The Worst Snub of All

[mountainman]

Here's the selection procedures as posted on the NIT's website:


http://www.nit.org/about-nit/selection-procedures.html

[Spence]

I guess my point would be that if you are going to have a tournament to decide the best teams, then you should make every effort to put the best teams in the tournament. That isn't what happens in the NCAA tournament.

[Jason G]

I understand what you are saying, but doesn't the regular season already determine the best teams from each conference? I thought that is what conference championships were all about. A national tournament would then be able to show how the best teams from each conference compare to each other.

Anyway, my point as it applies to football is simply that until every conference is given equal opportunity in terms of participation (the BCS singles out six conferences) on the big stage, it is simply a case of the "haves" dominating the landscape because the chances for all others are severely limited. Then because of those limitations those schools and conferences can't recruit coaches, players, ADs, etc... of the same caliber that the "haves" can or if they do they can't keep them. It is a vicious cycle geared toward the BCS schools and against the non-BCS ones. Is this something that is done on purpose? I don't think so and I certainly hope not, but I still don't hear any BCS conference schools complaining about it either.

You've never heard me argue that any non-BCS conference is better than a BCS one. In general, I don't think they are. I just think that what I stated above is a major reason for this. Things may be slightly better now than they have been in the past (with one non-BCS now reasonably being able to qualify for a BCS game), but it is far from a level playing field. I just think if the non-BCS leagues were treated like the BCS leagues that you'd start to see the recruiting, coaching, and on-field performances of non-BCS schools come all that much closer to matching that of their BCS brethren.

Still, the way it is now is much better than any playoff that the current CFB mindset would ever allow to take place. For now, I just like to see some of the bowl tie-ins adjusted to let some of the non-BCS conference champs get a little more national noteriety.

Spence, I understand what you are saying about the championship chances at a school like Belmont, but it isn't just about winning a championship. It is also about noteriety and creating a name for the program and hence a stronger recruiting base. Look at where Gonzaga basketball is now compared to 15 years ago. How often do you see that with a football team in a non-BCS conference? Given a greater opportunity you might see it much more often and it doesn't take a championship to get it done.

Programs have to be built over time to reach championship caliber, the non-BCS schools don't have this time because without the consistent opportunity they can't maintain a program at the highest level.

Eric, even though what I was talking about earlier was only a hypothetical concerning how I would want to see a playoff IF one was ever put in place, I like what you said about the 7 BCS matchups as long as there would be some mixing and matching as to which conferences played each other from year to year and it still allowed for a very good "smaller" conference team to take on a "power" conference team.

BYUfan1, You hit the Akron basketball situation right on the head! It actually sounds like you have been listening to (and taking quotes from) coach Dambrot's press conferences. I actually like the NIT auto bid rule (should be the conf tourney champ and reg season champ to NCAA), even though you're exactly right about the unbalanced schedule in some multiple division leagues. Plus, I'd like to see the NIT go back to 40 teams as it was in 2006 since the auto bids are now in play.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening.

[Spence]

I understand what you are saying, but doesn't the regular season already determine the best teams from each conference? I thought that is what conference championships were all about. A national tournament would then be able to show how the best teams from each conference compare to each other.

But it isn't about finding the best teams. They stack the deck in the tourney against the weaker conference teams. They do it on purpose. They aren't trying to be fair. They hide behind the "anyone can win" premise, when in fact, it isn't true or at the very least it is improbable.

Spence, I understand what you are saying about the championship chances at a school like Belmont, but it isn't just about winning a championship. It is also about noteriety and creating a name for the program and hence a stronger recruiting base. Look at where Gonzaga basketball is now compared to 15 years ago. How often do you see that with a football team in a non-BCS conference? Given a greater opportunity you might see it much more often and it doesn't take a championship to get it done.

Programs have to be built over time to reach championship caliber, the non-BCS schools don't have this time because without the consistent opportunity they can't maintain a program at the highest level.

The reason most non BCS schools can't compete is not the notoriety. It is because there is not enough talent to go around to support 119 teams and make them competitive. The only answer is to reduce the number of teams or reduce the number of scholarships to around 60 players. The problem with reducing the scholarships is that, while it would create greater parity, it would water down the product.


I don't think the non BCS conferences are as strong as the BCS conferences. I do think, however, that a team from a non-BCS conference could be as good. I think the BCS has admitted that and has adjusted to let some individual teams into the mix.

[Jason G]

The reason most non BCS schools can't compete is not the notoriety. It is because there is not enough talent to go around to support 119 teams and make them competitive. The only answer is to reduce the number of teams or reduce the number of scholarships to around 60 players. The problem with reducing the scholarships is that, while it would create greater parity, it would water down the product.

I don't think the non BCS conferences are as strong as the BCS conferences. I do think, however, that a team from a non-BCS conference could be as good. I think the BCS has admitted that and has adjusted to let some individual teams into the mix.

I think we disagree to a point on the first paragraph above. Even though I believe there is plenty of talent (some completely undiscovered) to go around I think I understand what you are saying about there not being enough talent. Why, though, does most of the talent go to the BCS conference schools? Why are the BCS schools higher in the pecking order of possibilities for recruits? If its not history, prestige, or media attention (i.e. notoriety) then what is it? Many of the non-BCS schools have top notch facilities and many BCS schools do not, so that can't be it either.

I agree with your second paragraph completely. I, however, see that as a negative for college football and not a positive. It seems to me that most people think that it is OK for some conferences to be seen as ALWAYS weaker and some as ALWAYS stronger. I don't think that is the way it should be ideally in college football or any sport. It is only divisive that way.
At least the BCS has made it reasonably possible for that one team from an "outside" league to get in, that is definitely a positive step but it needs to be thought of as only a step and not a permanent solution. What happens when two non-BCS schools go undefeated and neither is clearly better than the other? That would be interesting.

[Spence]

Why, though, does most of the talent go to the BCS conference schools?

But most of the talent doesn't go to the BCS conference schools. Most of the talent goes to about twenty teams. They are BCS members, but most teams from BCS conference schools don't get any better over-all talent then the non-BCS conference schools.

[wvjohn]

Why, though, does most of the talent go to the BCS conference schools?

But most of the talent doesn't go to the BCS conference schools. Most of the talent goes to about twenty teams. They are BCS members, but most teams from BCS conference schools don't get any better over-all talent then the non-BCS conference schools.

I can see that TRUE