January 9, 2008
Adams to push NCAA for playoffs
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
University of Georgia President Michael Adams says it's time for the NCAA to replace the confusing and controversial Bowl Championship Series with an eight-team college football playoff — and he's in position to help make it happen.
He says many of his fellow college presidents are ready to support it after years of rejecting a playoff, and believes chances are "at least 50-50" it will pass.
Adams' goal is to have a playoff system adopted within "a year or two."
A year or two would be fast, by NCAA standards.
"Changing college football is like turning around a big battle ship," ACC commissioner John Swofford said. "It takes time."
Fox's contract with four of the five BCS games — the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls, and the national championship game — runs through 2010. Fox Sports President David Hill said Monday he has no objections to a change in the championship format. Complicating matters: the fifth BCS game, the Rose Bowl, has a separate deal with ABC that runs through 2014. So if the NCAA wanted to start a playoff before 2014, it might face legal obstacles if the Rose Bowl isn't on board.
Adams said he reached the conclusion that the BCS is unworkable and unfair not because Georgia wasn't chosen to play in Monday night's BCS title game but because the BCS bowls yielded such unattractive pairings. The Bulldogs beat Hawaii 41-10 in the Sugar Bowl and USC beat Illinois 49-17 in the Rose, but the match that could have been made — Georgia versus USC in the Rose — didn't happen because the Rose chose to further its long-standing policy of pairing a Pac-10 team against a Big Ten representative.
Adams' scenario calls for the top eight football teams to be chosen and seeded by an NCAA selection committee. The four quarterfinal games would be played in the existing BCS bowls on New Year's Day, with the semifinals to be staged the next week at unspecified locations and the title game the week after that. Said Adams: "I think this is the way that offends the most the least."
The ACC, SEC, Big East and Big 12 are open to discussing a plus-one format, the commissioners of the ACC and SEC told the Football Writers Association of America on Monday. But the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have been opposed, partly because they want to continue sending their champions to the Rose Bowl most years.
"We favor the current BCS format because it matches one and two while preserving the bowl system," Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen told the Journal-Constitution. "We oppose a plus-one format because teams would be seeded out of their traditional bowls."
"As far as a playoff system, there will not be one," Ohio State President Gordon Gee recently told reporters
"They will wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands. It's too much like moving toward having universities being farm clubs for the pros.
"I think most university presidents would have the same opinion. What are there, 118 [actually, 119] Division I-A schools? I would suspect 110 presidents would vote against it," said Gee, formerly the chancellor at Vanderbilt.
Again, this is all from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Maybe this looks like soar grapes from a team that could not even win its conference. This does not change the fact that this resonates deeply with the fans, players and media.
Something needs to change.
What would happen if the four non Rose Bowl BCS conferences formed a playoff and left out the Big 10 and PAC 10? How long would it take for these two conferences to want to play ball?
Adams proposal features a three round playoff built on top of the existing bowl structure.
Currently there are five BCS bowls, with ten teams participating. Rename the championship, moving it to New Years, and let the participants be decided by the current system.
Let the Rose Bowl feature the PAC 10 and Big 10 champions. Chances are these two will be near the top 8 anyways.
If a non BCS team quailfies they will play the top ranked team, after the teams going to the Rose Bowl are selected. If only BCS teams qualify, use six teams for the seeding below.
The next four BCS qualifying teams are seeded in two guarnateed semifinals, adjusted to insure no teams from the same conference are matched together. The winner moves on.
If there remain qualifying teams ranked above one of the teams in the Rose Bowl they will meet in the final game. If the winner of this game was ranked ahead of the winner of the Rose Bowl they would advance over the winner of the Rose Bowl.
Once the matches are made traditional conference tie ins could be used to determine where the mathchings are played. Usually this would be four semi-finals and a consolation game. The most complicated case is that one team from the Rose Bowl simply needs to win. If they lose, a team from the consolation game gets a window of opportunity.
How would this have looked this year?
Rose Bowl: Ohio St. vs USC
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs Hawaii
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Missouri
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs Georgia
Consolation Bowl: West Virginia vs ASU
The final four would have been seeded by the original BCS standings based on who won the four BCS bowls, insuring that no teams from the same conference are matched with each other.
Comments:
TE
posted on January 9, 2008 4:48 PM — 204.68.245.11 — link — abuse?
said:
I truly admit that it's perplexing as to why Mr. Adams would advocate a playoff now when he voted-along with the rest of the conference-in a 12-0 defeat of a playoff format at the SEC Meetings in Destin, Florida, this past summer...
Quite the change of heart when you get rooked out of the national title...Or, should I say, perceived to have been rooked out...
I wonder if Mr. Adams would've been the anchor behind this had his team beaten South Carolina & Tennessee on the field when they had the chance this year?
LSU sure beat both of those teams...That's the reason LSU's the Conference Champion, and that's why Georgia couldn't win its own Division...
That's also why LSU's got Crystal, and UGA got an invitation to beat-down The Rainbow Warriors...
Really repugnant to time that announcement the same day we were officially recognized as champs, wasn't it? Couldn't have waited one more day, could you?
You stay classy, Mr. Adams...
Cane Mutiny
posted on January 9, 2008 5:09 PM — 65.12.247.141 — link — abuse? said:
"They will wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands. It's too much like moving toward having universities being farm clubs for the pros."
Yeah, that and your school would never make it past the first round, missing out on big bucks from playing in the National Championship.
But I guess making a self righteous statement like that one works for you. Almost as arrogant as the "THE" your school likes to tack in front of their name, as if their team isn't a punchline in the college football world right now.
(I know T.B. and others will disagree with me on the "THE," so don't even bother responding to that one, guys :oD ...and yeah, Miami sucks worse than the Buckeyes right now, I know. So you don't have to remind me!)
Regan said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:14 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
A Playoff Thread. A thread from the beginning about Playoffs, not just one we end up hijacking...
As a ten-percenter, I guess I have to gear up for another Thread War. I've organized all the collected Word docs in my anti-Playoff folder for this day, knowing it would eventually come.
But I don't like being the guy that actually fired the first shot, so I will just agree with Ben Prather (#1) and TE (#2).
For the record, I am for a "Plus-One CONTINGENT UPON NEED" system that takes multiple scenerios into account based on:
1) Only 0-loss or 1-loss BCS conference teams.
2) Only 0-loss Non-BCS Conference teams.
3) Only Conference Champions.My system would have worked absolutely beautifully every year but this one; it would have put up Ohio State vs. Hawaii.
I still say that would have been better than having a 2-loss team in the NC game, but let's face it - God wanted us to have lots to talk about in 2007-08.
bulldawgjosh said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:29 PM — 199.72.45.66 — link — abuse?
As a DAWG, I would like to ask everyone to NOT associated anything Adams says with any of us, or our football team.
Even for those UGA fans that advocate a playoff, and I am not one of them, none of them will still want to be associated with anything he's doing.
There's a reason we all booed him at the Sugar Bowl.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:35 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Regan
Once again i can strongly disagree with you.
Until all the conferences have equal strenght of schedule your idea could never be fair. The fact that LSU won should be enough evidence in its self. Not to mention Hawaii got crushed.
Throw out yesterdays thoughts.
The age of college parity is amoung us. No longer can Bear Bryant hand out scholarships to keep other schools from signing players.
Now that scholarship limits are in place it will act about the same way as salary caps do in the pros.
You wont see too many undefeated teams and if you do it will be the results of a truly superior team or a weak schedule.
Either way a playoff would sort that out.
FanoftheGame said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:43 PM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
In case no one has noticed, there isn't a whole lot of tradition left with the current bowl system under the BcS anyway. Rose Bowl tradition matches up the PAC-10 Champ vs the Big-10 Champ. An oSu didn't mind passing on the Rose Bowl this year in favor of New Orleans and the Sugar Bowl. Even the PAC-10 and Big-10 say screw tradition if it means they can go play for the MNC in another bowl.
The bottom line is that the PAC & Big-10 wnat to have their cake and eat it too. If they can't have the NC game then they are they are reserving the rights to the Rose Bowl by virtue of winning their respective conferences.
Why does it always seem like the Big-10 and Pac-10 administrators look at all of the other conferences as if they are beneath them? I say screw 'em! If you want to compete for the NC then try to make the playoffs. If not, carry your sorry uptight @ss to your Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl USED TO BE the Grand Daddy of 'em all, but not anymore. Now the Grand Daddy has a new face and a case of viagara to keep up with the BcS money hounds that are controlling college football. The college game has become so commercialized and infected with the BcS that every bowl has been affected.
Playoffs won't take away from what traditions are still intact, but it will make teams earn the right to be there.
my $.02
Ramblin' Gator said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:52 PM — 74.185.133.40 — link — abuse?
"They will wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands. It's too much like moving toward having universities being farm clubs for the pros."
Hmm. So is Gee advocating the dismantling of the playoff system now employed by men's and women's basketball, baseball, and hockey to determine the national champion of those sports because they ARE farm leagues for the pros?
No? I didn't think so.
Dr. Gee, this is what we call "hypocrisy". You seem to be simultaneously expert and yet curiously unfamiliar with the word.
kershawdw said:
posted on January 9, 2008 5:57 PM — 24.136.33.6 — link — abuse?
You would think Auburn would be the biggest preachers of a playoff system seeing as how they got the big green weenie a few years back...
As for Georgia president advocating the change: "nobody cares until its their team getting screwed"
*prepares for board war with helmet* lol
posted on January 9, 2008 5:58 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta
said:
The prime reason I would prefer a 16-team playoff over an 8-game would be because all conferences ARE NOT created equal. An 8-game would pretty much involved conference champions, while a 16-game would involve some at-large teams. Sorry, I'm just not convinced that a conference champion from one of the five small conferences deserve a seat at the table.
If you think that Adams, in spite of pooh-poohing the idea last year, has seen the light and now wants a playoff and doesn't want to flex some of his newly-found muscle, you'd be wrong!!!
Kev: Too late for the hat tip? Curses!!!
posted on January 9, 2008 6:15 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
kershawdw: Auburn got a big blue and orange weenie 3 years ago, for the record...
It's too much like moving toward having universities being farm clubs for the pros.
Yea, like it's not a de facto farm system now? Puhleeeze, Mr. Gee. Thinking like that, coupled with this anachronistic allegience to the Rose Bowl is what's going to leave the Big 10(11) and Pac 10(10)on the outside looking in...
So what am I saying? That parity in college football is here to stay and that a playoff is inevitable. The Rose Bowl can be an integral part of that, accepting whatever teams qualify under the playoff, or it can become a relic of days long gone. There's no postponing this destiny, Pasadena...
Spartacus
posted on January 9, 2008 6:26 PM — 71.103.218.167 — link — abuse? said:
FanOfTheGame:
I completely agree on the whole Rose Bowl thing. I am not an accountant for that Institution, and they may still make more money than other Bowl games do, but I have to believe that the profit margin is shrinking. Simply, the Rose Bowl is no longer getting the marquee games anyway. The 2005 BCS National Championship game was scheduled for there anyway. But, we're getting too many USC-Illinois type matchups. How bout Michigan-Texas when neither were all that great? One-loss teams such as Cal and Oregon have been completely passed on while USC went to Championship games. If the Trojans were not playing in this game this year - I would not have watched it. And, I have not watched a few lately. I was more interested in Michigan-Florida this time.
I am not against a conference championship. Why should I be? One extra win against some also ran in order to strengthen our position? I can't understand why these Big 10 and Pac 10 idiots are so stuck on their ideas. The tradition is gone anyway. Both USC and Ohio State have played in numerous BCS championship games lately - the best teams from the respective conferences are not even in the game anymore. What are they holding onto?Tommie Trojan
posted on January 9, 2008 6:34 PM — 69.73.43.23 — link — abuse? said:
I almost want to rebut the statement
"It's too much like moving toward having universities being farm clubs for the pros. "
on its own. This is a beautifully excellent self defeating argument.
Lets not have a playoffs so colleges are grouped into geographically disconnected leagues with no guarantee of a national champion.
This way the colleges can't build an identity for themselves, a unique national title to play for. College teams, without a championship, can then be viewed as simply pumps producing players for the NFL draft.
Let the WAC produce fast offensive weapons adn QB's with long arms. Let the Big 12 and Big 10 produce big strong linemen. Let the SEC and PAC 10 produce fast strong fullbacks and linebackers. Each conference with its own character designed to produce specific classes of atheletes needed for the NFL.
By strongly clinging to conference alignments and reducing the interactions of playoff like competition between the conferences, the NCAA can better serve its function as a farm league for the NFL.
Sunshine Scooter
posted on January 9, 2008 7:13 PM — 24.153.212.120 — link — abuse? said:
If the Rose Bowl is the biggest thing keeping us from having a playoff, then make this change:
Since the Big 10 and the Pac 10 already catch hell for not having a conference championship, let the Big 10 champ play the Pac 10 champ at the Rose Bowl on Championship Saturday. Allow the outcome of this game to reflect the rankings released the very next day on Bowl Selection Sunday. Seed the top eight teams accordingly.
The Pac 10 and Big 10 compete in a "Championship" game like everyone else. The Rose Bowl gets its marquee matchup, and the rest of us get the playoff system we all want.
Problem solved in my opinion.
College Pigskin Fan said:
posted on January 9, 2008 7:33 PM — 4.244.212.214 — link — abuse?
Mr. Adams is clearly reacting out of emotion, if Georgia would have played USC, I'm sure he would have nothing to say about a playoff.
It's also very clear that a playoff system would only create more problems than solve. I can name off many examples, and here's the most obvious one.
The 8th ranked team is 11-1 (I'll let you fill in the school).
The 9th ranked team is 12-0 and from a non BCS conference. (I'll let you fill in the school)
This is after the final computer rankings have come out. (#9 Kevin, You're right, this should be fun.)
It's obvious someone will get screwed out of a playoff spot. Then the real "this is B.S." and "expand it to 16 teams" will begin.
Let's stick to an eight team playoff system since that's what Mr. Adams has called for.
Example, if his Georgia Bulldogs would have to travel to (any of these two cities) Phoenix, Pasadena, or San Diego for two games, then I'm sure he would change his tune and want there to be home games instead of nuteral sight games.
And if he wouldn't call for it, some University President, the media and fans, would. As you well know, the cities aren't going to give up their Bowl games so there can be home games for a playoff.
There is no perfect playoff system since the games will be required to play on the road, and in many cases, a team in the west will have to travel twice to the east or southeast, and/or a team (or few teams) in the east or southeast will have to travel west twice.
This would have to happen since the playoff system can't stack games in one part of the country. Western cities will want in on it, and no, you can't play the teams in the west out west, just like you can't play teams in the east or southeast in the southeast. That would fly in the face of the #8 v.s. #1, #7 v.s. #2, #6 v.s. #3, and #5 v.s. #4 format.
Basically, a plus one system is about the only way to solve this. When you get past the emotion, and analize it through, that's about the best that could happen. And even then, I'm sure alot of fans and the media would still find something to cry over.
Bevo Boy said:
posted on January 9, 2008 8:32 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
College Pigskin Fan, one way to help out with teams not complaing about being left out, have teams 8 through play in play-in games for the final two spots (I know 11 will still complain but somebody is always left out unless you want a 119 team playoff system) but it should help a little. Then divide the country into sections to and hold one game in each section. Then decide on several locations for the national championship and rotate the location from year to year (like the Super Bowl or Final Four). There is no way for there to be a perfect system, but I think this or what you suggested would be about the only realistic solutions to help clear up all the debate.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 9, 2008 9:23 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Since many of you dont want a playoff i have a solution.
Lets have sports writers and coaches decide who they think the best teams are.
Make sure that they are from all over the country and seldom watch teams from anywhere but their own region.
Then allow TV networks to decide who they want to pair based on the popularity of the teams.Allow networks to pick up big name teams and strike up million dollar deals with those teams.Money should be the deciding factor here. After all it goes for educating our kids.
Dont worry if there are several teams with the same records, which teams have the best boosters and can pump in the most money thats what is really important.
This plan should allow very little room for teams to break into the elite status,that way everyone will get used to only having 8 or 9 teams that really get a chance. After all everyone knows smaller school with less money could never compete at this level.
Throw in an underdog every 10 years or so just to appease the masses and that should do it.
Well that about sums it up. Sound familiar ...welcome to NCAA football postseason
GA Boy said:
posted on January 9, 2008 9:59 PM — 75.137.174.61 — link — abuse?
I am with bulldawgjosh on this one. I can't believe this bonehead Adams is coming out with statements like this. He must have been jealous that Richt has become such a hero here in GA and wanted some media spotlight.
As a DAWG fan I must say, we probably would have given Ohio St all they could handle just like LSU did. But guess what, we lost to the Cocks and the Vols and then had to hold on and hope that TN lost. They didn't. They held on and won in the tiebreaker and so be it. We end up 2 and 3 in the AP and Coaches. So be it.
I wish Adams would shut up and let some other school look like the cry baby. Too bad Urban Meyer wasn't closer to contention on this, he is the best cry baby around.GO DAWGS!
Autigerman said:
posted on January 9, 2008 10:00 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Although i am probably older then most of you on here.
I probably have been a fan of college football for a lesser amount of time then many of you.I grew up in Colorado and out there the Buffs ran a distant second to the Broncos.
I moved all over the country courtesy of uncle Sam.
I lived in California,Texas Illinios,New Mexico and Florida.
But it wasnt till i was in my mid 30 and met a sweet Alabama girl that i ever even heard of Auburn football.Id heard of Alabama probably because that was big time when i was young.
I was amused at first that an entire state could be so enamored in a game. I used to laugh as i watched best friends grow angry with each other during the iron bowl.
I suppose i married into it more then anything but i began to really love Auburn football.
I dove in head first. Quickly becoming a booster and season ticket holder. Determined to learn about Auburn football tradition.
2004 was devastating to many of us.Guess i never realized how difficult it would be to be one of those teams on the outside looking in.
No way they can leave us out we thought. We are undefeating in the toughest conference in football.
We played 5 top 15 teams and won . But to no avail. Since that time ive been determined to do what little i can to promote a system that will allow a team that deserves a chance to get one.
I dont know all the answers but i do know this.
When you have teams winning conferences and doing everything within there power to get a shot at a title they should get it.
posted on January 10, 2008 10:55 AM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
#22) A strict #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6, #4 vs #5 arangement is flawed for three obvious reasons.
The first, as you point out, is that their is little ability to mitigate travel expenses and produce games with local interest.
The second is that their is no guarantee that teams from the same conference would not be paired early. All other NCAA tournements adjust the bracketing to mitigate this.
The third argument is how many teams should a conference be allowed to send to an 8 team playoffs? A strict 1-8 this year would have placed three Big 12 teams into the playoffs.
Did the Big 12 really earn three shots at the natinoal championship? What about undefeated Hawaii? Despite the fact that they would have been crushed, a playoff needs to insure everyone has a chance. All undefeated teams should be included.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 11:30 AM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
I think some people are missing the point here.
The current BCS setup allows for an automatic bid for only six conference champs the big six as i call them The ACC,Big East,PAC10,Big 10,Big 12,and the SEC and rightfully so.
You could still allow for two at large teams to finish out an 8 team tournament.
When was the last time a team won that wasnt from one of these six conferences. It was in 1984 it was BYU. Beyound that you have to go way way back.
Under the new playoff system BYU would have still gotten in but would have had to prove themselves against some pretty tough competiton.
When the BCS decided to add a championship game they could have just made it a plus one at that time but instead they added an additional game allowing 2 more teams into the BCS formula.
Another step backwards if you ask me.
Even if at this point they scale back to eight teams and have an additional championship game it would be better then this but why not fix it for good.Some will say its not fair to the smaller market schools. Well i say when was the last time a #16 seed won even one game in the basketball tournament let alone the tournament. Well the answer is its never happened.
The regular bowl games would still play on as usual but the Championship tournament would be something to watch.
posted on January 10, 2008 12:01 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
AUTigerman: I could live with a 8-team playoff, as long as it had at least two slots for at-large teams. Lesser-conference schools would be howling that they would never get a chance without them.
Interesting story of your path to Auburn. A true convert! We don't get many of those on the Plains. Typically, you're born into it or go to school there. Good stuff!
Maurice said:
posted on January 10, 2008 12:31 PM — 170.202.22.1 — link — abuse?
Let's be honest and for real. As a fan I would love to have a NCAA D1 playoff, but as for a commish or AD of a Major conference, I would be totally against a playoff. Why? Let look at the SEC, Big 10 and XII conferences. If two teams make it to a BCS game, win or lose that is 34 million dollars, then if you have bowl tie-ins (at least 6 or 7 teams) with a lower tier bowl. Those conferences can make up too 50-55 million. If you add a playoff those conferences will suffer as a whole. Teams will probably go back to Independents. As a fan I their should be playoff but as a commish or AD, I would say no to a playoff.
I hate the BCS, but it is keeping these major conferences paid. Major Bling Bling.Jason said:
posted on January 10, 2008 12:38 PM — 160.125.253.9 — link — abuse?
Since we are daydreaming about playoff systems, I thought I'd throw in my "it would be cool but never happen" idea into the ring.
What I would like to see is a re-alignment of Division 1A across the board. Allow 64 teams in it and split those up regionally into 8 conferences. You have to play every team in your conference AND you can only schedule games against teams in the other 7 conferences.
Sure, you'll weed out about half the teams in Division 1A but the regular season strength of schedules will become tougher for everyone. We won't have to see teams playing St Mary's School For the Blind. And the regular season would be a lot more exciting.
Doing this would really make a playoff work well too, because you could do an 8 team playoff with all the Conference champs or even a 16 team playoff with the top 2 teams from each conference.
VTBobb said:
posted on January 10, 2008 12:45 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
Kev, I know where you stand, but I have a question, Do you like the parity in CF today?
Also, for all of you "Tradition" hounds, if you really want to get back to the "good old days", let's DO AWAY WITH THE Rose Bowl COMPLETELY.
According to the Rose Bowls official site, the "Tournament of Roses" DID NOT INCLUDE A FOOTBALL GAME UNTIL 1902 (in it's 12th year). Of course, that was also the first post season game, so maybe we should DO AWAY WITH all bowls EXCEPT the Rose Bowl.
Also, there was no PAC 10-Big 10 exclusivity until 1947. So, maybe they just should do away with the PAC 10-Big 10 tie-in.
Any Thoughts?
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 12:47 PM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
Maurice
I guess i dont understand your math.
Are you saying a playoff would generate less money?
Right now there is a total of 5 bcs games. In order to do an 8 team playoff it would require 7.So how is that less money generated?
Noone is proposing doing away with the other bowl games. The rest of the bowl system would stay intact.
And since teams must share the revenues generated from these games with the rest of their respective conferences it makes more finacial since to have a playoff.The only independent with a legitament chance to win a title is ND and since they cant collect there entire winnings anymore it still would make since.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 1:02 PM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
Ok heres a test.
Dont cheat, quick name 3 teams from the mid amerca conference,
ok didnt get that one try the Sun belt conference,too hard?
try conference USAWell you get the idea. Nothing against any of these teams but its a different league.
And should be looked at it that way by rational thinking people. Im still for teams playing some of these teams. It generates some revenue for the teams and once in a great while you get win from one of them "ask Bama" sorry couldnt help myself.
But when it comes to a champioship seris I believe you could leave them out . Allow 2 at large bids for the mid level conferences and independends and just make the other 6 the conference champs.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Want to get an invite? win your conference
VTBobb said:
posted on January 10, 2008 1:03 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
I thought the whole point of this was to try to determine a D1A football champion that deserved to be the Champ, not to try to stop people from whining.
Yes, if you have an 8-team playoff, you will have 2, 3 or 4 teams complaining that they were left out, but you would have 8 teams with a chance to win it on the field. This year, I really think there were about 10 teams that had reasonable arguments for inclusion in the Championship game. 2 or 3 left out teams is better than 8-10.
wardboy3 said:
posted on January 10, 2008 1:36 PM — 208.49.161.238 — link — abuse?
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 1:02 PM —
Ok heres a test.
Dont cheat, quick name 3 teams from the mid amerca conference,
ok didnt get that one try the Sun belt conference,too hard?
try conference USAMAC= Ohio, C Mich, Ball St
SUN= Fla Atl, MTSU, Troy
CUSA= E Carolina, Tulsa, UCF
No it is not too hard if you PAY attention to college football & not have your head buried with one team & one conf & never leave your comfort zone.
There are currently 119 D1A teams and 11 Conferences. So I say break up the conferences so there are 10 teams per conf. That will give you 12 conf. Every team will have to play all teams in its conf so there will be no whinning about who might actually be the best team (GA). Now you have 9 conf games & you can have 3 non-conf games also. Point being you would have a TRUE conf champion. Then you take all 12 conf champs & you can take 4 at-large (highest ranked non conf champ team but only 1 per conf) that way at the most you will have 2 teams from one conf. Shake it up & play. Or you can eliminate the at-large & just have the conf champs playing giving the top 4 ranked teams a first round bye.Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 2:10 PM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
Wardboy
First of all you wont convince me you didnt look up those teams.
Second why waste time allowing those teams to compete.
When was the last time a conference USA team finished the season ranked let alone won a NC title.
Truth of the matter is it hasnt and probably wont happen but on the outside chance they would have a team good enough you could have 2 at large bids to go along with the 6 conference champs.
gOSU27 said:
posted on January 10, 2008 2:24 PM — 207.74.25.36 — link — abuse?
VTbobb- So you think that I am happy about losing every year in the BCS. I don't think that last year, anyone would say that OSU didn't belong in the BCS game before the actual game.
If there is a worse BCS conference than the Big 10, it is definantly the ACC. I am simply pointing out that a playoff will not make things better. I think that Jason has a point about 8 conferences, but, it's never going to happen
posted on January 10, 2008 4:02 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
The best thing about a 8-team playoff comprised manly of conference winners is that it would eventually force Notre Dame to compete with the rest of the herd for the at-large slots. I'm fairly confident that would force them to join a conference almost immediately.
The problem with Jason's plan above is that you aren't going to pry apart existing conferences and re-align them into new ones. What do you think you're doing, Jason, gerrymandering new congressional districts?
Besides, big conferences split into divisions and have their little one-game playoff. There's no need to play every other school in the conference. If we're going to get a playoff, you're going to have to quit thinking that everyone has to play everyone else. It just can't happen. NFL teams don't play every other team, and no one questions the validity of a superbowl champ. It would be the same in CFB.
Jason said:
posted on January 10, 2008 5:12 PM — 160.125.253.9 — link — abuse?
It wouldn't be the first time the conferences have been gerrymandered. The Southwest Conference and the Big 8 did just that when the Big 12 was formed. The SEC added Arkansas fairly recently. The ACC just expanded and left a pretty major gap in the Big East.
As for my idea, I actually modeled it after the NFL. The NFC and the AFC are split into 4 4 team divisions. Those 4 teams in each division play each other (twice even) and the division winners get automatic Playoff berths. The Divisions also play their NFC counterpart every year (IE AFC North teams play NFC North teams). Then the rest of the season is scheduled out against the rest of the teams.
The NFL is setup with the Playoffs in mind, and its based on winning your division and Win-Loss records. Sure they have Wildcards but those again are based on Win-Loss records. There's no NFL Championship Series or Polls that decide who does or doesn't get into the playoffs.
With, what is it now, 118 teams? Something like that would be impossible to set up. But if you shrunk it to 64 teams, it starts to get viable. And if you are going to do a Playoff system then you should start from the ground up. Letting the BCS decide who gets to play based on computers and human polls sucks, whether they are picking 2 teams or picking 8 teams. Thats why we are talking about Playoffs to begin with. To really make the Playoffs work, I think you'd need to re-align the conferences.
posted on January 10, 2008 5:24 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Jason: Gerrymander implies that new conferences would be drawn in order to give some a decided advantage or disadvantage. Your instances of the Southwest and Big 8 conferences don't apply because all those teams moved voluntarily, as opposed to having someone force them. I gathered from your passage above that the NCAA would have a hand in re-districting these new conferences.
Even in the NFL, not everyone gets to go to the playoffs. I think that only happens in the NBA, where you don't necessarily have to have a winning record to make it in. I think the right number would be 8 or 16 teams.
shiguy said:
posted on January 10, 2008 7:04 PM — 24.126.91.75 — link — abuse?
omg if i hear one more georgia fan complain about how they got screwed i'm gonna go on down and have a dukes of hazard hunting day. this is rediculous was georgia playing good. yes. however, they did not win their conference. not only that they didn't even win out their division! o and now comes out all the "o but look how high they were ranked and under the system they couldn't even play" Bulls#t they should have never been that high in the first place. you know why they're so high? because back in week 9 they jumped 10 ranks off of one win over florida one game!! that's rediculous now granted some of those teams may have lost but that doesn't mean georgia should have gotten a free shot to the top. so wait because you beat florida after already loosing out to the team that won the division that means that they should go from 20 to the top 10? that's some crap. plus i personally am completely opposed to the playoff and here is my reasoning. right now the only thing that really can be screwed out for teams is the NC because it's solely based off of rankings. so now you're telling me that we're going to have all the BCS bowls be based off of rankings? i'm sorry but that doesn't fly at all. not to mention the fact how fair is it that people always give certain teams (aka Big East) for not having a strong enough schedule with only having one major game a year but then schools such as "THE" ohio state university can coast through playing all the step children in the state of ohio and beat them up to make their W's increase. o wait except cincy which gave them a run for their money last time they played them for the entire first half with the youngest average age for a team in D1A! funny how they didn't play them again nore are they now till 2012. is the bowl system fair no. however, like the governemt, it's the only one that really works. with all the SEC loyalists in the rankings we would probably end up just seeing SEC rematches for a playoff. which i can say this much nobody and i mean nobody other than the SEC wants to see that.
now that said i can see all the SEC fans comming back saying "so what if we are all the best we should be in it" that's not to say that there are not a lot of good teams there. not at all. trust me as someone from the BEAST conference i will agree that the SEC overall has the most consistent base of quality teams. that being said however i don't think that means they should automatically get the benifit of the doubt in deciding that they are the best teams rank wise.Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 7:20 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Ok so some of you on this site may be able to pass the test #37.
But the majority of football fans cant.I did a trial test where i work noone passed. Just a different breed of fans on here.
Teams like Troy and Central florida will soon be invited to join other conferences. Just look at South Florida they were a great add to the Big East.
However the point is still valid.
You dont need to try and include all 119 teams.
That would be the same as saying a 1A high school team should compete with the 5A and 6A high schools for their state championship games.Just wouldnt work for football.
Yea sure it works in basketball but they arent trying to rip each others heads off.
Everyone has an opinion on this and many would never work. One thing seems to be for sure the BCS is only willing to take baby steps.
A plus one will never work with 6 automatic bids.Some conference champs would get left out and they deserve a shot. So whats next.Realigning conferences will never work so now what.
If you have 2 at large teams that is sort of the equivelant to having a wild card team and the six conference champs then the burden for putting the best team in your conference falls back on the conferences where it should.
I believe that the independents may be driving this bus. One particular school but im not sure any of there fans will talk this year.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 7:36 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Shiguy
So if all the conference champs get an automatic bid plus two at large teams. And not allowing any conference more then 2 teams for a total of eight teams. How exactly is that not fair to all the top conferences.
You think whats happening now is fair....thats laughable. Really imo what needs to be asked is whats fair.
Never will a non BCS automatic bid conference team get a chance to win a NC under the current system. How can i say that. Because Utah,Boise State and Hawaii all went undefeated and couldnt get in.
Boise state at least raised some eyebrows by defeating Oklahoma. And still didnt win an NC title and were the only team left undefeated.
Dont come in here talking about the SEC will get preferential treatment. Wouldnt be possible if they would use fairness as a guide in stead of greed and money.
gOSU27 said:
posted on January 10, 2008 8:30 PM — 207.74.25.36 — link — abuse?
What I would suggest for the Big 10 to do is create a conference championship game. The problem is, adding a team...Notre Dame? probably not. Maybe it would have to pick up someone like CMU or Northern Illinois. Another problem would be splitting up Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. The divisions would have to be random, not localized, as in east and west.
Regan said:
posted on January 10, 2008 9:35 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
OU-Ron (#5):
>> You still wouldn't have the best two teams playing for the championship, both OSU and Hawaii got throttled by two better teams...The NC game proved this year that a 2 loss team deserved to be the NC.
The NC game is always set up in advance. It is easy to dismiss an Ohio State-Hawaii NC game after the fact.I also mentioned that my idea for a good system that involved Ohio State-Hawaii was good UP UNTIL this year.
Personally, I don't care what happened. A 2-loss team should never EVER have played in the championship game unless there were no alternatives. This is my opinion; it is likely to be unpopular...
But I’ll go ahead and ask who you think the two best teams were in ’07. :-)
Autigerman said:
posted on January 10, 2008 11:16 PM — 68.109.98.15 — link — abuse?
Regan
I must admit I cant understand how you could think that a two loss team could never be the best team.
Ill be surprised if we dont see that happen quite often in the coming years.
Are you an Ohio State fan? prehaps you wanted that game so as to ensure an OSU win. Other wise i cant explain why you feel that way.
Fact of the matter is there were two or three SEC teams better then OSU this year. The BCS knew that but because of the way the end of the year happened they sort of fell into it.
Any real football fan could have told you Hawaii didnt belong,just like they understood that Notre Dame didnt belong last year.
Hawaii squeeked by on one of the easiest schedules in all of football this year. And you think they deserved to be in the show.
Well theres alot wrong with the post season in college football and its generated by people that think like you think.
shiguy said:
posted on January 11, 2008 1:52 AM — 24.126.91.75 — link — abuse?
Autigerman, i never said the BCS was fair direct from my first entry,"is the bowl system fair no. however, like the governemt, it's the only one that really works."
here is another problem with this playoff system. i was at the fiesta bowl and i can tell you that while there were a few oklahoma fans in the WVU section they DID NOT fill up their section. hence the problem with having multiple bowls.
if oklahoma didn't even fill up their section when they're half the distance we were how do you think it would play out when people are having to make multiple trips all over the country? i don't know about anyone else who went to one of the BCS games but they're pricey. lets face it the bowls want sell outs or as close to a sell out as they can get. having multiple bowls is not going to sell out. further more i don't want to having to play one team in phoenix arizona then have to start booking a trip to miami florida.
blankchannelbob said:
posted on January 11, 2008 3:36 AM — 68.39.205.99 — link — abuse?
They idea would not address the empty seats at these bowl games. You can't ask people to travel to two different cities and expect to get good attendance.
A more likely format is 4 team playoff with the possibility of bowl game triple hosting to cut down on travel meaning one host city (this year it would be NO) for all three games. This means you expand the BCS games by two more games.
IE for this year...
Prelimary games in New Orleans
Ohio State vs USC
LSU vs Oklahoma
winner plays in BCS National Championship gameThe other bowl games..
Rose- Ill vs AZSt
Orange- Va Tech v WVU
Fiesta- Kan vs Mo
Sugar- GA vs HIIf not....
The other option is to have one bowl double host and the other preliminary game at one of the other bowl sites (ie. prelim game at Sugar and Orange- National champ game at NO)
Bowls would rotate and you still get a playoff.OU-Ron
posted on January 11, 2008 8:55 AM — 216.201.209.146 — link — abuse? said:
@54 Regan, I think LSU and USC were the best two teams. I know that USC got beat by Stanford, but that was a fluke and will probably never happen again in the next 50 years.
I can’t stand Les Miles, but his team, IMO, played the best football all season long.
It really doesn’t matter who I think, or any other fan for that matter thinks the best teams were, it’s what the poll’s and coaches think, they are the one’s that choose who play’s in the NC game, they chose LSU and OSU, and LSU proved to be the best out of the two…
gOSU27 said:
posted on January 11, 2008 9:04 AM — 207.74.25.36 — link — abuse?
Wow shiguy....they play an easy schedule one year....so now they get the crap. It's not our fault the Big 10 sucks so bad! As for ooc games, Tressel normally puts in a two-year series with a national powerhouse team. First, Texas twice, now USC coming up twice.....Sure there are two or three easy inter-state schools, but how much worse are they than some weak Big 10 teams? Cinci could definatly take on NW or Minnesota.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 11, 2008 9:50 AM — 129.61.46.60 — link — abuse?
Regan
Thats the whole problem the bowl system doesnt work. The bowl system originally was never intended to crown a national champ.If fact when i was young ....long time ago, the national champ was selected before the bowl games.
Until 1968 the champion was determined before the bowl game.
Bowl games were just extra football to help celebrate the holidays.
Didnt really matter if you won or lost that much. In fact a few times the national champs did lose there bowl games.
You dont have to look back too far to realize this system isnt close to the best. 2003 USC finishes regular season Ranked #1 in AP and coaches polls yet BCS put LSU #1 and Oklahoma #2.
So they make changes and the next year Auburn is left out because of the changes.
Radical change may be the only answer here but this is certainly not the best that can be done.
You had a valid point from a fan stand point on travel expences but ask the Big 10 champs how they travel to california every year to play the rose bowl. Dont hear much complaining from them.
Once again ill say i dont know all the answers but if it can be succesfully done at every level of college football except this level then something is wrong.
VTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 10:16 AM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
@#41 gOSU27 - Actually, I was referring to OSU and the Big 10 (little 1) benefitting from the current system; I didn't mention the ACC or VT.
First, OSU has been tabbed by the current BCS system the last 2 years to play for the championship and got B@#$%-slapped both years, when there were other deserving teams. I'm not saying VT was MORE deserving than OSU, but obviously OSU has benefited from the current system.
Second, the Big 10 (little 1) has placed 17 teams in BCS bowls, yet has the third worst winning percentage of ALL conferences in BCS games. (Yes the ACC has the worst, but they have also only placed 10 teams in, and have the exact same record as the Big 10 (little 1) in Championship games). Meanwhile, the SEC, which has more teams and is widely acknowledged as the most consistently dificult conference in the country, has only placed 15 teams in BCS bowls, and has, by far, the best Cha,pionship record.
So, are you going to try to convince me the Big 10 (little 1) DOESN'T benefit more than any other conferenc from the current system?????
gatorhippy
posted on January 11, 2008 10:43 AM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
What's comical here is that Adams was one of the naysayers last year when UF prez Bernie Machen made a playoff spiel at the annual SEC conference in Destin...
What a difference a year makes...
Especially when on the cusp of a MNC shot but rightfully kept out because of poor early season performance...
VTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 10:46 AM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
An observation. Seems funny that in general fans from some conferences (SEC, Big East) seem to want to settle the NC ON THE FIELD, not with some beauty contest disguised as "impartial polls", like some conferences (Big 10 [little 1]).
@#55 Autigerman - I generally agree with you, except about Hawaii this year. According to Sagarin, Boise St had the 90th ranked schedule 2006. Did they not deserve to play OU in the Fiesta Bowl?
@#54 Regan, so LSU shouldn't have played for the NC? I guess 4 and 5 loss teams don't deserve to be in the NFL playoffs either. I guess you would rather have a beauty contest than a football game to decide the NC?
VTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 10:58 AM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
#64 gOSU27 - You are proving my point! You ADMIT the Big 10 (little 1) is weak, yet they have PLACED MORE TEAMS IN THE BCS THAN ANY OTHER CONFERENCE!!!
And I thought OSU was a good educational institute. Are you an alum, because you are having a hard time comprehending what you are reading.
My point was OSU and the Big 10 (little 1) are DISPROPORTIONATELY BENEFITTING FROM THE CURRENT BCS SYSTEM, so of course you don't want to change it!!!
posted on January 11, 2008 11:41 AM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
AuTigerman: Technically, the final AP poll was conducted before the bowl games through 1967, with the exception of 1965, when they experimented having it after, which became the norm starting from 1968 on. The UPI poll waited until 1974 to start conducting their final poll after the bowl games.
I believe Alabama was instrumental in getting that little policy change made, dropping bowl games after winning national championships.
gatorhippy
posted on January 11, 2008 11:54 AM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
WE ATL (#71):
The tradition of posting the final Polls before the bowl games indicates exactly what the bowls were started for in the first place...
Exhibition games posted as a reward for seasonal achievement...
These games were historically NEVER intended to make determinations of championship proportions...
Only after some losses by those deemed to be MNC's followed by bowl losses were the final polls added as you pointed out above...
Looking back at this, we see that the impetus to the change of the final polling of the season was public outcry...
This same type of outcry will be what is needed to get CFB pushed over the proverbial "hump" and into play off territory...
posted on January 11, 2008 12:18 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
GH: Agreed 100% Perhaps there was a grass-roots movement by fans to sway the polls into changing their ways--the same type of movement existing now that may push us over the playoff hump.
Modern day fans don't realize the history of the bowls and the evolution of them to eventually become de facto one-game playoffs. Much less do they realize that the concept of a mythical national championship didn't really exist until the early 1930s--a full 60+ years after college football was started.
Yes, fresh from their crusade to rename the Florida-Georgia game, Adams and Machen, much like other comical duos such as Martin and Lewis and Rowen and Martin, are now attempting to direct their efforts on playoff possibilities. Alas, this time, it looks like Abbott is attempting to upstage Costello by repackaging an old idea as his own. Oh, the humanity. Next, they'll be arguing semantics, attempting to call it anything else but a playoff!
gatorhippy
posted on January 11, 2008 12:24 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
WE ATL (#73):
Yeah...
Machen called out Adams in today's Gainesville Sun...
posted on January 11, 2008 12:25 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Kevin: Where's that 11+ paragraphs you promised, that your computer ate? We're waiting for you to weigh in on this subject.
Fanblogs ate one of my long posts once. It kinda takes the wind out of your sails as far as attempting to recreate it. That's why I 'copy' my posts before I hit the 'submit' button and allow the program to chew on it.
posted on January 11, 2008 12:36 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Interesting article, GH. Glad to see Machen saying basically, WTF? I guess Adams is singing, Anything you can do, I can do better!
Gordon Gee, one of Adams' fellow obstructionists last year with Vanderbilt, is now President of Ohio State, where he can be an even bigger obstacle in the road to a playoff--teamed up with the two "we'll go it at alone, if we have to" commisioners of the Big 10(11) and Pac 10(10).
Auburn has a new president and I haven't heard anything about where he would stand on this issue. Maybe I'll drop him a line. His office was soooo forthcoming after I inquiried into that whole dogbite affair at the Alabama game.
Autigerman said:
posted on January 11, 2008 12:44 PM — 129.61.46.60 — link — abuse?
VTBobb
The point i was trying to make with Boise State was that if they would have been in a playoff as an at large team they would have had an opportunity and rightfully so.
Under the current system they will never get a shot because a WAC team or Mountain west team cannot play as tough a schedule based on the rest of the teams in that conference.
Youll be hard pressed to ever find a team from a mid level conference ranked with one of the touger schedules. Unless that team is trying to make a move up ie. Troy which still came in at i think 78 sos.
They would be lucky to break top 30 if there out of conference schedules were through the roof.I only said what i did about Hawaii because i actually watched them play this year. Their signature win was against a very weak Washington team at it took a last minute drive to do it. They squeeked by some pretty midocre teams.
But even with that said they still desevered a chance and would have gotten one with the 8 team playoff. But no way should they have played the title game with that SOS.
VTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 12:57 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
AUT, I absolutely agree, I just wanted to make the point that an undefeated "Mid-major" with a weak schedule can still compete with the "Big Boys". But you are right, a weak SOSs SHOULD preclude a shot at the NC game. Barring a playoff format, how else do you whittle down to 2 teams in this era of parity.
I, however, did not watch any of Hawaii's games, so I wasn't qualified to comment on their worthiness. Hey, does that mean I get a vote in one of the Polls?
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on January 11, 2008 1:02 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
Okay, enough of the sugar coating. This is the deal: OSU and the media hype has been exposed by having LSU kill the, "Evenly matched speed contest," with OSU. That's why you can't stand it Regan. What's really a trip about the whole thing is this, "Two loss team," you keep down-sizing was favored to win the contest all along! WHAT, how could this be??? They are a two loss team, they can't be better!!! WRONG!
What would you have preferred? KU play OSU that way it would be a better game, and you would still have the PERCEPTION that the two best teams played? No! This system is exposed and even the BCS officials can't argue that.
The fact is simply every true Championship game has a playoff system in place except College Football. Why don't you argue why a BCS format would work better in every other league/sport. The facts are it wouldn't, and normal thinking would never allow it.Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on January 11, 2008 1:20 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
Actually AU, that's part of the problem with the system as well. The regular season should not be seen as a playoff. And if it is then it would be a win-win to have a real playoff because then you would have your first playoff (regular season) to see who gets into the real playoff (post season), and that way you can rest assure you will get the top two teams in the National Championship game. This is not a complicated system I'm sure you can agree.
Double the pleasure, double the fun.FanoftheGame said:
posted on January 11, 2008 1:33 PM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
There are some very good arguements posed by both sides of this debate. Some of you make very good cases as to why we should and why we should not have a playoff.
The bottom line is this............
Those who really truly want to know who the best team in the country is want some sort of playoff.
Those who think luck and popularity give their teams more of an advantage based on hype and presumption prefer the BcS system.
Those who seem to be more worried about keeping the Bowl traditions alive are apparently blind to the fact that most of these "bowl traditions" have died during the reign of the BcS. Since when did hosting a bowl game and slapping a famous title on it equate to maintaining tradition and not compromising the integrity of the "Pre-BcS Bowls"?my $.02
gatorstud said:
posted on January 11, 2008 1:50 PM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
there are a lot of good post on here reguarding this play-off scenario...and my take is that this year, above all other bcs years has proved that a playoff (of some sort) is needed....and all that is well in good but why does the change have to happen at the end of the season...change should start at the beginning also....
1. no "pre-season" games....college football should start on a certain weekend....
2. stop ranking teams until at least the third week....this is where the b-s starts...and it lasts with controversey throughout the season...who deserves to be where????....
3. to create a playoff system that is fair, everyone has to play the same number of "regular season" games....10 would be a good number with 8 conference games and 2 non-conference...
4. 6- team playoff would work the best in my opinion giving the consensual #1 & #2 a bye-week, leaving the other four to battle it out.....for spots in the semis........5 bowl games total....
i am sure that i am not the only one who has thought of these.....but i threw them out there anyway.....
in OSU's defense ..it seems that a lot of the dogging of OSU's right to be there only comes after they got beat .....before the title game..it was LSU gettin accusations thrown at them for being there....but after the game..the attention shifted to OSU....just because they lost doesn't mean they didn't deserve the right to be there....they did what they had to do thru-out the season and got a few lucky breaks.....but to say that they didn't deserve to be there...that is a little harsh....
tommy b. hold your head high....there are alot of people out there who wished there team would get to just one title game...let alone two in a row....
oh well, had nothing else to do so i thought i would just babble a bit.....
go gators....
VTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 2:07 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
G-Stud
First, don't you think 6 teams is too few? I firmly believe you need to give "mid-majors" a LEGITIMATE opportunity to participate.
Second, I agree 100% on no polls for 3 weeks. How can you pretend to rank a team BEFORE they ever play a snap?
Third, in your scenario (#4), would teams 3-6 be FORCED to play in the playoffs? I mean, if they aren't there CONSENSUALLY, could they file rape charges? (yeah OK, just thought it was a humurous typo, not that I think there is anything funny about rape. OK, I'll shut up now...for a minute...)
Maurice said:
posted on January 11, 2008 2:14 PM — 170.202.22.1 — link — abuse?
Well I suggest the NCAA should have a 32 team playoff. Yes it will work, Start after finals and end mid Jan. Keep all the bowl games just make bowl games a playoff format.
Week 1 16 games Week 2 8 games Week 3 4 games Week 4 2 games and Week 5 National title gameVTBobb said:
posted on January 11, 2008 2:15 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse?
G-Stud, one more thing (told you I would only shut up for a minute), To clarify, I wasn't saying OSU didn't belong, just that
1. There were other teams worthy as well
2. OSU and the Big 10 (little 1) have benefitted more than any other school/conference with the set up the way it is. Of COURSE they don't want to change it.
Anybody have the time to calculate the conference payouts per school from JUST THE BCS BOWLS since the BCS inception? I'd be interested to see how much each Big 10 (little 1) team has made from the BCS payouts. Bet it is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than in ANY OTHER CONFERENCE!
posted on January 11, 2008 5:46 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
A 32 team playoff would go 6 rounds--half the regular season. The most we can hope for initially is an 8-team playoff, with 4 rounds. Eventually it might expand to 16 teams, but we'd just never see a 32 team format. This isn't roundball.
To have 8 teams, we'd definitely have to kiss the new 12th regular season game good-bye and probably game 11, too. That would leave conferences like the Pac 10(10) with only one OOC game available to play, the SEC with two. Is that enough? It may not be, considering you just have to schedule one cupcake!
So, with 10 regular season games, we could schedule them over 12 weeks. If we started the season September 1st, we could conclude at the end of November like we customarily do. One week later play the conference championship games, then the week after, start the 4-round (not teams) playoff. The season would conclude in mid January, 1 week after it does now.
Having the playoffs start 1 week after the conference championships would have all teams in a real conference howling that the others were getting an extra week off (and subsequent advantage). Any playoff proposal would have to have all teams on an equal footing, so all of the big five conferences would have to have a conference championship game, or none of them would. Guess which it would be?
Being that conference champions are playing, it would probably preclude any at-large teams from the major conferences from playing. Maybe we'd only allow at-large teams from the minor conferences. That's why winning your conference would be so key.
Considering the length of the playoffs and the fact that it starts to cut into NFL time, it might only be resonable to expect a 4 team playoff. That's basically what we have now, plus one. Is it worth the trouble? Yes, yes it is. But I say if that's all we can get for now, let's roll!
hrposon said:
posted on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM — 98.200.123.115 — link — abuse?
The idea is to find out who is the College Football Div-1A (FBS) National Champion, not to start a second season.
A playoff of the eight top rated conference champions covers all of teams with a chance to win except one. Notre Dame will have join a conference to participate.
Win your conference and compete for the crown.
posted on January 11, 2008 7:07 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Yes, HRposenstuff, er, Puffnstuff... too much of a good thing is...a good thing! :-)
Follow up article in the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation today. (AJC) They called 30 university presidents and polled them about Adams' proposal.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/shared/sports/stories/2008/01/FBC_PLAYOFFS_0111_COX.html
Ironically, Adams isn't getting any support from SEC presidents polled so far. Could it be that they aren't really interested in a playoff, or do you think they just hate Adams?
Zac said:
posted on January 11, 2008 10:54 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Signs of changing times:
If Div-1 has a play-off, a 2-loss team could win it. Who'd want that?
Guess what? We now have a 2-loss champion without a play-off.A play-off would ruin the bowl system.
There are now 32 bowls. Teams with 6-6 records are getting in. If as many as 7 bowls were used in a play-off system, there would still be 25 bowls for teams with winning records.A play-off system would take too long; would run too far into the next year.
Odd, College Basketball starts in November and ends in March Madness (5 months); currently College Football starts in late August and ends the 1st week in January, approximately 2-3 weeks less.Play-offs wouldn't attract enough fans. It would cost too much to go to multiple games.
That one's hard to argue with. However, with the right marketing, and establishing decent travel packages (air fair, hotels, food, etc.), that might not turn out so bad. Besides, I have learned from some of you; it's not the gate receipts that keep a major bowl afloat; it's TV sponsorship revenue. Again, that takes marketing and a lot of hustle.So, with all of the good ideas thrown about, what's the best way to go?
I like a Top-10 system, where-by the bottom 4 play in the "Preliminary" round. The 2 winners round out the Top-8. If we consider this past season's pre-bowl final BCS Poll, a play-off might go like this.
Preliminary Rd (Dec 22): HA @ USC, WV @ KS
Round 1: (Dec 29) Capital One - VA Tech vs MO, Cotton - OK vs GA; (Jan 1) Orange - LSU vs HA/USC, Sugar - OSU vs KS/WV
Round 2 (Jan 12): Fiesta - Sugar vs Cotton, Rose - Orange vs Capital One
Championship Round (Jan 26): BCS - Fiesta vs RoseThen again, there's Gator Hippy's idea, or at least a variation on the theme. Currently, there are what we're considering the "Big 6" BCS conferences: ACC, Big-12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac Ten, & SEC. Then there's everyone else: C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, WAC.
If the Big East, Big Ten, & Pac Ten could each expand to 12 teams, and the 5 mid-majors could somehow become 4 conferences, each with its own championship, then those 4 conference champions could play-off, which would round out 8 teams consisting of conference champions; hense a play-off, where by there could only be one representative/conference.
Of course, we could wind up with a 4 loss FL St type scenario, but if the conferences determine their reps, we can't bitch at the BCS any longer.
Feeeeew!!! OK, it's long. At least it's not 11 paragraphs. OOPS!!! I think I miscounted. I need to take a break. Did somebody say gumbo?!?
Ben Prather 
said:
posted on January 9, 2008 4:43 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse?For the record, I truly advicate a plus one format, and believe this may be pressure to get the PAC 10 and BIG 10 to accept that compromise.
I admit a plus one would have failed this year. I believe this is due to the fact that no team deserves the championship this year.