What does a football playoff mean to the MAC?

[GP1]

Don’t wait around too long for a computer-based, four-team playoff. I think it’s obvious why the selection committee approach won out. It is merely a way to placate the Big 10, who no doubt feared getting left out of the playoff far too often under an unbiased selection procedure.

It's funny, after many years, the ncaa successfully made conference tournaments irrelevant for big time college basketball conferences. The 64 team field and the selection committee were huge helps.

Now, they are on the verge of makeing conference championship games irrrelevant for college football in a much shorter time period. It should be REQUIRED that a team win their conference to make any type of ncaa football playoff.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the time when the BCS schools have their own Division so we don't have to talk about selection committess or anything else related to how their champion is decided. Meaning will then be given to the season starting in late August and ending whenever they want it to end.

[GP1]

Part of the solution, IMO, would be to wait until week 5 or 6 before you start ranking teams.

I agree 100% on this point.

[Zips Win!]

It should be REQUIRED that a team win their conference to make any type of ncaa football playoff.

Again, disagree.

The second best SEC team will be better than a big ten champion team 8 out of 10 years.

Now, make every team play a real non-conference schedule and earn the right to the top 4, OK... Even if you are 3rd best in a confernce...(highly unlikely, I know)

The Medium Ten beating up on the MAC will automatically disqualify them from the playoffs.

What if......The Vest had to play real schedules.

[Zips Win!]

But wouldn't you agree that having a selection committee, as opposed to a predetermined point system, will increase the likelihood of subjectivity with who is chosen? And with a history of making choices based on a team's name and projected tickets sales, that can't be a good thing for a TCU or Boise, or any other team from a non-upper-echelon conference.

That's why a tosu team played in the championship game with a SOS in the 50's.

Play a real schedule and earn the spot.

[skip-zip]

Part of the solution, IMO, would be to wait until week 5 or 6 before you start ranking teams. This is only a start, but I have never been for BS preseason rankings. Teams start off too high that stay in the top 25 just because they were "originally" ranked. Some teams never make the top 25 because of the early over-ranked teams.

Wow. This is turning into a great discussion.

I love your comment I highlighted above. There's been no better example than the team two hours down south. They say they are "looking into" upgrading their schedule? BULL !! They know that in most years, people will rank them high enough in the preseason that they will have a relatively good chance of making a major bowl if they win 10 or 11 games. They simply have no incentive to elevate their SOS when the media pollsters typically write their ticket to a major bowl game befrore the season even starts.

Someone has already commented that the 4-team format may have been to appease the Big 10/11/12. I don't doubt that. They want someone from that conference to be in the mix for $$$ reasons. And right now, it's hard to get to the Top-2 from that conference because it's slipping in strength, and they continue to play MAC teams with the opportunities they have to upgrade their schedules.

[GP1]

Again, disagree.

The second best SEC team will be better than a big ten champion team 8 out of 10 years.

Now, make every team play a real non-conference schedule and earn the right to the top 4, OK... Even if you are 3rd best in a confernce...(highly unlikely, I know)

The Medium Ten beating up on the MAC will automatically disqualify them from the playoffs.

What if......The Vest had to play real schedules.

OOC schedules are terrible. The only way to have teams play real nonconference schedules is to rework how college football is organized. As long as BCS schools play in the same division as MAClike confernces, they will play those schools and call it "competition". It's competition like me playing the five year old next door in a game of basketball. I'll win every game, but he will try really hard to beat me in the process. I could give hime $5.00 per game and since he doesn't have a job he'll think he is rich since he has enough money to buy himself cookies for the week.

They can have computer schedules to calculate SOS...there will always be flaws. They can get the smartest minds in football to assign a four team playoff...there will always be flaws. I think you are alluding to this not really being about a playoff system but about what goes on from August through mid December. That's the real issue, not playoffs. If the ncaa could get rid of the bullcrap OOC schedules teams play by creating a national division where those schools are required to play each other every week, then the problem is solved and playoff teams are created as a result of the body of work they produced over a 12 week season on the field. Until that day happens, all of us can continue to throw out flawed ideas as to how to solve the problem and the Zips will head to Columbus every for year for cookie money.

[skip-zip]

Again, disagree.

The second best SEC team will be better than a big ten champion team 8 out of 10 years.

Now, make every team play a real non-conference schedule and earn the right to the top 4, OK... Even if you are 3rd best in a confernce...(highly unlikely, I know)

The Medium Ten beating up on the MAC will automatically disqualify them from the playoffs.

What if......The Vest had to play real schedules.

There's a reason for this. The SEC teams can have a very good SOS by the end of the season simply by playing their conference schedule. The Weak-10 teams don't have that luxury, yet they appear to have no interest in playing a strong OOC to make up the difference. OSWho in particular has clearly taken another path.....Just try to post a good win total and couple that with an already-bloated pre-season status. They found a shortcut, and appear to have no interest in proving they are good by beating top-notch teams.

Akron Soccer wanted to prove that they were the best a couple of years ago, and made a road trip to Wake Forest and UNC to start the season. That makes up for playing in a weak conference, and proves your worth.

[Spin]

There's a reason for this. The SEC teams can have a very good SOS by the end of the season simply by playing their conference schedule. The Weak-10 teams don't have that luxury, yet they appear to have no interest in playing a strong OOC to make up the difference. OSWho in particular has clearly taken another path.....Just try to post a good win total and couple that with an already-bloated pre-season status. They found a shortcut, and appear to have no interest in proving they are good by beating top-notch teams.

Akron Soccer wanted to prove that they were the best a couple of years ago, and made a road trip to Wake Forest and UNC to start the season. That makes up for playing in a weak conference, and proves your worth.

Your conference still has too much bearing on your eligibility for the playoffs, making SOS unfair.

Wisconsin could be stuck with a conference schedule of Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois (teams that couldn't win the MAC) and run the table, only to be shut out by a one loss Big 12 or SEC school. Who's to say they would have lost to those teams that beat the B12/SEC qualifier?

SOS is a bunch of crap, when schools have no control over 67% of their schedule.

[LZIp]

There's a reason for this. The SEC teams can have a very good SOS by the end of the season simply by playing their conference schedule. The Weak-10 teams don't have that luxury, yet they appear to have no interest in playing a strong OOC to make up the difference. OSWho in particular has clearly taken another path.....Just try to post a good win total and couple that with an already-bloated pre-season status. They found a shortcut, and appear to have no interest in proving they are good by beating top-notch teams.

Akron Soccer wanted to prove that they were the best a couple of years ago, and made a road trip to Wake Forest and UNC to start the season. That makes up for playing in a weak conference, and proves your worth.

I suggest that you watch some football. The SEC doesnt win anything because of superior SOS. They play their fair share of Georgia Southern's, Citadel's, etc.

Playing a couple of tough road games OCC in soccer doesnt make or break your season like it would in football. If OSU, Wisconsin, MIchigan would have went undefeated they would have went to the national championship. The scheduling is fine.

Not to mention OSU, a 3rd place B1G team, beat the #2 SEC team a few years ago in the Sugar Bowl

[skip-zip]

I suggest that you watch some football. The SEC doesnt win anything because of superior SOS. They play their fair share of Georgia Southern's, Citadel's, etc.

Playing a couple of tough road games OCC in soccer doesnt make or break your season like it would in football. If OSU, Wisconsin, MIchigan would have went undefeated they would have went to the national championship. The scheduling is fine.

Not to mention OSU, a 3rd place B1G team, beat the #2 SEC team a few years ago in the Sugar Bowl

I think you need to pay better attention, my friend.

As to the first highlighted point: Yes, the SEC plays some weak opponenents in their non-conference schedule too. But, they more than make up for it with the number of ranked teams that they play during their own conference schedule. The Big 10 can't do that, and apparently doesn't seem interested in adding non-conference games that could help their cause. That's why the SEC has won 6 straight titles, and can get two teams into a championship game at the same time.

As to the second highlighted point: Are you aware of OSWho's recent record agaisnt the SEC ?? The ONLY WIN they have against the SEC in their last dozen or so attempts is this Sugar Bowl game that you talk about, which later had to be vacated because of a scandal which involved cheating by playing ineligible players.

[LZIp]

I think you need to pay better attention, my friend.

As to the first highlighted point: Yes, the SEC plays some weak opponenents in their non-conference schedule too. But, they more than make up for it with the number of ranked teams that they play during their own conference schedule. The Big 10 can't do that, and apparently doesn't seem interested in adding non-conference games that could help their cause. That's why the SEC has won 6 straight titles, and can get two teams into a championship game at the same time.

As to the second highlighted point: Are you aware of OSWho's recent record agaisnt the SEC ?? The ONLY WIN they have against the SEC in their last dozen or so attempts is this Sugar Bowl game that you talk about, which later had to be vacated because of a scandal which involved cheating by playing ineligible players.

1st highlighted point: The Big 10 has numerous teams that are ranked throughout the year. They just beat up on each other. The B1G is more balanced instead of a top heavy league, like the SEC. If you beat Alabama (who Michigan plays next year, so much for not scheduling big time OOC's), and lose to MSU and OSU, that game is shown to be meaningless.It is what it is. Also, OSU has played Texas and USC in recent years OOC. They just finished a series with Miami who was supposed to be their big time OOC opponent. They cannot help that they flopped.

2nd highlighted point: The SEC is on a great run, I give the credit. However, two teams from the same conference being given the right, without a playoff, to play against each other in the NC game is a joke. Is it any coincidence that the system has been reformed the offseason after this happened?

3rd highlighted point: I am quite aware of OSU's all time record against SEC teams. .500 I believe in bowl games. Who cares if they self-vacated an exhibition game. Tattoos did not give them some competitive advantage in the game that they beat Arkansas.

[skip-zip]

1st highlighted point: The Big 10 has numerous teams that are ranked throughout the year. They just beat up on each other. The B1G is more balanced instead of a top heavy league, like the SEC. If you beat Alabama (who Michigan plays next year, so much for not scheduling big time OOC's), and lose to MSU and OSU, that game is shown to be meaningless.It is what it is. Also, OSU has played Texas and USC in recent years OOC. They just finished a series with Miami who was supposed to be their big time OOC opponent. They cannot help that they flopped.

2nd highlighted point: The SEC is on a great run, I give the credit. However, two teams from the same conference being given the right, without a playoff, to play against each other in the NC game is a joke. Is it any coincidence that the system has been reformed the offseason after this happened?

3rd highlighted point: I am quite aware of OSU's all time record against SEC teams. .500 I believe in bowl games. Who cares if they self-vacated an exhibition game. Tattoos did not give them some competitive advantage in the game that they beat Arkansas.

I don't know how this relates to the topic, but I'll respond anyway.

No, Tatoos didn't give them an advantage against Arkansas. Playing ineligible players, which is cheating, gave them an advantage. And it was the only win in their last dozen or so attempts.

You have a big, uphill climb trying to convince anyone of any remote Big 10 comparison to the SEC, or to try to justify any comparable strength in OSWho's schedule, or defend their record agaisnt the SEC. In OSWho last legitimate season, they had a #64 SOS. Throwing in Texas, USC, and Miami doesn't help much when the rest of your schedule is MAC teams and Big-10 Conference teams, especially when you go 2-4 in those games. You earn respect by playing good teams, and beating them. That's why the SEC has leaped so far ahead of conferences like the Big 10.

The MAC will be no different. The conference has to get better so the conference wins count. And significant wins need to come from the OOC too.

[Zips Win!]

There's a reason for this. The SEC teams can have a very good SOS by the end of the season simply by playing their conference schedule. The Weak-10 teams don't have that luxury, yet they appear to have no interest in playing a strong OOC to make up the difference. OSWho in particular has clearly taken another path.....Just try to post a good win total and couple that with an already-bloated pre-season status. They found a shortcut, and appear to have no interest in proving they are good by beating top-notch teams.

Akron Soccer wanted to prove that they were the best a couple of years ago, and made a road trip to Wake Forest and UNC to start the season. That makes up for playing in a weak conference, and proves your worth.

Agree completely.

The SEC's conference schedules will trump the weak medium-ten most years, even if the M10 plays quality non-conference games. And yes, the luckeyes have taken the path as you described. Therefore I like the new system with SOS as a main factor. THis should force many teams to schedule better and the regular season will be can't miss football.

Zips Win! and Mark May will be much happier campers...

[Zips Win!]

1st highlighted point: The Big 10 has numerous teams that are ranked throughout the year. They just beat up on each other. The B1G is more balanced instead of a top heavy league, like the SEC. If you beat Alabama (who Michigan plays next year, so much for not scheduling big time OOC's), and lose to MSU and OSU, that game is shown to be meaningless.It is what it is. Also, OSU has played Texas and USC in recent years OOC. They just finished a series with Miami who was supposed to be their big time OOC opponent. They cannot help that they flopped.

2nd highlighted point: The SEC is on a great run, I give the credit. However, two teams from the same conference being given the right, without a playoff, to play against each other in the NC game is a joke. Is it any coincidence that the system has been reformed the offseason after this happened?

3rd highlighted point: I am quite aware of OSU's all time record against SEC teams. .500 I believe in bowl games. Who cares if they self-vacated an exhibition game. Tattoos did not give them some competitive advantage in the game that they beat Arkansas.

You are clueless.

The M10 will have 5 teams in the top 25 after week 4 because they all beat up on the MAC. By seasons end they have one legit top 10 team, but it is really hard to tell how good they really are by playing IU, Minnesota and Purdue the last half of the year.

The luckeyes went 1 and 3 vs. USC and Texas....they learned their lesson and put the Zips back on the schedule.

Yes, the M10 is more balanced all right. They are more balanced with crappy teams. THe SEC would blow the M10 away...No contest...

If the four best teams come from the same conference, let them in.

The Arkansas game was meaningless....for everyone but the vest.

[Zips Win!]

OOC schedules are terrible. The only way to have teams play real nonconference schedules is to rework how college football is organized. As long as BCS schools play in the same division as MAClike confernces, they will play those schools and call it "competition". It's competition like me playing the five year old next door in a game of basketball. I'll win every game, but he will try really hard to beat me in the process. I could give hime $5.00 per game and since he doesn't have a job he'll think he is rich since he has enough money to buy himself cookies for the week.

They can have computer schedules to calculate SOS...there will always be flaws. They can get the smartest minds in football to assign a four team playoff...there will always be flaws. I think you are alluding to this not really being about a playoff system but about what goes on from August through mid December. That's the real issue, not playoffs. If the ncaa could get rid of the bullcrap OOC schedules teams play by creating a national division where those schools are required to play each other every week, then the problem is solved and playoff teams are created as a result of the body of work they produced over a 12 week season on the field. Until that day happens, all of us can continue to throw out flawed ideas as to how to solve the problem and the Zips will head to Columbus every for year for cookie money.

Finally, I agree.

Create a national division, play each other every week, play 6 home games and let the best team win.

[skip-zip]

You are clueless.

The M10 will have 5 teams in the top 25 after week 4 because they all beat up on the MAC. By seasons end they have one legit top 10 team, but it is really hard to tell how good they really are by playing IU, Minnesota and Purdue the last half of the year.

The luckeyes went 1 and 3 vs. USC and Texas....they learned their lesson and put the Zips back on the schedule.

Yes, the M10 is more balanced all right. They are more balanced with crappy teams. THe SEC would blow the M10 away...No contest...

If the four best teams come from the same conference, let them in.

The Arkansas game was meaningless....for everyone but the vest.

Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, and add in the two games against a very "down" Miami program, they were still 2-4 in those few games in which they actually did schedule decent opponents recently during the OOC portions of their schedule. And they are 1-5 in their last 6 games against Top-5 teams.

Sorry Suckeyes. Teams earn my respect by playing and beating top teams. And they've played very few top teams recently (by design), and they aren't beating them anyway.

[LZIp]

You are clueless.

The M10 will have 5 teams in the top 25 after week 4 because they all beat up on the MAC. By seasons end they have one legit top 10 team, but it is really hard to tell how good they really are by playing IU, Minnesota and Purdue the last half of the year.

The luckeyes went 1 and 3 vs. USC and Texas....they learned their lesson and put the Zips back on the schedule.

Yes, the M10 is more balanced all right. They are more balanced with crappy teams. THe SEC would blow the M10 away...No contest...

If the four best teams come from the same conference, let them in.

The Arkansas game was meaningless....for everyone but the vest.

Might want to take your hate blinders off. It's clear your dislike for OSU/B1G is clouding your vision to have a mature discussion.

"M10","Luckeyes"...try concentrating on making some valid points and less on corny, unoriginal nicknames.

[ZippyforPresident]

I'd say that a football playoff means essentially nothing to the MAC as things stand. Although, I suppose hypothetically if a MAC team were to have an out of conference schedule against whoever were the top four ranked teams that year and beat all of them and went undefeated the rest of the season, beating other MAC schools by dominant margins, it would be fair to say that they should be in the four team playoff.

I always thought it would be cool to structure a college football playoff system where each conference champion gets an automatic bid to the playoffs. For the sake of the hypothetical, let's say there were 10 FBS conferences, the champion of each conference automatically goes to the playoffs. The four lowest seeded teams would play in the first round and the remaining teams would have a first round "bye." The two winners would move on to the second round in a field of eight and eight to four and so on until a champion emerges.

- I think this is a preferable model because this makes things like pre-season rankings and selection committees of limited importance. The teams get to prove how good they are on the field. Arguments like "Wisconsin beat Oregon, who beat Texas, who beat LSU; therefore Wisconsin is better than LSU and should be in the national championship game" can be avoided.

- However, this model can still be structured to give the regular season games significance. It would be a lot like like the NFL playoff system in that teams would not only be playing to win their conferences so they can actually get to the playoffs, but they would also be playing for an upper seed so they can have a first round "bye." Also, other incentives like home field advantage or less travel for a road playoff game can be included so teams aspire to obtain the highest possible seed, not to mention the structure of a typical bracket which would put the highest seeded team against the lowest remaining seeded team and so on. So, if an 8th seeded Toledo beat top seeded LSU in the second round, no whining, no complaining about how LSU beat Alabama in the regular season, the teams settled it on the field, and if a hypothetical LSU is good enough to beat a hypothetical Alabama in the regular season, then they should have been good enough to beat a hypothetical Toledo in this hypothetical playoff system.

- There can also be bidding for sponsorships for each round of the playoffs, because each game in each round would keep the distinction of being one of the traditional bowl games (i.e., Nokia Sugar Bowl, Orange, Cotton, Rose bowl etc.) It's important to keep some element of tradition because fans enjoy it and are familiar with it.

- To me this is a far better model than things currently stand and better than a future four team playoff. Either way, bowl season would be far less watered down with meaningless bowl games and each game would be an elimination game which gives each game a great deal of urgency and importance. I think far more people would tune in to watch games that have actual meaning in terms of actually playing for a national championship. Plus it provides a chance for a "Cinderella" which many fans tune in to root for.

- This might not be a preferable model for some, depending on what side of the fence you stand on, but for "mid major" type "non automatic qualifier" BCS conferences this at least gives teams a spitting chance to play for a national championship, and there is not a fairer way to prove how good a team is than slugging it out on the field head to head.

[Spin]

I'd say that a football playoff means essentially nothing to the MAC as things stand. Although, I suppose hypothetically if a MAC team were to have an out of conference schedule against whoever were the top four ranked teams that year and beat all of them and went undefeated the rest of the season, beating other MAC schools by dominant margins, it would be fair to say that they should be in the four team playoff.

I always thought it would be cool to structure a college football playoff system where each conference champion gets an automatic bid to the playoffs. For the sake of the hypothetical, let's say there were 10 FBS conferences, the champion of each conference automatically goes to the playoffs. The four lowest seeded teams would play in the first round and the remaining teams would have a first round "bye." The two winners would move on to the second round in a field of eight and eight to four and so on until a champion emerges.

- I think this is a preferable model because this makes things like pre-season rankings and selection committees of limited importance. The teams get to prove how good they are on the field. Arguments like "Wisconsin beat Oregon, who beat Texas, who beat LSU; therefore Wisconsin is better than LSU and should be in the national championship game" can be avoided.

- However, this model can still be structured to give the regular season games significance. It would be a lot like like the NFL playoff system in that teams would not only be playing to win their conferences so they can actually get to the playoffs, but they would also be playing for an upper seed so they can have a first round "bye." Also, other incentives like home field advantage or less travel for a road playoff game can be included so teams aspire to obtain the highest possible seed, not to mention the structure of a typical bracket which would put the highest seeded team against the lowest remaining seeded team and so on. So, if an 8th seeded Toledo beat top seeded LSU in the second round, no whining, no complaining about how LSU beat Alabama in the regular season, the teams settled it on the field, and if a hypothetical LSU is good enough to beat a hypothetical Alabama in the regular season, then they should have been good enough to beat a hypothetical Toledo in this hypothetical playoff system.

- There can also be bidding for sponsorships for each round of the playoffs, because each game in each round would keep the distinction of being one of the traditional bowl games (i.e., Nokia Sugar Bowl, Orange, Cotton, Rose bowl etc.) It's important to keep some element of tradition because fans enjoy it and are familiar with it.

- To me this is a far better model than things currently stand and better than a future four team playoff. Either way, bowl season would be far less watered down with meaningless bowl games and each game would be an elimination game which gives each game a great deal of urgency and importance. I think far more people would tune in to watch games that have actual meaning in terms of actually playing for a national championship. Plus it provides a chance for a "Cinderella" which many fans tune in to root for.

- This might not be a preferable model for some, depending on what side of the fence you stand on, but for "mid major" type "non automatic qualifier" BCS conferences this at least gives teams a spitting chance to play for a national championship, and there is not a fairer way to prove how good a team is than slugging it out on the field head to head.

That makes a LOT of sense. The regular season and the conference championships are highly important, and nobody can complain about being subbed. You win, you're in.

But, the big time conferences would never go for it. Only one team per conference can get in, and if you ask the SEC, they think their top four should be in. And it would make the non-conference games meaningless, no more top ten schools butting heads creating excitement.

[ZippyforPresident]

That makes a LOT of sense. The regular season and the conference championships are highly important, and nobody can complain about being subbed. You win, you're in.

But, the big time conferences would never go for it. Only one team per conference can get in, and if you ask the SEC, they think their top four should be in. And it would make the non-conference games meaningless, no more top ten schools butting heads creating excitement.

The non conference schedule would still impact a team's seeding in the playoff picture, this is the limited impact that strength of schedule would have. It wouldn't determine everything, but it would still give teams motivation to prove that they are the best so they can have a path of least resistance in the playoffs. Plus there would be less of a negative factor in scheduling tough teams out of conference. Wisconsin and LSU can match up out of conference and whoever wins might end up with a higher seed in the playoff bracket if they win their conference, but we all know that if either one loses out of conference it doesn't eliminate them from the playoffs and the national championship. (i.e., they both have everything to gain out of conference and nothing to lose).

- As far as the automatic qualifier conferences not going for an idea like this, you're spot on. What exists now is basically something equivalent to the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" discrimination. Sure the rules don' t say that a MAC team can never play for a national championship, but we all know that the governing body and framework that exists will never let it happen. There has to be a massive overhaul of the ridiculous structure that the BCS has put before us in order for a "non automatic qualifier" team or conference to have any sort of chance at a national championship.

-There really are two options: Either the five non automatic qualifier conferences create their own championship, kind of like what GP1 has asserted I believe, or the entire FBS gets restructured to provide a fair playoff system for the teams in all 11 BCS conferences. My personal preference is that UA, The MAC, and all non automatic qualifier conferences are given a legitimate chance to compete for the highest trophy in college football. However, the institutions that grab all of the money want none of that and those schools with the money end up making the rules.

- Well, the rebel in me says I don't want to follow those rules and I still send my support to UA and hope that one day the BS structure gets totally overhauled somehow for the betterment of ALL FBS conferences. I suppose I'm more of a glass half full kind of person as far as this is concerned.

[K92]

If every conference champ made the playoffs, would we see expansion in reverse with second tier teams in power conferences looking to join mid-major leagues for a better shot at the post season?

[skip-zip]

Might want to take your hate blinders off. It's clear your dislike for OSU/B1G is clouding your vision to have a mature discussion.

"M10","Luckeyes"...try concentrating on making some valid points and less on corny, unoriginal nicknames.

Typical. You state records and facts with Suckeye fans, they get defensive, and claim "hatred".

Schedule better teams, and beat them, and you take away our ammunition to criticize, right?

By the way, you may get some sympathy on this matter by presenting your case on THEIR fan board.

[K92]

Group A takes off the "hate blinders".

Group B pull their heads out of Brutus' ass.

I'd say the odds are pretty even.

[GP1]

Yes, the M10 is more balanced all right. They are more balanced with crappy teams. THe SEC would blow the M10 away...No contest...

If the four best teams come from the same conference, let them in.

This goes to the point of creating a national division. Here is how we would know the Big Ten is average at best. If they created a national division and split up the teams in a way the conferences were split. Put tosu in a division with Alabama, LSU and a couple of top teams from other conferences and the would cry like children about "maintaining traditional rivalries". tosu can't compete against an average team like Miami...they would get killed in a national division. The Big Ten is closer to the ACC than the SEC.

[RACER]

so the sec has never payed players,or any kind of cheating at all? you take every team that has won a national championship, and will find some kind of cheating going.you just don't hear about it until after these guys are in the pro's a few years.m.irvin,reggie bush,dieon sanders,chris carter ,ect.like cam newton was perfectly clean.if you don't think all the top teams don't cheat you nut's.that's how they get to be top teams.