Which 40 teams should make up a new D I-A?

zoogies said:
The deal is that you are going to leave out a LOT of teams that over the years will come out and make a title run with the big boys. In the name of what, exactly? If you want to put the big-time, historical programs on a pedestal, make a list (which is what this is, I suppose)...but actually reducing the league to that, I don't really see what it has to offer.
Click to expand...
It would stop the pretending, because in the current system those teams that make a title run now don't have a real chance at the title. Boise State last year, TCU a couple years back, Kansas a couple years back, etc. Did any of these teams have a real shot at the title? Really?

 
zoogies said:
I can't believe people think it's a good idea. 40 teams is like 80 teams too few. I think it's good how it is now. College Football is a collegiate thing, let's not turn it into the NFL.
Click to expand...
+1

Couldn't agree more. College football is perfect the way it is, and would hate to see it turn into the NFL.

College Football>NFL

 
The Maudfather said:
College Football>NFL
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's WAY better than the NFL. But it could be better than it is, and I'm just tossing out ideas to make it better.

30-40-50 teams in 1A may not be the answer. But I'd like to see something change that would allow for better champions crowned. Without a real system that doesn't involve excluding teams that have legit arguments for being there (or a way to determine how "legit" that argument even is), we're one step above intramurals. Maybe even half a step. And for a sport we all love so much, I find that unpalatable.

 
knapplc said:
The Maudfather said:
College Football>NFL
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's WAY better than the NFL. But it could be better than it is, and I'm just tossing out ideas to make it better.

30-40-50 teams in 1A may not be the answer. But I'd like to see something change that would allow for better champions crowned. Without a real system that doesn't involve excluding teams that have legit arguments for being there (or a way to determine how "legit" that argument even is), we're one step above intramurals. Maybe even half a step. And for a sport we all love so much, I find that unpalatable.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the current system? <_<

 
The Maudfather said:
knapplc said:
The Maudfather said:
College Football>NFL
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's WAY better than the NFL. But it could be better than it is, and I'm just tossing out ideas to make it better.

30-40-50 teams in 1A may not be the answer. But I'd like to see something change that would allow for better champions crowned. Without a real system that doesn't involve excluding teams that have legit arguments for being there (or a way to determine how "legit" that argument even is), we're one step above intramurals. Maybe even half a step. And for a sport we all love so much, I find that unpalatable.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the current system? <_<
Click to expand...
I think a better question would be, "What's right with this system?"

Aside from the ridiculously bloated number of teams in 1A, you have vastly different budgets for these teams, no real method of determining a champion (or at least, no method used by any kind of organized sport in history other than Div 1A of NCAA football), out of control TV contracts being signed with specific conferences.... the list goes on and on.

 
knapplc said:
zoogies said:
The deal is that you are going to leave out a LOT of teams that over the years will come out and make a title run with the big boys. In the name of what, exactly? If you want to put the big-time, historical programs on a pedestal, make a list (which is what this is, I suppose)...but actually reducing the league to that, I don't really see what it has to offer.
Click to expand...
It would stop the pretending, because in the current system those teams that make a title run now don't have a real chance at the title. Boise State last year, TCU a couple years back, Kansas a couple years back, etc. Did any of these teams have a real shot at the title? Really?
Click to expand...
If they had been given an equal shoot at one yes. The size of the divisions have little to do with the system the teams play under. Utah by all rights should have played for the Nat. championship last season, but changing the size of the leagues wouldn't have changed the outcome. Only changes to the egregious BSC selection process will change that. And I don't think shrinking the playing field will do anything to help solve that mess.

 
huzkerbob said:
knapplc said:
zoogies said:
The deal is that you are going to leave out a LOT of teams that over the years will come out and make a title run with the big boys. In the name of what, exactly? If you want to put the big-time, historical programs on a pedestal, make a list (which is what this is, I suppose)...but actually reducing the league to that, I don't really see what it has to offer.
Click to expand...
It would stop the pretending, because in the current system those teams that make a title run now don't have a real chance at the title. Boise State last year, TCU a couple years back, Kansas a couple years back, etc. Did any of these teams have a real shot at the title? Really?
Click to expand...
If they had been given an equal shoot at one yes. The size of the divisions have little to do with the system the teams play under. Utah by all rights should have played for the Nat. championship last season, but changing the size of the leagues wouldn't have changed the outcome. Only changes to the egregious BSC selection process will change that. And I don't think shrinking the playing field will do anything to help solve that mess.
Click to expand...
They would have an equal shot if they had been given an equal shot, but they weren't? Isn't that what I said? :blink:

I'm not sure what you mean by "size of the leagues." If you're talking individual conferences, that's not what I'm saying. If you're talking Div 1A as a whole, yes, that's what I'm saying. Pare that down to a manageable level, and you won't need the BCS.

But yes, I agree that the BCS has to go. It's a joke, and I've been saying that throughout this and other threads.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
God, Pat Forde is an annoying bastard. He calls Nebraska an afterthought in the Big XII North when we've won at least a share of it in 2 of the past 3 seasons. He's one of the worst homers on ESPN. He had to save Missouri and put them in just before the cut.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top