A Fair Way to Determine the National Champion

by Idle on Dec 19, 2011 9:55 AM EST

Bumped from FanPosts -- ed.

Reorganize the out-of-control conference expansion into 7 BCS conferences based on region of the country. 10 teams each. 9-game conference schedule (everyone plays everyone). 1 out-of-conference BCS game (permanent rivals like FSU-Florida, GA Tech-UGA, Clemson-Sakerlina). 1 non-AQ game vs WAC, CUSA, etc. 1 FCS game against an in-state opponent. 12 regular season games.

No. 1 & No. 2 in each BCS conference play each other again in the Conference Championship game. 7 Champions enter an 8-team playoff with 1 at-large team. Takes 16 games to win the National Championship. 16 teams get a crack at it. 6 playoff games to be played at Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, & a new bowl in the new Indianapolis Colts domed stadium. Game No. 7 the National Championship rotates between the bowl sites like it does now.

So this year, LSU goes 12-0 (9-0), Bama goes 11-1 (8-1) & they play each other again in the SEC Championship Game in Atlanta. 1 team wins & is the No. 1 seed. If Bama loses they're at-large team, maybe No. 6 seed. LSU loses & is No. 2 seed.

Big East	Atlantic Coast	Southeastern	Southwest
Boston College	Maryland	Florida	Louisiana State
Syracuse	Virginia	Georgia	Memphis
Connecticut	Virginia Tech	South Carolina	Arkansas
Rutgers	North Carolina	Wake Forest	Oklahoma
Penn State	North Carolina State	Tennessee	Oklahoma State
Pittsburgh	Duke	Vanderbilt	Texas
West Virginia	Clemson	Alabama	Texas A&M
Cincinnati	Georgia Tech	Auburn	Texas Tech
Kentucky	Florida State	Mississippi	Texas Christian
Louisville	Miami	Mississippi State	Baylor

Finally a real eastern conference w/ Penn St as the anchor
ACC classic w/ instate rivals Va Tech & Miami added in
SEC loses the geographic outliers Arkansas, LSU, Kentucky & picks up NC w/ Wake
Old SWC & Big 12 South

Big Ten	Great Midwest	Pacific	Ind.
Ohio State	Kansas	California	Army
Michigan	Kansas State	Stanford	Navy
Michigan State	Missouri	UCLA	Air Force
Notre Dame	Iowa	USC
Indiana	Iowa State	Arizona
Purdue	Nebraska	Arizona State
Illinois	Colorado	Oregon
Northwestern	Utah	Oregon State
Wisconsin	Brigham Young	Washington
Minnesota	Boise State	Washington State

B1G classic w/ an Iowa for ND trade
a new conference is born, the GMC stretches from Illinois to Oregon
PAC-10 classic
military schools are Ind by themselves
somehow this worked out for each conference to have 2 private schools except GMC w/ just BYU
conferences designed to promote what makes college football fun - rivalry game

After the 70 BCS schools, there are 55 non-AQ teams in 4 conferences. They play in a conference championship game. Maybe the right 13-0 non-AQ team w/ enough BCS wins during their undefeated season could earn the at-large bid.

Western Athletic		Conference USA
Mountain	West	East	West
UTEP	Nevada	Marshall	Tulane
New Mexico	UNLV	East Carolina	Louisiana Tech
Colorado State	San Jose State	Birmingham	Houston
Wyoming	Fresno State	Southern Miss	Rice
Utah State	San Diego State	Central Florida	Southern Methodist
Idaho	Hawaii	South Florida	Tulsa

mid-tier conferences. WAC on the left coast
CUSA on the right. USF gets screwed but no directional schools playing in off campus stadiums in the BCS!

Mid-American		Sunbelt
East	West	East	West
UMass	Toledo	Florida Atlantic	Arkansas State
Temple	Bowling Green	Florida International	Louisiana Monroe
Buffalo	Eastern Michigan	South Alabama	Louisiana Lafayette
Ohio	Central Michigan	Troy	Texas State
Miami	Western Michigan	Georgia State	North Texas
Akron	Ball State	Middle Tennessee	UTSA
Kent State	Northern Illinois	Western Kentucky	New Mexico State

bottom rung. 1 in the North & 1 in the South. 14-teams each

A FanPost gives the opinion of the fan who writes it and that fan only. That doesn't give the opinion more or less weight than any other opinion on this blog, but the post does not necessarily reflect the view of TSK's writers.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

toooooo complicated

And pretty much everything involved steps on everybody’s toes. It mandates the non AQ participate (via scheduling) but gives them basically no chance of participating. It dictates the terms on how schools schedule their games also.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 19, 2011 10:20 AM EST via mobile reply actions

If you haven't noticed we now decide the National Championship participants via voting.

I agree that it probably wouldn’t stand a chance of being implemented but it would be a step in the right direction. People bitch and moan and groan about how the current system is broken (and rightfully so) but the second someone tries to come up with an original solution people are also quick to point outs weaknesses.

College football involves a large number of teams playing an extremely limited schedule. No system is going to make everyone happy but at this point just about any change is going to be better compared to what is in place now.

I’m saying all this with the assumption that you would prefer to see a change to the current system. If you’re fine with Nick Saban being able to vote whether his team makes it into the national title game then please disregard this response.

Ask me about the death of five hookers and how Craig James was allegedly involved.

by IsayPetrinoYouSayPaterno on Dec 19, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

whether I'm fine with the current system or not is irrelevant

This is way more confusing and less fair. The current system is more fair to non AQ teams than this one is. But if you wanna blow up the landscape of college football conferences and have the NCAA dictate schedules for a system that would cause 3 times as much moaning and groaning, be my guest.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 19, 2011 7:43 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

yeah, the inflexible scheduling is the worst part

Tennessee, for instance, has one non-conference BCS rivalry game every year, and so we can’t schedule the great intersectional games we’ve been playing (Oregon, Cal, Nebraska, Oklahoma. . . )

If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk

by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

uh, no.

"I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."

by TX_HogFan on Dec 19, 2011 11:36 AM EST reply actions

the furk?

by Caban on Dec 19, 2011 12:02 PM EST reply actions

An even fairer way to determine the NC

First, you realize there are too many colleges for each to play each other, so you have to have some way to limit the number of participants in any playoff system. Maybe some kind of national voting system which combines coaches, media, and computers.

Then consider the number of teams your might invite to a playoff, and that having as many as 16 teams will effectively kill the bowl system, which effectively ends college football for probably half of the school out there which currently play. Assuming you don’t want to do this, limiting the number of schools which can play in any playoff system makes sense.

Then you consider the number of teams who can ligitimately complain they are unfairly excluded will increase the more participants you have, so if you have 16 teams in a playoff, another 16 will bitch about not getting invited and will have ligitimate beefs. So, 16 teams are out, definitly.

You then turn to an 8 team playoff system, but then you have the same problem of 8 or 10 schools being shut out, and that’s still enough it might hurt many of the minor bowls, which hurts the schools participating in them. Again, assume you do not wish to do this, 8 teams are out.

So you then consider a 4 team system, but there are too many high power conferences to limit to just 4 teams and ligitimately call the result an national championship playoff.

So at the end of the day, you leave the system alone and recognize that though imperfect, it’s quite a bit better than any probable alternative.

"Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body."
― Seneca

by NJBammer on Dec 19, 2011 2:36 PM EST reply actions

Funny

Any proposal that starts with a radical restructuring of conferences and then continues with a radical restructuring of scheduling is laughable and can be dismissed offhand.

Gradual change is all we can hope for.

In all kinds of weather we'll all stick together

by doker on Dec 20, 2011 12:33 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

As long as you are breaking up the conferences,

why keep teams like Vanderbilt or Kansas State in the AQs? I’d say that if a team hasn’t won a conference championship in the past 50 years . . . out they go. Actually, the best way to handle it would be a system of relegation, as is done in the English Premier League.

Plus, Memphis . . . really?

Finally, if every team plays each other within their conference, why the need for a rematch in the championship game?

by 1stn25 on Dec 20, 2011 8:02 PM EST reply actions

Or you could go back to 1991 & never mess with things & ask the 7 BCS conferences to please pay round robin 9-game schedules.

Big 10 – same

Pac 10 – same

SEC 10 – same, no Arkansas & Sakerlina expansion

ACC 10 – Sakerlina never left & FSU still joins

Big 8 + 2 = 10 – add in Utah & BYU

BEast 10 = classic 7 of BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Pitt, West Va, Va Tech, Miami… kick out Temple (of course)… add in young UConn & USF programs… score Penn St over B1G

SWC 10 = now this conf had problems w/ 8 Tx teams. kick out SMU, Rice, Houston. add in Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati & Boise State (or leave in Houston if you like geography over tv markets)

by Idle on Dec 20, 2011 9:33 PM EST reply actions