November 12, 2006
Terry Bowden: Let's have a playoff
Terry Bowden has a new Yahoo Sports column up with his take on what a college football playoff would look like. His criteria? Take the top eight BCS teams and seed them by BCS ranking. Run the playoff through the four BCS bowls and three other randomly selected bowl games.
So I started thinking, what if we were having a playoff at the end of the season? What would the discussions be like today? We would not be wondering who were going to be the top two teams at the end of the season, but who the top eight teams (in my playoff scenario, anyway) would be. Shoot, every undefeated and one-loss team in the country – and their fans – still would be in the hunt for a national championship. Talk about enhancing the value and protecting the integrity of the regular season....
Once I put it down on paper, I was blown away at just how incredible this would be. Imagine two and a half weeks with seven of the most exciting games of the year, in which every game is huge for everybody. It makes the BCS system we have today – and the money it generates – look like a joke.
Despite the fact that we have this debate about... oh, weekly, I'll bite. Whatd'ya think??
Comments:
Don V said:
posted on November 12, 2006 7:30 PM — 70.119.92.96 — link — abuse?
Same argument from me as always: this won't stop any complaining - it'll just be something new ot complain about.
Regardless of the number of teams in it, there will always be teams that deserve to be in or teams that don't. If it's 8 teams, by the time we reach the end of the season, some 2-loss team will be in the top 8. Tell me why they deserve to be in the same playoff as an undefeated team?
If it's only 4, then it's the same argument that is currently going on - which teams deserve it?
I'm against a playoff, but I'm not going to convince anyone and if we end up with one, I'm sure it'll be fun. Just don't expect it to be the end of all problems.
posted on November 12, 2006 7:41 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
@DonV - I totally agree. A playoff doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the question.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 12, 2006 7:51 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
Well, of course it doesn't solve all the problems. But it *does* eliminate the issues of having more than two undefeated teams, this year's ridiculous possibility of an immediate rematch between OSU and Michigan (Can you imagine the uproar if team getting beat in the first game wins the second?), and it allows teams to play into the championship game without depending on the polls to get them there.
My question is, why keep NCAA Division 1 football as the ONLY major sport out of a playoff system? It doesn't make sense. Why should this sport be any different than the rest? I say, settle it on the field.
So Cal Tun Tavern said:
posted on November 12, 2006 7:53 PM — 204.62.68.21 — link — abuse?
8 Teams is too much. Who the fugk would wanna give so many 2-Loss teams (and "potential" 3-Loss teams) like Texas, Cal, or Auburn even a shot the National Title??? Alls we need are 4 Teams. Its not that big a shame if teams like Rutgers, Notre Dame, or the Loser of Mich/OSU, are "left-out"... compared to having a team with TWO LOSSES being named the National Champion of College Football. For that 5th-Rated team, they just didnt have the Schedule that the other four did - thats as simple as it should be.
Gator Boys said:
posted on November 12, 2006 7:57 PM — 64.238.162.154 — link — abuse?
Yea a 4 team playoff might be better. Plus, thats only 1 more game. And the 5th place team not being allowed to be in the Playoff isnt as big of an injustice as the 3rd place team not being allowed into the playoff
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 12, 2006 8:01 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
So Cal:
I'm with you, but it's not big news for the NCAA to have teams with a losing record in the tourney due to them getting hot in their conference championship. A lot of people have problems with this, I can understand that. Nothing's perfect, but we need to get to something less imperfect than the BCS.
Steve said:
posted on November 12, 2006 8:47 PM — 24.247.95.75 — link — abuse?
Why shouldn't the loser of the UM/OSU game get another chance like every other 1-loss team? Because they lost late in the season? Say Michigan loses to OSU by a field goal in Columbus. You're saying Florida, who lost to a team that's currently ranked 13th deserves a shot at the national title over a team that lost to the #1 team on their turf? How does that make sense?
Playoffs in every other sport are all about who can deliver come crunch time. Your argument about having a 1 or 2-loss team playing the playoffs goes against every playoff schedule that exists. That's like saying there shouldn't be a Superbowl if one team goes undefeated.
The big issue with college ball is that there's not a level playing field because all the teams don't play the same schedule, or even close to it. Look at ND's schedule, but they always get a top ranking because they are ND and a coaches favorite.
I think a playoff system is the only way to end the BS of the BCS system, which is still run by the interests of the bowl organizers, not the NCAA (not that the NCAA has college sports best interests in mind anyway).
Although I'd open it up to 16 teams so there's no question of who makes a cut, and then make automatic bids for winners of the premiere conferences. That way you avoid situations where one conference with strong teams beat up on each other (like UM/OSU/UW, or UF/UG/UT) and knock themselves out of bowl contention for a team like ND who gets to pick and choose who they play, and end up playing teams 4 or 5 teams a year like Army or Temple.Rick said:
posted on November 12, 2006 8:58 PM — 65.81.141.93 — link — abuse?
Good idea Kevin. Now think about my idea of creating four super conferences and each one having a championship game (already have two in place)...merging ACC & Big East, SEC & Big 10, Big 12 & Pac 10. Advantages: 1) Scheduling cup cakes eliminated 2) a full season of interesting intersectional games 3) all four super conference champions guaranteed a BCS bowl berth 4) Use your format for National Championship Game.
wishbone said:
posted on November 12, 2006 9:04 PM — 216.170.58.10 — link — abuse?
You're bitchin about Ohio St and Michigan with a chance to have a rematch for the National Title yet even with a playoff that's still a very good possibility. And if they are truly the 2 best teams, they'd meet again anyway. So what's the big stink? Regardless if it's a 4 or 8 team playoff or as the system is now, they'd still get their rematch.
All a playoff would do is open more cans of worms for more people to bitch about why their team didn't get into the playoffs. Please explain how it's a lesser injustice to the 5th team of a 4 team playoff than the current 3rd team? That's a ridiculous notion. You tell that to the players and coaches and see what kind of reaction you get. What if that 5th place team had just as difficult a schedule if not more difficult than the 4th place team, but was one spot below them in the polls due to where they started the season causing them to be ranked overall lower? It's OK for that to happen?
You say it allows teams to play into the championship game without relying on the polls to get them there. Yet it's the polls that decide who gets to the playoffs? Talk about a double standard. If you want an RPI type deal like the NCAA basketball does, then get rid of the human polls, and go strictly on computers. Whatever the computers RPI spits out as the top 2, that's you're title game. Oh, wait, that's kind of what we have now isn't it?
Besides, do you really think the Bowls would go for something like that? Think about this. Currently, bowls get to have thousands of fans come to their towns and spend tons of $$$$$ for 7-14 days or even longer. Fans use the bowls as a vacation destinations. You have a playoff like that, the bowls wouldn't get the same number of fans for as long a period of time, costing their host cities thousands upon thousands of dollars. That won't fly. Add to the fact the increased cost to the fans who would like to follow their team. If their team happens to win on, their fans would have to travel to 2 or 3 destinations. How many fans would be able to afford to do that? Increased cost to fans and less income for the bowls isn't better for college football.
College football is unique. It's this difference to all other sports that makes it such a great game. If you can't get into who is in the title game because it's not you team or a local team, then you're probably not a true college football fan. It's true, the system isn't perfect but it's still better than any other sport around, college or pro. Something a playoff would destroy.
VTBobb said:
posted on November 12, 2006 9:18 PM — 70.17.28.196 — link — abuse?
Here’s a thought. One of the professed goals of the NCAA is parity. I think they’ve done a decent job of promoting it, but what is the ultimate goal? Isn’t the natural progression from a few Haves dominating every year to true competitive parity an absolute NEED for a playoff? What happens in any given year when there are 4 or 6 teams that are so closely matched, meeting on the field is the only way to truly determine the better team?
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 12, 2006 9:24 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
Steve said:
"Why shouldn't the loser of the UM/OSU game get another chance like every other 1-loss team?"
I understand and respect your argument and your reasoning. Now consider this. What happens if say, OSU loses at home to Michigan and it's a close game. They get matched up in the Championship game. That benefits the loser of the first game, in my opinion. Then lets say OSU wins the Championship. Well, how does that work? They were each 1-1 against each other. Don't you think Michigan would have a beef, and have a right to play a rubber match game?
desperate mwc fan said:
posted on November 12, 2006 9:32 PM — 70.180.128.53 — link — abuse?
steve, the loser of the mich/ohio st game can and should get a shot at the title game if in fact that under the bcs system they qualify. If is was just simply who lost to whom, when they lost and what was the ranking of the team they lost to, the loser of that game would still be in the nat cham game. But, the problem with that analogy is there are many other factors most notable the sos. The reason why a florida, ND, or usc will still have a chance is because of the sos those schools have. That very factor also in the end may hurt the loser of the mich/ohio st. game. we'll see. The most impressive thing about the above mentioned teams is how usc goes out and schedules tough non-conf
teams every year home or away. That is obviosly other than winning why they are always so highly ranked.Jon said:
posted on November 12, 2006 9:46 PM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
@DonV - I totally agree. A playoff doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the question.
1) There is no possibility the "best team" in college football would land outside of the top 8 at the end of the season.
2) I'd much rather have people arguing about getting into the 8th spot.. instead of having to arguing who is the best team in football.
It may not completely end arguments.. But it is MUCH better than the system we are currently using... As is any system that lets more teams settle it on the field.
All a playoff would do is open more cans of worms for more people to bitch about why their team didn't get into the playoffs
The current system allows SEVERE injustices...
This year you could see Rutgers go completely undefeated, not play in a the national title game, beat Florida in the bowl.. and be the only undefeated team.... USC could beat Ohio State and win the national title game as a one loss..They are going to win the national title by default..even though Rutgers may actually be #1 in all polls outside of the BCS...I'd much rather see people arguing about the justice of the #8 place... than the #1 place..
Because who is #8 is LESS RELEVANT.. than who is #1...
It is only a matter of time before the BCS screws everyone.. What happens when it screws your team??
Jon said:
posted on November 12, 2006 10:12 PM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
I mean if we systematically break it down into what system screws people more...
A system that may allow an undeserving team to be crowned "national champions".. or split the national titles..
or...
A system that may screw the #9 team (because they deserved to be #8).. costing them a chance to play in the playoffs.. in which even if they could go.. they still would be extremely long shots to winning the national title.
The difference is degree of separation.. The #9 team has a snow-balls chance in hell of coming out of a playoff system with the national title and the fans know it.
Regardless of who wins the #8 spot, the odds of them (or any other potential #8) actually winning the national title is very low.
But the odds of the BCS screwing up (which it has several times) is much higher. The odds of the BCS screwing someone out of the national title = higher.
And as a fan.. id much rather have my team being screwed out of the playoffs... than out of possible national title... because in the end.. if my team is #9, they probably wouldn't of ran the table..but if they went undefeated.. and the BCS screwed them because two other teams went undefeated... I would go go postal.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 12, 2006 10:35 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
wishbone said:
"You're bitchin about Ohio St and Michigan with a chance to have a rematch for the National Title yet even with a playoff that's still a very good possibility."
Good point. The difference is, with a playoff they wouldn't play each other first time out, they'd have to play through their brackets to meet again. Also, they wouldn't have nearly 2 months to prepare for the game as they would with the BCS. (OSU-Michigan's regular seasons end 11/18.)
Like Jon (comment #18) said, you're always going to have the "we got screwed" argument; and I agree that I'd rather have the argument occurring for 8th place and not 1st place. In my opinion, you can still have bowl games for anyone outside the playoff system, similar to the way it is now.
StateFansNation said:
posted on November 12, 2006 10:45 PM — 71.75.23.223 — link — abuse?
Imagine how IMPOSSIBLE the logistics of this would be for everyone involved.
It takes cities and programs about a month to arrange the logistics and travel for a single bowl game...and you want to squeeze three different games into a three week period for some teams?
One of my favorite comments that people make about a hypothetical playoff system is how it is "for the fans".
ROTFLOL!!
It SOUNDS great...but it would only cost an average fans about $10,000 to find travel and follow their team through 3 rounds of this kind of national championship.
In fact, Bowden's oversight of the logistical nightmare of this dream is exactly why the idea loses credibility. Take #1 Ohio State.
A Buckeye fan's "reward" for being #1 in the country is to travel to San Diego a couple of days before Christmas to battle a team from California of all places. (Makes perfect sense!!!)
So, you win that game in a hostile environment (so much for playing a regular season schedule to earn a #1 seed) and within seven days you need to book another set of travel arrangements to get to Dallas, TX to play Texas in the Cotton Bowl. (Makes perfect sense for the #1 team to play their second game in the home state of the lesser seed!!!)
So, your Buckeyes win that game, and you and the 3rd mortgage that you have just taken out have to get flight arrangements and travel BACK to California for the National Title game.
At this point, you better own the whole corporation and not just your own jet because you would have just shot your entire year's worth of vacation traveling for the last 3 weeks to watch football.
Yep!! It is ALL FOR THE FANS!!!
Dennis said:
posted on November 12, 2006 10:58 PM — 71.34.202.223 — link — abuse?
whats wrong with 2 losses afterall, in the basketball tourtment, most teams have more then 1 or 2 lossses after all at this stage of the game its a tournment.let at least have 8 play lets have som fun 4the players & the fans afterall we pay for it
Jarred said:
posted on November 12, 2006 11:19 PM — 12.178.138.65 — link — abuse?
1 Ohio State .977
2 Michigan .974
3 USC .870
4 Florida .850
5 Notre Dame .819
6 Rutgers .787
7 Arkansas .757
8 West Virginia .658At least WV would get play OSU this way. I guess the playoff haters are right, nobody beside OSU and MICH deserve a shot. Oh darn.
Ray said:
posted on November 12, 2006 11:25 PM — 68.106.143.19 — link — abuse?
You are saying why should so many 2-loss teams be given the possibility?
Well let's see, because they PLAY a much higher caliber of teams.
You are rewarding teams like Boise and Rutgers for having WEAK schedules.
If Arkansas doesn't go out of conference to play USC they are undefeated also.
If you are not going to have a playoff with teams with 2 losses, then teams are going to go back to playing CUPCAKES and having SOFT Non-Conference shedules. The whole reason why teams have these 2-loss records is 1, they play in tougher conferences than Boise St or the Big East. 2nd, they play tougher non-conference schedules.
Once again concerning your gripe about 2 loss teams, well I guess you don't watch the NCAA basketball championship, because you would see teams make it with UNDER .500 records. I have you ever heard of a Cinderella Team? That's a team nobody thought should be there. If you have a playoff system in place you are going to have the top 8 using the BCS rankings. If that means you have a team with 2 losses than so be it. You can't change the BCS on an individual yearly basis because 1 year you have 3 undefeated teams and the next you have 2.
LSU has played much tougher competition than Rutgers. Rutgers has only played Lousville in the top 25. Louisville has only beat Miami who is 5-5, with 3 wins over teams with a combined record of 1-29. The only other team is West Virgina. Speaking of West Virgina, oh ya they haven't beat anyone in the Top 25 either!
So if you want to complain about teams with 2 losses, there is a reason. The reason is they play better teams, tougher schedules and therefor will always have MORE LOSSES.
So if you want to see lackluster matchups each week, than you can watch Boise St play teams like San Jose St, UTEP, Utah etc. Or if you want to watch some of the best athletes in America week in and week out play each other, then tune in to the BIG 10, SEC etc.
Give me Louisville at home like Rutgers had them and I'm sure you are going to see a tough game from most schools in the top 25. Oh wait, you wouldn't want that would you because one of those teams might lose and have 2nd loss, and then because of that you would want to exlude them from a playoff system.
That's what we used to have, now at least we have a BCS Championship game.
CAL FAN! said:
posted on November 13, 2006 1:20 AM — 209.240.206.191 — link — abuse?
IM ALL FOR A PLAYOFF SYSTEM B/C THIS BCS SYSTEM
SUCKS!! I LIKE YOUR PLAN..TERRY MAN! YOUR GOIN TO HAVE WHINERS NO MATTER WHAT..IT SEEMS FAIR AND GIVES LEGITIMATE TEAMS A CHANCE AT THE NATIONAL
TITLE. JUST DO IT NIKE!!!Regan said:
posted on November 13, 2006 1:33 AM — 208.104.83.149 — link — abuse?
I had worked so hard on coming up with a simple list of good explanations of how, IMHO, a Playoff would end the spark of life that makes College Football so compelling, so unique, and so beloved. My plan was simple: Copy-and-paste every time I saw a Playoff Rant.
Then I just had to check Fanblogs while I was visiting a friend for the weekend...
Okay, I'll critique the specific example:
Let's replace, say, #8 Cal with ND (9-1), #5 Texas with Wisconsin (10-1), #3 Louisville with Rutgers (9-0), and #6 Auburn with Arkansas (9-1), simply because those teams lost and are out of the BCS race.
We have:
#1 Ohio State (11-0)
#8 Notre Dame (9-1)#4 Florida (9-1)
#5 Wisconsin (10-1)#2 Michigan (11-0)
#7 Southern California (8-1)#3 Rutgers (9-0)
#6 Arkansas (9-1)ISSUE #1: Wake Forest (9-1). Or should we replace #7 Southern California with the Demon Deacons? Or likely SEC Champ Arkansas? They only lost one game, too, and I am certain that of the five 1-Loss teams the Deacs can find a reason to say they belong there instead of __________.
Commence Whining, what a playoff was meant to end...
ISSUE #2: Three undefeated teams. Boise State (10-0) could potentially be better than one of the five one-loss teams, right?Commence Whining, what a playoff was meant to end...
ISSUE #3: I certainly don't care about Ohio State-Michigan. Personally, I am getting to the point that I resent the ever-increasing ga-ga factor over this game that makes the national scene virtually ignore all the other classic rivalries played that same day. (Side Note - Had it not been so ga-ga'd over by the national media for the last 5 years, I wouldn't be burnt out now when it IS worth the hype...but I digress...)BUT, if the Playoff season were in play, THE #1 OHIO STATE VERSUS #2 MICHIGAN EVERYONE IS SALIVATING FOR WOULD BE UTTERLY MEANINGLESS. Anyone not understand that? Okay, just to be safe...
THE #1 OHIO STATE VERSUS #2 MICHIGAN EVERYONE IS SALIVATING FOR WOULD BE UTTERLY MEANINGLESS.
MEAN - ING - LESS. #1 / #2. Woody / Bo. All that you will not be able to escape from for the next 2 weeks - M-E-A-N-I-N-G-L-E-S-S.
The Regular Season would suffer - there is absolutely no way around it.
Moving on...
IF, HOWEVER, I am going to bash something, rationality tells me I must offer an alternative. Thus, I put forth (once more) the notion of a "PLUS-ONE" SYSTEM CONTENGENT ON YEARLY NEED, backed up by some common criteria, including:
- Only an undefeated record is guaranteed to get you in. If you lose, you leave it up to FATE and have no reason to complain if you miss out, even if someone else with an identical record gets in. If your team dropped the ball, you must accept that and accept what the consequenses are.
- If you can't win your Division/Conference, you shouldn't play in the NC Game.
Then, if there is one Undefeated Team, it should play the strongest 1-Loss Team. If other teams whine, then they need blame only themselves for dropping the ball that one game they lost.
If there are two, then there ya go.
If there are three, then #1 plays the #2 vs. #3 winner and we've got a consensus #1 without completely restructuring the nature of College Football. Everybody wins!
The BCS is Flawed...but a Playoff isn't necessarily the answer.
Most of the people posting here love CF more than any other major sport. CF is the only major sport without a Playoff. Does anyone else see the connection?
All above IMHO, as always :)
IP-AFK
Jarred said:
posted on November 13, 2006 2:33 AM — 12.178.138.65 — link — abuse?
Michigan vs USC-could happen anyway
Osu vs ND-i'm sure the midwest would hate this
UF vs WIS-great game between 2 of the toughest conferences
RU vs ARK-what BE or SEC fan wouldn't want to see this (referring to bloggers).Jon said:
posted on November 13, 2006 6:47 AM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
MEAN - ING - LESS. #1 / #2. Woody / Bo. All that you will not be able to escape from for the next 2 weeks - M-E-A-N-I-N-G-L-E-S-S.
Yes.. the teams that consider the last 2-weeks MEANINGLESS are going to be the same teams bitching about being left out of that #8 position.
If teams slack off.. they put it in voters hands.. voters who may interpret their slacking off = undeserving of the opportunity to play in the playoff system.
Teams will be playing for the right to take it out of the voters and computers hands...
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 13, 2006 10:54 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Regan:
I'm with you on all of that. A plus-one is about all I could ever see the need for. Although, I am a purest (liked the old way) and don't really see the need for the BCS at all. I do think that the computers do take the edge off of the tremendous amount of bias that I have to watch from the pundits every time their team wins or they have to eat crow.
I'll give you a for instance on the "eating crow" mindset. After Arkansas hammers Tennessee, these idiots on ESPN, finally wake up to the fact that Arkansas is a pretty good team and is probably gonna pound Florida (they have just got done watching their beloved team struggle against South Carolina). It finally dawns on them that they are on the wrong end of the dog. So, they start yammering on and on about how "should Arkansas beat LSU and Florida" - that they should be in the NC Game over USC. Later in the day - USC drills Oregon and the BCS Polls come out on Sunday with USC #3. The same idiots are now pushing USC and how great they are (as they had obviously forgotten that USC blew out Arkansas 50-14, but nobody else did!) and have now put the Arkansas win into some kinda perspective. Fact is: all of these teams have at least one or two really tough games left to play. It is very premature to speculate on who really deserves to play for the NC. I do think that whoever loses in the Ohio State and Michigan encounter does not warrant another shot. Reason is: they just played! That is their shot. You don't get two cracks at the Top Team. You get one. Who wants to see that game again? What does it prove if they split? And, if somebody loses twice - doesn't that prove that somebody else should have gotten the 2nd shot at the #1 team?Tommie T
gatorhippy said:
posted on November 13, 2006 11:19 AM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
11 conference champs and 5 at large teams determined by win/loss tie breakers based purely on win percentage (combined opponents record, common opponents record, etc.) without the use of computer or human rankings....
Bowls still used for regional playoff venues and also as consolation games for teams not making the playoffs...
IMHO this give the clearest and FAIREST shot to all conference winners and at large teams while taking the opinion element out of the equation...
rebel1222 said:
posted on November 13, 2006 12:21 PM — 74.246.157.47 — link — abuse?
I like the playoff idea. It would finally put to rest these teams with weak schedules that stay ranked high all seasoin claiming #1 over teams with a much tougher schedules. A playoff system would decide it on the field of play. It would not be perfect. But, it would be far better than the BCS or the polls prior to the BCS. No more shared championships.
Mooka said:
posted on November 13, 2006 12:28 PM — 138.163.0.36 — link — abuse?
This system was MY IDEA!!! Terry Bowden stole my idea. I can't believe this sh__. So yea, I say this is a great idea. If he can make this happen I don't care if he stole my idea. Just get it done. NOW! Everybody write your congressman. Let's make this happen.
Mooka said:
posted on November 13, 2006 12:39 PM — 138.163.0.42 — link — abuse?
Statesfan,
Settle down a little bit. There is nothing wrong with watching the game at home instead of mortgaging your home. Funny, you don't have all of these complaints for the NFL playoff system, or March Madness. Hmmmmm...
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 13, 2006 1:01 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
StateFansNation:
I've never been able to afford to go to a bowl game trip anyway, *the way it is designed now*, so the logistics of a playoff would not be a problem to me. It's not very expensive to stay home and watch on TV. Good point, but either way, it doesn't matter.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 13, 2006 4:32 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
Regan said:
"Most of the people posting here love CF more than any other major sport. CF is the only major sport without a Playoff. Does anyone else see the connection?"
I watch college basketball and the NFL and yes, golf (I know go figure...what can I say? I play golf) just as much as I watch college football. I love all of them equally, and the lack of a playoff in CF is maddening to me. I *live* for March Madness, and the NFL playoffs. It's the best. I even manage to watch the baseball playoffs, because it's so compelling.
You make very compelling arguments; but I would point out once again that I would rather have the "whining commencing" on the Number 8 team than the Number 1 team. And, of course, I couldn't disagree more with your comment about OSU-Michigan. Like it or not, it's the best rivalry in sports. Period.
AUtigerman said:
posted on November 13, 2006 7:01 PM — 68.1.33.227 — link — abuse?
Does anyone actually have a logical reason why division one football dosent have a playoff. The BCS doesnt work either. If Rutgers goes undefeated
and is left out of the championship game shouldnt that be reason enough to do away with the BCS,after all the big east does have an automatic bid.Auburns undefeated season two years ago didnt change anything and that lowly team only has 16 players in the nfl, four of which went in the first round. But what do NFL scouts know about football anyway. I just figure if its good enough for division two and three then the big boys should get a playoff also..
WareagleGator Boys said:
posted on November 13, 2006 7:17 PM — 64.238.162.154 — link — abuse?
Jon is right way back on post 18 and 20. The lower (higher number) you're ranked the less of an injustice it is that you dont get into the playoffs. In March madness, lots of teams have a chance to be the 63rd seed, but if they dont get it and somebody else does, it doesnt really matter. They should have played better. The BCS seems like a good idea, but it has messed up many times. For example: 2004 Auburn and 2001 Miami/FSU. Both had 1 loss, and miami beat fsu, but FSU went to the national championship and got killed
BruinJuJu said:
posted on November 13, 2006 9:51 PM — 68.234.187.44 — link — abuse?
Mooka & Tom B.
You're missing StatesFan's point. You may not ever go to a bowl game and have no problem watching the playoffs on tv, but someone still has to sit in those seats to make each game financially viable. Bowl games ARE financially viable and work precisely because alums and fans get off their butts once a year and take their vacation around their team's bowl game.
Why do you think certain teams get shunned by bowl officials?? Because their "fans don't travel well." Lots of empty seats means losses (TV alone doesn't make up for the costs). Imagine the same team playing in three playoff games! A lot of money would be lost. By saying that you'd stay at home and watch it you are proving his point.
Gator Boy - the NCAA tourney has 65 teams, not 62.
Regan said:
posted on November 13, 2006 10:37 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
Jon (#37):
My example was meant to show how the current big game between Ohio State and Michigan would be meaningless if we had a playoff, because both are undefeated, and afterwards the loser would be a 1-Loss team - which by the definition of Bowden's example would give that team reason to be in the 8-Team mix, especially if one of the other 1-Loss Teams won.
It would be Florida-Florida State '96 all over again.
I agree with your points entirely - they back up what I was saying about who is truly deserving to be in a NC Game, and that 1-Loss Teams have no reason to gripe if they aren't placed in the big game because they had a chance to make the play when it counted and didn't...
Regan said:
posted on November 13, 2006 10:52 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan (#38):
I can certainly appreciate the purist perspective, funny how the level of vitriol has only been so high on the Postseason subject since the BCS came out, despite the fact both have handed us Split Champions.
You’re spot-on with regards to the games this past Saturday and the "Flow Of Hype". Vol fans were livid during the season at the fact that Cal had been getting so much sunshine despite the big loss they suffered the first week in Neyland while Southern California was pummeling Arkansas.
Ouch…is it just me or does that weekend seem like years ago now? Anyhoo…
Yes - How there is even the notion of an Ohio State/Michigan rematch for the NC is a testament to either the stupidity of the system, the sheer orbital levels of hype by fans that just want to see it, regardless of how unfair it might be to the vast majority of College Football Nation, or maybe a little of both.
I actually forgot (during this thread’s rantings) to mention the foul language that comes to mind when the notion of a 2-loss team having a shot at the NC over 1-Loss Teams…thanks!
Regan said:
posted on November 13, 2006 10:57 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
Tom Blogical (#46):
>>
I watch college basketball and the NFL and yes, golf (I know go figure...what can I say? I play golf) just as much as I watch college football. I love all of them equally, and the lack of a playoff in CF is maddening to me. I *live* for March Madness, and the NFL playoffs. It's the best. I even manage to watch the baseball playoffs, because it's so compelling.
Many people do – my point is that most of the people here (I haven’t taken a poll, so this could be an incorrect statement) IMHO enjoy College Football more than other sports. I do know that ESPN did a nationwide poll and people that 55% preferred CF to NFL (89,455 to 73,190). They had a breakdown by state, but that reminds me of politics, which I am beyond sick of, so I’ll digress.
The point of the statement was that those that do revere CF over other sports recognize that the primary reason is due to the intense regular season. Recently (I’ll find the article and reference it later) it was pointed out that College Basketball gets three intense weeks in March, while College Football gets five intense MONTHS.
>>
You make very compelling arguments; but I would point out once again that I would rather have the "whining commencing" on the Number 8 team than the Number 1 team. And, of course, I couldn't disagree more with your comment about OSU-Michigan. Like it or not, it's the best rivalry in sports. Period.
Hey, no matter what, I appreciate ya considering them. It seems that most people dismiss them, as so many have posted afterward that didn’t reference my work of art of post #32! Thanks to Jon and Tommie Trojan as well. :)
As far as the #8 rather than #1 team ‘Whining’, you have a valid point as well. The reason I used the argument was to address the point brought up by others that had oversimplified the issue by stating that there would be no controversy in a Playoff.
As far as Ohio State – Michigan, it comes purely down to tastes, preferences, and perspective. My perspective here in South Carolina is that each of the last five years, the national media has progressively increased the level of hype about the two teams playing that so many other good rivalries have gotten drowned out. It’s on ESPN Classic all week, despite other longtime emotional rivalries such as Texas/Texas A&M, Alabama/Auburn, Southern California/UCLA, Cal/Stanford, South Carolina/Clemson, etc.
The sheer volume of hype over the last few years has destroyed any interest I have in watching the game now that it actually matters. Most of the people here that aren't fans of one of the two teams feel the same way. We're sick of it, and there is a reason, IMHO:
Speaking of South Carolina/Clemson – last year down here we got treated to an entire week of Buckeye/Wolverine games that all looked the same the week before and goodness knows what else on those two teams any time we dared to go higher than the local newspaper.
Yet, for some reason, South Carolina and Clemson fans were informed that the annual big match-up between our Palmetto State teams WOULD NOT BE TELEVISED. A last minute influx of pleading e-mails, the fact that the teams beat Florida and Florida State the week before, and last-minute lobbying by both schools convinced ESPN 2 to air the game late that Wednesday night – only within the state of South Carolina.
Ohio State/Michigan may indeed be the biggest rivalry. My opinion is that the topic is subjective, and pointless to compare to begin with. To us, it's just another two teams that happen to play on Rivalry Saturday. Even if it is true, however, NO rivalry deserves that much coverage.
Period. Not when we have to beg to get to watch our rivalries. If I sound bitter on the subject, it’s safe to admit I am…
And trust me…you don’t even want to know what I said about it last year :)
The Mayor said:
posted on November 14, 2006 2:19 AM — 67.174.192.148 — link — abuse?
I have no need for the BCS or a National Champion in College Football.
The only sport without a playoff...so what?!?!?
Big 10 vs. Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl on January 1st. That's all I care about.
I say a playoff system does not solve rankings in football. I feel the same way about College Basketball....one bad quarter and you're out.
Pro MLB Fans are even bitching about St. Louis winning the WS in Baseball as their regular season record was so atrocious. Playoff be damned, there's always something to whine about.
Go back to Bowl Games being what they were, an extra game after a great season. No corporate sponsors. Once agian, half the teams go home happy under the current scenario...except the Dukcs and Bears, because they whine about their Holiday Bowl berth and then proceed to lose antway.
Eat my Tostitos, suck my Meinke.
Jon said:
posted on November 14, 2006 3:20 AM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
I agree with your points entirely - they back up what I was saying about who is truly deserving to be in a NC Game, and that 1-Loss Teams have no reason to gripe if they aren't placed in the big game because they had a chance to make the play when it counted and didn't...
Sorry I am an FSU fan.. having issues this week. :-p
Jon said:
posted on November 14, 2006 3:39 AM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
So far:
~11% chance it creates a split national title.
~22% chance it creates a bottleneck with 3 or more schools with no losses.
~100% chance it creates a botteneck among two teams that have the same record, similar SOS, screwing one and allowing one to play.
Apparently you can "tweak" all you want. 9 years later you still have a fatally flawed system.
=============================================
Source: Wikipedia FYI - in case you are interested
=============================================
1998-99 seasonThe first year of the BCS ended in controversy when Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings but was passed over for participation in BCS bowl games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and Florida (ranked 8th). The following season, the BCS adopted the "Kansas State Rule," which provides that any team ranked in the top four in the final BCS poll is ensured of an invitation to a BCS bowl game.
The following season, Kansas State finished 6th in the BCS standings but again received no invitation, this time being passed over in favor of Michigan (ranked 8th). Kansas State's predicament (as well as that of undefeated Tulane who was denied a BCS bid because they played in Conference USA) demonstrated early on the arbitrary nature of invitations to BCS bowl games.
2000-01 season
One loss Florida State was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their one loss coming to a Miami Hurricanes team, which also had one loss. (Week Two at Washington.) Florida State lost to Oklahoma 13-2, after Florida State was able to score on a safety with minutes to go in the game. Many believe Miami/Oklahoma would have been a better game.
2001-02 season
In another controversial season, second-ranked Nebraska in the BCS was chosen as a national title game participant despite being ranked #4 in the human polls and not playing in the Big 12 championship game or winning their conference or division. The Huskers went into their last regularly scheduled game at Colorado undefeated, but left Boulder with a 62-36 loss. The Buffaloes went on to win the Big 12 championship game. However, the BCS computers don't take into account time of loss, so one-loss Nebraska came out ahead of two-loss Colorado and one-loss, second-ranked Oregon. Nebraska beat Colorado for the #2 spot in the BCS poll by .05 points. Chants of "Number Four!" were heard throughout the title game held at the Rose Bowl. Nebraska was routed in the game, 37-14, by the Miami Hurricanes. Meanwhile Oregon, the consensus #2 team in both human polls (and #4 in the BCS), routed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl. As a result of the controversy, the BCS was tweaked in the off-season. A "quality-win" bonus was added to the formula, giving extra credit for beating a top ten team.
2003-04 season
The 2003-2004 season aroused much controversy when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss (in fact, no I-A Division team finished the season undefeated, something that hadn't happened since 1996, the year before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were:
Oklahoma, LSU and USC
Three non-BCS schools also finished with one loss:
Miami University (Ohio), Boise State and Texas Christian
USC was rated #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but they were burdened by a collective 2.67 computer ranking due to a relatively weak schedule. Meanwhile Oklahoma, after a dominant regular season that had analysts comparing them to the best teams of all-time, suffered a 35-7 loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship Game that dropped them to #3 in the human polls (while the computers still had them at #1). This enabled LSU to get their foot in the door with a relatively strong computer ranking and a #2 human poll ranking that they hadn't seen all year, and they went on to claim the BCS championship (and thus an automatic #1 ranking in the final Coaches Poll) with a 21-14 win over Oklahoma, while USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, retained its #1 ranking in the AP Poll. Oklahoma had been eliminated, but the debate between LSU and USC was not settled, and resulted in the schools being named "co-champions". This incident has been considered an embarrassment for college football and the BCS in particular.[1]
2004-05 season
The 2004-2005 regular season finished with five undefeated teams for the first time since 1979. Despite having perfect records, the Auburn Tigers, Utah Utes, and Boise State Broncos were denied an opportunity to play for the BCS championship. Auburn was left out in spite of having the best strength of schedule, a factor that had been dropped because it caused USC's exclusion a year earlier.[citation needed] Ironically, the PAC-10, which lobbied for that change, was harmed by it when the at-large bids were issued. The pollsters jumped the Texas Longhorns over the California Golden Bears in the final regular-season poll. Utah did become the first school outside the BCS conferences to play in a BCS bowl game; this was also controversial because they were matched against the Pitt Panthers, the three-loss Big East champion. Utah won the game 35-7.
For the second straight year, the Oklahoma Sooners competed in the title game and lost, subjecting them to criticism that the "odd team out" (in this case, Auburn) would have fared better.[citation needed]
Cochese23 said:
posted on November 14, 2006 9:04 AM — 66.92.214.247 — link — abuse?
"My question is, why keep NCAA Division 1 football as the ONLY major sport out of a playoff system? It doesn't make sense. Why should this sport be any different than the rest? I say, settle it on the field." - Tom B.
Every sports federation in the rest of the world doesn't have a playoff system in their top league. BUT, they also don't have more than 30 teams in their leagues either, and their schedules are long enough so that a winner is crowned.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 14, 2006 10:19 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Jon:
Great feed! Very interesting history. Looks like there wasn't much controversy last year. There is sure to be alot this year. Judging by what happened to USC in 2003 - I can plainly see why they place so much emphasis on playing a very strong SOS. That schedule was probably in place before Pete Carroll got there then. Now, USC's SOS is so high, that if they win out, then they'll be in. But, if Auburn had the highest SOS in 2004, why didn't they get into the game? They won every game, or were "style points", included in that year? Or, was it simply the human polls that left them out? Clearly, Oklahoma could not have been the 2nd best team in the country that year.
Tommie T
Luke said:
posted on November 14, 2006 11:16 AM — 24.250.217.142 — link — abuse?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this. If arkansas and Florida win out they will not go to the championship unless USC loses, and not because USC is better, because I dunno about other people but I remember how USC struggled vs its opponents for a few weeks and finally lost a couple weeks ago. Now florida is struggling some and all of a sudden they "are way overrated."
ESPN doesn't want to see SEC teams succeed, because most SEC games are broadcast on CBS. The network will continue to try to influence voters as long as voters will listen, and they do. hey maybe USC is the better team who knows until the end of the season, but ESPN certainly doesn't help the SEC.
Florida coach urban meyer is callin for 8 team playoffs now too
Jarred said:
posted on November 14, 2006 11:57 AM — 12.178.138.65 — link — abuse?
I would prefer a playoff, but there are a lot of things agianst it. Along with what everyone else has said, adding 2 to 4 more more games to 12 game schedule is a pretty tall order, however high schools and 1-AA do this every year. I do enjoy the bowls, all of them, but I get tired of hearing about the BCS bowls. Consider it a boycott if you want. If people want a playoff bad enough, get everyone in the country to stay home Saturday. Monday morning there would be one. I don't like the BCS either(Jon's post). Might as well go back to the old poll system where 5 or 6 teams could get a trophy.
MB007 said:
posted on November 14, 2006 2:43 PM — 70.147.122.236 — link — abuse?
Oh we could only dream. Either a four team or an eight team playoff would be much better than the computer. I'd rather have an argument over that 4th place team or that 8th place team than the second place team.
There will always be some debate no matter what the system is, but with a playoff the debate moves down the rankings and would be easier to swallow.pip said:
posted on November 14, 2006 3:11 PM — 70.232.41.193 — link — abuse?
I see a lot of talk about a +1 system.. but then you give one team a week of rest while another team is playing one of the best teams in the nation.. on the other hand 8 teams is too much imo.. football is a tougher sport than basketball and these guys aren't pro's.. they are 18-22 year olds for the most part.. and have the rest of their lives to live.. most of them in something other than football.. so i'd say a +2 system would work well... #1 vs. #3 and #2 vs. #4... winner moves on and the world is a better place.... BCS still has all of it's meaning and the season doesn't drag on for ever.. and there are no more undefeated Auburn teams splitting the title.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 14, 2006 4:33 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
BruinJuJu:
I'm not sure I buy the "not enough butts in the seats" argument. Just think of all the alumni that really wanted to go to the only game and couldn't. And think of the sheer numbers of alumni for just one Division I school around the country. Instead of one game to choose from, they get three.
Trust me, the diehards will travel to each game, and you're going to have plenty of fans that will pick just one.
I don't see the College Basketball having this problem. (I discount the NFL and MLB as comparisons because they are playing in one city or the other.)
If you host it, they will come, IMHO. ;-)
Ed in VA said:
posted on November 14, 2006 5:09 PM — 24.125.10.57 — link — abuse?
I think a playoff needs to accomplish the following:
1. Include all conferences.
2. Preserve the integrity of the regular season
3. Crown the champ (obviously)In order to do this, I propose a 16 team playoff consisting of the 11 conference champs and the 5 other highest ranked teams in the final BCS poll. Forcing a team to win their conference keeps the regular season meaningful and admitting ALL conference champs makes the playoffs all inclusive.
We must do away with the concept of a BCS conference and a non BCS conference. Why should only 65 of the 119 teams be truly considered for the playoffs? Why have a system of "haves" and "have nots" where all the money and titles go to BCS programs? This is truly an elitist system we have in the BCS.
Even though the Conference USA champ will probably never win a title, they deserve a shot, every team does. Imagine how deflating it must be to play in Non BCS conference knowing that even if you go undefeated, you stand zero chance of winning a title. What more can a team do to prove they are worthy? Can we please do away with the Caste System otherwise known as the BCS and step into the 21st century?
ksuwild said:
posted on November 14, 2006 6:32 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
Couple things:
I hope you all know that the main reason to install a Playoff is not to keep anyone from bickering...it's to have a system that can handle the many scenario's that can happen in any given college football season...multiple undefeated teams, multiple one loss teams(ie. Jon post 56)
The current system simply can't handle those scenario's. Why not install a system that can handle that if you can? It boggles my mind.
People are always going to bicker even if a playoff is installed, and that is fine(isn't that what we all enjoy doing on this site)let everyone bicker bicker bicker...who cares.
There is so much parody in college football today that I don't see how anyone(or any system)could realistically think that year after year after year after year that you could possibly pick the two(as if there are just two)most worthy teams correctly EVERY TIME. I don't think so.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 14, 2006 9:04 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
Ed in VA:
That is a great perspective (the elitist, caste system), I hadn't thought of it that way. Well said.
TB
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 14, 2006 9:40 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Luke:
What are you talking about? All ESPN does is blabber about how great the SEC is. Every single one of these clowns wants to anoint any SEC team as the National Champion. The only guy who doesn't, Mark May (U of Pitt, the only one who ever played football), is always trying to convince the other fools to watch out for USC. These bozos actually babble on and on about how maybe Arkansas ought to be rated higher than USC is. That is until (and I'm sure upper management had a say) they figured out that they could never sell that one to the public. So, then they babble on and on about how USC is gonna lose to a "great" Cal team and either Arkansas or Florida ought to get in. What a load of drivvle.
Here's what I think: if USC loses and West Virginia can beat Rutgers - then West Virginia goes. That's because I still got Louisville #4 and West Virginia #5. A win over Rutgers will vault West Virginia over Louisville. And, after Michigan gets beaten soundly by Ohio State - then West Virginia is the likely candidate in my mind. Unless, Arkansas can beat both LSU and Florida convincingly - I cannot see an SEC team in the Title Game this year. The conference has been weaker than other years. Georgia is down. Alabama is down. Auburn is down. Florida is overrated. Why do you think Arkansas has been able to roll thru the SEC? And, they didn't exactly roll over USC, Utah State, Vanderbilt or Alabama earlier in the season. They have improved, I suppose, or have all of the other teams that they've played got worse? I think that it is the latter. When Kentucky, Vanderbilt and even Mississippi State are winning games - there is something wrong with that conference. The SEC is definately down this year. When USC demolishes your conference champion something is wrong. It may as well be the WAC. Oh, and don't give me the crap about DM being hurt and Robert Johnson playing QB. Those guys had nothing to do with the defense giving up fifty. Besides, Felix Jones was there and so were Dick and Mustain, so where is the depth? You guys even claim that the 3rd back could start for any other team, so, why all the excuses? There are 24 guys out on that field. Are you really gonna claim that Darren McFadden with his 6.3 per carry has really made that much difference? Does anybody know how many other guys average 6.3 every time they touch the ball? Quite a few by the way and many with well over five. Is it the great QB play now? Doubt it. I think the great improvement from Arkansas lies in it's offensive and defensive lines. And, the greatest improvement so far this year at USC, is in the offensive and defensive lines. So, I hate to be the bringer of bad news - But, USC would blow Arkansas out again. In fact, USC is gonna "beat down" Ohio State. Write it down!Tommie T
ncaaFANATIC1 said:
posted on November 14, 2006 10:27 PM — 72.83.120.245 — link — abuse?
i think that 8 teams isn't enough, make it interesting by increasing it to 10 teams, with wildcard (NFL style) playoffs too. then teams like boise state and rutgers can prove their worth, or so teams like texas and cal can prove that their worth. more games means more interesting, which means more revenue, so it has all the answers. And i think that a playoff is the ONLY way to decide a national champion.
Jon said:
posted on November 15, 2006 12:05 AM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
I'd also like to point out...
An eight playoff system would only extend the seasons of the (4) winners of the (8) teams who made it. (...Considering the fact that they would be going to a bowl game anyways...)
So were talking about (4) teams having to play more games than they currently would..
Out of those (4)...(2) of those teams would only have one more game than they currently would (the losers)..... and the (2) winners would have to play two more games than they currently would...
So the arguments that it would greatly disrupt student life and that it would add too many games = b.s.
It only adds games (when considering the current system) to the (4) winning teams of the first round.
IMHO, the best possible way to approach it would be like this... Forget setting dates...
The first Saturday following Christmas = Round 1.
The following Saturday = Round 2.
(the first week of school begins the Monday after this game)
The following Saturday = Round 3.So (2) teams are going to have the blessing of slacking the first week of the spring semester and earning their respective colleges A TON OF MONEY...(which will in turn... go back into furthering their education... of course.)
Jon said:
posted on November 15, 2006 12:28 AM — 69.246.161.119 — link — abuse?
re: Post #64 - Ed - 1. Include all conferences.
I'll tell you why (from my viewpoint) this is a bad idea and why the BCS would serve as a very good vessel for an 8-game playoff.
BCS forces teams think about their strength of schedule and adding harder outside opponents, instead of cupcakes... Fans want to see good teams play in out-of-conference games in the regular season... The BCS is way of kindly suggesting to teams like Toledo, Rutgers, Eastern Slippery Rock that they need to step up and play good teams, in order to be considered the real deal.
It makes the teams in the 'cup-cake conferences' have to think about their long term scheduling goals...and if they want to step up and be considered at the big boy table.
Joe said:
posted on November 15, 2006 9:08 AM — 68.14.113.167 — link — abuse?
All these projections,computers,opinions,my team would beat your team...its meaningless. Every weekend something unpredictable happens. Thats why computers and college football will never go together. How many times has the true #1 seed (before the tournaments)won the national championship in college basketball and basesball? After years of watching sports players,coaches,game plans and matchups determine who is truly champion. Its either a playoff system or a bunch of what if's...
Mooka said:
posted on November 15, 2006 12:22 PM — 138.163.0.42 — link — abuse?
Bruin JUJU,
Have faith my man. If you build it they will come. I'm sure there has always been concern about filling seats since back in the day when the coliseum was built in Rome. There are fanatics to match every team and every sport, and if not for the fanatics, people who just enjoy the atmosphere. As long as you could sell tixs for about $40-$150 a pop and nothing ridiculous like those $1,000 tix you often see floating around the internet, people will go to the games. I think you are thinking from the rip offs point of view. I don't buy that sh__ though.
pip said:
posted on November 15, 2006 1:36 PM — 70.232.41.193 — link — abuse?
Tommie T
USC is a good team, and they deserve some respect.. but the offence being down DID play a roll in our first meeting... yes dmac was injured.. but we have plenty of other good backs so i don't count that as a factor.. and yes johnson was QB and dick couldn't play b/c he was hurt (he was supposed to be the starting QB from the start of season).. but none of that is why i say our offence played a roll.. the fact is our offence looked more like a beached whale than anything else the first few games.. they finally settled down, learned how to play and now look like a will oiled machine. and if you recall the D spent way too much time on the field that game and it wasn't until halfway threw the 3rd quarter that USC made a cushion in the score for itself. wearing a team out is part of it, but when they make it easy for you to wear them out it doesn't help. if we played again right now it would be a scrapper of a game.. there would be no blowout by either team.. maybe you guys would win, maybe we'd win.. but i can promise you this.. it would redefine how football was played lol.. well anyway, i have to admit i'm pulling for Cal (obviously that would help my team the most) but i have a feeling USC is winning out.. Hope to get our remach next year in a bowl game!
#1CollegeFootballFan said:
posted on November 15, 2006 2:17 PM — 66.145.249.87 — link — abuse?
I too like an 8 team playoff, maybe something as follows:
1. BCS Conference Winners:
• ACC
• Big 12
• Big East
• Big Ten
• PAC-10
• SEC2. From the BCS computer polls average, the next two highest ranked teams.
3. Since, Notre Dame refuses to go to a conference, should they not be one of those from the overall computer rankings, no BCS birth.
4. First round seeding of the eight schools by overall ranking:
• 8 vs. 1 @ 1’s home field
• 7 vs. 2 @ 2’s home field
• 6 vs. 3 @ 3’s home field
• 5 vs. 4 @ 4’s home field5. Second round seeding of the remaining four schools.
• Lowest seed winner vs. Highest seed winner @ home
• Next Lowest seed winner vs. Next Highest seed winner @ home6. Championship game played on rotating Fiesta, Orange, Rose & Sugar.
7. Non-championship bowl games host loser of 1st and 2nd round playoff games.
Also, I would like to suggest a possible plan with the mid-major conferences.
As more schools are in the process of moving up to the D-1A level and currently fourteen schools that are in jeopardy of losing their DI-A status. Due to, not meeting the NCAA requirement of averaging 15,000 in home game attendance once in a rolling two-year period.
15,000 times 7, will fill a sold-out Michigan Stadium, Neyland Stadium, Beaver Stadium or Ohio Stadium for one game.
I personal think it should even be higher, at least a minimum 25,000.
I think the mid-major schools would be better served, as to have their own division level of bowl game championship rotation and/or playoff system.
Besides, wouldn’t it be nice to see two division levels, with 60 plus schools each that can crown a champion?
ksuwild said:
posted on November 15, 2006 2:26 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
Ed in VA(post 64),
Actually a non-BCS school could win the National Championship under the current BCS system(although it would be highly unlikely). The BCS pits the #1 team vs. the #2 team reguardless of what conference they are from.
I do like your idea although I would tweak it by power rating the conferences and giving the top 8 power rated conferences automaitic bids. The other 8 spots would go to the next highest BCS ranked teams. The other 3 conference champs could still make the playoff(if they had a high enough BCS ranking)they just would not get an automatic bid. The conference power rankings would be based off of that year only and could be formulated a number of ways.
SEC fan said:
posted on November 15, 2006 6:31 PM — 132.79.13.15 — link — abuse?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you Arkansas fans, but Arkansas will lose to LSU. They have a better chance of beating Florida, but I doubt it will happen. But if either Arkansas or Florida wins out then they should play for the BCS championship game. The only problem being there is a really good chance of both finishing the season with 2 loses. This sucks for the SEC. So a playoff system would be great.
Johnny B said:
posted on November 15, 2006 7:44 PM — 152.65.128.199 — link — abuse?
You guys are living in a dream world.
The NCAA and non-BCS conferences would never allow a non-NCAA playoff system.
Excluding IA schools simply because of conference affiliation is going to result in some lawsuits and congressional hearings. This so-proposed BCS playoff has anti-trust written all over it.
It would have to be run by the NCAA and they have guidelines for championships.
First, all conferences that fulfill minimum requirements get an automatic qualifier for NCAA tournaments/playoffs. It's an NCAA guideline. So you're going to have a minimum of 11 teams, like it or not.
The other guidline for fair championship play is the 20 percent rule. With some wiggle room, the number of teams in a tournament is 20-25 percent of participating schools within that sport. Do the calculations with the other DI NCAA tournaments (basketball, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, hockey, etc) and you'll get a percentage somwhere between 19.9 (basketball) and 26 (hockey). So, at minimum, you're looking at a 24-team playoff (20.3 percent of 118 teams).
An NCAA playoff is going to be 11 automatic qualifiers, 13 at-large bids and four weeks of extra football. Any other scenario would never leave the drawing board without some serious legal action and government scrutiny.
Also, kiss the bowls goodbye. Those bowls aren't going to be able to foot the bill to host an NCAA playoff game without serious corporate sponsorship. The NCAA doesn't allow sponsorship in tournaments/playoffs. It would have to be high seed hosts until the semifinals.
Tim said:
posted on November 16, 2006 3:58 AM — 66.245.232.162 — link — abuse?
Here's an idea. Why not expand Division one to 128 teams, shorten the regular season to six games, and then have a seven-week playoff where every team in Division one was invited. Wouldn't that solve all of the problems?
Look, the BCS sucks but what difference does it make. The fact is, the polls still mean too much. Strength of schedule does not matter enough. Teams like OSU, MICH, USC, and NOTRE DAME that do not have a conference playoff have a huge advantage over those that do. The Big East still sucks and giving a team like Rutgers an automatic bid is a joke. Basically nothing has changed.
The BCS was supposed to fix the "problem" of having a split title, but the arrogant, pompous, self absorbed sports writers couldn’t stand that they did not have as much power any more, so they went outside the system and GAVE a national title to a team that didn’t even play for it. So what’s to keep those jacka$$es from doing the same thing if they don’t like the final match-up in a playoff? Oh sure, they would never dream of doing that once they get a playoff, right? Well, never underestimate the idiocy of a sportswriter.
Here’s another problem. Unless you take my little sarcastic playoff system seriously, you will always have Notre Dame playing in playoffs even when they don’t deserve it. You don’t believe me. Recall this little situation. In 2000 Notre Dame finished the regular season 9-2, Nebraska finished the regular season 9-2. Nebraska beat Notre Dame in South Bend. And, Nebraska was ranked higher in both media polls and the BCS rankings. Yet, they selected Notre Dame to go to the Fiesta Bowl (a BCS game) where got beat, but played for about 12 million dollars. Nebraska had to settle for the Alamo Bowl, where they handed Northwestern their A$$ and got paid less than a million. So tell me…you trust the college football brain-trusts to be fair when they select the teams that will match up for a national title playoff. You know it will still be all about TV ratings and selling out hotel rooms. Thinks are F-ed up enough now, just leave them alone and don’t mess them up any more. They will never do what they should do and just go back to the way things used to be pre-BCS. At least if they don’t make any more changes, they can’t make things any worse.
Oh, and one last question…Who is hurt when there is a split national title? Did it really hurt LSU when the idiot sports writers gave USC a share of the title. Did it really hurt Nebraska in `97 when the sportswriters gave Michigan a share of the title? In 1990 did it hurt Washington when the sportswriters gave Colorado a share of the title? SOMEBODY should have given Washington a share of the title in 1984 when BYU won the title. So why does it matter if there are two champions once every 5-10 years?
Zac said:
posted on November 16, 2006 9:52 AM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Johnny B: Sometimes that's how it starts, with a dream. Somebody dreamed up the BCS, and here we are stuck with all the controversy it's caused since its inception.
Will a play-off end any bickering, complaining, or whining? Absolutely not! If people aren't complaining about rankings or bracket seedings, they're complaining about bad calls, or shoddy play reviews. A play-off will settle two things: 1) It will allow teams from "weaker" conferences or with "weaker" schedules the chance to prove themselves worthy, or not. 2) It will settle the controversy that brews when there are 3 or more undefeated teams.
Should a 2 loss team be given a chance to win the National Championship? Absolutely! R U telling me if, say, LSU (2 losses) beat FL (1 loss) in the SEC championship game, that LSU would not be worthy to play for the NC? What if CAL (2 losses) wins out in what is arguably the toughest conference? If a 15 loss NC St or Villanova can win the National Basketball Championship, CA, FL, or LSU can be allowed the chance win it in football.
If the winner of the MI/OSU game wins by 1 on a last 2nd field goal, should there be a re-match? If there was a play-off system, this question wouldn't have to be asked.
Should we establish super conferences and allow only the conference champions to go? NO!!! This is infinitely unfair to the Boise St's & Utah's of the world. Had the BCS existed in 1980, BYU wouldn’t have its National Championship. Stick with the top 25; it's what all the poles are based on.
How many teams go? Personally, I like using the Top 25. Play-off the bottom two, and wind up with 24. The Top 8 get a 1st round by; the bottom 16 play off (Rd 1). In Rd 2, the 16 teams remaining play off, and so on. The Championship game can be played the Saturday immediately prior to the Super Bowl: "Championship Weekend."
Some of you think this, or even a 16 team play-off, is too much. Some of you think an 8 or 4 team play-off isn't enough. I think NCAAFANATIC1 has the perfect compromise: Go with the Top 10. Play-off 7-10 to round out the Top 8, (say in the Gator & Sun bowls); then, play off as Terry has outlined above. With 32 bowls in the picture this year, that leaves 23 bowls for invitations to the teams ranked 54-11. The bowl system will not suffer. I learned that a few years back when two mediocre top 25 teams (VA & WVU) met in the inaugural "Carquest" Bowl. The game was a sell-out! So, I agree with whoever said it: "Build it and they will come."
Lastly, after which I promise to get off my soap-box, Johnny B is right about one thing. Right now, we're living in a dream world. If we keep on dreaming and don't petition the NCAA, it's never going to happen.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 16, 2006 3:33 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Pip:
Post #76. I commend you for laying off the "shine" for long enough to make any sense. Your the only Hog fan I've seen that has any. Did you quit drinking? Do they even have AA in Arkansas?
Seriously, the Hogs are a great team. They've really come on and ya'll should be very proud of them. Let's see how they do against LSU.
Now, many SEC's beleive that a USC loss to Cal or Notre Dame would benefit them the most. That is not quite correct. The best thing is for USC to climb all the way to #2 before Arkansas runs the table and beats Florida or visa versa lets say. You certainly don't want Cal to beat USC. Beating Cal is what you need. You don't want Notre Dame to beat USC either - or that might even vault the Irish all the way into the #2 hole. Nope, what you want is for USC to beat the crap out of both of those teams and then lose a squeeker to UCLA right at the end. That's the way to go. That would make either Arkansas or the team that beat them appear all the more better because USC looked so good in killing Cal and Notre Dame. You should want USC to beat both of those teams 77-0 in order to help the SEC. Then you have to root for UCLA to pull off the major upset.Tommie T
Regan said:
posted on November 17, 2006 2:00 AM — 152.163.100.196 — link — abuse?
ATTENTION, PLEASE!
85 Posts by a large number of people who care a great deal about College Football and have actually sat down and considered how best to implement a fair post-season.
After reading every post, and comparing them with all the other threads on the same subject, the endless debate on said subject, etc., I have determined one huge factor that the whole process will have to hinge on to be a success that very few have dared to utter -
College Football has too much variability for a "one-size-fits-all-seasons" post-season.
I've mentioned it before, but why do so few people even consider a blueprint for each scenerio, tailor-made before the season begins to anticipate each possible outcome and work the best way to have a fair post-season while preserving the intense regular season?
Consider it...Please :)
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 17, 2006 9:44 AM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
There will never be a playoff. College football is about the debate. If there was a playoff, then the intense excitement leading through the year would cease to exist, therefore making college football just like everything else.
Let me tell you something about me. I like all sports. But, I don't watch anything else at all until the playoffs begin. Really. Even baseball that I grew up playing. Don't watch it until the playoffs. Now, before the playoffs when one team won the AL and one team won the NL - I watched. What is the point in watchin' regular season games? I don't get it. I like college basketball. Won't bother watchin' it until the Tounament. NBA - same thing. What do I care about 82 regular season games? Nothing! That's just me. Oh, I watch a few games - don't get me wrong. But, I'm not out at the pub have any fun with regular season games - except for college football. It's the greatest spectacle of all.
I am so grateful that the AP has stepped away from this silly BCS crap and kept their integrity and ability to crown their own champion if need be. There is no need for a playoff. It will ruin college football, and ultimately, sell less tickets. You all need to get a clue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with crowning two National Champions or for every team, along with their fan base, to stake a claim as the best team in a certain year. I will never be able to argue an Auburn fan that the Tigers were not the best team in 04'. They were 13-0 and nobody ever beat them. They can claim that Championship, for all I care, even though the hardware was handed to USC. They have a rightful claim. That's the beauty of college football. And, it really doesn't prove anything if you lose one game. I remember one year when USC opened up the season with a 45-24 loss to Missouri, and went on to go undefeated the rest of the way, and take home the hardware. Teams have bad games once in awhile. It doesn't mean a thing that somebody lost a game. Even LSU this year, in my opinion, with their two losses - are as good as any team. They might even be #1 - we'll never know. But, it is certainly a great good team. I am not terriby impressed with teams that play soft schedules either. Nevertheless, I like it just fine the way it is. The debate needs to rage for college football to remain the greatest game played.Tommie T
Adam said:
posted on November 17, 2006 10:12 AM — 63.84.4.1 — link — abuse?
Better yet play a round of 16 on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. How great would Thanksgiving weekend be with the NFL and the NCAA on all four days? Then have the round of 8 play on Dec 23 and 24. A round of 16 guarantees every Division I school has a dream chance at a national championship at the beginning of the season. With only an 8 team tourney, there will still be teams that go undefeated and not make the tourney.
Dr. J. said:
posted on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM — 68.155.84.74 — link — abuse?
I think a playoff would be good. The nay-sayers probably come mainly from the Big 10 and Pac 10. They are the ones typically against the BCS, even though it's better than the system we had where the champions of those conferences could dodge the best teams from the South (Rose Bowl contract) and claim a "mythical" national championship.
Dr. J. said:
posted on November 17, 2006 10:45 AM — 68.155.84.74 — link — abuse?
Absence of playoff or BCS championship game allows Big 10 and Pac 10 champions to dodge best teams from South (Rose Bowl tie-up) and claim their "mythical" national championship. An undefeated team from either conference would always be voted No. 1 in the polls.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 17, 2006 12:24 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Dr.J (is that you, Julius)?
How would playing a conference championship game avoid the Rose Bowl? Wouldn't the winners still play in the Rose Bowl? What is that point? And, how would that help to avoid "dodging" teams from the south? We definately have got to get some of that moonshine you boyz got down thar!
Tommie T
Zac said:
posted on November 17, 2006 2:37 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Tommie T. (Post 87). I've read a lot of your posts, and I appreciate much of what you've had to say, especially the benefit of the doubt you've given to WVU and the Big East as a whole. Trust me; a lot of ACC, Big-10, Big-12, PAC-10, & SEC types have trashed Louisville, Rutgers, WVU & the Big East all season. All well and good; all part of that debate you've harped upon. While there are some like yourself who don't want a play-off for whatever reason, looking at this and other blogs, there are just as many, including many a USC fan, who would prefer to have one.
That having been said, I take issue with your argument against a play-off, especially the "You need to get a clue." Allow me to clue you in. If you claim to love sports, but the only interest in those sports you love is during the play-offs, you are far from being a true fan of the game. Part of the fun is watching your team struggle through a season, while building their resume' and making their case to make whatever play-off system for which they might qualify. Part of the drama is following their failures and successes, knowing the next loss could take them out of contention, or the next win could propel them to the forefront. Part of the debate is knowing what personnel a given team has, what teams are part of the toughest conference, who just might run the table, who might be the dark-horse, who will likely make the play-offs, how far they'll go, and how their success this year impacts recruiting next year.
My Mountaineers never used to spend a lot time on TV; not in soccer, baseball, basketball, or even football. I spend extra money to set up my TV programming to have the opportunit
Tom Blogical said:
posted on November 12, 2006 7:25 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?YEAH!!! Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!! Come ON, people, just look at the glory! Kevin, you know you'd love to watch that scenario unfold.
I feel just like Ralphie in Christmas Story when he finally got the Red Rider BB gun...almost.