Tell me why this wouldn't work

[Desert Sapper]

Ok, ok, I get it...another playoff thread, but my solution is the perfectest solution evar.;) From my blog (http://desert-sapper.bloghi.com/):

So now we wait. The bowls start next week, but is the Poinsettia Bowl really something we just can't miss? This wait is what prompts so many to start arguing the merits of a playoff system, and I can't say that I necessarily disagree.

The bowls have a brilliant history, marked by great games, great tradition, pageantry, and more. They represent the greatness of allowing so many teams to end their season with a win, and 5 teams as BCS Bowl game winners (with one winning the 'national championship' on the field after a game of #1 in the polls vs. #2 in the polls).

The playoffs have a history, as well. A history in what was once called Division 1AA football (now called the 'Football Championship Subdivision' or FCS). There, the teams lineup, just as in every professional league, for a playoff, that ends with a championship on the field.

The FCS has a true champion, but no pageantry. Arguably, the FBS (formerly known as Division 1A) is exactly the opposite. All pageantry, but missing a true champion at the end.

Sure, LSU and Ohio State deserve to play for the championship. Arguably, so do all the other conference champions this year. Nobody has really stood head and shoulders above the rest this year. So here we are in the age old argument. Playoffs v. Bowls.

Some have said they can coexist. Have the bowls, then play a 'plus 1' game. That sounds nifty, but what happens when we have a year like this?

Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, USC, and even West Virginia and Hawaii have a claim for a shot at the title. So who gets to play in the 'plus one'? The winner of Ohio State-LSU, I'm guessing. Maybe the winner of OU-West Virginia. But if USC, Hawaii, and Va Tech all win, then what? They're all conference champs. They all have similar win-loss records (only Hawaii is undefeated). So you have 5 teams that all deserve to play in the 'plus one' and you get the same beauty pageant that you have right now. Two will play. Three will be left to flap in the breeze.

So I say this.

Keep the bowls. Yes, keep them. But have a playoff, too. Make the decision like this...

The champions of all Major Conferences are invited to play (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big XII, Big East, Pac 10).

Two at-large teams (who must be either independant or the champion of their respective conference) are invited to play.

The games are played at the home of the higher ranked team (based on the BCS poll). Two weeks of games seed the teams for the bowls, with the championship alternating among the four BCS sites. Games start after everyone takes their final. So you have something like this in 2007:

15 December 2007

Game 1 BYU (Mountain West Champs, BCS #17) @ Ohio State (Big 10 Champs, BCS #1)
Game 2 Hawaii (WAC Champs, BCS #10) @ LSU (SEC Champs, BCS #2)
Game 3 West Virginia (Big East Champs, BCS #9) @ Va Tech (ACC Champs, BCS #3)
Game 4 USC (Pac 10 Champs, BCS #7) @ Oklahoma (Big XII Champs, BCS #4)

22 December 2007

Game 5 BYU/tOSU winner v. USC/OU winner
Game 6 UH/LSU winner v. WV/Va Tech winner

1 January 2008

Game 5 loser v. Game 6 loser in Orange
Game 4 loser v. Game 2 loser in Fiesta
Game 3 loser v. Game 1 loser in Rose

2 January 2008

Game 5 winner v. Game 6 winner in Sugar

The pageantry continues, because the Major Bowl game matchups are decided before Christmas (also allowing hype).

You are only talking about 2 more games than what teams already play and the home crowds get to see an extra big matchup or two.

It won't mess with the bowl games we already have in the dead period (between 20 december and 1 January), except that you have two games in addition to the three bowls on that day (and the major networks get two big matchups to air).

It doesn't mess with the academic integrity, given most schools have finals before these playoffs would start.

Everyone still makes a ton of money and it is more evenly distributed (ie; no TWO BCS games for the BCS conferences...but the little guys get a shot at the dough if they manage to make it up high enough AND win their conference).

Fans get a real champion.

The end. My $2.50 ($.02 after taxes).

I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yaselves.

[mdklatt]

2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals

[Desert Sapper]

2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals

Eh, I'm a Cards fan. I'm pretty happy with that outcome.:D

So, the worst case scenario is the fear. That BYU, as the last team selected, gets hot and runs the table. That would require them to beat #1 Ohio State in the Horseshoe, either USC in the Coliseum or OU in Norman, and then somebody in the Sugar Bowl. Tell me they wouldn't deserve it after that.

[Blues1]

Ok, ok, I get it...another playoff thread, but my solution is the perfectest solution evar.;) From my blog (http://desert-sapper.bloghi.com/):

So now we wait. The bowls start next week, but is the Poinsettia Bowl really something we just can't miss? This wait is what prompts so many to start arguing the merits of a playoff system, and I can't say that I necessarily disagree.

The bowls have a brilliant history, marked by great games, great tradition, pageantry, and more. They represent the greatness of allowing so many teams to end their season with a win, and 5 teams as BCS Bowl game winners (with one winning the 'national championship' on the field after a game of #1 in the polls vs. #2 in the polls).

The playoffs have a history, as well. A history in what was once called Division 1AA football (now called the 'Football Championship Subdivision' or FCS). There, the teams lineup, just as in every professional league, for a playoff, that ends with a championship on the field.

The FCS has a true champion, but no pageantry. Arguably, the FBS (formerly known as Division 1A) is exactly the opposite. All pageantry, but missing a true champion at the end.

Sure, LSU and Ohio State deserve to play for the championship. Arguably, so do all the other conference champions this year. Nobody has really stood head and shoulders above the rest this year. So here we are in the age old argument. Playoffs v. Bowls.

Some have said they can coexist. Have the bowls, then play a 'plus 1' game. That sounds nifty, but what happens when we have a year like this?

Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, USC, and even West Virginia and Hawaii have a claim for a shot at the title. So who gets to play in the 'plus one'? The winner of Ohio State-LSU, I'm guessing. Maybe the winner of OU-West Virginia. But if USC, Hawaii, and Va Tech all win, then what? They're all conference champs. They all have similar win-loss records (only Hawaii is undefeated). So you have 5 teams that all deserve to play in the 'plus one' and you get the same beauty pageant that you have right now. Two will play. Three will be left to flap in the breeze.

So I say this.

Keep the bowls. Yes, keep them. But have a playoff, too. Make the decision like this...

The champions of all Major Conferences are invited to play (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big XII, Big East, Pac 10).

Two at-large teams (who must be either independant or the champion of their respective conference) are invited to play.

The games are played at the home of the higher ranked team (based on the BCS poll). Two weeks of games seed the teams for the bowls, with the championship alternating among the four BCS sites. Games start after everyone takes their final. So you have something like this in 2007:

15 December 2007

Game 1 BYU (Mountain West Champs, BCS #17) @ Ohio State (Big 10 Champs, BCS #1)
Game 2 Hawaii (WAC Champs, BCS #10) @ LSU (SEC Champs, BCS #2)
Game 3 West Virginia (Big East Champs, BCS #9) @ Va Tech (ACC Champs, BCS #3)
Game 4 USC (Pac 10 Champs, BCS #7) @ Oklahoma (Big XII Champs, BCS #4)

22 December 2007

Game 5 BYU/tOSU winner v. USC/OU winner
Game 6 UH/LSU winner v. WV/Va Tech winner

1 January 2008

Game 5 loser v. Game 6 loser in Orange
Game 4 loser v. Game 2 loser in Fiesta
Game 3 loser v. Game 1 loser in Rose

2 January 2008

Game 5 winner v. Game 6 winner in Sugar

The pageantry continues, because the Major Bowl game matchups are decided before Christmas (also allowing hype).

You are only talking about 2 more games than what teams already play and the home crowds get to see an extra big matchup or two.

It won't mess with the bowl games we already have in the dead period (between 20 december and 1 January), except that you have two games in addition to the three bowls on that day (and the major networks get two big matchups to air).

It doesn't mess with the academic integrity, given most schools have finals before these playoffs would start.

Everyone still makes a ton of money and it is more evenly distributed (ie; no TWO BCS games for the BCS conferences...but the little guys get a shot at the dough if they manage to make it up high enough AND win their conference).

Fans get a real champion.

The end. My $2.50 ($.02 after taxes).

I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yaselves.

Sounds GOOD to me ....Lets Get Rockin' --- :)

[mdklatt]

So, the worst case scenario is the fear. That BYU, as the last team selected, gets hot, runs the boards, and runs the table. That would require them to beat #1 Ohio State in the Horseshoe, either USC in the Coliseum or OU in Norman, and then somebody in the Sugar Bowl. Tell me they wouldn't deserve it after that.

All games matter, not just the ones at the end of the season. Plus there's the real chance of having to play somebody you've already beaten once (or more) in a playoff situation. We already have that issue with conference championship games, but what if we had to play Missouri a third time? And what if they won? What does that prove? A playoff isn't guaranteed to determine the best team any more than the BCS is, but we grow up being told that it does just because that's the way it is. I don't think either method is objectively superior; they're just different. And that's okay with me.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

All games matter, not just the ones at the end of the season. Plus there's the real chance of having to play somebody you've already beaten once (or more) in a playoff situation. We already have that issue with conference championship games, but what if we had to play Missouri a third time? And what if they won? What does that prove? A playoff isn't guaranteed to determine the best team any more than the BCS is, but we grow up being told that it does just because that's the way it is. I don't think either method is objectively superior; they're just different. And that's okay with me.

If you take the conference champions you wouldn't have to play a team more than once unless they play in a conference champ game.

[TopDawg]

All games matter, not just the ones at the end of the season.

We're not talking about letting in a team with a sub-500 record. This is a team that won their conference and then beat 3 of the best teams in the nation. Why should BYU's losses at UCLA and at Tulsa mean more than LSU's losses at Kentucky and at home to Arkansas?


A playoff isn't guaranteed to determine the best team any more than the BCS is, but we grow up being told that it does just because that's the way it is.

It doesn't have to guarantee to determine the best team in order to be better than the BCS. To me, the fact that it allows the top teams at season's end to battle it out on the field makes it better. That's what made the BCS better than a playoff and it's what makes a playoff better than the BCS.

Yes, there are limits. I think too much is taken away from the regular season if the field is larger than 16 teams (in fact I think the best number is 8) and blah blah blah...that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[mdklatt]

Conference champs only, 4-8 teams, I'd buy that. But it's still not going to stop any message board meltdowns. I also think the logistics are going to be a bigger issue than people think, but I'm sure that can be worked out over time.

[Scott D]

to answer the topic header.

Because you Desert Sapper thought of it. :)

[Desert Sapper]

to answer the topic header.

Because you Desert Sapper thought of it. :)


http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/03/homer-doh.jpg
:D

[mizzOUstu702]

Conference champs only, 4-8 teams, I'd buy that. But it's still not going to stop any message board meltdowns. I also think the logistics are going to be a bigger issue than people think, but I'm sure that can be worked out over time.

I'd have to agree. A smaller field definitely makes it a little more exclusive. And the fact that it would be conference champs would rule out anybody that thinks they got snubbed out of the playoffs (i.e. Illinois and Kansas over Missouri for BCS, or ASU, etc.). But then you have the issue of the "Non-BCS" conferences--do they get a shot? Do the Hawaii's and Central Florida's get a shot in this playoff system?

There's also the larger problem of--like mdklatt said--the logistics. The BCS is all about the money. I understand that the current BCS bowl locations would be used for the second-tier playoff, but what about the teams that don't make those games? What about the "glorious" bowl system, and all sponsors like Chick-fil-A, Meineke, and Champs Sports that may not get some of those teams for their bowl. With the 16-team playoff, as suggested, teams like Florida and Tennessee wouldn't bring their fan bases and all their money to their respective bowls and would have to be replaced with weaker teams (if, like you say, the bowls with still stay).

Again, I think a playoff system is for the best, but I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because that's what the NCAA officials do when deciding these things.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Well, what about Georgia?

[Desert Sapper]

C'mon, people, read the post. I addressed all this. The Conference champs from the 6 major conferences and the 2 highest ranked teams (by BCS rules) that are also either independent (like ND) or conference champs of their respective conferences. In my model, Hawaii and BYU make the cut. This handles both the 'non-conference champion' problem and the problem of leaving the little guy (or the independant) out.

8 teams.

Home games for the higher seeded teams throughout.

Results determine which BCS bowls the 8 teams go to.

Fin.

[Desert Sapper]

Oh, and the other bowls are untouched. They still get 'Capital One Bowl Week', the Poinsettia Bowl, all that stuff. Why can't we do it?

[CORNholio]

Dude, BYU and other mid-majors do not deserve to play for a NC just for winning their conference and cruising through a soft schedule. If they do then I will petition OU to join the Sun-belt so they too can cruise through their schedule every year and make the playoffs for eternity just by fielding a team.

[CORNholio]

Come on, if all you need is to win your conference, then just watch as the 'smart traditional powers' flee to the inferior conferences or create their own conference with 7 of the local patsies.

[CORNholio]

I seriously don't think anybody out of the top 5 under any circumstance ever deserves to be considered for a NC. If you finish 1-5 it might be a matter of opinion who had the better team all year and could be settled by throwing down on the gridiron. If you finished outside the top5 then it is less about somebody's opinion and more about some serious flaw in your schedule or some embarrassing loss.

[SoonerLB]

Get rid of the conference championship games, turn the BCS into the BCCSC (Bowl Conference Champion Selection Committee), (is that whining I hear), and pick the bowls out of a hat to determine where the PLAYOFF games will be held! ;)

[MiccoMacey]

1) Does this model propose every conference have a conference championship game? If not, and it stayed the same way it currently is, your model is already broken. Missouri would be out, and that's only because they lost in a CCG which tOSU didn't have to play. Either all conferences have to have a CCG, or not one.

2) Can a conference have more than two teams in the race? If their weren't a conference championship game this year, and your model held true to form, the Big Twelve could have had OU, MU and KU since they were the top teams. based on the fact OU beat MU, they'd be conference champions, MU would be in because they were number one at the end of theseason, and KU could have been the second highest non-ranked team since Va Tech was the ACC champ and USC was the PAC-10 champ).

I love the idea of a playoff. But I like the idea of a four-loss team like Florida State from two years ago being invited to a playoff system just because they won a conference championship even less. Their would have been many other teams waaaaay more deserving to play that year than FSU. And FSU could have gotten hot at the end and won it all. A four loss team as your NC? No thank you. Leave that to March Madness.

[TUSooner]

OK by me. You're in charge; go for it.

[Desert Sapper]

Dude, BYU and other mid-majors do not deserve to play for a NC just for winning their conference and cruising through a soft schedule. If they do then I will petition OU to join the Sun-belt so they too can cruise through their schedule every year and make the playoffs for eternity just by fielding a team.

Whether they deserve to play for a NC would depend on how well they do playing away games at the best teams in the country. Their seeding would be based on polls, which would inevitably leave them playing away, rather than at home. They would have to earn it, ultimately.


I seriously don't think anybody out of the top 5 under any circumstance ever deserves to be considered for a NC. If you finish 1-5 it might be a matter of opinion who had the better team all year and could be settled by throwing down on the gridiron. If you finished outside the top5 then it is less about somebody's opinion and more about some serious flaw in your schedule or some embarrassing loss.

What if you have all 6 major conference champs undefeated (unlikely, but possible)? What if it was 5 (requiring more than a 4 team playoff)? We could have easily been undefeated. tOSU could have been easily undefeated. LSU could have been easily undefeated. WV could have been undefeated. USC could have been easily undefeated. Granted, nobody was this year, but c'mon. None of those teams played each other, would have been undefeated, and even a 4-team playoff would have ****ed somebody that was just as deserving as the rest. And who has a right to say that undefeated Hawaii doesn't deserve to settle it on the field?


1) Does this model propose every conference have a conference championship game? If not, and it stayed the same way it currently is, your model is already broken. Missouri would be out, and that's only because they lost in a CCG which tOSU didn't have to play. Either all conferences have to have a CCG, or not one.

Telling all the conferences to have championship games is probably never going to happen. It is, and always will be, the descretion of each conference. The model does not propose that, and it's not necessarily broken, and I'll tell you why. Missouri would be out, because they are not conference champs. Ohio State would be in, because they are. If the Big 10 wants to crown Ohio State, so be it. The only advantage they have in this model is home field advantage through the first two games, based on their BCS ranking. They would still have to win, against quality opponents, home or not, to reach the championship.


2) Can a conference have more than two teams in the race?

No. I already addressed this. Either you are a conference champ or an independant. Seeding is based on BCS ranking. The highest ranked conference champs or independants would play.


I love the idea of a playoff. But I like the idea of a four-loss team like Florida State from two years ago being invited to a playoff system just because they won a conference championship even less. Their would have been many other teams waaaaay more deserving to play that year than FSU. And FSU could have gotten hot at the end and won it all. A four loss team as your NC? No thank you. Leave that to March Madness.

If the problem is a four-loss team getting hot enough to beat the top teams in the country in their house, I'll personally crown the hell out of that team. The example you mention, the 2005 Seminoles, that were ranked 22 in the final BCS poll and lost to Penn State in the Orange Bowl, likely wouldn't have made it past the first round in the Coliseum vs. #1 USC.

What 2005 would have looked like:

Round 1

Game 1 FSU (8-4, ACC Champs, BCS #22) @ USC (12-0, Pac 10 Champs, BCS #1)
Game 2 TCU (10-1, Mountain West Champs, BCS #14) @ Texas (12-0, Big XII Champs, BCS #2)
Game 3 West Virginia (10-1, Big East Champs, BCS #11) @ Penn State (10-1, Big 10 Champs, BCS #3)
Game 4 UGA (10-2, SEC Champs, BCS #7) @ Notre Dame (9-2, Independant, BCS #6)

Round 2

Game 5 FSU/USC winner v. UGA/ND winner
Game 6 TCU/UT winner v. WV/PSU winner

1 January 2006

Game 5 loser v. Game 6 loser in Sugar
Game 4 loser v. Game 2 loser in Orange
Game 3 loser v. Game 1 loser in Fiesta

2 January 2008

Game 5 winner v. Game 6 winner in Rose


My guess is that nothing would have really changed that year. suc and saxet would have played for the championship.

[stuckinlubbock]

While we are at it why don't we just move the FCS title game up a week (app st/delware st play for title tonight I believe) and then have the winner of that in the mix too. It could be football's version of the play-in game! App State fans would think that was HOT! HOT! HOT!

[Curly Bill]

Besides the flaws pointed out by some others on here, I have another, and this is the big hurdle: college presidents are for right now...not in favor of a playoff.

...so, all of you that have your version of a playoff system, tell us how you plan to address that important issue. Tell us how you are going to get the college presidents on your side, then tell us about your system.

DISCLAIMER: I don't care if we get a playoff or keep the system we have...
...both will have their flaws.

[Desert Sapper]

Besides the flaws pointed out by some others on here, I have another, and this is the big hurdle: college presidents are for right now...not in favor of a playoff.

...so, all of you that have your version of a playoff system, tell us how you plan to address that important issue. Tell us how you are going to get the college presidents on your side, then tell us about your system.

DISCLAIMER: I don't care if we get a playoff or keep the system we have...
...both will have their flaws.

It's flawless, I tell you. :D

And the big 'concern' of college presidents is that it would interfere with finals. Our players took their finals this week and last week so they can get out to AZ. Tell me how playing either a home or away game this weekend would cause any problems with the early finals that student-athletes already have to take.

I'm guessing the real concern is $$. The 'college presidents' don't weigh in nearly as heavily as the conference leadership does. Taking the potential of a second team in the BCS away from the BCS conferences takes potential money out of their coffers. That is why no playoff will ever happen unless it gives an unfair advantage to the BCS conferences.

I'm not talking about why it won't happen, just why it won't work. Stick to the topic, please. ;)

[CORNholio]

What if you have all 6 major conference champs undefeated (unlikely, but possible)? What if it was 5 (requiring more than a 4 team playoff)? We could have easily been undefeated. tOSU could have been easily undefeated. LSU could have been easily undefeated. WV could have been undefeated. USC could have been easily undefeated. Granted, nobody was this year, but c'mon. None of those teams played each other, would have been undefeated, and even a 4-team playoff would have ****ed somebody that was just as deserving as the rest. And who has a right to say that undefeated Hawaii doesn't deserve to settle it on the field?


If there are 6 undefeated teams and your team is ranked as the number 6 team then there is likely substantial evidence that your team is in fact a "paper tiger" and has an inflated record distorting its true measure. (Hawaii I'm looking at you)
Atleast enough glaring evidence for even the average voter to recognize. Top 4 or 5. Thats it. That ensures that the regular season is not comprimised. (Teams would still have to play near perfect in the regular season to get a shot). And all the people in the world who think that playoffs are the freaking holy grail will finally STFU, atleast until they start to whine about needing a bigger tournament. (It really never stops)

[Leroy Lizard]

Our players took their finals this week and last week so they can get out to AZ. Tell me how playing either a home or away game this weekend would cause any problems with the early finals that student-athletes already have to take.


I've already addressed this in another thread. On many campuses, professors are not allowed to give final exams at any time outside the designated week without written permission from the Dean. I know this because I was a prof and had this issue come up many times. If I wanted, I could simply tell the players that they will have to join up with the rest of the team once they finish their exams. In fact, that is exactly what I would have told them.

So it often isn't up to the discretion of the players nor can the athletic department do a damn thing about it. At least on some campuses. Not sure about OU, which has a stronger athletic department presence on campus.

Those players that have to take a final exam a week earlier are at a huge disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the class, so it's not even a good idea. They have one less week to prepare, and they also miss the designated no-new-lesson week set aside for test preparation. I cannot believe that anyone would think that taking such an important exam a week early is a good idea, especially for student-athletes who are often behind academically.

[MiccoMacey]

Leroy,

Our guys have already taken their exams. In fact, most universities are done by now. You would have no need to tell someone to stay at home, because they are already through with their exams. I think that's the point he was making...it's in the "dead period" after exams are through that these playoffs start. At least if I understood him correctly.

Sapper (and the Kaisons go rolling along...),

I'm all for a playoff. Only the top four of the BCS. However you want to determine it. Only the top four.

Yeah, every year team #5 is going to bellyache about "our team should be number four instead". Boo-hoo. No matter where you make the cutoff, the next team will b!tch and moan about being more deserving than the guy right above him.

Any more than four, and you truly will have teams that have four losses win the NC. That's disgusting to me. They just got hot. Their "season" as a whole is discounted. For me, an 8-4 team has no merit and is not deserving of playing for it all. Period. End of discussion. I will stop watching college football if that ever happened.

This way, the conference championships can still be meaningfull (even if you don't make the top four, you're the conference champion...that's a pretty significant accomplishment). But you don't automatically get a shot because you win your sorry-*** conference with an 8-4 record. This is where we completely disagree with each other (not surprising...I'm more of an infantry guy myself ;)).

[Scott D]

here's the problem.

Your top 4 will get whined into a top 8, the top 8 will get whined into a top 16, the top 16 will get whined into a top 32, the top 32 will eventually get whined into a top 64.

Now what you've ended up with is how we got the current format for the NCAA basketball tournament. Bowls have become completely irrelevant, and now every team that was a losing team goes to Bowl games and nobody notices because the NCAA found a way to screw everyone over to make sure they get 80% of the $$$$.

[Desert Sapper]

Leroy,

Our guys have already taken their exams. In fact, most universities are done by now. You would have no need to tell someone to stay at home, because they are already through with their exams. I think that's the point he was making...it's in the "dead period" after exams are through that these playoffs start. At least if I understood him correctly.

You nailed it. That's exactly what I was saying. Most of the student-athletes (that have something going on post-season) have already taken their finals.


I'm more of an infantry guy myself ;)).

I actually think top 4 is acceptable, but I'd be leery about a non-conference champ getting a go at the title. This year wouldn't matter. The top 4 BCS teams also happen to be conference champs. Not so in most years (the most notable example is in 2006, when the top 4 BCS teams were the winner and runner-up in the Big 10 and SEC, respectively - blech). So, we may not disagree as much as you think, and that's not that surprising. Engineers have a secondary mission...

...to fight as infantry.

We even have white in our colors to represent our shared heritage and mission with the queen of battle.

[Leroy Lizard]

Our guys have already taken their exams. In fact, most universities are done by now.

"Most" doesn't cut it.

If you can schedule games so that games are not played during or the week before a university's final exam period then it isn't much of an issue. You can't offer a bowl game as proof that a playoff game would work. Our bowl game isn't until after January.


You would have no need to tell someone to stay at home, because they are already through with their exams.

Final exams ended yesterday, the 14th. If a student-athlete is in my class and the final exam is scheduled on the 14th, that is when he is taking it.

Now, if your playoff scheme can accommodate that, that would be one thing. I have other reasons to oppose a playoff, but don't tell me that your scheme is going to have me handing out final exams early. Not gonna' do it.

This means that a playoff game could not have been played today (the 15th). Next week, the 22nd, would be okay, but if you are planning on playing another round the following week no one will show up.


I think that's the point he was making...it's in the "dead period" after exams are through that these playoffs start. At least if I understood him correctly.

How are you going to get all the games played before the next semester begins?


I'm all for a playoff. Only the top four of the BCS. However you want to determine it. Only the top four.

Yeah, every year team #5 is going to bellyache about "our team should be number four instead". Boo-hoo. No matter where you make the cutoff, the next team will b!tch and moan about being more deserving than the guy right above him.

So we will end up with an eight-team playoff, then a 16-team playoff.

A four-team playoff wouldn't bother me that much. (Although I think the bowl committees would howl, and for good reason.) But if you are demanding a four-team playoff, you are in essence demanding a 16-team playoff. If you get one, you will get the other. Of that there is little doubt. I oppose all playoffs because I am opposed to a 16-team playoff. Anyone that opposes a 16-team playoff but wants a four-team playoff doesn't understand human nature and has no clue about the history of sports.

[jrsooner]

If you take the conference champions you wouldn't have to play a team more than once unless they play in a conference champ game.Then you may be taking a team that's has just 6 wins (in a wimpy conference) over a a few teams that only have 1 or 2 losses. The media heads would be complaining up a storm, just like they do now.

[jrsooner]

And all the people in the world who think that playoffs are the freaking holy grail will finally STFU, atleast until they start to whine about needing a bigger tournament. (It really never stops)Just like a kid at Christmas time... every commercial they see with a new toy they have to have since it was better than the previous commercial that had the best toy that they just have to have! :)

[Desert Sapper]

Then you may be taking a team that's has just 6 wins (in a wimpy conference) over a a few teams that only have 1 or 2 losses. The media heads would be complaining up a storm, just like they do now.
Name a conference champ with just 6 wins, especially in a 'wimpy conference'.

[jrsooner]

Name a conference champ with just 6 wins, especially in a 'wimpy conference'.It's a possible scenario...counting each out of conference game a loss.

Remember, since you're only counting conference champions, then the out of conference games do not matter, so why bother even playing them. Unless USAtoday got their win/loss conference records wrong (not unfathomable) There are 4 conferences with the top teams only having 6 conference wins to their name.

Big East:
West Virginia 5-2
Connecticut 5-2

MAC:
east Division
Bowling Green 6-2
west Division
Cent. Michigan 6-1

Sun Belt:
Troy 6-1
Florida Atlantic 6-1

SEC:
east Division
Georgia 6-2
Tennessee 6-2
west Division
LSU 6-2

[Leroy Lizard]

Remember, since you're only counting conference champions, then the out of conference games do not matter, so why bother even playing them.

Good point. A team could lose every out-of-conference game and still be no worse off than any other team for getting into the playoffs. It could even lose two or three conference games and still play.

[Desert Sapper]

It's a possible scenario...counting each out of conference game a loss.

Remember, since you're only counting conference champions, then the out of conference games do not matter, so why bother even playing them. Unless USAtoday got their win/loss conference records wrong (not unfathomable) There are 4 conferences with the top teams only having 6 conference wins to their name.

Big East:
West Virginia 5-2
Connecticut 5-2

MAC:
east Division
Bowling Green 6-2
west Division
Cent. Michigan 6-1

Sun Belt:
Troy 6-1
Florida Atlantic 6-1

SEC:
east Division
Georgia 6-2
Tennessee 6-2
west Division
LSU 6-2

Possible as it might be, you haven't named a conference champ that was 6-6. You've named conference champs with 6 conference wins. Nice try.:rolleyes:

My point to having conference champs is that then you don't have the problem of someone being named national champion that didn't even win their own conference. Football is not like basketball. One guy getting hot won't win a national title. If the team gets hot and survives a gauntlet of 'better teams', they deserve to be champions. More so than somebody that is arbitrarily picked as #1 beating somebody that is arbitrarily picked as #2 or vice versa.

Using the worst team to make a BCS bowl so far, the 2005 FSU Seminoles (by virtue of winning the ACC at 8-4) as a model, they would have been 10-4 and playing for a MNC if they got hot enough to beat SC in the coliseum that year, plus somebody else in an away game, before facing somebody just as hot and probably more talented in the Orange Bowl. The field would dictate the champion, not the votes.

Again, if a 6 win team were to ever make it to the title game (having 8 wins when they get there), they would have earned it in the two playoff games before the title game. My SWAG is that the likelihood of the bottom seed winning the title game would be about the likelihood of a Wild Card winning the Super Bowl (8 teams have made it and 4 teams have won it in 41 years -- doesn't seem so bad to me). Again, I think at that point, just like the teams that made and/or won the Super Bowl, they will have earned it by the time they win it.

[MiccoMacey]

Final exams ended yesterday, the 14th. If a student-athlete is in my class and the final exam is scheduled on the 14th, that is when he is taking it.

Now, if your playoff scheme can accommodate that, that would be one thing. I have other reasons to oppose a playoff, but don't tell me that your scheme is going to have me handing out final exams early. Not gonna' do it.

No offense Leroy, but you're coming off kind of petty. There is no academic reason why the NCAA can't institute the playoff dates as early as today (or earlier) other than because YOU (and presumably your staff) decide you aren't going to budge on a finals date. Your choice to hold tight to a completely arbitrary rule has absolutely no academic reasoning, other than it is a good control measure for those who give out the tests. If the university presidents decide to go the route of a playoff, your completely arbitrary rule wll go by the wayside. As it should.

I would be on your side if your rule had academic value to do so, but that's not the case. You can't tell me letting student athletes take a test early (or even scheduling tests a week earlier) is academically unsafe to them. I've been a teacher for way too long to buy that.



So we will end up with an eight-team playoff, then a 16-team playoff.

A four-team playoff wouldn't bother me that much. (Although I think the bowl committees would howl, and for good reason.) But if you are demanding a four-team playoff, you are in essence demanding a 16-team playoff. If you get one, you will get the other. Of that there is little doubt. I oppose all playoffs because I am opposed to a 16-team playoff. Anyone that opposes a 16-team playoff but wants a four-team playoff doesn't understand human nature and has no clue about the history of sports.

It's my playoff system...and in my perfect world, it'll stay at four. :)


We see eye to eye on this more than you think. I, too, am opposed to a 16-team playoff system. I'm even opposed to an eight-team playoff system. And I understand both human nature and sports history (two classes I did well at in school :D) and how those two usually combine to drag down what they intend to create.

All I can say for sure is that I believe anything larger than a four-team playoff starts to water down the reason for having a playoff system in the first place. Any argument to expand to a larger number of teams invited can be made until you include every team. A 110 team playoff will get the 111th team to start griping how it belongs as well.

[frankensooner]

Can't you people post in the new threads instead of dragging up these old ones? ;)

[MiccoMacey]

Couldn't you have asked me this in one of the new threads instead of this old one? ;)

[Desert Sapper]

Can't you people post in the new threads instead of dragging up these old ones? ;)

No.:D

[jrsooner]

Possible as it might be, you haven't named a conference champ that was 6-6. You've named conference champs with 6 conference wins. Nice try.:rolleyes: That's my point. You can lose every game on the schedule except for 6 games in your conference in your playoff system. All games do not count in a playoff system, just the few that you play in your conference. Admit, no system is perfect, IF they ever go to a playoff system, I'd want them to draw their opponents out of a hat, rather than this "best team" plays the "worst team" bit. Why give an "unfair" advantage to the higher rank team. At this point of the season in a playoff system, the games and ranking do not matter anymore, hence they shouldn't receive preferential treatment.

[Desert Sapper]

Admit, no system is perfect, IF they ever go to a playoff system, I'd want them to draw their opponents out of a hat, rather than this "best team" plays the "worst team" bit. Why give an "unfair" advantage to the higher rank team. At this point of the season in a playoff system, the games and ranking do not matter anymore, hence they shouldn't receive preferential treatment.

You've totally lost me at this point...

Getting a higher seed would be the point of the entire season (in addition to the current quest for a bowl game). If you are perfect or near enough to it, and are a conference champ, you would get a pretty easy team in the first round. It's sort of the way athletic tournaments work. Look it up.;)

[Leroy Lizard]

No offense Leroy, but you're coming off kind of petty. There is no academic reason why the NCAA can't institute the playoff dates as early as today (or earlier) other than because YOU (and presumably your staff) decide you aren't going to budge on a finals date.

Why should I bend my rules to accommodate your silly playoff scheme? Your desire to have a "true champion" is your problem, not mine.


Your choice to hold tight to a completely arbitrary rule has absolutely no academic reasoning, other than it is a good control measure for those who give out the tests. If the university presidents decide to go the route of a playoff, your completely arbitrary rule wll go by the wayside. As it should.

You obviously do not understand how universities operate. I don't care if Boren wants me to give preferential treatment for athletes. He isn't getting it. And there is nothing Boren can do about it.


I would be on your side if your rule had academic value to do so, but that's not the case.

Academic value:

1. Fairness. Certain students cannot skirt the rules so they can party in Phoenix while the others have to freeze their tail off in Norman.

2. Cheating. Allowing students to take final exams at different times opens the possibility up for cheating. (And no, I am not going to create a special test for athletes just so that you can have your silly playoff games, although I am sure that was your solution to this dilemma.)

3. Study time. Taking exams early reduces the time available for studying.

4. University regulations. I have to turn in grade sheets by a specified date. Final exams have to be completed before I can do so. That is a departmental rule.


You can't tell me letting student athletes take a test early (or even scheduling tests a week earlier) is academically unsafe to them.

Let me ask you question: Many universities institute a week-long no-new-content rule so that students can study for content that will be on the final exam. Some universities even hold a dead week on the week before final exams.

Why?

I cannot understand why the university would bother instituting such policies, while at the same advocating that taking a final exam a week early is no big deal.

Taking an exam early reduces the time available for studying for the exam. That is as close to "unarguable" as you can get, but you will somehow try to argue against it. Go ahead and try.

[jrsooner]

You've totally lost me at this point...
Getting a higher seed would be the point of the entire season (in addition to the current quest for a bowl game). If you are perfect or near enough to it, and are a conference champ, you would get a pretty easy team in the first round. It's sort of the way athletic tournaments work. Look it up.;)I know that's the way some of the tournaments work, it's always been my opinion that it's stacking the deck in favor of the higher ranking team. I feel that if you are supposedly the "better" team, then it shouldn't matter who you play 2nd seed, 3rd seed, ... 15th seed, 16th seed. Let's not give them an easy road, make them work for it. Any true champion shouldn't want to take the easy road. ;)

[MiccoMacey]

That is as close to "unarguable" as you can get, but you will somehow try to argue against it. Go ahead and try.

Man, I would have loved to have a good discussion with you, but you don't seem interested. Not sure why you chose that road...we'll just disagree to disagree.

[Leroy Lizard]

So you are disagreeing with the following statement?

"Taking an exam early reduces the time available for studying for the exam."

Is that a correct statement, yes or no? Don't weasel out, answer the question.

[sooner KB]

Desert Sapper,

1. Instead of taking the conference champion from each conference, take the team with the best conference record from each conference. If two teams have the same record and didn't play each other, take the highest ranked team.

This just isn't fair when you have conference championship games. Why should these games, which not all conferences have, have so much of an impact on who plays for the title? We all know the winner of a conference championship game is not always the best team in a conference.

What if OU went undefeated, and then lost to a 7-4 Nebraska (who we already beat in the season) by a last second FG in a game where Bradford was hurt. Now say OU is the only one loss team. That means that a #1 ranked OU would NOT make it to an 8-team playoff system, and a #20 Nebraska team WOULD.

In this case, OU would go because they had the best record. The Big XII Championship Game would only serve as just that, a conference champ game, not a game that single-handley determines who gets to play for a title. For determining who plays in the playoffs, the game is just looked at as "just another game."

Sorry, but any system where a #1 team could get left out of an 8-team playoff is just unacceptable.

2. Change the two at-large teams to be completely at-large teams. Get rid of the "conference champ or ind" rule and just put in the highest AP or BCS teams. If a BYU or Boise St. is good enough to play for the title, they would be ranked high enough to be included anyways, so why have this rule?

If this system was used this year, Georgia and Kansas would be in instead of BYU and Hawaii. The most controversial thing would be Kansas getting in and Hawaii getting left out. This would be only be a minor controversy, as Kansas is ranked higher in both the AP and BCS. This is much better than the controversy that BYU gets in over Georgia. (The AP #4 vs. a team that is not even ranked in the AP top 25).

And yes, Kansas would get in over UM, but this is only because the Big XII has a CCG. They could get rid of the game to prevent things like this happening. And keep in mind Mizzou doesn't get in with desert's plan either, so this isn't really an issue.