Hey Sheriff, time to eat some crow

[Joe]

Bama won't play UAB like Ole Miss and Miss State won't play USM.

Auburn and Alabama plays yet Bama went to Oklahoma.

The real double standard is Florida claiming to be soooooo good when they won't play the rest of the best.  UT, FSU and UGA every year is ok, but there are plenty of teams that are as good, if not better(seeing how those 3 have had off years at times).  I guess if you're happy playing the same 3 good schools, a good conference foe here and there and the various gimme games, then to each their own.  Just don't claim to be elite unless you are willing to play them.  Playing FSU every year doesn't prove anything other than playing the same team over and over and over again.  Go have a home and home with USC or Notre Dame or something.

I think your wiffing on what he's trying to say...Alabama plays Auburn in conference...Alabama does not have a yearly opponent out of conference...neither does Auburn (altough they are in talks to reup a rivalry with GT)

I think Toolio is trying to say that all these teams like Ohio State and Texas or Alabama and Oklahoma can play out of conference opponents because they don't have an annual out of conference opponent. Whereas UF does with Florida State.

I agree with Trip on the UF/UGA, and think that now that there is a 12 game schedule UF cannot use the 5 home game every other year excuse.

That being said I think this point is moot, Florida has signed a deal with Miami to play starting in 2008, they are in the process of working a deal out with Notre Dame, and also a possible deal with UCLA. Not to mention their schedule next year has 8 Bowl teams and Tennessee which includes your beloved UCF Golden Knights Dawg. They without a doubt play the hardest schedule in the country (Auburn, Alabama, LSU, UGA in 5 weeks)...

Please end it here.

[DawgPound]

Alabama plays Southern Miss semi-regularly(kinda like UF/UM).  The reason you don't see many OOC yearly rival games is because those teams were smart enough to all be in the same conference.  UF is paying for the choice the other SEC presidents decided in not bringing in FSU before it was too late.  By the time the 90s came, FSU lost their a lot of their desire for inclusion.

In the case of Ohio State, they always have the humor the little Ohio schools and play them every year.

In the end, Toolio and I could end up running in circles and never finding a true consensus between us, but that's why the game is played and it gives us message board people stuff to talk about when NOTHING exciting is happening.

Next:  BCS only system being traded in for a 16 team playoff.

[Guest Toolio]

Dawg,

Of course FSU lost a lot of their desire.

40 years ago, they wanted into the SEC because it would bring them money. They weren't worried about getting beat down week in and week out.

Once they became competitive, they saw it was a disadvantage to play in a conference like the SEC.

The ACC promised basketball revenue and a clear path to a conference championship every year.

[Guest Toolio]

As for a 16 team playoff... it just isn't going to happen any time soon.

In fact, I think the NCAA agreeing to the 12th game, may have pretty much killed anything major happening.

At best, we can hope for an 8 team playoff combined with the current bowl system for everyone else.

But there will be plenty of obstacles. Which way do you expand the schedule? Earlier into August, before Fall semester starts? Or later, pushing the season further into the NFL's territory?

[DawgPound]

It isn't going to happen(unless Congress has their way) anytime soon.  During a hearing, the new head of the BCS, the Big XII commish(I think), said that a playoff could be feasible, but they chose not too because of $$.

The BCS conferences in power are the SEC and the Big Ten.  The Big Ten controls the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl, while the SEC has better teamwork than the other 8 conferences(since all have a seat at the BCS table).  If the Big Ten doesn't like how things are going, they can take the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl and we have the Alliance system all over again, which the BCS was formed to avoid.

The move to add the 5th game was a step to keep the coalition conferences happy and to show a lack of monopolizing of possible moneys.  They give a chance in and a peridoic re-evaluation to determine what steps to take.  That means that a conference could be dropped or included into the auto-bid pool based on their performance.

What I think will happen is that the MWC and CUSA, the two most likely conferences to ever be considered for auto inclusion, are going to rally behind a couple of schools to push up their average BCS standing to create a possible bid in a season(which means $$ in) as well as give them the chance to maybe unseat the weakest of the BCS conferences, which is the Big East.  Now, I personally would like to have 6 12 team conferences in the BCS as it makes things equal as far as payout per team.  I don't think the SEC likes an 8 team Big East making more money per school than they are.

As for scheduling, due to the nature of how football works and their effects on universities, you can't make the season any earlier than what it is.  You'll have to add any possible games at the end.  You have a 12 game season and then a championship week.  By having a 16 team playoff, you have winners from all 11 conferences plus the top 5 using a BCS like system(who don't have auto-bids and no more than 2 total from a conference).  You then add 1 month of games(4) and can use the last game as a "Super Bowl" of college football.  For the games during the playoffs, depending on overall attitude, the top team can host or neutral sites can have games much like the current bowl system with the top quarterfinal, 2 semifinals and final game rotating between the 4 BCS bowl sites.  This gives the little guys a fair shot at winning it all and bringing $$ and popularity to their respective conferences.

It's just an idea.

[Joe]

Well This is a much better topic.

Some points of fact.

The BCS and football at that pull MILLIONs more for schools than the NCAA tourny. The tourny is great and exciting, but having a similar system in football could cut revenues to schools (corporate sponsors are not going to shell out as much for payoff rounds.

Bowls are Tradition...I've heard that you can keep the bowls and have a playoff. Impossible, this isn't the NCAA Basketball Tourny where you can hold games at nuetral sites and have 2-4k  fans of those schools come. The NCAA will need 20-25,000 fans from each team at the games to help meet costs. 20-25,000 fans in an 8 team tourny will not travel THREE times to see their team play. It would cost too much, you would have to play the games at home stadiums, disrupting big games like...The Fiesta Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, The Orange Bowl. Cities depend on these games for money.

Finally, Those smaller bowl games will die. No way a team like Texas, Florida, or Ohio State travels to see their team at the Peach, Champs Sports, or Holiday bowl. It will be as diminished as the NIT for one of them not to make the 8 team tournament.

Point being too much money in it's current state. It will happen one day, but because of some type of action, not because of a mutual agreement.

[DawgPound]

The BCS is going to be forced to bring in more conferences for auto-bids.  It's the only way to remove the gripes Congress has against it.

[Joe]

They already gave an auto bid to the top team out of the big 6 so long as they finish above 12 or above in the BCS rankings (or if a big 6 gets a team ranked lower than 17 ala FSU, they just need to be in the top 16)

Under this formula the last 8 years of the BCS 7 would have had a team in under that formula.

[DawgPound]

True, but now that it is in place, they need to see some results of non-BCS teams getting in.