the absurdity of the current BCS system of seeding teams is that it doesn't recognize that each conference is its own world: the majority of games played are witin conference, and most out-of-conference games are at the beginning of the season and are more like NFL style pre-season games except these count.

the truth is, with little scheduling overlap, you just can't compare conferences. OU wins XII, SC wins Pac 10, Auburn the SEC. Whose better? Hard to say. The XII, Pac 10, and SEC are all their own worlds.

So how about a meaningful national championshi tournament based on region and conference, not team.

Honor the regular season by making participants the ones that win their own conferences. And do the following:

ALLIGN THE SYSTEM SO THAT THERE ARE EIGHT CONFERENCES (HOPEFULLY OF 12 TEAMS EACH) REPRESENTING EACH REGION OF THE NATION.

Many of the pieces are in place right now to take this regional approach. Others could be created with some degree of shifting.

Which regions:

MIDDLE ATLANTIC/NEW ENGLAND: Big East country, but with the need for a strengthed Big East or a replacement confernce

SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC COAST: ACC

DEEP SOUTH: SEC

MIDWEST/GREAT LAKES: Big Ten

GREAT PLAINS/INTERIOR: Old Big 8 portion of Big 12

SOUTHWEST: many old SWC members, current 4 TX scools in XII

ROCKIES: the best of MWC and WAC to make a true BCS conf

PACIFIC: Pac 10

I'm not trying to play musical chairs here, creating dream conference and , given a choice, I'd keep things in their place.

Here are some rudimentary groupings, some reaching twelve, others coming close:

1. NEW BIG EAST:
BC, Syracuse, Army, Navy, Rutgers, Penn St, Pitt, Temple, Navy, Army, W Va

2. ACC
Miami, FSU, So Car, Clemson, Wake, UNC, Duke NCS, Va, Md, VT

3. SEC (this one was actually what it once looked like)
LSU, Tulane, Miss, Miss St, Ala, Aub, Fla, Ga, GT, Tenn, Vand, Ky

4. BIG TEN TWEAKED
Minn, Ia, Wis, NW, Ill, Ind, Pur, ND, MSU, Mich, Ohio St

5. BIG EIGHT REVIVED WITH CHANGES
Mo, Ia St, Neb, Kan, KSU, Okla, Ok St, Colo, Colo St

6. SWC REVIVED WITH CHANGES
Ark, SMU, TCU, Texas, A&M, TT, Baylor, Rice, Houston, NMex

7. MWC/WAC MIX
Wyoming, Utah, Utah St, BYU, Nev, UNLV, NM St, UTEP, AF

Again, I'm not so sure I'm that concerned with the exact breakdown. Suffice it to say that 8 regions could easily be established, each could be given its due: you just cannot compare schools from one conference to another because of the lack of common scheduling

(for ove 100 years, we have not looked at the NL and AL champions a not being equal opponents in the WS; that's because for the vast majority of those years, they each played teams only in their league and even today, the vast majority of games within their own league). Thus there is no question of a team not belonging in the WS, even if the Yankees go in at .758 and the Cardinals, surviving a 4 way NL race, went in at .592.)

8. PAC TEN TWEAKED
Wash, WSU, Ore, Ore St, Cal, Stan, UCLA, SC, Haw, Ariz, ASU

That's not a fair alignment.

Look how weak some of those reigions are. Pathetic.

Moved to BCS Banter Forum: 1/4/2004

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Well. aside from Army and Navy appearing twice in the Big East, it seems pretty reasonable.

We forget how the strength of various regions fluctuates over time. Look at the NFL - this year the AFC is dominant ! Ten years ago the opposite was the case with SF, Dallas, and Green Bay making the NFC the strong conference.

I will concede that college power rankings fluctuate less over time, and certain institutions will always be stronger than others. But although people laugh at the Big East this year, there have been many instances where PSU, WVU, Syracuse, Pitt were in the top 10 or top 5 (OK, not much during the past 10 years, but again - THINGS CHANGE !)

Anything that gives some structure and leads to a playoff system (however flawed it may be initially) would be an improvement over the BCS, where we will never know how Utah, Auburn, and the USC / OK winner stack up vs. one another on the field.

The NFL also has the best parity in professional sports.

The NCAA doesn't have a shread of parity.

If we got rid of scholarships, there STILL wouldn't be parity.

Schools could out recruit based on facilities, staff, and academics.


The NCAA will never achieve true parity the way the NFL or even the NBA can.

Great, so instead of 20% parity, we have 40% parity.

LOL BUT TAHTS A HNUDRED PRECNET INCRAES!!!11

::) ::) ::) ::)

good discussion, but a pretty wide turn from my original post.
i'll try to steer back:

do you like the concept:

8 conferences based on all regions of the country:

Northeast: Big East (or replacement)
Southeast: ACC
Deep South: SEC
Midwest: Big Ten
Great Plains: old Big Eight, as its core
Southwest: old SWC, as its core
Rockies: mix of MWC and WAC
Pacific: Pac Ten

All above subject to some adjustment; all would have a goal of 12 members.

No seeding of teams (based on all conferences, playing separate schedules, treated as equals)

no at large bids.....honoring the conference set up and regular season, you win your conference and then you go on

use of new years bowls for first round of eight

attempt to keep historical power lock-in's: B10 vs. Pac Ten in Rose, SEC in Sugar, Big Eight successor in Orange, etc.

week after bowl: eastern and western semi-finals. following wk: national championship

again, schools and groupings subject to a lot of tweaking...but how about the concept to start with?

doz's proposal is close to my second preference.

My first preference: four regions, 12 teams in top division in each region, 12 in second division (as long as it fits), however many in third division, promotion and relegation. With 12-game regular seasons, you only get one game OOC. Winners of each region go to 4-team playoff. You could actually use old bowl sites in this plan, and no telling if other bowls would still exist.

If I were to tweak your ideas:

Either play 11 conference games OR cap each region at 10 schools.

First round will not be hosted by bowls anyway (they'd prefer to die first), so either home sites or nearest major market home stadium, early in December or late November. Army v Navy and other rivalry games will have to move. Second round may be old bowl sites; week after first round, preferably before finals, or perhaps just before Christmas after finals. Championship game on New Year's Day rather than extending into January and being drowned out by NFL playoffs.

Either of those proposals are IMO of the fairest concept- eliminating the need for relying on polls, committees, and computers. Win your d**n conference, enjoy the spoils. It's just gravy (and I shed no tears) for forcing Notre Dame into a conference or shutting them out of the playoff. ;D

Bison fan -

You are absolutely correct that the NFL has the best parity, since the implementation of a superb salary cap system. The NCAA has a scholarship limit that leveled the playing field somewhat... there are still perrenial powerhouses, however the talent isn't nearly as concentrated as it was up until about the late 1970s.

Prior to the scholarship limit, EVERY YEAR, the top ten (or so) football teams would be:
PAC8/10 - USC, UCLA
SWC - Texas, Arkansas
Big 8 - Nebraska, Oklahoma
Big 10 - Michigan, Ohio State
SEC - Alabama, LSU (Fla, Tenn, Aub on the fringe)
East. Ind. - Notre Dame, PSU

GOD was that boring !!!! Bear Bryant would sometimes dress over 100 players, and guys would have redundant numbers. I think the 85 scholarship limit came in after Johnny Majors / Jackie Sherrill arrived at Pitt and used every available scholarship on a single recruiting class - that 4 years later produced a National Championship (Tony Dorsett, Mark May, Elliott Walker, et.al.) That scheme grabbed such a disproportionate share of top-notch high school seniors, that the NCAA invoked the scholarship limit to prevent a recurrance.

By the mid-80s, a lot of the conferences above had 4 or 5 schools competing for elite status. So it's been good for competition. It begs the question of whether the limit should be further reduced (although I would not advocate reducing it very much). Still, now you get to see talented players on various teams, that in the old days would have been rotting on the bench of an elite team, until perhaps their senior year.



















(in To

pounder and metropolitan,

i like your ideas, particularly the need for a 12 team conference to play an 11 game round robin.

here's one of the reasons for my original suggestion:

college football is about the regular season, more than any other sport. i wouldn't want to do anything to taint the regular season, and I'd like to see the regular season keep its richness and tradition in every way posible.

In other words: the post season must be subjegated to the regular season.

For that reason, I would hope the current conference system holds, with as many schools in the same grouping they are now in as possible. traditon is the key here.

at one time, the conference was the real world of a college football team; winning the conference meant the most. The conference is still a logical unit to focus upon: being the winner out of 12 teams is an HONOR, a big HONOR. So few teams will ever win a national championship, so that conference title should be HUGE.

My system keeps the confernces, keeps bowls (even traditional match ups as in B10-Pac10 in Rose Bowl, etc.). It even keeps the bowls on new years day. and hopefully it would not destroy the non-BCS bowls (and that should be its goal..keeping those). College football is about programs and giving the programs the holiday exposure is good, even if they are not conf champ.

But my system also honors the national championship as well. It says to teams: you must win your conference, come out on top of 12, to make it to the tournament. No wild card/at large. You compete within a conference with teams other conferences don't play; the conference is where you earn your stripes. and you make one helluva a interesting conference race in doing so.

If there is a tie on top of an 11 team round robin schedule, fine, play a conf championship game (if three of more teams tie, have a formula to pick the two to play). Dump the divisons. Personally I find a B10 or Pac Ten race far more interesting than the XII and SEC system of divisions and teams that often don't belong in a championship game (can anybody get excited about Colorado this year).

I really believe what I have suggested with create one hell of a regular season and one hell of a fair play off system.