Should the FBS split up into two groups?

[dpwspringer 0]

With all the conference realignments, talk of playoffs, and teams moving up to the FBS, seems like this would be a good time to split up the FBS.  We already have 'automatic qualifier' conferences and now we are hearing a phrase called 'lesser' conferences to describe conferences.  Heck, one conference, the WAC, is down to 2 future members.

Seems like we could have the 6 automatic qualifier conferences in a league of their own with each conference having at least 12 teams so they could have conference championship games.  Then use those championship games as the first round of a playoff.  This could work really well if we ended up with 4 conferences where the Big 12 was absorbed by the PAC12 and Big Ten and the Big East was absorbed by the SEC and ACC.

The lesser conferences could have their own league and do the same thing.

[RocketMan1 0]

And force schools like Notre Dame to join a conference if they want in.

[Guest JNieder51188]

its only a matter of time before another shift in conferences happens. I don't think the Big 12 or the Big East will go away but the small ones like the WAC or the SunBelt will. 6-8 superconferences would be perfect for a better playoff scenario and two of the bigger conferences are almost there.

[keesler 6,026]

And force schools like Notre Dame to join a conference if they want in.

I'm for this.

Join a conference or you're left out in the cold, period.

[fly757au 0]

I don't see any overwhelming reason to split the FBS. It won't change anything significant imo. We should have real requirements in order to maintain your AQ status as a conference.

The following is my idea for an 8 team playoff. It basically nullifies, or at least minimizes, the benefits of AQ status.

8 team playoff

ALL BCS CONFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO BE IN THE PLAYOFF.

All conference champions will be included in the playoff with the requirement that they are in the top 15 (or 20)of the BCS poll. Conference championships must mean something, completely fair or not. The top 15 (or 20) requirement makes it more fair to other teams. See UCONN 2010. They weren't in the top 25 BCS. The computers didn't even have them in the top 50.

1. SEC champ

2. Big 12 champ

3. Big East champ

4. B1G champ

5. PAC 12 champ

6. ACC champ

7. wild card

8. wild card

The last two spots, and any vacated by non-qualifying conference champs, will be filled by the highest ranked teams not already included in the playoff. If Notre Dame wants in, join a conference and win it, or get a wild card spot.

All conference championships MUST be completed by the first Sunday in December.

[collector527 0]

First- I want a playoff.

Second- I want at least 8 teams but no more than ten so that every team with a legitiment shot is included.

Third- I do not care what conference they are from as long as the top ranked teams are in the playoff.

There is one truth to any playoff and that is , if the best teams do not play  then we still do not know who is the best and there really is no point to doing it.    I could care less how many teams come from one conference but if the best teams  are not included then it is pointless. Period. Many will say " how can you know who is the best  with rankings being done by coaches and others who are biased or do not know?". Every year there are 3 to 5 teams people argue for as being the best, well each of those teams would likely be given a shot if you take the top 8 or 10 regardless of the original ranking otherwise people would not be talking about them at the end of the year. NO one talks about any team ranked 11,14,17,22, ect as being a contender anyway so if you take the top 8 then there should not be a problem.  I personally believe that the people who vote on rankings needs to be changed but more  important I believe the time frame in which rankings are done needs to be changed. As of now with the way things are done pretty much everyone would agree that no team outside of the top 10 would deserve a shot so if you wait at least 2 weeks into the season to rank teams then it would be an even more fair ranking and that should eliminate some of the problems with teams not deserving there high ranking. Plus it might entice teams to play tougher opponents to open the season instead of some of the creampuffs teams usually open with.

[bird36 5]

I am all for splitting into two conferences or large groups basically the Big Boy conference and the little guy conference. 

Also, if you are in the big boy conference you can only play 2 games against teams who are not in the big boy conference.

Then just to make things interesting (like in European soccer) Every 4 years you take the bottom 20% of schools (by cumulative record) and throw them out of the big boy conference and replace them with the top 20% of the little guy conference. 

[fly757au 0]

I am all for splitting into two conferences or large groups basically the Big Boy conference and the little guy conference. 

Also, if you are in the big boy conference you can only play 2 games against teams who are not in the big boy conference.

Then just to make things interesting (like in European soccer) Every 4 years you take the bottom 20% of schools (by cumulative record) and throw them out of the big boy conference and replace them with the top 20% of the little guy conference.   

That is an interesting idea. I would have to think more about the pros and cons but on the surface it seems like a good idea.

[dpwspringer 0]

I don't see any overwhelming reason to split the FBS. It won't change anything significant imo. We should have real requirements in order to maintain your AQ status as a conference.

The following is my idea for an 8 team playoff. It basically nullifies, or at least minimizes, the benefits of AQ status.

8 team playoff

ALL BCS CONFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO BE IN THE PLAYOFF.

All conference champions will be included in the playoff with the requirement that they are in the top 15 (or 20)of the BCS poll. Conference championships must mean something, completely fair or not. The top 15 (or 20) requirement makes it more fair to other teams. See UCONN 2010. They weren't in the top 25 BCS. The computers didn't even have them in the top 50.

1. SEC champ

2. Big 12 champ

3. Big East champ

4. B1G champ

5. PAC 12 champ

6. ACC champ

7. wild card

8. wild card

The last two spots, and any vacated by non-qualifying conference champs, will be filled by the highest ranked teams not already included in the playoff. If Notre Dame wants in, join a conference and win it, or get a wild card spot.

All conference championships MUST be completed by the first Sunday in December.

With conference championship games and their winners tied into the 8 team format, you have a 16 team playoff.  Then if you put the Big Ten and PAC 12 winners in the Rose Bowl, the Big East & ACC in the Orange, the Big 12 in the Cotton, and the SEC in the Sugar, you are back about where we were years ago... except now we are talking about taking those 4 bowl game winners to a 4 team playoff.  It adds a couple of games for 2 teams and 1 game for 2 others. 

Why is that so hard to do?  I think part of the problem is it leaves out about half of the FBS, the ones in 'lesser' conferences.  That is why I think the powers to be should be talking about splitting up the FBS into two groups.  Right now you have all kinds of rinky dink programs moving to the FBS and joining some conference.  That is getting problematic because now, or at least very soon, the FBS members belonging to 'lesser' conferences outnumber the members in the automatic qualifying conferences.  And they all want their 'fair' share of whatever it is the automatic qualifying conference members have. 

Their 'fair' share means less for the automatic qualifying conference members.  The AQ conferences have built up huge fan bases, huge stadiums, huge bowl games, and generate a lot of money.  Money that is needed to run the huge programs at the level they currently are.

[AuburnNTexas 7,490]

I am all for splitting into two conferences or large groups basically the Big Boy conference and the little guy conference. 

Also, if you are in the big boy conference you can only play 2 games against teams who are not in the big boy conference.

Then just to make things interesting (like in European soccer) Every 4 years you take the bottom 20% of schools (by cumulative record) and throw them out of the big boy conference and replace them with the top 20% of the little guy conference.   

That is an interesting idea. I would have to think more about the pros and cons but on the surface it seems like a good idea.

It works well. I played rugby for years and we did it and we had teams slide down while other teams moved up to eventually become National Champs.  Remember at one time the Service academy's , GT, Notre Dame and others were real powerhouses now less so. Where some schools like TCU, Boise seemed to have moved up at least for now. Having a shift that reflects this is a great idea.

[bird36 5]

Could you imagine the Egg Bowl and the loser of the game getting tossed out of the conference.  That would be great TV.

[fly757au 0]

Could you imagine the Egg Bowl and the loser of the game getting tossed out of the conference.  That would be great TV.

I think this highlights the issue.

The other sports were individual teams in one large group. What we are talking about is a few large conferences, full of teams, in one group. It isn't so easy to move them around.

I think there is a point that in trying to 'crown a national champion on the field' that we lose sight of the real reason these kids are where they are. At least the vast majority of them. These kids are there to get an education and prepare for life. Football or another sport, for many of these kids, is their only way to college. It is only a very select few that make it to the next level and even then the majority of those careers are very short. Winning NC's is a helluva lot of fun, but it really isn't the important thing in all of this.

I believe that our coaching staff is the best in the business at what is important....teaching boys to be men, Auburn men.

It doesn't hurt that they are damn good football coaches and recruiters as well

[Rednilla 5,469]

Could you imagine the Egg Bowl and the loser of the game getting tossed out of the conference.  That would be great TV.

I think this highlights the issue.

The other sports were individual teams in one large group. What we are talking about is a few large conferences, full of teams, in one group. It isn't so easy to move them around.

I think there is a point that in trying to 'crown a national champion on the field' that we lose sight of the real reason these kids are where they are. At least the vast majority of them. These kids are there to get an education and prepare for life. Football or another sport, for many of these kids, is their only way to college. It is only a very select few that make it to the next level and even then the majority of those careers are very short. Winning NC's is a helluva lot of fun, but it really isn't the important thing in all of this.

I believe that our coaching staff is the best in the business at what is important....teaching boys to be men, Auburn men.

It doesn't hurt that they are damn good football coaches and recruiters as well

They can only go to college and get a degree with sports, that much is true. Why is there money to give them scholarships, though? Because of the consumer driven sports and the revenue they generate. And that's what this is all about: how to satisfy the fans while milking them for the most money they can. That's why teams have been moving up to the FBS in the first place: more money. It's why such lesser teams line up to play doormat to SEC powerhouses, too.

The problem I see with splitting into "big boys" and "little boys", so to speak, is that Division I has already been split once. If we're thinking like that, why not just let the lesser teams go back down to I-AA (or FCS, or whatever you want to call it) and promote their games more affluently? Let the lesser division become the one that has tons of bowl games and let the upper division become the one with a playoff. Or you could even have a few outside bowl games for standout teams who missed the playoffs, and play those games like the weekend before the conference champions start the playoffs, while I-AA bowls checker the days around those bigger games.

I like the moving up and down principle except for what it would do to conferences and traditional rivalries. What happens if Muschamp isn't able to right the ship at Florida? You could hypothetically end up with a team that has won 8 conference championships and 3 national titles in the past quarter century relegated to a second tier conference in fairly short order. Now, obviously, that's a stretch, because they still have to fall off a fair amount to get to the bottom 20%, but how do you even keep conferences in tact? If an SEC team falls out, would a team from the same region replace them? Could you really put Arkansas State in the Pac 12 if there aren't any teams farther west and Utah is in the bottom 20%?

It's an interesting idea, but I just don't ever see it happening.