Somebody remind me again ...

[detlef]

Sorry, had to chime in yet again. This seems sort of like kicking a dead horse, but I think it's really more like fighting the Black Knight in Monty Python.

 

So, I'm guessing where you are going with this whole golf thing is that the #1 player is determined by his entire body of work for the season, not just based on one all mighty tourney. Is that fair enough? That, just because Tiger doesn't win the US Open (a tourney that, for some reason you fixated on despite the fact that it's really only one of 4 majors probably because it's the only one Tiger's had troubles in of late) nobody questions the fact that he's the "Champion" of golf.

 

Well, there's two massive, massive problems with that logic.

 

Like the BCS champion, a golfer's crown as best over all based on his total points would be openly questioned by the fans and media of the sport if he continued to lay eggs in the big tourneys. If some guy wins several tourneys and continually finishes in the top 10, he's got a good chance of being the points leader. However, if he fails to win one of the big 4, people are going to talk about it. Much the same as nearly every year people speculate whether or not the D-1A champ really deserved it.

 

Another thing. Pretty much every golfer is facing the same field as every other golfer. Nobody has to wonder if they won a bunch of tourneys against weak competition because, for instance, Mickelson can't go out and schedule a tourney against a bunch of crappy shoes from spammers tour guys and call it a win. Certainly guys take weeks off. But if you win a major or even one of the bigger non-majors, you're doing so against the top golfers in the world. There's nothing left to question in terms of "quality of schedule". The PGA has no version of Hawaii where a guy wins a bunch but nobody knows how good he really is.

 

And one more time, really loud so they hear it in the cheap seats. If you're big concern is that a play-off would make the whole year's body of work less important, why even have a NC game at all? If that's the way you feel, you should advocate we go back to the old system where that was more the case. Once again, say one team just destroys the competition playing from a strong conference and a solid OOC schedule. Meanwhile, everyone else has at least 2 losses. Is there any question who the "best" team is? Not really. Yet, they're 60 minutes of bad luck, perhaps an injury, or just not playing well from having that taken away by a team that did little all year to prove itself any better than a bunch of other teams. How is that not the same as a playoff? It's still a playoff. Winner take all, one and done, slate wiped clean, regular season rendered meaningless, whatever you want to call it. It's the exact same thing. Only now you've got several teams clamoring that they deserved a shot and didn't get one.

 

RIP your arguments.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Problem is that I want to beat it to death going on the golf analogy that rocker started... In a given tournament in golf, EVERYONE, including Tiger Woods starts at Even Par. That is not the case in college football. Everyone does not start on equal ground, even par. The argument for Auburn in 2004 wasn't that they should have been in over USC, or in over Oklahoma. It's that, they had a similar record, came out of (I'm told) the best conference, unblemished, but because they started over par, and USC and Oklahoma both started under par, they could never catch up.

 

You say preseason polls aren't used, but if the top 2 teams in August don't lose, and the first BCS Stadnings come out in October, well, who is still going to be on top? Those same top 2 teams. Now, that isn't a knock on them, because they earned their spot, HOWEVER, during that same time span, you may have several other teams, that have done some great things too, but because they may have started off 23rd in the rankings, or even unranked, they can't go any higher. And because the system is designed for only TWO teams to play for a national championship, they never really had a chance.

[detlef]

Problem is that I want to beat it to death going on the golf analogy that rocker started... In a given tournament in golf, EVERYONE, including Tiger Woods starts at Even Par. That is not the case in college football. Everyone does not start on equal ground, even par. The argument for Auburn in 2004 wasn't that they should have been in over USC, or in over Oklahoma. It's that, they had a similar record, came out of (I'm told) the best conference, unblemished, but because they started over par, and USC and Oklahoma both started under par, they could never catch up.

 

You say preseason polls aren't used, but if the top 2 teams in August don't lose, and the first BCS Stadnings come out in October, well, who is still going to be on top? Those same top 2 teams. Now, that isn't a knock on them, because they earned their spot, HOWEVER, during that same time span, you may have several other teams, that have done some great things too, but because they may have started off 23rd in the rankings, or even unranked, they can't go any higher. And because the system is designed for only TWO teams to play for a national championship, they never really had a chance.

Yep, and official pre-season polls aren't even as big an issue as the fact that there's only room for 2 teams. After all, even if they don't vote, the voters can't help but go into the season with some sort of opinion about who they think is going to be best. Provided those teams keep winning, guess who's going to be sitting at the top the first time their votes are tallied. Now, maybe Auburn starts off as #3 in the first BCS poll as opposed to a few spots lower, but what difference does it make? They're still on the outside looking in. The same guys who voted USC and OU 1 and 2 in pre-season would have likely done the same in week 6. I mean, neither did anything to show they didn't deserve that ranking in the first weeks of the season and provided they keep winning...

[Rockerbraves]

Problem is that I want to beat it to death going on the golf analogy that rocker started... In a given tournament in golf, EVERYONE, including Tiger Woods starts at Even Par. That is not the case in college football. Everyone does not start on equal ground, even par. The argument for Auburn in 2004 wasn't that they should have been in over USC, or in over Oklahoma. It's that, they had a similar record, came out of (I'm told) the best conference, unblemished, but because they started over par, and USC and Oklahoma both started under par, they could never catch up.

 

You say preseason polls aren't used, but if the top 2 teams in August don't lose, and the first BCS Stadnings come out in October, well, who is still going to be on top? Those same top 2 teams. Now, that isn't a knock on them, because they earned their spot, HOWEVER, during that same time span, you may have several other teams, that have done some great things too, but because they may have started off 23rd in the rankings, or even unranked, they can't go any higher. And because the system is designed for only TWO teams to play for a national championship, they never really had a chance.

Brian you might find it an interesting read at the Colley website. Sort of fun to see how the teams rank early in the season yet the cream seems to rise to the top. Week 2 had these teams ranked in this order. Granted I'm not a math major but his claim is that all teams start out equal.

 

1. LSU 0.774718 2-0 0.549437: 50 0 1 W: #45 VA TECH

2. TEXAS TECH 0.772079 2-0 0.544159: 52 0 1 W: #46 UTEP

3. MISSOURI 0.760663 2-0 0.521327: 63 0 0 W: #55 OLE MISS

4. WISCONSIN 0.760426 2-0 0.520852: 64 0 0 W: #56 WASHINGTON ST

5. RUTGERS 0.750000 2-0 0.500000: 71 0 0 W: #67 BUFFALO

6. UCLA 0.741552 2-0 0.483103: 83 0 1 W: #49 BRIGHAM YOUNG

7. TEXAS 0.739971 2-0 0.479941: 84 0 0 W: #51 TCU

8. S FLORIDA 0.732719 2-0 0.473008: 88 0 1 W: #50 AUBURN

9. S CAROLINA 0.726419 2-0 0.452839: 93 0 1 W: #48 GEORGIA

10. TEXAS A&M 0.724661 2-0 0.458676: 90 0 0 W: #60 FRESNO ST

[detlef]

Brian you might find it an interesting read at the Colley website. Sort of fun to see how the teams rank early in the season yet the cream seems to rise to the top. Week 2 had these teams ranked in this order. Granted I'm not a math major but his claim is that all teams start out equal.

 

1. LSU 0.774718 2-0 0.549437: 50 0 1 W: #45 VA TECH

2. TEXAS TECH 0.772079 2-0 0.544159: 52 0 1 W: #46 UTEP

3. MISSOURI 0.760663 2-0 0.521327: 63 0 0 W: #55 OLE MISS

4. WISCONSIN 0.760426 2-0 0.520852: 64 0 0 W: #56 WASHINGTON ST

5. RUTGERS 0.750000 2-0 0.500000: 71 0 0 W: #67 BUFFALO

6. UCLA 0.741552 2-0 0.483103: 83 0 1 W: #49 BRIGHAM YOUNG

7. TEXAS 0.739971 2-0 0.479941: 84 0 0 W: #51 TCU

8. S FLORIDA 0.732719 2-0 0.473008: 88 0 1 W: #50 AUBURN

9. S CAROLINA 0.726419 2-0 0.452839: 93 0 1 W: #48 GEORGIA

10. TEXAS A&M 0.724661 2-0 0.458676: 90 0 0 W: #60 FRESNO ST

Umm, that's without a doubt a very "unique" early season top 10. Not sure if the fact that some dude's barometer caused him to massively swing and miss on all but 3 of the eventual top 10 is any indication that, in the big picture "all teams start out equal".

[Rockerbraves]

Umm, that's without a doubt a very "unique" early season top 10. Not sure if the fact that some dude's barometer caused him to massively swing and miss on all but 3 of the eventual top 10 is any indication that, in the big picture "all teams start out equal".

Here's week 6 if that is when the first BCS ranking comes out. Remember how well S. Florida, S. Carolina and California were playing? And how about a little love for Cincy.

 

1. LSU 0.946197 6-0 0.594929: 14 3 4 W: #7 S CAROLINA

2. ARIZONA ST 0.883272 6-0 0.511029: 54 0 1 W: #29 COLORADO

3. S FLORIDA 0.872988 5-0 0.522183: 48 2 2 W: #15 AUBURN

4. OHIO STATE 0.864153 6-0 0.485537: 70 0 1 W: #26 PURDUE

5. MISSOURI 0.860131 5-0 0.504183: 58 1 2 W: #9 ILLINOIS

6. CALIFORNIA 0.828075 5-0 0.459306: 88 1 2 W: #11 OREGON

7. S CAROLINA 0.825471 5-1 0.600628: 12 1 3 W: #18 KENTUCKY

8. BOSTON COLLEGE 0.820423 6-0 0.427231: 110 0 1 W: #38 WAKE FOREST

9. ILLINOIS 0.814994 5-1 0.586659: 18 2 3 W: #17 WISCONSIN

10. CINCY 0.809049 6-0 0.412065: 119 0 1 W: #48 RUTGERS

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Ok, this still doesn't indicate to me how you somehow can say that 2/3rds of the Poll that determines #1 and #2, isn't started off on equal ground?

[Rockerbraves]

Ok, this still doesn't indicate to me how you somehow can say that 2/3rds of the Poll that determines #1 and #2, isn't started off on equal ground?

Not saying it does. Just thought you might like to see there's not much difference in the end. Unless you think it's fun to see teams like Ole Piss pop up in the standings.

 

Hey don't forget I was the one who defended keeping more of the computers in the BCS formula. If I recall you were the one who always said you prefer to go by the "eyeball test"

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Not saying it does. Just thought you might like to see there's not much difference in the end. Unless you think it's fun to see teams like Ole Piss pop up in the standings.

 

Hey don't forget I was the one who defended keeping more of the computers in the BCS formula. If I recall you were the one who always said you prefer to go by the "eyeball test"

 

And I still do, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. It doesn't change my opinion about the BCS as a system. Computers can't objectively look at a team like Hawaii and see that they put up gaudy numbers against terrible competition. All computers see is the gaudy numbers and don't get me started on strength of schedule. All it is is based on the record of your opponents. The better the record, the better your ranking is. A win over 6-6 Lousiana-Monroe counts exactly the same as a win over 6-6 Iowa. Same as a win over 9-4 Wake Forest is just as good as a win over 9-4 Florida. A human can say, that Iowa is better than La-Monroe, and Florida is better than Wake Forest.

[Rockerbraves]

And I still do, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. It doesn't change my opinion about the BCS as a system. Computers can't objectively look at a team like Hawaii and see that they put up gaudy numbers against terrible competition. All computers see is the gaudy numbers and don't get me started on strength of schedule. All it is is based on the record of your opponents. The better the record, the better your ranking is. A win over 6-6 Lousiana-Monroe counts exactly the same as a win over 6-6 Iowa. Same as a win over 9-4 Wake Forest is just as good as a win over 9-4 Florida. A human can say, that Iowa is better than La-Monroe, and Florida is better than Wake Forest.

Brian shame on you if you didn't read how Colley system works. It's heavily influenced by SOS.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Brian shame on you if you didn't read how Colley system works. It's heavily influenced by SOS.

 

All the more reason why I don't like it.

[Rockerbraves]

All the more reason why I don't like it.

Now I am totally confused.

 

Computers or the polls which one do you think is more objective? You do know both would probably be used even if they did have a playoff, right? Can hear it now everyone complaining about the seeding or what team got left out or my team just didn't match up well with that team.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

humans are more objective... i just disagree with the fact that teams don't start on equal ground. None of your posts have done anything to disprove that.

[Rockerbraves]

The better the record, the better your ranking is. A win over 6-6 Lousiana-Monroe counts exactly the same as a win over 6-6 Iowa. Same as a win over 9-4 Wake Forest is just as good as a win over 9-4 Florida. A human can say, that Iowa is better than La-Monroe, and Florida is better than Wake Forest.

Brian listen to yourself. "A human can say, that Iowa is better than La-Monroe and Florida is better than Wake Forest."

 

Does that sound objective to you?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

So the opposite is true? Sorry but just because teams have the same record, doesn't make them equal. As far as a computer is concerned, they are equal. Sorry, but I don't think that is objective at all. Humans can at least take into account all different circumstances that happen throughout a season, rather than just the analytical aspect of it (which does have value, but shouldn't be the end all be all). Humans are by no means perfect, but are better than computers.

 

Again, you do a really nice job, getting off my original point, which is, teams do not start off on equal ground.

[darin3]

[Rockerbraves]

Again, you do a really nice job, getting off my original point, which is, teams do not start off on equal ground.

I'll admit teams don't always start off on even ground in the human polls, but not sure if that is really that unfair. Why should teams like Hawaii, Boise State, ND, AL or even your team Iowa start off even with say Ohio State who has won the big 10 a few times in a row and look to return most of their starters? I'm firmly convinced that if any team strings together several good seasons they would earn the respect of the human voters.

 

As we both know even the NFL teams don't start off on equal ground. Some play in much tougher conferences making it harder to reach the playoffs. In fact the better teams actually get what some people might consider unfair treatment not only in the draft but in scheduling as well. Is that fair?

 

Brian, you, detlef, and grits have all brought up some valid points favoring a playoff . Let me clarify I'm not totally opposed to a playoff system if it comes about and can be done fairly. Personally I prefer the one plus system or 8 teams at the most, so as not to cheapen the regular season which is why I prefer college football over the NFL.

 

Read somewhere that "watching college football today is like watching trapeze artists working without a safety net". Your team stumbles any weekend of the season and it MIGHT just cost them their BCS NC life aka Virginia Tech, USC and even Michigan's early season blunder. When LSU lost to Arkansas in November even though I held out slight hope, I knew if they didn't make the BCS NC they would have had no one to blame but themselves.

 

Thank s again Pitt and OK.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

You just made my point when you said... "I'm firmly convinced that if any team strings together several good seasons they would earn the respect of the human voters." That is the problem. 2006 should have nothing to do with 2007. But it does. And that in itself is completely unfair.

 

NFL teams do start off on equal ground. Because everyone starts at 0-0, and the number of wins is what qualifies you for the playoffs. In College, you could win your conference, and still not have a shot at the national title. USC, WVU, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, all won their conferences, but didn't have the opporuntunity. Auburn in 2004, won their conference. They couldn't have possibly done any more than they could. They went 12-0, won the SEC (yeah the SEC the greatest conference on earth) but because they weren't one of the chosen ones, they didn't get a shot. Had nothing to do with anything they did on the field. On the field they were the model of perfection. They did just as much to warrant a shot as any other team did, but they didn't get the shot, because the system isn't inclusive, and they didn't start the year at the right position.

 

Yes the NFL has tougher divisions, tougher conferences, but no one arbitrarily determines which 2 teams make it, it's all based on what they do on the field. And you do have to suspend disbelief a little bit, and say, that all 32 teams are equal. They all consist of professional athletes etc.

[detlef]

You just made my point when you said... "I'm firmly convinced that if any team strings together several good seasons they would earn the respect of the human voters." That is the problem. 2006 should have nothing to do with 2007. But it does. And that in itself is completely unfair.

 

NFL teams do start off on equal ground. Because everyone starts at 0-0, and the number of wins is what qualifies you for the playoffs. In College, you could win your conference, and still not have a shot at the national title. USC, WVU, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, all won their conferences, but didn't have the opporuntunity. Auburn in 2004, won their conference. They couldn't have possibly done any more than they could. They went 12-0, won the SEC (yeah the SEC the greatest conference on earth) but because they weren't one of the chosen ones, they didn't get a shot. Had nothing to do with anything they did on the field. On the field they were the model of perfection. They did just as much to warrant a shot as any other team did, but they didn't get the shot, because the system isn't inclusive, and they didn't start the year at the right position.

 

Yes the NFL has tougher divisions, tougher conferences, but no one arbitrarily determines which 2 teams make it, it's all based on what they do on the field. And you do have to suspend disbelief a little bit, and say, that all 32 teams are equal. They all consist of professional athletes etc.

Stop making sense.

[Rockerbraves]

You just made my point when you said... "I'm firmly convinced that if any team strings together several good seasons they would earn the respect of the human voters." That is the problem. 2006 should have nothing to do with 2007. But it does. And that in itself is completely unfair.

Brian don't forget if a playoff were in place that completely unfair selection process would still be used.

 

You say that 2004 Auburn team could not possible have done more. From a win/loss record you are correct. However being a SEC fan I might be able to provide some insight on Auburn in 2004 that could possibly explain why they were unfairly/fairly passed over that year. First off their OCC schedule was obvious suspect playing ULM, Citadel and Louisiana Tech so I assume their SOS was considered by many to be abit weak. However another contributing factor working against them in 2004 might have ironically involved a controversial win over my beloved LSU Tigers that season. Remember the eyeball test.

 

The Extra Point(s) Game (2004) - Defending national champion and fourth ranked LSU visited Auburn just days after Hurricane Ivan. The Bengal Tigers took a 9-3 lead but couldn't convert the extra point. Auburn tied the game with 1:14 to play when Jason Campbell threw a 16-yard TD pass to Courtney Taylor. Entering the game, Auburn had successfully converted on 190 consecutive points after touchdown; however AU kicker John Vaughn missed the extra point. A rare personal foul penalty was called on Ronnie Prude, and Vaughn connected on the second chance. Auburn would go on to win the SEC Championship, finish 13-0 and No. 2 in the final AP poll.

 

Side note to the above: The Doink Game (2005) - The hero of the 2004 game, John Vaughn quickly became the scapegoat in Baton Rouge, as the normally reliable kicker missed five field goals - his final kick bouncing off the right upright in overtime. Auburn and LSU tied for the SEC West championship, but the win allowed LSU to play in the SEC Championship Game. Vindication for all LSU Tigers fans.

 

Sorry Brian there is no perfect system that determines which team is unarguably the BEST in football. Say what you want but New England has already proven IMO they are the best in the NFL this season while you await to give us your opinion at the conclusion of the Super Bowl. Now that's not saying the Patriots are the champions since the NFL dictates that the winner of the Super Bowl be declared their champion like the BCS does the winner of the BCS NC game. Which by the way starts off 0-0 if that makes you happy.

 

Don't forget in college football it is conceivable that you can win your conference with 2, 3 or even 4 losses even though another team in that same conference might have ended their season with just one loss overall and may in fact had already beaten that team decisively. Does that make the 4 loss team the BEST team in that conference? If so, explain to me how it is fair that LSU plays Florida every season while say Arkansas gets S. Carolina. How about your Iowa team not having to play neither Ohio State or Michigan this season. Don't you think that might have given your team an unfair advantage in conference play over the teams that had to play both this season?

 

My point is that college football has too many teams to truly set up a absolutely fair playoff that will accomplish what I assume you believe a playoff would do and that is to determine which team is unarguably the BEST team in college football.

 

By the way. I'm interested to know how your Big 10 conference works it's rotating conference schedule. Is there a link you can provide that explains why Ohio State and Michigan always play each other? Seems a little unfair to me considering how both those teams have dominated the big 10 for awhile now.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Each team in the Big Ten has 2 teams that they play every year. Rivalry games. No different than why Georgia plays Auburn every year, and LSU-Florida, Tenn-Bammer etc

 

In the Big Ten

 

Michigan: Ohio State, and Michigan State

Iowa: Minnesota, and Wisconsin

Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin

Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota

Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State

Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State

Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State

 

I'm pretty sure the remaining teams play each other as well. Every year, you miss 2 teams. Iowa of course didn't take advantage of the fact that they missed both Ohio State and Michigan, but what else is new. Anytime Iowa has had a great year, they've beaten 1 or the other, so I guess it goes to show you, that missing them, isn't exactly something to be happy about.

 

As far as Auburn in 2004, there isn't a playoff scenario that has been brought forth by anyone, that would not have had Auburn in a playoff. They were #3, so they'd be in the +1, and almost every playoff system I've seen put forth, automatically qualifies champions from the BCS conferences, which they were.

 

I'm not saying that any system for college football would be perfect. But a playoff would be better than what it is right now. Patriots might be the best in opinion only right now, but until they win 3 games against the best competition in the post season, then they aren't champions. And I got news for you, they'd rather be champions than be considered the best. Same holds true for college football, people can say that USC is better than LSU, but LSU is the champions. My only point is the format to get to that championship, is unfair.

 

It's simple math. Less than 2 % make it to a post season game for a "National Title." Most years less than 1 % is arbitrarily picked in August to be there. The big boys only play each other, or creampuffs, leaving the middle of the road teams nearly no shot to move up, unless, like this year, their is an upset every week (further proof that a playoff is needed, and one that involves more than just a +1 which accomplishes nothing). In the NFL, 32 teams start off the season, having the same shot. If they go out their and win enough football games, they can be champions.

[MTSuper7]

The fact that every other major sport as well as the smaller college football divisions (what are they called now? it's not Div II or Div III anymore) ends its season with a tournament to determine the winner ought to be evidence enough that the general population feels that a tournament is the best way to crown a champion. The fact that Div 1 college football doesn't have a tournament has more to do with money and, to a lesser extent, preserving tradition than anything else. If there were a sure fire way to make sure that the bowl games don't lose money while creating an 8-team tournament to end the season, it would have already happened. The majority of fans out there would like to see a tournament. And if conference champions got an automatic bid to that tournament, then the regular season sure would matter...

Edited January 18, 2008 by MTSuper7

[Rockerbraves]

I'm not saying that any system for college football would be perfect. But a playoff would be better than what it is right now. .

Would it???

 

FYI: LSU vs. Florida was not setup because they were rivals and neither was Arkansas vs. S. Carolina. You can't tell me that's not a huge unfair advantage for both S. Carolina, Arkansas and many other SEC & in fact all teams nationwide for that matter since LSU and Florida have proven to be two of the SEC's best.

 

As proof you only need to go back to last year to see how unfair scheduling can not only potentially influence conference championships but even conceivably national championships. Think we both can agree that LSU vs. Florida at a neutral site would have been a much greater test for the Gators than the Hogs especially considering LSU beat the Hogs on the road last year. Somewhat the same this season with Georgia not making it to the SEC Championship game because they lost to Tennessee, but in Georgia's defense they had to play Auburn while Tennessee got to play a weaker Bama team.

 

My point to all this is IF a 12 team conference that plays 8 games plus a championship game (2 teams out of 12) can't keep one of their very own (Georgia) from complaining how do you possibly think a national playoff would ever provide us with an undisputed/unarguable champion?

 

Granted a playoff might be more inclusive but not conclusive.

[Big John]

The fact that every other major sport as well as the smaller college football divisions (what are they called now? it's not Div II or Div III anymore) ends its season with a tournament to determine the winner ought to be evidence enough that the general population feels that a tournament is the best way to crown a champion. The fact that Div 1 college football doesn't have a tournament has more to do with money and, to a lesser extent, preserving tradition than anything else. If there were a sure fire way to make sure that the bowl games don't lose money while creating an 8-team tournament to end the season, it would have already happened. The majority of fans out there would like to see a tournament. And if conference champions got an automatic bid to that tournament, then the regular season sure would matter...

Divisions 2 and 3 are still there and still have their tournaments they had before.

 

The change is that they used to call division 1-AA for the "smaller" division 1 schools for football purposes (not differentated in any other sports) is now called the Football Championship subdivision. Changed from 2006 when it had an interim name of Division 1 championship. They have the playoffs like when they were called 1-AA.

 

The former division 1-A (usually called Division 1) is the "big" schools is now called the Football Bowl Subdivision.

 

These are just mostly name changes only.

[MTSuper7]

Divisions 2 and 3 are still there and still have their tournaments they had before.

 

The change is that they used to call division 1-AA for the "smaller" division 1 schools for football purposes (not differentated in any other sports) is now called the Football Championship subdivision. Changed from 2006 when it had an interim name of Division 1 championship. They have the playoffs like when they were called 1-AA.

 

The former division 1-A (usually called Division 1) is the "big" schools is now called the Football Bowl Subdivision.

 

These are just mostly name changes only.

 

Funny how the name changes are indicative of what we actually get. The Football Championship Subdivision gives us a true championship. The Football Bowl Subdivision gives us bowl games.