Yup. It all goes circles back to the same problem, no matter how you want to dice it ... and that problem is that we are deciding playoff teams based on subjective criteria when every single other major sport or minor sport (FCS uses objective criteria... go figure) uses objective criteria.
We can no longer use the Bowl excuse either, since we have already completely ripped the traditional bowl model to shreds as it is. There is no excuse for not having objective criteria creating a playoff system that is inclusive of every school involved in the system. None. Zero. Zip.
To fix the problem, I think "every school involved in the system" needs reduced. Do we really think that Eastern Michigan is somehow capable of competing with Michigan? Texas State with Texas A&M? Georgia State with Georgia Tech?
I like underdogs. Hey there are plenty of underdogs in all these power conferences that would make great stories should they make "the dance". Kansas St wins the Big XII, they are in the national title playoff. Utah wins the PAC12, Wake Forest wins the ACC (it happened 10 years ago). You know, these are the teams that are atleast on the same planet as the bluebloods. Plus there are going to be nontraditional conference champions getting their shot as I'll state later. So we just need to scale back the sheer number of teams to start off with.
Are there 128 teams in IA / FCS? Another line needs drawn really. Generally speaking - MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt shouldn't be competing at the same level. There are many fringe teams within AAC and MWC as well. Some would argue that you know your Vandy and Rutgers and Oregon St's of the world don't belong with their Power 5 leagues...but we can grandfather them into their leagues because for most there is historical tradition to them competing at the highest level.
The first and foremost thing that needs addressed is reducing the number of teams that could or should be able to compete for a national championship at the highest level. There is IAA and Div II, III for a reason.
Once we do that and reduce the number of leagues in the pool of eligible teams then we have a clearer starting point.
So then, if the thinking is to remove any possible subjective picking of teams then we want conference champions only. Where the goal is simple, win your league and you are in. Are there flaws with this? Yes, but does it address the biggest complaint that teams are picked on name brand more often than not or other factors. It solves that. Every single team will know that if they win their league they will have a seat at the table. That is fair to all. Hell Northwestern can post it on their locker room wall in August and have a legitimate path to get there.
Ok, so having said that now we need to fix the problem with determining conference champions. Get rid of the 12, 14 team leagues, they compound the problem. Every team should play 12 regular season games and a conference should have no more than 10 teams in it. You play 3 nonconference games and all 9 other teams in your league. Or maybe you want an 11 team league, then you can play 3 nonconference games and all 10 other teams in your league. You get the point. This is the truest way to crown a conference champion - you play all your peers and let the results speak for themselves. That is going to take alot of realignment, but we can use recent history where teams were more closely aligned regionally, it isn't really that hard to get back to a point where everyone is in a smaller league...on paper. More about reality later.
Now how many teams are in the playoff. I am old school, prefer the 4 team exclusive model, but if we are trying to eliminate all subjectivity you let every league champ get into the playoff so the number of leagues needs to match the number of teams competing for a playoff. 8 is the best number. 8 leagues, very doable and 8 seats at the table.
How do you seed them? The sport will remain unbalanced even after the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA types are downgraded to a lower level, so something tells me that you can't just seed on w/l record alone. Some sort of strength of schedule should be used for seeding.
I'm just making all this up, it could be tweaked or negotiated one way or the other. But you reach a point that it is better to talk solutions than the same stuff over and over.
OK. Then are we playing home games on campus. Probably best atleast for the first round to limit the travel expense and stress on fanbase travel.
And that's it right. Way too complicated and will never ever happen like that. Nobody has the authority within the ncaa and no TV network no matter how important they think they are could do all of that. Schools and conferences are like states and the ncaa is like the federal government - the ncaa can't just tell them to do whatever they want. In order to get everyone on the same page to get something close to what we want...I mean it be easier to make peace in the middle east.
So we have how many more weeks to say all the same stuff over and over. Maybe we can try, however far fetched possible, make your case of what you think should be done and what it would look like.
