Should Big 12/Notre Dame be eligible?

[PlutoDroid]

In today's day and age of conference championship games being SO important should a team of amateur athletes being forced to play one extra game of grueling hits be punished for losing like North Carolina or Iowa did last night? Shouldn't Oklahoma have to win a conference title game like Michigan State, Alabama and Clemson did? Why do they get what essentially is a bye where their players get an extra day of rest and get the benefit of the doubt because they play in a conference where there is one true champion? Is it anyone else's fault they don't have enough teams to play that game?

Either expand to 8 games or quit lying about what your qualifications are NCAA it's quite ridiculous. That said I just wanted to congratulate you guys on a great season and hope to see you in the playoffs next year. Farewell and good luck in Pasadena from this Gator fan.

 

[PlutoDroid]

I should add if there are comparable resumes like Oklahoma losing to Texas and beating TCU, Baylor Oklahoma State who might not be as good as advertised.

 

[Tiger_Hawk]

Oklahoma won their conference by playing all other teams and having the best record, why would they play a conference championship game?

 

[mlb1399]

I still don't understand why the Big 12 doesn't have a championship. Why let subjectivity and opinion determine whose better in the years where two teams have identical records?

 

[bravehawks1]

Why should Oklahoma have to play a team twice when you have already played everyone in your conference? Championships are needed when you don't play everyone in the league. The bigger problem IMO is that bowlsby and they let the CFP determine rankings for their champion as I understand it. On the other hand, having to play one less game to get in playoffs has potential for big implications for injury

 

[Ollie4ISU]

The Big 12 plays nine conference games and plays everyone in the conference. The 10 and SEC play eight conference games and then the division champs each play a ninth game. Presently, the NCAA rules do not allow for a championship game for a league with less than 12 teams. A few years ago when the Big 12 had a championship game and the Big Ten didn't, the argument went the other way. Why does a league without a championship game get two in? The real issue is the fact that the conferences aren't set up equitably. Either all should have 12+ teams, divisions and a championship game or none should. The last round of realignment was an ego fueled clusterjim. Hopefully, the next go round results in more logical results. I am not optimistic.

 

[hawkeye54545]

Sure, but as we saw last year the punishment is if it's razor close the fact they don't have that extra game is the deciding factor.

 

[Lone Clone]

In today's day and age of conference championship games being SO important should a team of amateur athletes being forced to play one extra game of grueling hits be punished for losing like North Carolina or Iowa did last night? Shouldn't Oklahoma have to win a conference title game like Michigan State, Alabama and Clemson did? Why do they get what essentially is a bye where their players get an extra day of rest and get the benefit of the doubt because they play in a conference where there is one true champion? Is it anyone else's fault they don't have enough teams to play that game?

Either expand to 8 games or quit lying about what your qualifications are NCAA it's quite ridiculous. That said I just wanted to congratulate you guys on a great season and hope to see you in the playoffs next year. Farewell and good luck in Pasadena from this Gator fan.

A few years ago, should conferences without a championship game have been eligible? You had leagues like the Big XII, in which a team couldn't claim to be the champion without beating the second-best team in the league; and you had leagues like the Big Ten, where sometimes a team didn't have to play the other good teams.

The answer to your question and mine is "yes." How a league determines its champion shouldn't matter. What should NOT happen is a return to the BCS days when we saw two teams from the same conference playing for the NC.

And in case my point wasn't clear, the only obviously bogus situation was the Big Ten, which neither had a round-robin NOR a championship game in those days.

 

[like-woahh]

8 team playoff. 5 conference champions and 3 at larges. Eliminates this nonsense.

 

[Lone Clone]

8 team playoff. 5 conference champions and 3 at larges. Eliminates this nonsense.

1. I agree that would be better than what we have.
2. No way in hell it would eliminate this nonsense. If there were 8 teams this year, you guys would be demanding that Iowa get one of the at-large spots.
2(a). Just look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Back when they had a field of 24, fans of the 25th team bitched. Now it's fans of the 69th team who are bitching. If you don't take everybody, somebody is going to get left out and will have an argument why it's unfair. And if you DO take everybody, people will bitch about how the pairings are unfair.

 

[like-woahh]

1. I agree that would be better than what we have.
2. No way in hell it would eliminate this nonsense. If there were 8 teams this year, you guys would be demanding that Iowa get one of the at-large spots.
2(a). Just look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Back when they had a field of 24, fans of the 25th team bitched. Now it's fans of the 69th team who are bitching. If you don't take everybody, somebody is going to get left out and will have an argument why it's unfair. And if you DO take everybody, people will bitch about how the pairings are unfair.

People will always bitch. This way the bitching is more easily dismissed. Nobody cares about the 69th team outside of their own fanbase, because they're so far out of it, they aren't going to win anyways.

RIght now in college football, everyone in the top 8 has every reason to bitch, and it's justified.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

This is silly. The Big 12 got left out last year because they lacked a championship game.

Also - I hate listening to any team bitch about getting left out if you're not undefeated. We had our chance and lost. Pretty simple.

Going to 8 teams would just give more undeserving teams a chance for a NC.

 

[like-woahh]

This is silly. The Big 12 got left out last year because they lacked a championship game.

Also - I hate listening to any team bitch about getting left out if you're not undefeated. We had our chance and lost. Pretty simple.

Going to 8 teams would just give more undeserving teams a chance for a NC.

Do you honestly believe in the top 8 there is any team completely dominant over any other team to warrant the statement that they don't deserve the chance to compete?

If you're so opposed to a playoff then I have to ask why does EVERY OTHER FACTION OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL HAVE AN 8+ TEAM PLAYOFF THAT WORKS.

Essentially you're saying that FBS college football has it right and everyone else is wrong.

That is so stupid.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Do you honestly believe in the top 8 there is any team completely dominant over any other team to warrant the statement that they don't deserve the chance to compete?

If you're so opposed to a playoff then I have to ask why does EVERY OTHER FACTION OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL HAVE AN 8+ TEAM PLAYOFF THAT WORKS.

Essentially you're saying that FBS college football has it right and everyone else is wrong.

That is so stupid.

You're the stupid one!!!!

every team in college football should have an opportunity for a national title. That has occurred every year so the system is perfectly fair.

I agree an 8 team system would be better.... I mean who would complain if there was more football? But anybody that thinks they got "screwed" when they've been beaten is annoying to me.

 

[like-woahh]

You're the stupid one!!!!

every team in college football should have an opportunity for a national title. That has occurred every year so the system is perfectly fair.

I agree an 8 team system would be better.... I mean who would complain if there was more football? But anybody that thinks they got "screwed" when they've been beaten is annoying to me.

You called me the stupid one then agreed with me. That's odd.

Passive aggressive way of not admitting you're wrong?

 

[BigHawksFan]

Oklahoma won their conference by playing all other teams and having the best record, why would they play a conference championship game?

The NCAA should have uniform rules across the board. I think every conference should be required to have a CCG, just to make it the same everywhere. There's no reason not to, especially when not having a CCG causes controversy.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

You called me the stupid one then agreed with me. That's odd.

Passive aggressive way of not admitting you're wrong?

I was kidding when I called you stupid. Just responding to how you called my post stupid. I thought that was clear with all the !!!!

There are many reasons to go to an 8 team playoff, but fairness is not one of them. That was all I was initially responding to

 

[BubsFinn]

I still don't understand why the Big 12 doesn't have a championship. Why let subjectivity and opinion determine whose better in the years where two teams have identical records?

They don’t have a championship game because there are only 10 teams and they all play each other. There are no divisions. A championship game would always be a rematch of an earlier game. Too frequently, they’d end up having a team with a worse record in conference as champion, which the runner-up had already beaten.
Who would you have OU play this year in their championship game? Ok State and TCU were both 7-2 in conference, and OU had already beaten both of them. It would be unfair to make OU beat them twice. It would be INCREDIBLY unfair to OU to make them beat Ok State on consecutive weeks.

 

[like-woahh]

I was kidding when I called you stupid. Just responding to how you called my post stupid. I thought that was clear with all the !!!!

There are many reasons to go to an 8 team playoff, but fairness is not one of them. That was all I was initially responding to

My bad, sarcasm detector was off.

 

[mlb1399]

They don’t have a championship game because there are only 10 teams and they all play each other. There are no divisions. A championship game would always be a rematch of an earlier game. Too frequently, they’d end up having a team with a worse record in conference as champion, which the runner-up had already beaten.
Who would you have OU play this year in their championship game? Ok State and TCU were both 7-2 in conference, and OU had already beaten both of them. It would be unfair to make OU beat them twice. It would be INCREDIBLY unfair to OU to make them beat Ok State on consecutive weeks.

I think this year it worked out just fine. Last year it cost the Big 12 a shot at the playoffs. Plus, when the two best teams play and the home team wins by a narrow margin, how would they play on a neutral field? I think of TCU vs Baylor last year. At the very least, teams that play well, have a really good record that win the championship game will have a stronger case for the playoffs with another good win on the resume.

Now this is all solved by expanding the playoffs to 8 teams. I think that all Power 5 teams should have a shot in the playoffs. Plus conference champions from smaller conferences. I'm not so sure that OSU couldn't win a national championship again. I know they lost head to head against MSU and that's fair. Point being, I think there is too much subjectivity involved. Does a 1 loss Alabama deserve to be in over OSU? What if the SEC is substantially weaker than the Big 10? I know they won their conference championship but what is that championship worth versus a potentially better conference?

I guess that's all what makes this fun to watch and to discuss..

 

[cedarvalleykid14]

I apologize to those who are smarter than I am and have better ideas, but I would prefer an 8-team playoff set up like this:

All conference champions are IN. Period. No debate. No freaking "style points." Win your conference and you get a shot at the national title. Then there are only have three political, subjective judgments to make.

And you play the quarterfinals in 4 traditional bowls: For example:

* Orange Bowl on Dec. 31: ACC vs. at-large
* Sugar Bowl: Dec. 31: SEC vs. at-large
* Rose Bowl: Jan. 1: Big Ten vs. Pac 12
* Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl: Jan. 1: Big 12 vs. at-large

* Semi-finals a week later at sites TBA (cities bid to host or rotate among a set of top bowl sites, similar to now)

* Championship Game around Jan. 15.

It’s not that difficult and would encourage teams to schedule tougher OOC because they could afford to lose a game or two OOC, win their conference, and go straight to the playoffs. And wouldn't it be cool to have the Rose and other major bowls part of the system every year with traditional matchups?

Hey, just one nobody's opinion. When you disagree, please address the issues and not the messenger. Thanks.

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

I

And you play the quarterfinals in 4 traditional bowls: For example:

* Orange Bowl on Dec. 31: ACC vs. at-large
* Sugar Bowl: Dec. 31: SEC vs. at-large
* Rose Bowl: Jan. 1: Big Ten vs. Pac 12
* Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl: Jan. 1: Big 12 vs. at-large

.

I would like to see first round being played in someones home. imagine an at large SEC team going up north to the Big Ten champions house in december

 

[5Fan5]

The Big 12 plays nine conference games and plays everyone in the conference. The 10 and SEC play eight conference games and then the division champs each play a ninth game. Presently, the NCAA rules do not allow for a championship game for a league with less than 12 teams. A few years ago when the Big 12 had a championship game and the Big Ten didn't, the argument went the other way. Why does a league without a championship game get two in? The real issue is the fact that the conferences aren't set up equitably. Either all should have 12+ teams, divisions and a championship game or none should. The last round of realignment was an ego fueled clusterjim. Hopefully, the next go round results in more logical results. I am not optimistic.

Seems as if the majority of the conferences ( ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC) presently have sufficient number of member schools to accommodate the preferred method of conference play and league championship in order to determine the champion. It is not the NCAA's fault nor responsibility to see that all conferences have a minimum number of teams/schools.

The only real issue here is why is the big xii allowed to exist with only ten teams. Each and every other conference has found means to expand/align such that there are enough teams to provide ample divisional play as well as a conference championship game now that a four-team playoff is in place. The big xii should either accept more members or should be allowed to dissolve and have those teams (as many as needed/desired) be absorbed by the other existing conferences. A ten team league, at this juncture of college football no longer works.

Many of the people who are paid to do so have analysed the system currently existing and are sure that a refinement is going to occur. Some are using the Iowa - Michigan State game from last evening as an example of how divisional play can actually serve as the most legitimate form of entry to a four team playoff. The committee chair is reluctant to state that, but there is no defying the fact that Michigan State earned its berth (and was rewarded with a higher seed than a non-divisional/no CCG team) through league competition followed by a conference title game.

 

[5Fan5]

A few years ago, should conferences without a championship game have been eligible? You had leagues like the Big XII, in which a team couldn't claim to be the champion without beating the second-best team in the league; and you had leagues like the Big Ten, where sometimes a team didn't have to play the other good teams.

The answer to your question and mine is "yes." How a league determines its champion shouldn't matter. What should NOT happen is a return to the BCS days when we saw two teams from the same conference playing for the NC.

And in case my point wasn't clear, the only obviously bogus situation was the Big Ten, which neither had a round-robin NOR a championship game in those days.

Until last year, there was no playoff system in place for major college football (now known as the Power 5 Conferences plus a few independents). The 'mythical national championship' was just that - mythical.

How a league determines its champion is important enough to the NCAA that there has been strong discussion about possible inequities and how they might impact the playoff system. One of the very probable reasons that the big xii was excluded from the playoff last year was because even the conference itself could not state with complete and unanimous certainty of the 'one true champion' a round robin schedule will always produce. Even this year, Oklahoma's ultimate seed was likely impacted by the fact that the big xii consists of fewer teams and thus is denied the opportunity of a conference championship game ala every other Power 5 league in existance.

Oh, if the two best teams are indeed from a single source (conference) then those two teams should be a part of a playoff designed, in principle, to have the four 'best' teams contest the national championship in any given year.

Rarely has the Big Ten ever had to apologize for its quality of teams nor competition when it comes to these matters. The big xii, on the other hand, somehow found it appropriate to anoint a team not good enough to be included in a conference championship to participate in a MNC game (Nebraska, 2001) and to have such imbalance in divisional/team quality that perhaps three teams from the South should have been permitted to compete over any of the six teams from the North in at least one season.

 

[Trevor4Iowa]

To answer the original question, both should be disqualified from CFP with just 4 team. ND is s joke living in 1988 and big twelve is now like the Mountain West - their champ should be view like Boise State, etc.

 

[PlutoDroid]

A few years ago, should conferences without a championship game have been eligible? You had leagues like the Big XII, in which a team couldn't claim to be the champion without beating the second-best team in the league; and you had leagues like the Big Ten, where sometimes a team didn't have to play the other good teams.

The answer to your question and mine is "yes." How a league determines its champion shouldn't matter. What should NOT happen is a return to the BCS days when we saw two teams from the same conference playing for the NC.

And in case my point wasn't clear, the only obviously bogus situation was the Big Ten, which neither had a round-robin NOR a championship game in those days.

At that point in time it wasn't a known qualifier as the CFP pointed out last year. Yes you play each team and that does qualify as determining your "One True Champion" except last year of course. My point remains it is nobody else's fault the Big 12 cow tows to Texas thus leaving them with only 10 teams. It's not anyone else's fault your commissioner has not been proactive in expansion to get to 12 teams. It's not anyone else's fault Oklahoma lost to Texas thus not making their profile any better than an undefeated regular season Iowa team who lost on a last second run. A message needs to be sent to the Big 12 and Notre Dame that special rules don't apply to them.

I don't miss your points either but with the way the playoff committee has laid out it's rules I think having young men playing an extra game while some others get what is essentially a bye is unfair. Make it even or don't have the playoff parameters at all.

 

[Lone Clone]

At that point in time it wasn't a known qualifier as the CFP pointed out last year. Yes you play each team and that does qualify as determining your "One True Champion" except last year of course. My point remains it is nobody else's fault the Big 12 cow tows to Texas thus leaving them with only 10 teams. It's not anyone else's fault your commissioner has not been proactive in expansion to get to 12 teams. It's not anyone else's fault Oklahoma lost to Texas thus not making their profile any better than an undefeated regular season Iowa team who lost on a last second run. A message needs to be sent to the Big 12 and Notre Dame that special rules don't apply to them.

I don't miss your points either but with the way the playoff committee has laid out it's rules I think having young men playing an extra game while some others get what is essentially a bye is unfair. Make it even or don't have the playoff parameters at all.

Well, if you really want to have a perfect world, the NCAA would limit conference size to 10 teams and every league would play a round-robin. Any system in which a team can avoid playing another team is flawed.

By the way, I thought Bowlsby and the Big XII erred last season by not designating Baylor as the champion; everybody knew TCU was a better team, but Baylor won when the teams played, and that should have been the tiebreaker. The league rolled the dice instead, thinking there was a chance that both would make the playoff, and ended up with nobody.

As I pointed out, the worst possible way to handle this is the way the BigTen has handled it since the days when footballs were round, with no round-robin AND no championship game. So it is amusing to see the Big Ten fans leading the criticism on this point.

I don't understand the reference to Texas, and for the record, it's "kowtows." Do you think Texas (or the rest of the league) somehow engineered the departure of Missouri and Texas A&M? Or was happy about it? Are you among those -- including a lot of Big XII fans -- who think the league should add 2 more teams just so it can have a title game, regardless of whether the teams would be a positive addition to the league?

There really seems to be a memory hole here. Let me remind you that we (Big XII schools) have experienced it both ways. On at least one occasion, and perhaps as many as three, the fact we had a championship game and most other leagues did not cost us a shot at the national championship.

Finally, take a look at why the Big XII doesn't have a title game now:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo.../big-12-championship-game-big-ten-bob-bowlsby

 

[5Fan5]

Well, if you really want to have a perfect world, the NCAA would limit conference size to 10 teams and every league would play a round-robin. Any system in which a team can avoid playing another team is flawed.

By the way, I thought Bowlsby and the Big XII erred last season by not designating Baylor as the champion; everybody knew TCU was a better team, but Baylor won when the teams played, and that should have been the tiebreaker. The league rolled the dice instead, thinking there was a chance that both would make the playoff, and ended up with nobody.

As I pointed out, the worst possible way to handle this is the way the BigTen has handled it since the days when footballs were round, with no round-robin AND no championship game. So it is amusing to see the Big Ten fans leading the criticism on this point.

I don't understand the reference to Texas, and for the record, it's "kowtows." Do you think Texas (or the rest of the league) somehow engineered the departure of Missouri and Texas A&M? Or was happy about it? Are you among those -- including a lot of Big XII fans -- who think the league should add 2 more teams just so it can have a title game, regardless of whether the teams would be a positive addition to the league?

There really seems to be a memory hole here. Let me remind you that we (Big XII schools) have experienced it both ways. On at least one occasion, and perhaps as many as three, the fact we had a championship game and most other leagues did not cost us a shot at the national championship.

Finally, take a look at why the Big XII doesn't have a title game now:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo.../big-12-championship-game-big-ten-bob-bowlsby

So much wrong in just one post.

Ten team leagues would be far from ideal in today's college football dynamic. It served a purpose very well back in the day when the Big Ten and the Pac 10 among others were vying for supremacy most years. Today it is as archaic as some obsessed isu fans posting here on HR.

The perfect model would include four super-conferences consisting of a total of sixteen teams each. Every conference would have two, eight team divisions with the conference champion being decided by the annual playing of a conference championship game (ala the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC now.) The winners from the four conference championship games would then be seeded in a four team playoff as also now exists.

The absolute worst way to 'handle this' is to subscribe in any form or fashion to what the big xii offers presently. What happened last year is the perfect example of the 'flaws' that the round robin format present; even the self-proclaiming of 'one true champion' could not be accomplished in 2014. This year is not much better in that Oklahoma's loss is to a 5-7 Texas team making it easier for the selection committee to assign the Sooners to the number four seed.

Texas has from the beginning and continues to this moment to demand more than their fair share of the big xii. That, as much as anything led to the departures of A & M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado. Each of those institutions made decisions based on where they were and where the league was likely headed and what possibilities/potential was available to each school in another conference. To date, it is obvious to most informed observers of college football that each A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou and Colorado made good decisions.

Are you claiming that adding TCU and West Virginia are positive additions to the big xii? Good thing that journalism and not math/analytical thinking was your choice of vocation ! There is simply no sensible justification to look at a scenario that has four quality institutions such as the big xii had in the Aggies, Huskers, Tigers and Buffs now replaced by the likes of TCU and the 'Hokies' and reason that to somehow be 'postitive'. None.

You should be reminded of the debacle of the BCS championship of 2001.... you will recall when Kansas State actually won the big xii North yet somehow the infinite illogic of the league was to designate mighty Nebraska to that game against Miami. The ultimate end result was so embarrassing that it led to the NCAA determining that such a scenario would not ever be likely to occur again.

I can see a time in the not too distant future where a non-proactive big xii is given the impetus to make needed changes. Failure to do so just might lead to a more major upheaval in the upper most level of college football than even you can imagine at your advanced age, LC. Be assured that Texas and to a slightly lesser extent, Oklahoma, will be kept apprised and will be given every opportunity to determine their own fate in the matter. Some of the others (Kansas, Kansas State, isu) may not be so fortunate.

 

[LuteHawk]

Notre Dame refuses to join a Football Conference. At
least 10 years ago they were invited to join the Big Ten.
They have joined a Basketball Conference, but want the
luxury of being an independent football team.

Bottom Line: I hope Ohio State wipes them out at the
Fiesta Bowl. Fighting Irish are smug, spoiled and short
a few helmets in the game of life.

 

[Lone Clone]

Notre Dame refuses to join a Football Conference. At
least 10 years ago they were invited to join the Big Ten.
They have joined a Basketball Conference, but want the
luxury of being an independent football team.

Bottom Line: I hope Ohio State wipes them out at the
Fiesta Bowl. Fighting Irish are smug, spoiled and short
a few helmets in the game of life.

I also hope Notre Dame loses. I hope this every Saturday in the autumn.

I don't think ND should be forced to join a conference to participate in the playoff. However, I think the bar should be set pretty freaking high for the Irish.

 

[Dauminator]

Well, if you really want to have a perfect world, the NCAA would limit conference size to 10 teams and every league would play a round-robin. Any system in which a team can avoid playing another team is flawed.

The perfect model would include four super-conferences consisting of a total of sixteen teams each. Every conference would have two, eight team divisions with the conference champion being decided by the annual playing of a conference championship game (ala the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC now.) The winners from the four conference championship games would then be seeded in a four team playoff as also now exists.

Your proposals are almost identical, it's just that one has a dedicated "first-round" matchup between divisions of conferences.

The other difference is glaring. LoneClone's has a full round-robin. This is a must. It leaves no room for doubt as to who wins the division/conference. Then the champs play off for the national title. It must be clear cut: win these games and you're the champion. Just pasting more teams onto the current system doesn't change the fact that there's an element of beauty contest. You must have balanced leagues and everyone plays everyone. Ideally, it would be both home and away but football doesn't allow for that many games.

I'd like to see eight nine-team divisions with round robin. Game 1 of the year would be against second division teams, assigned at random, and two inter-division games (home and away for each team) again drawn at random. It would never happen because big teams want 7 home games. Oh well.

 

[TampaHawkfan]

I seem to remember the Big XII getting punished last year for NOT having a conference title game (Baylor/TCU). So not sure how much of a break that is - it just depends on how things play out.

It would be nice everyone was in a conference (ND, I'm looking at you) and every conference played a championship game, just to keep everything on an even playing field.

 

[TampaHawkfan]

Notre Dame refuses to join a Football Conference. At
least 10 years ago they were invited to join the Big Ten.
They have joined a Basketball Conference, but want the
luxury of being an independent football team.

Bottom Line: I hope Ohio State wipes them out at the
Fiesta Bowl. Fighting Irish are smug, spoiled and short
a few helmets in the game of life.

If OSU brings the same attitude/intensity they brought against Michigan, I expect that game to be a bloodbath.

 

[Lone Clone]

The schools ought to decide (1) what the purpose of the playoff is, and (2) how much control should be given the NCAA instead of its individual members.

This was done with the basketball tournament several decades ago. The goal of choosing the best team in the country was abandoned -- although nobody said so -- and the goal became making money and promoting the sport.

If the goal were to pick the best team in the country, no conference would have more than one tournament team. The conference has already conducted a season-long competition to determine the best team; it is impossible, by definition, to be the best team in the country if you aren't the best in your conference.

What we would see if the current football playoff were expanded to 8 teams is exactly what we saw with basketball. This year, fans of Iowa and Ohio State would be demanding an at-large berth, even though it has been established that Michigan State is the best team in the BiG, and therefore the only possible candidate for best team in the country.

If, on the other hand, the goal is NOT to find the best team in the country, but to make a lot of money and entertain a lot of people, then you can expand to 8 teams, allow multiple entrants from single conferences......and listen to the fans of #9 complain that the field should be expanded to 16.

 

[5Fan5]

Your proposals are almost identical, it's just that one has a dedicated "first-round" matchup between divisions of conferences.

The other difference is glaring. LoneClone's has a full round-robin. This is a must. It leaves no room for doubt as to who wins the division/conference. Then the champs play off for the national title. It must be clear cut: win these games and you're the champion. Just pasting more teams onto the current system doesn't change the fact that there's an element of beauty contest. You must have balanced leagues and everyone plays everyone. Ideally, it would be both home and away but football doesn't allow for that many games.

I'd like to see eight nine-team divisions with round robin. Game 1 of the year would be against second division teams, assigned at random, and two inter-division games (home and away for each team) again drawn at random. It would never happen because big teams want 7 home games. Oh well.

I disagree.

IF the big xii system currently in place was so definitive, why did even the big xii have such difficulty determining the one 'true champion' in 2014? Even LC tries to spin that in another direction, but the facts are the facts. Either the big xii was totally unworthy of having a team selected for the playoff of 2014 or the 'round robin' format is not all it is credited to be to determine that solitary champion. Can't be both.

Next year the Big Ten goes to a nine game conference schedule. Not perfect, but still playing just as many conference opponents as the big xii. What some want others to believe is that the big xii is now superior because of finding themselves with too few teams to conduct a divisional/conference championship format. What is omitted in that argument every single time is the advantage some teams have by getting to face decidedly weaker conference opponents each year. Do you think that it is favorable to just about any other team to have Kansas on the schedule every year?

The big xii finds itself in the unenviable position of being the only conference among the Power 5 without a conference championship game. With the advent of the four team playoff system, it becomes fairly simple... find a method to most equitably winnow the defined major college teams to a final four in an efficient and effective means. NO, that does not mean to attempt some back loading of schedules and scheduling of late bye weeks to try to fool someone into believing that all is equal among the conferences. The big xii failed in 2014 miserably and nearly failed again this season with their hocus-pocus. When and if the time comes that the inequities in scheduling and lack of CCG come to show any sort of advantage toward the big xii over another Power 5 conference, you will see change - swift and absolute.

 

[GPRHAWK]

Oklahoma won their conference by playing all other teams and having the best record, why would they play a conference championship game?

Oklahoma played 9 conference games. Same as us. I'm okay with it for them. Notre Dame played 6 ACC games and 3 other games against power 5 schools. I think independents should be required to play at least 10 games against power 5 conference shools to be eligibile for the playoffs.

 

[Dauminator]

I disagree.

IF the big xii system currently in place was so definitive, why did even the big xii have such difficulty determining the one 'true champion' in 2014?

Eh? Baylor and TCU tie at 8-1, Baylor won head to head. Bang, champions. If the conference decided to give TCU a trophy and call them co-champions, whatever. Baylor won it, end of. Crystal clear. Iowa got a trophy in 2004 but Michigan won the conference. No muddle there.

In my scenario, everyone would have to play everyone in division (strong and weak). Every division would have a clear winner and all those winners would settle it on the field. There's no room for style points or debate (except the ubiquitous what-if game).

As a general note, I'm surprised any Hawk would advocate for the superiority of a conference championship game. If we didn't have one, we're in the playoffs as being rightfully ranked ahead of MSU. Strange.

 

[PlutoDroid]

Well, if you really want to have a perfect world, the NCAA would limit conference size to 10 teams and every league would play a round-robin. Any system in which a team can avoid playing another team is flawed.

By the way, I thought Bowlsby and the Big XII erred last season by not designating Baylor as the champion; everybody knew TCU was a better team, but Baylor won when the teams played, and that should have been the tiebreaker. The league rolled the dice instead, thinking there was a chance that both would make the playoff, and ended up with nobody.

As I pointed out, the worst possible way to handle this is the way the BigTen has handled it since the days when footballs were round, with no round-robin AND no championship game. So it is amusing to see the Big Ten fans leading the criticism on this point.

I don't understand the reference to Texas, and for the record, it's "kowtows." Do you think Texas (or the rest of the league) somehow engineered the departure of Missouri and Texas A&M? Or was happy about it? Are you among those -- including a lot of Big XII fans -- who think the league should add 2 more teams just so it can have a title game, regardless of whether the teams would be a positive addition to the league?

There really seems to be a memory hole here. Let me remind you that we (Big XII schools) have experienced it both ways. On at least one occasion, and perhaps as many as three, the fact we had a championship game and most other leagues did not cost us a shot at the national championship.

Finally, take a look at why the Big XII doesn't have a title game now:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo.../big-12-championship-game-big-ten-bob-bowlsby

Oh Cyclone fan you really don't comprehend why Texas demanding the purse of your conference's winnings being the cause of the mass exodus of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A@M, and Missouri? You replaced them with West Virginia and TCU and have not tendered offers to Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati or any other team which would bring you up to the 12 teams needed to qualify for a conference title game. You ask how Texas is relevant to this discussion, come on now. If Iowa State was offered a safe haven from that sinking ship your president would say "Yes" in a Texas minute.

I understand your flying the conference banner but please don't bring up the BCS in the playoff era. I won't bring up the 60's because Woody Hayes would puke at the thought of his Buckeyes playing the offense they do today. It's soon to be 2016 and the world is a different place than it was just 4 years ago when the SEC had a rematch in the BCS championship game. Mega conferences are the wave of the future which you started along with the SEC by the way. Get with the times or drop out of the fast lane.

 

[5Fan5]

Eh? Baylor and TCU tie at 8-1, Baylor won head to head. Bang, champions. If the conference decided to give TCU a trophy and call them co-champions, whatever. Baylor won it, end of. Crystal clear. Iowa got a trophy in 2004 but Michigan won the conference. No muddle there.

In my scenario, everyone would have to play everyone in division (strong and weak). Every division would have a clear winner and all those winners would settle it on the field. There's no room for style points or debate (except the ubiquitous what-if game).

As a general note, I'm surprised any Hawk would advocate for the superiority of a conference championship game. If we didn't have one, we're in the playoffs as being rightfully ranked ahead of MSU. Strange.

Again, it begs the simplest of questions... why did the big xii itself have so much trouble deciding that Baylor (not TCU) was the deserving 'one true champion' in 2014? Or, are you admitting that no matter which team was deemed champion, the entire big xii was unworthy of consideration for inclusion in the final four team playoff last year? Either way is okay because it clearly indicates that the big xii format is not perfect as some have stated in this thread.

In your scenario there would be a minimum of 72 teams. Go ahead and list those 72 teams that you are certain would be acceptable to everyone and let the debate truly begin. The concept is not 'more is better'. That, and participation awards are better suited for the overzealous PC crowd. We are talking highest level major college football.

How many games per season are you proposing with your mega-football format? What crossover games will there be/not be? How will schedule quality/strength be compared? What about the so-called independents out there... how do they fit into your scenario? More teams just spoils an already good recipe that, with relatively minor refinements, can be the best model.

Currently, there are 54 teams in the recognized Power 5 Conferences not named the big xii. Where most of the confusion and/or controversy enters the discussion is how to treat/deal with a conference that does not offer a championship game and what to do about the 'independent' teams. But, even giving benefit of doubt to the big xii - that only increases the number of teams to 64 (an ideal figure, by the way) with however many of the loners (independents) are deemed of merit to be included only as a member of some conference.

Settle on the best 64 teams in major college football. Assemble four conferences consisting each of 16 of those 64 teams. Play divisional football with eight teams in each division. Determine a conference champion via an on-field playoff just like is currently the case for the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC and then have the four conference champions play to determine the overall winner.

Your opinion and assumption is that Iowa would be included. As recently as this time last week, there was very minimal support for Iowa among the supposedly knowledgeable personalities discussing the possibility of Iowa being in the final four. Even various polls today have Iowa ranked 5th, 6th and/or 7th. There was/is no absolute other than what is presently decided on the field of play except for one grouping of ten teams and a few independents.

 

[Lone Clone]

Oh Cyclone fan you really don't comprehend why Texas demanding the purse of your conference's winnings being the cause of the mass exodus of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A@M, and Missouri? You replaced them with West Virginia and TCU and have not tendered offers to Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati or any other team which would bring you up to the 12 teams needed to qualify for a conference title game. You ask how Texas is relevant to this discussion, come on now. If Iowa State was offered a safe haven from that sinking ship your president would say "Yes" in a Texas minute.

I understand your flying the conference banner but please don't bring up the BCS in the playoff era. I won't bring up the 60's because Woody Hayes would puke at the thought of his Buckeyes playing the offense they do today. It's soon to be 2016 and the world is a different place than it was just 4 years ago when the SEC had a rematch in the BCS championship game. Mega conferences are the wave of the future which you started along with the SEC by the way. Get with the times or drop out of the fast lane.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You sounds like a demented Nebraska fan.

Sorry to be harsh, but that's just the fact.

But it's a free country.

Would ISU be open to a better deal? Hell, yes. So would Iowa and every other school in America. The question is what would be a better deal. For ISU, the BiG would be a better deal, for obvious reasons, most obviously geography and money.

If I had my druthers, nothing would have changed. The Big Eight would still be the Big Eight; the Big Ten would still have 10 members; etc. But nobody asked my opinion.