Most of the post on this site are doomed to failure for 1 of 3 reasons. 1. They require schools to give up rivalries that go back to the beginning of modern FB. 2. They require BCS schools that spent decades making the current system give away a lot of their hard earned money to schools that have not earned it. (In their eyes.) 3. Resistance to change. Small changes are accepted as normal. Radical change scares people.

This thread is for the small changes that, over time improve the game. We CAN get to a play-off, but don't expect to start with 16 teams.

The start discussion, I have 2 suggestions.

1. 1A FB must pay for 170 schlorships. (ie 85 FB plus the Title IX tax) Some reports say that as much as 1/3 of the schools are running a deficit in their AD. 170 is FB's "share." This could reduce the # of 1a schools, or be the excuse anyway.

2. 1A home attendance must average 25k with teams meeting the 15k in 2005 being grandfathered in until 2020. 15k tries to close the door on 1A expansion. This locks it! A 1AA team cannot get a 25k attendance. This will still be a hard sell because small market teams like WY or ID would be hard pressed to get to the 25k by 2020.

FBfan

Fbfan, agreed major changes will most likely not occur in the BCS conferences.

I am with Oregon. One more bowl should be added after the current 4 BCS bowls. An additional bowl would add a playoff feeling to the current BCS bowls and create additional importance to winning the games. A panel could be setup to select the best two teams from the winners of the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose.

Lash,
Adding 1 additional playoff game would be the way to go. You would not even need to create a new bowl. The current bowls could rotate which 1 got the championship game and 2 of the other bowls could take the 1-vs-4 and the 2-vs-3 game. The bowl "left out" would have their pick of the "rest."

The plan would pit the 4 playoff teams on the Saturday before and the championship game on the Saturday after. The 4th bowl would stay on New Years Day.

Of course, in time the 5th place team would scream foul often enough that a 3rd layer might be added. By then, the Universities and bowls would be ready to accept it.

FBfan

FBfan, If I understand correctly, you would eliminate the two at large BCS bids. The BCS would not lose money as the number of BCS bowl games would remain the same. Only BCS conference champions would get an invite. The BCS rankings would open up from two to four schools for possible champion. Not very likly to have over four teams with the same win/loss record. All BCS games would have renewed importance. The 5 and 6 place teams would be playing an important runner up type game.

Great idea!

Lash,
I am glad you liked my idea. :) Here is another.

One of the problems with teams switching conferences is breaking the contract with their present conference. Since the new rules will cause some teams to go to 1AA, and this BCS cycle ends with the Jan 2006 bowls, I suggest that ALL contracts between schools and conferences end as of 1/31/06. Schools that meet the new rules can, if they choose, sign new contracts after seasons ends that start on 2/1/06 through 1/31/10. Conferences would have stability and flexability. Bowls, would not be directly effected by the rule. However, they would be able to negotiate with the knowledge of who would be ing the conferences they are dealing with.

FBfan

FBfan, I do think the BCS needs to tweak the current 4 BCS bowls and provide a method for the top 4 to play each other with the two winners playing for the championship game. Three of the bowls could be played on New Years and the bowl hosting the championship could be played two or three weeks latter on Saturday of Super Bowl weekend. This would allow fans time to recuperate from New Years and plan travel for the championship game.

Using this years conference champions, Miami would have played Washington State say in the Rose Bowl. Ohio State would have played Geogia in the Sugar Bowl. If both won, Ohio State and Miami would have advanced to the Fiesta Bowl on Saturday of Super Bowl weekend.

Another reform change that could improve college football is take the top 8 minor bowls and use the BCS rankings to pick the matchups. After the 6 or 8 BCS schools are selected for BCS, select the next 16 highest ranked BCS members to create the best matchups for the 8 minor bowls. This would provide the non BCS bowls better matchups. Some conference tie ins are ok and others are just down right terrible. Capital One is ok using the runnerups of the SEC and Big 10, however, the Music City bowl using somewhere near the bottom of the SEC and Big 10 just has no national interest.

One more reform. As an expample use the Liberty, Mobile, and Las Vegas bowls and have a bowl championship series for non BCS schools.
Using some type of rankings (tbd) match up MAC, WAC, Conf USA, and MWC champions in Mobile and Las Vegas bowls with the winner advancing to the Liberty bowl on New Years Day.

Changing the current BCS to elimate the at large bids and allowing for 1 through 4 to play for championship game and the non BCS schools playing in a bowl championship series would set the stage for an eventually true football playoff. A football playoff is probably several years away and this option would provide the non BCS schools with some new interest until the formal playoff is available.

Lash,
Some of your suggestions caused me to think. ??? Fortunately, I am not a Liberal, so no harm was done. ;)

Your idea for a FB NIT for the non BcS schools is halfway to my idea of a division 1B. While not a radical as 1B, it would probably attract the same flack from those schools who would fear being pushed into 1B. To sell it, you might start with simply allowing champions of conferences that do NOT have a playoof game to play 2 bowl games. This could have a pyramid affect.

1. Ideally, it would lead to the non BCS conferences(1Ab) playing the BCS conferences(1Aa) with an at large bid for any 1Ab winner. However, the BCS conferences would not like that since a loss would deminish their BCS standing.
2. That could lead to some BCS conferences expand to 12. IF, and its a BIG IF, they took the best of the non BCS schools, that would be a reform. The differences between 1Aa and 1Ab would be great enough to silence the 1Ab's. That could lead to your 1Ab playoff.
3. Unfortunately, the likely scenerio would be for the MWC and C-USA to play each other and try to demand a BCS at large bid for the winner. I am not convienced that they would deserve it!

The theme for this thread is seemingly small changes, that will lead to the bigger changes, that most of the posters on this site want. Because of option 3, my idea may not lead to your idea. Both are aimed at an eventual playoff. Perhaps together we (as a group)can come up with some way to get there.

FBfan

Lash,
I have been thinking about you FB NIT idea. The problems some schools are having in reaching the 15k attendance rule MIGHT be an answer. Would a school having trouble reaching the 15k attendance be willing to vote for raising the bar to 20k if all 1A schools in 2002 were grandfathered? The catch would be that teams with under a 25k attendance would play in the FB NIT. You would have a virtual 1B division.

Would this be more plateable than a true 1B? If not, you might want to respond to my last post on Schlorship cuts-realignment.

FBfan

FBfan, there are a couple issues with the current system in college football with classifying teams to the appropriate divisions.

The NCAA does not have a handle (or wants to control) teams moving to division 1 and the BCS is really a bowl TV contract of six division 1 conferences and the BCS by design create gaps in classifying the "two so called divisions" of major college sports or specifically college football. Adding criteria for membership in a particular division just does not work very well. Attendance is a good expample as a school can schedule a home game at a close site of a major football college and get credit for the attendance (i.e. Wyoming at Florida State in Orlando). These type of loopholes just further complicate the isssues. The real benefit is the big school that gets an extra home game.

The BCS could close the gap by eliminating the two at large bids. This would send a clear message to all other division 1 schools that you are not included in division 1A. College conferences actually create divisions and not the NCAA.

This will probably not happen because of the Notre Dame situation and the bigger division 1 BCS conferences do not want to give up the possibility of acquiring a bigger percentage of the BCS revenue. The revenue could be resolved by adding another bowl and rewarding conferences for making the championship game.

The illusion created by the BCS is that any school regardless of BCS affiliation can make the BCS and/or Conf USA/Mountian West will someday be included. Neither one will most likly never happen. So, every non BCS division 1 school will continue to struggle and spend every dime they have to try to fit this illusion of inclusion in the BCS.

Resolution would be to eliminate the at large BCS bids and require only the six BCS conference champions to partipate in the BCS.

This would allow the other division 1 schools to select which schools belong at the next level. Again, the NCAA or criteria is not what will control divisions. The conferences will need to make these decisions.

Conf USA and MoutianWest would take the role of the big boys of division "1B" . They would then choose which conferences or teams should be included in thier version of a BCS. Rules could be setup that have a more fair playing field for this BCS version. Attendance, number of scholaships, graduation rates, non qualify props, etc.

In this scenerio you would have two BCS(s) and everyone would be considered division 1 by the NCAA.

In the long run, the non BCS conference schools would probably find that this system would be better than living on hope that you will get included in the current BCS. They could make a lot more money once the system caught on nationally.