I was considered writing this after the stipend discussion, again after reading the suggestion that Alabama play BSU in front of 30K fans, but, when I saw the Barnhart article it seemed like I should get to it.
Either the Mountain West Conference and the Western Athletic Conference field the best teams in college football (they represent half of the past ten undefeated teams in 1A), or things have become really watered down. As west coast driven media hype has reached a fervor, I think a lot of people have been mislead. After USC was passed over we've had to hear about west coast also-rans; Utah, BSU, and TCU quite often. In 2009 Alabama has a SoS of 2, and was ranked #1 by every major selector. BSU had a SoS of 96 and was ranked several spots below Alabama in a few polls (such as 5th by Sangarin). Yet, a few people had the audacity to claim BSU deserved a shot. Playoff advocates might decry the BCS and claim all undefeated teams deserve a chance, but to be clear, BSU played at a completely different football level. It's hard to explain the massive gap but just let the SoS difference sink in. There's 95 teams that played a tougher schedule than BSU. If that's baseball we've made our way to AA teams.
This is a complex issue that has history dating back over one hundred years. In order to understand the complexities I think a few things have to be considered. I apologize if I don't fully cover some issues or accidentally leave something out, obviously much research can be done.
Tradition:
One of the best things about college football is tradition. The first bowl game was in 1902. By contrast, the NFL wasn't even formed until 1920. The first selector of national champions was the Dickinson System in 1926. The NBL (NBA predecessor) was formed in 1937. The Helmes foundation started naming basketball champions in 1936 and the NCAA basketball tournament started in 1938. The AP got in on the action a little late, naming football champions in 1934, but even the AP poll represents a great deal of history.
College football has played bowl games and named national champions (without a playoff) since before some pro sports even existed. They beat college basketball to both a post season and naming national champions by a fair margin. This is important to me because when we consider changes to college football, we are messing with something with rich tradition and lengthy history. To hear someone flippantly say do away with the bowls, or toss out a method of naming national champions nearly 100 years old, is troubling to me. College football represents something significant, a special tradition that is rarely matched. Schools are not moved around like pro franchise and schools in many cases represent the only opportunity for the state to compete for championships on a national level. The FBS also gives us the most intense regular season in all of American sports. It's something special, to be cherished, and preserved.
BCS:
I don't want to make this a playoff vs. BCS discussion, but the issue can't be avoided. The BCS took two unique traditions of college football (bowl games and selectors) and incorporated them into a definitive championship. They dealt with the biggest issue (split championships). For instance, 1980, and 1981 saw 11 teams selected as national champions. Even at the height of anti-BCS fervor we haven't approached this level of confusion. In fact, the BCS has given us 6 unanimous champions, which is more unanimous champions than the entire active tenure of the selector's previously. It clarified things significantly and gave us a better picture of not only teams but entire conferences.
I believe the BCS does one of the best jobs of crowning both the most deserving and the best team. For instance, since the NCAA basketball tournament began in 1939, only 21 of the #1 ranked (in the AP, UPI, or USA Today) teams have gone on to win the tournament (UCLA represents 4 of the 7 teams who remained undefeated through the NCAA tournament, out of a possible 16). Are the polls wrong that often? Could they all be wrong over two-thirds of the time? They haven't know who the best team is since 2001 (Duke)? By contrast since the BCS began in 1998, the champion has been the #1 or #2 AP team every single time. 9 of those teams have been undefeated. If one looks at the regular season results, the BCS stands alone in demanding it's champion play like a champion for an entire season.
Football Welfare:
Prior to the creation of 1A (FBS) and 1AA (FCS), in 1978, being undefeated didn't mean all that much. It was possible to play a complete joke of a schedule due to the numerous teams and possibility of making a schedule without a single tough opponent. The result was several undefeated/untied teams that no selector recognized as national champions (such as Dartmouth in 1970, Louisiana Tech in 1972, Miami of Ohio in 1973, Arkansas St. in 1975, and Rutgers in 1976). This was remedied by the change to 1A/1AA. In 1979 Alabama had the only perfect record that year and was nearly unanimous national champion.
The NCAA laid the groundwork for the undoing of this at almost the same time. The 105 scholarship limit already existed since 1973, but it didn't seem to have much of an impact (it was a reasonable amount). In 1978 they switched to a 95 scholarship limit. While I'm not inclined to argue with this number, I do think it helped other programs. Programs like Miami, BYU, and Washington benefited under the parameters of the new scholarship limits.
The final round of reductions, which started in 1992 and ended in 1994, were ridiculous in my opinion. While 105 might have been a bit much, the reduction to 85 scholarships was and is a complete joke. If you want a perfect example of football welfare, this was it. Let's take the big boys down a notch and make sure everyone else can catch up. Not so coincidentally, 1996 brought us three new FBS teams (UCF, UAB, and Boise St.). In another not so coincidental occurrence, 1998 gave us the first perfect record team since 1976 that no selector named national champion. After Tulane in 1998, we had Marshal in 1999 which everyone knew was undeserving of championship consideration as well. Then, we have the aforementioned WAC/MWC undefeateds which make up 50% of the past ten perfect records.
For each scholarship they lowered the limit, there was a full roster worth of players without a scholarship. They were literally forced from the likes of SEC powers to BSU. In addition, it made it easier for programs with lower fan support to field teams. This does harm to programs like Clemson, who have 70,000 fans come out to each game but are hamstrung and forced to share athletes with programs with far lesser levels of support.
It's hard to find numbers, but I believe in 1995 we had 108 FBS teams. By 2004, (the start of the MWC/WAC run of undefeateds) there was 117 teams in the FBS. That's a conference full of FBS teams that magically appeared. By 2013 we will have 124 FBS teams. My gripe isn't just with the numbers, it's with the fact that we have a lot of interlopers that wouldn't even have FBS teams if not for the 85 scholarship limit. The Sun Belt averages 17 thousand per game. The MAC averages 15,600 per game, which means the entire conference shouldn't exist! I'm not joking either, a FBS team is supposed to average at least 15K attendance. I'm not sure how that conference is still around.
It isn't just attendance, Sagarin has the MAC ranked below two AA conferences and the Sun Belt comes in below four! So, they don't belong in the FBS, by either their level of fan support or their level of competitiveness. I'm not saying every team in those conferences has to go, but clearly the FBS could do without 22 teams and probably be better for it.
People see the symptoms, and instead of seeing what the problem is they imagine something else entirely. Instead of saying we have too many mediocre teams, they instead say let's have a playoff, do away with bowl games, conference championships, and the like.
Solution:
One counter to my argument is if I'm so in love with tradition why don't I want to go back to the pre-1978 combination of FBS and FCS? I imagine the FBS as something that has been polished and perfected over time. Dickinson's system wasn't perfect, but it was a start that led us to the BCS. The Rose Bowl followed the same path, leading to the other bowls and finally the BCS. We managed to improve what we had, without destroying it. The polls still matter and the bowl game tradition continues. The division of teams was a logical move as well, Only 48 college teams lay claim to a national championship and that list includes Princeton, Yale, Lafayette, Chicago, and Dartmouth. We don't need 124 FBS teams! To my knowledge the FBS is the only major sport in which one team has over 100,000 more fans show up to watch them play as another team and yet both purport to play at the same level.
From 1979-1997, the problem of meaningless perfect records was alleviated. In fact the 1980s didn't give us one instance of two perfect records in a single season. As the scholarship limits crept in, the undefeated teams went back up. However, it was still relatively manageable throughout the 90s.
The problem isn't just teams that wouldn't even be in FBS without the scholarship limits, or the sheer numbers, the issue is exaggerated by the concentration of football powers. As the major conferences grew, the left overs re-formed into increasingly weaker conferences that then augmented their numbers with shouldn't be FBS teams. Things have come to a head and they will only get worse as South Alabama and UTSA join the FBS.
There are only so many ways to turn the tide. I'd like stricter enforcement of the attendance requirement. They say 15K attendance every other year or something, but I count 9 teams that fall below that limit (Ball St. was below 9,000 but there's no talk of them leaving the FBS). How about a minimum of 10K, period? Or, why not a 20K minimum for conference average? I doubt this is going to happen. What about scholarship limits? If you upped it by a relatively small number (back up to 90), you'd seen an immediate impact. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening as well, although it makes a lot of sense.
The talk of stipends for players does provide a reasonable scenario. It would make for a forced separation of the schools. The question is can you get this past Title IX? I'm not sure. This brings us to a scenario like Barnhart (and many others) suggested. The big boys just pick up and move, leave the leeches behind (much like many did when they joined power conferences). This might ultimately become what happens. The more the little guys complain about the BCS (while demanding million dollar payday games), and obstruct things like stipends, the more the earners will become interested in leaving.
Conclusion:
If D1A is able to get under 100 teams a lot of the issues we have will go away. Many meaningless bowl games would cease to exist. Some gripes of both playoff advocates (undefeated teams with no chance to play for a championship) and playoff detractors (cupcake schedules) will be decreased. By numerical odds alone, there will be a reduction in undefeated teams but in practical applications it will become virtually impossible for a BSU to play a 96 SoS. The smaller pool will also bring greater clarity to the process. Regardless of how you feel about the BCS and bowl games, if you want to see a quality product in college football, a reduced pool of FBS teams would facilitate this. Personally, I believe this is the most sensible way to preserve the great tradition of the sport and to insure that what is gained, is earned and excellence will be rewarded.
Either the Mountain West Conference and the Western Athletic Conference field the best teams in college football (they represent half of the past ten undefeated teams in 1A), or things have become really watered down. As west coast driven media hype has reached a fervor, I think a lot of people have been mislead. After USC was passed over we've had to hear about west coast also-rans; Utah, BSU, and TCU quite often. In 2009 Alabama has a SoS of 2, and was ranked #1 by every major selector. BSU had a SoS of 96 and was ranked several spots below Alabama in a few polls (such as 5th by Sangarin). Yet, a few people had the audacity to claim BSU deserved a shot. Playoff advocates might decry the BCS and claim all undefeated teams deserve a chance, but to be clear, BSU played at a completely different football level. It's hard to explain the massive gap but just let the SoS difference sink in. There's 95 teams that played a tougher schedule than BSU. If that's baseball we've made our way to AA teams.
This is a complex issue that has history dating back over one hundred years. In order to understand the complexities I think a few things have to be considered. I apologize if I don't fully cover some issues or accidentally leave something out, obviously much research can be done.
Tradition:
One of the best things about college football is tradition. The first bowl game was in 1902. By contrast, the NFL wasn't even formed until 1920. The first selector of national champions was the Dickinson System in 1926. The NBL (NBA predecessor) was formed in 1937. The Helmes foundation started naming basketball champions in 1936 and the NCAA basketball tournament started in 1938. The AP got in on the action a little late, naming football champions in 1934, but even the AP poll represents a great deal of history.
College football has played bowl games and named national champions (without a playoff) since before some pro sports even existed. They beat college basketball to both a post season and naming national champions by a fair margin. This is important to me because when we consider changes to college football, we are messing with something with rich tradition and lengthy history. To hear someone flippantly say do away with the bowls, or toss out a method of naming national champions nearly 100 years old, is troubling to me. College football represents something significant, a special tradition that is rarely matched. Schools are not moved around like pro franchise and schools in many cases represent the only opportunity for the state to compete for championships on a national level. The FBS also gives us the most intense regular season in all of American sports. It's something special, to be cherished, and preserved.
BCS:
I don't want to make this a playoff vs. BCS discussion, but the issue can't be avoided. The BCS took two unique traditions of college football (bowl games and selectors) and incorporated them into a definitive championship. They dealt with the biggest issue (split championships). For instance, 1980, and 1981 saw 11 teams selected as national champions. Even at the height of anti-BCS fervor we haven't approached this level of confusion. In fact, the BCS has given us 6 unanimous champions, which is more unanimous champions than the entire active tenure of the selector's previously. It clarified things significantly and gave us a better picture of not only teams but entire conferences.
I believe the BCS does one of the best jobs of crowning both the most deserving and the best team. For instance, since the NCAA basketball tournament began in 1939, only 21 of the #1 ranked (in the AP, UPI, or USA Today) teams have gone on to win the tournament (UCLA represents 4 of the 7 teams who remained undefeated through the NCAA tournament, out of a possible 16). Are the polls wrong that often? Could they all be wrong over two-thirds of the time? They haven't know who the best team is since 2001 (Duke)? By contrast since the BCS began in 1998, the champion has been the #1 or #2 AP team every single time. 9 of those teams have been undefeated. If one looks at the regular season results, the BCS stands alone in demanding it's champion play like a champion for an entire season.
Football Welfare:
Prior to the creation of 1A (FBS) and 1AA (FCS), in 1978, being undefeated didn't mean all that much. It was possible to play a complete joke of a schedule due to the numerous teams and possibility of making a schedule without a single tough opponent. The result was several undefeated/untied teams that no selector recognized as national champions (such as Dartmouth in 1970, Louisiana Tech in 1972, Miami of Ohio in 1973, Arkansas St. in 1975, and Rutgers in 1976). This was remedied by the change to 1A/1AA. In 1979 Alabama had the only perfect record that year and was nearly unanimous national champion.
The NCAA laid the groundwork for the undoing of this at almost the same time. The 105 scholarship limit already existed since 1973, but it didn't seem to have much of an impact (it was a reasonable amount). In 1978 they switched to a 95 scholarship limit. While I'm not inclined to argue with this number, I do think it helped other programs. Programs like Miami, BYU, and Washington benefited under the parameters of the new scholarship limits.
The final round of reductions, which started in 1992 and ended in 1994, were ridiculous in my opinion. While 105 might have been a bit much, the reduction to 85 scholarships was and is a complete joke. If you want a perfect example of football welfare, this was it. Let's take the big boys down a notch and make sure everyone else can catch up. Not so coincidentally, 1996 brought us three new FBS teams (UCF, UAB, and Boise St.). In another not so coincidental occurrence, 1998 gave us the first perfect record team since 1976 that no selector named national champion. After Tulane in 1998, we had Marshal in 1999 which everyone knew was undeserving of championship consideration as well. Then, we have the aforementioned WAC/MWC undefeateds which make up 50% of the past ten perfect records.
For each scholarship they lowered the limit, there was a full roster worth of players without a scholarship. They were literally forced from the likes of SEC powers to BSU. In addition, it made it easier for programs with lower fan support to field teams. This does harm to programs like Clemson, who have 70,000 fans come out to each game but are hamstrung and forced to share athletes with programs with far lesser levels of support.
It's hard to find numbers, but I believe in 1995 we had 108 FBS teams. By 2004, (the start of the MWC/WAC run of undefeateds) there was 117 teams in the FBS. That's a conference full of FBS teams that magically appeared. By 2013 we will have 124 FBS teams. My gripe isn't just with the numbers, it's with the fact that we have a lot of interlopers that wouldn't even have FBS teams if not for the 85 scholarship limit. The Sun Belt averages 17 thousand per game. The MAC averages 15,600 per game, which means the entire conference shouldn't exist! I'm not joking either, a FBS team is supposed to average at least 15K attendance. I'm not sure how that conference is still around.
It isn't just attendance, Sagarin has the MAC ranked below two AA conferences and the Sun Belt comes in below four! So, they don't belong in the FBS, by either their level of fan support or their level of competitiveness. I'm not saying every team in those conferences has to go, but clearly the FBS could do without 22 teams and probably be better for it.
People see the symptoms, and instead of seeing what the problem is they imagine something else entirely. Instead of saying we have too many mediocre teams, they instead say let's have a playoff, do away with bowl games, conference championships, and the like.
Solution:
One counter to my argument is if I'm so in love with tradition why don't I want to go back to the pre-1978 combination of FBS and FCS? I imagine the FBS as something that has been polished and perfected over time. Dickinson's system wasn't perfect, but it was a start that led us to the BCS. The Rose Bowl followed the same path, leading to the other bowls and finally the BCS. We managed to improve what we had, without destroying it. The polls still matter and the bowl game tradition continues. The division of teams was a logical move as well, Only 48 college teams lay claim to a national championship and that list includes Princeton, Yale, Lafayette, Chicago, and Dartmouth. We don't need 124 FBS teams! To my knowledge the FBS is the only major sport in which one team has over 100,000 more fans show up to watch them play as another team and yet both purport to play at the same level.
From 1979-1997, the problem of meaningless perfect records was alleviated. In fact the 1980s didn't give us one instance of two perfect records in a single season. As the scholarship limits crept in, the undefeated teams went back up. However, it was still relatively manageable throughout the 90s.
The problem isn't just teams that wouldn't even be in FBS without the scholarship limits, or the sheer numbers, the issue is exaggerated by the concentration of football powers. As the major conferences grew, the left overs re-formed into increasingly weaker conferences that then augmented their numbers with shouldn't be FBS teams. Things have come to a head and they will only get worse as South Alabama and UTSA join the FBS.
There are only so many ways to turn the tide. I'd like stricter enforcement of the attendance requirement. They say 15K attendance every other year or something, but I count 9 teams that fall below that limit (Ball St. was below 9,000 but there's no talk of them leaving the FBS). How about a minimum of 10K, period? Or, why not a 20K minimum for conference average? I doubt this is going to happen. What about scholarship limits? If you upped it by a relatively small number (back up to 90), you'd seen an immediate impact. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening as well, although it makes a lot of sense.
The talk of stipends for players does provide a reasonable scenario. It would make for a forced separation of the schools. The question is can you get this past Title IX? I'm not sure. This brings us to a scenario like Barnhart (and many others) suggested. The big boys just pick up and move, leave the leeches behind (much like many did when they joined power conferences). This might ultimately become what happens. The more the little guys complain about the BCS (while demanding million dollar payday games), and obstruct things like stipends, the more the earners will become interested in leaving.
Conclusion:
If D1A is able to get under 100 teams a lot of the issues we have will go away. Many meaningless bowl games would cease to exist. Some gripes of both playoff advocates (undefeated teams with no chance to play for a championship) and playoff detractors (cupcake schedules) will be decreased. By numerical odds alone, there will be a reduction in undefeated teams but in practical applications it will become virtually impossible for a BSU to play a 96 SoS. The smaller pool will also bring greater clarity to the process. Regardless of how you feel about the BCS and bowl games, if you want to see a quality product in college football, a reduced pool of FBS teams would facilitate this. Personally, I believe this is the most sensible way to preserve the great tradition of the sport and to insure that what is gained, is earned and excellence will be rewarded.
