May 2, 2008
BCS Playoff: Who's Leading, Who's Following, and Who's Getting the Hell in the Way
This week, the commissioners of the big six BCS conferences meet in Miami to discuss the state of the BCS and possibly propose various playoff scenarios. Mr. College Football himself, Tony Barnhart of the AJC, wrote a series of articles last week about the subject, culminating in Sunday's blockbuster expose' which should be required reading for all fans of CFB.
A 1-A playoff is right around the corner. We can all taste it. Only now can we start to believe in it. But know this: whatever inaugural system they implement is going to need some fine tuning--A LOT of fine tuning. But that's the fun of it. The important thing is to get one in place to show that it can work. We can address it's weaknesses later. Conventional wisdom says that a four-team playoff could be the first format put into place.
But a lot has to happen in order for a playoff to come about, and there are many obstacles in the road. Today I'm going to give you my list of who's driving the bus, who's on board, and who's about to get run over.
Leaders:
College football fans are by far the ones who are really leading the push for a playoff. No where else is it more evident than seeing how much we keep devouring the game. Attendance is up everywhere in the country, especially in the south, where stadiums are jammed to capacity each week. TV viewership and ratings are rising, and CFB sites on the Internet are exploding with new members thirsting for more info on their sport and their teams. Just how big is the demand? You need only look at how much exposure that spring games and recruiting get to demonstrate the escalating desire for more football.
Yes, we fans are hungry for more, and more than anything, we want championships to be decided on the field rather than by the media. When we finally get this done, fans are going to owe each other one big collective pat on the back!
The BCS Commissioners, who each represent the six conferences who make up the BCS, seem to finally be on board, having seen the writing on the wall that this playoff genie was refusing to be stuffed back into the bottle. The commissioners will eventually iron out an initial playoff scenario, but don't necessarily expect it this year. Sure, there will be regional biases, but perhaps new coalitions among conferences might be formed to finally gain acceptance among all. The commissioners know that the spotlight is shining directly on them, so the pressure is on. Although they don't enjoy total autonomy on making decisions, their recommendations do carry a lot of weight. Here's hoping that they move quickly.
The majority of BCS team coaches appear to be all for some sort of playoff. In the article in the AJC, all these coaches were polled about whether they'd like to leave the current system alone or have a four team playoff. More than half responded, and a majority of those definitely favor a playoff. Although it's not hard to imagine that any coach would want a chance for his team to play themselves into a title, don't forget the enormous pressure that will now be added for them to make it into this playoff--considerably more pressure than there already is in maintaining the status quo. That's something to consider for these guys who live and die by their wins and losses.
Followers:
The school presidents seem to be on the sidelines these days, seemingly allowing their proxies, the conference commissioners, to fight it out for them, but ultimately wielding veto power over the final decision. Realistically, I think that although the presidents may threaten to throw the rock in the blender, we can expect a flock mentality when it comes down to it, with conferences acting in concert to promote their own self interests. What we sometimes forget is that the presidents are tasked with overseeing the academic integrity of the member schools, something that supercedes sports. And until the NFL turns CFB into one big farm system, we always have to keep that in mind.
The non-BCS teams are the patient ones, quietly sitting in their seat on the bus, trusting that wherever the big boys decide to go, they're going to be brought along for the ride. Although currently long-shots for BCS slots, they have to know that a 4-team playoff would raise those odds even higher. Perhaps they hope that eventually the field would be expanded into a format that would allow for the junior conferences to participate. For the time being, they seem to be content to have their occasional Cinderella shot. Time will tell for them.
UGA president Michael Adams is the one person who characterizes those in academia who are accused of plagiarizing their peers. A little over a year ago, Florida president Bernie Machen decided to stick his neck out and suggest that the SEC presidents possibly take the initiative with a playoff proposal. The idea was instantly pooh-poohed by Adams; yet it is he who basically comes up with the same idea a year later. The chilly reception that followed forced groundhogs back into their burroughs for six more weeks.
The idea instantly crashed and burned, playing to only slightly better reviews than he and Machen's grass-roots effort to rename the World's Largest Outdoor C*cktail Party to something else. How good is a leader if no one is following, Dr. Adams? Although it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that no one likes a copycat, there's still a good chance that the other presidents could have still been pissed about how Adams unceremoniously dumped Vince Dooley a few years ago. No, wait. Sorry. That's MY reason...My bad...
In the Way:
The Big Eas(y)t is the one thing that is not like the others, the one thing that doesn't belong. Decimated by mass defections unheard of outside the old Soviet block, the Big East combines old guard schools like West Virginia, Pitt, and Syracuse with a host of new kids on the block, and frankly, they just don't deserve to be there with the rest of the big five. I mean, MAYBE, if they somehow convinced Notre Dame to join in football, but I don't think a good old-fashioned Catholic miracle could bring that to pass.
The prime reason that it's bad for an undeserving conference being added to the guest list of the playoff party is because it gives hope to the rest of the junior conferences who are standing at the rope line, trying to sneak in. Look, eventually you guys can be included, but it's going to take a little of that fine-tuning we were talking about before we can work you in. In the meantime, no soup for you! Come back, one year! Next!
Notre Dame. Why the hell not include ND on the list of obstructionists? I dunno... Maybe because the Pope was just in town and decreed that the Irish should not join a conference until after marriage? Come on! They're an obstacle because for now, they write their own ticket and they refuse to join a conference. (which will be their death knell, BTW) But the Irish's luster may be starting to tarnish and non-Irish fans are getting a little tired of the golden dome pony show. Last year ND got paid by the BCS a few million for their 3-9 record and an appearance in the Toilet Bowl. Anyway, write your own reasons why they're part of the problem in the comment section. Next!
The Pac-10, the Big 10(11) and the Rose Bowl are the biggest obstacles to avoid on the road to a playoff, and I'm thinking real soon here that we take a detour around them all together. If there's ever been a case of trying to take your ball on go home, these three are the epitome. Seemingly binded for eternity in a blood-pact in Pasadena, these three and their tradition are the hold-outs that prevent the four major bowls from becoming de facto playoff venues in the proposed 4-team tournament.
The Pac-10 went to a 9-game conference schedule in the 2006 season so that every team played every other team and could crown a champion on the field. That was a good first step in lieu of expanding and having a conference championship game. Inexplicably though, they still have had co-champions the first two years, seemingly ignoring head-to-head competition while determining the ONE champion. Hello! Anyway, crowning a true conference champion on the field will go a long way toward a playoff, especially when the playoff evolves into one between conference champions.
The Big 10(11) is truly a complete mess. Aside from having their ass handed to them in MNC title games of late, they are risking their own relevancy in the modern CFB world by refusing to expand by one more team and crown a true champion of their conference on the field. Seemingly, they want to remain a crusty relic of days gone by, relying on the media to vote into the national title hunt a multitude of their teams who never play each other during the season. If you say that this lack of a conference title game gives them an unfair leg up on all the real conferences that do have one, you'd be right. Don't shirk your responsibility of providing us your best, Big 10(11), if your best hasn't been tested against all your conference has. If you say that it'll just mean that your conference will devour itself, I'd say welcome to the SEC, baby!
Of course, all wrongs could be righted if somehow the Big 10(11) could manage to land the ever elusive Notre Dame into the ranks, but that would lend itself to new problems--like what to call the new conference since 'Big XII' is already taken...
The Rose Bowl is starting to remind me of that aging Hollywood star who wonders why the Paparazzi is no longer following him around. Can it be because the youth and vigor are long gone? You don't invite many people to your party, so pardon us if we start to think about throwing our own. How can you claim to be the 'Grandaddy' of them all if you don't even want to claim the red-headed step children of the CFB family? If you still want to cling to the old days and honor your pact with two conferences of yesteryear, then I guess it's your right. Just don't expect all the cameras to be flashing...
Guaranteed of a MNC game at least every four years, the RB is probably thinking that it may be as good as it gets if the playoff expands and even more venues are brought in. Although the idea of bypassing the RB completely was floated during the early formation of the BCS, no one really wants to exclude the Rose Bowl from any playoff scenario. CFB fans are traditionalists, and we'd like to have Pasadena on board. He's just going to have to realize that he can't be the leading man in every film.
So there's my compilation of all the players in the playoff scenario today. Just remember, it's not WHAT kind of playoff you get installed, it's THAT you get one. All the tuning and adjustments will be completed later. That's what the media is for. Since they'll no longer have as big a hand in determining who's going to be in it, they'll want to shape up the process to their liking as much as possible.
Playoff 1.0 is going to be less than perfect, and it's still going to rely heavily on the polls. With only four teams, the media is still going to be selecting who the participants are. Yes, team #5 and the rest of the cast are not going to be happy, but it's better than it is now. Eventually, the playoff will evolve into having all conference champions competing against each other, but that day is way off, considering the logistics in weighting all 1-A conferences against each other and having enough rounds to include them along with at-large teams. The road to a solution will be long, but think about all the great pit stops along the way.
WEA will now take your stark criticism...
Comments:
RazzMaTazz said:
posted on May 2, 2008 12:37 PM — 70.137.166.37 — link — abuse?
From everything that I've read elsewhere, it seems that the SEC and ACC are in favor of a plus-one playoff. The Big Ten and Pac-10 are adamantly opposed. And the Big 12 and Big East conferences are slightly opposed. OK you fans from the obstructionist conferences... please write your ADs, school presidents, and commissioners, and demand a plus-one.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 2, 2008 12:44 PM — 170.35.224.65 — link — abuse?
Good stuff WEA, A Playoff is long overdue in CF. The Big 11 Pac 10 Rose bowl granddaddy alliance has been a good thing for CF but if they are going to stand in the way of progress then they can go up $#!+ creek and shoot a hole in their foot......& boat at......the same time. We all want to include them in the equation but if they want to be stubborn and play hard ball then let ride off into the mediocrity sunset and watch on the sideline while the rest of CF flourishes with a playoff.
On ESPN first take they were throwing around the idea that Congress might actually get involved. I don't necessarily agree that congress should stick their nose in every sports mess(baseball steroids)but in this particular instance I would be all for it if big conference commissioners want to keep dragging their old decrepit feet. The college football world is ready for it's champion to be DECIDED ON THE FIELD!
AUtigerman said:
posted on May 2, 2008 1:14 PM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
Well regardless of what the commissioners think or say they still dont drive this bus.
Its driven ultimately by you and I. If they dont sell tickets and air time theyll do whatever it would take to get that back.
All too often we dont ban together to get things done. If the pac ten and Big 10(11) fans were to say enough is enough. We wont come to see your mediocre bowl game till you get with the program.
Likewise if the other conferences would do the same in there respective bowl games we could get this done. But alais we will sit back and let them spoon feed us what ever tickles there fancy.
And I for one dont want congress involved. They cant get anything done. Next thing you now youd have a survey to determine which polical party most fans belong to. They screw every thing up.
Oh and by the way we drive the congressional bus too. We just dont know that were doing it.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on May 2, 2008 1:44 PM — 68.212.38.125 — link — abuse?
Excuse me for going astray, but let me be the first to say I am glad Periloux is out of the way. All he would do is throw a wrench in the LSU program. Just like Vick at VT and other young punks alike. Yes, this is a blow to the program, but the Tigers will be better off in the long run. Besides, LSU is not only about football, it's about developing students to step out into the world and hopefully contribute something to our society. Right TE?
ksuwild said:
posted on May 2, 2008 2:03 PM — 170.35.224.65 — link — abuse?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3375352
Looks like nothing is going to change until 2015 according to ESPN.
Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TE
posted on May 2, 2008 4:10 PM — 70.180.43.182 — link — abuse?
said:
GatorWASPy,
That time is off on that bad boy...I came over here relatively quickly after getting in to work and fielding about 3 phone calls on the way once talk radio in Baton Rouge got ahold of it this morning...
I e-mailed him, and then didn't realize he had asked me to shoot some other info over to him, hence the message...wait...what the heck am I explaining myself to you for?
Oh, because that pompous little tude of yours reared its head again...
It's aight, Hip...No worries...Its Friday, and I got free throw line tix to Hornets/Spurs Game 1 tomorrow night from the Hive in New Orleans...
Ain't nobody gonna hold me down...Not even Ryan's coke habit..
crazylegs said:
posted on May 2, 2008 5:17 PM — 68.184.53.39 — link — abuse?
look guys i know you think the big10 and pac10 are a bunch of idiots but let them have at the rose bowl not want to be in it that just means that all the great players will go to the sec and acc so they can truly say they were on a national championship team.
posted on May 2, 2008 9:37 PM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta
said:
Like a lot of things involving sports these days, the meeting of conference commisioners this week was all a bunch of hype. Although I wasn't naive enough to believe that anything concrete would be resolved, I at least had optimism that a free exchange of ideas might take place. From the outside looking in, it appears that everybody came to the table with their minds already made up.
So as it stands, it looks like the status quo will remain unchanged until TV contracts come up for re-negotiation in a few years. The chair of the BCS has now passed to Swofford of the ACC (so you conspiracy theorists can start speculating that the next two national champions will come from the ACC)
Mike Slive of the SEC proposed his idea of the four team playoff, but it looks like he got no support. We all knew how the Pac 10 and Big 10(11) stood, but apparently the Big XII had already voted in March to oppose a change, so the idea went down in flames.
I think if I were to rewrite the column above, I'd have to throw everyone except the fans and the coaches in the obstructionist column. Pretty frickin' sad...
If the BCS does enjoy some exemption from competition by some arcane law, then maybe it would be beneficial to have Congress investigate. I'm not usually for government sticking their nose into things, but like someone once said, "by any means necessary..."
Regan said:
posted on May 3, 2008 1:29 AM — 98.25.39.205 — link — abuse?
I am firmly against a playoff.
The whole point of changing systems is to make things better. A Playoff will bring out significant problems just as the current layout does and will wreck the importance of the regular seaon on top of it.
There are people in Congress that are 100% deadset on raising the minimum wage. No matter what. Economists can point out how it won't do what they think it will, and still they keep pushing. Businesses have to lay off workers, and they don't care - they just keep pushing.
No offense to the 85% of you that favor a Playoff, but IMHO, you care far more about 'The Highlander Effect' of answering 'Who's #1' than what CFB is all about.
2004 showed that the BCS is truly flawed, and that's when I stopped supporting it. A Playoff isn't a magic wand that will make everything in CFB right, and if you believe that it is, I've got a bridge to sell you.
If you really want to send your message, then boycott college football. Or...just whine. Which one do you think will make a difference to the big-wigs?
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes...
Bleed Crimson
posted on May 3, 2008 3:39 AM — 65.4.25.193 — link — abuse? said:
Okay. ill start off the playoff proposals:
Here's my ideal playoff:
Okay, all you have to do is keep the format we have now, BUT you make the BCS bowl games, playoff games instead.
like last year it would have gone like this:Georgia
HawaiiUSC
IllinoisOklahoma
West VirginiaKansas
Virginia TechLSU (bye)
Ohio St. (bye)
Georgia
USCWVU
KansasLSU (bye)
Ohio St. (bye)
Georgia
Ohio St.LSU
WVU
Georgia
LSU
Georgia
(call it SEC bias if you must)
posted on May 3, 2008 10:51 AM — 68.158.211.194 — link — abuse? said:
Bleed: You're proposing a 'plus three' format, or 3 rounds after the bowls. We can't even get a 'plus one' considered.
I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but did you ever predict how many wins Bama would have this year?
Bleed Crimson
posted on May 3, 2008 5:47 PM — 65.4.25.193 — link — abuse? said:
WEA:
i know, that was just my "ideal" playoff format.youre all about predictions a'ight. you just want me to make predictions so you can criticize me later for either not having enough faith in my team, a'ight, or breaking a promise.
(something along those lines)
- Nick Saban
but yeah ill break down bama's schedule for ya.
see the only problem with bama is, in the last like 3 or 4 seasons combined, i can count the games we've lost by more than one score, on one hand. In other words, we are always in every game and always have a chance to win. Just about every SEC game we play can be decided on a coin flip.
maybe this year we'll play with more of that consistancy Saban keeps harping on.CLEMSON - call it kool-aid, but i just can't see the tide losing the first game of the season. win.
TULANE - win
WESTERN KENTUCKY - win
ARKANSAS - i shouldn't have to explain this one, but arkansas is nothing. no mcfadden, no jones, no nutt, no qb, what's keeping them from last in the SEC this season?? nothing IMO.win.
GEORGIA - i think we definitely have a shot to upset the bulldogs, but if i were putting money on it, id have to say: loss.
KENTUCKY - at home. no andre woodson. i dont think we'll have a problem here. win.
OLE MISS - i think we pull off yet another very close victory over Nutt and the Rebels at home. win.
TENNESSEE - i really don't quite know about this game. Saban did put a beating on Fulmer last year but i just dont know. i guess just so this post doesn't sound ridiculous ill say: loss.
ARKANSAS STATE - win.
LSU - hahaha. okay. here's where it gets good. I think we march into Baton Rouge under the hostile crowd and take Tiger stadium back. 'Bama is back may appear on Sports Illustrated again. haha. win.
MISSISSIPPI STATE - no way we get "croomed" three years in a row. and at home? no way. win.
AUBURN - the prediction that means the most to you WEA. at home? equal talent? 6 years of frustration? to go to atlanta for the first time since 1999?
no way bama loses this year!Alabama 11-3
(loss in Atlanta to the Bulldogs)
(win in the Sugar bowl)haha. i know. Crimson colored glasses, BUT dont blame me, im an Alabama fan, and that's how i honestly see the season playing out at this point.
Hotty Toddy said:
posted on May 3, 2008 6:20 PM — 75.105.128.38 — link — abuse?
I feel the compulsion to toss in my two cents on that. Just for fun, right? Why not.
Bama's schedule -
Clemson - Close win for the Tide.
Tulane - Boring win.
Western KY - Easy win.
Arkansas - Depleted ranks for the Hogs, win.
Georgia - Bulldogs win big. Loss.
Kentucky - Toss up.
Ole Miss - No way Bama's "get outta there by the skin of your teeth" streak lasts after a revamped Ole Miss team shows up. Loss.
Tennessee - Eh I dunno... feels like another toss up. Not too sure.
Arkansas State - Boring win.
LSU - I would originally say win for the Tigers, but now with Perillioux gone, i'm not too sure.
MS State - Croom's streak runs out -- Win.
Auburn - Tuberville's streak, however, continues. Loss.
Google Account
posted on May 4, 2008 12:23 AM — 24.127.45.43 — link — abuse?
said:
i got auburn and texas going to miami for the bcs title game, with wvu playing the hokies a week earlier, usc and ohio st in the rose, byu playing boise st in the fiesta bowl, and clemson playing georgia in the sugar
bama aint winning 10 games this year, they gotta open against a stout clemson front 4 and back 7, miss st, uga, lsu, tennesee, and of course auburn should all be losses too
with ncaa commish'er's voting in 2 new bowls, the money they're making ain't going to stop them from delaying the playoffs, one day, one day
Zac said:
posted on May 4, 2008 3:13 AM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
“In the Way:
The Big Eas(y)t is the one thing that is not like the others, the one thing that doesn't belong.“WarEagleA, I’d normally begin with ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS, but given some of us are into pompous and circumstancous, I’ll begin thusly:
Thou pompous a$$!!! How dast thee berate the Big East so?!? It seems to me the Big East has proven it DOES belong. Considering some of the arguments of your peers, “Don’t talk trash till ya have a national championship,” two Big East teams already do, and for the time being, they’re conference bottom feeders. No, the Big East is not the SEC, but considering what we’ve seen over the past 3 years, you have to admit they’re at least even with, if not a leg up on, the ACC & Big Ten(11).
Now, if your argument involves the Big East only having 8 teams and needs to expand so as to have their own conference play-off, weeeeeell, I can see your point there. IF, as GatorHippy has suggested on many occasion, a play-off system is based upon conference champions, then, it stands to reason the Big East should expand. The question is, “How”, given the house Big East Commissioner, Mike Tranghese, built already has 16 teams, only 9 of which have BCS schools, and one of those is everyone’s favorite, ND. (Would it come as a surprise to anyone, should a commission decide upon say an 8-10 team play-off format, that it should include all 6 Big Six champions, X at-large, + ND?)
Seriously, with fuels having gone through the roof, something has to give. Should the Big East, Big Ten(11), & Pac Ten have to expand to accommodate play-off eligibility, sticking to one’s region is the right choice. (Most of you have seen this before, but here goes anyway.)
Geographically, the Big Ten(11) is the best fit for ND; it’s also a far better fit for IA St than is the Big IX. Therefore the simplest mode of expansion would result in the following:
W Div – IA, IA St, IL, ND, MN, WI
E Div – IN, Purdue, MI, MI St, NW, OSU
With the emergence of Ron Zook’s Illini, and provided ND gets back on track, the W Div is about even with the East. (We’ll get to PA St in a minute.)
The Big 12, now being down one has a couple of intriguing choices: Air Force (good market), or CO St (good rivalry with Big 12 member CO). The Big 12 could take both, if ND’s stubbornness persisted and the Big Ten took Missouri instead.
As for Big East expansion, the only imaginative thing I could come up with is splitting the conference into a BB primary division and a CF primary division; where-by, both divisions would be completely independent of the other. In this way, what is currently the 16 team Big East, could be the 8 team BB primary division (DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, ND, St. Johns, Seaton Hall, Providence, Villanova – perhaps sub UMass for ND, if ND was cooperative); then, the CF primary division might look something like this:
Cincy, CT, ECU, Louisville, Navy, PA St, Pitt, Rutgers, S FL, Syracuse, Troy, WVU
For the time being, PA St joining the Big East is almost as much a dream as ND joining any conference. However, as much as I love Joe Pa, once he and that terrible finger of his finally retire, PA St’s entry into the Big East becomes a greater possibility, should it come up. UMass or Vilanova could make the jump to Div 1, or Tranghese’s eyes could look south to Troy and a piece of the AL market; lots of possibilities for that 12th team.
Now consider BC & VA Tech: They were once average to good teams, but their affiliation with the Big East helped them improve to the point they were invited to join the ACC. Both teams have done very well in the ACC with VA Tech taking the ACC Championship twice since joining in 2004. Cinci and CT are certainly better off for having joined the Big East, and Louisville wasn’t at all hurt by the move (until last season) winning the Big East in 2006. The point is teams which join the Big East improve, despite the number of coaches who've been hired from the Big East, or even offered jobs by presumably better programs, in the past 3 years. So, how can a conference, which has proven to be an up-and-comer, which has benefited teams as members, which has provided many a fine coach, coordinator, or HC, to other schools, or which has been anything but the worst of the Big Six over the past 3 years be considered as one which does not belong?
C-Dogg, where-ever you are, it's OK; I’m relaxed now. Back to the subject at hand.
Regan, I have a challenge for you. Instead of constantly stating why a BCS Div play-off won't work, try instead to come up with reasons as to how it will work. Even if all you can come up with is, "The only way it will work is *if*…" I know you have a decent imagination. I'm dying to hear the "if's". Give it a try. Since we don't have, and may not get, a play-off, what harm could it do?
Regan said:
posted on May 4, 2008 4:11 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Zac (#20):
Oddly enough, I have one.
It’s called “Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need”.
I have it saved (in a big folder called ‘Playoffs Suck’) along with multiple logical arguments against a Playoff for CFB.
Here it is:
>>>>>>>>>>
ANY POST-SEASON MUST BE CONTINGENT UPON AN INDIVIDUAL YEAR'S OUTCOMES TO ADDRESS ALL CONCERNS. BLUEPRINT RULES:
1) Only Conference Champions can compete for the Title.
2) Only Undefeated or 1-Loss Teams can compete for the Title.
3) Non-BCS Conference Champions posting an undefeated record count as 1-Loss Teams for the purposes of inclusion, thus getting a chance, but not at the expense of BCS-caliber teams.
4) If only one Round is needed, the game takes place at the traditional time. If two rounds are needed, the first should take place early in the Bowl Season and the second at the traditional time. If needed, additional rounds would take place at a reasonably spread-out pace throughout December and early January.
0-Loss = Number of Qualifying 0-Loss Teams
1-Loss = Number of Qualifying 1-Loss Teams> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 1 – 0-Loss team plays 1-Loss Team
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 2 – Two 1-Loss Teams play
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 3 – ROUND A: #2 vs. #3; ROUND B: winner plays #1
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 4 – Playoff of four
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 5 – ROUND A: #2 vs. #5, #3 vs. #4; ROUND B: #2/5 vs. #3/#4; ROUND C: winner plays #1
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 6 – ROUND A: #1 vs. #6, #2 vs. #5, #3 vs. #4; ROUND B: #2/#5 vs. #3/#4; ROUND C: winner plays #1/#6
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 7 – ROUND A: #2 vs. #7, #3 vs. #6, #4 vs. #5; ROUND B: #1 vs. #4/#5 winner; #2/7 winner vs. #3/#6 winner; ROUND C: #1/#4/#5 winner vs. #2/#7/#3/#6 winner
> 0-Loss: 0, 1-Loss: 8 – Playoff of eight
...and so forth. If this sounds complicated, I give you Exhibit A: the BCS Computers…
Here’s how it would have looked in the past few years:
2006:
0-Loss Teams: 1 (#1 OHST)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#2 FLA, #3 LOU, #4 BSU)ROUND A: OHST vs. BSU; FLA vs. LOU
ROUND B: OHST/BSU vs. FLA/LOU2005:
0-Loss Teams: 2 (#1 SCAL vs. #2 TEX)2004:
0-Loss Teams: 3 (#1 SCAL, #2 OU, #3 AUB)ROUND A: OU vs. AUB
ROUND B: OU/AUB vs. SCAL2003:
0-Loss Teams: 0
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#1 OU, #2 LSU, #3 SCAL)ROUND A: LSU vs. SCAL
ROUND B: LSU/SCAL vs. OU2002:
0-Loss Teams: 2 (#1 MIA vs. #2 OHST)2001:
0-Loss Teams: 1 (#1 MIA)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#2 ORE, #3 MARY, #4 ILL)ROUND A: MIA vs. ILL; ORE vs. MARY
ROUND B: MIA/ILL vs. ORE/MARYSee? Everybody Wins. The Playoff people AND the Regular Season Fans…
>>>>>>>>>>
The logic of the plan is that no one even knows what the post-season will look like until the last week has been played. As you can see from the examples, rarely have more than 3 teams had a chance to play for the Title; the big problem in the years the BCS has failed has been where there were 3 “deserving” teams for 2 NC spots.
The one and only big problem with this plan is that in 2007, according to my plan, Ohio State would have faced Hawaii in the NC game. Honestly, though, I have no problem with that. They made it through the regular season with 1-loss and 0-losses respectively, which is what CFB has used for it’s NC criteria for over a century now.
LSU didn’t make it through the regular season unscathed, and lost their last home game to an unranked opponent. No offense to LSU, but the fact that a 2-loss NC has been crowned has utterly cheapened college football.
Either way, I’ll go out on a limb and say that 2007 was just a bizarre year that won't happen for another 100 years; so it’s not that big of a problem.
But a true Playoff will ruin this sport. They will.
Sorry, that’s the way it is, and always has been in this most glorious sport. My advice for people who love playoffs is: enjoy watching the NFL – now leave the only sport I have any love for alone.
U. of S. C. 1978 said:
posted on May 4, 2008 9:28 AM — 97.82.175.124 — link — abuse?
Thanks for the thread Kev, I for one have been waiting calmly in line, and know how to order. One NC playoff system please, (stepping to the left now). But seriously though, fans want a NC that we all can say junk about, while we all have to agree that "THEY EARNED IT".
Regan you remind me of the folks who used to believe that, "if God had meant for man to fly, He would have given us wings". The majority of fans want a meaning full NC. I know some women who would not want a week or three longer season. I know some people who would not care either way. But you are the only fan I have ever heard that proposes that a longer season, with more competitive games, will "ruin this sport". My advice to you, stay out of avalanche country. I suspect you would run uphill if you saw one.
Now then, there is one thing that strikes fear into every mover and shaker's heart in our great nation. That is not the fear of the unknown. It is the fear of a congressional investigation and action. In this case, Congress has heard the fans, (voters) Congresspeople really like to please voters. Especially when they can force groups who cannot give them money, (universities) into doing something the voters want. It's a basic win-win for our glorious leaders. Here is where your movers and shakers get to moving and shaking, while they still have some control over their seizures.
Finally, I still advocate an in-season playoff method to arrive at the big Kahuna. This method would have knocked Hawaii out a lot earlier last year. Weeks 5 and 7, or 7 and 9, (you pick), We go down the AP's list. #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, etc. I am a traditionalist in favor of change, as such, it would not bother me one little bit if the final weeks #1 and #2 played in the Rose, every year. #3 plays # 4 in another bowl, #5 versus #6 in another, down the list. Add one more week if you like, the winners of the top two bowls, play each other, in the Rose?
posted on May 4, 2008 10:48 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
This is kind of fun to partcipate in a hijacking of my own thread, but it's my fault for asking. Anyway, here's my pre-season predictions for Bama's schedule:
CLEMSON-loss
TULANE-win
WESTERN KENTUCKY-win
ARKANSAS-win
GEORGIA-loss
KENTUCKY-win
OLE MISS-win
TENNESSEE-loss
ARKANSAS STATE-win
LSU-loss
MISSISSIPPI STATE-win
AUBURN-loss (not hard to guess how I was going to answer that)Regular season record: 7-5
My prediction for Auburn's regular season record: 9-3 Sorry, can't give individual game breakdowns. I'm way too biased to rationally predict game by game. I always think they're going to win, even if they don't have a chance.
Be sure to come back and hang me with those predictions in November, Bleed...
posted on May 4, 2008 11:41 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
Zac: Sorry that my comments cause you pain, but I believe that the BE isn't the same since the defections. It still has the trio of traditionally strong teams that I mention, but the new ones, who are former C-USA, MAC, et al members, just water it down too much, especially for football snobs (like me). You can have your retribution if WV kicks Auburn's ass in October...
But you're in luck. Since an even number of conferences gets the call over an odd number, the BE gets in under the wire. There are 6 BCS conferences for now, but there could be more eventually.
However, the one thing that is the least likely to happen any time soon is a playoff involving conference champions. It just makes too much sense. How dare we want a playoff that crowns a national champion on the field to be made up of conference champions who were crowned on the field?
There are two reasons why a playoff between conference champions may be a long time coming:
1) It would involve too many teams--any initial playoff is going to have to be small and innocuous enough to have a chance of consideration. There could be three times as many conference champions as there would be slots. A lot of conference winners are going to be left out of the early versions of a playoff.
2) Would be incredibly difficlut seeding the conference champs. You'd still have to rely on a team's poll ranking to determine where they seeded, so you're never going to remove the human element, not that I'm advocating that anyway. Small conference winners might resent always being lined up against bigger conference winners in the early brackets, and on and on...
Yea, this playoff caucus showed us nothing if not that we'll be lucky to get a plus one after the bowls, much less a plus three or more...
Bleed Crimson
posted on May 4, 2008 3:53 PM — 65.4.25.193 — link — abuse? said:
La Monroe - win
Southern Miss - win
Mississippi state - win
LSU - win
Tennessee - loss
Vanderbilt - win
Arkansas - loss
West Virginia - loss (noel devine. you'll remember the name)
Ole Miss - win
Tennessee Martin (??? come ON tuberville) - win
Georgia - win (possibly ending GA's run at a NC)
Alabama - loss8-4
Big Tide said:
posted on May 4, 2008 6:09 PM — 69.34.227.69 — link — abuse?
WEA, first of all, let's get the turf green and not brown, and what I mean by that is the sprinkler system is back ON!!! Shula and his FAG ASS dope smoking BROs have hit the road and as Eddie Murphy put it in 48 Hours - There's A New Sheriff In Town!! Hang tight and watch the master in action.
posted on May 4, 2008 6:39 PM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
BT: Bleed Crimson started it! Actually, he and I are only one game apart on Auburn's predicted finish, so it's pretty close.
Okay, back on topic. Which of these situations will occur first:
A) Getting a 4-team playoff for 1-A
B) Notre Dame joining a conference
C) The Big 10(11) drafting another team
D) Large merger among two non-BCS conferences
My guess? 1st-D 2nd-C 3rd-A 4th-B
Zac said:
posted on May 4, 2008 9:32 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Which of these situations will occur first?
A) Getting a 4-team playoff for 1-A
B) Notre Dame joining a conference
C) The Big 10(11) drafting another team
D) Large merger among two non-BCS conferencesThe following are the likely answers:
1. A & C a tie to occur within a few months of each other in 2-3 years.
2. D as in either the Mtn West & WAC will do something spectacular, or 3 of the Big 6 (ACC, Big Ten(11), & SEC) will devour the Big East within 3-4 years.
3. That leaves B, as in not likely in our Millennia.
Now about your apology in Post 24, you best hope Bleed Crimson ain’t right in Post 25 is all I got to say. (See if I ever buy a Volvo from you...)
Regan (Post 21), I’ve heard your arguments; I appreciate & respect them, as well as your love & passion for the game. Given the vast majority of school Presidents, conference Commissioners, and too many of the coaches either don’t want or aren’t ready for a play-off system (Even the media is split on the issue.), you’ll probably have your way...for a while. Know, however, that it is coming; it will likely happen in our life-time. The majority of the fans want it, and they don’t want it because it will either take away from the regular season, destroy the Bowl system, or hurt the teams involved. (In my opinion a play-off won’t do any of those things.) They want it because it makes sense (There’s a novel idea.), because it will grant all of us a somewhat extended season, and they feel it’s the right thing to do.
One more thing: Don’t think for one moment you’ve cornered the market on love for the game. You may actually love it more than I do. (I don't make comments for the comparison, by the way.) I just don’t think you love it any more than most of us here. JMO.
Big Tide said:
posted on May 5, 2008 10:20 AM — 12.208.88.211 — link — abuse?
All things run in cycles, but B & C should happen together for the Big 10 and the Fighting Irish to stay at the top of college football. The SEC will continue to be the dominant conference, superbly talented, innovative (first conference to go to the Championship Game) and unmatched in fan support (just check out Fanblogs). The dog and pony show they've been running with the help of the national media is tired and nobody is going to pay the price of admission if they don't get serious. They can't even lay claim to being a very deep conference in the first place once you move past Penn State, OSU and Michigan. The addition of Notre Dame would give the conference some needed respectability and would give the Irish a chance to prove they deserve a BCS game.
Big Tide said:
posted on May 5, 2008 10:32 AM — 12.208.88.211 — link — abuse?
WEA, after searching through all the schedules there is one game I've put a star by - Auburn vs. LSU. Auburn will be the home dog and if both teams are healthy I will be all over Auburn. I would not be surprised by an outright AU victory in that game.
Regarding the Tide, they will beat either Tenn or LSU next season. You can throw that back at me in the fall, but I truly believe that. For one thing, look how close we played at much deeper and more talented LSU team last year. If we can get some solid play out of JPW, he could very well be the difference maker, but yes, he's got to step it up from last year.
U. of S. C. 1978 said:
posted on May 5, 2008 10:41 AM — 97.82.175.124 — link — abuse?
Get well soon Kevin! Just read about your heart attacking you in the previous thread, He will be Ok I think Mrs. Kev, and thanks for the update. Here's a thought Kev, be glad your heart and body were not fighting each other at mid-field, (like S. Carolina and Clemson), and you had to rely on Lou Holtz to break it up.
Here's a tune for your recoup Bud. Do you remember, "JIM DANDY TO THE RESCUE"? Substitute Lou Holtz to the rescue..... HEHEHE.
Finally, since I have no doctoring experience whatsoever, I feel qualified to offer a medical opinion here. If it were me, I would opt for the quadruple bypass, down field. The option to the pigskin valves up the middle.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 5, 2008 5:07 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
#14 Regan Its peoples human nature to resist change and many are quite content with the status quo, however change is inevitable.
#15 Bleed Crimson Some conferences are better represented during certain years your idea leaves nothing for Missouri Tigers a one loss team, probably more deserving of than some others in 07 including the BCS conference champions.
WEA Thanks for starting this thread, good off-season fodderGod bless the big-Daddy of Fanblogs
Welcome back-KevRegan said:
posted on May 5, 2008 8:52 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
U. of S.C. 1978 (#22):
>>
Regan you remind me of the folks who used to believe that, "if God had meant for man to fly, He would have given us wings". The majority of fans want a meaning full NC. I know some women who would not want a week or three longer season. I know some people who would not care either way. But you are the only fan I have ever heard that proposes that a longer season, with more competitive games, will "ruin this sport". My advice to you, stay out of avalanche country. I suspect you would run uphill if you saw one.
Now then, there is one thing that strikes fear into every mover and shaker's heart in our great nation. That is not the fear of the unknown. It is the fear of a congressional investigation and action. In this case, Congress has heard the fans, (voters) Congresspeople really like to please voters. Especially when they can force groups who cannot give them money, (universities) into doing something the voters want. It's a basic win-win for our glorious leaders. Here is where your movers and shakers get to moving and shaking, while they still have some control over their seizures.Finally, I still advocate an in-season playoff method to arrive at the big Kahuna. This method would have knocked Hawaii out a lot earlier last year. Weeks 5 and 7, or 7 and 9, (you pick), We go down the AP's list. #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, etc. I am a traditionalist in favor of change, as such, it would not bother me one little bit if the final weeks #1 and #2 played in the Rose, every year. #3 plays # 4 in another bowl, #5 versus #6 in another, down the list. Add one more week if you like, the winners of the top two bowls, play each other, in the Rose?
>>For the record, before I respond to all the criticism on not falling in line with the Playoff crowd, I need to say that I understand your frustrations, but my point is that a “True” Playoff won’t solve the problems CFB suffers from. I’ve been posting here for 4+ years, and know I can trust that we can discuss these issues reasonably.
I understand the analogy about flight, but it doesn’t exactly work, because you’re talking about changing the very nature of the way the sport has crowned it’s champions for over 100 years. The “Burden of Proof”, thus, isn’t on my side here. As Matt Hayes has pointed out on multiple occasions, but most recently:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=406263 (04/29/2008)
The NC of College Football is about who can win. Week-in and Week-out. Whoever makes it through the ringer of the epic Regular Season gets a chance to be the National Champion. This is the way it has been for over 100 years. Now, CFB is more popular than ever, thanks (like it or hate it) to the BCS.
The NC of College Basketball is about getting hot at the right time and running the table. Thus, no one cares about the Regular Season, it’s all about snoozing for three months, then March Madness.
It is this fundamental concept that people in favor of a Playoff consistently fail to recognize.
Lastly, if you truly have faith in Congress to fix CFB when they cannot win or end a war, handle a hurricane hitting a large city, build a fence, or absolutely anything of substance, well…I’d call you the embodiment of an Optimist. :)
I will say that if positive change does come to CFB, it will come from what you call “Traditionalists in Favor of Change”, so I do think you might be on to something, however…
I’ve got plenty more, but I have a feeling I’ll need to pace myself…
Regan said:
posted on May 5, 2008 9:11 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Zac (#30):
>>
Regan (Post 21), I’ve heard your arguments; I appreciate & respect them, as well as your love & passion for the game. Given the vast majority of school Presidents, conference Commissioners, and too many of the coaches either don’t want or aren’t ready for a play-off system (Even the media is split on the issue.), you’ll probably have your way...for a while. Know, however, that it is coming; it will likely happen in our life-time. The majority of the fans want it, and they don’t want it because it will either take away from the regular season, destroy the Bowl system, or hurt the teams involved. (In my opinion a play-off won’t do any of those things.) They want it because it makes sense (There’s a novel idea.), because it will grant all of us a somewhat extended season, and they feel it’s the right thing to do.One more thing: Don’t think for one moment you’ve cornered the market on love for the game. You may actually love it more than I do. (I don't make comments for the comparison, by the way.) I just don’t think you love it any more than most of us here. JMO.
>>Zac, I’d like to think most people want a playoff for good reasons, but sadly “making sense” isn’t one of them IMHO. When many people think things “make sense”, they often fail to understand the reasons why they are the way they are to begin with.
Every few years, some Congressmen get the urge to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment that would prohibit the Federal Budget to have a deficit. “That’s what families have to do, it makes sense.” And it always fails – because Economists come out of the woodworks and explain that it would destroy the country’s ability to deal with economic crisis.
I know far too many people to believe that if 85% of people believe something, it’s automatically true.
As far as my love of CFB goes, I only made that comment because CFB is literally the only sport I follow. I don’t care about NCAA Basketball, the NFL, MLB, NASCAR, or anything else. The Olympics is dead to me because there is no gridiron. While I could be wrong, I would say that I don’t have much company in that regard. Not trying to compare either, but if I lose my love of CFB, then I will go nuts and get a job at the Post Office….stop me if you’ve heard the rest. :)
As far as the future goes, the status quo will thankfully not change until CFB fans hit the BCS honchos in their wallets by boycotting the sport and ignoring the fiery blood of CFB fanaticism that fuels every emotion known to humankind every autumn.
I encourage them to try. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 5, 2008 9:21 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Tomcat (#34):
>>
#14 Regan Its peoples human nature to resist change and many are quite content with the status quo, however change is inevitable.
Blind change should be avoided; IMHO, too many people are blinded by their desire for the uniformity of CFB regarding a Playoff that they really don’t understand why it will wreck the uniqueness of the sport.
The saddest thing is that if a “true” Playoff does happen, it will make CFB’s Regular Season as cookie-cutter as the NFL and NCAABB, and even presented with the evidence of terrible TV ratings and declining fan interest, Playoff fans will still claim that it’s best.
For better or worse, my characterization of many (not all) Playoff fans is: “Who cares if it’s good, unique, and generating more interest than ever? It has to look like everything else or we’re not happy.” I am pleasantly surprised when I get logical discourse regarding the subject (like I usually do with yall on Fanblogs)
Even still, most Playoff fans aren’t like that, of course, but still, few actually realize what a “true” Playoff will actually do to the sport.
IMHO, as always… :)
hrposon said:
posted on May 5, 2008 10:58 PM — 98.199.79.144 — link — abuse?
Even though it's makes for interesting reading, it's time to stop talking about a playoff system and time to do something about it.
If you're for a playoff system, write your congressman and your two senators and make your case that the NCAA and the BCS is a monopoly and stifles fair competition. Get enough interest to hold hearings to understand the fairness of the BCS and they may actually do something. All monopolies understand legal action.
posted on May 6, 2008 12:14 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
hrposen: I've heard the monopoly argument for the BCS, but I've never heard it explained how the BCS currently enjoys an exemption from anti-trust legislation. Any idea? There must be a lot of dots to connect on that argument...
Regan: I'm with you on the sports thing. I only care about cfb and that's it. But if you like it so much, I don't know why you don't want to make it a little better. Think about the following concepts that a four-team playoff might bring:
1) lessening the media's influence just a little bit...
2) allowing a greater chance for a Cinderella to make it...
3) keeping the big bowls still in the mix...
See? It ain't so bad, right?
Zac said:
posted on May 6, 2008 12:18 AM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Hrposon (Post 40), I vehemently disagree with getting the government involved in any way shape or form. While I am intrigued that they have taken an interest, if ever there is an organization which could completely & totally f***ck things up, they’re it. Besides, this is not the purpose for which our government exists. To have a BCS Div CF play-off or not to have a BCS Div CF play-off is a question of opinion between businessmen, coaches, conference commissioners, fans, school presidents, and our friends in the media. It is not a matter of national security, domestic interest, nor does it necessarily follow point of law.
Whether or not the current system is “fair” or “discriminatory”, or perhaps delves into the area of anti-trust laws, that is a question best answered by our law makers. However, it has nothing to do with (nor should it) whether or not a play-off is a viable alternative to the BCS. I’d much prefer this be solved among ourselves; i.e. those of us who love college football, or have something to gain by it, as opposed to the government stepping in and ruining the party. Just a thought.
Zac said:
posted on May 6, 2008 1:00 AM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Regan, with respect to you & the rest, I’m new to the blogging thing. I 1st began; I think it was September 2006. I can’t explain what prompted me to look for something like this site, not to mention, I only frequent one other. If I knew of others that were easy to access and free of charge, I’d be checking them as well. That having been said, I’ve been following college football since 1970. While I’m far from being considered a pundit, and am quite good at forgetting pertinent details, such as the Red River Shootout always being at a neutral site, for the most part, I get by.
I do like other sports. By far, College Football & College Basketball are my favorites, in that order. (I’m also quite fond of Archery, shooting, not watching.) When I think of how much I enjoy watching CBB during the regular season, followed by watching March Madness (conference play-offs, Selection Sunday, & the “Big Dance”), so long as it weren’t drawn out, complex, and cumbersome, I just can’t imagine a BCS Div CF play-off impacting the regular season. I wouldn’t watch it any less than I do now. Of course, and to be fair, that’s just me, and I don’t see myself as being particularly fanatical or rabid.
I agree with you, in that, change for change sake is without wisdom. I also agree, should there be a play-off, that initially all will not go smoothly. There will be growing pains. I also agree that arguably it wouldn’t have to occur every year. However, I do believe, eventually and within our life-time, there will be a viable BCS Div CF play-off, even if it’s merely a “plus-1” system. If that happens, don’t give up on College Football; I personally can’t imagine giving up my Saturdays to heckle the game day crew, flip back & forth between channels (games), check scores & highlights, and maybe on occasion actually get to see my team play. As for the post office (got a big chuckle outa me there), take up fishing instead. It’s a lot more relaxing.
RazzMaTazz said:
posted on May 6, 2008 1:33 AM — 70.137.171.27 — link — abuse?
Regan: As far as sports spectating goes, I also ONLY care about college football. However, I'd like to see the plus-one system. I don't see how one extra game would diminish the regular season. (Essentially a team would need to win its conference and almost every game during the regular season in order to be considered for the Final 4-- no different than now.) And unlike an 8/16-game tourney, I don't see how it would negatively impact academics of student-atheletes. A plus-one system wouldn't be perfect and it might not eliminate all controversy, but it would remove practically all of the controversy. It would help eliminate injustices like an undefeated Auburn team getting shut out of the national title. It would also help eliminate injustices where a team (like OSU) skates through a weak conference only to get creamed in the NC game. I don't buy the argument that says that if you go to a 4-team tourney, you have to go to an 8-seed tourney, etc. The pollsters and computers might be off by one or two or even three. But if you don't make the final four, then shut up and do better next year.
Bleed: I'm going to have to agree with WEA that Clemson will beat Alabama in the opener. I think the reason that we disagree on that outcome is that you're drinking Crimson Kool Aid, whereas I'm drinking Tang. Therefore you're wrong. Honestly, I wouldn't put money on that game. But I'd put money on this: It'll be a great game.
TampaGator said:
posted on May 6, 2008 10:20 AM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Regan:
For the most part, I'm with you (playoff system could be more problematic than helpful). I wouldn't mind a +1 format; that's pretty reasonable, and frankly, not without precedent (isn't that what BCS NC was? We'd just be adding one more on top of that).
Hrposon (&Zac):
You'd have the Government step in and dictate who plays whom for what?????? (Hello, China/Cuba/USSR...)
I'm with Zac on this--the last thing we need is the Goverment getting involved with CFB. CFB currently more closely resembles a free-for-all than a monopoly. Ultimately, the fair market governs CFB--that's why the Bowls remain intact. A monopoly might exist if the NCAA or any other entity dictated who would play whom, and how. What we now have is a coalition amoungst coalitions--ALL VOLUNTARY. (coalition of conferences (each a coalition unto itself, comprised of teams--'er, schools))--+ Notre Dame, who contracts voluntarily (again) with the BCS.
More importantly though--
CFB is NOT BROKEN; it doesn't need to be fixed.
It is the most popular college level sport in America by far, built on a historical foundation that is uique to the world of sports, and uniquely American--and therefore an integral part of our history.Hence I'm a minimalist/traditionalist in terms of change. Tweak it here and there if we must, but the integrity of the general structure should be preserved.
My $.02.
GO GATORS!!ksuwild said:
posted on May 6, 2008 2:56 PM — 170.35.224.65 — link — abuse?
I don't believe for one second there would be fewer games watched or attended under a playoff. There are no facts to back that up whatsoever. Check this link out. It makes some very good points.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/index.asp?p=faq
To Regan, I always admire your spunk in these playoff arguements but you are fighting a losing battle my friend. It may take a while for it to happen but in the end college football WILL have a playoff one way or another. It is simply a matter of time. As well thought out as your contingent based playoff is I don't think the NCAA or BCS would ever agree to a system that by it's very nature would change every year. They would be looking for something small but consistent. This doesn't mean they wouldn't "tweek" it by expanding in the future or by changing inclusion/exclusion rules but I would imagine they would be looking for a consistent method of deciding their champion. Besides, 2007 was a perfect example of why excluding 2 loss teams doesn't work, and also why we definitely need a playoff. If they don't change the system soon their will be more 2001's, more 2004's, and more 2007's(to name a few).
Tomcat said:
posted on May 6, 2008 7:29 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
#38 Regan enjoyed reading your posts and I have adressed this issue numerous times on this site.
My statement that change is inevitable is a blanket statement that applies to everything including CFB. Like yourself I actually only follow CFB and I also enjoy Jr High & H/S ball as well.
I totally agree with Zac & others concerning Government involvement,that would surely F- things up and is probably the last thing we as fans would want.
The sport is continually changing and evolving probably as it should and progress is happening. This disscussion between fans representing different opinions and ideas futher demonstrates the passion that we have for the sport.
Kinda reminds me of a country song
its not right or wrong or black & white
its live & die by shades of gray
Zac was 100% right- post #42 School presidents, coaches,Athletic directors,Alumi,businessmen, the press& Media,fans ,players and CFB bloggers are the ones who's imput and decisions should and will change the game.
While I respect your argument, there is no clear cookie cutter method and probably shouldnt be.CFB is changing and will change more and given time and all things considered should improve the game that you are so passionate about.
Whether its plus-one whatever
I honestly beleive that a playoff system could work using the existing big bowls as the format.
Which would not diminish the importance of the regular season and would only help and improve the integraty and boost the importance and ratings of the current big bowl games if they were in a playoff format.Its a win-win situation for everyone,schools,players,coaches,fans, businesses,host cities,TV networks etc etc.
The only negative argument to this senerio would be the extension of the season which could be rectified by changing the number of regular season games played or possibly the elimination of so-called conference championship games which probably aint gonna happen.
#45 Tampagator Sorry Bud, but it aint broke dont fix it, doesnt fly. Tell that to a member of the 2004 Auburn team.Ask these boys to give 100% all their life on the feild an then after a perfect season- sorry no bannana- not even a shot at it-sorry boys the systems works and it doesnt need fixin.
Hookem-Horns
Regan said:
posted on May 6, 2008 9:08 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
hrposon (#40):
>>>
Even though it's makes for interesting reading, it's time to stop talking about a playoff system and time to do something about it.If you're for a playoff system, write your congressman and your two senators and make your case that the NCAA and the BCS is a monopoly and stifles fair competition. Get enough interest to hold hearings to understand the fairness of the BCS and they may actually do something. All monopolies understand legal action.
>>>
While I am against a Playoff in CFB, I appreciate what you’re advocating: action. It doesn’t matter how much a billion fans want change; the status quo won’t change unless the fans actually do something.
As far as Congress goes, I seriously doubt it matters, as the BCS is on solid legal grounds. Also, it is kinda seen as a bit shady that the only congressmen that ever explore the BCS issue are from states with schools that feel they got hosed by it the year before.
If its success you are gunning for, you’re not going to win unless you have a massive, organized boycott of CFB. Hitting the bigwigs in their wallets is the only thing that fans can do to truly impact the BCS.
Think about it like Wal-Mart (which I boycott). Most people hate it, even those that shop there. Some claim they have no alternative. Thus, the cycle continues.
Regan said:
posted on May 6, 2008 11:09 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta (#41):
>>>
Regan: I'm with you on the sports thing. I only care about cfb and that's it. But if you like it so much, I don't know why you don't want to make it a little better. Think about the following concepts that a four-team playoff might bring:
>>>Because I believe a “true” Playoff wouldn’t make CFB a little better. I am convinced it will simply replace one set of grievances with another while destroying the uniqueness of the game itself.
>>
1) lessening the media's influence just a little bit...
2) allowing a greater chance for a Cinderella to make it...
3) keeping the big bowls still in the mix...
See? It ain't so bad, right?
1 – The media will decide who is in those 4, 8, or 16 spots. The media will still decide what seed will play what seed. It will be the same bird.
2 – Here's my lifetime in NCAA Basketball:
2008 Kansas
2007 Florida
2006 Florida
2005 North Carolina
2004 Connecticut
2003 Syracuse
2002 Maryland
2001 Duke
2000 Michigan State
1999 Connecticut
1998 Kentucky
1997 Arizona
1996 Kentucky
1995 UCLA
1994 Arkansas
1993 North Carolina
1992 Duke
1991 Duke
1990 UNLV
1989 Michigan
1988 Kansas
1987 Indiana
1986 Louisville
1985 Villanova
1984 Georgetown
1983 North Carolina State
1982 North Carolina
1981 Indiana
1980 Louisville
1979 Michigan State
1978 KentuckyPoor Cinderella can't catch a break...
The George Masons and Seton Halls of NCAABB do get pretty high, but obviously, when it comes to crowning a champion, a “true” Playoff even still will let you down if you have high hopes for non-traditional powers winning it all in College Basketball...
Also, the “Cinderella” conferences are now quite satisfied with the 5-game BCS setup.
3 – Not really an issue. The Bowls have enough clout to ensure that they will survive any changes in CFB even if they have to become a part of them. That isn’t the problem.
The problem is that absolutely none of the tremendous upsets that defined the 2007 season would matter for squat if there was a “true” Playoff. None.
Geez I’m glad I’ve saved all these statistics, records, and other stuff... :)
posted on May 7, 2008 12:33 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
Regan: Point taken, but don't you think that the media has a much better chance of getting the best teams with 4, 8, or 16 choices rather than 2--especially if the teams all have similar records? Would you have felt more comfortable with the outcomes of a playoff if the underdog 2004 Utah team and the 2006 Boise team would have been included in the mix? Or what about the 2007 College of Charleston team? (okay, that's a cheap shot designed to appeal to your emotion. Sorry...)
BTW: Debate points taken away for comparing cfb to cbb...
Also, all the Cinderellas want is a shot at it. You and I may never become multi-millionaires, but we at least want to live in a country where we have the possibility, right?
posted on May 7, 2008 8:06 AM — link — abuse? said:
Apparently one of the arguments that the Big XII had with the "plus one" is that it might work so well that it would not satisfy the mongrel hordes. In other words, they thought the plus one was a very slippery slope that would eventually become a 4-6 team playoff, which makes the Sugar Bowl (for example) just another game instead of THE Sugar Bowl... and so on.
gatorhippy
posted on May 7, 2008 1:32 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
Just to fuel the fire…
I’ll throw my playoff scenario out there…
A group of friends and I devised this plan about five years ago and have taken a look at it each year since at the end of the season. It bases playoff participation solely by on-field accomplishment in the form of wins and losses while removing public and computerized opinion.
NOTE: This scenario is in no way affiliated with polls, rankings or the BCS in any way. All preconceived approvals, prejudices and notions affiliated with these things must be suspended in order to grasp the following concepts. In addition, all records and seeding are based pre-bowl game.
In the current version of D-I football, the NCAA would administer a playoff involving the eleven conference champions and 5 at-large teams and seed all participants into a sixteen team field.
The higher seeded team would be provided with home-field advantage in each round save the championship game which would be played at neutral location; permanent or rotating.
At-large participants are determined through a progressive series of tie-breakers involving win%, opponents’ win%, OOC win percentage, opponents’ OOC win percentage, etc.
Teams playing in conferences with a CCG will have an opponents record counted twice if they match up in the CCG with a previously played opponent.
For example; in 2007, Virginia Tech would have Boston College’s record counted twice when figuring their OpW% for a tie breaker as the two faced off in the regular season and in the ACC CCG.
Ideally, teams that schedule lower division opponents for OOC would be penalized by receiving all losses for the record of the particular LD opponent when computing said D-1’s OOW% in addition to a loss being recorded in the overall record as it regards to playoff eligibility.
For example, this past season Florida would have had a Western Kentucky (D-1AA) record of 0-12 figured into their OOW% regardless of the Hilltoppers’ 7-5 record in addition to their record being treated as a 8-4 rather than the actual 9-3.
However, I will be suspending this rule due to the fact that the teams are playing their schedules based on the current standards and I feel suspending this particular penalty is in equal fairness to all involved for the time being.
Now that we’ve got that covered, let’s move on to the participants…
Obviously our conference champs for 2007 receiving the auto bid would be:
ACC: V-Tech
B12: Oklahoma
B10: tOSU
BE: WVU
SEC: LSU
P10: SoCal
C-USA: UCF
MAC: Cent. Mich.
MWC: BYU
SBC: FL Atl.
WAC: HawaiiNow comes the fun part as the at-large candidates are narrowed down…
Luckily, this past season was extremely easier than earlier seasons as there was a definitive cut-off of the top 5 in overall win percentage…
Kansas / 11-1 / .916
Mizzou / 11-2 / .846
UGA / 10-2 / .823
ASU / 10-2 / .833
BSU / 10-2 / .833Seeding the field would be done essentially the same process as the at-large selection but with the conference champions winning a tie breaker over non-conference champions in OvW%.
Using this method, the 2007 NCAA D-1 Football Playoff field would look like this:
1. Hawaii
2. Ohio St.
3. Kansas
4. V-Tech
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Mizzou
8. WVU
9. BYU
10. USC
11. UGA
12. ASU
13. BSU
14. UCF
15. C. Mich.
16. FL Atl.While not perfect, this system removes personal opinion and still places teams that were on the bubble and some that weren’t in a position to make a run at the hardware while placing all teams in the highest division of CFB on equal footing to make post season play at the beginning of each season…
Questions? Comments? Addendum? I’ll do what I can to clear it up or work it in….
Regan said:
posted on May 7, 2008 1:38 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Zac (#43):
The only reason I mentioned the time I’ve been commenting on Fanblogs was to say that I enjoy reasonable, rational debate on the subject of Playoffs here, as most people seem to be like you – respectful, rational, friendly, and not prone to flaming my admittedly unpopular views on the subject.
Wasn’t trying to pull rank; not while Kevin and WEA are posting stuff :)
As far as the other sports go, since you follow others, surely you see that CFB has a certain uniqueness to it, as it can make us all degenerate into the third grade faster than running into an ex-girlfriend that is embarrassed to see you because you’re so much better off than she is.
That being said, I won’t disagree with your opinion on the reason why CFB is so much more exciting, but I will definitely stick to mine.
As far as change goes, my criteria aren’t that bad. I believe it should be ensured that any team that gets a chance to win the NC must:
1) Be a Conference Champion
2) Have either 0 losses or 1 loss.There are nuances that accompany my proposal for a BCS replacement (which in some years would indeed be a four-team playoff), but it pretty much all comes down to these two points.
I agree with you that reason must take precedence, but my point is that blindly adopting a “true Playoff” for no other reason than “just give us a Playoff” is bad news for the best sport invented by the Creator himself. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 7, 2008 1:45 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
RazzMaTazz (#44):
>>>
Regan: As far as sports spectating goes, I also ONLY care about college football. However, I'd like to see the plus-one system. I don't see how one extra game would diminish the regular season. (Essentially a team would need to win its conference and almost every game during the regular season in order to be considered for the Final 4-- no different than now.) And unlike an 8/16-game tourney, I don't see how it would negatively impact academics of student-atheletes. A plus-one system wouldn't be perfect and it might not eliminate all controversy, but it would remove practically all of the controversy. It would help eliminate injustices like an undefeated Auburn team getting shut out of the national title. It would also help eliminate injustices where a team (like OSU) skates through a weak conference only to get creamed in the NC game. I don't buy the argument that says that if you go to a 4-team tourney, you have to go to an 8-seed tourney, etc. The pollsters and computers might be off by one or two or even three. But if you don't make the final four, then shut up and do better next year.
>>>Hey, the Plus-One model doesn’t bother me that much. The only issue with a Plus-One is that in certain years (1999, 2002, 2005, etc.) it would force a third game that wouldn’t need to be played; as it would be obvious that there were only 2 deserving teams for 3 spots instead of the reverse that is the common plague of the BCS era.
I would happily take that over a “true” Playoff, however.
TBH, I loved the BCS in spite of the fact that I got invited to fewer and fewer football parties until 2004 when it was painfully obvious that it didn’t work when an undefeated SEC Champ got hosed. Now, the BCS is on shaky grounds as far as I’m concerned, and I am just praying whatever replaces it can clean up the mess without making it’s own.
Regan said:
posted on May 7, 2008 2:48 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#47):
>>>
I don't believe for one second there would be fewer games watched or attended under a playoff. There are no facts to back that up whatsoever. Check this link out. It makes some very good points.http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/index.asp?p=faq
To Regan, I always admire your spunk in these playoff arguements but you are fighting a losing battle my friend. It may take a while for it to happen but in the end college football WILL have a playoff one way or another. It is simply a matter of time. As well thought out as your contingent based playoff is I don't think the NCAA or BCS would ever agree to a system that by it's very nature would change every year. They would be looking for something small but consistent. This doesn't mean they wouldn't "tweek" it by expanding in the future or by changing inclusion/exclusion rules but I would imagine they would be looking for a consistent method of deciding their champion. Besides, 2007 was a perfect example of why excluding 2 loss teams doesn't work, and also why we definitely need a playoff. If they don't change the system soon their will be more 2001's, more 2004's, and more 2007's(to name a few).
>>>Ah, ksuwild, my old Playoff Nemesis returns. Bud, ya keep claiming that change is inevitable, and I look forward to having these debates for decades to come. :)
Checked out the site, and since I’m not responding to a mutually-respecting fellow Fanblogger, I won't hold back:
From www.collegefootballplayoff.com:>>>>>
Q. Isn't college football's national champion decided by computers and a one game playoff?
A. Oh, those were the days to be sure, but fortunately that archaic method is well behind us. Now it is settled on the field...er um..web.
>>>>>This isn’t even an argument; it’s just someone’s opinion and a cynical response.
>>>>>
Q. But with all these playoff games don't those poor college athletes miss too much school?
A.That would be a really good point if in fact it wasn't a good point at all.
Now follow along: all of the teams who are in the playoffs would, under lesser systems, be in a bowl game anyway. 8 teams lose the first work so of all the nation's colleges only the 8 remaining teams actually play more games than the historic "bowl system." (more)
>>>>>This isn’t an argument against Playoffs I’ve made, and not one I use, as it is rather thin.
>>>>>
Q. Isn't the importance of games during the regular season diminished by having a playoff? With a "BCS" style system every loss is so important...
A. First of all, what is the importance of regular season games for most of the country? Realistically, under a "BCS" system, only about 10 schools begin the year with a shot at being national champion. If national chamionship aspirations are the indicator of importance for regular season games then most teams play meaningless games each week. Under a playoff system you triple (at least) the number of teams with a shot at playing for a national championship, thus INCREASING the importance of each weeks games (as a whole).
>>>>>I call BS. There is absolutely no evidence to claim that “only about 10 schools begin the year with a shot at being national champion”.
2003 Louisiana State Preseason Rank #14
2002 Ohio State Preseason Rank #13
2000 Oklahoma Preseason Rank #19Also, please note my earlier inclusion of the past 30 NCAABB champions. To claim that a Playoff makes it easier for the Cinderellas to win the championship is absolutely false.
The “any given Saturday” argument works well if a Cinderella gets one straight-up matchup against a powerhouse and plays their hearts out (2007 Fiesta Bowl: Boise State vs. Oklahoma). If Boise State had to play Oklahoma 10 times, we all would love to say they would at least split even, but we know it isn’t true.
Ditto for having Boise State playing Oklahoma, then Michigan, then Florida for the NC. The proof is in the George Mason/Seton Hall phenomenon.
>>>>>
Also, with a system which doesn't eliminate teams from contention for 1 or 2 or even 3 losses, you encourage a regular season that doesn't consistently pit perenial powerhouses against lower tier or division 2 schools.
Coaches and athletic directors can play more quality teams during the regular season.
>>>>>
The BCS encourages teams to have a good strength of schedule by including it in the rankings. You don’t think Texas helped itself in ’05 with a healthy dose of playing Ohio State in Columbus? LSU having the eventual ACC Champion Hokies in Baton Rouge? Once again, flimsy argument disproved by easily-dug up facts.>>>>>
Furthermore, let us not discount the vitriol college students and alumni have for opposing schools. That is in no way diminshed on a week to week basis simply because there are playoffs at the end of the season.
Finally, Not only are regular season games across the board more important, but the playoff adds FOURTEEN games of pivotal importance, rather than meaningless bowl games.
>>>>>
What percentage of each team’s schedule has an archrival on it? This comment makes it sound like every school treats every other school the way Alabama feels about Auburn. I apparently didn’t realize how much Bama fans must loathe Mississippi and South Carolina…>>>>>
Q. Isn't it possible that under this system based on teams actually "playing one another" that a smaller school made up of talented players gelling at the right time with a wily old coach, a devil may care attitude and a woodland creature mascot could actually win the national championship?
A. As horrible as that possibility is, yes.
>>>>>
If a team actually beefs its schedule up with some good OOC teams, they can indeed make it to the NC if they ran the table, due to strength of schedule. This is just as possible (and improbable) regardless if a Playoff is used or not.>>>>>
Q. Will I still get to enjoy games sponsored by my favorite snack cakes or verility drug?
A. Oh don't worry - college playoffs wouldn't be college playoffs without corporate sponsorship, but the beauty of the playoffs is that now instead of shareholders investing a Dec 17th game tape delayed on the Oxygen channel, they can take part in the first or second rounds of the most glorious of collegiate sports spectacles.
>>>>>
This is a completely made-up issue. If you really, honestly care about what the sponsor of your bowl game is to the point you divert attention off of screaming for your team, you cannot consider yourself to be a fan.I don’t like the idea of corporate sponsors replacing ‘traditional’ Bowl names (Chick-fil-A ‘Peach’, etc), but even I don’t whine about it this much. I went to the game, pulled for Clemson, and swore like a sailor when that darned backup QB squirted into the end-zone in Overtime.
Oh, but the Angst of seeing “Chick-Fil-A” all over the place was the true pain I suffered from that night…
>>>>>
Q. Isn't this all scary because its new and different.
A. Yes it is, sponge boy, yes it is.
>>>>>So much for searching for logic and reason on this site.
>>>>>
Q. My favorite team didn't make playoffs. Your site sucks.
A. Well, technically that's not a question, but we will reply anyway: what sucks is your team!
>>>>>Putting this as an FAQ says all it needs to about www.collegefootballplayoff.com.
>>>>>
Q. How can I give you money, lots of money!
A. One would think a phenomenal site like this would cost money JUST TO VISIT, but incredibly, it's completely free. In fact, you CAN'T give us money. We won't take it. Instead, you can give it to orphans.
>>>>>The best thing about this site is a link to a charity website.
Keep it up, though, I worked hard to amass all the stuff in my "Playoffs Suck" folder. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 7, 2008 3:07 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta (#51):
>>>
Regan: Point taken, but don't you think that the media has a much better chance of getting the best teams with 4, 8, or 16 choices rather than 2--especially if the teams all have similar records? Would you have felt more comfortable with the outcomes of a playoff if the underdog 2004 Utah team and the 2006 Boise team would have been included in the mix? Or what about the 2007 College of Charleston team? (okay, that's a cheap shot designed to appeal to your emotion. Sorry...)
>>>
For the record, if you look at my system, it would have had an undefeated 2004 Utah team in a four-team playoff with Southern California, Auburn, and Oklahoma; and it would also have had 2006 Boise State in a three-team ‘Plus-One’ with Florida and Ohio State.And we all know that if the College of Charleston had a FB team, not even Chuck Norris himself would dare step on the field against them. Tackles would result in decapitations, and no matter who lined up against the mighty Cougars, they would lose 255-0. :)
>>>
BTW: Debate points taken away for comparing cfb to cbb...
>>>
Yeah, I know…had to, since that is a direct example of a “true” playoff. The point is to show that CFB is different from other sports because of it’s post-season, and that Cinderella is screwed in every sport; even the ones with Playoffs…
>>>
Also, all the Cinderellas want is a shot at it. You and I may never become multi-millionaires, but we at least want to live in a country where we have the possibility, right?
They have a shot. Schedule four heavy OOC games, and go undefeated. While this is admittedly speculative, I do allow for non-BCS teams to have a shot at the NC in my proposed system, which everyone seems to be ignoring, preferring to go after the glorious College of Charleston. :)Fingers hurt...I'll check back in tomorrow...
U. of S. C. 1978 said:
posted on May 8, 2008 9:16 AM — 97.82.175.124 — link — abuse?
Regan # 36
Sir, I apologize if I offended you. I intend for most of posts to be tainted with humor. However, I frequently write with such a lack of clarity, that the taint turns out to be a smell. My bad. In reply to your post:
"The NC of College Football is about who can win. Week-in and Week-out. Whoever makes it through the ringer of the epic Regular Season gets a chance to be the National Champion. This is the way it has been for over 100 years. Now, CFB is more popular than ever, thanks (like it or hate it) to the BCS.
The NC of College Basketball is about getting hot at the right time and running the table. Thus, no one cares about the Regular Season, it’s all about snoozing for three months, then March Madness.
It is this fundamental concept that people in favor of a Playoff consistently fail to recognize.
no one cares about the Regular Season when they cannot win or end a war, handle a hurricane hitting a large city, build a fence, or absolutely anything of substance, well…I’d call you the embodiment of an Optimist. :)"
I must strenuously disagree with the following points.
"Whoever makes it through the ringer of the epic Regular Season"
One teams epic season would frequently be another teams pushover season.
"no one cares about the Regular Season"
While I don't watch basketball, many millions would strongly disagree I think.
Lastly, like most others, I have no faith in Congress's ability "to fix" CFB. If I was a mover or a shaker, I would do something at the very threat of Congressional action. I think this is what our Congresspeople intend.Threatening a "fait accompli", causes action.
posted on May 8, 2008 4:52 PM — 72.145.94.138 — link — abuse? said:
Gatorhippy: Interesting playoff proposal. Really, the only problem I have with it is the seeding. You're using win-loss records to seed the teams, but I would want the polls to do it.
We will never totally eliminate the polls from cfb. A) They're part of the tradition of the game. and B) I could trust the pollsters to seed 16 teams (but I don't trust them to seed two)
The law of large numbers as applied to CFB rankings states that the larger number of teams included in a playoff, the less likely the pollsters' biases will screw somebody deserving out of a shot...
In your example, having a weak Hawaii team seeded number one simply because they ran the table against inferior competition is a travesty. I believe every single SEC team could have beat Hawaii last year.
I would want the polls to seed the conference champions and the at large teams (actually choosing the at-large teams as well)
The only other problem with your proposal would be that we will never start with a 16-team inaugrual playoff. We will start with four, then after a decade or so move to eight, then a decade after that maybe 16, but no more. JMHO...
gatorhippy
posted on May 8, 2008 5:37 PM — 70.121.155.98 — link — abuse? said:
WE Atl (#60):
I direct you back to italicized portion of the post in regards to your "poll" wishes...
The polls are not used in order to remove opinion and bias and reward solely on on-field results...
As far as Hawaii being the top seed...
If other teams had taken care of business and run their respective gauntlet, Hawaii would have been a lower seed due to Opponent Win % (which was actually sub-.500 if I remember right; I don't have the numbers here in front of me) which would have placed them third or fourth in a tie breaker with a couple of other undefeateds...
In addition, when this would have went into effect it still would have been unknown exactly how UH would have played against playoff competition...
To base your preferences on what happened in the Sugar Bowl is a little "crystal ball"...
As well as the fact that I had suspended the lower division rule which would have seriously skewed the rankings even more...
And in the end, Hawaii's placement as the top seed also rewards the sole perfect season in CFB, which is a major accomplishment regardless of what conference a team plays in...
If you would like, you can take a look at the 2006 Playoff field here at post #10...
It's essentially the same format (we made a few tweaks this season) and is a good measure against this one in support of how right this sytem is in putting together the fairest and best field...
gatorhippy
posted on May 8, 2008 6:11 PM — 70.121.155.98 — link — abuse? said:
WE Atl, to build on #60...
Also, presuming the higher seeds win out in the first round...
Which I assuredly have HUGE doubts they would...
We would see exactly how good Hawaii was when they matched up with eight seeded West Virgina...
What's more compelling to me in the mix is...
A B10CG rematch if Oklahoma can get past UGA (doubtful)...
A possible Kan/Mizz rematch in Kansas (Borderwar Redux for a NCG berth? Millions could possibly die in the streets and in the stands)...
A V-Tech/LSU rematch from the regular season with the Hokies getting the Corndoggers at home this time (LSU wins again IMO)...
A WVU/LSU matchup as a semifinal (Sounds REAL fun with lots of scoring against some pretty good defenses)...
As well as the pentultimate possibility of an all SEC final between UGA and LSU (which would have een the most likely scenario here IMO)...
Tomcat said:
posted on May 8, 2008 8:02 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
#53 G-Hip What I really like about your proposal is that all conferences are included.
Teams from Mt West and C-USA have a legit shot, however since the BCS formation, these teams have suffered on the recruiting trail and the C-USA or Sunbelt Champs probably couldnt hang week in and week out against B XII or SEC competition, however after the abolishment of BCS conferences so to speak the SMU's & TCU's could land more top local talent that are currently signing on with teams in BCS conferences.
In addition to your format I'd like to see
either 10-12 team conferences
or 12-10 team conferences
All confences have Conf Champ games or they be eliminated altogether
ND needs to join up somewhere along with other Ind's.
This is alot more interesting than uniform changes.
Adios TomcatRegan said:
posted on May 8, 2008 10:41 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
gatorhippy (#53):
More fire is good :)
Interesting system, it does remove the ‘fairness’ issues regarding the non-BCS conferences. I also like that it keeps strong emphasis on conference champions.
However, I still see two issues:
1 – At-Large (ie: non-conference champ) teams still have a good shot at winning the NC.
Last year, Georgia was deemed to be “one of the best teams in CFB”, but had they gotten a chance to play in the NC game, many would point out that they couldn’t even win their division, much less their conference.
2 – Multiple-Loss teams still have a good shot at winning the NC.
If this system had been in place in 2005, an 4-loss Florida State team could have a decent shot at the NC. I almost went out and strangled a hundred kittens when a 2-loss team won the NC last year; I don’t even want to imagine a 4-loss team somehow getting “hot” at season’s end and winning the NC game.
These are the two most fundamental problems I have with any Playoff scenario.
Er...I know you wanted comments, but actually, as far as critiquing a well-thought out Playoff scenario, I’m probably not who you want to listen to, though, sorry. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 8, 2008 10:56 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
U. of S. C. 1978 (#59)
>>>
Regan # 36
Sir, I apologize if I offended you. I intend for most of posts to be tainted with humor. However, I frequently write with such a lack of clarity, that the taint turns out to be a smell. My bad. In reply to your post:
>>>Absolutely no worries, bud; sarcasm is part of the fun of debate here. I really hope I don’t push it too hard half the time as it is. When it all comes down to it, none of us really care what happens in an internet discussion during the 8 months of the Abyss; we’re biding our time for the 4 months of Bliss.
My apologies to you and anyone else I’ve irked during as I’m suffering through the insanity of off-season. :)
>>>
I must strenuously disagree with the following points.
"Whoever makes it through the ringer of the epic Regular Season"
One teams epic season would frequently be another teams pushover season.
>>>True; the term “epic” was describing CFB’s regular season in general. Comparing Hawaii’s schedule to LSU’s in 2007 proves that there is a significant element of SOS factored into the current system.
I think we all agree that SOS should be an important part of any scenario.
>>>
"no one cares about the Regular Season"
While I don't watch basketball, many millions would strongly disagree I think.
Lastly, like most others, I have no faith in Congress's ability "to fix" CFB. If I was a mover or a shaker, I would do something at the very threat of Congressional action. I think this is what our Congresspeople intend.Threatening a "fait accompli", causes action.
>>>The huge gulf between the following of the Regular Seasons of CFB and CBB is clearly evident. Sure, fans of specific teams that are close to those programs will (My cousin and his wife are UNC grads and are fairly religious when it comes to CBB).
However, will an entire nation bite their nails as they watch unranked Pittsburgh upset #2 West Virginia on the last game of the Regular Season in CBB?
Matt Hayes was quite eloquent in his article on 2/14/05:
http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/matt-hayes/20050214.html
Note: This article is my favorite. I use it often and will continue to do so. :)
Tomcat said:
posted on May 9, 2008 12:57 AM — 70.243.165.175 — link — abuse?
Regan The MNC is just that,mythical nat. Champ and debates and discussions will continue and always will even after the system is tweaked.
CFB is the purest form of American athletics and while the system is far from perfect when determining Championships it is still the absolute best sport period.
That being said,I watched some of LSU's mythical championship season they lost a couple and barley squeezed by a couple of others, wouldnt you not accept the fact that in 2007 there were many teams that in a Bowl playoff senerio could of finished off better? heck-yes right
I disagree with the conf champ only automatic thing and the limitations of the current system.
Sometimes the best team in the conference is actually # 3 like KU 07 or UT 06
In conferences like the XII or SEC there could be a 3rd or 4th place contender better than the conf champ from B-10/11 or pac-10 for example.
a playoff senerio would solve these issues on the playing feild.
For example 2007 KU, Missu,UT all won thier bowl games against nationaly ranked teams- but alas OU was the conf champ- OU- lost
So I for one dont really buy the 0-loss or 1-loss B/S because the pac/10-B-10/11 benefit from that and conferences like the XII do not.
Missu beat Ill and Ill is in the Rose
Arizona St was the P-10 co-Champs and got whuped by Texas, the 4th place XII team right
The playing feild is not level and sometimes a system needs to be corrected.
Did anybody really think that Hawaii had a chance against UGA ? not me heck they barley squeezed by La Tech
BTW I'm looking foward to the UM vs Tex A&M at Kyle feild, and the Wake Forest at Baylor
Most of all Arkansas at Texas
Hookem-Horns
posted on May 9, 2008 1:40 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
Gatorhippy: Dreadfully sorry that it's taken so long to answer my right honourable friend, but it's terribly late in the evening and the 14 rum and cokes I've had enable me worthless to answer your queries in a reasonable fashion.
I reserve the right to renew said argument upon morning and hopefully allow distinctive debate upon your post when I'm able to properly distinguish the words you have typed and issue rational counterpoints worthwith.
In the meanwhile, I remain forever faithfully yours and all that other stuff that English folk conclude their correspondence with. (Hic!)
Until tomorrow, I am most appreciately yours,
WEA
AUtigerman said:
posted on May 9, 2008 1:13 PM — 129.61.46.16 — link — abuse?
This reminds me of the guy who lost his leg and put a bandaid on it and quickly died.
For those of you that think a quick fix is the answer i have news for you. Even a plus one wont work. Is it better then what we have now? prehaps but why not fix the problem.
Last year alone would have to be proof why plus 1 dosent work. Too many really good teams would be left out.WVU losses last game of season and so does LSU but LSU has a chance of redemption against a mediocre Tennesse in SEC Championship game. Ah none of it makes since to me.
First of all you must address the horrible 8-10 week layoff after the season before the championship game. If this dosent get addressed first then your some what missing the whole point.
No way you can convince me that you get the best play out of teams that have 8 week layoffs its crazy.
But even die hard playoff fans like myself may find the lack of New years day football a hard pill to swallow.
Well ill just hope for another shot at an SEC title and i can honestly say that would be enough to satisfy me.Regan said:
posted on May 9, 2008 4:11 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Tomcat (#66):
I’ve got some bad news for ya, Tomcat...I think we’re actually somewhat on the same page. :)
The fundamental question is this: “What does ‘National Champion’ mean in College Football?”
Some people claim it’s the “two best teams”. Others (like me) claim that it is the “two teams that went week-in and week-out and didn’t slip up / slipped up the least”. Still others claim it’s the hottest teams at the end of the season; and lastly, the purists that believe that it should just be the team they love to root for, regardless if it makes sense.
Some, sadly, don’t want to mess with the question, they just want to throw the top 4, 8, or 16 teams in a blender, let them cannibalize each other until ‘The Gathering’ is complete regardless of the effect that will have on the sport as a whole.
I will be the first to point out that the BCS is imperfect. A “true” Playoff will simply switch from one imperfection to another, while losing out on huge aspects that make CFB the ‘purest form of American athletics’.
As far as my criteria about Conference Championships mattering, it is based on the observation that 0-loss and 1-loss teams that would be considered for the NC Game most often are the Conference Champs. Ordinarily, it would be an inherent product of producing the “2 best teams”. It’s a “safety valve”.
The Conf. Champ. Game that the Big 12, ACC, and SEC play occasionally throws this one to the wind, however, as a team that can’t win their division can somehow get a shot at the NC game. You’re right about this, and I will concede that not relying on Conference Champ status would help keep OOC strength-of-schedules honest.
The case-in-point I’ll use is 2001, when after a truly bizarre weekend left a 10-1 Nebraska (who couldn’t win the Big 12 North (to a Colorado team that put 62 on them back when that just did not happen…) to face Miami (12-0) over Pac-10 Champ Oregon (10-1). One could easily argue that Nebraska may have been the better team, but I will stick to the point that Oregon deserved to be there more than Nebraska because it went out and won it’s conference.
The issue primarily devolves down to my core belief that teams need to “Win or Go Home”. The core logic of the BCS was (until ’04 when Auburn got hosed) that if you win out, you’re in the NC Game. If you drop the ball and lose a game, you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate; you still have a slim chance, but you can’t complain if you don’t make it in, because it’s your fault you didn’t take care of business that one game when you needed to prove you were a team that could overcome any obstacle.
Lose twice, and you’re out of the NC game, but there is still a lot to go out and play hard for. You can still make a big-time BCS Bowl, or at least a New-Years Day bowl. My Conference Champ argument is based on this reasoning. That and, I never, ever, ever want to see Michigan and Ohio State play each other for the National Championship...
Great points, though...
Regan said:
posted on May 9, 2008 4:18 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta (#67):
I put your post into a spellchecker, and let me say that if you’re hitting on this many cylinders after 14 rum and cokes, then I will officially ask you to be the one to help my kid with his homework. :)
Even Russell Crowe could not match that degree of ‘inebriative elegance’!
Tomcat said:
posted on May 9, 2008 6:03 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
Regan Thanks
Saftey Valve?
2006 UT was not championship caliber team,they had 3 losses that year, but they beat Nebraska & Oklahoma the two teams in the Conf Champ game.
That was the year that Bois St beat OU and everyone in the Media made such a big deal over it, heck some even claimed that Bois St deserved the MNC. Oklahoma had 2 previuos losses that year the one against the P-10 refs & the UO Ducks and their loss to UT.So when Bois won we Longhorn fans watching the game cheered, because we love to see OU get beat.We also like to see them lose to Texas Tech and TCU.
Hookem-Horns
BTW the UT vs OU game is really like a Champ game and whoever emerges from the north Neb,Colo,Missu,KU is gonna have their hands full.Regan said:
posted on May 10, 2008 1:53 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Tomcat (#73):
Yeah, the 'safety valve' was an idea to tweak the BCS after 2001, when Nebraska got in over Pac-10 Champ Oregon even though they didn't win their division.
A simple rule that said 'only conference champions could play in the NC game' would have been enough to get it right that year, and frankly, it makes sense.
The only case that can logically be made that a non-conference champ deserves to be in the NC Game is if the best 2 teams in the country are also the best 2 teams in a conference (a la what almost happened in 2006 with Ohio State and Michigan).
Even here, however, the two teams have (by very definition) already played each other once, one already won and the other lost.
(Note: currently, of the BCS conferences this can only happen in the Big Ten since the Pac-10 and Big East all play each other and the other conferences have CCGames.)
So, for reasons that are actually inherent to the conferences themselves, by definition the #1 and #2 teams in the BCS simply won't be of the same conference; and they shouldn't be.
Given the events after Conference Championship Weekend in 2006 (when voters elevated Florida over Michigan to face Ohio State in the NC Game), though, even the Big Ten 'possibility' will be negated by the powers that be.
So, by "safety valve", the focusing on Conf. Championships is by definition filtering out the teams that don't deserve to be in the NC Game.
Trust me on this, I have given this waaaaaay too much thought. :-)
Maurice said:
posted on May 12, 2008 10:09 AM — 170.202.22.1 — link — abuse?
I want a playoff badly, but it is all about dollars and cents. The more teams a conference has in bowls games the more money conferences and schools makes. I hate to say this "Keep the BCS" b/c the major conferences will continue to make a ton of money. My only suggestions is increase the Pac 10, Big 10, and Big East into 12 football playing schools. That will give 7 more schools a chance to play for a National Championship.
Maurice said:
posted on May 12, 2008 10:11 AM — 170.202.22.1 — link — abuse?
I want a playoff badly, but it is all about dollars and cents. The more teams a conference has in bowls games the more money conferences and schools makes. I hate to say this "Keep the BCS" b/c the major conferences will continue to make a ton of money. My only suggestions is increase the Pac 10, Big 10, and Big East into 12 football playing schools. That will give 7 more schools a chance to play for a National Championship.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 13, 2008 2:21 AM — 195.189.143.51 — link — abuse?
Regan, Sorry for the delay......I have certainly found better than what that site brought to the discussion but I seem to have misplased the links I have come across with better info. Anyway, you're right that there are more than the 10 teams they listed that currently have a shot at the National Championship with the current system. I would say any team that currently plays in a BCS Conference has a legitimate chance but that's about as far as the legitimacy goes (ask Utah 04' & Boise St. 06') which to me is quite a travesty. You can make the argument (you have) that they can simply schedule 4 powerhouses in thier nonconference schedule, run the table and possibly squeeze in through the side door but there are no guarantees you would even get that chance if you did run the table. It's not a realistic scenario or a far situation to ask any mid-major to put itself in IMO. The truth is there won't be many teams from the non-majors who have a real chance of winning it all but it is possible and we should have a system that can handle anything our great sport can throw at it and that is certainly not the case with the system we have. A playoff gives ALL teams a REAL shot to win it all......not a fifth game consolation bowl. I agree with you and TOMCAT that winning your conference should be a major factor in the formula......as long as we require ALL Conferences to have a Championship game. Otherwise Conferences like the Big XII and SEC get the shaft. There still needs to be at large room for the elite teams who don't win their conference or who don't reside in a BCS conference. If you took for instance the top 4 highest BCS rated Conference Champions after all the Championship games were played and added the next 4 highest rated teams (which very likely could be conf. winners as well) reguardless off conference to fill at large sots you would have a system that rewards teams who win their conference as well as leave room for the deserving mid-major elite or the Mizzou/Kansas 07' teams who did not win thier conference but very well could have won many other conferences. It leaves room for Notre Dame (as much as I hate to say it) all though the would not ever be able to take one of the top 4 designated spots as those would be for conference champions only. If they don't like being relegated to at large spots they can join a conference like evryone else........tuff $#!+ until then. An 8 team Playoff still leaves the integrity of the bowl system and regular season intact IMO.........after much thought I'm not sure a 16 team Playoff would do the same. A 4 team or plus one model just doesn't get the job done in WAY too many scenarios. Every accomidation would/should be taken regardless of the format for travel accomidations. Spacing each round one week apart preferably starting new year weekend (what a way to start the new year) and forming a commitee to select the best locations would be essential. The 8 team playoff I just layed out is fair and balanced and would effectively decide a champion without disrupting the integrity of the reular season or bowl system. I look forward to having these discussions for decades to come but they will soon be about how we can make a playoff better and not about whether we should have one.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 13, 2008 9:57 AM — 195.189.143.51 — link — abuse?
Or if you really want to give the power to the conference champions require all conferences to have a championship and designate the top 6 spots for the 6 highest BCS rated conference champions after all the championships have been played and leave the remaining 2 spots open as at large spots to be filled by the next 2 highest BCS rated teams (again who may or may not have won their conf.) and you are left with a playoff formula that leaves the BCS, regular season, and bowl system alive and kicking and at the same time allows mid majors and independents a REAL shot (all though slim) at running the table and making it to the title game. I can only imagine the kind of momentum Boise St. would have carried into the next round of this 8 team playoff if they had pulled a victory off like they did against mighty OU in 06'. The college football world would be set on fire like never before and that kind of scenario would pump blood into the life of the non-BCS conferences and add even more parody into CF. Increasing parody is what makes CF better and better every year and the reason after all that we need a playoff like nevere before IMO. In these two 8 team playoffs I have brought up it is probable that a mid major or independent might not make it into an at large spot even after having a tremendous season.......all depending on how the year played out but at least they would have a fighting chance which not the case currently. There are many years where there have been NO teams that deserve to be in the mix for the NT and that's all good and well........the idea of a playoff is not to include teams who shouldn't be their or to play games to answer the "what if" questions we all have every year........it's to give a LEGITIMATE shot to those who have EARNED it through the year. Agian, only schools from the big 6 have that right to "earn" it right now because the system is completely biased. It's not fair, not even close. I can catagorically guarantee any of you that if you are in favor of the current system or systems of the past the team you pull for resides in one of the big 6. Thank god 2004 happened because it opened many eyes to the sugar coated crap the mid-majors have to swallow every year. The last idea for an 8 team playoff would be to still require all conferences to organize and play a championship game and when all the dust settles take the top 8 ranked BCS teams (reguardless of conf.) and go from there. I still prefer one of the previous two 8 team playoffs as I believe the system should be set up to reward teams who ultimately win their respective conference. Any of the 3 mentioned 8 team playoff scenarios would be fair, balanced and effective IMO.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 13, 2008 10:36 AM — 195.189.142.239 — link — abuse?
In the sentance were I talked about in some years there are NO teams worthy to play for the NT I was referring to the mid-majors and independents.......there obviously have to be some teams who qualifiy to play for the NT every year........at least I hope so. I'll stop talking now.
posted on May 13, 2008 10:51 AM — 72.145.94.138 — link — abuse? said:
The following is what KSUwild's post would have looked like had he used the return key: BTW, good post, but just so DAMN hard to read without any paragraph breaks in it.I guess I've turned into fanblogs' editor...
Or if you really want to give the power to the conference champions require all conferences to have a championship and designate the top 6 spots for the 6 highest BCS rated conference champions after all the championships have been played and leave the remaining 2 spots open as at large spots to be filled by the next 2 highest BCS rated teams (again who may or may not have won their conf.)
And you are left with a playoff formula that leaves the BCS, regular season, and bowl system alive and kicking and at the same time allows mid majors and independents a REAL shot (all though slim) at running the table and making it to the title game.
I can only imagine the kind of momentum Boise St. would have carried into the next round of this 8 team playoff if they had pulled a victory off like they did against mighty OU in 06'. The college football world would be set on fire like never before and that kind of scenario would pump blood into the life of the non-BCS conferences and add even more parody into CF.
Increasing parody is what makes CF better and better every year and the reason after all that we need a playoff like nevere before IMO. In these two 8 team playoffs I have brought up it is probable that a mid major or independent might not make it into an at large spot even after having a tremendous season.......all depending on how the year played out but at least they would have a fighting chance which not the case currently.
There are many years where there have been NO teams that deserve to be in the mix for the NT and that's all good and well........the idea of a playoff is not to include teams who shouldn't be their or to play games to answer the "what if" questions we all have every year........it's to give a LEGITIMATE shot to those who have EARNED it through the year.
Agian, only schools from the big 6 have that right to "earn" it right now because the system is completely biased. It's not fair, not even close. I can catagorically guarantee any of you that if you are in favor of the current system or systems of the past the team you pull for resides in one of the big 6.
Thank god 2004 happened because it opened many eyes to the sugar coated crap the mid-majors have to swallow every year. The last idea for an 8 team playoff would be to still require all conferences to organize and play a championship game and when all the dust settles take the top 8 ranked BCS teams (reguardless of conf.) and go from there.
I still prefer one of the previous two 8 team playoffs as I believe the system should be set up to reward teams who ultimately win their respective conference. Any of the 3 mentioned 8 team playoff scenarios would be fair, balanced and effective IMO.
posted on May 13, 2008 11:22 AM — 72.145.94.138 — link — abuse? said:
Yea, thank God that 2004 happened. Auburn martyred itself for the playoffs, but the momentum that the playoff coalition has been building for the last 3 years has been stifled with this latest meeting of the minds.
Nothing is going to change until the economics of the market demand a change. Something is going to have to get shook up pretty fierce to chip away at this resistance.
posted on May 13, 2008 11:46 AM — 72.145.94.138 — link — abuse? said:
Just thinking out loud about a possible solution to this playoff resistance. I fantasize about a possible alignment between the SEC and either the ACC or the Big XIII in a pact with the Sugar Bowl--sort of like what the Rose Bowl has--with the two conference champions meeting. The winner could pretty much demand to be crowned with at least a share of the MNC, at least from the AP, who famously severed their ties to the BCS after the Auburn debacle.
Yea, perhaps we could secede from the BCS, kinda like the Pac 10 and Big 10(11) are threatening to do in essence. Southerners are certainly no strangers to secession, so perhaps the ACC might be the perfect partner in crime.
The prospects of having two different champions every year might finally force the differing sides together to try and work something out. CFB couldn't afford a defection of this magnitude, where two MORE conferences decide to pair up in a bowl pact in spite of what the BCS does.
So you couldn't get the media on board with crowning the winner? Fine. We just start wooing all these minor NC selectors and accepting a preponderance of their selections as gospel, kind of like Alabama has done with claiming NCs since time and memorial...
Yea, yea, very improbable. Like I said, I'm just thinking out loud. I would like someone to play Devil's advocate with it, though...
Geauxtigers0107 said:
posted on May 13, 2008 1:32 PM — 144.5.224.142 — link — abuse?
As unrealistic and unfathomable as that sounds WEA, it's exactly what the PAC and BIG are doing......and getting away with it.
FWIW, I think it's an excellent idea and would be the ONLY thing that could open their eyes.
But......"Dat ain't gonna happen my frin'"
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SECksuwild said:
posted on May 13, 2008 5:21 PM — 195.189.142.239 — link — abuse?
Sorry for the lack of spacing and run on sentances WEA. These last few posts have all been from my phone which is challenging to say the least. Feel free to correct my spelling if you would like......or I could continue to humor everyone by including a U in regardless when it doesn't need it.
As far as your conference partnership brainstorming to put pressure on the system to change I am for it, or anything that gets the ball rolling. Again, I know Congress has more pressing needs than sports issues but if I found out tomorrow that a group of Congressman were pushing legislature for a change in the CF post season I would say thank God someone finally has the means (and balls) to finally make something happen. It's time someone got one of the two.
Regan said:
posted on May 13, 2008 10:14 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
>>>
Regan, Sorry for the delay......I have certainly found better than what that site brought to the discussion but I seem to have misplased the links I have come across with better info.
>>>It’s cool, pal...don’t think the sarcasm was directed at you, I try to respectfully disagree with fellow Fanbloggers; links aren’t ‘people’, so I vent on them. :)
>>>
Anyway, you're right that there are more than the 10 teams they listed that currently have a shot at the National Championship with the current system. I would say any team that currently plays in a BCS Conference has a legitimate chance but that's about as far as the legitimacy goes (ask Utah 04' & Boise St. 06') which to me is quite a travesty. You can make the argument (you have) that they can simply schedule 4 powerhouses in thier nonconference schedule, run the table and possibly squeeze in through the side door but there are no guarantees you would even get that chance if you did run the table. It's not a realistic scenario or a far situation to ask any mid-major to put itself in IMO. The truth is there won't be many teams from the non-majors who have a real chance of winning it all but it is possible and we should have a system that can handle anything our great sport can throw at it and that is certainly not the case with the system we have.
>>>I understand this point, but the best way to analyze the specifics is to look at the three BCS ‘busters’:
Utah (2004): TXAM (7-5)[W, 41-21], ARIZ (3-8)[W, 23-6], UTST (3-8)[W, 48-6], UNC (6-6)[W, 46-16]
Boise State (2006): Sacramento St. (non-IA)[W, 45-0], ORST (10-4)[W, 42-14], WYO (6-6)[W, 17-10], UTAH (8-5)[W, 36-3]
Hawaii (2007): N. Colorado (non-IA)[W, 63-6], UNLV (2-10)[49-14], Chas. Southern (non-IA)[66-10], WASH (4-9)[W, 35-28]
Of these 12 opponents, only one ended up ranked at the end of their season (2006 Oregon State (10-4) ended up ranked #21 at the end of the season. Of all these opponents, only two were Division I teams with winning records.
Thus, is there any reason to believe that if a mid-major (say, Boise State) had an OOC schedule of, say, Southern California, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin and swept those games, they wouldn’t get a chance to play for the NC? Boise State got to #5 in the BCS in 2006 with a slate of a Division II team, a Sun Belt team, a 4-loss Pac-10 team, and one “powerhouse” Oklahoma. Number 5.
What you continue to put forth is that Cinderella teams have a chance to play for the NC, and I’m telling you that they have absolutely no more of a chance to play in an NC game than they do in the current format.
>>>
A playoff gives ALL teams a REAL shot to win it all......not a fifth game consolation bowl. I agree with you and TOMCAT that winning your conference should be a major factor in the formula......as long as we require ALL Conferences to have a Championship game. Otherwise Conferences like the Big XII and SEC get the shaft.
>>>It’s debatable about the CCGames. Take Clemson this coming year – Clemson misses playing Miami, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina in the Coastal division. If the other ACC teams play (generally) as badly as they have in the past 2 years, Clemson could receive a genuine boost from an increased SoS via a CCGame against VT or Miami. Then again, they could lose.
When it all comes down to it, the CCGames are a wash; it’s just like any other game in CFB – Win, or go home.
>>>
There still needs to be at large room for the elite teams who don't win their conference or who don't reside in a BCS conference. If you took for instance the top 4 highest BCS rated Conference Champions after all the Championship games were played and added the next 4 highest rated teams (which very likely could be conf. winners as well) reguardless off conference to fill at large sots you would have a system that rewards teams who win their conference as well as leave room for the deserving mid-major elite or the Mizzou/Kansas 07' teams who did not win thier conference but very well could have won many other conferences.
>>>For the non-NC BCS Bowls, I agree. For the NC Game, though, Conference Champions and only Conference Champions deserve to play in it. The reason is that for reasons inherent to the game itself, the 2 best teams in CFB in any season are Conference Champs.
See my response to Tomcat in #74 for the reasons why.
>>>
It leaves room for Notre Dame (as much as I hate to say it) all though the would not ever be able to take one of the top 4 designated spots as those would be for conference champions only. If they don't like being relegated to at large spots they can join a conference like evryone else........tuff $#!+ until then.
>>>Notre Dame is in a special category, and that’s the world for ya. I actually don’t mind it since CFB is by definition a chaotic sport where there is no such thing as uniformity. I love it the way it is, since it is so much easier than being upset that it isn’t more rigidly bland like the No Fun League.
Notre Dame, since it isn’t in a Conference, doesn’t need to worry about a Conference Championship. This might not seem fair, but ANYONE who goes through a schedule that looks like this with 0- or 1-loss should play for the NC:
GT (7-6), PSU (9-4), MICH (9-4), MCST (7-6), PUR (8-5), UCLA (6-7), BC (11-3), SCAL (11-2), NAVY (8-5), AF (9-4), DUKE (1-11), STAN (4-8) [2007]
>>>
An 8 team Playoff still leaves the integrity of the bowl system and regular season intact IMO.........after much thought I'm not sure a 16 team Playoff would do the same. A 4 team or plus one model just doesn't get the job done in WAY too many scenarios. Every accomidation would/should be taken regardless of the format for travel accomidations. Spacing each round one week apart preferably starting new year weekend (what a way to start the new year) and forming a commitee to select the best locations would be essential. The 8 team playoff I just layed out is fair and balanced and would effectively decide a champion without disrupting the integrity of the reular season or bowl system. I look forward to having these discussions for decades to come but they will soon be about how we can make a playoff better and not about whether we should have one.
>>>I respect your opinion, but my point is that ANY SYSTEM MUST ensure 2 key points for me to support it:
#1 A team MUST win their conference to play in the NC game.
#2 A team MUST have either 0- or 1-Loss to play in the NC game.Ksuwild, I really recommend you check out my proposal for a Post-season in my earlier post #21. I am for the best system for CFB, and it honestly cannot be a one-size-fits-all system.
The BCS is truly flawed, but I have provided ample proof in the past several posts why a “true” playoff will only replace one set of problems with another and take away from the uniqueness of the sport in translation.
Still waiting to hear how I’m wrong. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 13, 2008 10:35 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#81):
>>>
Or if you really want to give the power to the conference champions require all conferences to have a championship and designate the top 6 spots for the 6 highest BCS rated conference champions after all the championships have been played and leave the remaining 2 spots open as at large spots to be filled by the next 2 highest BCS rated teams (again who may or may not have won their conf.) and you are left with a playoff formula that leaves the BCS, regular season, and bowl system alive and kicking and at the same time allows mid majors and independents a REAL shot (all though slim) at running the table and making it to the title game.
>>>The problem is that you are missing what makes the Regular Season so popular: Lose one game, you throw your chances to the winds of fate; lose two, and you’re out.
Also, there is no group or organization that can force the conferences to align in such a way. The Big 10/11 and Pac-10 want 11 and 10 teams respectively, and the ACC, Big 12, and SEC want 12. By definition, each of the schools in each of the conferences wants to be in that conference.
It’s not going to happen, because everyone’s happy.
Read Stu Mandel’s book; it’ll explain how extraordinarily little control the NCAA has over CFB.
>>>
I can only imagine the kind of momentum Boise St. would have carried into the next round of this 8 team playoff if they had pulled a victory off like they did against mighty OU in 06'. The college football world would be set on fire like never before and that kind of scenario would pump blood into the life of the non-BCS conferences and add even more parody into CF. Increasing parody is what makes CF better and better every year and the reason after all that we need a playoff like nevere before IMO.
>>>In the NCAA Basketball tournament, Cinderella has her chance and gets crushed long before the Title Game every single year. Reference my post #50.
However, for speculative purposes, in my proposal, I allow for undefeated non-BCS conference teams to be in the mix for the NC game if there aren’t two undefeated BCS-conference teams (as in 2005, 2002, and 1999).
>>>
In these two 8 team playoffs I have brought up it is probable that a mid major or independent might not make it into an at large spot even after having a tremendous season.......all depending on how the year played out but at least they would have a fighting chance which not the case currently. There are many years where there have been NO teams that deserve to be in the mix for the NT and that's all good and well........the idea of a playoff is not to include teams who shouldn't be their or to play games to answer the "what if" questions we all have every year........it's to give a LEGITIMATE shot to those who have EARNED it through the year.
>>>That’s the issue behind the whole post-season debacle: What does the National Championship mean in College Football? I say the NC should go to the team that went week-to-week against quality competition and faltered the least (or not at all). So does over 100+ years of CF history. Changing this changes the whole sport. Period.
>>>
Agian, only schools from the big 6 have that right to "earn" it right now because the system is completely biased. It's not fair, not even close. I can catagorically guarantee any of you that if you are in favor of the current system or systems of the past the team you pull for resides in one of the big 6. Thank god 2004 happened because it opened many eyes to the sugar coated crap the mid-majors have to swallow every year.
>>>I’ve said many times that 2004 is when I stopped supporting the BCS.
I’ll also point out that the non-BCS conference commissioners are now quite happy with the 5-BCS game arrangement for a reason.
>>>
The last idea for an 8 team playoff would be to still require all conferences to organize and play a championship game and when all the dust settles take the top 8 ranked BCS teams (reguardless of conf.) and go from there. I still prefer one of the previous two 8 team playoffs as I believe the system should be set up to reward teams who ultimately win their respective conference. Any of the 3 mentioned 8 team playoff scenarios would be fair, balanced and effective IMO.
>>>2 Criteria:
#1: Must be a Conference Champ
#2: Must have either 0-losses or 1-loss.Only with these criteria intact will CFB remain CFB. I can deal with an anomaly like 2007, but the mere possibility that a FOUR-LOSS team has a shot at the NC makes me want to vomit. (Potential Example: FSU 2005; see earlier posts)
posted on May 14, 2008 12:39 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
Regan: I must say I'm on the verge of appointing you czar of the BCS on fanblogs. You've taken to the subject quite famously. Now that we've run the real subject into a dead end, I'd like you to propose your fantasy solution, like I did in #85.
Just keep in mind that none of the conventional wisdom holds true. You must propose a 'radical'solution designed to piss everybody off. AND this solution can't be about adding ANY more games after the bowl games...
Okay, wait. Too many rules. Just try and think outside the box...
ksuwild said:
posted on May 14, 2008 1:14 AM — 195.189.142.239 — link — abuse?
Regan,
You say that you will not support a system that allows a 2 loss champion but look at 2007. What was it 8 of the top 9 teams that had 2 losses? That is just as much of an argument for a change to the system as 2004. The difference between us on this is that you see seasons like 04' and 07' as anomolies that will only happen once in a blue moon as where I would make the argument that those kind of seasons are going to continue to happen on an increasing basis and you can trace it all back to parody increasing on every level in football. The past days of the same perrenial powers dominating year in and year out are over.
If you acknowlege that parody in CF is continuing to increase every year it doesn't take long to see that seasons like 2005 are going to soon be seen as the anomoly and not the other way around.
The other thing is that in my 8 team playoff proposal...........that 4 loss Florida St. ACC Champion would be relegated to an at large bid if not left out all together when you consider there are going to be teams who have years like UGA, MU and KU did in 07'. Especially if you used the 4 conference champion, 4 at large bid version of the 8 team playoff.
The goal would be to reward teams for winning their conference but there would be no guarantee that winning your conference would get you in under my system. No one would no until the final BCS rankings were out so everything would stay crucially important from the start of the season all the way through conference championship games. Regular season intact.
We need a playoff more for the mess created within the Big 6 than we do to allow for the elite mid-majors and independants a chance to win it all. That is a crucial point..........the system is catered to and biased for the Big 6 BCS conferences and it literally can't handle the many scenarios of multiple undefeated, multiple one loss or multiple 2 loss (2007 was a mess I don't care what anyone says) seasons that are going to continue to come. I'm telling you, if next year isn't a mess........the year after will be.
Parody is increasing and recent history supports that fact.
The minimalist approach is great for not ruffling feathers and not so great for addressing the ever changing needs of an evolving sport. It is changing, we can choose to embrace it and mold it or we can can sit back and beg for the days of 2 clear cut chmpions and watch team after team get hosed in their quest. The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" arguement can get tossed out the window because the system is broke and it is not effective. The popularity will always be there for CF but that does't mean the post season isn't insufficient because the BCS is an improvement over the old system and I can't remember one year (besides 05') that there hasn't been a complete mess.
The system needs to change and taking 8 teams out of 64........4 bowls out of 32 does not wreck the integrity of anything that CF currently has IMO.
posted on May 14, 2008 2:14 AM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
KSU: Keep in mind that 2-loss (in conference) conference champions are the norm rather than then exeption. If you compare title holders the last few years in the SEC, ACC, and Big XIII, you'll see that very few escaped with none or one loss very seldom.
Maybe it was the crazy luck of last season, but I think the time might be dawning where any
SEC champion, regardless of losses, might be highly considered for a slot in the BCS title game... Eventually, the ACC and the XIII might get the same consideration--such is the momentum and weight of those few conferences that determine their champ on the field--an emerging trend that's here to stay...Tomcat said:
posted on May 14, 2008 2:33 PM — 70.243.165.175 — link — abuse?
KSUwild,Regan,gatorhippy,WEA and myself ought to get together without a tOSU fan,or a USC fan and develop a formula after reaching a consenses agreement that abolishs BCS conferences and excludes Notre Dame from any consideration what so ever until they join a conference,Turn the top 16 bowls into the first round conf champs + at large teams to be determined according to W-L records without polls. Non- BCS schools would get their shot, debacels like AU 04 wouldnt happen and teams like Bois 06,Missu/KU 07 would get a shot as well.The USC's and tOSU's wouldnt like it, but everyone else in the country from fans & Alums to corperate sponsers and T.V. exeutives would be tickled pink.
Ok have your people get with my people and will do lunch
Na-makes too much sense
Adios Tomcat
God Bless our Troops
Hookem-Horns
OU suxJeff said:
posted on May 14, 2008 8:54 PM — 12.47.224.8 — link — abuse?
Maybe I'm simple minded, but...
Just thinking on a simple level to answer some common anecdotes:
"A playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season..."
***How would it do that?? Wouldn't you have to attain a good record to actually get in the playoff, and moreso a GREAT record to get a high seed, if not a bye in the first round??? (simple minded...)
"A playoff would add more games to the season, thus making the season too long, keeping student/athletes out of school..."
***Once again, maybe I'm simple-minded, but isn't there a period in late November to early/mid December where there is nothing but BS bowl "games" being played on some insignificant Thursday night in an inconspicuous location to be named later??? Get rid of those crap games, or make them early round playoff sites. For example, the Motor City Bowl. Would we rather see MAC champion Central Michigan vs. Toledo? Or a 1st round playoff matchup of, let's say, Tennessee vs. Notre Dame?? You can't tell me that wouldn't draw...
Again, just a simple minded thought from a big college football fan. If other divisions of college football can do it, surely Div 1-A can. They are institutions of higher learning as well. I'm quite sure their university presidents had the same concerns about their student-athletes. Div 1-A is NO different.
posted on May 14, 2008 10:46 PM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse? said:
People who make those type comparisons are thinking of 162 game baseball seasons and 82 game basketball seasons, not 12 game CFB seasons.
What they're really scared of is extending the season even further with games, or carrying it over well into January. Good point about December--all that typical dead time could be put to good use with some playoff games.
I'm surprised no one else game up with a radical plan like I suggested in #85...
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
GatorMatt
said:
posted on May 2, 2008 10:18 AM — 128.227.1.215 — link — abuse?I think Jim Delaney needs to just go ahead and off himself. This guy walks around neither his or the Big 11's sh*t stinks.
I love how the Rose Bowl only wants the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs, but if one of them is ranked 1 or 2, they have no problem giving them up so they can play in the championship.
I say CFB should just take the 4 other conferences and do a playoff without the B10 and P10. They would come on board when they realized neither of their teams could win it all