Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked The Solution to College Football's Biggest Problem

[Paramus]

To me the biggest problem with college football is the way its teams are organized. Once you fix that, then it becomes possible to ensure that every team can PLAY its way to a national championship. No more committees, voters and computers to decide to who plays for the national title. It can be done purely by results on the playing field. If you don’t think that is possible, you are wrong. If I were made the Czar of College football I would fix it, and fix it right quick. My formula would also allow membership in Division 1 to be determined purely by results on the playing field.

Here is how I would do it:

First of all I would end the practice of having teams form alliances to create their own conferences. Teams in the NBA and NFL don’t jump from one conference or division to another, do they? Those leagues are centrally managed so that each Conference and division has equal members decided by a commissioner. For college football to work, it must be centrally managed as well, where all DIV 1 teams are managed by one person or one office. I suppose the NCAA could be that office if the member schools would allow it. With the talk of a super 64-team DIV 1 league no longer associated with the NCAA, it looks like we are moving in that direction.

HOW TO ORGANIZE THE TEAMS:

Right now there are approximately 240 schools that play football in the NCAA. 120 teams play in the FBS (formally DIV I, and DIV 1A) and another 120 or so play in the FCS (formally DIV II, and DIV 1AA). So if I were commissioner or Czar of College Football I would have 8 conferences and limit the total number of Division I teams to 80 teams max. 72 teams would work as well, as would 64. With an 80 team league, there would be 8 conferences with 10 in each conference. With 72 teams it would be 8 conferences with 9 teams in each, 64 total teams would have 8 teams in each conference. However, the total number of conferences would have to be fixed at 8 in order to accommodate an 8-team national play-off. As there are 240 NCAA football teams, which are divisible by 80, I will use the 80-team DIV 1 organization as my example.

With eight 10-team conferences, each team in Division I would begin and end the regular season by playing the 9 other teams in their conference. The winner of each of the 8 conferences would join an 8-team national tournament. The teams that finish 2nd through 10th in their conference would also join an 8-team national play-off tournament to determine the national champion at their level. In other words, for example, a team that finished 4th in their conference would play in an 8 team play-off against the other 7 teams that finished 4th in their conference. In the end, with 8 conferences composed of 10 teams each, you would have ten 8-team national play-off tournaments, one for each level, where all Division 1 teams would participate.

All 10 of the 8-team national tournaments would result in 3 games for each team. That way every DIV I team would have a 9-game regular season and a 3-game tournament season for a total of 12 games for the entire season. Teams could add a pre-conference game to begin the season to make it a 13-game season. If conferences were composed of only 9 or 8 teams then 2 or 3 pre-conferences games at the beginning of the season could be allowed.

Each of the 10 national tournaments would be run the same way and would be designed to determine the best and worst team in each of the 8-team tournaments. There would be 8 teams in the quarterfinals. First round winners would move the semi-finals, and semi-final winners would move to the championship game (3 games total).

First round (quarterfinal) losers would be placed in a four team play-off. The two 1st round winners of that 4-team play-off would play for the championship (for Fifth and Sixth place in the tournament) and the two losers would play each other to determine 7th and 8th place in the tournament (3 games for each team once again). The 2 semi-final losers would play each other for 3rd and 4th place, which would have them playing 3 tournament games as well. Of course, the winners of the semis would play each other for the national championship.

So, you run 10 tournaments like this each year. The winner of each tournament would receive a national championship trophy (for their level), and you could award trophies for 2nd and 3rd place as well. The 10 tournaments would begin the week following the end of the regular (conference) season, and all three tournament games would be held on consecutive week-ends. That way the regular and tournament season would end the last week in November or 1st week in December. Campus sites of the tournament participants would be used for tournament games. A team from Florida might have to play at Michigan in late November.

Obviously what is cool about this scheme is that the national champion is determined on the field. All subjectivity is eliminated. The scheme also lends itself to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt which is the best conference.

DETERMINING DIV I MEMBERSHIP BY RESULTS ON THE PLAYING FIELD:

To use this scheme to determine who will be awarded membership in Division 1, you would have to organize the remainder of the NCAA teams the same way as in DIV1. DIV 11 would also be composed of 80 teams with 8 conferences, and DIV III as well. Each of the 8 DIV 1 conferences would have a “sister” conference at the DIV II level, and each DIV II conference would have a “sister” conference at the DIV III level.

The last place finisher of each of the DIV I conference would move down to DIV II and be replaced by the champion of their “sister” DIV II conference. That means that 8 teams would move up to DIV 1 each year and 8 DIV 1 teams would move down to DIV II. The same principal applies to DIV II and DIV III schools each year….where 8 DIV II schools move down to DIV III and 8 DIV III schools move up to DIV II. Under this scheme all 240 teams that are currently members of the NCAA would have a chance to eventually play their way to a DIV 1 national championship. What could possibly be fairer than that?

Obviously the tournament games would be played on the campuses of the teams competing, and to the greatest degree possible each team should have the same number of home games during the tournament. That will not always be possible, but compensation can be made in following years for those teams who got short changed in the number of tournament home games they had in previous years.

Can Bowl games be included in the scheme? Of course they could. Each of the 3-game championship tournaments would be held on consecutive week-ends beginning one-week after the end of the conference season. That would mean the end of the regular season and the championship tournaments would end the 1st week in December with a 13-game season (last week-end in November with a 12-game season). After the tournaments conclude, the Bowl invitations could be issued and teams could use the Bowls as a reward for a fine season. One of the bowls would have the National champion playing in it, and that would be kind of neat. Yes, the Bowls would no longer be used to determine a NC, but why should they?

To spice up the level 10 national tournament, you could make it so that only one team from DIV I goes down to DIV II each year….that being the last place finisher of the level 10 eight-team tournament. That would make the last-place game in that tournament very significant. At the same time, if only the winner of the level one DIV II tournament can move up to DIV I, that would make that game particularly intriguing.

Obviously I would select teams for each of the 8 conferences in all three Divisions based upon geographic location first and historical affiliations and rivalries second.

So, in Summary, the advantages to this scheme are:

1. National Championship play-off participants are determined solely by performance on the playing field. Only conference Champs participate.
2. Each team has an absolutely equal chance to become the DIV I National Champion (all 240 teams in fact).
3. An 8-team national play-off is instituted.
4. The national play-off does not force some teams to play more games in a season than others.
4a. The national play-off will not interfere with semester final exams and does not interfere with a player’s normal academic schedule.
5. The importance of the regular season remains intact.
6. Every team gets to play every other team in their conference each year.
7. The current Bowl games and Bowl schedules are not affected.
8. Teams no longer have to scramble to find a suitable conference to join.
9. No team can remain as an independent. There are no independents in the NFL or NBA are there? If you want to compete in DIV 1, sorry, but you have to join a conference.
10. Alignment of Conference members primarily by geographic proximity enhances the logistics of attending away games for every fan.
11. It becomes clear who has the best conference from top to bottom every year.
12. If this scheme is instituted, HuskerMax, Nebraska, and Paramus could get recognized for it. It could become known as the Nebraska Plan, the Husker MAX plan, or the Paramus Play-Off System. HuskerMAX and Paramus could be honored at halftime of the 1st NC game using this system (although Paramus would prefer money).

Disadvantages:

1. The annual 3-team round robin between Air Force, Army, and Navy might have to come to an end (maybe not).
2. If Nebraska ever finishes last in its conference and goes to DIV II, all of Nebraska will be in mourning for at least a year.

Frankly, this is not my idea. Amateur leagues in several different sports have been using this system forever, and I am just applying the basic principals to college football. So I deserve absolutely no credit for it. But, I do like the concept. Does anyone else?

 

[Sonny]

What could possibly be fairer than that?

Would you raise the number of scholarships a D-1AA school can offer, or reduce the number of scholarships a D-1A school can offer?

 

[Funky]

Interesting read. I always enjoy reading people's ideas for conference and playoff structure. Thanks for sharing.

A few thoughts:
1. There doesn't seem to be a way to protect rivalries between conference opponents. If a team has a really bad year and finishes last, moving down to Div 2, can they lock in games with rivals?
2. Geography would also make this very difficult. Picking eight conferences for Div 1 would be very difficult, and picking corresponding areas for a lower Div 2 league would be practically impossible.
3. Money. Elite schools would never agree to a system that would be a detriment to their financial advantages.

 

[Paramus]

Would you raise the number of scholarships a D-1AA school can offer, or reduce the number of scholarships a D-1A school can offer?

Wow, that is a significant issue in regard to fairness. As I understand it, the NCAA determines how many scholarships can be offered at each level. It would be nice for each school to have the same number of scholarships, but the only way it could be achieved is if all 240 schools contributed to a central scholarship fund based on each schools ability to pay (kind of like an income tax) That way, an equal number of scholarships could be granted to each school using one pool of funds. Kind of socialistic, but if 240 schools are going to be in the same "League" you have to make the playing field as fair as possible.

Obviously today's DIV II and III schools can't afford to hand out 85 scholarships, so I think revenue sharing by all 240 institutions would be the only way each of the 240 schools could have an equal number of scholarships.

Actually, if 10% of all NCAA television revenues were directed to a single football scholarship fund to be equally shared by all 240 schools, then none of the 240 schools would be billed directly. Probably much more acceptable that way.

 

[SoCalRed]

College Football is not a professional league. This sort of "reorganization" has been suggested almost every year since the old Bowl Alliance began.

Unless colleges are allowed to draft HS and juco players and force them to play somewhere they don't want to play there is going to be inequity in the sport.

The only "problem" this restructuring "solves" is one which doesn't actually exist. Oh, and all this talk of a super-Conference outside the NCAA is just talk. Not going to happen.

 

[Paramus]

College Football is not a professional league. This sort of "reorganization" has been suggested almost every year since the old Bowl Alliance began.

Unless colleges are allowed to draft HS and juco players and force them to play somewhere they don't want to play there is going to be inequity in the sport.

The only "problem" this restructuring "solves" is one which doesn't actually exist. Oh, and all this talk of a super-Conference outside the NCAA is just talk. Not going to happen.

When championship play-off participants are determined by a committee, when they could be determined on the field, I think a problem exits. You may not see that as a problem, but I do.

And the only reason a college football conference or league has not been formed outside the NCAA is because I have not yet been crowned as the Czar of college football. That could happen at any time because I would take that position if offered.

 

[SoCalRed]

There is a much simpler solution: only conference champions can be considered (or top four ranking for independents) for the four team play-off. That's all that is required. Prevents the inclusion of ccg losers and the possibility of four teams from one conference.

Elaborate restructuring schemes deny and supersede the sovereignty of conferences. They would play havoc with what is left of traditional rivalries.

CFB came before the NFL and whether you agree or not, it does not exist to create a definitive national champion every year. That is a media concoction and always has been.

 

[Paramus]

There is a much simpler solution: only conference champions can be considered (or top four ranking for independents) for the four team play-off. That's all that is required. Prevents the inclusion of ccg losers and the possibility of four teams from one conference.

Elaborate restructuring schemes deny and supersede the sovereignty of conferences. They would play havoc with what is left of traditional rivalries.

CFB came before the NFL and whether you agree or not, it does not exist to create a definitive national champion every year. That is a media concoction and always has been.

The system I describe was (and still is) used by amateur sports leagues long before it was used by the NFL. So you are mistaken to think I am trying to design college football like a professional sports league.

Also, to supersede the sovereignty of conferences would be a good thing.....money and power would be more equally distributed amongst all teams.....the land grabs of the BIG 10, SEC and others (which creates inequity) would end. Do you like a system that results in those conferences who have versus those who have not...conferences so huge that it takes 4 or 5 years before you have played every team in your conference at least once???

I was never happier than when the Huskers belonged to the BIG 8. Oklahoma every year at season's end was enough for me. Eight teams was plenty. We played every team every year...but that ended with the BIG 12 as did our rivalry with Oklahoma. After that our chief rival became Colorado. The sovereignty of the conferences didn't do us any favors that time did it? Soon the sovereignty of the BIG 12 became the sovereignty of Texas, didn't it? How lovely it was. Thankfully TO got us out of that mess.

Are bigger, richer conferences really a better way to go? In the BIG 8 I felt like we were all from the same neighborhood. Do you feel like Rutgers and Maryland and Penn State are in your neighborhood?

At least the BIG 10 and SEC make you feel like a neighbor by offering equal revenue sharing. Not so in that Texas league. But since each conference is sovereign, each can make its own rules. I suppose the Texas conference could expand to 20 teams if they want to, and so could the BIG 10. Since nobody has control of it, what prevents it?

A CF Czar could stop it and put together something that makes sense for everyone. Or let the NCAA take control of it and organize the teams in some rational way. Right now, it is completely out of control.

in addition, with 80 teams, 8 conferences, and and 10 teams per conference, I am sure I could keep at least 90% of college football's traditional rivalries in tact...no problem.

 

[Pops]

North stars to Dallas...the year I quit watching pro hockey.

Big ten forming their own hockey league...SUCKS!

many many teams have moved around the NHL...

 

[HuskerWeatherman]

North stars to Dallas...the year I quit watching pro hockey.

Big ten forming their own hockey league...SUCKS!

many many teams have moved around the NHL...

I moved up to Minneapolis about a year after Norm Green hauled the North Stars to Dallas. Man, the Minnesotans were more than a little bit bitter... irate may even be an understatement.

 

[Funky]

There is a much simpler solution: only conference champions can be considered (or top four ranking for independents) for the four team play-off. That's all that is required. Prevents the inclusion of ccg losers and the possibility of four teams from one conference.

Elaborate restructuring schemes deny and supersede the sovereignty of conferences. They would play havoc with what is left of traditional rivalries.

CFB came before the NFL and whether you agree or not, it does not exist to create a definitive national champion every year. That is a media concoction and always has been.

I know many will disagree agree with me on this, but I don't think that playoffs should be limited to conference champions. I like the idea that the 3 top ranked champs be taken along with the highest ranked non-champ as a wild card.

Alabama lost a nail biter to LSU in 2011. They then proceeded to demolish that same LSU team in the championship game. I hated the interdivision rematch as much as everyone else, but I also felt that Alabama was the best team in the country going into that game. Should they be penalized because they happened to be in the same conference as a dominating LSU squad?

 

[Pops]

I moved up to Minneapolis about a year after Norm Green hauled the North Stars to Dallas. Man, the Minnesotans were more than a little bit bitter... irate may even be an understatement.

Thats why they gave MN a new Team...lol..melt down was in full bloom

 

[HuskerWeatherman]

Thats why they gave MN a new Team...lol..melt down was in full bloom

But it sure took 'em long enough to bring the Wild to Minnesota. Still, for many, they'll never fully replace the North Stars.

Anyhow.. Norm Green makes satan look friendly -- that's what I learned living there.

 

[huskrthill]

I know many will disagree agree with me on this, but I don't think that playoffs should be limited to conference champions. I like the idea that the 3 top ranked champs be taken along with the highest ranked non-champ as a wild card.

Alabama lost a nail biter to LSU in 2011. They then proceeded to demolish that same LSU team in the championship game. I hated the interdivision rematch as much as everyone else, but I also felt that Alabama was the best team in the country going into that game. Should they be penalized because they happened to be in the same conference as a dominating LSU squad?

I think the conferences should affiliate themselves with specific bowl games, and have the conference champions go to those bowl games. Once all the games are played (as many as 14 per team), we should have a pretty clear indication of who is the best in the country.

 

[Paramus]

I know many will disagree agree with me on this, but I don't think that playoffs should be limited to conference champions. I like the idea that the 3 top ranked champs be taken along with the highest ranked non-champ as a wild card.

Alabama lost a nail biter to LSU in 2011. They then proceeded to demolish that same LSU team in the championship game. I hated the interdivision rematch as much as everyone else, but I also felt that Alabama was the best team in the country going into that game. Should they be penalized because they happened to be in the same conference as a dominating LSU squad?

In my system, the 2011 LSU team would have been invited to the level one championship tournament. Would they have won all three games, especially if they had to play in a snow storm at Ohio state?

Let's say they did win the tournament and Alabama wins the 2011 level 2 tournament. They could have a rematch in a bowl game, and if Alabama prevails they could win the National championship according to the final Coaches, AP, and Sarigan polls. So, therefore, in my system, those not invited to the level one play-off could still win a split national championship. Wouldn't that be good enough?

With 80 teams competing for a NC every year, and only 9 regular season games to assess the strength of each conference and team, to a large degree you have to use an "eye ball" test to rate each team 1 to 10. It is too subjective for my liking.

Right now there are 120 DIV 1 teams which makes it even more difficult to rate all the teams. Therefore, I see no compelling reason to create a potential re-match of regular season game in a championship tournament.