SEC, ACC, Big 12 ...Get Rid of Your Playoffs

In the not so distant past, the Conference champions in football were determined the old-fashioned way …on the field.  Meaning that members of a conference played the other teams in said conference.

No byes.  No divisions within the conference.  Just play all the other members, and let the top dog be the champion.

But back in the 1990's, in response to conference expansion and the fact that the schedule was 11 games, the SEC, ACC and newly formed Big 12 all petitioned the NCAA for the right to have a championship game, and split themselves into two divisions.  The Big Ten, after adding Penn State, started a rotating bye in their schedule.

Thus, not all teams face each other within conferences, and some will arguably face stronger conference schedules than others.  In the past season, for example, LSU had to play both Alabama and Florida in the regular season.  

The Gators and the Tide did not, however, have a regular season match up scheduled against each other, resulting in a much harder regular season schedule for LSU. 

Similarly, in the Big Ten having a bye versus Penn State or Ohio State would certainly be preferable to a bye over, say, Indiana.

Times have changed however.  The NCAA football schedule is now 12 games .  This means that the original rationale to split into two divisions and have a championship game is no longer valid. 

You can play the other 11 teams in your division, and still schedule an out of conference game.

I propose that the conferences should do this; play ALL of the other teams in your conference.  Get rid of the playoff games and, in the Big Ten, the floating byes.

What would be the positive benefits to this?

Greatly increase the quality of regular season games.

Playing conference opponents is certainly more desirable from a fan and ticket buyer perspective than watching Big State U. stomp on the North Texas States of the world.  The out of conference scheduling for many of the BCS conference teams is, as currently structured, a joke. 

Defenders of such say “well, the Texas and Florida’s have no incentive to schedule quality out of conference competition because of the way the system works.”

Fine.  I agree.  So just play the people in your conference.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see LSU play their SEC East division foes every year, and like wise for the various teams in the Big 12 and ACC?  Wouldn’t it be cool to see old rivalries, like Nebraska versus Oklahoma, again?

Equalize schedules within the conferences.  

Currently, a team can have a stronger or weaker conference schedule via “luck of the draw.”

Determine a conference championship on the field during the regular season.

This would reduce the chance for injuries from the additional game, and determine a champion in regular season conditions.

Eliminate “homer’ schedules, which are an unfair advantage.  

By loading up on cupcakes, many BCS schools are insuring not only that they play inferior competition, but also have 7 or 8 home games. 

This is inherently unfair, and also a bit of a rip off of their season ticket holder fan base (Wanna see us play the good games?  Then you'll have to fork over some dough to watch us stomp on Chattanooga).

Would traditional non conference rivalries, such as Florida versus Florida State, Notre Dame versus Purdue, etc., still be possible?

Yep. With 12 games, the SEC, ACC and Big 12 would still have one OOC game, and the Big Ten two.

In the SEC, for example, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky and Georgia would continue their rivalries against Florida State, Clemson, Louisville and Georgia Tech, while the other eight schools would be free to schedule an at large opponent. 

(Florida has not left the state since prehistoric times for an out of conference game anyways.)

It worked just fine before.  

Back when the schedule was 11 games, leagues such as the Big Ten did not need a bye.  Then they added Penn State and the bye.  Then they added a 12th game…but kept the bye.  Huh.  Why?

With 12 games, the Big 12, SEC and ACC can play their entire league again.  So what's the problem?

About the only real argument I can see championship game is that it adds money to the coffers of the leagues.  

But come on…the three 12 team leagues are not hurting for money.  Do they really need the extra dinero from one championship game in a neutral site that much? 

And in the case of byes in the Big Ten…I really don’t get it.  What, pray tell, (other than an easy win) did scheduling a Toledo or New Mexico State rather than their bye against division foe Northwestern get the Buckeyes in 2009, for example? 

If they got rid of the bye and had played Northwestern, they could have still scheduled one of these patsies (plus their admirable scheduling of USC) for their out of conference efforts, since they would still have had two OOC games.

The other argument for a conference championship game some people will trot out is that it eliminates a tie for the Conference championship.  But, as Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma from 2008 can tell you, ties can and do happen anyways with the current split division configuration (as a matter of fact, the chances for such are much higher statistically for ties to occur with the split divisions).

I forgot how they figured out who "won" the South Division of the Big 12 that year (rock, paper, scissors?), but your chances of a tie are actually mathematically lessened when you go to a unified division format.

So lets get rid of the split divisions, conference championships, and bye games.  Improve both the overall quality and fairness of the scheduling, reduce the number of mismatches currently scheduled, and give the fans an honest product for their hard earned entertainment dollar.

And then maybe we can work on fixing the dang BCS!