colonels...I agree with everything you say except for your insistence that no minimum win requirement should be present. As shown, the PIT indeed did have a minimum win requirement at one time. While the requirement was lifted on paper, the selection committee has not selected any team with less than a .500 record. If WIS had a selection committee instead of a computer program, I could agree with you. They don't, therefore a minimum requirement on wins makes sense.
True colors? Yes, I think the new recruit generation killed the mid and low level DI teams. No more Southerns, no more Cleveland States. If the win requirement was established, then more mid level teams will make the PIT, therefore enhancing their prestige and giving them more money to "compete" against the better conferences in recruiting. It also removes money from the Big-6 recruiting pools. What is wrong with this? Better competition is bad for the game? It is not jealously, it is fairness that I am after.
I'm not saying someone should schedule 10 tough non-con games. The ACC has developed a plan to schedule 10 CREAM PUFFS where they are favored by 70 points or more each game. They all start conference play at 10-0. Someone loses all their conference games and goes to the PIT. This is ridiculous, and I fail to see how you cannot agree. What happened to the ACC/Big Ten challenge? gone to cream-puff land. When someone actually schedules a non-con game against a Big-6 opponent, they get jumped all over on the conference forums by their conference mates.
You referred to your ranking system....what is it (or did I miss it earlier in this thread?)? If it is better, have you forwarded it to Seble?