Facelift in Order For College Football

Imagine this -- college football schedules and rankings that make sense. Yeah, right. Like that'll ever happen. That ranks right up there on the probability scale along with the Pacific Ocean going dry or Mount Everest falling flat.

Okay, maybe it's not that improbable, but under the current system, there's no real rhyme or reason to any of it. What college football needs is a complete overhaul of how it's structured, from the conference alignments to how the schedules are made up to determining a playoff system.

The first thing that needs to be done is to split Division 1-A football. Say goodbye to the so-called "mid-majors" that have been the bane of college football analysts and officials everywhere. See ya, Mid-American Conference; so long Sun Belt Conference; adios independents. Hello, Division 1-B!

Now this is obviously bound to generate some controversy. Who goes, who stays? Does the MAC go intact with up-and-coming powers like Marshall and Northern Illinois dropping down for the sake of conference continuity and tradition? Or do you let those teams stay up and bump someone else down?

For this argument, the MAC goes down as a whole. The entirety of the Sun Belt goes, along with some recent 1-AA call-ups, namely South Florida, Louisiana Tech, UAB, UConn, and Troy. With a complete restructuring of most of the conferences, a handful of others also get the boot.

In order to create a more perfect union, some other teams get shifted to other conferences to create a wonderfully symmetrical 88-team "association." Eight conferences, 11 teams each. This setup allows for more balanced scheduling and the structure for a playoff format.

Some of the conference shifts include Boise State into the Pac-10, Baylor out of the Big 12, and Arkansas out of the SEC. The Big East dissolves and what's left now (including Boston College) join a revamped Conference USA (Memphis, Louisville, Southern Miss, and Cincinnati). East Carolina drops down to make room for Notre Dame. That's right, Irish Nation, it's time to join the rest of the college football world and be a "team" player. (The opinion expressed in the preceding comment is solely that of the author, even though he knows many other fans that share the same opinion.)

The WAC, already losing Boise State, sends Fresno State, Hawaii, and San Jose State to the Mountain West Conference, and picks up Cincinnati, Tulane, TCU, Houston, Baylor, and Arkansas. Sorry, Navy; you're heading down with Army to keep the rivalry going because, under the new scheduling system, there would be no more "crossover" scheduling. No more padding the schedule with non-conference patsies, as Auburn has this year. Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech don't exactly send shivers down the spine when thinking of a tough schedule.

Here is where the NCAA gets the authority its always wanted when it comes to scheduling. They tried once in the past to force teams to shore up their schedules by requiring six "Division 1-A" wins for bowl eligibility. This system, though, lets the "association" do the scheduling according to formula, just like the NFL.

Since each conference would consist of 11 teams, every school would play each other in their own conference, providing for 10 games of a 12-game schedule. The other two games would be filled with a school of the same "ranking" from two different conferences that rotate each year.

For instance, USC would play every team in the Pac-10 and, since they won the conference title last year, the champs from two different conferences. In this example, let's say it's the Big 10 and SEC champs (Michigan and LSU). Now that's what I call a schedule worthy of a defending national champ. Conversely, a weaker team like Stanford (ninth in the Pac-10 in 2003) would play Indiana and Kentucky or Vanderbilt. The next year, as an example, Pac-10 schools would tangle with ACC and Mountain West schools.

Yes, that would mean an end to some deeply rooted intersectional rivalries like USC/Notre Dame and Florida/Florida State, but we all eventually got over Pitt/Penn State and Arkansas/Texas going by the wayside many years ago, too.

So there it is. The perfect setup for a 16-team playoff system. Eight conference champions, eight at-large spots. Seedings would be determined by a ranking system that would take into consideration strength of schedule, record against "ranked" opponents and a modified margin of victory factor. Or, if the NCAA doesn't want to put all that work in itself, most if it has already been done.

There are currently 91 computer rankings/polls (including the AP, Coaches', and BCS polls) that people have put together, and the average of those could be what the NCAA uses to determine playoff seedings. As of right now, using the alignments described above, the eight conference champs would be Miami, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, West Virginia, USC, Auburn, UTEP (thanks to Boise State switching conferences), and Utah. The rest would end up being Florida State, Michigan, Texas, Texas A&M, Cal, Arizona State, Georgia, and Tennessee, according to the "mean" computer rankings. Boise State fans might have a different definition of "mean" than how it's used here.

The conference champions get the top eight seeds in the order of their mean ranking: USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and UTEP. Their opponents are the remaining eight teams in reverse order: Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, Cal, Arizona State, and Florida State. Let your imagination do the rest.

What about the other 76 teams not in the playoffs? This is where the bowls come in. Cut the bowls back to about a dozen-and-a-half or so and make bowl eligibility eight wins instead of six. A team that can only manage to win half its games doesn't deserve to play after the season.

This would be my perfect world in college football. Whether I'll ever realize it is out of my hands. But there's no harm in dreaming because, sometimes, dreams do come true.