Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

11 Auto Bids *
9 At Large teams

#1 SEC* Alabama 12-1 vs (16 Big East* Louisville 10-2 vs 17 WAC* Utah State 10-2)


8 AT LARGE 5 LSU 10-2 vs 9 AT LARGE 6- Oklahoma 10-2


#5 Big 12* Kansas State 11-1 vs 12 AT LARGE 8 South Carolina 10-2


#4 AT LARGE 3 Oregon 11-1 vs (13 Mid-American* Northern Illinois 12-1 vs 20 Sunbelt* Arkansas State 9-3)


#3 AT LARGE 2 Florida 11-1 vs (14 AT LARGE 9 Nebraska 10-3 vs 19 Conference USA* Tulsa 10-3)


6 Pac 12* Stanford 11-2 vs 11 AT LARGE 7 Texas A&M 10-2


7 AT LARGE 4 Georgia 11-2 vs 10 ACC* Florida State 11-2


#2 AT LARGE 1 Notre Dame 12-0 vs (15 Mountain West* Boise State 10-2 vs 18 Big Ten* Wisconsin 8-5)

What's going on here? You have some goofy numbers....

sorry had everyone ranked 1-20 and had at large teams listed from 1-9. Did some copy and paste with the list I came up with

#1 SEC* Alabama 12-1 vs (Big East* Louisville 10-2 vs WAC* Utah State 10-2)


LSU 10-2 vs Oklahoma 10-2


#5 Big 12* Kansas State 11-1 vs South Carolina 10-2


#4 Oregon 11-1 vs (Mid-American* Northern Illinois 12-1 vs Sunbelt* Arkansas State 9-3)


#3 Florida 11-1 vs (Nebraska 10-3 vs Conference USA* Tulsa 10-3)


Pac 12* Stanford 11-2 vs Texas A&M 10-2


Georgia 11-2 vs ACC* Florida State 11-2


#2 Notre Dame 12-0 vs (Mountain West* Boise State 10-2 vs Big Ten* Wisconsin 8-5)

Even with that formatting error, this is a pretty good scenario.

I'd tackle your board like this (yes, I fully admit being crazy):

Louisville d. USU
NIU d. AR St
Nebraska d. Tulsa
Boise St d. Wisconsin

AL d. Louisville
LSU d. Oklahoma
K-State d. S Carolina
OR d. NIU
FL d. Nebraska
Stanford d. TX A&M
GA d. FSU
Boise St d. Notre Dame

AL d. LSU
OR d. K-St
Stanford d. FL
Boise St d. GA (again)

OR d. AL
Boise St d. Stanford

Boise St d. OR

I don't like the BCS and I think that the way its run is a sham. Since the WAC is dropping football after this season, my perfect model would include all 10 conference championship winners in a 10 seeded tournament. Based on the BCS standings, the seedings would be:

1. Alabama
2. Kansas State
3. Stanford
4. Florida State
5. Northern Illinois
6. Boise State
7. Louisville
8. Tulsa
9. Arkansas State
10. Wisconsin

Note that Wisconsin is at the bottom because of their five losses and Tulsa and Arkansas State had 10 and 9 win season. And Notre Dame is NOT listed because they did not win a conference, so per my set up they would not be included.

The match ups.

1# Alabama and #2 Kansas State get first round byes.

#6 Boise State @ #3 Stanford
#5 NIU @ #4 Florida State
#9 Arkansas State @ #8 Tulsa
#10 Wisconsin a@ #7 Louisville

Fair and no conference left behind. Just as it should be. If they want to expand in the future great, but ALL ten conference winners should be included. PERIOD.

I'm not sure who is more foolish, SH picking Boise State to run the table, or GB leaving out Notre Dame for the likes of Tulsa and Arkansas State.

GoldenBobcat wrote:I don't like the BCS and I think that the way its run is a sham. Since the WAC is dropping football after this season, my perfect model would include all 10 conference championship winners in a 10 seeded tournament. Based on the BCS standings, the seedings would be:

1. Alabama
2. Kansas State
3. Stanford
4. Florida State
5. Northern Illinois
6. Boise State
7. Louisville
8. Tulsa
9. Arkansas State
10. Wisconsin

Note that Wisconsin is at the bottom because of their five losses and Tulsa and Arkansas State had 10 and 9 win season. And Notre Dame is NOT listed because they did not win a conference, so per my set up they would not be included.

The match ups.

1# Alabama and #2 Kansas State get first round byes.

#6 Boise State @ #3 Stanford
#5 NIU @ #4 Florida State
#9 Arkansas State @ #8 Tulsa
#10 Wisconsin a@ #7 Louisville

Fair and no conference left behind. Just as it should be. If they want to expand in the future great, but ALL ten conference winners should be included. PERIOD.

No at larges makes absolutely zero sense.

You're essentially saying the winner of the MAC or Sun Belt is more entitled than the 2nd place Pac-12 or SEC team, not to mention Notre Dame that went undefeated.

I know it's fantasy, but we can at least be realistic and not crazy.

That goes for you and your Boise State pick, SH.

Did I not admit that it was crazy, guys? I'm banking on the fact that Boise has a history of making noise in big games, but at least I admit that it's a bit "out there," as opposed to the "no at-large" model, which is foisted on us as "fair and balanced".

SuperHornet wrote:Did I not admit that it was crazy, guys? I'm banking on the fact that Boise has a history of making noise in big games, but at least I admit that it's a bit "out there," as opposed to the "no at-large" model, which is foisted on us as "fair and balanced".

Did you watch ANY of the Nebraska-Wisconsin game Saturday night? Wisconsin might score 100 on Boise.

The Kicker wrote:#4 AT LARGE 3 Oregon 11-1 vs (13 Mid-American* Northern Illinois 12-1 vs 20 Sunbelt* Arkansas State 9-3)

Not exactly fair that the #3 seed gets the winner of this shit contest while #1 and #2 get Louisville and Wisconsin.

AZGrizFan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Did I not admit that it was crazy, guys? I'm banking on the fact that Boise has a history of making noise in big games, but at least I admit that it's a bit "out there," as opposed to the "no at-large" model, which is foisted on us as "fair and balanced".

Did you watch ANY of the Nebraska-Wisconsin game Saturday night? Wisconsin might score 100 on Boise.

Meh. They said the same thing about Oklahoma....

SuperHornet wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Did you watch ANY of the Nebraska-Wisconsin game Saturday night? Wisconsin might score 100 on Boise.

Meh. They said the same thing about Oklahoma....

That Boise State team was a lot better than this year's Boise State team.

BisoNation wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Meh. They said the same thing about Oklahoma....

That Boise State team was a lot better than this year's Boise State team.

Yeah, just a tad.

Let's be real...this is a stupid idea anyway. 16 teams would be better (if we had to go that far). The farthest I'm willing to go on a FBS playoff would be 6 teams. I think on average, there are only 6 truly championship-worthy teams on an annual basis, max. Some years, there are even less

rkwittem wrote:Let's be real...this is a stupid idea anyway. 16 teams would be better (if we had to go that far). The farthest I'm willing to go on a FBS playoff would be 6 teams. I think on average, there are only 6 truly championship-worthy teams on an annual basis, max. Some years, there are even less

I'd be fine with 8. Much easier to manage, anyways.

This year:

Alabama (SEC)
Stanford (Pac 12)
Kansas State (Big 12)
Wisconsin (Big 10)
Florida State (ACC)
Notre Dame (at large)
Oregon (at large)
Georgia (at large)

That still leaves out Ohio State (12-0 but ineligible), Clemson (10-2), Oklahoma (10-2), Louisville (10-2), Nebraska (10-3), Tulsa (10-3), Boise (10-2), Kent State (11-2), Northern Illinois (12-1), South Carolina (10-2), LSU (10-2), Texas A&M (10-2), Utah State (10-2) and San Jose State (10-2).

That's a LOT of 10+ win teams sitting on the sidelines.

AZGrizFan wrote:

rkwittem wrote:Let's be real...this is a stupid idea anyway. 16 teams would be better (if we had to go that far). The farthest I'm willing to go on a FBS playoff would be 6 teams. I think on average, there are only 6 truly championship-worthy teams on an annual basis, max. Some years, there are even less

I'd be fine with 8. Much easier to manage, anyways.

This year:

Alabama (SEC)
Stanford (Pac 12)
Kansas State (Big 12)
Wisconsin (Big 10)
Florida State (ACC)
Notre Dame (at large)
Oregon (at large)
Georgia (at large)

That still leaves out Ohio State (12-0 but ineligible), Clemson (10-2), Oklahoma (10-2), Louisville (10-2), Nebraska (10-3), Tulsa (10-3), Boise (10-2), Kent State (11-2), Northern Illinois (12-1), South Carolina (10-2), LSU (10-2), Texas A&M (10-2), Utah State (10-2) and San Jose State (10-2).

That's a LOT of 10+ win teams sitting on the sidelines.

The bowl system is corrupt, but I don't have to tell you fellas that. Clemson can $4M at their bowl, but after expenses, the conferences cut there is hardly or no money left over for the program.

AZGrizFan wrote:

rkwittem wrote:Let's be real...this is a stupid idea anyway. 16 teams would be better (if we had to go that far). The farthest I'm willing to go on a FBS playoff would be 6 teams. I think on average, there are only 6 truly championship-worthy teams on an annual basis, max. Some years, there are even less

I'd be fine with 8. Much easier to manage, anyways.

This year:

Alabama (SEC)
Stanford (Pac 12)
Kansas State (Big 12)
Wisconsin (Big 10)
Florida State (ACC)
Notre Dame (at large)
Oregon (at large)
Georgia (at large)

That still leaves out Ohio State (12-0 but ineligible), Clemson (10-2), Oklahoma (10-2), Louisville (10-2), Nebraska (10-3), Tulsa (10-3), Boise (10-2), Kent State (11-2), Northern Illinois (12-1), South Carolina (10-2), LSU (10-2), Texas A&M (10-2), Utah State (10-2) and San Jose State (10-2).

That's a LOT of 10+ win teams sitting on the sidelines.

Always leave them wanting more. I'm OK with 8.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'd be fine with 8. Much easier to manage, anyways.

This year:

Alabama (SEC)
Stanford (Pac 12)
Kansas State (Big 12)
Wisconsin (Big 10)
Florida State (ACC)
Notre Dame (at large)
Oregon (at large)
Georgia (at large)

That still leaves out Ohio State (12-0 but ineligible), Clemson (10-2), Oklahoma (10-2), Louisville (10-2), Nebraska (10-3), Tulsa (10-3), Boise (10-2), Kent State (11-2), Northern Illinois (12-1), South Carolina (10-2), LSU (10-2), Texas A&M (10-2), Utah State (10-2) and San Jose State (10-2).

That's a LOT of 10+ win teams sitting on the sidelines.

Always leave them wanting more. I'm OK with 8.

Agreed. That way the argument is for the three at-large spots and not for the top 5 conference winners.