Silver_Bullet

This is rather lengthy, so bear with me and take a break or two if needed.  With the BCS bigwigs in conference and shooting ideas of a new BCS postseason around the table, a system involving a plus-one format is looking more and more likely to happen for the 2014 season, and most likely for many years beyond.  I understand the BCS has a stronghold on the four major bowl venues, and that the NCAA takes care of the lower tier bowls.  However, I think it would be prudent they team together to discuss the FBS postseason as a whole, and not just the BCS makeup of the postseason.  With 120 FBS teams and growing by the year (it seems), this division of college football is becoming more and more watered down.  The landscape is not healthy with all of the realignment taking place, and the (great) idea of regional conferences is quickly exiting stage left.  The Big East is losing key members by 2014, and the replacements aren't exactly what one would consider "storied" programs with a vast fan following.  They have been forced to poach programs from the "Little 5", which has also caused a domino effect among them.  It will only be a matter of time before the "revenue providers" realize the Big East is no longer a valuable commodity to the televised sports entertainment business.  Unfortunately, this eventually means the Big East will no longer be viewed as a "Big 6" among the likes of the Big 12, SEC, Big 10, etc.  The MWC and CUSA are serious about a merger, creating perhaps a 24-team league, and the WAC is in danger of dissolving all together.  With all of the happenings taking place around the FBS world, fan interest is rapidly decreasing (especially for the postseason).  This is obviously not good for the sport, therefore the NCAA and BCS need to team together to streamline the postseason as best as possible.  Fans are already crying about all of the bowl games being played, just part of the watered down problem FBS has right now.  Several more FCS programs have their eyes set on jumping up to the FBS level in the next several years, so this problem isn't going away anytime soon.  It doesn't matter how many programs are part of the FBS, the rich will get much richer, and the poor much poorer in the very near future. 

What can be done to fix this?  I don’t believe anything can be done to fix the problem of fiscal difference between the “haves” and “haves not” of college football.  Many fans want to watch big time football, and big time football isn’t played everywhere at the FBS level.  There is a long-term solution which has been discussed (lightly), which involves a split in the FBS.  Basically, programs from the SEC, PAC 12, Big 10, Big 12 and ACC would split from the other conferences, creating two divisions (FBS-I and FBS-II) with FBS-I having their own set of NCAA guidelines.  Notice the Big East wasn't mentioned.  Well, they didn't mention the Big East either, so the writing is already on the wall that they are headed for FBS-II.  The short term solution is actually already in the works, with the BCS meetings taking place and the serious talk about modifying how the BCS standings are determined, and a plus-one postseason format.  I think they need to take it further, and examine the rest of the postseason structure.  There really are too many bowl games, and they need to get back to the early mentality that a bowl game experience should be a reward for performance.  6-6 teams don't deserve a reward in my opinion; therefore the bowl eligibility requirement should be modified to include a minimum of 7 wins.  Furthermore, 6 of those 7 wins must have been achieved against FBS opponents to be eligible for a bowl game.  61 teams would have met these criteria in 2011 to become bowl eligible. 

I like Delany's idea about using campus locations to play the "semi-final" games.  Campus venues have more to offer than bowl venues, based on my experiences.  The home team fans would surely love it, and the visiting fans would get an opportunity to experience the traditions and atmosphere of a program and its game day campus that might not ordinarily get to.  All they'd need is a broadcast deal, a few sponsors and a name for the games, and the revenue would come rolling in.   I also believe conference champions deserve the chance to play for the BCS National Championship.  This is something that will be highly debated, especially after how the 2011 season went down.  The bottom line with this is overall fan interest.  Sure, fans from Ohio State and Nebraska or Alabama and Arkansas would love to see their teams play each other in a BCS 4-team playoff scenario, but the rest of the nation wouldn't care too much.  Other than being outright deserving, this is another reason why I think the top-rated conference champions in the BCS final standings should be the participants in such a system.  For the 2011 season, we would have had #10 Wisconsin playing at #1 LSU and #5 Oregon playing at #3 Oklahoma State.  Don't tell me fans wouldn't have been interested in watching those matchups.  Wisconsin’s offense taking on that LSU defense would have been fun to watch, and the scoring of 160 combined points in the Oregon-Oklahoma State game would have kept people on the edge of their seats.  Okay, 160 might be over doing it…a little bit.

Now before I continue, I personally think Notre Dame should be in a conference, but for the sake of this blog here's the process for dealing with Notre Dame's desired independence:  If ND finishes in the top 5 of the BCS standings, they will receive a spot in the semi-final to compete for a BCS national championship.  If they finish 6-15 and have at least 10 wins, they will receive a spot in one of the BCS bowl games.  If they finish outside the top 15 and/or have less than 10 wins, they may fill a lower tier bowl game the Big East or independents are tied to.  Okay, got that out of the way.

If the "semi-finals" were to be played on campus, it would open up opportunities for other top 15 teams to play in the four major BCS bowl games.  I know the Big 10 and PAC 12 want their Rose Bowl, and the Rose Bowl wants them.  So let them have each other.  If there are teams from those conferences rated in the final top 15 of the BCS standings not playing in the semi-final, let the Rose Bowl take first dibs on them.  If not, let the Rose Bowl join in on the rotation of picks with the other major venues as currently established by the BCS.  Teams must be ranked 1-15 in the final BCS standings to qualify for a BCS Bowl game.  Other than the Rose, there would be no conference ties to the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange, and no limits to how many teams from a single conference could play in a BCS Bowl.  Just don't match up two teams from the same conference.  Here's what the matchups could have looked like if this aspect of the system was in place for 2011, based on order of pick established by the BCS:  

Rose:  #4 Stanford vs. #13 Michigan, Fiesta: #2 Alabama vs. #8 Kansas State, Sugar: #6 Arkansas vs. #11 Virginia Tech, Orange: #7 Boise State vs. #9 South Carolina 

Rather intriguing so far wouldn't you say?

Here is an even hotter debate, I would think.  The lower tier bowl games.  Way too many of them in my opinion, and this is the tough part.  Which bowls do they discontinue?  Well, for the purpose of this blog, I used the top dollar-making bowls to demonstrate how a future streamlined bowl system might look.  Keeping in mind it takes seven (7) wins to become bowl eligible and 6 of those 7 have to be over FBS teams, cut the number of lower tier bowls down to 16.  Therefore, we'll have 20 total bowl games when you add in the major BCS bowl games.  The lower tier bowl games will have conference ties, and I tried to keep some of the traditional tie-ins to the bowls I listed below.  Keeping in mind bowl games are a reward for performance, bowls should select teams as they've finished within their conference.  The SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 would each get 4 bowl tie-ins; the Big East and CUSA (assuming CUSA and MWC merge) would get 3 each.  Independents, MAC and Sunbelt would get 2 each.  Let’s assume the WAC gets dissolved, which is very likely to actually happen.  So between the "Big 5" conferences, 20 bowl slots and the rest get 12 slots.  32 slots for 16 bowl games.  Sound fair enough?  Some conferences won't be able to fill all of their bowl tie-ins, creating "at-large" opportunities for other conferences to participate in other bowl games.  Example:  The SEC would have put five of their teams in a BCS bowl and the semi-finals and didn't have enough remaining eligible teams to fill their lower tier bowl tie-ins.  So based on all of that, here's how the lower tier bowl matchups could have looked (rankings are final BCS standings):

Capital One: #16 Georgia vs. #17 Michigan State  (Tie-in: SEC and Big 10)
Cotton: #25 Auburn vs. #12 Baylor  (SEC and Big 12)
Outback: NC State vs. #22 Penn State  (SEC and Big 10) 
Insight: #20 Nebraska vs. #14 Oklahoma  (Big 10 and Big 12)
Alamo: Missouri vs. Utah (Big 12 and PAC 12)
Chick-Fil-A: #23 West Virginia vs. #15 Clemson  (SEC and ACC)
Gator: Iowa vs. Notre Dame  (Big 10 and Big East)
Champs Sports: Florida State vs. Cincinnati  (ACC and Big East)
Holiday: #24 Texas vs. Washington (Big 12 and PAC 12)
Sun: Georgia Tech vs. Cal  (ACC and PAC 12)
Music City: Virginia vs. Rutgers  (ACC and Big East)
Pinstripe: Arkansas State vs. Northern Illinois  (Sunbelt and MAC)
Liberty: #18 TCU vs. La-Lafayette (CUSA and PAC 12)
Belk: #19 Houston vs. BYU  (CUSA and Independent or Sunbelt)
Meineke Car Care: Western Kentucky vs. Ohio  (Sunbelt vs. Independent or MAC)
Independence: Toledo vs. #21 Southern Miss  (MAC and CUSA)

Now, they could decide to get rid of conference tie-ins all together, and I wouldn’t have an immediate problem with that.  It would allow for some great top 25 matchups, but I fear the “mid-major” FBS conferences would end up suffering quite a bit more than they already are.  They would take turns and select from teams who were eligible and present the best possible situation, fan follow and matchup for their bowl.  It would surely spark more fan interest.  It could look something like this:

Capital One: #12 Baylor vs. #16 Georgia
Cotton: #18 TCU vs. #19 Houston 
Outback: #17 Michigan State vs. #14 Oklahoma 
Insight: #20 Nebraska vs. #15 Clemson
Alamo: #24 Texas vs. #22 Penn State  
Chick-Fil-A: #23 West Virginia vs. #25 Auburn
Gator: Iowa vs. Notre Dame 
Champs Sports: Florida State vs. Missouri 
Holiday: NC State vs. Washington
Sun: Georgia Tech vs. Cal 
Music City: Virginia vs. Utah 
Pinstripe: Arkansas State vs. Northern Illinois 
Liberty: #21 Southern Miss vs. Cincinnati
Belk: La-Lafayette vs. BYU 
Meineke Car Care: Western Kentucky vs. Ohio 
Independence: Toledo vs. Rutgers  

With serious talks of Texas A&M moving to the SEC, one can only wonder what landscape of college football as a result of the fallout would look like. Certainly, the SEC wouldn't stick with unbalanced divisions, and certainly the PAC 12 and Big 10 wouldn't sit back and watch it all happen. Well, maybe they would, and act immediately after the initial moves. I could see either Florida State or Miami asking for SEC membership. It appears the ball is in Texas A&M's court right now, and Oklahoma is already making a few phone calls. I can't see the Big 12 surviving without Texas and Oklahoma in it together. If Oklahoma goes, so goes Oklahoma State...that's a given. That would take the Big 12 down to seven programs, with no BCS caliber program out there to add, with the exception of Boise State. Boise just began play in the MWC, so a move this soon probably wouldn't be in their best interest. Even if the Big 12, without the Oklahoma teams, adds BYU, Texas alone wouldn't guarantee BCS AQ status for very long. Since Texas A&M is all but gone, this is what I think will happen when the dominoes start to fall.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State request PAC 12 membership and is accepted. Texas follows close behind. Texas Tech follows Texas. The Big 12 falls apart.

The SEC conducts football business with unbalanced divisions through the 2012 season, before Florida State requests membership, and is accepted. Texas A&M joins the West and Florida State the East to expand to 14 in 2013. In an effort to match the new PAC 16, the SEC waits to see how a 16-team league reaps the financial rewards. Although there is much, much more revenue in the Big 6 BCS leagues, a 16-team WAC once failed miserably. It's worth watching for a couple of years to see how the revenue sharing works out. It might not be all what it's cracked up to be.

The Big 10 makes one last plea to Notre Dame, either join or be closed out forever. What is happening in college football is a 100 year deal. Missouri asks the Big Ten for membership, and is accepted. Missouri to the Leaders in 2012. Notre Dame takes its time, and decides to join during the winter of 2012. They are admitted to the Legends division in 2013. The Big 10 reaches 14, and sticks with 14...for now. (Eye on ACC)

Kansas State and Kansas won't be separated, and will ask the Big East for a home. They're accepted, to further strengthen an already monsterous basketball league. TCU will be joining the Big East beginning in 2012, and Temple has been overheard discussing a possible move back where they belong. Temple gets accepted, and all of a sudden the Big East is a 12-team football conference. They stay at 12, with later expansion possibilities for football down the road. I know ECU and UCF have the Big East on their minds, but I'm not sure now since the ACC is a team short on the Atlantic side. Wow, a 20-team basketball conference? Is it even possible for every team to play each other, even if they're split into 10-team divisions? I guess that's for another thread topic.

Which program on the east coast is most attractive to replace a powerhouse like Florida State? I know of only one, but this program is not quite a Florida State. However, this program is up and coming, and it is Central Florida. UCF would fit perfectly in the Atlantic division of the ACC, and they've been wanting a move up. Texas A&M provides them a rare opportunity to join a great athletic conference in the ACC. One can only imagine what this would do for their recruiting in football and basketball. I could see this program getting to a BCS bowl game within five seasons playing in the ACC. Remember I wrote that. This puts the ACC back at 12, and they obviously need to keep up with the Jones's in their neighborhood. With UCF leaving CUSA, ECU and Southern Mississippi request ACC membership. It makes sense, as would Memphis in place of Southern Miss. UCF and ECU to the Coastal, and either Memphis or Southern Miss to the Atlantic. That's 14 for the ACC. If something like this doesn't happen after FSU leaves, expect a program, like Maryland, to consider leaving for greener pastures...or more money. The Big 10 could offer that, and would welcome Maryland with open arms. Even if they stayed unbalanced with 15. You know, come to think of it, I remember some talk about Georgia Tech and the Big 10 not long ago. If Maryland makes a move, would GT ask the Big 10 for membership? I don't ever see them going back to the SEC, and the Big 10 has this network that would, well, absolutely love to have that Atlanta market.

There you have it. Complete and utter disruption to the college football landscape, all because one university, Texas A&M, is having a sissy fit over the Longhorn Network. A network which is currently having a very difficult time finding carriers to boot. The backing of ESPN is nice, but unless your cable and satellite providers buy in, it's going nowhere. So much for all of that tradition on the rivalry front. Texas-Texas A&M will probably be one for past memories. That would be a tough loss for the fans, and for players now and into the future.

Money is destroying this great sport, right before our eyes. My parents told me a very long time ago, that money is evil and can destroy lives. In a different context here, they were exactly right. Let's hope, once all the dominoes fall, the damage is minimal and the rest of our rivalries remain intact.

With the start of the 2011 CFB season just a tad bit over a month away, it's time for another program power ranking.  This time, over the last 50 seasons.  I included a power index for overall winning percentage, winning percentage versus season-ranked top 15 teams, winning percentage versus teams finishing with winning records, total undefeated seasons, and number of conference and national championships.  I also included a power index reduction for number of teams played finishing a season with a losing record.

Please note the AP conducted only a top 10 poll from 1962-1967, therefore only winning percentage versus teams finishing in the top 10 were included for those seasons.

1.  Alabama
2.  Nebraska
3.  USC
4.  Miami (FL)
5.  Oklahoma
6.  Ohio State
7.  Texas
8.  Notre Dame
9.  Penn State
10.  Florida

As I always do, here's the next five as an honorable mention, in order 11-15:

Florida State, Michigan, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee

Chat away.

1. Find a way for the top 60 to 70 schools that play major college football to work independently from the NCAA. The sport has become too big to be managed within in the limitations of the NCAA framework. If a way cannot be found to accommodate these schools then they should leave the NCAA and form their own organization and make their own rules

2. Create a commissioner of college football. My CBS colleague Tim Brando has been saying this for years, and he's right. Somebody needs to be in charge for the good of the entire sport. On cases like Cam Newton and the Ohio State Five, the commissioner has the last word. He or she will have zero tolerance for cheating (and there is a difference between cheating and breaking the rules). Only a strong commissioner, backed up by the presidents, can bring the risk-reward for cheating back into balance.

4. Football scholarships become five-year commitments by the school. In exchange for giving up freshman eligibility, the student athlete will get a five-year guaranteed scholarship if he stays in good academic standing and doesn't get in trouble with the law. The one-year scholarship is a bad deal for the students. Red-shirting is eliminated. And one other thing: No oversigning. No gray-shirting. You sign a kid and he gets a scholarship. Period.

5. Change the scholarship to include the full cost of attendance. The top academic scholarships include a stipend for incidental living expenses based on the location of the campus. Athletic scholarships should do the same. This stipend of several thousand dollars (plus a Pell Grant that can be as much as $5,500) takes the argument off the table that athletes from poor backgrounds do not have spending money. The NCAA has a Student Opportunity fund of more than $50 million available to help students in need (clothes, trips home in an emergency, etc.)

Home field advantage is often debated, but there really is no argument against it.  Most teams have a winning record on their home field.  As a matter of fact, only 10 FBS teams have a losing record on the field they call home.  That's proof enough, the home field is a true advantage. 

There is obviously more of a home field advantage for some over others.  For instance, Western Michigan has won nearly 62% of their home games since 1936 while Georgia has won 75%, with undoubtedly a much tougher schedule.  This basic comparison is the point of this thread.  It would be difficult to argue Western Michigan having one of the toughest home fields for opposing teams to win, given the level of competition throughout history.  For the purpose of my ranking, playing top level competition matters.

I decided to take a quick and rather simple look at program performance in home stadiums since the AP began ranking teams in 1936.  Although overall home records were considered, more emphasis was placed on performance versus season-ranked opponents.  A season-ranked opponent is one who finished ranked after all bowl games were played in either the AP or Coaches polls since 1936.  The Coaches poll did not begin until 1950, and the polls didn't always rank 25 teams.  I used a point system based on number of wins in five categories (versus teams ranked 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 and 20-25), winning percentage in each of those categories, and overall number of home wins during the same time period.  Disclaimer:  I personally believe the polls are very subjective in nature, human and computer.  I used both the AP and Coaches poll for this research in order to help reduce the level of subjectivity.

A program had to play a minimum of 75 season-ranked opponents at home since 1936, had to win at least 225 games at home overall and had to win a minimum 40 games versus season-ranked opponents at home during the same period in order to be considered.  Based on my research, the following are my top 10 toughest stadiums for a visiting team to win throughout the history of the major poll system, based mainly on level of competition played and performance against that competition.

1.  Notre Dame (156 points)
2.  Michigan (153 points)
3.  Ohio State (140 points)
4.  Southern California (139 points)
5.  Oklahoma (123 points)
6.  Alabama (119 points)
7.  Tennessee (117 points)
8.  Penn State (105 points)
9.  Florida (98 points)
t10. UCLA (96 points)
t10. Miami (FL) (96 points)