yeah. I'm not putting in a 10-2 Michigan or Texas (assuming they avoid us for SW Texas State College) based on not looking good in most of their other games.
Here's some unscientific results from the teams "on the bubble". I did take off wins from games against FCS schools, because fuck that noise, schedule real teams. This gave a couple schools some additional good math.
only for determining tie breaker type stuff for the final couple spots. And only to give encouragement to scheduling good games vs. 12 FCS teams. A mathematical "eyeball test".
yes you can, to an extent. The point is to incentivize teams to schedule the "good" OOC games, which is what scUM and Texas are crying about. "If we hadn't scheduled OSU/OK we'd be in".... Reward them for playing more good teams, and punish them for losing the bad games. Texas, in my example, loses 0 points for having played us, while scUM only takes a 2 point hit for having a loss to OK. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's something! Using my example above, if we've got those teams fighting for the final 2 spots, BYU clearly had the "best" results (Strength of Schedule, if you will) followed by scUM (who benefits from having not played any FCS), then Miami. So, I'd ignore the 3 loss team and make BYU and Miami those last 2 teams making the cut.
My solution is just 12 10-team conferences. Play 9 conference games every season, winner take all. Play 3 OOC "warm up games" like the NFL for seeding and ticket selling purposes. You could schedule all marquee games that way, since they won't "matter".
