My stream of thoughts on BG and College Football

[Flipper]

There is no perfect solution...as others have said, there will always be a bubble team. I don't think the game is best served from a marketing standpoint by havinga "perfect" solution. Because a team like TCU was left out, there's a "hot stove" topic for discussion going into next year. There's a book by former wrestling empresario eric Bischoff called Controversy Creates Cash. That couldn't be more true in this instance. They've taken the needed steps to increase the payout while determining a credible enough champion. A credible...but not truly undisputed champion. An undisputed champion would be boring..an argument over TCU vs OSU whets fans appetities for next season.

[MacGuy]

Sixty-Five Universities of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC and Student-Athlete Representatives to Begin Era of Autonomy



Goal is to Protect and Improve College Experience for Student-Athletes



A group of 80 voting members from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC will meet formally in two meetings on Saturday, Jan. 17, at the NCAA Convention to begin a new era of autonomy aimed at protecting and improving the college experience for student-athletes.



This is the first autonomy meeting and it follows a decision by the NCAA Division I Board of Directors to grant self-governing prerogatives to the member institutions of these five conferences.



The sessions include representatives from each of the 65 member institutions of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC conferences and 15 student-athlete representatives discussing and voting on a series of proposals designed to improve the student-athlete experience on campus.



The autonomy session agenda features eight proposals and one resolution aimed at creating the optimal student-athlete experience in a fully integrated collegiate model in which athletics and academics are appropriately balanced. The proposals focus on the issues of cost of attendance, loss-of-value insurance, scholarship renewal, and concussion safety.



The commissioners of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC commented on the significance of the sessions: “This week represents a new chapter in our focus to help student-athletes learn, grow, and succeed. College sports are an American tradition, and we intend to provide these student-athletes with an enhanced level of support.”

[Schadenfreude]

#2 - no matter how large you expand, always have bubble teams. Just ask the NCAA men's basketball selection committee.

This is true, but to me I don't care about bubble teams. If you create a system where all conference champs get a fair shot (as the NCAA hoops tourney provides) then I don't really care about the whining.

As much as we've thought at times the MAC deserved a 2nd bid to the hoops tourney I don't complain that much. The conference champ is given a shot and if the teams that feel left out on the bubble have an issue with it then they should have won the conference.

Create a system in college football that gives all conference champs a bid, and I'll be happy. I know you'll have runners up that get their panties in a wad (especially as the MAC champion gets in by the #3 SEC team wouldn't), but I don't really care. Those teams were all given an opportunity to win their conference.

That's my biggest issue right now. The system we have created is one where roughly half the teams (perhaps more like 3/4?) could go undefeated in any given year and still not be given a shot at the national title.

Great post. Every school deserves a shot to play their way in before the season starts. Division I basketball has that. FBS does not.

[zete]

Most of the coaches making millions would do it for a lot less. I has gotten out of hand. Period.

[TG1996]

That story/release MacGuy posted might be the tallest pile of B.S. this side of the Great Plains...

Though frankly, I'm shocked there are 65 schools that would at all benefit from the upcoming semi-pro league now known as the "P5." As has been mentioned, half of each of the big conferences are closer to the MAC than they are the top of their own conference.

And it's all pretty obvious it's for football. What does 30, 40, 65 schools making their own rules for football mean for the basketball programs, much less the gymnasts and soccer players? Are the anOSUs and Michigans going to move into their stratosphere of college football and drag IU and Illinois with them only so they can keep a footprint in basketball? Same with Alabama/LSU football and Kentucky hoops?

[zete]

" I DIDN'T COME HERE TO PLAY NO SCHOOL" T-Shirts selling like hotcakes in Columbus. Much to the chagrin of OSU officials, thousands of scarlet shirts with the # 12 on the front and the block O with inscription centered with in on the rear.

I laughed until i thought I was going to bust a gut when I heard this.

[Falconfreak90]

#2 - no matter how large you expand, always have bubble teams. Just ask the NCAA men's basketball selection committee.

This is true, but to me I don't care about bubble teams. If you create a system where all conference champs get a fair shot (as the NCAA hoops tourney provides) then I don't really care about the whining.

As much as we've thought at times the MAC deserved a 2nd bid to the hoops tourney I don't complain that much. The conference champ is given a shot and if the teams that feel left out on the bubble have an issue with it then they should have won the conference.

Create a system in college football that gives all conference champs a bid, and I'll be happy. I know you'll have runners up that get their panties in a wad (especially as the MAC champion gets in by the #3 SEC team wouldn't), but I don't really care. Those teams were all given an opportunity to win their conference.

That's my biggest issue right now. The system we have created is one where roughly half the teams (perhaps more like 3/4?) could go undefeated in any given year and still not be given a shot at the national title.

Great post. Every school deserves a shot to play their way in before the season starts. Division I basketball has that. FBS does not.

Amen, SF. Every conference champ should be included.

[Flipper]

Why should every school get "a chance"? Why should the Sun Belt or the MAC champ be assigned equal footing with the B1G or SEC champ?

[Globetrotter]

Why should every school get "a chance"? Why should the Sun Belt or the MAC champ be assigned equal footing with the B1G or SEC champ?

Because it's fair. This fairness is recognized in nearly every sport on every level. You windy our conference your in the final tournament. If your not going to do that why are we even in the same division?

[hammb]

Why should every school get "a chance"? Why should the Sun Belt or the MAC champ be assigned equal footing with the B1G or SEC champ?

If we are still d1 we should get a chance.

In reality we aren't d1. Or rather we aren't on the same level as the top 20 or so programs. I don't know what the real solution is. I just know as the sport gets more and more towards only a few games and teams mattering, the less and less I find it enjoyable.

[Flipper]

Fair? What's fair about be given something you didn't earn?

[Falcon137]

Why should every school get "a chance"? Why should the Sun Belt or the MAC champ be assigned equal footing with the B1G or SEC champ?

They're in the same division. The MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, AAC, and MWC are all members of FBS same as the SEC, Big10, Big12, Pac12, ACC. There is nothing "fair" about it. But, Ohio State agreed to it just the same as Middle Tennessee. If the Big10 champ is better than the Sun Belt champ, go prove it on the field.

If everything was fair, the NCAA would come out and limit schools athletic budgets to no more than 50 million, and have coaching salaries to not exceed X amount of dollars. It wouldn't be this free for all where 50 teams in the country have better facilities than almost every NFL team.

Until the big boys want to run off and only play with only each other, they're stuck with the MAC and Sun Belts of the world. And when they do break away, they can go have their fun and you wont have arguments about letting teams like Boise State, NIU, or Marshall getting a chance.

Fair? What's fair about be given something you didn't earn?

Nothing in college football is fair. Hey MAC and CUSA schools, you have to beat at least 2 power 5 teams to even be considered and it better not be teams like Indiana or Purdue and it better not be a home game for you or for that matter a neutral site game. And of course if you beat them, it means they weren't any good anyway.

FBS football is the only sport that has tricked people into believing it's better for someone to tell us who is the best instead of showing us who is the best.

[hammb]

Fair? What's fair about be given something you didn't earn?

But that's just it. OSU, Alabama, Oregon, and FSU didn't earn anything either. They were given a chance to play for a title by the perception/observation that they're the best 4 teams.

Certainly all 4 of them are in the top 10 best teams. And certainly they're better than the MAC or Sunbelt champs, but they didn't EARN a god damned thing prior to that playoff. (well they earned their conference championships, but so did the champs of the Big12, MAC, Sunbelt, and Conf USA).

The big boys have created a system that doesn't require anybody to earn anything...it just ensures that it favors them. Teams that are already given every advantage known to man, they STILL go out of their way to ensure that the disadvantaged few don't even get a shot to play.

It's one thing to bitch that we want something we didn't earn. My problem is that there is no opportunity for anybody to earn their berths. It's all based on budgets and perception...when it could so easily be based on results on the field of play.

[zete]

I think if the MAC had to do it all over again. They would proceed much differently. That is in the 60s and early 70s, when the league made the commitment to play big time DI football, what the landscape is now is not what they envisioned. To be honest I don't really know what they were thinking given the small markets most schools are in.
D emphasizing football and moving forward with basketball may have been a better direction to take. But way too late to turn back - isn't it?

[hammb]

I think if the MAC had to do it all over again. They would proceed much differently. That is in the 60s and early 70s, when the league made the commitment to play big time DI football, what the landscape is now is not what they envisioned. To be honest I don't really know what they were thinking given the small markets most schools are in.
D emphasizing football and moving forward with basketball may have been a better direction to take. But way too late to turn back - isn't it?

As much as I love BG football, I wouldn't at all be upset if they decided to just move down at this point. They cannot compete on the largest stage, aren't given an opportunity to compete on that stage. They're nearing the need for a major infrastructure investment on the stadium which needs work. Coaches salaries are escalating at an absurd rate to ensure that we will never compete on that largest stage. All the while we're taking tons of cash from the general fund to try and slow the widening gap between us and the haves.

Meanwhile we've got a good endowment for hoops, a young up & coming head coach, and a brand new arena. Hockey has a renovated arena, and program on the rise as well.

There are VERY strong arguments to be made at BG to stop throwing money at the sacred cow of football, and instead funnel it towards hockey & basketball programs that have far more opportunity to do far more for the university than football does. It will never happen, but I don't think it's yet too late. The MAC has some tough decisions to make, and they still seem committed to football, but I cannot say I entirely agree that it's the right decision at this point...