Writers want a rematch, Coaches do not.

Incorrect on the exception. After Syracuse wound up not joining, the ACC asked if they could do a title game as an eleven team league and was shot down. After that, they went and got BC to make it happen.

 

Only two teams would play 16 games. Four would play 15, eight would play 14 and 16 would play 13 (more if bowls are still there). And that's if you keep the 12-game schedule, which is why I suggested scaling it back to 11 games.

Look, football players might miss Friday classes six times during the season to travel to a game. The rest of the time, they practice on campus and play on campus. Bowls more often than not are during winter breaks, which is where the 16-team tournament would be.

 

Yeah, those 16-team playoffs in I-AA, Division II and III sure are distracting to the poor students......

 

That wasn't very nice of you Oz. You know that reason and fact are somethig that are foreign language to Michigan fanboy.

 

As a Notre Dame fan, someone owes me one for 1993. No. 2 ND beats No. 1 Florida State, then loses to No. 16 (?) Boston College on a last-second field goal. Florida State beats Florida, then beats the new No. 1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. ND beats Texas A&M in the Cotton.

Florida State gets the title. ND hasn't won a bowl game since.

While the fanboy in me will argue that ND played Michigan at the wrong time (third big game in three weeks to start the season, one of those games that started out wrong from the beginning and just never went right, believe that a rematch will go the other way, refs have anti-catholic bias, chad henne's one "decent" game in his career just happened to come against ND), there is no logical way that any Notre Dame fan can say the Irish deserve a spot over Michigan.

Also, does a playoff really solve anything? Were the A's better than the Cardinals? Maybe. But that's not how it worked out. This is the system that we are stuck with because the university presidents don't want to share their cash cow with the NCAA.

 

Domer, you better get used to being held to a different standartd. Nobody cares what happened to you one year versus another. That stuff goes out the window. Each year is based on its own merrit.

Fact of the matter is, Michigan does not deserve a shot at OSU again. (In fact, you guys deserve one first because you haven't had a shot at them.) I'd rather see Boise State.

I'm still waiting for a LOGICAL explanation as to why a #2 only has to beat a #1 once out of two to end a season, yet the #1 has to beat the #2 twice to win the National Championship title.

 

Because it's not right to judge a loss to a No. 1 team harsher than a loss to a lower-ranked or, in USC's case, unranked team. In your eyes, Michigan would be more deserving of a shot at the national title if it lost to Illinois or Central Michigan.

 

Classy post.

Michigan has a say in that, too. But apparently it's Notre Dame or bust for the Big 10. They could have easily picked up any other team -- Pitt would make sense for Penn State -- by now to complete the expansion. But they didn't.

So again, yes, it's partly Michigan's fault. They're fine with how they are now.

 

Here's how you solve it -- or what I would do if I were college football czar

Eliminate the 12th regular season game and the conference championship games.
Take the top eight teams at the end of the season. Those teams are selected on the basis of several factors -- won-loss records, computer rankings, rankings in the polls. And I mean, take the top eight -- if the SEC or Big 10 is tough one year, and they deserve three, give 'em three. If the ACC blows one year, don't give 'em any.
Rotate the championship game between the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls. Make the Cotton, Gator and Capitol One the remaining play off games. As far as the other bowls, they can exist as post-season games for teams outside the top 8 -- the competition of some of those bowls could even be better because they would get the bubble teams. People would watch Penn State play Louisville in the Outback Bowl -- especially if it were a warm-up for Florida-Notre Dame.

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with a conference expanding solely for the purpose of adding a championship game? The Big 10 has always been fairly conservative about expansion, well before the conference title game and BCS system came into being.

If Pitt hasn't fit the Big 10's profile before, why would it now?

 

I would have no problem with them expanding, if that's what they want to do -- like it really matters to me what they do here in Big 12 country. I figure conferences know what works for them, and no one should tell them what to do.

The above post was merely pointing out that the Big 10 could expand, if it wants to. But they don't, and that's fine. Just don't whine about the lack of a conference title game hurting your team. Big 10 fans ought to know the deal by now.

 

Fine. Just as soon as Paul Hornung gives back the Heisman he won that should have gone to Johnny Majors, and just as soon as ND gives back the national title it tied for won in 1966, we'll get back to you.