Iowaggie said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

If you have not understood at this point, then I do not know what else to tell you except that I agree with the OP that this current system needs to be changed via expansion...

---

It's because you are changing your story. First you said that FCS has been laughing at how the FBS decides their national champion for years and now you are worried about group of 5 conference champions and what bowl they go to outside of the playoffs? All of the bowl games outside of the playoffs are meaningless, who cares who goes to them?

---

According to you HoustonAg2106 since the Division I-FBS bowl games outside of the playoffs are meaningless, then what say you about the other teams P5 and G5 that have successful seasons but not selected for the two playoff bowls out?

1. Should it be just two playoff bowls then while the other teams' regular season ends?

2. Or should it expand to more playoff spots from four to ??

After all the topic in the OP is to have a proposed solution to this alleged broken system...I am just giving my suggestion.

---

The bowls are fine the way they are (if anything there are too many of them), I just don't get why people get so upset about where their team goes if it's not in a playoff game.

The playoffs are fine the way they are too, so far there hasn't been a team left out that clearly had an equal to or better resume than the 4 that made it. The problem before was if you had 3 undefeated teams from major conferences someone deserving was getting left out. Now it would take 5 teams going undefeated from major conference and I just don't see that happening.

If they do expand, they should not go to more than 6 (or I guess 8 if you are trying to avoid first round byes)...this talk of 16 or 24 team playoffs is absolutely insane.

---

I guess for those who believe that the regular season is a playoff, you would clearly think to put undefeated UCF in over any 1-loss team.


There's a reason why many on this board and in the SEC offices don't want to expand to a 9 or 10 game schedule, and it's not because they want to watch less quality football, but to improved odds to make the playoffs and/or bowl games. And it shouldn't be that way.

---

Not if that one loss team would also easily go undefeated against UCF's schedule...hell A&M would probably be undefeated against that schedule and we are a 4 loss team.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (1988-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all (until 1995); otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII to be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl? What you're suggesting doesn't make any sense

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

---

Dude I'm 35, I was saying that sarcastically to point out how ridiculous it is to say group of 5 champions should get elite bowl games while the 4th place team in the SEC goes home because that's how it was done 30 years ago

The fact that C-USA didn't exist then was exactly my point...a lot has changed since then and college football has changed with it

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

---

Dude I'm 35, I was saying that sarcastically to point out how ridiculous it is to say group of 5 champions should get elite bowl games while the 4th place team in the SEC goes home because that's how it was done 30 years ago

---

Regardless of what system we have in place, at some point you do have to place a premium on winning a conference football title; I may be somewhat old-school (being a mid-fortysomething myself), but I am of the belief if you are a Division I football conference champion then you have automatically punched your ticket for the post season (Division I FBS bowl game or Division I-FCS playoff bid).

Runner-up and below, be grateful if you get an at-large bid if you get anything at all. An example: in some Division I-FCS conferences, runner-ups do not get an at-large playoff bid. In extreme cases, the co-champion who lost the tie-breaker for the automatic bid also do not get an at-large playoff bid.

My guess is that winning a Division I conference title will be looked upon more favorable in the future. We need to have the mentality of SEC title or bust ASAP...

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

---

Dude I'm 35, I was saying that sarcastically to point out how ridiculous it is to say group of 5 champions should get elite bowl games while the 4th place team in the SEC goes home because that's how it was done 30 years ago

---

Regardless of what system we have in place, at some point you do have to place a premium on winning a conference football title; I may be somewhat old-school (being a mid-fortysomething myself), but I am of the belief if you are a Division I football conference champion then you have automatically punched your ticket for the post season (Division I FBS bowl game or Division I-FCS playoff bid).

Runner-up and below, be grateful if you get an at-large bid if you get anything at all. An example: in some Division I-FCS conferences, runner-ups do not get an at-large playoff bid. In extreme cases, the co-champion who lost the tie-breaker for the automatic bid also do not get an at-large playoff bid.

My guess is that winning a Division I conference title will be looked upon more favorable in the future. We need to have the mentality of SEC title or bust ASAP...

---

I agree that winning your conference is and should be priority one, but don't try to crowbar conference USA and sunbelt champions into elite bowl games...that sounds like you're being the opposite of old school and trying to make sure everyone "gets a trophy" and that it's fair for everyone. Teams from the SEC are always going to be treated differently because they are better than say Texas State or Rice even if they win their conference, and that's just the way it is

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

---

Dude I'm 35, I was saying that sarcastically to point out how ridiculous it is to say group of 5 champions should get elite bowl games while the 4th place team in the SEC goes home because that's how it was done 30 years ago

---

Regardless of what system we have in place, at some point you do have to place a premium on winning a conference football title; I may be somewhat old-school (being a mid-fortysomething myself), but I am of the belief if you are a Division I football conference champion then you have automatically punched your ticket for the post season (Division I FBS bowl game or Division I-FCS playoff bid).

Runner-up and below, be grateful if you get an at-large bid if you get anything at all. An example: in some Division I-FCS conferences, runner-ups do not get an at-large playoff bid. In extreme cases, the co-champion who lost the tie-breaker for the automatic bid also do not get an at-large playoff bid.

My guess is that winning a Division I conference title will be looked upon more favorable in the future. We need to have the mentality of SEC title or bust ASAP...

---

I agree that winning your conference is and should be priority one, but don't try to crowbar conference USA and sunbelt champions into elite bowl games...that sounds like you're being the opposite of old school and trying to make sure everyone "gets a trophy" and that it's fair for everyone. Teams from the SEC are going to be treated differently than say Texas State or Rice, and that's just the way it is

---

I am definitely against the "participation trophy" phenomenon (hence these "meaningless bowls" as you put it), but if you win a conference title then at least you have earned the right to play a major game against a quality opponent. So what say you if a G5 conference champion were to beat a P5 champion in a non-playoff New Year's Bowl a la 2005 and 2007 Fiesta Bowls?

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

I am not saying that Division I-FBS will become exactly like Division I-FCS, but rather they most likely may incorporate more elements from FCS into FBS such as automatic bids to conference champions; I am of the belief that the goal of each college team is to win the conference title and then worry about the postseason.

If the CFP is not into expansion of playoff slots, perhaps they can create more major bowl games for the other four G5 conference champions so that they can at least play a P5 runner-up if not another G5 champion if they are not selected for one of the four playoff bids in the two playoff bowls. This will make college football more competitive overall as the G5 conference champions will also have something more to play for and the P5 champion/runner-up will be motivated to maintain their level of play to get selected for a playoff spot or a major bowl to face a quality opponent.

As for the lesser bowls, many of them need to be eliminated and each conference should have no more than three bowls bids per conference:

Champion (winner of conference title game): Automatic bid to a New Year's Bowl if not a bid CFP Bowl
Runner-Up (loser of conference title game): Second-tier bowl if not an at-large bid to a New Year's Bowl
Third Place: At-large bid to a bowl against an at-large bowl-eligible opponent
Fourth place and below: Season over; better luck next year.

---

So the SEC gets three teams in a bowl game and that's it? You do realize that means we would not be in a bowl game and UAB would be playing in a New Years Bowl. Do you really think that's how college football should be? Because I can tell you with full confidence that will never happen.

---

All the more reason to strive to win your conference title; this may have been before your time, but when we were in the SWC it was like this:

Champion: Cotton Bowl (until 1994)/Bowl Coalition (1995)
Runner-up: Bluebonnet (until 1987)/At-large (after 1987-1995)
Third place: At-large bid if selected at all; otherwise season over
Fourth and below: Don't even think about it...

We wanted to leave the Big XII be in the SEC, well this is the price we pay. Therefore, our focus should be on winning the SEC title if we want any say in the post-season; otherwise we wait until selected for a random bowl game if we are fortunate...

---

So 30 years ago 4th place A&M in the SWC would not get a bowl, but the C-USA champion got to play in the sugar bowl?

I understand how it was back then, but times have changed, it's never going to be like it was 30 years ago again.

---

You are definitely really young; Conference USA did not exist 30 years ago.

Since you said yourself that the bowls below the playoff bowls are meaningless; we can either propose that Division I-FBS goes back to the old-school manner or we stay with this diluted bowl system of meaningless bowls. I prefer the old-school manner which places an emphasis of a conference champion which gets you a New Year's Bowl at the very least; the playoffs you have to be top four.

---

Dude I'm 35, I was saying that sarcastically to point out how ridiculous it is to say group of 5 champions should get elite bowl games while the 4th place team in the SEC goes home because that's how it was done 30 years ago

---

Regardless of what system we have in place, at some point you do have to place a premium on winning a conference football title; I may be somewhat old-school (being a mid-fortysomething myself), but I am of the belief if you are a Division I football conference champion then you have automatically punched your ticket for the post season (Division I FBS bowl game or Division I-FCS playoff bid).

Runner-up and below, be grateful if you get an at-large bid if you get anything at all. An example: in some Division I-FCS conferences, runner-ups do not get an at-large playoff bid. In extreme cases, the co-champion who lost the tie-breaker for the automatic bid also do not get an at-large playoff bid.

My guess is that winning a Division I conference title will be looked upon more favorable in the future. We need to have the mentality of SEC title or bust ASAP...

---

I agree that winning your conference is and should be priority one, but don't try to crowbar conference USA and sunbelt champions into elite bowl games...that sounds like you're being the opposite of old school and trying to make sure everyone "gets a trophy" and that it's fair for everyone. Teams from the SEC are going to be treated differently than say Texas State or Rice, and that's just the way it is

---

I am definitely against the "participation trophy" phenomenon (hence these "meaningless bowls" as you put it), but if you win a conference title then at least you have earned the right to play a major game against a quality opponent. So what say you if a G5 conference champion were to beat a P5 champion in a non-playoff New Year's Bowl a la 2005 and 2007 Fiesta Bowls?

---

I'm fine with it if the team deserves it like Utah and Boise did and UCF does now...but does every G5 champion deserve it automatically? No way

Unless you are just dying to see 8-5 Northern Illinois get curb stomped by Georgia or Ohio State

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

---

CORRECTION HoustonAg2106: The SEC football champion only gets an automatic bid to a NY6 Bowl (Sugar Bowl being the tie-in if not a CFP playoff bowl); that does not necessarily mean it will always be a CFP Bowl.

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

---

CORRECTION HoustonAg2106: The SEC football champion only gets an automatic bid to a NY6 Bowl (Sugar Bowl being the tie-in if not a CFP playoff bowl); that does not necessarily mean it will always be a CFP Bowl.

---

No s***, but the SEC champion has made the playoff every year because of how strong the conference is...win the SEC and you'll most likely be in the playoffs right?

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

---

CORRECTION HoustonAg2106: The SEC football champion only gets an automatic bid to a NY6 Bowl (Sugar Bowl being the tie-in if not a CFP playoff bowl); that does not necessarily mean it will always be a CFP Bowl.

---

No s***, but the SEC champion has made the playoff every year because of how strong the conference is...win the SEC and you'll most likely be in the playoffs right?

---

Kindly ask that question to 2005 Georgia, 2004 Auburn, 2002 Georgia, 2001 LSU, 2000 Florida, and 1999 Alabama, SEC champions who were not selected for the BCS national championship but instead played in the Sugar Bowl (a BCS bowl then now a NY6 bowl).

Currently the SEC champion is only entitled to an automatic bid to a NY6 bowl. Since 2006 the only reason why the SEC champion has made the BCS national title game from 2006-2013 and the CFP semifinal bowls from (2014-present) is that it has been fortunate to be ranked high enough in the polls to be selected.

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

---

CORRECTION HoustonAg2106: The SEC football champion only gets an automatic bid to a NY6 Bowl (Sugar Bowl being the tie-in if not a CFP playoff bowl); that does not necessarily mean it will always be a CFP Bowl.

---

No s***, but the SEC champion has made the playoff every year because of how strong the conference is...win the SEC and you'll most likely be in the playoffs right?

---

Kindly ask that question to 2005 Georgia, 2004 Auburn, 2002 Georgia, 2001 LSU, 2000 Florida, and 1999 Alabama, SEC champions who were not selected for the BCS national championship but instead played in the Sugar Bowl (a BCS bowl then now a NY6 bowl).

Currently the SEC champion is only entitled to an automatic bid to a NY6 bowl. Since 2006 the only reason why the SEC champion has made the BCS national title game from 2006-2013 and the CFP semifinal bowls from (2014-present) is that it has been fortunate to be ranked high enough in the polls to be selected.

---

Again things have changed...all of your examples are when only two teams were selected to play for a national championship...now that 4 are selected I find it hard to believe that the SEC champion is left out unless there is a major upset like an 8-4 Tennessee beating 11-1 Alabama or something like that.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BJC said:

---

That's the point...just because you are a P5 team does not automatically mean that you are elite. We should at least give the G5 conference champions their earned opportunity to play a quality opponent whether it is against a P5 champion/runner-up or another G5 champion in a New Year's Bowl to prove themselves.

If we want to be in that New Year's Bowl discussion then we should win the SEC ourselves. When we were winning the SWC in the later years we were not in the discussion to win the national title but at least we went to a major bowl game; also during that time the SEC was not as strong then as it is now.

---

If we win the SEC we will be in the playoff. And no P5 does not automatically mean you're elite, so that's why we have a ranking system and conference champs like UAB (who we already dominated) and Norther Illinois are ranked lower than us...because we are clearly the better team and deserve a better bowl

And stop comparing it to how it was when we were in the SWC, it's not applicable

---

CORRECTION HoustonAg2106: The SEC football champion only gets an automatic bid to a NY6 Bowl (Sugar Bowl being the tie-in if not a CFP playoff bowl); that does not necessarily mean it will always be a CFP Bowl.

---

No s***, but the SEC champion has made the playoff every year because of how strong the conference is...win the SEC and you'll most likely be in the playoffs right?

---

Kindly ask that question to 2005 Georgia, 2004 Auburn, 2002 Georgia, 2001 LSU, 2000 Florida, and 1999 Alabama, SEC champions who were not selected for the BCS national championship but instead played in the Sugar Bowl (a BCS bowl then now a NY6 bowl).

Currently the SEC champion is only entitled to an automatic bid to a NY6 bowl. Since 2006 the only reason why the SEC champion has made the BCS national title game from 2006-2013 and the CFP semifinal bowls from (2014-present) is that it has been fortunate to be ranked high enough in the polls to be selected.

---

Again things have changed...all of your examples are when only two teams were selected to play for a national championship...now that 4 are selected I find it hard to believe that the SEC champion is left out unless there is a major upset like an 8-4 Tennessee beating 11-1 Alabama or something like that.

---

Even though times have changed, the principle remains the same: if the SEC conference champion is not ranked high enough to get into the playoff, then at least they get to play in a NY6 bowl via automatic bid.

If they expand the playoff what are the odds we still have threads like this *****ing about how the teams are selected?