July 18, 2007
Coming Soon: College Football Final Four?
The New York Post is reporting that the BCS conferences are moving toward a new format to start in 2011 that would implement a final-four format for college football. The "plus one" format would have four teams compete in semi-final games, with the two winners meeting in the national championship game.
"There haven't been any official discussions among conference commissioners, but the overwhelming sense is that that's where we're headed," one conference source said. "There's simply too much money at stake and there's been too much debate with the current system."Under the new format, the top four teams would be seeded, probably using a voter/computer formula similar to the current BCS system and a sixth major bowl game would be created.
The four top-seeded teams would play in two "semifinal" games, using the existing bowls - Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and the current BCS title game on a rotating basis - with the two winners meeting in a newly created bowl. Theoretically, it would leave less argument over who's No. 1.
"You'll probably never eliminate all the debate, but it's hard for me to imagine a team finishing fifth in the final ratings having a legitimate argument for No. 1," an ACC athletic director said. "Once you get below four, it's a hard sell."
This certainly isn't a new idea. People have been suggesting a college football final four for years and years and years. It's how you put the four teams together and retain the bowl system that has always been this sticking point.
This has all the makings of a win-win-win for the conferences, networks and bowls. The existing BCS bowls would go from hosting a "premiere" game once every for years, to hosting a huge game every other year with the semi-finals plus (potentially) hosting the National Championship in off years.
The losers in the situation would seem to be the fans. The logistics of traveling to two bowl games within a week's time potentially weaken the "in the stadium" contingent for almost any team. Getting airlines, hotels, cars, etc for one bowl game is a taxing situation for most fans - and fans usually have a month or more to prepare for the trips.
Making (or cancelling!) those arrangements within one week's time between the semifinal and final game probably means that the college National Championship game crowd starts to resemble the Super Bowl crowd - a bunch of corporate guests & suits with very few fans of either team in attendance. That's a shame and it's probably one of the worst aspects of this proposal.
The other alternative is having most fans skip the semifinal game -- which is what the bowl system proponents have always feared -- in hopes that their team makes it to the finals so they can attend.
The other HUGE speed bump is the Rose Bowl. Although the Rose made some concessions to the BCS, the conferences had to essentially guarantee the Rose a Big 10 - Pac 10 matchup for the foreseeable future. That arrangement would have to be revised. I think it *can* happen, but the Rose Bowl purists will not go down without a fight, you can count on that.
I like the BCS system and I think the plus one format can succeed. That said, **nothing** will ever end all the controversy regarding the national championship in college football. Regardless of what the "next" BCS looks like, someone somewhere is going to feel shafted - count on that.
Comments:
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 18, 2007 2:25 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
Every time this subject comes up, I like to sling out MY playoff proposal...
I still prefer to see a NCAA-sanctioned 16 team system with the 11 conference winners and 5 at large teams...
It would look like this for 2006 Conference winners:
ACC: Wake Forest
B-East: Louisville
B-10: Ohio State
B-12: Oklahoma
C-USA: Houston
Mid-Am: Central Mich.
M-West: BYU
Pac-10: USC
SEC: Florida
S-Belt: Troy
WAC: Boise StateThis guarantees EVERY conference champion a shot at running the table for the Championship...
At large selections are made by overall record, then using opponents win percentage (any opponent not in D-1 is not counted in the percentage...i.e. no Western Carolina, Northeastern, etc.)...
One Loss: Michigan, WisconsinTwo Loss IN: LSU .555, West Virginia .553, Rutgers .548
Two Loss OUT: Auburn .534, Virginia Tech .533, Notre Dame .527
After this process, the NCAA would then seed teams...
In this process, teams winning in weaker conferences aren't necessarily guaranteed a home game and teams not winning the champ. in stronger conferences still get a shot at a decent seed if possible...
Higher seed plays at home...
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Florida
4. Southern Cal
5. Louisville
6. LSU
7. Wisconsin
8. Oklahoma
----------------
9. West Virginia
10. Wake Forest
11. Boise State
12. Rutgers
13. BYU
14. Houston
15. C. Michigan
16. TroyChampionship game is played in nuetral site TBD annually...
All teams participating are eleigible for bowl games after elimination if slots are available...
First round would commence third Saturday in December culminating with a championship game first or second Saturday in January...
Ok, tear it up as you wish...
SportsGuyhi9 said:
posted on July 18, 2007 3:22 PM — 68.101.163.72 — link — abuse?
This is really the only way that we can end the discussion that seemingly persists over who the true champion is. Year in and year out, we almost always have the dilemma over who the best team in college football is- this will certainly help to quell any debate. I'm glad the NCAA is taking the necessary steps to rectify a system that, at this moment, is entirely inadequate.
MECU said:
posted on July 18, 2007 3:30 PM — 162.18.107.12 — link — abuse?
Fans should be included and allowed to decide who plays in the national championship game. There's a new site that aims to do just that: http://www.everyonepoll.com
Even after this plus-1 format comes around, deciding who the top 4 teams are should include the fans. Why shouldn't the fans be involved in this decision? Why are only 6 computers and 100 select sportswriters and coaches allowed to decide?
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 18, 2007 3:42 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
Gatorboys (#3):
Until the NCAA makes a clear designation of seperation between the BCS conferences and those D-1 conf. not included in the BCS...
All teams designated as a D-1 football squad deserve a FAIR shot at a chance of winning the NC...
Again, it's all about the same rules for every one across the board...
I'd revise my system once there is a clear cut seperation between the Haves and Have Nots...
AUTiger97 said:
posted on July 18, 2007 3:48 PM — 216.104.80.203 — link — abuse?
Can this be activated retroactively by to 2004? My Auburn Tigers were shafted by the current system and no one will ever know if we could be USC that year. All the experts can guess all they want, but the experts were wrong when they thought Ohio State was going to kick the snot out of the Florida Gators, weren't they?
Instead, it was the other way around.....to a ONE LOSS FLORIDA team. Anyone remember who the BCS National Champions posted a loss against?
posted on July 18, 2007 4:12 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta said:
Gatorhippy: Kudos for your proposal, and kudos for your cojones to hang it out there. I like it, except for two things: First, all BCS conferences should be required to have a conference title game under the current rules. That would certainly narrow the field of undefeated and one-loss teams, like Wisconsin and Michigan last year. In other words, had the BIG10 a title game, it's unlikely that 3 teams from that conference would have one loss or less. Second: Head to head competition should prevail, if possible, when determining 2-loss 'Ins' and 'Outs'. LSU may have had the better opponent winning % last year of the two loss teams, but Auburn beat them. Maybe that should get them a look over the other teams. It's complicated that few, if any, of these at-large teams would have played each other, but some weight should be given. Not to mention that Auburn's SEC schedule should be given more weight than West Virginia's or Rutger's BE schedule, but how do you do that without everyone howling?
I say get any playoff in there; then we can start tweeking it to our liking.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on July 18, 2007 5:36 PM — 138.163.0.41 — link — abuse?
Kevin, I couldn't disagree more. I think this would end a huge bit of controversy. What pisses everybody off come Championship time is you have all of these teams who are potential Champions with probably the same record, yet they can't play in the Championship game be/c some a__hole didn't vote for them. This idea is the absolute minimum that could be done to eliminate controversy, but it would eliminate a lot.
gaffbag said:
posted on July 18, 2007 5:47 PM — 12.111.50.7 — link — abuse?
The solution to this problem is actually much easier: get rid of the Bowl Championship Series/Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance and let the National Championship be decided by national oral argument rather than by some never-satisfactory post-season artifice.
Sure EVERY other sport has a playoff system - but then again, every other sport doesn't have to sort out 119 teams over the course of just a 12 game season.
Call me old fashioned, but the NY Post bracket graphic reminded me just how much I'd rather sit around debating whether Miami or Washington had a better team in 1991 than suffer through a Michigan-OSU rematch to decide who is NOW the better team... after a 6 week hiatus from football and the requisite academic/alcohol related-suspensions.
And can we bring back ties...?
thechad said:
posted on July 18, 2007 6:33 PM — 205.188.117.75 — link — abuse?
its simple a 32 team format so the mid majors get a shot start it the first of dec then its done by new years its simple the five main bowls the rose orange fiesta sugar and cotton roate the championship every year and then you get the other major bowls the gator hoilday peach chick file bowl outback and the captial one to rotate the reigion with the one major bowl . you have eight teams regions and it would work the little guy gets its shot and every body is happy
'Cane Mutiny said:
posted on July 18, 2007 6:48 PM — 76.109.86.102 — link — abuse?
Gatorhippy, while I agree that all Div. 1-A teams should get an equal shot at the national title, letting Troy into the playoff wouldn't make any sense. Fact is, non-BCS teams just aren't usually as good as BCS teams. Once in a while a great non-BCS team comes around that does deserve a shot, like Boise State last year, which is where at-large bids come in. By adding more at-large bids and by eliminating automatic-berths for non-BCS conference champions makes more sense. Or, even fairer, don't give any automatic berths to any conference champs, BCS or not, and just go by the top-16 in the polls. This makes the most sense of all, in my opinion. But I still don't like the playoff idea...
Its Great To Be A Miami Hurricane
Zac said:
posted on July 18, 2007 6:48 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
GH, I like your idea "in general"; I don't like the idea of conference champions getting the nod. Though, for the most part, it would work, there'll always be that FSU that sneaks in there with 4 losses. (I know, the Cinderella effect, lends it some glamour. So, shoot me for wanting legitimately the best teams to make a play-off.)
At least they're proposing to do something. I agree with WarEagle's very last line. If nothing else, it's a start. The beauty of it is, it will get tweaked, and it will likely, over time, get expanded. The original NCAA BB tourney was only 16 teams; is now 64!!! (By the way, what is with the NCAA's lack of cojones, when it comes to a college football national championship?)
I still like the idea of going with a Top-10 Play-Off system. The bottom four play off in the "preliminary round" at the home of the higher seed, which rounds out the top 8. In "Round 1", the top 8 play-off at the home of the higher seed, just as with the preliminary round. That leads us into, the "Final Four", which can be played as laid out above.
I have to give the guy credit for having brass balls regarding his attitude, "… it's hard for me to imagine a team finishing fifth in the final ratings having a legitimate argument for No. 1…" Well, riddle me this, Mr. "one conference source". How does a team go undefeated in the regular season, beat an 11-2 Big 12 Conference Champ, OK, and not get considered for the N.C.? Sadly, even a 10 team play-off system may not foil that injustice.
posted on July 18, 2007 7:14 PM — link — abuse?
College playoff ideas are like... opinions, everyone's got one. The reality is - we're no where near a college football playoff. This BCS plus one format is a potential compromise to bowl purists and playoff fans. (I know I've said it before, but I'm not a fan of a large playoff format. IMO, four teams is just about right.)
SOLIDORANGE28 said:
posted on July 18, 2007 7:16 PM — 74.140.245.235 — link — abuse?
i agree... final 8 would be awesome. thats 7 total games, which could be the current BCS games (except for rose) plus 3 new games (semis and final). Right now, 10 teams are making the BCS games so 8 could make this series and the other 2 worthy teams would go to rose, that gives rose bowl a chance to keep their matchup. They can even use the BCS system as to who the two wild cards are. I think 8 really is a better number than 4, if you can win 3 straight top 8 games you deserve it. plus it wouldnt even affect the bowl games besides the BCS games and the Rose Bowl could still get Pac 10 / Big 10, it would just be #2 in each (like Cal / Michigan if it was last yr)
Joe said:
posted on July 18, 2007 7:36 PM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
With the plus one idea I think at least an 8 team playoff is likely to happen shortly after the plus one starts.
Not difficult to just reduce gator hippy's proposal by 8.
Just take the conference champs of the Big 6 and add two at large teams for your first round.
Simple solution, and it gets the 8 most deserving teams in the mix. Allows for teams to work for those 2 at large spots.
Causes absolutely no disruption to the bowls and it just enhances the end of the year with more meaningful games than the current exhibition post season Division one now has.
TrojanHorse said:
posted on July 18, 2007 8:54 PM — 75.75.86.11 — link — abuse?
I'll believe it when I see it..
but like AU97 says, lets do it retroactively, I think that would benefit USC the most...
after the (reg season) 2002 year, SC was one of the four best and hottest teams in the country
2003 > would have settled the split championship issue
2004 > AU would have had its shot at SC
2005 > I think this is where the two best met and there was NO need for a playoff and this is the down side of the plus one
2006 > USC would have been in there too.
I do hope they re-seed though after the bowls..
I don't want a Golden State warrior type scenario like the NBA western conf had this year
finally.. four is all you need.. #5 thru 8 don't have much of a chance to win.. the talent diff from 1 to 5 is usually pretty great
Tom Blogical said:
posted on July 18, 2007 11:34 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
The other HUGE speed bump is the Rose Bowl.
Actually, the real speed bump is Jim Delany, the apparent Godfather of CFB.
He's currently trying to force cable companies (in the Big Ten regions) to carry the Big Ten Network on basic cable, and he'll probably succeed.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 19, 2007 4:05 AM — 68.90.165.182 — link — abuse?
#6 gatorhippy I agree Div-I
#2 gatorhippy I like your proposal except for three things
1. there would be no incentives to play big time OCC games like OSU vs Tex or Tenn vs Cal etc.
if the conference winner gets the bid
2. there would be no reason to play in conferences like the XII or SEC teams like Tex would join Sun Belt and OU C-USA
3. The conference winner is not always the best team from that conference
#18 Kevin I kinda knew this was coming Jim Rome mentioned it on his show today and it is better than what we have, now everyone can gripe about who's #4 ,#5 etc.Taking this one step further and thinking outside the box. Add 1 more team from Div 1AA to Div-1A you now have 120 teams
Total conference realignment
10 conferences
12 teams each
each conference has two divisions
each conference has a championship
six huge bowls= 3 winners
anybody still undefeated gets a bye
the winner of #2 vs #3 plays #1=Nat Champ
UWDAWG said:
posted on July 19, 2007 4:27 AM — 213.185.122.11 — link — abuse?
Hate to be an insti-gator, as well as off-topic, but it was an interesting take...
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7036120oklahomasteve21 said:
posted on July 19, 2007 10:09 AM — 56.0.143.24 — link — abuse?
tomcat: brilliant idea but who could be #120 could be an argument all to it's own....how about the D2 championship game is a "play in" like the "65th" team in the basketball tourney?
that being said i really like your idea from a mathematical standpoint, and for FORCING other conferences to play for a conf. title.
do NOT under-estimate the power of money, sponsorships, advertising, etc. in the bowls. i believe the NCAA is hands off because at that time of year--money talks and b.s. walks. they would never slip their hand in the cookie jar on that--too much money comes in....WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money comes in.
As for Cane Mutiny i offer the following: please vote to have Miami wear the throw-back uniforms when they come to Norman. Though I detest the Hurricanes--I gotta give it up to you on the gold helmets with red hurricane flags--those are BAD A**!!! lol. see you guys Sept. 8th--too bad it's not a Switzer vs. Johnson rematch though both are sure to be in attendance. sorry about the 11am kick-off but what can you do....we ALL bow down to television and the almighty dollar.
Rotten Arsenal said:
posted on July 19, 2007 11:52 AM — 207.117.33.135 — link — abuse?
If you are going to include conference champions in a system, you have to include ALL D-1 conferences, otherwise you leave plenty of room for controversy again.
Maybe Boise St would make an at-large spot last year by this method, but probably not.
posted on July 19, 2007 2:05 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
Rotten Arsenal: Not all conferences are created equal. I'd give more weight to any conference that had a conference title game. That might relegate waning conferences like the Pac-10 and Big 10 to second tier status.
As far as the at-large picks? I think the polls could still play a part. Sometimes the subjectiveness of the human polls is the best way to accurately measure how good a team is.
husker dennis said:
posted on July 19, 2007 5:54 PM — 71.215.43.179 — link — abuse?
I dON'T AGREE ON USING ALL THE BOWL GAMES FOR PLAYOFF PURPOSES IT HURTS ALL THE OTHER TEAMS THAT WORK HARD ALL SEASON FOR A REWARD OF THEIR OWN. Especally teams that don't lobbie for rating all season, for a better then you are rateing. The knowledgeable fan knows where you, stand case in point my team NEB had no business playing MIAMI in the rose bowl a few years back I think one of the Origan teams would have been a better frit
ksuwild said:
posted on July 19, 2007 7:29 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
God I hope this is really going to happen. Like most of you, I'll beleive it when I see it. Ultimately I would like it to expand to 8 teams but I knew if they ever did implement a playoff it would start with 4. The beauty is that it can always be expanded & tweaked from there.
As War Eagle pointed out, ALL conferences should have a championship game. Championship games separate the pretenders from the contenders. I must disagree with Tomcat that the conference champion is not always the best team in the conference. How do you figure that??? Really, I would like and example or an explanation. If they didn't make it to the championship game they got beat, and if they made it and lost......well......they lost. Let's take the 03 Big XII championship for instance. K-State had 3 losses that year & most people gave them no chance against "the greatest college football team of all time" undefeated OU. Yet K-State pounded OU in every phase you can be pounded in. OU scored first, so don't talk to me about momentum, because they had it. K-State proved they were better ON THE FIELD. I'll take reality over assumptions ALL DAY.
Also, there actually would be an incentive to play tough out of conference games as long as the playoff structure was correct, ie....the higher ranked teams get home field advantage. If you allow automatic bids then you have to have at large spots as well, that or don't have automatic bids at all. Therefore any dispute about who deserved the at large spot, or to be in or out of a playoff would be easy.....if teams had the same ammount of losses, whoever had the tougher strength of schedule would get the bid. There is after all a human portion to the BCS rankings.
The legitimacy of beef of a 5th or 9th ranked team getting in a playoff to me is quite a bit different from a 3rd ranked team, I don't care what way you cut it.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 20, 2007 12:27 AM — 68.90.165.182 — link — abuse?
ksuwild Okay my statements were in regard to ghipps format.The conference champion is not always the best team from the conference. For example in your post you said that in 03 that KSU was the conference Champ right, Okay KSU had three losses that year right, Texas had one conference loss and beat KSU that year.Not a good example, howbout 06 the two teams in the champ game Neb & OU both lost to Texas. Was it 01 or 02 That Texas beat Colorado 41-7 during the regular season then lost 39-37 during the conf champ game. Same thing in 99 Texas beat Neb during regular season then lost the Champ game to Neb.
Congrats to KSU on their 45-42 victory over UT, that kept them out of the Champ game.How bout if KSU traded spots with Baylor.Baylor beat KSU, KU and CU , Baylor was #6 in the south.
What I'm trying to say is that no one should have to play the same team twice or all conferences should have a champ game or champ games should be eliminated.
For example the OSU, Mich, USC etc have no Champ game. For the 07 season if Texas makes it thru the gaunlet of A&M, OU, Ok St, TTech, Neb and K State next season then they will probably have to play Neb or KSU again in the Champ Game.
Under G-Hipps proposal their would be no need for big time OCC opponents. Why play a AU vs KSU early? why not play N-Tex of LaLaf, you wouldnt care about rankings, strength of schedule if your goal is win your conference.With the current system or plus 1 senerio its to your advantage to play at least 1 or 2 tough OCC games.
Hope you understood my explaination
Hookem-HornsThe Mayor said:
posted on July 20, 2007 2:21 AM — 24.7.49.173 — link — abuse?
How can you be the conference champion if you don't play every conference team during the season? In the Pac 10 with a 12 game schedule, each team faces everyone in the conference, no need for a championship game.
War Eagle Atlanta...Pac 10 and Big 10 as "waning" conferences? Are you on crazy pills?
The Mayor said:
posted on July 20, 2007 2:37 AM — 24.7.49.173 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta
The "Waning" Pac-10 since 2000 in the Top 5 at years end according to ESPN.
2000 Washington #3
Oregon State #4
2001 Oregon #2
2002 USC #4
2003 USC #1
2004 USC #1
2005 USC #2
2006 USC #4Throw me a line, we're drowning out here!
Tomcat said:
posted on July 20, 2007 3:59 AM — 68.90.165.182 — link — abuse?
Hello Mr.Mayor Hows it going in Eugene?
Conferences like big10/11 do not have a Championship game and not every team faces each other in 06 if they did then OSU would have to beat Mich again or play Wisc.This coming season Wisc doent play OSU or Mich if I'm not mistaked.
The Pac-10 Champ in 06 was USC right. They had two conference losses and were still champ. That doesnt happen very often in the XII, SEC or ACC.The way those conferences are set up, alot of times a team can have 1 conferece loss and not even have a shot. For Example Texas 04
When looking at the XII south lets say
OU beats Texas
Texas beats A&M
A&M beats OU
Which 1-loss team deserves a chance at the Champ game A&M? these things happen, and whoever they play in the champ game, they have probably already played and beaten.Neb,KSU or Colo
So given that USC would have to play Cal again or Oreg St.
Why not? Not Necessary right- Thats the way it is in the XII. Looks like an advantage to the teams without champ games to me.
as a Texas fan check this out. Lets say in 06 UT had beaten A&m, then they would have to play Neb again,sound fair, why they already beat them during reg season. This season if UT losses one conference game OU, A&M, TTech then no chance, now if they go undefeated in conference play and advance to the champ game they will probably face Neb or KSU, two teams they have already played.
The two best teams in the XII last year were not in the Champ game Texas & Texas A&M.
If you dont beleive me then watch the 06 A&m vs OU game, or Neb vs A&M game, or Texas vs OU.
Hookem-DucksOU Fan said:
posted on July 20, 2007 4:37 AM — 139.139.51.70 — link — abuse?
Tomcat, ATM was not that great last season. They freaking lost to Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Oklahoma all in College Station. And you can give me the "well ATM only lost by one point" crap all you want to, but a win is a win. And I forgot to mention that ATM got slaughtered by Cal. Sorry to burst your bubble. GO SOONERS!!
Marko said:
posted on July 20, 2007 11:26 AM — 70.127.211.252 — link — abuse?
I can certainly live with a Final Four format for college football. It would leave out a lot of arguments about a true champion. Sure the 4th spot would be contested but its better than the Who's better debates like UF vs Michigan or USC vs LSU.
Also.... screw Notre Dame.
posted on July 20, 2007 11:29 AM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
The Mayor: Thank you for engaging me on this subject. I spot-checked schedules for Oregon and USC and did see that each played a 9 game conference schedule last year, but an 8 game conference schedule the preceding few years. So the Pac10 now will play a 9 game conference schedule from now on, or was this a one year kind of thing? I thought the most games anyone played in conference was 8. If they plan on playing 9 games every season in the future, then their need for a title game is diminished, but not eliminated. The Pac10 had co-champions last year. If we are to have a playoff based in part on conference champions, the Pac10 is going to have to get off the fence and crown one champion, or they're going to need to split into divisions and have a title game. Besides, Mr. Mayor, having a title game is exciting, and it brings more exposure and money to the conference. Also, if you drop one or two games, you're not necessarily out of it. You can play yourself back in.
As far as the Big10, I stand by my statement. They definitely need some help. They don't need to have 3 teams with one or less losses going into the post season because they don't all play each other.
Let me run. Time to go take my crazy pill...
Zac said:
posted on July 20, 2007 11:33 AM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
Correction, T-Cat; WI plays both MI & OSU; just FYI.
As for the conference championship game winner automatically making the play-off, some of the reasons Tomcat stated are why I'd be against that. Another involves the occasional anomalous "Cinderella". The 2005 FL St team is a perfect example. Based upon ACC Conference rules, a 7-4 FL St played in and won the ACC Championship Game. While it was a worthy accomplishment, the resulting 8-4 record was not the resume' of a National Championship team. If in Gator Hippy's hypothetical scenario, the conference champions were to go, each conference would have to determine some means with which to send the most deserving team from their conference. That doesn't always mean the highest ranked team goes, but at least each conference would have a "worthy" representative. That doesn't mean a conference can't have a play-off game; it only means the winner of that game going to a N.C. play-off isn't automatic; rather, it would be just another piece of the puzzle. In this way, buy each conference choosing it's "champion", so to speak, any debate as to that representative's credibility now rests with the conference, as opposed to a bank of computers and the so-called experts. With 6 major (BCS) conferences, that allows for either an 8 or 10 team play-off; i.e. 2 or 4 at large bids provided. The question, and debate, becomes, "Who selects the at large teams?"
There will never be a perfect system. But, unless one gets started, how can we improve on it? Just a thought.
IrishJT said:
posted on July 20, 2007 11:45 AM — 65.83.54.4 — link — abuse?
(#36) Hey Mayor,
Good to see you online again. I hate to get back into the woeful PAC 10, but I have a feeling that either the second or third best team in the PAC 10 in each of those years was unranked at year end. Sure CAL has had some good runs and this year UCLA might prove to be a special team, but the PAC 10 never has multiple teams in the top 25 like the SEC or Big 10. Overall, from top to bottom, it rivals the Big East in "weakness."Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on July 20, 2007 12:35 PM — 138.163.0.37 — link — abuse?
Oh, and here's another concept that might settle the "filling the seats" issue. How about make it affordable instead of charging $100's of dollars for one f_____g ticket. They will still make their buck. If you build it they will come. Just build the damn system already. It's overdue, and I agree 4 games would be a good start.
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 20, 2007 1:13 PM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
In response...
WE ATL (#8): Right Aub beat LSU who beat Ark who beat Aub...
The winning percentages are used for at large because of situations like the above...
Cane Mutiny (#16): This isn't the BCS...
It's a fair take on evening out the field in D-1 football...
If ALL conferences have a fair shot from the get go, we'll begin to see parity spread across the board...
Granted it would take a few years...
Again, this is in order to eliminate polls and opinion in the process...
The only opinion is in the seeding which would be handled in similiar fashion to the NCAA B-ball tourney...
Zac (#17): The idea with this system is to place more emphasis on conference play making it MORE meaningful and rewarding...
Remember, there is seeding so even a 7-5 ACC champ could find themselves on the road for the entire playoff but still be rewarded for winning the conference...
Joe (#20): I can agree with that...
But I would want to see the NCAA should make a clear cut division between ,say, the current BCS
conferences and the rest of D-1...Like Elite division and D-1...
Giving each their seperate championship runs...
T-Cat (#24 & 33): Actually there is a HUGE incentive to play strong OOC games as well as stay in a strong conference...
Remeber that after W/L records are considered...
The tiebreakers are based on a teams OPPONENTS' W/L record...
The better the records of the teams you played out of conference the better your opponent win % at the end of the season...
While the conference winner is not always the best team...
This system doesn't reward on opinion...
It rewards on pure accomplishment on the field and places the majority of emphasis on the feat of winning the conference...
A 7-5 team snatching a conference champ from a team with a better record is a huge accomplishment and should be rewarded accordingly..
I'll point out that if the better team has truly put it together they'll still make the cut...
Note that LSU, Wisc, WVU and Rutgers all made the cut...
We want to remove the "opinion" and poll factor as much as possible...
Mayor (#35): If that holds true then "logically" speaking...
There can't be a true NC or even MNC as you can't say your better than EVERYBODY unless you play everybody...
Joe said:
posted on July 20, 2007 3:03 PM — 72.91.91.6 — link — abuse?
gatorhippy,
I think the idea of an 8 team playoff would fail if the other non-BCS conferences had no chance for entry.
Clearly, last season Boise St would have deserved a shot in such an 8 team playoff. Obviously, it would take a special season for a non BCS team to make one of the other 2 spots.
What I like about those 2 spots is it still leaves a chance for redemption for a team that might lose only one critical game at the end of the season or perhaps in a conference championship game against possibly the voters choice for the 2 best in the country. Their road would be difficult as they definitely would be away for that first game, but they could still climb their way back.
ksuwild said:
posted on July 20, 2007 4:21 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
So let me get this right Tomcat. The Cleveland Cavaliers swept the San Antonio Spurs in the regular season. So does that mean when it came time for the NBA finals we should have just called it off? We already knew who the "best" team was. They proved it in the regular season when they swept them.....right? Wrong. The Spurs stepped it up in the finals because that is what great teams do. Great teams and Great players prove they Great when the pressure is on and it really counts. Michael Jordan anyone? His scoring titles aren't why people regard him as they greatest basketball player to ever live. It's what he was able to do in the playoffs when everyone and their Mom knew they had to stop him to win. It's the difference between kicking a field goal at the beginning of the game.....when it has very little signifigance.....compared to kicking one at the end, when the game is on the line. Quite a bit different situation. Some crumble, Champions don't. The point is......if you are truly the best, you should have no problem proving you are, whether it's against a team you have already played, or one you haven't. Conference Championships are in place to separate pretenders from contenders. Who can step up when everything is on the line? The best can.
You do make a good point that if "major" conference teams got automatic bids they would undoubtably dodge tough non-conference opponents because they would know if they win their conference they are in regardless. That's why if they ever agree to do automatic bids they should have at least as many at large bids. Example: 8 team playoff, 4 automatic bids would go to the 4 top rated conferences' champions, and 4 at large bids would go to the next 4 highest rated teams regardless of which conference they are from. Boise St. would have made one of the at large bids in the kind of playoff I just metioned in 06, but they wouldn't make it into the current proposed 4 team playoff with a + 1 game. That's exactly why I prefer 8 over 4.....it allows room for the non-majors' very best teams to prove themselves, but hey......4 is better than the current exhibition we have now.OU Fan, I'm sorry you're so butt hurt over the 03 Big XII Championship. Try actually addressing the point I made buddy, it's not like I just brought it out of the blue that Kansas State whooped them in that game for no reason.
Joe said:
posted on July 20, 2007 9:22 PM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
I have to say I disagree that having a playoff would cause teams to schedule weaker teams. In fact I believe just the opposite would happen because those remaining spots most certainly would go to those deemed worthy by top competition. If possibly the 2 best teams resided in one conference it would be stupid to play an easier schedule because they would be left out in the cold should they not win the conference championship. Truthfully I think it would cause most teams to amp up their schedule because they might still get a chance for one of those 8 spots.
2. I see no reason at all in using basketball analogies here. There is absolutely no correlation. Every level of football in the country but Division One has playoffs and they work but these lame excuses about teams playing multiple times and making playoffs makes NO Sense!It would be almost impossible to even get a rematch with a playoff format, and if there was one so what? They already occur with the system in place.
'Cane Mutiny said:
posted on July 20, 2007 9:45 PM — 65.12.247.141 — link — abuse?
Gatorhippy, it makes sense that non-BCS schools should get a fair shot, but again, putting Troy in a 16-team playoff for winning the Sun-Belt just wouldn't make sense. I mean, Miami could've beaten Troy last year. The only way to get around this would be total conference realignment, something like Tomcat mentioned. But I can't stretch my imagination far enough to see that happening..
Tomcat said:
posted on July 20, 2007 11:28 PM — 68.90.165.182 — link — abuse?
#42 Zac thanks for the correction, When looking at Ghip #2 senerio he has Wisc & Mich in the at large spots I disagree with this because the top three teams from that conference did not play each other and they did not play a conf champ game. Look if OSU, Wisc and Mich had played each other and a conf champ game then there would be two more L's. Okay do you get that Ghip, KSUwild
Ghip I also do not understand RU and WV are in at large? The BE only has 8 teams and no Conf Champ game, if they did then one of those teams would have another L got it.
Now can I throw a turd in the punch bowl.fanblogs is based opon opinion right, Why is the BE a BCS conference? why not C-USA ?
That ought to get the ball rolling
GHip I see no reason to play tough OCC games or play in a real tough conference under your #2 idea. For example Houston & Troy are in right.
Teams like Cal for example would focus the entire season on USC and fotget about Tenn.
Or like in 05 Tex vs OSU wouldnt happen their would be no reason to spend so much time and energy, not to mention, pulling out all the stops, showing your other opponents really what youve got, much less the risk of injury to key players. Instead you could play some D-II foe run the first team a few series and get you backups some game experience getting ready for your conference foes.
G-Hip your idea is better than what we have and i do not like the idea of {BCs conferences} and non -BCs conferences. My proposal at # 24 eliminates that plus forces teams like ND to join a conference and forces teams like OSU, Mich, Wisc and USC to play a Conf Champ game. Although I'm sure they dont want too, because its not to their advantage to do so.
WareagleAtl save me some of those pills man I'm getting ready for the backlash.
OU fan watch the tape again and see OU get completely dominated for four quarters, theres no bubble to bust OU won the game or does three long drives and two defensive stops by A&M in the fourth quarter equal 6 points instead of 21? great game-Thank Fran
Hookem-Hornsksuwild said:
posted on July 20, 2007 11:42 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Quote from 50 "I see no reason at all in using basketball analogies here. There is absolutely no correlation. Every level of football in the country but Division One has playoffs and they work but these lame excuses about teams playing multiple times and making playoffs makes NO Sense!"
Who's making excuses about anything? I'm confused. Really.
Tomcat is pointing out: 1.That teams who play in conferences with conference championship games have a tougher road than teams who play in conferences that don't. Agreed 2.That it's not fair or pointless that in the Big XII you could beat a team in the regular season and end up having to face them again. Disagreed 3.The best team doesn't always win the conference. Disagreed
I was simply making the point that if you play in a conference with a championship game and you happend to have to play a team in the championship game you played in the regular season.....the outcome is much more significant in the championship game than it is in the regular season because it is for all the marbles. In the end it doesn't matter who one the first time, or by how much. Both teams are there because they won their division.....Period. If they beat a certain team the first time and they are FOR REAL they should be able to do it again. To lose on the big stage and cry foul is just excuses in the end. There is a perfect correlation in the analogy I made between the Cavs and Spurs to that point......that is that just because the Cavs swept the first to games against the Spurs in the regular season, doesn't mean they were the superior team in the end. The Spurs proved without a shadow of a doubt that they were the superior team in the finals.
If you don't get how that relates I don't know what to tell you Joe.
Zac said:
posted on July 21, 2007 12:19 AM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
C-Dogg, no doubt Miami could have beaten Troy last year, but I wonder if they would have. (We are talking about last year.) Consider the Noles having won at Miami, then played host to Troy, only to have to pull it out at the end. The men of Troy gave the "then" 9th ranked Noles (Yes, we all know where they wound up.) all they could handle. Like S FL, Troy is a seriously decent sized school. You'd think they could come up with a decent football team eventually. In fact, I thought they were considered by a few of us as one of the "up-and-comers". While I see and agree with the point of your post, don't be too hard on the Troy boys.
OU Fan said:
posted on July 21, 2007 6:09 AM — 84.146.21.108 — link — abuse?
Sorry KSUwild, but when I posted yesterday, Gatorhippy's post was #41. I strongly believe that it was rearranged. And I don't dwell on the past, I'm just curious about what have the Kansas State Wildcats done?? GO SOONERS!!
OU Fan said:
posted on July 21, 2007 6:25 AM — 84.146.21.108 — link — abuse?
Tomcat, I have the game taped. OU won. There's no excuses. What if OU had not converted on 4th and Inches?? You surely did not forget the 4th and inches play did you?? ATM would have won had OU not converted. What are your excuses for the Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Cal wins? Its kind of like how the Texas Longhorns were the best team in the Big 12 conference last season, but they had two conference losses. Texas beat Oklahoma. Texas beat Nebraska. Texas lost to ATM in Austin. OU beat ATM in College Station. Texas lost to Kansas State. Texas=2 conference losses, Oklahoma=1 conference loss. OU beat Nebraska in the Big 12 Championship. GO SOONERS!!
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 21, 2007 8:04 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
T-Cat (#52):
A few things...
A) In order to grasp this better you must ignore the BCS...
Remember, the BCS has no NCAA affiliation and my proposal would be an sanctioned NCAA tourney...
B) D-II wins would not count in figuring Opponents win percentage...
So playing on OOC full of D-II aids a team in no way...
C) If Cal solely focused on playing USC and didn't worry about the rest of their games they would be screwed...
1-12 won't get you in a playoff or win the conference...
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 21, 2007 8:16 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Cane_mutiny (#51):
Let's not forget...
This is the same Troy team that took FSU to the wire last year and had Ga Tech on the ropes until they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter...
They gave both those ACC teams all they could handle and given Miami's poor play last year...
Well...
But Troy did get blanked 56-0 to Nebraska...
However, like I said, if a system similiar to this was implemented...
Parity would begin to creep in over a few years as top HS recruits would begin to see that they don't need to attend the "traditional" powers to have a shot and get exposure for the next level...
It would MAKE all conference competition more meaningful...
Tomcat said:
posted on July 21, 2007 10:32 AM — 70.245.207.156 — link — abuse?
Gatorhip reread post #52 I clearly state that I do not like the Idea of {BCS conferences} and non BCS conferences.
My reference to the Cal vs Tenn game, was to point out that with the current system or the plus one, that these type of games are extremely important. However under the other proposals like yours #2 or for that matter mine #24 that these games probably would not be scheduled.
Hey man I like Troy and Houston.
KSUwild In CFB as you well know that every game is different. What I'm trying to explain is the fact that no teams should have to face each other twice, or that all conferences should play Conf Champ games or they should be eliminated.
Let me ask you did OSU beat Mich twice?
The Team that I support has played the same team twice three times. Kinda like AU vs Tenn twice in 04 get it.
Let me explain something to yall OUfan,KSUwild, & G-hip its not who has the better team. Its who has the better team on that particular day.
KSUwild am I getting through? KSU beat Texas in 06 does that mean that KSU is a better team? Or does that mean that on that particular day that KSU beat Texas. Same thing goes for the OU vs A&M game, just because OU won does that mean that they are somehow superior to A&M? No they just happened to win that one that particular day by the skin of their teeth, kinda like KSU did at UT. Most all teams are very competetive in CFB and just about anybody can beat anybody on any given day thats why we like it so much as sports fans. That being said check this out
West Virginia lost to South Florida
South Florida lost to Kansas
Kansas State lost to Kansas
Baylor beat K-State and Kansas
Does that mean that BU would beat WV ? not really
So is BU a better team that KSU ? or did BU just win that game on that day, or KSUwild what your saying is that Baylor is a better team than KSU.
Every game is different and Yes sometimes the conference Champ is not the best team- Thanks GHip
Hookem-Hornsgatorhippy said:
posted on July 21, 2007 12:44 PM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Tomcat (#60):
I'm with you on the Have and have nots...
I think you're missing the idea though on OCC...
I do see where your coming from but it isn't as it appears...
A game like Tenn vs Cal would be in the interests of both under my proposal...
Because if either one can't win their conference they would need to the other to have a high winning percentage at the end of the season in order to aid in reaching an at large spot...
Under my proposal, strong OOC is encouraged because of the tie breaker factor...
For example,
There are only 5 at large spots...
If there are seven teams with one loss records...
Only those with the best Opponent winning percentage will get in...
If a team schedules Sun Belt doormats for OOC games, more than likely they won't reach an at large spot while teams that shoot for top teams in the traditional powerhouse conferences...
Tenn and Cal can't count on winning their conference...
This proposal would force teams to match up COMPLETE schedules...
It discourages weak OOC shceduling...
The teams that are actually at a disadvantage are those that are in the currently lesser conferences as their Opponents win percentage will be decidely lower because of their generally low caliber talent...
However, there would be a greater movement towards parity as I mentioned in #59...
An example of this is the Big East...
When the BCS was implemented the only team that had any balls was UCG (relax 'Eer fans; it's true)...
As the Canes put on their press and then bailed to the ACC...
The other teams have come on strong as they have been able to gain a few top end recruits, win some games, gain some legitimacy, pick up even more top recruits, win more games, and so on...
posted on July 21, 2007 1:20 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
We certainly don't want teams slacking when it comes to OOC scheduling, and that's why I'm not for totally eliminating the human polls in any playoff scenario. Not everything can be factored in with mathematical equations, so we still need a subjective component; albeit not a large one.
Am I old school, or what?
Huskerpedia said:
posted on July 21, 2007 2:30 PM — 76.200.210.94 — link — abuse?
Nebraska will qualify...
Zac said:
posted on July 21, 2007 3:00 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
Once again, GH, I don't have an issue with your general premise. Now riddle me this. Suppose Auburn, FL, LSU, & TN played strong non-conference schedules. TN has 2 non-conference losses + took 2 losses from the SEC W, but took the SEC E undefeated. In the mean time, Auburn takes the SEC W undefeated & owns a win over TN & LSU (owns the other SEC W win over TN). Just for kicks, FL's only loss is to TN. TN beats Auburn in the SEC play-off. The results: Auburn is 12-1, FL & LSU are 11-1, and TN is 9-4 + SEC Champ. Which SEC team gets the automatic play-off bid? Which team gets the at large bid? Why? AND, just for grins, how many of you Gator-Mates would be screaming if FL didn't get either?
Oh, one more question: I take it UCG is the "University of Coral Gables"?
ksuwild said:
posted on July 21, 2007 5:08 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Hey OU Fan,
Since you're just bringing up random points to take stabs here(55).....what do you think the score would have ended up being in the Boise St. OU Fiesta Bowl if you didn't luck out on that punt that bounced off of a Boise St. player after yet another pothetic looking drive? It was seriously looking like a BLOWOUT up to that point. If anyone doesn't think so go re-watch the game. OU was getting pulverized up to that point and had absolutely no momentum.M GO BLUE said:
posted on July 21, 2007 5:19 PM — 216.46.213.2 — link — abuse?
Tomcat #37 - Here is the 07 Wisconsin football schedule -
9-1-07 - Washington state
9-8-07 - at UNLV
9-15-07 - the citadel
9-22-07 - Iowa
9-29-07 - Michigan State
10-6-07 - at illinois
10-13-07 - at Penn st.
10-20-07 - Northern illinois
10-27-07 - indiana
11-3-07 - at Ohio St.
11-10-07 - Michigan
11-17-07 - at Minnesota
ksuwild said:
posted on July 21, 2007 6:18 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
First off Tomcat, I've already told you that I agree that conferences should all have to have a championship game. It's certainly not fair that some conferences have them and some don't. I would prefer them all to have them because it's good for the game. Oh, and by the way IT PROVIDES A CLEAR CUT CONFERENCE CHAMPION. There is no way the Big 10 would have ended up with 3 teams rated as high as they did if they had a conference championship game.
Second. Different teams match up differently against different teams. That's why we beat Texas and lost to Baylor. It's too easy under your "belief system" to make the argument that any team is the best team. It's called excuses man. Under your way of thinking what would stop me from making the argument that all the teams KSU LOST to just happened to be the better team "that day" and we really should have played Florida in the national championship?
If you can lose and turn around and say, they were just better that day, that's all.....WHAT THE HELL DO THEY PLAY FOR then Tomcat? Seriously. If nothing else I want you to answer that.
It was hilarious to listen to all the Texas fans on blog sites after we took it to them in Manhattan last year. Justification here. Excuse there. Whining over here. We're still better over there. If we had Colt our D wouldn't have given up 45? Blah Blah Blah. YOU LOST! Go watch it again buddy. You probably still think UT from 01' is better than CU because you beat them in the regular season, even though CU BEAT your Horns in the Big XII championship on the big stage for all the marbles? You have configured your beliefs so that no matter what happens you can still say your Horns are always #1....if not in the NCAA then at least in the Big XII. It's an easy out and it's the exact reason the old system was such a sham. Voters decided the pecking order and most beleived their team was the best, even when they lost. Try giving credit when credit is due insted of constantly making excuses when your team gets beat. It's much more humbling.
Am I getting through Tomcat?
jeremy said:
posted on July 21, 2007 9:54 PM — 208.110.150.98 — link — abuse?
Back up here a poster posted for 16 teams with all conferences included. Yes not many cinderellas in football, BUT if conference champs got auto bids in time better players might go to these other schools to have the chance to play in the NCAA playoffs.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 21, 2007 11:29 PM — 68.90.165.182 — link — abuse?
Zac #65 excellent post, thats exactly what I've been trying to project
KSUwild I'm in total agreement on your first paragraph- First off KSU beat Texas and you have never heard me make excuses. KSU fans can relish the vicory for generations as a great moment in KSU history, kinda like the 1974 UT vs Baylor game. Its called the miracle on the Brazos, that was over thirty years ago, a great moment for Bear fans.
Read Zac's post #64 now change the names of the teams. Am I getting through ? You are the one that brought up the time that KSU was the XII champ with 3 losses including one in Austin, I was at the game and the KSU fans were purty cool.
KSU comes into Austin next year, any predictions?
Thank goodness yall dont have to go to Waco. Good luck in Auburn Al, Lincoln Neb and Stillwater Ok.
Sicem-Bears
Hookem-Horns
War Eagle
Go Cowboys
ksuwild said:
posted on July 22, 2007 4:22 AM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
KSU vs. UT in Big XII play
1998 KSU 48 UT 7 Austin
1999 KSU 35 UT 17 Manhattan
2002 KSU 14 UT 17 Manhattan
2003 KSU 20 UT 24 Austin
2006 KSU 45 UT 42 ManhattanThe only 2 losses KSU has out of these 5 were by a total of 7 points. That's one score. I don't know what you're defenition of -excuses- is but you have(on this topic & others)implied that Texas was the best team in the Big XII even though they didn't even win their division. It's not 2005 man, snap out of it. I'll give you that the Big XII South is the roughest, if not one of the roughest divisions in all of D-1A NCAA football. Post 72 suggests that Kansas State should relish the 06' win like Baylor did the 1974 UT vs Baylor game. I hope you aren't basing that notion off of recent history(spare me on stats from the distant past please). Let me remind you that since the inception of the Big XII in 1996 KSU has played UT a total of 5 times. KSU has won 3 of those 5. In those 5 games since the Big XII's inception KSU has outscored UT 162-107. +55 points in 5 games. The only true blowout in this series was in 1998 when we blew UT out of the water 48-7 in Austin. If we win this year in Auston the series will be KSU 4 UT 2. That's some pretty shakey ground you're using to put teams down from. So if I was you I would chill out on the analogies that put your Longhorns on a pedestal and above KSU and others.
My prediction for 07'
2007 KSU 38 UT 31 Austingatorhippy said:
posted on July 22, 2007 7:58 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Zac:
Under your scenario in my proposal...
UT receives automatic bid as conference champ...
As far as the at large...
You didn't provide enough info as you didn't lay out what the other teams in the country did record wise, provide the out of conference schedule for each team along with their records, plus the records of the rest of the SEC......
But, given three teams with one loss...
More than likely all three would make the cut depending on how many One loss teams were out there...
No, I personally myself wouldn't complain one bit if the Gators (under your scenario) didn't make the cut...
Because there was no charltan based computer opinion poll hybrid makimng the decision...
It would all shake out by merit of accomplishmnet on the field...
Joe said:
posted on July 22, 2007 8:37 AM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
ksuwild,
You make many logical points.
I agree all of the BCS conferences should indeed have a conference championship. Of course 3 of the BCS conferences would need to add teams. ) BIG TEN(1), PAC 10 (2), and Big East(4) to make that happen. (I believe considering all the recent expansions that is most doable) The remaining lower conferences likewise would need a bit of reorganization to get to that 12 number for their own championship games.
After that you have 6 spots locked in and only require 2 more. Lots of possibilities and criteria that could be used for those final 2. Again doable
The most important factor is this would allow no disruption to the current bowls as far as moving them. All it would do as make them a bit more meaningful, and in many cases more interesting with better match ups. Heck, you could even have the losers of the first round still bowl eligible! Whats not to like?
The Plus one is a start.OU Fan said:
posted on July 22, 2007 10:15 AM — 84.146.13.37 — link — abuse?
KSUwild, I'm not a "what ifs" guy and I take things as they are, so I will not answer your question. I will say that what happened in that game was Boise State had the lead for prety much the entire game, however the Sooners never gave up, kept fighting, and took the lead. And obviously the chain of events after that were historical. OU-Boise State was a great game. To me, it seemed that you took a cheap shot at the Sooners on your post #30, so I took one to your team. And both of us arguing is kind of stupid actually. We both know the Wildcats destroyed my Sooners in the 03 Big 12 Championship game. Trust me, I watched the entire game. I think Oklahoma went into that game thinking they were invincible and the Wildcats took it to them. But then again, OU was invincible for that entire season. And that Big 12 championship loss stayed with the Sooners all the way into the championship game against LSU. Sh&t happens. But, we also both know that Oklahoma owns the OU-KSU series. I did at one point have repsect for the Wildcats because of the fact that Snyder and Stoops once worked together. Other than that though, I don't care too much for KSU but I will always root for the Wildcats when the play Nebraska and Texas. And yes, it was nice seeing Kansas State defeat a cocky Texas team last year, but it must suck when your team loses to Baylor. And even though I'm sure you'd probably love to see Oklahoma lose to Miami in Norman this season, I would like to see Kansas State beat Auburn at Auburn so they could demolish the stereotype that the Big 12 is a weak conference. Go Sooners!
Zac said:
posted on July 22, 2007 3:13 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
GatorHippy, conference championship game winners receiving automatic births is where you and I disagree. While I agree that a Top-X teams play-off system could revolve around conference representatives, I disagree for precisely the reason I discussed in post 65 & Tomcat discussed in post 37. I agree that toughness of schedule is a key element, but I believe the teams most successful against those tough schedules should represent their respective conferences and all of college football. (I hate to keep picking on FSU's 2005 ACC Championship, but it's too good of an example. In fact, the same thing almost happened last year in the ACC with GA Tech.) My personal opinion: I don't think 3 & 4 loss teams have produced the resume' worthy of playing for the N.C. If a play-off is going to be between the "top" teams, it should be between the consistently top teams; i.e. those teams which were consistently successful throughout the year, as opposed to those who were less successful during the regular season, with exception of winning their conference's championship game.
Now, I must admit, given my variation to your theme, by placing the responsibility on each conference to select a "representative", ultimately, the results will be based upon the opinions of somebody. It just won't be the BCS. As with your idea, schedule strength would be very important, especially with selection of the "at large" teams. But, again, who selects the at large teams? Your idea does allow for the Cinderella effect. However, that could just as easily come from representatives of the presumably "weaker" conferences. Remember, before Boise St proved they were a championship caliber team, the highest they got with an undefeated regular season mark was 10th.
If we've all learned anything, we've learned it really is difficult to come up with the fairest system with which to determine who's worthy to play for the N.C. It's not even always easy when there's only one undefeated team. If it's a team like BYU in '84, that poses 1 problem; i.e. are they really the best team in the country? If it's a team like OSU last year, that poses another; i.e. who's #2-4? I guess that why these "pundits" like Jimmy "The Greek" make all the big bucks, while you, me, and the rest just blog.
GatorBoys said:
posted on July 22, 2007 4:22 PM — 66.231.136.11 — link — abuse?
Zac #65. I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, but you're hypothetical situation is wrong. An SEC loss is an SEC loss no matter if its east or West. If UT lost 2 SEC games (even if it was to SEC west teams) then they have 2 SEC losses and Florida would go to the conference championship game with 1 SEC loss. Unless of course you're talking about something completely different (I noticed you called it the SEC playoff and not the championship). Then my mistake
Zac said:
posted on July 22, 2007 10:16 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
GH, I don't have a full grasp of the SEC rules as to which team represents the East & which team represents the West. My apologies for the confusion. My point, simply put, I don't think teams with 3 or 4 losses should be representing a conference in a 4, 6, 8, or 10 team bracket N.C. system. If you stretch it out to 16 teams, then, maybe a 3-loss team gets an at-large bid. Otherwise, my personal feeling is the play-off should involve the best teams over-all. That doesn't make your system a "bad" system. It's just not one I'd be fully in favor of. If there was a play-off system, and in the tweaking of it, it eventually turned out that way, so be it.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 23, 2007 2:06 AM — 69.149.104.65 — link — abuse?
Zac good post
KSUwild I actually watched 3 of yalls games last year Louisville,Rutgers and the second half of the UT game. I didnt get to see the first half I was busy skinning a deer.I'm not one for making excuses K-State won, if you reread my post.Also I know what year it is 07 and your the one that put UT on a pedastal-your words not mine.
KSU in 2006 had 4 conference losses-Fact
KSU lost to Baylor 17-3 reality check?
KSU finished off the season 7-6
I like Ron Prince and he did a great job in 06
lucky yall dont have Texas A&M, Texas Tech or OU on yalls schedule next season and that goodness yall got the Jayhawks, Tigers & Bears at home, yall might win one of those.
The Wildcats lose in Austin by 17 points
Hopefully yall can beat Neb in Lincoln then yall could play the Horns again and lose in the Champ Game in S.A. Go ahead and buy your tickets I've already got mine.
Hookem-HornsTomcat said:
posted on July 23, 2007 11:37 AM — 70.249.46.162 — link — abuse?
OU fan How about Texas A&M vs Missouri write that down you heard it here on fanblogs. Thats right either UT vs Neb twice or A&M vs Mizzu twice. KSU vs TTech aint gonna happen.
San Antonio is a great place to see a game and I only live about 60 miles away.
Hookem-Hornsjoeanybody said:
posted on July 23, 2007 12:16 PM — 71.29.182.200 — link — abuse?
A playoff in the college football world? believe it when I see it. At any rate, I think that it should be extended by at least 2 games to encompass possible cindarellas, or let the playoff gods figure out a way to just use the bowls in place as a round robin tournament Without increasing the number of games by too much. In the past 3 years we've had 2 teams that could have gone farther than they did, 2004 utah and 2006 boise state, there has to be more consideration for teams like that.
OU-Ron said:
posted on July 23, 2007 12:25 PM — 216.201.209.146 — link — abuse?
OU Fan
You can’t put a lot of stock into Tomcat’s predictions, he still uses that mechanical fortune teller, you know the one that’s in the glass box and charges a quarter. I guess I could be wrong, he could be coming up with these predictions all on his own, either way, one is just as good as the other.
GO SOONERS
Regan said:
posted on July 23, 2007 5:34 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Once again, I will say that the only post-season setup that would be truly fair would be a post-season "Plus-One" contingent on need:
Note that "Need" is based on perceptions of who should play for the NC in the year in question, NOT in retrospect.
2006: Need-Yes - MICH vs. FLA, winner vs. OHST
2005: Need-No - TEX vs. SCAL
2004: Need-Yes - AUB vs. OU, winner vs. SCAL
2003: Need-Yes - OU vs. SCAL, winner vs. LSU
2002: Need-No - OHST vs. MIA
2001: Need-Yes - ORE vs. NEB, winner vs. MIA
etc...I modified the system to allow for an undefeated non-BCS team (ie: Boise State) to be treated as a 1-Loss BCS team; this would constitute a "Final Four" in 2006 of BSU/OHST vs. MICH/FLA.
I like the idea of a "Plus-One" System. What Playoff fanatics never think about are those of us who like the game the way it is and realize that massive change means MASSIVE CHANGE.
ksuwild said:
posted on July 23, 2007 9:03 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
Joe, post 76 is on point. In the end I am for requiring all conferences to have championships and going into an 8 team playoff with 4 automatic bids, & 4 at large bids.......that or take the automatic bids out all together and just take the final top 8 after all the conference championships have been played. Either scenario would be fair in my humble opinion. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
OU Fan, to be honest I'm not much of a "what if's" guy either. OU never quit fighting & clawing & that is admirable. Also, it was truly one of the greatest games ever played & I wasn't trying to take anything from that either. As far as KSU vs OU, there is no doubt you own us for total wins and losses, but if you take a closer look at from say, since the Big XII started in 1996. Here is how it looks.
1996 KSU 42 OU 35 Manhattan
1997 KSU 26 OU 7 Norman
2000 KSU 31 OU 41 Manhattan
2000 KSU 24 OU 27 Kansas City Big XII Champ.
2001 KSU 37 OU 38 Norman
2003 KSU 35 OU 7 Kansas City Big XII Champ.
2004 KSU 21 OU 31 Manhattan
2005 KSU 21 OU 43 NormanNOTE: There were only 2 blowouts out of the games I listed since 96'. The Big XII Championship of 03', and the whooping we got in 05' down in Norman. In the 8 total meetings since 96' KSU has outscored OU 237 to 229. In 2000 when you won the National Championship we played you within one field goal in the Big XII Championship, much closer than Florida St. did. Anyway, I could go on and on crunching #'s but the point I'm getting at is that the days of Kansas St. being OU's doormat are over. The fact that we have actually outscored you in these 8 games kind of shatters the "OU owns KSU" statement. It alludes more to a quite competetive matchup. As far as you defending OU against cheap shots, I don't blame you at all. I do the same thing when people talk $#!+ about Kansas State. I honestly wasn't taking a cheap shot at OU, that game just happened to be the best example I could think of to get my point accross. Lastly, I always root for Big XII teams when they play out of conference. Always. I will be pulling for OU when they play Miami. Count on that.
Tomcat, I don't know how on earth you took any of my posts as puting UT on a pedestal? In fact, quite to the opposite I have destroyed that notion. Read post 73, or 68, or whichever post you want, if you take any of those as me putting UT on a pedestal......you have a stomach full of crazy pills.
OU Fan said:
posted on July 24, 2007 3:12 AM — 139.139.51.70 — link — abuse?
KSUwild post 87, I agree that Kansas State is a competitive and tough team to beat for teams from all conferences, and the Sooners and Wildcats have had some dog fights recently. But what I don't agree with is how the media, other sportsfans, etc bash the Big 12 north. We all know the Big 12 north has not been as dominant recently as it used to be, but to me its still pretty tough. Not too long ago, it was not uncommon for Kansas State to be a top 10 team(not saying that in a bad way.) Hell, Nebraska used to be a monster when they had Osbourne and even Solich. What I'm trying to say is that Kansas State and Nebraska used to be nationally dominant forces and they are both from the Big 12 north, and I think many people have forgotten that. And Colorado has obviously had some major issues lately and are not what they once were, but the Buffaloes did take home a championship in the 90's, and on that issue, Nebraska took home 3 championships in the 90's. To me College football is like the weather because it changes every day(year.) Oklahoma played horrible football in the 90's, and since 1999 Stoops has turned that program around. Kansas State was dominant under Snyder, Snyder retired, then Kansas State went down hill. But, its only a matter of time before the Wildcats will be back on top. The Wildcats will be much stronger this year, and like I said earlier, I would love to see them pull off the upset in Auburn. Same goes to the Cowboys in Georgia, although losing WR Artell Woods for the season I think might have its effect on the Pokes. Go Sooners!
Tomcat said:
posted on July 24, 2007 3:26 AM — 69.150.72.149 — link — abuse?
KSUwild anything is better than what we have currently. Under your proposal, who or what determines the 4 at large teams-Rankings, SOS, human polls-computers?
Reagon brings up some valid gripes and problems with the current system of determinig the Nat Champ.This would be better +1.
1. All conferences have the same # of teams
2. Abolish { BCS conferences} all are Div-IA
That would give the UTah's, Boise St and TCU guys a shot
3. Conference Champ games should be eliminated or all conferences have them
4. Traditional Bowls could serve as the playoff game venues 16 or 8 whatever theres already what 30 or 32 bowls
Hookem-Horns
I need some of those crazy pills thanks KSUwild
posted on July 24, 2007 12:24 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse?
I have been advocating the final four format for a couple of years now.
The difference now is that the president and head coach of the NCAA national championship team want a change in the system, possibly due to their shared experiences at Utah.
That is the kind of political clout needed to move such a large issue forward.
Maurice said:
posted on July 24, 2007 2:08 PM — 204.117.78.97 — link — abuse?
#89 Tomcat I will agree with you 100%. Abolish all the BCS conferences. Have the Bowls serve as playoff sites start the Playoffs in the second or third week in Dec run the playoffs until mid Jan. The playoff would make more money than the current system and every team will have a shot to win the NCAA D-1 title
Ron Uharriet said:
posted on July 26, 2007 7:33 PM — 72.67.15.110 — link — abuse?
I like gatorhippy's proposal as far as it went, however, I would like to extend it in the following way:
Each coference team schedules only 8 games per team. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th games are the playoff games with no other bowl games.
Using gatorhippy's 2006 game examples:
First round: All wins below are hypothetical)
#1 OSU plays #9 W. Va. (OSU wins)
#2 Michigan plays #10 Wake Fores (Mich. wins.)
#3 Florida plays # 11 Boise St. (Florida wins)
#4 USC plays #12 Rutgers (USC wins)
#5 Louisville plays # 13 BYU (Louiville wins)
#6 LSU plays # 14 Houston (LSU wins)
#7 Wisconsin plays #15 C. Mich. (Wisconsin wins)
#8 Oklahoma plays #16 Troy (Oklahoma wins)Second round:
#1 OSU plays #5 Louisvill (OSU wins)
#2 Michigan plays 6 LSU (Mich wins)
#3 Florida plays #7 Wisconsin (Florida wins)
#4 USC plays #8 Oklahoma (USC wins)Third round:
#1 OSU plays #3 Florida (OSU wins)
#2 Mich plays #4 USC. (Mich wins)Round 4 for the National Championship:
#1 OSU plays #2 Mich. for the National Championship. #1 OSU wins.
While there may be only one or two upsets, everyone will be satisified with the results. Each bowl game ( play off's) will have major importance. Each team will bring a crowd to the game or T.V. while the fans of the underdog will be praying for an upset and the fans of the majors will be thrilled with the end results.
Teams not in the play offs may set up their own
additional games but may not call them play offs nor bowl games.ksuwild said:
posted on July 27, 2007 6:21 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
OU Fan, I don't know why the Big XII North gets so much $#!+ either. Granted the last few years the Big XII South has been better but overall they were neck and neck going back and forth for the majority of thier history. Between Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas St., one will bring a team to San Antonio that will be dangerous for whoever wins the South. This years Big XII Championship will be competetive. Count on that.
Tomcat, we are in agreement that anything is better than the exhibition we currently have. I've said this before and I'll say it again.......I loved college football before the BCS, I love it now with it, and I would LOVE it with a playoff. That doesn't mean I love how they handle their post season though. The BCS does a good job of ranking teams(& should continue to be used for that purpose)because it takes multiple factors into account and is for the most part indescriminent.......but it is faulted and truly flawed in the assumption that there will always be 2 clear cut teams to play for the National Championship at the end of EVERY year. History has proven over and over that there are just too many scenarios that can happen in any given season that bring multiple well qualified teams to the table. Did Miami have a legitamate beef in 01' when Florida St. played for the National Championship even though they were both 1 loss teams & Miami BEAT Florid St. in the regular season......ABSOLUTELY. What about Auburn & Utah both going undefeated in 04', or Boise St. in 06'......WITHOUT A DOUBT. They may not have won it, but then again they may have. One thing is for sure, they deserved the chance to be proven wrong on the field.
A 4 team playoff where the winners meet for the National Championship is a great start, but when examined a little closer, leaves a lot to be desired. Last year is a great example of why 4 isn't enough. Boise St. was ranked 5th after all was said and done in the regular season, meaning they would have more than likely gotten snubbed. I don't know about you but I think OU had a pretty damn good team last year, certainly not the best they've had, but damn good none the less. If there was any question of whether Boise St. could "play with the big boys" they answered it with an emphatic YES. Therefore I believe undefeated teams like Boise St. from 06' should have their chance too.
Last year I brainstormed a bunch of ways of configuring a 16 team playoff. After all where considered I liked 8 automatic bids with 8 at large bids or taking the BCS top 16 and eliminating the automatic bids all together. There's no doubt either would work, and undoubtedly decide a true champion......but at what cost? How much would taking the top 16 teams affect the bowl strucure? When I actually plugged 16 teams in and simulated playoff for 06' there where about 5 or 6 teams that I had serious questions about whether they were the same caliber as the rest. Too many questions without good answers.
After all my scenarios of 4, 8, and 16, it became clear to me that 8 is truly the perfect number of teams for a playoff in college football. It's simple and fair. In my version of an 8 team playoff the BCS would continue to be used to rank teams but "BCS conferences" would be eliminated. All conferences who don't currently have an even number of teams and a conference championship would add teams to get there and would have a championship game. I would have 4 automatic bids, and 4 at large bids. As far as deciding which 4 conference champions would get the automatic bids, I would add a component to the BCS that ranked the conferences by using the accumulative BCS rankings from all the teams. The lower the # the better the conference is. Head to head inter-conference play as well as polls could be a part of the formula as well. The 4 highest ranked conferences' champions would get 4 automatic bids, the next 4 highest ranked teams(regardless of conf.)afer all conferece championships were played would get the 4 at large spots. This way the very toughest conferences' winners would be rewarded, and the the rest of the teams within these tough conferences wouldn't get screwed just because the didn't win their conference(OU in 03'comes to mind). It would still allow room for teams like Utah of 04' and Boise St. of 06'. I would be surprised if a 2 loss team even made it into an 8 team playoff, and if they did they would be a VERY good team. Most, if not all, would be undefeated or have only one loss.
When picked appart 4 isn't enough, and 16 is too many. The BCS currently has 5 bowl games. An 8 team BCS playoff would take a total of 7 games(4-2-1)to decide a champion, that's only 2 more than the 5 BCS games we have now and it's much more effective. Although this scenario does require certain conferences to make some changes, it keeps the BCS formula alive, rewards teams who win the very best conferences, and gives teams from smaller conferences a chance if they have the right resume.
Fair and effective.
ksuwild said:
posted on July 27, 2007 11:39 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
When giving examples of teams who have legitimate gripes I meant Miami of 2000 not 2001. That was the year they lost to Washington but beat Florida State. My bad Kevin, hate to bring it up but they definitely had a legitimate beef, and beyond that the point I was really getting at is that it will happen again if the system isn't changed.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 30, 2007 8:22 PM — 66.142.90.76 — link — abuse?
KSUwild I'd rather teams gripe about who's # 16 instead of who's #8. I read your entire posts and it is very analylitical and well though out.
At least with these types of disscussions taking place the powers at be know that the system needs fixing.We disagree in some areas, however we are in agreement that any changes from the current system would be welcomed.
Hookem-Hornscardman steve said:
posted on August 3, 2007 10:15 AM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
A very bad ideal. As long as you have some D1 teams BCS and rest as regular D1, you will never have a true champ. Make everyone playing D1 football BCS or forget about it. My point is, just say TCU went 10 and 2 and OHIO ST played them. That team could get left out for beating a non BCS team. While some else could played 12 games with all BCS schools, but they where weak teams. Fix the system and make everyone BCS.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
c-dogg said:
posted on July 18, 2007 1:09 PM — 66.213.14.17 — link — abuse?Come on Kev..... stop teasing me. :o)
2011? This is like a kid waiting for Christmas only that Christmas comes every 4 years!