 16 teams, but I would love to see it. That would trump March Madness as the best sporting event on the planet, imo. As for actual need, anything from four to eight teams is probably sufficient. And now we have four, except it's a matter at this point of how those four are decided.

[Screw_Michigan]

Never understood why people would complain over MORE college football, and not just more cfb, but cfb on the biggest stage possible. Um, yes, please.

It's quite simple. Because a handful of teams, and their fans, have control over an exclusionary system which allows them to wield an unhealthy amount of power, money and influence and they are heavily invested in preventing an equal system which may, or may not, reduce their power and influence.

Exhibit 1A: SEC BSHs.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm talking about Joe the Fan here, not the suits getting rich off the system. I would think even most SEC fans are in favor of a playoff. Hell, Jsc is simultaneously the biggest SECBSH/playoff supporter on the planet.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm talking about Joe the Fan here

So am I. Look at Slobbering Sam and all his "Look at Boise's schedule, they don't deserve a chance!" Exhibit 1B.

[Truman]

Bullshit. Boise manhandled Georgia in Atlanta before the Dawgs laid claim to the SEC East title.

Didn't exactly see 'Bammer linin' up to play the Broncos last year, what with the likes of Kent, Georgia Southern and North Texas fleshing out their schedule.

Quick question, Sam: Should Mizzou go 9-3 this season, will it be because the Tigers overacheived or the East under-performed? I hate the arrogance of this league already...

[M Club]

And for M Club reading, this isn't just UM hating. I think this current team is mostly smoke and mirrors, but when Hoke gets all his recruits on the field, and an actual pro style QB, they will be pretty solid. Should be, anyway.

eh, i'm fully aware it took a perfect storm to go 11-2 last season. could have reasonably won the two we lost and been 13-0, in which case i would have still thought it a perfect storm rather than a complete team. going to need a lot of breaks again this year.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Seems the biggest break you guys got was getting through the entire season practically injury-free. Will be tough counting on that again.

And especially Denard. So many times that dude stumbled off the field, only to come back out next series. Fucker is tough, if nothing else.

[Left Seater]

I'll take the current BCS, flaws and all before a 16 team playoff. There is zero need for 16 teams.

At least with 16 teams you cover all your bases -- every team realistically good enough to win a championship is definitely in the dance. Sure, a vocal minority will whine about #17, but so what? Let 'em whine. An hour after the "selection show" people will forget about 9-3 NC State getting "jobbed."

You can't say the same thing with a system that involves just two teams. We know that, because we hear the controversy year after year. And it's actual, legitimate controversy (see: undefeated Auburn in 2004). Gripes over undefeated and 1-loss teams from major conferences are a MUCH bigger deal than gripes over 9-3 NC State.

And please save your "the regular season is the playoff" nonsense. Not, it isn't. Not with the wildly unbalanced scheduling that exists. Who's to say an 11-1 team who played nobody is better than a 10-2 team that challenged itself? We don't know, yet for some reason we accept it as fact that they are. It's silly.

There isn't a need for a 68 team playoff in college basketball either, but it's the most exciting event in sports. Never understood why people would complain over MORE college football, and not just more cfb, but cfb on the biggest stage possible. Um, yes, please.

There really isn't a need for NFL playoffs either, because the scheduling is pretty balanced across the board, unlike college football. Might as well just have a one-game playoff with the best team from each conference, right?

I don't think there's a "need" for 16 teams, but I would love to see it. That would trump March Madness as the best sporting event on the planet, imo. As for actual need, anything from four to eight teams is probably sufficient. And now we have four, except it's a matter at this point of how those four are decided.

The issue isn't 9-3 NC State not getting in, but 9-3 NC State actually getting in. Someone that lost 25% of their games doesn't deserve to play for a title.

You also can't compare NCAA football and basketball. What makes basketball's tourney so good is that 98% of the teams are still alive going into conf tourneys. You also claim that the regular season isn't part of the playoff. While I disagree somewhat, it certainly wouldn't be at all with a 16 team playoff. If you go to a 16 team playoff, there is zero need to play anyone of significance out of conf. Just schedule the directional D-1s and don't lose but a couple of conf games and you are in.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

The issue isn't 9-3 NC State not getting in, but 9-3 NC State actually getting in.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. I would wager to guess that a greater number of people would say that too few teams is a bigger issue than too many teams.

Someone that lost 25% of their games doesn't deserve to play for a title.

You can make this argument in practically any sport that has a playoff. "Team A didn't deserve to get in because they lost X amount of games." Nobody ever seems to care, yet it's somehow an issue in D1 football.

Personally, I don't see why inviting a couple extra people to the party is a big deal, so long as all the VIP members are there.

What makes basketball's tourney so good is that 98% of the teams are still alive going into conf tourneys.

Likewise, with a 16-team playoff, more teams would be playing more meaningful games late in the season. The assumption with a 16-team playoff is that conference champions would receive an auto-bid. This means teams are fighting until the bitter end to win their division as well as their conference, not to mention the teams still scrapping in late-November to receive an at-large bid. This idea that games would be less relevant because less than 1% of FBS would be playing in a playoff is absurd. In fact, the opposite is true. More games would become more relevant. Teams that lost one or two games would still have something to play for, beyond bowl positioning. With the BCS, a team's season could be over by mid-October, and 50% of their games instantly become irrelevant.

You also claim that the regular season isn't part of the playoff.

I merely said it's not a playoff, which is true. It's not a playoff by definition, or by any other argument.

While I disagree somewhat, it certainly wouldn't be at all with a 16 team playoff.

The regular season doesn't need to be a playoff. That's why it's called the regular season. What it would be is a more exciting regular season chock full of more relevant games for more teams, but that's just my opinion.

If you go to a 16 team playoff, there is zero need to play anyone of significance out of conf. Just schedule the directional D-1s and don't lose but a couple of conf games and you are in.

I believe the opposite is true. I think teams would be willing to take more chances in OOC scheduling knowing that they could drop a game or two and still get into a playoff.

The reason OOC scheduling has been so dreadful throughout the BCS era is because of this premium/obsession placed on an undefeated record; which might actually make sense if balanced scheduling existed, but it doesn't.

And as a result, we somehow got to a point where it's considered "better" to beat Eastern Michigan 66-3 than it is to go into Tiger Stadium and lose to LSU by a field goal. It's completely ridiculous.

Because of this, most every program takes the path of least resistance, and the result is a whole fuckton of blowouts and games nobody gives two shits about. And it seems to get worse every year. There's like, what, maybe two or three attractive OOC matchups every year?

How in god's name could it get any worse?? I suppose it's possible we could go from three good games to two good games.

I'm actually surprised that a guy from Rice is in favor of a more exclusionary system. Seems to me, the more teams that have a shot at a playoff, the more it helps them become relevant. The more relevant teams we have, the more competition we have. The more competition we have, the better games we get to watch as fans.

Why does it even have to be about "need?" Why can't it just be about creating the most awesome fucking event in all of sports, at little to no expense of the regular season? Even the most ardent anti-playoff guy would start creaming his pants the moment he saw that bracket on paper, and start rounding up collections for the office pool.

Is there really a need for a playoff in any other sport? Why not just use the same corrupt beauty pageant system to crown champions in everything else? I mean, if it's just about "need."

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm actually surprised that a guy from Rice is in favor of a more exclusionary system.

Because like many scUM fans who "claim" to be WMU fans, deep down, he's a Tejas fan.

[SoCalTrjn]

The reason OOC scheduling has been so dreadful throughout the BCS era is because of this premium/obsession placed on an undefeated record; which might actually make sense if balanced scheduling existed, but it doesn't.

And as a result, we somehow got to a point where it's considered "better" to beat Eastern Michigan 66-3 than it is to go into Tiger Stadium and lose to LSU by a field goal. It's completely ridiculous.

Because of this, most every program takes the path of least resistance, and the result is a whole fuckton of blowouts and games nobody gives two shits about. And it seems to get worse every year. There's like, what, maybe two or three attractive OOC matchups every year?

How in god's name could it get any worse?? I suppose it's possible we could go from three good games to two good games.

I'm actually surprised that a guy from Rice is in favor of a more exclusionary system. Seems to me, the more teams that have a shot at a playoff, the more it helps them become relevant. The more relevant teams we have, the more competition we have. The more competition we have, the better games we get to watch as fans.

Why does it even have to be about "need?" Why can't it just be about creating the most awesome fucking event in all of sports, at little to no expense of the regular season? Even the most ardent anti-playoff guy would start creaming his pants the moment he saw that bracket on paper, and start rounding up collections for the office pool.

Is there really a need for a playoff in any other sport? Why not just use the same corrupt beauty pageant system to crown champions in everything else? I mean, if it's just about "need."

The BCS started in 1998
Alabama played
Louisiana Tech at home in 1997
Bowling Green and Southern Miss at home in 1996
North Texas and Southern Miss at home in 1995
Tennessee-Chattanooga and Southern Miss at home in 1994
Tulane, Louisiana Tech and Southern Miss at home in 1993

And its not just the Tide who are cowards and schedule like this

Florida
Central Michigan and Southern Miss at home in 1997
Georgia Southern and Louisiana Lafayette at home in 1996
Northern Illinois and Houston at home in 1995

Auburn
Central Florida and Louisiana Tech at home in 1997
Birmingham and Louisiana Monroe at home in 1996
Louisiana Monroe, Tenn- Chattanogga and Western Michigan all at home in 1995

Georgia
Arkansas St and Louisiana Monroe at home in 1997
Southern Mississippi at home in 1996
New Mexico St at home in 1995

Kansas State
Ohio and Bowling Green at home in 1997
Indiana State at home in 1996
Temple and Akron at home in 1995

Some programs have been ran by cowards since before the BCS ever came around, if anything the BCS just justified their cowardice.

[M Club]

Seems the biggest break you guys got was getting through the entire season practically injury-free. Will be tough counting on that again.

i fully expect them to follow the tigers' lead, where they follow up a season of entirely serendipitous bullshiz with a large thud as they land back on planet earth and everyone breaks their leg, or arm, or blister, whatever that muscle fister can't quite heal.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The issue isn't 9-3 NC State not getting in, but 9-3 NC State actually getting in.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. I would wager to guess that a greater number of people would say that too few teams is a bigger issue than too many teams.

Someone that lost 25% of their games doesn't deserve to play for a title.

You can make this argument in practically any sport that has a playoff. "Team A didn't deserve to get in because they lost X amount of games." Nobody ever seems to care, yet it's somehow an issue in D1 football.

Personally, I don't see why inviting a couple extra people to the party is a big deal, so long as all the VIP members are there.

What makes basketball's tourney so good is that 98% of the teams are still alive going into conf tourneys.

Likewise, with a 16-team playoff, more teams would be playing more meaningful games late in the season. The assumption with a 16-team playoff is that conference champions would receive an auto-bid. This means teams are fighting until the bitter end to win their division as well as their conference, not to mention the teams still scrapping in late-November to receive an at-large bid. This idea that games would be less relevant because less than 1% of FBS would be playing in a playoff is absurd. In fact, the opposite is true. More games would become more relevant. Teams that lost one or two games would still have something to play for, beyond bowl positioning. With the BCS, a team's season could be over by mid-October, and 50% of their games instantly become irrelevant.

You also claim that the regular season isn't part of the playoff.

I merely said it's not a playoff, which is true. It's not a playoff by definition, or by any other argument.

While I disagree somewhat, it certainly wouldn't be at all with a 16 team playoff.

The regular season doesn't need to be a playoff. That's why it's called the regular season. What it would be is a more exciting regular season chock full of more relevant games for more teams, but that's just my opinion.

If you go to a 16 team playoff, there is zero need to play anyone of significance out of conf. Just schedule the directional D-1s and don't lose but a couple of conf games and you are in.

I believe the opposite is true. I think teams would be willing to take more chances in OOC scheduling knowing that they could drop a game or two and still get into a playoff.

The reason OOC scheduling has been so dreadful throughout the BCS era is because of this premium/obsession placed on an undefeated record; which might actually make sense if balanced scheduling existed, but it doesn't.

And as a result, we somehow got to a point where it's considered "better" to beat Eastern Michigan 66-3 than it is to go into Tiger Stadium and lose to LSU by a field goal. It's completely ridiculous.

Because of this, most every program takes the path of least resistance, and the result is a whole fuckton of blowouts and games nobody gives two shits about. And it seems to get worse every year. There's like, what, maybe two or three attractive OOC matchups every year?

How in god's name could it get any worse?? I suppose it's possible we could go from three good games to two good games.

I'm actually surprised that a guy from Rice is in favor of a more exclusionary system. Seems to me, the more teams that have a shot at a playoff, the more it helps them become relevant. The more relevant teams we have, the more competition we have. The more competition we have, the better games we get to watch as fans.

Why does it even have to be about "need?" Why can't it just be about creating the most awesome fucking event in all of sports, at little to no expense of the regular season? Even the most ardent anti-playoff guy would start creaming his pants the moment he saw that bracket on paper, and start rounding up collections for the office pool.

Is there really a need for a playoff in any other sport? Why not just use the same corrupt beauty pageant system to crown champions in everything else? I mean, if it's just about "need."

Rack Mgo. Fwiw, I'm now inclined to advocate the Wetzel plan (all conference champs plus at-large bids totaling 16 teams), whereas I was not prepared to do that before. What changed my mind, you ask? The WAC dropping football, as well as the distinct possibility (down the road, if not right away) of an ACC-Big East merger would reduce the number of conferences in BTPCF to nine from eleven. Increase at-large bids to seven from five, and the quality of the playoff goes up.

And for those who insist on hanging onto the status quo, this system would provide a built-in advantage for the top two teams. Those teams are likely to draw the champs of the MAC and Sun Belt in the first round, whereas teams seeded third or lower are considerably more likely to draw a ranked opponent in the first round.

As for "the regular season is a playoff" argument, that argument would hold a lot more water if the regular season schedules were more evenly balanced than they are. As Mgo pointed out, the BCS has turned the focus on an undefeated season into an obsession, so there's not much likelihood of that change occurring organically. And even if that were not the case, there are 120+ programs in BTPCF right now, and room for only 12/13 games on the schedule. So I'm not holding my breath waiting on any changes there.

[Goober McTuber]

And for those who insist on hanging onto the status quo, this system would provide a built-in advantage for the top two teams. Those teams are likely to draw the champs of the MAC and Sun Belt in the first round, whereas teams seeded third or lower are considerably more likely to draw a ranked opponent in the first round.

The MAC and Sun Belt champions? You just made the case for the fact that 16 teams is too many.

[Screw_Michigan]

Beat them on the field then, you fucking pussy. Why are all these SEC BSHs scared of playing a mid-major team in the potential playoffs?

[Screw_Michigan]

Because they're Division I-A conferences. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Did you even read this thread before shitting all over it with your pathetic take?

[Goober McTuber]

Because they're Division I-A conferences. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Did you even read this thread before shitting all over it with your pathetic take?

What's truly pathetic is you believing that Kalamazoo Tech should ever have the right to appear in a playoff. Hang yourself with a sweaty jockstrap, you worthless chucklehead.

[Screw_Michigan]

What's truly pathetic is you believing that Kalamazoo Tech should ever have the right to appear in a playoff. Hang yourself with a sweaty jockstrap, you worthless chucklehead.

They're in a I-A conference, if they aren't worthy of a 16 team postseason, the NCAA should bust them down to I-AA, which will likely happen 20 years from now. Until then, the MAC champ deserves a postseason bid.

Blow me, faggots.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Screw is right. Under the premise of a 16 team playoff, all D1 conference champs should receive auto-bids. Can't have it both ways. If you're going to tell the WMUs and Troys of the world "You can't compete for a championship under any circumstance" then the SEC and everybody else should not be allowed to pad their records with wins against them. And we all know presidents and ADs would never go for that. Would also seem like a pretty clear case of antitrust violation.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

In other news...apparently the BCS commissioners have finally come to a consensus on a model for the 4-team playoff, and details will be announced next week. All that's known at this point is the two semifinal games would be worked into the major bowls.

[Goober McTuber]

I’m not saying the MAC champ can’t be in a playoff. They can. As an at large pick. Never an auto-pick.

[L45B]

If it someday gets to a sixteen team playoff, they should do what NCAABB does and have a play-in game for the #16 seed.

MAC-champ vs. Cal in Dayton, Ohio on a Tuesday night.

[SoCalTrjn]

Screw is right. Under the premise of a 16 team playoff, all D1 conference champs should receive auto-bids. Can't have it both ways. If you're going to tell the WMUs and Troys of the world "You can't compete for a championship under any circumstance" then the SEC and everybody else should not be allowed to pad their records with wins against them. And we all know presidents and ADs would never go for that. Would also seem like a pretty clear case of antitrust violation.

100% agreement. If they play in a conference that you feel is unworthy of getting a chance to play for the title, then games vs them should not count, after all, they are unworthy, right?

[Van]

What's truly pathetic is you believing that Kalamazoo Tech should ever have the right to appear in a playoff.

Correct. They shouldn't.

They're in a I-A conference, if they aren't worthy of a 16 team postseason, the NCAA should bust them down to I-AA

Correct. That's exactly what should happen.

Under the premise of a 16 team playoff, all D1 conference champs should receive auto-bids.

No, they shouldn't. Not auto-bids, anyway.

Can't have it both ways.

Don't want it both ways. I want teams that have no business playing for a national title excluded from the tourney. Merely winning the MAC doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that you're automatically among the top twenty teams in the country.

If you're going to tell the WMUs and Troys of the world "You can't compete for a championship under any circumstance" then the SEC and everybody else should not be allowed to pad their records with wins against them.

Bingo. Since they can't play for the championship, they also can't appear on the schedules of those who can. That's precisely how it ought to be.

Look, we all know we're headed for x-number of superconferences. Let's call it four sixteen-team conferences. Members of those conferences should be the only teams eligible for the national title tournament. Along the way, members of those conferences may only play other members of those conferences. Eight conference games, four home-and-home OOC games against equivalent-tier opponents, a CCG for each conference as needed, ditching the game in years when it serves no purpose whatsoever, then an eight-team playoffs comprised of the four superconference winners plus the four highest-ranked at-large teams.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I don't agree with your proposal but I respect your sensibility. Too many knuckle draggers (mostly found in a certain heavy red state region of the U.S.) who don't consider these things while gleefully feasting on Troy and La-Monroe.

[Van]

Mgo, the problem lies in the usual issue afflicting our society: this obsession with avoiding stating the truth out of fear of being considered un-PC. Simply put, too many people are unwilling to come out and state that BTPCF really only consists of maybe thirty teams. Those thirty teams can easily be found each and every year from the sixty-four teams that would comprise four sixteen-team superconferences.

All the rest ought to play each other, and only each other, concluding their season with the equivalent of an N.I.T. championship.