My condolences
I try to qualify things when I get the chance, but I guess part of it is I think numbers can be interpreted and usually have a literal meaning. I understand though, that if I look at something and go, "this says this", you might completely disagree. I remember a theological discussion with my sister once, she asked me "is that really what you want to believe?" and I was just amazed that she thought I had a choice. I can't help but believe what I believe, but I have always been open to seeing things differently. I've mentioned it before but once upon a time I was in favor of a playoff.
I think the numbers tell me otherwise
I did go over some of this before, but I think it's relevant to your saying UAB and Toledo have no impact.
D1-A was formed in 1978, and the scholarship limit was reduced to 95. The initial limits were put into place in 1973 and the limit was 105. I don't think the 105 limit really changed things much, the the 95 limit did force parity. For instance, I saw a study that says Washington's record with unlimited or 105 scholarships was 50% and 51% respective and with 95 was 76%. I think it gave certain programs a leg up, and made a move to D1 less daunting. But, the creation of D2 in 1978 made the most immediate impact.
The 60s saw 11 teams as split national champions by major selectors. It's not coincidence that Alabama fans usually have something to say about some 1960 Alabama teams. Prior to the D1 split, the 1970s had already seen 7 teams as split national champions by major selectors. From
1979-1989 we did not see a single split national champion by major selectors.
I interpret this to mean that once the riff raff was kicked out, and before they found their way back in via the scholarship limits, we had a great deal of clarity regarding the post season picture. But, the next round of limits started in 1992 (ending in 1994). This was a sounding call for second rate programs. I'm pretty sure they started lining up prior to 1992 to take advantage of these new limits. Likewise, it is my opinion that the forced parity that the 95 scholarship limits imparted, allowed for the rise of several programs that otherwise never would have, or did accomplish much. This has an impact on the split national championships of the 1990s which led to the BCS. Think of it as a salary cap, they limited the spending by some schools and in doing so forced parity, which logically would lead to more confusion regarding who was best.
I do not thing the impact ends there though. Prior to the FBS/FCS there were instances of an undefeated team not being recognized by national selectors. It happened due to the fact that you had some complete jokes as programs, playing complete jokes of schedules. But, after D1-A was formed, you didn't have a single undefeated go uncrowned by all selectors until the late 1990s. This coincides almost perfectly with the 85 scholarship limit. 1994 was the first year to have this limit, Tulane in 1998 was the first meaningless undefeated in decades, followed by Marshall, and joined by Utah and Boise St. Boise St. joined the FBS in 1996, two years after the introduction of the 85 scholarship limits. I don't find these things to be coincidences, I find them a direct result of lowering the standards.
We're going to have 124 teams with more coming constantly. The impact is obvious in my mind.
From 1978-1993 (the creation of D1-A to the final 85 scholarship limit) we saw 11 undefeated teams. 1994-2011 gave us 22 teams. This is a massive difference and hard to ignore.
Why does it matter how many undefeated teams, FBS teams, conferences, etc... that there are? Why does it matter what the scholarship limit is? Well, the forced parity that the scholarship limits and general NCAA policy has done is muddied the water. If you have 80 women in a room, it will be easier to select the prettiest than if you're in a room with 120. Yes, sometimes it might be clear but when it's not, it will be easier to select from less. Same with the top football team. The less teams there were, the easier. Subsequently, the less forced parity you had, the clearer the picture. When Utah, Boise St., etc... were irrelevant as football programs, you had an easier time interpreting results as well.
In 1992 Marshall was the FCS champ (I mention this because as a child I thought it a good idea for the champ of that playoff to play the D1 champ, which was Alabama). In 1999 they went undefeated in the FBS, playing the 111th ranked schedule. Now, no one paid any attention to that. But, when Boise St. played the 90th ranked schedule in 2006, and went undefeated we heard a fair bit about that.
Auburn's undefeated 2003 season, they played against 3 teams that do not belong in the FBS (one isn't). Utah, TCU, Boise St., they've all been able to benefit from soft schedules and yet they have become part of the national title and BCS discussion. Logically, it's very simple.
If every team has to play a strong schedule, it's much easier to tell who is actually good. If parity is not forced, it will be easier to tell who is actually great. If there are not too many teams, it will be easier to tell who is the best.
So, how does Toledo impact things? They played Marshall in 1998. They played Miami and Ohio St. a few times. Teams like that can and do have an impact, because they impact team's schedules, and results. They impact SoS, wins and losses. All these teams are getting in the way, their conferences are getting in the way, and they do in my mind have a negative impact because they do muddy the post season picture. You can argue otherwise, but as there become more and more programs like this, it will become harder to tell the deserving from the undeserving. And, we'll have undefeated teams looking at a +1 from the outside and hearing cries for a larger playoff. I'll blame it on Toledo and UAB.
