It's time to reconsider your self-importance over the ranking process. I'd like to propose to you an idea that will make your job a lot easier and will benefit the entire format of NCAA FBS Football.
In the current format, conference championships, end of season rivalries, and strength of schedule matter too little in comparison to the so-called "eye test".
So, to alleviate those above concerns, you should organize FBS as follows:
Each year 6 teams will be selected, partially automatically and partially based upon committee selection:
(1) each year the committee will continuously evaluate and rank the 4 highest, toughest, and strongest conferences of the 10 conferences (excluding independents);
[e.g. this year, it would be (in order), B1G, SEC, ACC, and PAC]
(2) the champions from those 4 best conferences receive automatic bids to the playoff
[e.g. this year, it would be Bama, Clem, PSU, Wash]
(3) the committee will select two Wildcard teams based upon SOS, big wins, eye test, what Urban wants, etc.
[e.g. this year, it would be OSU and among the likes of MI, OK, WI, CO, and USC]
(4) ##1 and 2 get a buy week, #3 v 6 and #4 v 5.
This does several things: (1) for the committee's ego, they still retain some power to select teams which are not automatically eliminated due to conference 'quirks' (as they would call it), e.g. OSU; (2) it would still preserve a vibrant bowl game system by saving rank #7 and 8 for bigger New Year bowls; (3) it would retain importance of OOC games and end of season rivalries and big games (OK/OKSU, OSU/MI, ND/Stanford, MSU/PSU, Bama/Auburn) because teams will still need to win those games to secure their chance to pull a wildcard; and (4) it preserves the very important Conference Championships.
The coverage in the last few weeks amounted to an overwhelming amount of negativity, "here's why Bama is great and everyone else sucks a little bit more than the others". I'd rather watch positive media about student athletes in the run up to their conference championships and rivalries, and maybe just a little hype/criticism over Wildcard arguments.
What are the negatives: (1) B12 will have to move to a conference championship (they're already doing this); (2) the 4 indys will have to either join conferences or take a very tough schedule and essentially run the table (which opponents may be reluctant to schedule); (3) the argument would still fester that: if 4 teams, why not 8...if 6, why not 8?
In the current format, conference championships, end of season rivalries, and strength of schedule matter too little in comparison to the so-called "eye test".
So, to alleviate those above concerns, you should organize FBS as follows:
Each year 6 teams will be selected, partially automatically and partially based upon committee selection:
(1) each year the committee will continuously evaluate and rank the 4 highest, toughest, and strongest conferences of the 10 conferences (excluding independents);
[e.g. this year, it would be (in order), B1G, SEC, ACC, and PAC]
(2) the champions from those 4 best conferences receive automatic bids to the playoff
[e.g. this year, it would be Bama, Clem, PSU, Wash]
(3) the committee will select two Wildcard teams based upon SOS, big wins, eye test, what Urban wants, etc.
[e.g. this year, it would be OSU and among the likes of MI, OK, WI, CO, and USC]
(4) ##1 and 2 get a buy week, #3 v 6 and #4 v 5.
This does several things: (1) for the committee's ego, they still retain some power to select teams which are not automatically eliminated due to conference 'quirks' (as they would call it), e.g. OSU; (2) it would still preserve a vibrant bowl game system by saving rank #7 and 8 for bigger New Year bowls; (3) it would retain importance of OOC games and end of season rivalries and big games (OK/OKSU, OSU/MI, ND/Stanford, MSU/PSU, Bama/Auburn) because teams will still need to win those games to secure their chance to pull a wildcard; and (4) it preserves the very important Conference Championships.
The coverage in the last few weeks amounted to an overwhelming amount of negativity, "here's why Bama is great and everyone else sucks a little bit more than the others". I'd rather watch positive media about student athletes in the run up to their conference championships and rivalries, and maybe just a little hype/criticism over Wildcard arguments.
What are the negatives: (1) B12 will have to move to a conference championship (they're already doing this); (2) the 4 indys will have to either join conferences or take a very tough schedule and essentially run the table (which opponents may be reluctant to schedule); (3) the argument would still fester that: if 4 teams, why not 8...if 6, why not 8?
