forums

Fbs football would be more interesting if...

canesstevealum08

canesstevealum08

"Wyatt, I am rolling!"
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,956
Division 1 was only power 5 plus the 4 indy's. That's 68 teams. When you consider that Boise and Houston would never be placed in a 4 team playoffs, this proposal would save mid majors money.

I would also introduce a proposal where consistent mids could apply to be admitted into power 5's... Thoughts?
 
Advertisement
It sounds like you just want to create another level of college football. And for the record, yes. You would be leaving out Houston, Boise, and even teams who can have "special seasons". How and why would the mid-majors ever agree to that? How would they "save money"? In the current system, they're virtually GUARANTEED at least one of the smaller schools will be in the mix for a big bowl game EVERY season.

Crap, I've wasted too much time on this already....
 
Good in theory but the first thought that comes to mind is that the recruiting of non-power5 teams would get completely decimated. Good luck getting a local 3-4-5 star athlete to go to Houston if he can't even perform in the first division.

Also, you're now creating a fuedal system where bottom feeder teams like Wake Forest and Vanderbilt would reap the benefit of being part of a power 5 conference without ever having to be competitive, merely because they were grandfathered in.

Now if the top conferences had RELEGATION, that would make things interesting!
 
I see college football eventually going this way. With pretty much the power 5 schools and maybe a couple of the more successful mid majors breaking away from the NCAA and forming their own coalition. There's too much money involved these days and the big$$$ schools are going to get away from the NCAA "amateur athletics" sham and just go ahead and start paying kids.
 
The problem you're trying to solve could just as easy be remedied by an 8 team playoff and less cupcake scheduling by AD's. With an 8 team system (5 P5 conf winners and 3 at-large teams) your Houstons and Boises could still get in and strength of schedule would be even more important for any other team vying for an at-large spot. Despite their claims, the current system doesn't incentivize playing anyone OOC. All teams try to do now is win their the conf with no more than 1 loss and hope that you're not that 1 conf champ that gets screwed that year.
 
no it wouldnt. there would still be garbage teams. you want more compelling scrap bowl games and do a 12 team tourney.
 
Give the National Champion of the new group of teams in the "Mid Major League" automatic 4 seed in an 8 team playoff. Give the Final 4 teams of the Mid Majors entrance into a power 5 conference, move the bottom 4 power 5's down.
 
Should be patterned like Premier with relegations, make a 6th FBS conference all with 12 teams, and 6 12 team FCS Conferences, so you have 72 FBS teams + 72 FCS teams. All games are FBS v FBS or FCS v FCS.

Finish last in your FBS conference and you are replaced by your mirror FCS conference champion.

Then have 12 FBS division winner tourney for NC.

Profit.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be a relegation and promotion system. If you finish in the bottom 3 of ACC you are relegated to mid major conference. The reverse also applies, if you finish top 3 mid major you get promoted the next year to major conference.
 
Advertisement
I think you would save me to majors money by dropping them down to FCS simply because it cost money to get to Division I and why are you going to build a Division I program if you can compete for the ultimate prize? I think you have better games with an expanded playoff. As far as relegation, I think too much money would be lost for those schools relegated to FCS.
 
The P5 conferences don't need permission to abandon the NCAA. They can do their own thing without the mids or indies. They'll keep all the big money, and make their own rules.

They should do all have the same number of teams. If one expands, they should all do so.

Playoffs should be at 8, including the 5 conference champs with the next 3 top rated teams.
 
djrion said:
There needs to be a relegation and promotion system. If you finish in the bottom 3 of ACC you are relegated to mid major conference. The reverse also applies, if you finish top 3 mid major you get promoted the next year to major conference.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. It would definitely put an exciting dynamic to even the most pedestrian of matchups. However, I shutter to think where Miami would be if relegation/promotion existed over the last two years.
 
College football would be better if they stopped rewarding failures and average teams...cut the Bowl entry win total to 7 or 8 and stop letting these 5-7 vs 6-6 bowl matches exist. These kids should NOT be rewarded an extra game and consolation prize for finishing a year on an average note.
 
Klamalama said:
Playoffs should be at 8, including the 5 conference champs with the next 3 top rated teams.
Click to expand...

Not a horrible idea except the NCAA would never go for it. Primarily because of a "worst case scenario" where you end up with two non-power5 teams somehow getting themselves into the championship game and seeing a TV ratings drop because of it. Remember the FSU vs. Northern Illinois Orange Bowl game in 2013? The game wasn't even close to a sellout, it was 75% FSU fans and I believe it was (and still is) the lowest rated BCS game ever.

Imagine that one random year where you get a Championship game between Boise State and Toledo or Memphis and Marshall. A perfect storm like that would create a ratings nightmare for the NCAA/networks.
 
Astcloud11 said:
College football would be better if they stopped rewarding failures and average teams...cut the Bowl entry win total to 7 or 8 and stop letting these 5-7 vs 6-6 bowl matches exist. These kids should NOT be rewarded an extra game and consolation prize for finishing a year on an average note.
Click to expand...

No one disputes that argument. But we all know that more bowls = more $$$. This isn't about the players getting one more game, it's about expanding the brand reach of the NCAA and increasing the sponsorship pool as much as possible.
 
Advertisement
HurricaneAce07 said:
Astcloud11 said:
College football would be better if they stopped rewarding failures and average teams...cut the Bowl entry win total to 7 or 8 and stop letting these 5-7 vs 6-6 bowl matches exist. These kids should NOT be rewarded an extra game and consolation prize for finishing a year on an average note.
Click to expand...

No one disputes that argument. But we all know that more bowls = more $$$. This isn't about the players getting one more game, it's about expanding the brand reach of the NCAA and increasing the sponsorship pool as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I guess if they believe that people will watch football just because it's football then that's why we have 40 bowls and are making exceptions to allow in 5 win teams. I'd be real curious if just as much sponsor money and tv revenue could be generated by cutting 40 bowls to 20 and mainly having quality matchups. Also, your original premise would support an expansion to an 8 team Playoff as that's where we'd be talking REAL addl revenues. Strangely, that's where Bill Hancock and his ilk start babbling about not wanting to dilute the product and other nonsense.
 
Back
Top