College football needs a complete overhaul

I know it will never happen but, the only way to really legitimize the college football system would be to completely overhaul it. How?





* Reorganize it into Eight 16-team conferences (this would include all of the current 128 FBS teams). Each conference would, of course, be made up of two 8-team divisions. These conferences would be geographically based so as to include traditional rivalries and minimize travel.



* Each team starts out the season playing 2 games of whoever they want outside their conference (although only 1 of these games can be against an FCS team).



* Each team then goes into division play, facing the other 7 teams in their division. So every team will play at least 9 games in a year. The 2 teams from each division in a conference will play for the conference championship.



* This is, of course, result in 8 teams from the Eight conferences going to an 8-team playoff. The teams who play for their conference championship and get into the playoff will obviously play anywhere from 10-13 games in a season.



* This system would result in a true national champion, i.e. every team has a chance to make it, the champion is decided on the field and not through biased polls, ridiculous computer rankings, or some committee.



* This system would also do away with all the stupid and meaningless bowls currently in existence - what are there, 30 now? - and that includes the stupid Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls who are embodiments of the corrupt and dysfunctional state of college football.



* Obviously a money-sharing system could be put in place where all the conferences would get a share of the revenue from the playoff. The further a team goes into the playoff, the bigger chunk they get.

And institute some sort of promotion-relegation system as well so that the teams at the bottom of the conference have meaningful games at the end of the season as well.

Humor me for a second because this isn't really a concrete kind of thought, more a collection of babble and thoughts that may or may not have a point...



I think college football is dying unless you're one of the top 15-20 richest schools. Eventually do all football fans follow those teams or do they do what they do with baseball and pay attention to pro teams and with little to no interest in college teams? Will viewership go down? (it already is with me, I could care less about Jameis Winston, Big 10 etc. etc. etc.) With Texas and Notre Dame planning to pay players in the future, it will constantly be a "one-up" the next guy kind of thing and it will spoil everything I think is good about football and maybe college sports. Policing things is going to get a whole lot harder, because if Texas is paying players then why can't Bob the Miami alumn give a player money to go to his school? (double standard.. the colleges are muddying the water)('look Notre Dame has upped their salary? wait what is florida paying right now?"). Also, there is no way I think they'll get away with playing football players and not playing female athletes though, which is good if you have a child that is good enough to warrant that.



If (unlikely, this is just for arguments sake) my daughter is good enough to play a college sport at Texas, I'll let her go and maybe suggest it (though none of my children will ever attend Notre Dame or Utah... over my dead body)... doesn't hurt to let someone graduate with not only a degree but a few bucks in their pocket.. if they're paying why not take it? But the integrity of the game will be completely shot.. Michigan will rise from the ashes, not because they found the right coach or recruited smarter, but because they offer $1500 more a year than Ohio State... (makes me nauseous). I have no interest in womens college sports and it would be all about getting the best free education possible if she were scholarship worthy. Paying players (and not at all respecting the education) is terrible for the game and the future, and good for few select top tier athletes.



My son on the other hand will go to BYU to play sports (again, the odds of a child being that good is slim to none so I'm speaking a hypothetical that will never come to fruition), even if I have to pay the entire bill and even if they end up division II someday. I don't want a man to grow up without the benefit of a BYU education and the atmosphere at BYU. (I would trust my daughter to do the right thing anywhere (I do want her at BYU, but my greatest fear is that girls to often go to BYU and get in the "I have to get married pursuit" and lose the educational drive (seen it many times) and I want my daughter to focus on school and worry about marriage after she has her own educational foundation)... I trust no teenage boys, period (speaking to you Spencer Hadley) and I think BYU is the best place to keep them on the straight and narrow (obviously it doesn't work for everyone... Spencer Hadley)... I'm also loyal to BYU and program even if I'm quickly losing complete disinterest in college football in general (which I think will drag down all of college sports ultimately.)



Point is, I never thought I'd say "I care less" but I'm starting to. They're taking the amateur out of it and as they do I'm less and less interested. If I wanted pro sports, I'd watch pro sports.

I've been less excited for college football in general this season than I ever remember, and I think it has something to do with the playoff.



After some thinking, I decided that I would favor of a Champions League style set-up where the best 16 teams in the fall skip the bowls and instead qualify for a champions league in the early spring. The 16 teams are drawn into 4 pools, with each team playing the other teams in their pool once (higher seed hosts) and then the top 2 in each pool moving on to a knock-out tournament (comprising of 8 teams). This tournament would require a maximum of 6 games over six weeks for each team.



I like this because we could potentially get some rare match-ups in pool play and winning requires more consistency while eliminating some of the flukiness associated with the standard knock-out tournament.

IMO, a more realistic idea is to split the current FBS into two tiers. 128 teams is too many and a bunch of the FBS schools just won't ever compete. Kent St.? Idaho? UAB? Really?



You wouldn't really have to reorganize any of the conferences, although there would likely be some realignment. Teams should be allowed to align with whomever they choose. I would argue that we actually need MORE games involving good teams from disparate regions.



You just change the rules for required home-game attendance and player stipends and insurance, guaranteed scholarships, etc. and enforce the rules much more swiftly. The new Autonomy 5 voting process could likely create this system in relatively short order.



Assuming the proposed new rules highlighted the past several months and increasing the average home-game attendance to somewhere in the 25-30K average range over a running 3-year period, you would likely end up with about 80-90 teams in FBS Tier 1 and 40-50 teams in FBS Tier 2 (and you might get some FCS schools like NDSU and Montana, etc. that move up to FBS Tier 2). With 80-90 teams, the FBS Tier 1 is likely left with 6 or 7 conferences and some independents (including BYU) - the Autonomy 5 plus some iteration of the best of the American, MWC, C-USA, independents, etc. FBS Tier 2 would likely have 4-5 conferences with some independents, made up mostly of Sun Belt, MAC, and the lower levels of the C-USA, MWC, and American - and several FCS callups.



A team at the FBS Tier 2 level could jump to FBS Tier 1 as long as they can commit to the new rules and meet the home-game attendance thresholds.



Then, as FBS Czar, I would:



- Disallow FBS Tier 1 v. FCS matchups EXCEPT for a PRE-SEASON exhibition game in August and a SPRING exhibition game. This allows for FCS schools to still receive the payouts that help with their athletic budgets (the Spring exhibition game would actually increase FCS payouts), without making a mockery and sham of the scenario by counting these games and wins towards the FBS Tier 1 record.



- Allow a 3-game SPRING exhibition season. Allow one payday exhibition game. Most FBS Tier 1 programs would host an FCS opponent or FBS Tier 2 opponent and then play two regional FBS Tier 1 opponents (home-away). Players could play in the games without affecting redshirt status. So, these would be like NFL pre-season games, where you get to see a lot of teams build depth by extensively playing younger players.



- For FBS TIer 1 - Only ONE regular season win over FBS Tier 2 opponent at HOME would count toward bowl eligibility. Again, this would allow FBS Tier 2 programs to receive the payouts that help with their athletic budgets, but disallowing the FBS Tier 1 program from padding the out-of-conference schedule with cupcakes at home.



- For FBS Tier 2 - Only ONE regular season win over FCS opponent would count toward bowl eligibility. This, again, helps with FCS athletic budget payday games - per the current system.



- The result is an FBS Tier 1 system where there are at least 2 or 3 out-of-conference game openings on EVERYONE's schedules, such that the only outcome will be more quality FBS Tier 1 v. FBS Tier 1 matchups. But, you don't have to compete with the low-level "G5" program that finishes with a sexy win-loss record - they will be in FBS Tier 2.



- It also results in an FBS Tier 2 system where there are 2 or 3 out-of-conference openings on FBS Tier 2 schedules, such that there will be quality FBS Tier 2 v. FBS Tier 2 matchups, rather than the too many lopsided road games against FBS Tier 1 competition.



- The CFP and bowl system remains largely the same, except you expand the CFP (Tier 1) to 8 teams and create a playoff for the FBS Tier 2 level. Most bowl games actually provide a great stage for non-playoff teams (or teams eliminated from the playoff) to finish the season. There will be 38 bowl games in 2014-15. And note, many of the bowl games include MAC v. Sun Belt type matchups. I think most teams and conferences actually like the bowl system. Would you rather have seen BYU play UTEP in the New Mexico Bowl - or no game at all?



- For the CFP - Auto-bids for ANY Tier 1 champ ranked in the top 10. Then, the selection committee fills in the holes with at large contenders from the rankings. The other NY6 and other bowl games are filled as presently constituted - including bowl games that involve Tier 1 v. Tier 2 matchups.



- The Tier 2 playoff could be structured similarly to the CFP. However, the dates might be staggered so as not to compete with the CFP.



This system accepts the REALITIES of the current college football landscape, but provides a better system to motivate Tier 1 teams to ACTUALLY PLAY EACH OTHER. It also gives the Tier 2 programs a system through which they actually compete for a national championship, accepting that they compete at a lower level.

No way teams are giving up 12 games, especially the 6 home games. The idea is good, but you must also do what's best for the teams. Also, playing uneven schedules like the Pac 12 does is stupid as it gives half the teams in your division/conference an advantage every year (1 more home game).



I'd add one more game from the other division (alternating h/a through all 8 of the other divisions). You mentioned the 2 games that each team gets to pick. Now we're up to 10 games.



The first game of the season would be assigned by the NCAA, and they can use whatever formula/computer program/method to set these games up (so Alabama could have to go play at Idaho). After 6 weeks, there is another open week for games to be set up by the NCAA (each team that had a home game the first week would have to go on the road this week). Those are games 11 and 12.



Conference title game, quarters, semis, finals.

craigoscarson wrote:
Humor me for a second because this isn't really a concrete kind of thought, more a collection of babble and thoughts that may or may not have a point...



I think college football is dying unless you're one of the top 15-20 richest schools. Eventually do all football fans follow those teams or do they do what they do with baseball and pay attention to pro teams and with little to no interest in college teams? Will viewership go down? (it already is with me, I could care less about Jameis Winston, Big 10 etc. etc. etc.) With Texas and Notre Dame planning to pay players in the future, it will constantly be a "one-up" the next guy kind of thing and it will spoil everything I think is good about football and maybe college sports. Policing things is going to get a whole lot harder, because if Texas is paying players then why can't Bob the Miami alumn give a player money to go to his school? (double standard.. the colleges are muddying the water)('look Notre Dame has upped their salary? wait what is florida paying right now?"). Also, there is no way I think they'll get away with playing football players and not playing female athletes though, which is good if you have a child that is good enough to warrant that.



If (unlikely, this is just for arguments sake) my daughter is good enough to play a college sport at Texas, I'll let her go and maybe suggest it (though none of my children will ever attend Notre Dame or Utah... over my dead body)... doesn't hurt to let someone graduate with not only a degree but a few bucks in their pocket.. if they're paying why not take it? But the integrity of the game will be completely shot.. Michigan will rise from the ashes, not because they found the right coach or recruited smarter, but because they offer $1500 more a year than Ohio State... (makes me nauseous). I have no interest in womens college sports and it would be all about getting the best free education possible if she were scholarship worthy. Paying players (and not at all respecting the education) is terrible for the game and the future, and good for few select top tier athletes.



My son on the other hand will go to BYU to play sports (again, the odds of a child being that good is slim to none so I'm speaking a hypothetical that will never come to fruition), even if I have to pay the entire bill and even if they end up division II someday. I don't want a man to grow up without the benefit of a BYU education and the atmosphere at BYU. (I would trust my daughter to do the right thing anywhere (I do want her at BYU, but my greatest fear is that girls to often go to BYU and get in the "I have to get married pursuit" and lose the educational drive (seen it many times) and I want my daughter to focus on school and worry about marriage after she has her own educational foundation)... I trust no teenage boys, period (speaking to you Spencer Hadley) and I think BYU is the best place to keep them on the straight and narrow (obviously it doesn't work for everyone... Spencer Hadley)... I'm also loyal to BYU and program even if I'm quickly losing complete disinterest in college football in general (which I think will drag down all of college sports ultimately.)



Point is, I never thought I'd say "I care less" but I'm starting to. They're taking the amateur out of it and as they do I'm less and less interested. If I wanted pro sports, I'd watch pro sports.

I've liked a lot of what you've said but this is about the best. I am losing interest too. Paying college athletes will bring a real mess and at least for me ruin the sport. I'd rather see BYU go to the smaller venues than give in to that. I think that's what you said anyway. Oh ya, I am not a fan of notre dame or much of any of the 15-20 schools that are always at the top.

College football is already losing fans. Attendance is down. Once TV viewership starts to falter we'll see some changes.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

This thread is almost the communists vs capitalists. Has greed taken over so much that it permeates everything that is good about amateurism and we therefore become pacifists or communists? Has the corrupt ness of our society equaled that of the Roman Empire where gladiators are slaves (double entendre) and not free men fighting for the love of the sport? Is this the epitome of the halves and the have nots and the race is consuming all That was once good? Will all this corruptness, greed and money cause the BoT to just eliminate sport all together from BYU? If this the beginning of the end for amateurism in general and sports at BYU simultaneously?

Cougs_Rule wrote:
This thread is almost the communists vs capitalists. Has greed taken over so much that it permeates everything that is good about amateurism and we therefore become pacifists or communists? Has the corrupt ness of our society equaled that of the Roman Empire where gladiators are slaves (double entendre) and not free men fighting for the love of the sport? Is this the epitome of the halves and the have nots and the race is consuming all That was once good? Will all this corruptness, greed and money cause the BoT to just eliminate sport all together from BYU? If this the beginning of the end for amateurism in general and sports at BYU simultaneously?

That is my prediction. BYU will stay in the athletic game as long as it can help the Church get the message out. When it becomes semi-pro sports, I think we will be out.

Yesterday I was reading an article (I beleive it was on ESPN) that said, in effect, that the NFL playoffs were in serious need of a major overhaul. There is no perfect system out there. I for one have never liked the idea of moving towards an NFL style playoff system. If we ever adopt a system similar to the NFL system, people will push for changes even then...With college sports, we're talking about very diffeent types of educational experiences here. People are not cross-shopping an education at Florida State and the Air Force Acadamy, whay are we pushing for a system that pretends that all of the teams an schools are the same?

Just my opinion, but I don't like playoffs. They only show you who is the best team at the end of the season, not over the course of a season. I'd be all in favor of a single table football system. You play each team and reward the team that is the best over the entire season.



Think of the 2009 Patriots. They were easily the best team in the NFL that year, but had one bad game at the end of the season and they're chumps instead of the best team in history.



You could easily sell a single table NFL to the public as well. You've got 32 teams, that's 31 games. If they did it this year, the first game would be 6 Sep, the final game is April 4.



People love football. They'd watch a 52-week season if they could.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Just my opinion, but I don't like playoffs. They only show you who is the best team at the end of the season, not over the course of a season. I'd be all in favor of a single table football system. You play each team and reward the team that is the best over the entire season.



Think of the 2009 Patriots. They were easily the best team in the NFL that year, but had one bad game at the end of the season and they're chumps instead of the best team in history.



You could easily sell a single table NFL to the public as well. You've got 32 teams, that's 31 games. If they did it this year, the first game would be 6 Sep, the final game is April 4.



People love football. They'd watch a 52-week season if they could.

That's how sports work..16 team playoff like they do in fcs been working there for years. Only way to decide it on the feild. Only reason it not happening is bowl money. Look all the bowls mean nothing only thing that matters is playoff games now..rewarding teams for being 6-6 seriously why most of these games could not fill high school stadiums.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Just my opinion, but I don't like playoffs. They only show you who is the best team at the end of the season, not over the course of a season. I'd be all in favor of a single table football system. You play each team and reward the team that is the best over the entire season.



Think of the 2009 Patriots. They were easily the best team in the NFL that year, but had one bad game at the end of the season and they're chumps instead of the best team in history.



You could easily sell a single table NFL to the public as well. You've got 32 teams, that's 31 games. If they did it this year, the first game would be 6 Sep, the final game is April 4.



People love football. They'd watch a 52-week season if they could.

This doesn't rectify your initial premise of deciding who the best is overall, it just somewhat shifts when teams are the best. In your scenario, a team could win their first 16 games, build a huge lead in the standings and never get threatened by any other team, even if they lose 4 out of their last 5.



The only way to do a best of the best would require no scheduled games outside of the first week. Teams that win play other teams that win, teams that lose play other teams that lose, until there is only one undefeated team.



With 128 teams that would take 7 weeks. So maybe get 5 games in to set up the 7 weeks of glory rankings (1-128), and then play it off.

stuckinbig10country wrote:

Just my opinion, but I don't like playoffs. They only show you who is the best team at the end of the season, not over the course of a season. I'd be all in favor of a single table football system. You play each team and reward the team that is the best over the entire season.



Think of the 2009 Patriots. They were easily the best team in the NFL that year, but had one bad game at the end of the season and they're chumps instead of the best team in history.



You could easily sell a single table NFL to the public as well. You've got 32 teams, that's 31 games. If they did it this year, the first game would be 6 Sep, the final game is April 4.



People love football. They'd watch a 52-week season if they could.

This doesn't rectify your initial premise of deciding who the best is overall, it just somewhat shifts when teams are the best. In your scenario, a team could win their first 16 games, build a huge lead in the standings and never get threatened by any other team, even if they lose 4 out of their last 5.



The only way to do a best of the best would require no scheduled games outside of the first week. Teams that win play other teams that win, teams that lose play other teams that lose, until there is only one undefeated team.



With 128 teams that would take 7 weeks. So maybe get 5 games in to set up the 7 weeks of glory rankings (1-128), and then play it off.

True, but that start should count for something, right now it really doesn't.



But back to college football, I'd love to see somethink like eight 9-team leagues. You play every team in your conference and then the NCAA controls a rotation of OOC games. You would play OOC four games (2H/2A) against two other leagues (with 1H/1A per league).



The eight conference winners would advance to a playoff.



The eight leagues are also paired with a lesser division league - that also consists of eight 9-team leagues. The bottom two conference finishers drop the lower tier the next season.



From the lower tier, the conference winners (who also advance to their own 8-team playoff) will be promoted to the upper tier the next season, and the 2nd and 3rd place teams will play again for the chance of promotion as well. (Although perhaps to avoid a rematch, you could pair 2nd/3rd place teams from a different conference.)



That would give teams at the bottom and the top of conferences something to play for a the end of the season.

I love college football. I'm fine with the 4 team playoff. I don't want it to grow bigger than that. The current system challenges schools to do more than win a conference championship. It chastises teams like Baylor for playing sissy OOC schedule. I love that.



CFB is the only sport that doesn't allow mediocrity to compete in the postseason. In the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL you can essentially be a .500 team and make the playoffs. In the NCAA basketball tournament you can actually be terrible all year, have a great weekend and win your conference tournament, and play for a title. I like the structure the CFB to demand excellence from the teams that compete for their championships.



I really don't get the handwringing over athletes getting paid above and beyond their scholarship.



I don't want the universities paying athletes because most of them are already running a deficit funding their programs anyway. The universities give most athletes a pretty fair deal as it is. But if Taysom Hill wants to sign autographs at Ken Garff for $25 bucks a pop. Let him.

The only way these types of changes are made in college football is if Congress gets involved, which I'm not sure anyone really wants.



Problem is that the schools have all the $$ and all the power in this new age of television rights. When the NCAA tries to makes changes to make things more equitable, the SEC Commish shakes his fist and the NCAA cowers into a corner. If the NCAA tries to show backbone, the Big 5 just threaten to take their game to their own division where the NCAA has even less power, and then the NCAA cowers and begs forgiveness for having been so presumptuous.



Conference affiliations and bowl tie-ins are matters of personal contract between schools and the corporations that run the bowls, and to a lesser extent the TV networks. The NCAA has minimal say, and less power because the NCAA needs the big college football teams to keep paying into the kitty to fund the bureaucratic briarwood that is the NCAA. The only way that dynamic changes is if someone or something bigger than those schools/bowls/broadcasters/NCAA steps in and alters the negotiation dynamics. For state-run schools, that can be the state legislatures, but no single state legislature is going to unilaterally disarm in the high stake$ armrace of FBS football.



The only pathway I can see to that happening is if this pay-to-play movement gains traction in the court system and we start seeing college athletics programs eliminated because they can't afford to pay $15/hr minimum wages (or higher, because they'll have to be competitive with other schools), bring workout facilities etc into OSHA compliance, pay employment and SS taxes, provide compliant workmans compensation, provide mandated Obamacare coverage for these employees and their families, and all the other associated costs that will come from making every athlete an employee--because the courts won't limit this to football players.



At that point, Congress will HAVE to become involved to save college athletics and define them as something other than employees, and that will be the lone opening to true reform of the FBS bowl system. They've intervened to "save" the NFL and the MLB, so it won't be without precedent, but it's a the slimmest of chances that the buck the big $$ of the schools/broadcasters/bowls who all have a vested interest in limited access to only a few schools.

mormonrasta wrote:
I love college football. I'm fine with the 4 team playoff. I don't want it to grow bigger than that. The current system challenges schools to do more than win a conference championship. It chastises teams like Baylor for playing sissy OOC schedule. I love that.



CFB is the only sport that doesn't allow mediocrity to compete in the postseason. In the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL you can essentially be a .500 team and make the playoffs. In the NCAA basketball tournament you can actually be terrible all year, have a great weekend and win your conference tournament, and play for a title. I like the structure the CFB to demand excellence from the teams that compete for their championships.



I really don't get the handwringing over athletes getting paid above and beyond their scholarship.



I don't want the universities paying athletes because most of them are already running a deficit funding their programs anyway. The universities give most athletes a pretty fair deal as it is. But if Taysom Hill wants to sign autographs at Ken Garff for $25 bucks a pop. Let him.

Your view of other 4 major sports playoff is off. In baseball 2 teams from the recently add wild card spot of won the World Series. NHL the kings did not win their conf still won it all. Just winning the conf does not always mean your getting the best to many factors play into that. 16 team playoff like fcs is the route to take. It's takes conf champs adds wild card teams based on the polls. That's the best former.

mormonrasta wrote:
I love college football. I'm fine with the 4 team playoff. I don't want it to grow bigger than that. The current system challenges schools to do more than win a conference championship. It chastises teams like Baylor for playing sissy OOC schedule. I love that.



CFB is the only sport that doesn't allow mediocrity to compete in the postseason. In the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL you can essentially be a .500 team and make the playoffs. In the NCAA basketball tournament you can actually be terrible all year, have a great weekend and win your conference tournament, and play for a title. I like the structure the CFB to demand excellence from the teams that compete for their championships.



I really don't get the handwringing over athletes getting paid above and beyond their scholarship.



I don't want the universities paying athletes because most of them are already running a deficit funding their programs anyway. The universities give most athletes a pretty fair deal as it is. But if Taysom Hill wants to sign autographs at Ken Garff for $25 bucks a pop. Let him.

It's a very slippery slope when you pay players and the waters get much more muddy with then what boosters do for players too. The NCAA basically told the SEC, "do what you want, we'll stay out of it." A thousand football players getting paid might lead to another thousand losing scholarships as fringe schools remove football or go to DII (scholarships are different in dII and naia)



It's going to be a "highest bidder" type of system with the deepest pockets winning some recruits and now it'll be legal and transparent .... but just as dirty in my honest opinion. It'll be just a matter of time before a program (say Boise for example) has a good year, their players aren't getting paid and they strike to make a a point...



I get that ESPN and the networks, some college programs make boatloads of money, but unless they can create a system that allows an even playing field, I'm not on board (and they can't because schools like Notre Dame and Texas don't want even playing fields)



As for signing autographs for money... why not promise a top recruit... hey if you sign with us, we'll do autograph signings for cash and we have 10,000 boosters lined up to pay top dollar for your autograph... dirty dirty dirty and the waters will get muddier and the NCAA will be inept to dole out discipline.



Keep in mind I've worked as a recruiter. I've seen the underbelly and it was dirty and disgusting 20 years ago; now the stakes are much higher with the TV contracts...



I'm slowing losing interest in college athletics now simply because I see the writing on the wall.

BYUBALLIN wrote:

I love college football. I'm fine with the 4 team playoff. I don't want it to grow bigger than that. The current system challenges schools to do more than win a conference championship. It chastises teams like Baylor for playing sissy OOC schedule. I love that.



CFB is the only sport that doesn't allow mediocrity to compete in the postseason. In the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL you can essentially be a .500 team and make the playoffs. In the NCAA basketball tournament you can actually be terrible all year, have a great weekend and win your conference tournament, and play for a title. I like the structure the CFB to demand excellence from the teams that compete for their championships.



I really don't get the handwringing over athletes getting paid above and beyond their scholarship.



I don't want the universities paying athletes because most of them are already running a deficit funding their programs anyway. The universities give most athletes a pretty fair deal as it is. But if Taysom Hill wants to sign autographs at Ken Garff for $25 bucks a pop. Let him.

Your view of other 4 major sports playoff is off. In baseball 2 teams from the recently add wild card spot of won the World Series. NHL the kings did not win their conf still won it all. Just winning the conf does not always mean your getting the best to many factors play into that. 16 team playoff like fcs is the route to take. It's takes conf champs adds wild card teams based on the polls. That's the best former.

You missed my point.



In almost every sport, mediocre teams are allowed to compete for a championship in their respective playoffs. Just because you can win a tournament doesn't mean you should play in it. That priveleged should be earned, and that tournament should consist of teams of similar caliber. The only exception to that is FBS football. You won't see a .500 or sub .500 team play for a title in FBS football.



I think it is unfair for teams that have proven to be excellent to have to trifle with teams that have proven to be mediocre. In my opinion, the playoffs should merely be an extension of the season and not a separate season altogether.



Every sport has devolved into "let's just make the playoffs and see what happens." You don't get that in college football. I like that and want to keep it that way.