MACTION my Butt...

[zippy5]

I'd rather focus on the now. What does it mean today? Today, it will mean nothing because there is a committee in charge of who makes the playoffs. Thanks to NIU's performance two years ago, I doubt going undefeated will mean much today for a MAC-like conference school.

I would think an undefeated season would result in a "BCS" bowl (what are those even called now?) but not an entry in the playoff. It would take a couple Boise/NIU-like seasons to get into the playoffs.

[GP1]

I would think an undefeated season would result in a "BCS" bowl (what are those even called now?) but not an entry in the playoff. It would take a couple Boise/NIU-like seasons to get into the playoffs.

Those bowls are now called "The Also Rans". There is no more BCS.

If by a couple of NIU/Boise seasons you mean 20 in a row, I would agree. The selection committee will NEVER allow a team from outside of the "power conferences" to make the playoffs.

[ZippyRulz]

"Our charge is simple," Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long, who will chair the committee, told USA Today. "Determine the best teams in college football and seed them to play each other."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/09/college_football_playoff_selec_1.html

[GJGood]

An undefeated Group of Five team (AAC, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, MWC) can certainly make a major bowl but just like before it is not guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that one team from those five conferences will be playing in a major bowl.

This year the Rose and Sugar Bowls serve as part of the playoff so a Group of Five team will be in one of the Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, or Peach Bowls. This team, as far as I know though, has to be the highest ranked conference champion of the Group of Five conferences. So if a 10-2 Group of Five Champ, lets say UCF, is ranked #16 and an undefeated MAC squad is ranked #17 then UCF goes to the big bowl. Technically, the committee could put the undefeated MAC school in a major bowl as an at-large but one would have to doubt that they'd ever pick them over a second place power conference team.

[GJGood]

Those bowls are now called "The Also Rans". There is no more BCS.

If by a couple of NIU/Boise seasons you mean 20 in a row, I would agree. The selection committee will NEVER allow a team from outside of the "power conferences" to make the playoffs.

At least not with the four team playoff format. I could see it if it ever expanded to eight or ten teams. I just don't understand why they don't just take the ten conference champions and have them in a playoff (well I do, but using logic I don't). After all weren't all the playoff proponents clamouring for it to be "decided on the field"? Conference championships are determined on the field, but a participant selection committee is certainly not on the field.

[GP1]

I just don't understand why they don't just take the ten conference champions and have them in a playoff (well I do, but using logic I don't). Actually, logic tells us that it is impossible for a group of humans to ever agree upon who the four or ten or even 25 best teams are. Deciding who the ten best teams are by selecting conference champions also assumes all ten conferences are equal. They aren't equal. There is no way to use logic to pick the playoff teams.

After all weren't all the playoff proponents clamouring for it to be "decided on the field"? I'm not so sure the members of the NCAA want it to be decided as much on the field as they do at the cash register. Let's not kid ourselves. This playoff is a money grab and not a method of finding out who the best team is.

[GJGood]

I totally agree on the cash register thing. That is obvious and is a large part of the reason for a playoff and a selection committee in the first place.

On the conference champion thing, though, I think we all know that all conferences are not equal. I don't know that I really believe in the concept of there being one truly best team. Winners on the football field at the FBS level are really determined by specific matchups and adjustments to styles of play and coaching abilities in addition to the athleticism and talent on the field.

I just think it makes sense that conference winners should be rewarded with moving on to a playoff. Isn't that the way its done in almost every other sport as well as in college football at the other levels?

I also believe that one of the huge keys to closing the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in the FBS is simply inclusion and realistic access to the big rewards. I honestly believe that if recruits saw that every conference champion would get into a playoff for the mythical national championship that it would have a substantial positive effect on recruiting at the non-power conference schools which in turn could lead to much more gridiron success.

Change takes time. Sure in an all conference champion playoff the non-traditional conferences would take some serious lumps at first, there is no denying that. It could be downright ugly at the onset. I just suspect that if you gave it time those lumps would start to equal out somewhat and that the smaller programs of today would genuinely close a lot of the gap in financial resources and football talent. I'm not saying everybody would be at the top of the mountain, just that the mountain could feature much less homogeny and be much more diverse. To me it only makes sense that every team should be able to see a path to winning the grand prize if they win every contest.

[GP1]

I also believe that one of the huge keys to closing the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in the FBS is simply inclusion and realistic access to the big rewards. I honestly believe that if recruits saw that every conference champion would get into a playoff for the mythical national championship that it would have a substantial positive effect on recruiting at the non-power conference schools which in turn could lead to much more gridiron success.

It's not that simple. Recruits go to schools for any number of reasons.

Your reasoning ignores the ongoing and ever more creative ways the non-BCS conferences link the similarities between the way they manage their conferences and shooting yourself in the foot. Tuesday and Wednesday night football for example. The BCS conferences aren't forcing the MAClike conferences to enter into these horrible agreements with ESPN. We enter into it willingly and celebrate it at the conference management level. We get empty stadiums in November on a weeknight....ESPN gets three hours of air time filled up...ADs and commissioners get good looking lines for their resumes...recruits get to see our empty stadiums and add one more reason to not go to a MAC school.

Money isn't going to prevent stupid decision making. We have met the enemy and we are us.

[GJGood]

OK, fair enough. There are numerous problems to be sure and I know its not as simple as I laid it out but I still think playoff access would be a critical and positive step forward.

I agree the attendance issue is a terrible problem and that weeknights over weekends definitely contributes to that, as does a 'losing culture' and the perception of irrelevance in the national picture. There has to be a way to get more people to attend even if it doesn't fill the stadium to at least give it some more atmosphere and a somewhat of a crowd appearance. I know that is an often discussed topic on this forum and I won't go into it more here as I am no marketing guru but hopefully ways can be found to improve that aspect of the Akron program and the Mid-American Conference as a whole.