Post your Playoff Formula ideas

[fadada1]

for entertainment only, but maybe we could submit it to someone who cares after this thread reaches 30-40 pages :D

1- keep the precious BCS rankings. heaven forbid we drop this gem.

2- toss out conference tie-ins. every conference has an equal shot of being there. yes, even you BigEast.

3- all conferences play a championship game. if it means adding teams to get to 12 in a conference, so be it. yes, notre dame, that means you. it's time to stop being self rightous and get your asses into the Big10. so, you get 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games (i suggest you use these wisely - i'm talking to you, auburn and k-state).

4- top 8 team IN THE BCS RANKINGS at the end of the season (including conference championship games) get into the playoff. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE 6 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS +2 OUTSIDERS, THIS MEANS THE TOP 8 TEAMS... PERIOD!!!! if you don't like it, play better or get out of the sucky big east conference. if boise state finishes in the top 8, good for them.

5a- top 4 seeds get home games. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5. hey, we're going to reward you for playing good football.

OR 5b- keep the seeding and make the 4 BCS bowls (orange, etc...) the first round of games. the only problem i have with this is travel for fans. too much travel for the winners' fan base in the final 3 games.

6- rotate the NATIONAL SEMI-FINALS and NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP from year to year/locations to location. don't call it some cheesy name like the "college football superbowl" or something like that. the "National Semi Final" will do just fine.

7- all other bowl games with remain intact and just as meaningless as they do now. i know, they're fun and all, but do we really need the poulan weedeater bowl anymore?

8- just for good measure, if anyone mentions the words "heisman trophy" before november 1, they will be shot on sight.


thoughts/comments

[BermudaSooner]

How about we keep it like it is, so that I get pissed when TCU loses, and elated when Cincy pulls it out in overtime.

That pain I had leaving the Cotton Bowl this year was awful, but last year it was an awesome feeling. Add a playoff and it doesn't matter that much.

Besides, it is fun to see Petey whine like a baby.

[StoopTroup]

fadada...I think your onto something....LMAO @ #1. :D

[MiccoMacey]

Top four only.

No matter how many you include, their will always be one or two who swear they deserve it more. Pick your top four and have your playoff.

Anything past the top four, and you've watered down the bracket too much.

[8timechamps]

I agree with your formula.

It's very close to what I was saying earlier in the season. A writer for The Sporting News had almost the same one.

I like the idea of the top four seeds getting home games, then use the current BCS bowl structure to play out the remaining games.

I'd get rid of all conference title games though. This would eliminate "useless" title games (i.e. WAC, MWC, etc. from having a title game with the winner going to a not-so-impressive bowl). That way, the respective conference champs would be able to go to better bowls (eliminate the conference tie-ins, and allow conference champs to go to better bowls...for example, say Colorado State won the MWC title, they would be able to look forward to a better game, rather than the Las Vegas Bowl).

Until there is a playoff system in place, we'll always be saying "the BCS is screwed up".

I do think we are closer now than ever.

[SoonerinSouthlake]

President Elect Obama will think of something to save us from this BCS mess too.

Sorry to bring in political humor...couldnt resist.

[Curly Bill]

Get rid of the BCS mess and we'll have a playoffs mess, playoffs wouldn't be better, they'd just be different.

[Fraggle145]

How about we keep it like it is, so that I get pissed when TCU loses, and elated when Cincy pulls it out in overtime.

That pain I had leaving the Cotton Bowl this year was awful, but last year it was an awesome feeling. Add a playoff and it doesn't matter that much.

Besides, it is fun to see Petey whine like a baby.


Top four only.

No matter how many you include, their will always be one or two who swear they deserve it more. Pick your top four and have your playoff.

Anything past the top four, and you've watered down the bracket too much.

No matter what someone is going to whine... at least this way all of the other games matter. I never would have cared before about TCU and BYU, and with a playoff I probably wouldnt. At the most 4.

[John Kochtoston]

No playoff, but instead, a true Plus-1 system.

Here's how it would work:

The BCS would add a fifth bowl game, most likely the Cotton (I think this may already be in the works).

The six BCS conferences would send their conference champions to the bowls in this manner:

Rose: Big-10 v. Pac-10
Fiesta: At-Large v. At-Large
Cotton: Big 12 v. At-Large
Sugar: SEC v. At-Large
Orange: ACC v. either At-Large or Big East Champ, if the OB wants to tie itself to the Big East (there are arguments either way)

The At-Large teams are determined as they are now, with two exceptions:
1) If a non-BCS school earns an AL berth by being ranked in the Top 14, or Top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champion, then a conference may send three teams to the BCS.
2) Notre Dame must qualify for a slot as a non-BCS conference school does (finish in the Top 14 or Top 16 ahead of a BCS champion)

Each conference can determine it's automatic qualifier as it sees fit.

After the bowl games, a final BCS poll is conducted, with the top two teams meeting for the title at one of the five Bowl sites.

Pros: All five bowls could potentially have meaning. In a semifinal-final scenario, only three (at best) bowls would have meaning.

Only one additional game, making the regular season extremely meaningful.

Each contender would have to play at least one game against a meaningful opponent. This would prevent an undefeated Big East champion from getting involved in a debate as to their value. If they are really good, and it's not their fault they play in a weak conference, they can prove it. If they ran the table because the table was wobbly, we'll know that, too.

Cons:

Not a true playoff. I don't think this is as bad as others do, but there it is anyway.

Still possible for more than two teams to lay a (legitimate) claim. Sure, but in pre-Coalition/Alliance/BCS days, it was extremely rare for three teams to lay claim to a national title AFTER the bowls. I'm sure it happened at some point during the modern era, but I struggle to remember when.

Tie-ins don't guarantee good matchups: True. But, I think the bowl structure, while not perfect, is actually preferable to a playoff. If we're going to keep it, however, the BCS bowls are going to want tie-ins for attendance purposes.

Fire away.

[fadada1]

JK,

aside from swiping the underhill's account number at the club, i think your scenerio would be more likely to happen first (over a true playoff). the only additional con is see (if we have another situation like this year) is leaving a Big12 south team, still ranked in the top 10, out of a BCS bowl when the big east and ACC are clearly inferior. I don't think it wise to have a 4 loss ACC champion in over a 1 or 2 loss SEC, Big12 team that has won some big games.

[BermudaSooner]

Cotton: Big 12 v. At-Large


Uhh, why does the Big XII get screwed with having to play in Dallas?

[Iam4OUru]

Leave it like it is.

[John Kochtoston]

JK,

aside from swiping the underhill's account number at the club, i think your scenerio would be more likely to happen first (over a true playoff). the only additional con is see (if we have another situation like this year) is leaving a Big12 south team, still ranked in the top 10, out of a BCS bowl when the big east and ACC are clearly inferior. I don't think it wise to have a 4 loss ACC champion in over a 1 or 2 loss SEC, Big12 team that has won some big games.

It's a fair point, but that's why I'm allowing for a third team from a particular conference, if a non-BCS school also gets in. There'd have to be four worthy teams from a conference to get someone screwed in that scenario, and I don't even think the Big 12 has four BCS worthy teams this season.


Uhh, why does the Big XII get screwed with having to play in Dallas?

I don't see how the Big 12 is getting screwed by playing 1) close to home and 2) in what is supposed to be in of the nicest stadiums in the world, when it's finished, but, whatever. If the Big 12 doesn't want to anchor itself, fine. I think it will though, to minimize travel costs for the champion team and to help provide for a "home-field" advantage for its champion it what could be the final step to a national title.

[JLEW1818]

Big 12 vs SEC

1 vs 1
2 vs 2
3 vs 3
..........

and screw everybody else

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Top four only.

No matter how many you include, their will always be one or two who swear they deserve it more. Pick your top four and have your playoff.

Anything past the top four, and you've watered down the bracket too much.

I agree. Though top 6 wouldn't be bad with the top 2 getting byes.

[hink4769]

4 team playoff

Get rid of conference championship games

Criteria for qualification
- Top 4 teams in BCS rankings that either won their conference outright or were co-conference champions (i.e. tied with 1 or more teams for the best record)
- For example, if Texas, OU, and Tech all finished the conference season 7-1, each would be eligible, if Tech finished 8-0, Texas and OU would not be eligible).
- Teams must play at least 9 games vs. other BCS schools (either in conference or OOC)
- No games vs. teams outside Div-Ia
- Notre Dame must join a conference to be eligible

In this particular year, if things play out they way people think they will (OU beating Tech and OSU), I would foresee a 4 team playoff Alabama, Florida, and two teams out of OU/Texas/Tech. Tech, in my opinion, should be the odd man out since they played a very weak OOC schedule including two teams not in Div-Ia.

Pros
This format would hopefully encourage teams to play difficult OOC schedules in order to separate themselves from other conference champions, creating more exciting beginning of the season matchups and helping to limit the number of undefeated or 1 loss teams.

Cons
Teams may still get left out (obviously this year the Tech/OU/Texas person left out would feel slighted), but hopefully this can be avoided by teams beefing up their scedules.
Teams may limit the effectiveness of the rule requiring 9 BCS schools by just trying to schedule the Baylors and Iowa State's of the world.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Take the top 12 teams, and give the top 4 a bye in the first round; u could still give automatic bids to the top 6 BCS conferences, then you have room for the next 6 in the rankings. Then, you have 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, and so on, then the top 4 teams play the 4 winners the next week, then you go from there; this could start in December and still end around New Year's Day

[MichiganSooner]

Conference championship games-let the leagues do what they want to do.
The top 8 get in. I don't care what conference they are from or how many from one conference; the top 8. How to pick the top 8? I guess the way they are picked now. Need to consider strength of schedule.

#8 plays at #1; 7 at #2; etc. These games are held the second weekend of December. Or better yet, the 1st weekend of December by starting the season a week earlier or doing away with a bye week.

All 8 of these teams continue on in the tournament even after losing; the tourney is held at the 4 major bowl sites. Winners advance to play winners at places like the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta. Losers advance to play each other at Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta sites not hosting winners. The national championship game played one week after this. This "preserves" the bowls; the top 8 teams in the nation are in these bowls even though 2 of the bowls are "loser bracket" bowls.

Every other team that would qualify to go to a bowl today, would still get to go to a bowl under this system. There would still be a Rose Parade and every other festivity that we have today. The sticking point is the Pac10/Big 10 Rose Bowl tie-in and the so-called big leagues like ACC and Big East would have to agree that maybe one of their team's are not deserving of being in the top 8 from time to time.

[hink4769]

Conference championship games-let the leagues do what they want to do.
The top 8 get in. I don't care what conference they are from or how many from one conference; the top 8. How to pick the top 8? I guess the way they are picked now. Need to consider strength of schedule.


In your format, I don't think a team that finishes the regular season in the top 8 should be forced to play in a CCG that could force them into a tumble out of the top 8 if they lose.

[MichiganSooner]

Good point so get rid of the CCG. If conferences are good enough to have mulitple teams in the top 8 the revenue coming to the league should be as good as it is now with a CCG.

Assuming the last games of the season were played yesterday and we are using the coaches poll we would have in the first round games the following.
Penn State at Alabama.
Utah at Texas Tech.
USC at Florida.
Texas at OU.

Winners and losers go on to play at the 4 current BCS sites. You have to like the matchups.

[hink4769]

If there was an 8 team playoff, I'd rather see the first round games held at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. This would both put more emphasis on regular season performance, and in my opinion would be more exciting than having games at neutral sites. Can you imagine how big a home playoff game in Norman would be? It would also prevent teams from having to hop around the country. The semi's and finals should be at neutral sites though.

[WildBlueSooner]

I for one am not sold on a playoff. It is a playoff every week right now. I do not want CFB to be like BB, where taking a couple games off is ok. Win all your games and you are golden.

[hink4769]

I for one am not sold on a playoff. It is a playoff every week right now. I do not want CFB to be like BB, where taking a couple games off is ok. Win all your games and you are golden.

Tell that to Auburn fans

[WildBlueSooner]

Auburn sucks!

[8timechamps]

For those arguing that a playoff would make regular season games "not as important":

If a playoff system is adopted, and lets say the top 8 are selected, that leaves little or no room for losses during the season. You'll continue to have the "BCS Busters" no matter how you change things. Teams like Utah, TCU and Boise play in weak conferences. They will always have good records (or someone from their conference will). So, a loss (let's just say) to Texas, wouldn't eliminate a good OU team from contending. Whereas a loss for a TCU, Utah and the likes would mean as much as it does now.

I've been a fan and a follower of D2 football for a long time. The best part of the year is the playoffs (and in this day and age, you can almost always watch it on TV). I don't know for a fact, but I am willing to bet that if you asked any player or coach on any D2 team if they can "take a game off", or if some games "aren't as important" because of the playoff system, I'm sure you'd be looked at like you had a third eye.

I don't buy the argument that should a playoff become reality in D1, games will not have the same importance. Can you imagine our Sooners going to Dallas for the RRR and feeling like it doens't really matter? Or a loss to Baylor would be not-so-bad because it doesn't really matter?!

[stoopified]

The most democratic and fairest method is simply put all league campions of the existing 11 conferences into the playoff.That way there doesn't have to be conference realignment.If Notre Dame,Navy,Amy and any other independents(are there any other?) who want to compete for the title have to join a conference or be left out..Under my plan it is entirely up to the conference as to how they crown their champion. After the regular season the conferences are rankes 1-11 and the bottom 6 play the first round,winners joining the other five teams in eight team playoff.

[WildBlueSooner]

I don't buy the argument that a playoff would somehow fix the problems of college football. Right now seasons are as exciting as I think they could be. And D2 is D2...that doesn't mean it will work for D1.

I just cant wait until they put in a playoff and after a few years people they realize that it is not any better. We shall see!

[WildBlueSooner]

And how could you possibly do a playoff with the conference champions. Everyone argues that a playoff will allow the best team in the country to win. Look at this year for example. The top 5 come from 2 confreres so only 2 of them would be in the playoff with 9 crap teams....doesn't make sense to me.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's like I always said: As soon as someone comes up with a playoff idea, the arguing begins.

No playoff idea will ever be fair, or even close to fair. So fans will never be satisfied.

[8timechamps]

And D2 is D2...that doesn't mean it will work for D1.



Of course it works for every other team sport on the planet, at every level except D1. Is D1 college football so mighty and complex that a playoff system could never work?

[hink4769]

It's like I always said: As soon as someone comes up with a playoff idea, the arguing begins.

No playoff idea will ever be fair, or even close to fair. So fans will never be satisfied.

I think the idea is find something that is better than what currently exists. It doesn't have to be perfect.

[Curly Bill]

Of course it works for every other team sport on the planet, at every level except D1. Is D1 college football so mighty and complex that a playoff system could never work?


...and therefore D1 football should do it too? That just doesn't make a great argument.

[Curly Bill]

I think the idea is find something that is better than what currently exists. It doesn't have to be perfect.

OK then, all you playoff guys settle on one system and submit it for approval. The fact everyone has their own idea on the way it should be done tells ya something.

[WildBlueSooner]

Of course it works for every other team sport on the planet, at every level except D1. Is D1 college football so mighty and complex that a playoff system could never work?

Yes college football that mighty and complex. Tell you what we can also do an NIT tournament in college football...it works for basketball. That would be sweet, watching a tournament of all the ****ty teams. It would be nice for OSU to get to play in a playoff though.

[Stitch Face]

I'm pro-playoff, buy anti-playoff thread.

[Fiatil]

My problem with the plus-1 system is that it still leaves for a lot of guess work.

Take last year for example. We have USC blowing out a 'meh' Illinois team, Georgia dominating Hawaii, and, as sad as it is to say, WVU making us look really bad. All 3 of them have a claim to make it to the plus 1, in addition to whatever the outcome of LSU and Ohio State would've had in different bowl games.

Just a simple take the top 4 or 8 in the BCS standings playoff system is about the best you can do; there's not a ton of guess work involved in it all.

[WildBlueSooner]

I dont understand how would picking the Top4 be easier that taking the top 2! You would have the same bitching as you do now, just at a different level.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know for a fact, but I am willing to bet that if you asked any player or coach on any D2 team if they can "take a game off", or if some games "aren't as important" because of the playoff system, I'm sure you'd be looked at like you had a third eye.

Appy State has won the last three titles. Last year they lost two games and still managed to win the title. The year before they lost one game. And the year before that they lost three. (Northern Colorado also lost three regular season games in 1996 and still won the national title.)

How often has the national champion in FBS lost three regular-season games?

[WildBlueSooner]

None...and I am glad! Perhaps that is a flaw with the playoff system!

[goodolesooner]

After every CCG has been played, the NCAA, and the coaches should all vote on the proper system for the situation at the time. It would be awesome! It'd be like the BCS selection show, only fair.

An "if necessary" system is the only thing that will satisfy all. Unfortunately, something this logical would never get mentioned.

Even herbie has said a +1 (if necessary) should be implemented, but I doubt he would be open to a system that puts whatever post season scenario that is necessary for each situation, each year.

This year, a final four AT LEAST would be necessary.

Someone will always get left out, no matter how many teams you have in a playoff.

In '03, a +1 was necessary. SC should've gotten a shot at LSU. Same thing in '04, only worse. You had 3 undefeated teams from major power conferences and one got left out just because there's only room for two. That is ridiculously unfair and should never happen again.

In '06, there should've been at least a final four, same for last year.

This year it seems that an 8 team playoff would be very necessary.

I'm sorry if this is all over the place. I just wanted to get my opinion in real quick and I don't have a lot of time. :)

[Curly Bill]

After every CCG has been played, the NCAA, and the coaches should all vote on the proper system for the situation at the time. It would be awesome! It'd be like the BCS selection show, only fair.

An "if necessary" system is the only thing that will satisfy all. Unfortunately, something this logical would never get mentioned.

Even herbie has said a +1 (if necessary) should be implemented, but I doubt he would be open to a system that puts whatever post season scenario that is necessary for each situation, each year.

This year, a final four AT LEAST would be necessary.

Someone will always get left out, no matter how many teams you have in a playoff.

In '03, a +1 was necessary. SC should've gotten a shot at LSU. Same thing in '04, only worse. You had 3 undefeated teams from major power conferences and one got left out just because there's only room for two. That is ridiculously unfair and should never happen again.

In '06, there should've been at least a final four, same for last year.

This year it seems that an 8 team playoff would be very necessary.

I'm sorry if this is all over the place. I just wanted to get my opinion in real quick and I don't have a lot of time. :)

You're kidding right?

[John Kochtoston]

My problem with the plus-1 system is that it still leaves for a lot of guess work.

Take last year for example. We have USC blowing out a 'meh' Illinois team, Georgia dominating Hawaii, and, as sad as it is to say, WVU making us look really bad. All 3 of them have a claim to make it to the plus 1, in addition to whatever the outcome of LSU and Ohio State would've had in different bowl games.

Just a simple take the top 4 or 8 in the BCS standings playoff system is about the best you can do; there's not a ton of guess work involved in it all.

Under the plus-1 scenario I outlined, LSU would have played Hawaii and Ohio State would have played USC last season. OU would have likely been in a Cotton Bowl game against Georgia, and Va. Tech would have played West Virginia in the Orange Bowl. The Fiesta would have been Kansas and Arizona State (though, in "my" hardly-original scenario that allows for three teams from one conference, Missouri would have been in the Fiesta v. Hawaii, Kansas in the Sugar vs. LSU and Arizona State would have been out). Illinois, one of the most undeserving BCS teams ever, would have been out, as no one but the Rose Bowl would have wanted them, and the Rose Bowl would already its Big 10-Pac 10 matchup.

So, in my fantasy land, it plays out thusly:
Rose: USC beats Ohio State
Fiesta: Missouri beats Hawaii
Cotton: OU beats Georgia (yeah, I'm a homer)
Sugar: LSU beats Kansas
Orange: West Virginia beats Virginia Tech

USC, OU, Missouri, West Virginia and LSU would have won a bowl game and have the same record. I think Missouri can be eliminated from contention, since they lost twice to one of the other teams. Then, yeah, you've got a bit of a mess, and it would depend on the computers and votes.

Three things, though:
1) Those voters and computers would now have one additional comparison game between elite teams to make.
2) If those four teams all won, then the best argument for the title game would have been OU/LSU.
If Va. Tech beats West Virginia, then it's LSU/Va. Tech. Those teams were 2 LSU) 3 (Va. Tech) and 4 (OU) going in.
3) Last year was, I think, a bit of an out lier. I don't think you'll see that much parity, especially after the bowls, very often.

[SoonerMachine]

2007 BCS 8-team Playoff Formula:

1. After the regular season ends, rank the eleven D–1A conference champions by the BCS:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Ohio State – Big 10
#2 – LSU – SEC
#3 – Virginia Tech – ACC
#4 – OU – Big 12
#7 – USC – Pacific 10
#9 – West Virginia – Big East
#10 – Hawaii – WAC
#17 – BYU – Mountain West
#30 – UCF – Conference USA
(NR) – Central Michigan – MAC
(NR) – Florida Atlantic – Sun Belt

2. Select the six highest ranked conference champions:

#1 – Ohio State – Big 10
#2 – LSU – SEC
#3 – Virginia Tech – ACC
#4 – OU – Big 12
#7 – USC – Pacific 10
#9 – West Virginia – Big East

3. Select the two highest ranked at-large teams (conference or independent):

#5 – Georgia – SEC
#6 – Missouri – Big 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st Round:

#1 Ohio State hosts #9 West Virginia

#2 LSU hosts #7 USC

#3 Virginia Tech hosts #4 OU

#5 Georgia hosts #6 Missouri (at-large elimination game)*

2nd Round:

Highest rank hosts lowest rank

Second highest hosts third lowest

3rd Round:

Winners play in the national championship game.

*In the event an at-large team is an independent, then the 1st round will proceed as follows:

1st Round:

Highest rank hosts lowest rank
Second highest hosts seventh lowest
Third highest hosts sixth lowest
Forth highest hosts fifth lowest


Note: All bowl games remain, including invitations to the six teams eliminated prior to the championship.



Historical Examples:

1998

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Tennessee – SEC
#2 – Florida State – ACC
#5 – UCLA – Pacific 10
#6 – Texas A&M – Big 12
#9 – Wisconsin – Big 10
#10 – Tulane – Conference USA

At-Large Teams

#3 – Kansas State – Big 12
#4 – Ohio State – Big 10

1st Round:

#1 Tennessee hosts #10 Tulane

#2 Florida State hosts #9 Wisconsin

#5 UCLA hosts #6 Texas A&M

#3 Kansas State hosts #4 Ohio State (at-large elimination game)


1999

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Florida State – ACC
#2 – Virginia Tech – Big East
#3 – Nebraska – Big 12
#4 – Alabama – SEC
#7 – Wisconsin – Big 10
#12 – Marshall – MAC

At-Large Teams

#5 – Tennessee – SEC
#6 – Kansas State – Big 12

1st Round:

#1 Florida State hosts #12 Marshall

#2 Virginia Tech hosts #7 Wisconsin

#3 Nebraska hosts #4 Alabama

#5 Tennessee hosts #6 Kansas State (at-large elimination game)


2000

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – OU – Big 12
#2 – Florida State – ACC
#3 – Miami – Big East
#4 – Washington – Pacific 10
#7 – Florida – SEC
#14 – TCU – WAC

At-Large Teams

#5 – Virginia Tech – Big East
#6 – Oregon State – Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 OU hosts #14 TCU

#2 Florida State hosts #7 Florida

#3 Miami hosts #4 Washington

#5 Virginia Tech hosts #6 Oregon State (at-large elimination game)


2001

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Miami – Big East
#3 – Colorado – Big 12
#4 – Oregon – Pacific 10
#8 – Illinois – Big 10
#10 – Maryland – ACC
#13 – LSU – SEC

At-Large Teams

#2 – Nebraska – Big 12
#5 – Florida – SEC

1st Round:

#1 Miami hosts #13 LSU

#3 Colorado hosts #10 Maryland

#4 Oregon hosts #8 Illinois

#2 Nebraska hosts #5 Florida (at-large elimination game)


2002

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Miami – Big East
#2 – Ohio State – Big 10
#3 – Georgia – SEC
#6 – Washington State – Pacific 10
#7 – Oklahoma – Big 12
#14 – Florida State - ACC

At-Large Teams

#4 – USC – Pacific 10
#5 – Iowa – Big 10

1st Round:

#1 Miami hosts #14 Florida State

#2 Ohio State hosts #7 Oklahoma

#3 Georgia hosts #6 Washington State

#4 USC hosts #5 Iowa (at-large elimination game)


2003

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#2 – LSU – SEC
#3 – USC – ACC
#4 – Michigan – Big 10
#7 – Florida State – ACC
#9 – Miami – Big East
#10 – Kansas State – Big 12

At-Large Teams

#1 – OU – Big 12
#5 – Ohio State – Big 10

1st Round:

#2 LSU hosts #10 Kansas State

#3 USC hosts #9 Miami

#4 Michigan hosts #7 Florida State

#1 OU hosts #5 Ohio State (at-large elimination game)


2004

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – USC – Pacific 10
#2 – OU – Big 12
#3 – Auburn – SEC
#6 – Utah – Mountain West
#8 – Virginia Tech – ACC
#9 – Boise State – WAC

At-Large Teams

#4 – Texas – Big 12
#5 – California – Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 USC hosts #9 Boise State

#2 OU hosts #8 Virginia Tech

#3 Auburn hosts #6 Utah

#4 Texas hosts #5 California (at-large elimination game)


2005

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – USC – Pacific 10
#2 – Texas – Big 12
#3 – Penn State – Big 10
#7 – Georgia – SEC
#11 – West Virginia – Big East
#14 – TCU – Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#4 – Ohio State – Big 10
#5 – Oregon – Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 USC hosts #14 TCU

#2 Texas hosts #11 West Virginia

#3 Penn State hosts #7 Georgia

#4 Ohio hosts #5 Oregon (at-large elimination game)


2006

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Ohio State – Big 10
#2 – Florida – SEC
#5 – USC – Pacific 10
#6 – Louisville – Big East
#8 – Boise State – WAC
#10 – OU – Big 12

At-Large Teams

#3 – Michigan – Big 10
#4 – LSU – SEC

1st Round:

#1 Ohio State hosts #10 OU

#2 Florida hosts #8 Boise State

#5 USC hosts #6 Louisville

#3 Michigan hosts #4 LSU (at-large elimination game)

[hink4769]

Post was a bit long, but I think SoonerMachine's idea is good. I still wish we could do something the problems of the conferences with/without CCGs. Personally I would rather have all conferences drop the games rather than force them on those without it.

[goodolesooner]

You're kidding right?

There is no one particular scenario that would work for every season.

I mean, if you just completely turn things around and do away with the system you have now, you'd be ruining quite possibly one of the greatest sporting traditions of all time.

If you keep it, people are gonna grow more and more tired of the unfairness of what we have now.

Obviously it'll take much more thought than what I just put down. I'm just saying that simply implementing an 8 or a 16 team playoff system would not be the answer.

I could deal with a final four. A team or two would be left out, but it's way better than having the mess we're dealing with right now.

[shaun4411]

i have an idea. put the top 117 teams against each other in a 13 week tournament. let them choose their own ooc scheduloes, let the teams battle each other in conference. at the end of this tournament, the two highest teams play each other.

that will work right?

[WildBlueSooner]

Of course it works for every other team sport on the planet, at every level except D1. Is D1 college football so mighty and complex that a playoff system could never work?


i have an idea. put the top 117 teams against each other in a 13 week tournament. let them choose their own ooc scheduloes, let the teams battle each other in conference. at the end of this tournament, the two highest teams play each other.

that will work right?

Haha...did you think of that? :D

[8timechamps]

...and therefore D1 football should do it too? That just doesn't make a great argument.

Ifyou have read any of my previous posts on the playoff idea, you'd know that isn't my argument. That was a response to a Wild Blue Sooner saying that just because it works at the D2 level doesn't mean it would work at D1.


Here's what I know, the current system sucks. Just because it's been like this forever doesn't make it good. The BCS came about as a result of people wanting more that a MNC. Sure there will always be whining. The 66th team at the end of the NCAA basketball season whines because they didn't get in to the tournament. However, we (as fans) get to watch a true champion be crowned on the court....not because some sportswriter in podunk Idaho says so.

It'll be interesting to see how many anti-playoff Sooner fans change their minds should we get left out of the BCS title game because of Florida, a team we didn't even get a chance to play.

[8timechamps]

Yes college football that mighty and complex. Tell you what we can also do an NIT tournament in college football...it works for basketball. That would be sweet, watching a tournament of all the ****ty teams. It would be nice for OSU to get to play in a playoff though.

The thing about the NCAA tournament is that everybody gets a fair chance to win the title.

The current CFB system doesn't allow for that.

[8timechamps]

i have an idea. put the top 117 teams against each other in a 13 week tournament. let them choose their own ooc scheduloes, let the teams battle each other in conference. at the end of this tournament, the two highest teams play each other.

that will work right?


Works for Bosie State. Oh wait, they don't have a shot at playing in the title game. Oh well, too bad for them.:rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

Post deleted

[Leroy Lizard]

It'll be interesting to see how many anti-playoff Sooner fans change their minds should we get left out of the BCS title game because of Florida, a team we didn't even get a chance to play.

I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that I will not change my anti-playoff stance simply because MY team didn't get in. I fully believe that a playoff is a horrible idea and nothing that transpires this season is going to change that for one simple reason: I take into account the whole picture of what the spirit of college football means.

[Leroy Lizard]

2007 BCS 8-team Playoff Formula:

1. After the regular season ends, rank the eleven D–1A conference champions by the BCS:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – Ohio State – Big 10
#2 – LSU – SEC
#3 – Virginia Tech – ACC
#4 – OU – Big 12
#7 – USC – Pacific 10
#9 – West Virginia – Big East
#10 – Hawaii – WAC
#17 – BYU – Mountain West
#30 – UCF – Conference USA
(NR) – Central Michigan – MAC
(NR) – Florida Atlantic – Sun Belt

2. Select the six highest ranked conference champions:

#1 – Ohio State – Big 10
#2 – LSU – SEC
#3 – Virginia Tech – ACC
#4 – OU – Big 12
#7 – USC – Pacific 10
#9 – West Virginia – Big East

3. Select the two highest ranked at-large teams (conference or independent):

#5 – Georgia – SEC
#6 – Missouri – Big 12

According to this formula, an undefeated conference champion could still be left out. But probably the biggest reason for wanting a playoff is so that "every team gets a chance." If a team finishes undefeated and still doesn't get to compete in the playoffs, what chance did they really have?

[soonerpike697]

My idea is at the beginning of every season they tell you that if you want a guaranteed spot in the national championship, you have to go undefeated, and if you don't do that then all bets are off and chances are the country will be pissed but at least every game will matter. should more than two teams go undefeated then you better have played in a good conference, played a good out of conference schedule, or be Southern Cal who has a spot reserved as long as they go undefeated...

[soonerpike697]

I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that I will not change my anti-playoff stance simply because MY team didn't get in. I fully believe that a playoff is a horrible idea and nothing that transpires this season is going to change that for one simple reason: I take into account the whole picture of what the spirit of college football means.

I second that, everyone knows what you have to do to get in, GO UNDEFEATED, once you lose a game there are no guarantees and you really have no leg to stand on you're at the mercy of voters and a computer, you want to guarantee your spot RUN THE TABLE, if you can't do that you can't btich because you already knew what it was going to take to get in, if you get in with a loss it's all gravy...

[TMcGee86]

I think 8 teams waters down the regular season too much.

I just say top four play each other and add one game as teh championship game.

Only adds one week to schedule.

Doesn't water down the regular season at all.

Still leaves enough doubt to keep the people happy that like the argue about the system.

And prevents nearly all cries from undefeated teams left out because most years there will not be five legit undefeated teams.

"So simpo, I cuda tot of dat myself" -- MC Chris

[Curly Bill]

There is no one particular scenario that would work for every season.

I mean, if you just completely turn things around and do away with the system you have now, you'd be ruining quite possibly one of the greatest sporting traditions of all time.

If you keep it, people are gonna grow more and more tired of the unfairness of what we have now.

Obviously it'll take much more thought than what I just put down. I'm just saying that simply implementing an 8 or a 16 team playoff system would not be the answer.

I could deal with a final four. A team or two would be left out, but it's way better than having the mess we're dealing with right now.

How so? Please explain.

[Curly Bill]

I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that I will not change my anti-playoff stance simply because MY team didn't get in. I fully believe that a playoff is a horrible idea and nothing that transpires this season is going to change that for one simple reason: I take into account the whole picture of what the spirit of college football means.

Yup, we don't get in...oh well, should have beaten Texas.

[goingoneight]

1. Playoff

2. No orange teams allowed.

[goodolesooner]

How so? Please explain.

It's kinda tough to pick a champion when only two get a shot out of 3, sometimes 4 just as deserving teams.

Right now, it's basically a popularity contest. I don't like the thought of changing things up any more than you do, but it's gotta be done or we're gonna have an unrespected champion 90% of the time.

Everyone respects OU's 2000 title, even though many thought Miami should've played us instead of FSU.

Everyone respects the '05 title (Texas) because they were the only two, clear cut 1 and 2. They were the only undefeateds so obviously there was no need for any other games.

But when you have a handful of 1 loss teams, or in last year's case, 2 loss teams, you have to consider a small playoff. You say OU shouldn't have lost to Texas. Well, Texas shouln't have lost to Tech. USC shouldn't have lost to Oregon St. Florida shouldn't have lost to Ole Miss. Penn St. shouldn't have lost to Iowa. 1 of those teams, maybe two are gonna goto the NC game, and they lost a game they "shouldn't have."

The list goes on.

The only problem I have with a playoff is garbage teams from garbage, non bcs conferences getting a shot even though they play cupcake pansies all season.

There's too much parity in college football, mostly due to scholarship equality. In the age of parity, you have to have some sort of a playoff.

It would be different if the scholarship situation was like it was over a decade ago, but it's not.

[Curly Bill]

There's too much parity in college football, mostly due to scholarship equality. In the age of parity, you have to have some sort of a playoff.

Beyond your's and other's desire for a playoff this just isn't true. We don't have to have it, right now we don't, and for the forseeable future we won't.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Don't think it will ever happen

[OK2LA]

It's like I always said: As soon as someone comes up with a playoff idea, the arguing begins.

No playoff idea will ever be fair, or even close to fair. So fans will never be satisfied.

I don't remember you ever saying this before

[OK2LA]

i have an idea. put the top 117 teams against each other in a 13 week tournament. let them choose their own ooc scheduloes, let the teams battle each other in conference. at the end of this tournament, the two highest teams play each other.

that will work right?

That would never work

[goodolesooner]

Beyond your's and other's desire for a playoff this just isn't true. We don't have to have it, right now we don't, and for the forseeable future we won't.

I've been pro bcs, and anti playoff all of my life.

We do need a playoff, just not a full blown, 8 - 16 team playoff like some want.

Until then, we'll just get a bunch of what ifs.

I completely respect your opinion and passion to keep things the way they are. Bowl season is like an early Christmas to me. I love it. But just picking a few teams to goto the NC is not good enough when you have several others that are just as deserving.

Stoops was just like you and me not too long ago. Then he realized what the game has become and understands the need for a playoff.

[Curly Bill]

I've been pro bcs, and anti playoff all of my life.

We do need a playoff, just not a full blown, 8 - 16 team playoff like some want.

Until then, we'll just get a bunch of what ifs.

I completely respect your opinion and passion to keep things the way they are. Bowl season is like an early Christmas to me. I love it. But just picking a few teams to goto the NC is not good enough when you have several others that are just as deserving.

Stoops was just like you and me not too long ago. Then he realized what the game has become and understands the need for a playoff.

A playoff of any design will not cure the what ifs. It'll just give you possibly different ones then we currently get.

[Leroy Lizard]

OK2LA, go back to some of my older posts. This has long been one of my arguments.


I think 8 teams waters down the regular season too much.

I just say top four play each other and add one game as teh championship game.

Only adds one week to schedule.

Doesn't water down the regular season at all.


All four-team playoffs turn into eight-team playoffs. All eight-team playoffs turn into 16-team playoffs.

Why? Because disgruntled fans, tired of seeing their team miss the postseason, will demand it.

And yes, history bears me out. Check out the history of Div. 1AA playoffs and college basketball playoffs if you don't believe.

Baseball: Started out as an eight-team playoff, now 64 teams.
Basketball: Started out as an eight-team playoff, now 65 teams.
Div. 1AA football: Too lazy to look up, but I think it started out with six teams and is now 16

Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't go back. We WILL ultimately end up with a 16-team playoff if we adopt a playoff. That's just the way it works. And we will see three-loss teams winning the national title, just like in Div. 1AA.

Still in favor?

[goodolesooner]

A playoff of any design will not cure the what ifs. It'll just give you possibly different ones then we currently get.

You'll have a more clear cut champion.

[SoonerMachine]

According to this formula, an undefeated conference champion could still be left out. But probably the biggest reason for wanting a playoff is so that "every team gets a chance." If a team finishes undefeated and still doesn't get to compete in the playoffs, what chance did they really have?

An undefeated conference champion playing a reasonable non-conference schedule (i.e., the Castiglione way) would be included in this system. Unfortunately, the BCS offers no 'Cinderella' scenario...

[Curly Bill]

You'll have a more clear cut champion.

How so?

...and don't say just because.

[goodolesooner]

How so?

...and don't say just because.

I already told you.

You'll have all of, or at least the majority of the deserving teams playing for a shot instead of just two.

Again, there was no need for this in '05. That was pretty much the only year it wasn't needed.

[Curly Bill]

I already told you.

You'll have all of, or at least the majority of the deserving teams playing for a shot instead of just two.

Again, there was no need for this in '05. That was pretty much the only year it wasn't needed.

Who decides who's deserving and who's not?

[goodolesooner]

Who decides who's deserving and who's not?

I don't know. You tell me since you think only two should get a shot at the NC even when there's 5 other teams that are just as deserving.

[Leroy Lizard]

An undefeated conference champion playing a reasonable non-conference schedule (i.e., the Castiglione way) would be included in this system.

Schedules are made years in advance so there is no guarantee that what appears to be a quality OOC schedule now will turn out to be worth a damn four years from now.

Don't believe me? Check out Fresno State's OOC schedule. At the beginning of the season, everyone was touting it as super difficult. But Wisconsin has tanked, Rutgers has done nothing all year, and both Toledo and UCLA are horrible. Even if undefeated, there is a strong chance that Fresno State would not be chosen to participate in a playoff and through no fault of its own.

And you are also forgetting that schedule-making is a two-way street in college football. Boise State may want to schedule USC to play them, but USC doesn't have to accept (a common complaint of good teams from weak conferences).

[OU_Sooners75]

1. Rename the division D-1A!
2. Cut D-1A from 120 teams to 96 teams.
3. All teams must be a part of a conference to be eligible.
4. All conferences must have 8 teams.
5. All conference teams must play each other. No conference title games.
6. Each team will play 7 conference games and 4 non conference games.
7. 16 teams will make the playoff.
8. The champion of each conference will make the playoff. If on probation, the second place team will make the playoff instead.
9. An RPI type ranking system will be used to seed teams.
10. At-large teams will be the top 4 teams that are not conference champions. These teams will be seeded lower than all conference champs in respect to their RPI ranking.
11. 4 rounds will be played. A field of 16, field of 8, field of 4, field of 2.
12. The Champion will be determined on the field!
13. If the NCAA wishes, they could keep the the top 7 bowl locations for the round of 8, 4, and the championship games. The championship game will alternate between the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, and Cotton Bowls.
The first round games will be played at the home of the higher seeded teams.

Max number of games played, 14 for the two finalists.

[Leroy Lizard]

1. Rename the division D-1A!
2. Cut D-1A from 120 teams to 96 teams.
3. All teams must be a part of a conference to be eligible.
4. All conferences must have 8 teams.

Why did you spend so much time crafting a playoff scenario that has zero chance of ever even being considered (let alone adopted)?

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know. You tell me since you think only two should get a shot at the NC even when there's 5 other teams that are just as deserving.

The answer is pretty obvious: The current system has a combination of pollsters and computers deciding who deserves to play.

This drives pro-playoff proponents nuts, so they spend countless hours creating playoff scenarios that have eight teams being chosen by a combination of pollsters and computers deciding who deserves to play.

[TMcGee86]

OK2LA, go back to some of my older posts. This has long been one of my arguments.



All four-team playoffs turn into eight-team playoffs. All eight-team playoffs turn into 16-team playoffs.

Why? Because disgruntled fans, tired of seeing their team miss the postseason, will demand it.

And yes, history bears me out. Check out the history of Div. 1AA playoffs and college basketball playoffs if you don't believe.

Baseball: Started out as an eight-team playoff, now 64 teams.
Basketball: Started out as an eight-team playoff, now 65 teams.
Div. 1AA football: Too lazy to look up, but I think it started out with six teams and is now 16

Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't go back. We WILL ultimately end up with a 16-team playoff if we adopt a playoff. That's just the way it works. And we will see three-loss teams winning the national title, just like in Div. 1AA.

Still in favor?

Yes, because says who? Every other sport has had a playoff for the entire history of sports, yet D1 does not.

How is it that they can go 100 years w/o playoffs and all of the sudden it's guaranteed that a 16 team playoff will happen.

Look at how hard it was to even get a 1vs2.

If they have the ability to keep it down for 100 years I dont see any reason they wont have the ability to keep it a 4 team playoff for 100 more.

[Collier11]

LL, get out of your denial phase and realize that within 20 yrs there will be a playoff, I only wish it would be sooner.

Also, we would have bigger OOC games each yr if 1 loss didnt virtually end your season. It is rediculous that OU can lose one game to their acrch rival when said team is undefeated and goes on to become #1 in the country, and that one loss could knock them out of a title shot.

You are a smart guy, do you really think that Ohio st and LSU were the two best teams last yr, if you do you are the only person I have spoke to since that game that believes that.

[JLEW1818]

LL, get out of your denial phase and realize that within 20 yrs there will be a playoff, I only wish it would be sooner.

Also, we would have bigger OOC games each yr if 1 loss didnt virtually end your season. It is rediculous that OU can lose one game to their acrch rival when said team is undefeated and goes on to become #1 in the country, and that one loss could knock them out of a title shot.

You are a smart guy, do you really think that Ohio st and LSU were the two best teams last yr, if you do you are the only person I have spoke to since that game that believes that.


I think Ohio state and LSU were the 2 most deserving teams according to the "BCS" system. But your right they were not the best two teams. But I do think LSU was the best team.

[Collier11]

I think Ohio state and LSU were the 2 most deserving teams according to the "BCS" system. But your right they were not the best two teams. But I do think LSU was the best team.

That is why the BCS system is wrong, LSU was not the best team in the country last yr. They just happened to benefit from other teams being upset. I think USC would have rolled them, I think we would have had a shot to beat them(I know some will say we couldnt even beat WVU, how would we beat LSU) but playing for the MNC would have created completely diff circumstances and a completely diff attitude with out team IMHO, I think Mizzou could have given them a game, etc.

[JLEW1818]

yep, perfect time for a tourney ?

[goodolesooner]

The answer is pretty obvious: The current system has a combination of pollsters and computers deciding who deserves to play.

This drives pro-playoff proponents nuts, so they spend countless hours creating playoff scenarios that have eight teams being chosen by a combination of pollsters and computers deciding who deserves to play.

I'm sorry, but Ohio State and LSU being in the NC game last year was very arguable.

Ohio St. being the only 1 loss team put them in there by default, because they had a terrible non con, and conference schedule.

LSU's losses didn't look any better than most of the other 2 loss teams.

The system we have now is basically like the WWE.

[noobalicious]

I have an idea that will keep the money-grubbing BCS execs happy and still produce a playoff.

Seed the BCS Bowls as usual. This means you have the following tie-ins:
Rose: Big 10 vs. Pac 10
Sugar: SEC vs. At Large
Fiesta: Big 12 vs. At Large
Orange: ACC vs. At Large

Give the Big East champ a bid too. This will preserve tradition and all that mumbo jumbo BS. However, offer the caveat that the champion MUST be ranked in the top 10 in order to receive an automatic bid. If they aren't, then they forfeit their automatic bid. The remaining at large bids are given to the teams that are ranked highest, in order. The lowest ranked at large bid will be seeded against the highest ranked automatic bid, and so on.

Take the current BCS standings (and lets assume USC is the Pac 10 champ, since Oregon State would make this look really wacky in my example).
This would produce:
Rose: (8)Penn State vs. (6)USC
Sugar: (1)Alabama vs. (7)Utah
Fiesta: (2)Texas Tech vs. (5)Oklahoma
Orange: (4)Florida vs. (3)Texas

In this example, the Big East and ACC would forfeit their automatic bids since their champions are not ranked in the top 10. This makes sense because the Big East and ACC typically don't have a team worthy of going.

Then you take the winners of these BCS bowls, and seed them into a 4 team playoff. The highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed. The higher seed gets a home game. You play the BCS bowls in the first week of bowls in December. The first round of the playoffs is played on January 1. The championship game is played on January 8.

I'll just simulate the example I have above. I think we take Tech, USC rocks PSU, Alabama handles Utah and Florida takes Texas (debatable). Alabama would then host USC on January 1st and we would play at the swamp on the same day. The winners of those games would play in the national championship!

Let's take last year's controversy and use my system as an example:
Rose: (1)Ohio State vs. (7)USC
Sugar: (2)LSU vs. (9)West VA
Fiesta: (4)Oklahoma vs. (5)Georgia
Orange: (3)Virginia Tech vs. (6)Missouri

I think this system would combine the best of both worlds. My $0.02

[8timechamps]

You know, it's easy for us Sooner fans to stand opposed to a playoff. Jeez, each year, we have a real shot at the title game.

What about the "other" schools out there, like Utah, Boise State, etc.? When do they get a shot at the title? Under the current system, never!

So let's say Boise State or Utah finish undefeated, then one (probably not both) go to a BCS game (not the title game) and plays a top tier team (let's just say Florida) and beats them. Are they given a fair shot at a national title? Nope.

You can't argue that they "should schedule tougher OOC games", because as one of you anti-playoff folks said yourself, schedules are made years in advace, and there is no way to know how good a given team may be in the future. Not to mention that you may schedule a team like Clemson, only to have them pull out at the last minute forcing the school to replace that team with a weaker team, like say UT Chattanooga.

At least the NCAA basketball tournament (or countless other playoffs) give teams a fair shot at making a run for the title. The current BCS format does not.

To argue that the system is fair, is to not see beyond our own team's fortunes.

[Collier11]

You know, it's easy for us Sooner fans to stand opposed to a playoff. Jeez, each year, we have a real shot at the title game.

What about the "other" schools out there, like Utah, Boise State, etc.? When do they get a shot at the title? Under the current system, never!

So let's say Boise State or Utah finish undefeated, then one (probably not both) go to a BCS game (not the title game) and plays a top tier team (let's just say Florida) and beats them. Are they given a fair shot at a national title? Nope.

You can't argue that they "should schedule tougher OOC games", because as one of you anti-playoff folks said yourself, schedules are made years in advace, and there is no way to know how good a given team may be in the future. Not to mention that you may schedule a team like Clemson, only to have them pull out at the last minute forcing the school to replace that team with a weaker team, like say UT Chattanooga.

At least the NCAA basketball tournament (or countless other playoffs) give teams a fair shot at making a run for the title. The current BCS format does not.

To argue that the system is fair, is to not see beyond our own team's fortunes.

Those other schools will never make a BCS title game due to the idiotic formula and they would likely never compete in a 4 or 8 game playoff...this isnt bball

[8timechamps]

Those other schools will never make a BCS title game due to the idiotic formula and they would likely never compete in a 4 or 8 game playoff...this isnt bball

You're right, they wouldn't make the title game under the current BCS format. However, if you had an 8 team playoff, and one of those (or any other team in that situation) would more than likely end up in the top eight. Utah is there already (currently ranked #7), and Boise isn't far behind (currently ranked #9).

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes, because says who? Every other sport has had a playoff for the entire history of sports, yet D1 does not.

How is it that they can go 100 years w/o playoffs and all of the sudden it's guaranteed that a 16 team playoff will happen.

Does the phrase "genie out of the bottle" mean anything to you?

Instituting a playoff is a hurdle that Div 1A has yet to overcome. Extending the playoff to include more teams is much easier once the playoffs have been created. All you have to do is get the snowball rolling. It will become bigger pretty much on its own.

There is a reason why the three most important playoffs in college sports started out small and ballooned to include large numbers of teams: Human nature. As humans, we tend to forget what makes something special to begin with and only think about the lowest common denominator (that is, things we think will make it more exciting, at least in the short run). So when OU misses the playoff by being ranked #5, the call by Sooner fans will be to increase the number of teams. Every year, another cadre of fans will join the list.

How many bowl games did we begin with? 1. How many do we have now? So many that there may not be enough teams to play in them. Again, it's human nature.

So based on history and human nature, I can predict what is going to happen. And it is asinine to think that college football will be able to stop the inevitable.

Now, if you are in favor of a 16-team playoff, then my argument doesn't apply to you. (I have other counterarguments, but that is for another thread.) But if you don't want a 16-team playoff and think that a four-team playoff is the answer, then you are hopelessly naive.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm sorry, but Ohio State and LSU being in the NC game last year was very arguable.

Fine, but that doesn't address anything I said in my post.

[Leroy Lizard]

and lets assume USC is the Pac 10 champ, since Oregon State would make this look really wacky in my example

That pretty much highlights a huge problem with your idea.

[Leroy Lizard]

You know, it's easy for us Sooner fans to stand opposed to a playoff. Jeez, each year, we have a real shot at the title game.

What about the "other" schools out there, like Utah, Boise State, etc.? When do they get a shot at the title? Under the current system, never!

You're assuming that is their goal. However, most smaller teams strive to become bowl champions. Eastern Michigan has no chance of ever winning a national title in a playoff system, even if they could somehow make it to the playoffs (especially if the first round is played on the higher-seed's home field. What chance do they have of beating OU in Norman?) However, a bowl system gives them something to play for each year. They may not win the national title, but they can become bowl champions by God.


At least the NCAA basketball tournament (or countless other playoffs) give teams a fair shot at making a run for the title.

Sure, by inviting a ridiculously large number of teams. In another post, I stated why the number of teams in a football playoff will grow. Your desire to ensure that all teams are given an equal chance of competing for a national title pretty much confirms my argument.


To argue that the system is fair, is to not see beyond our own team's fortunes.

I think it is just as bad for us to decide what will make them happy.


You're right, they wouldn't make the title game under the current BCS format. However, if you had an 8 team playoff, and one of those (or any other team in that situation) would more than likely end up in the top eight. Utah is there already (currently ranked #7), and Boise isn't far behind (currently ranked #9)

And if Boise St. ends up ranked undefeated and #9, then they were not given an equal chance to compete for the national title. Since this lies contrary to the fundamental premise of why a playoff is necessary, the call will be to extend the number of teams to 12.

[Collier11]

LL, why is it that out of all these arguments you always miss the point that we can have the bowls for the smaller schools and those teams who dont qualify for the playoff and a playoff for the big daddies

[Leroy Lizard]

LL, why is it that out of all these arguments you always miss the point that we can have the bowls for the smaller schools and those teams who dont qualify for the playoff and a playoff for the big daddies

Great. We will create the football version of the NIT, except football is a helluva lot more expensive to host than basketball.

A bowl system will not be able to survive the huge shift in focus towards the tournament. As the number of teams asked to play in a tournament increases (and it WILL increase), fan interest in the consolation games will dwindle to nothing. Right now the Independence Bowl is nothing to brag about, but teams still want to go if invited. And they love to win the game. Consolation games? Pfffffft.

Host some games between NFL teams that didn't make it into the playoffs and see if anyone shows up.

Still not convinced?


The Stigma of the NIT

So strong is the stigma of the post-season National Invitation Tournament as a "consolation" fixture that when teams with tenuous hopes of an NCAA Tournament berth lose away from home late in the season, opposing fans will taunt the players in the closing seconds with the prospect of having to play in the NIT. This is done regardless of whether the home team is headed for the NCAA Tournament or not. Irv Moss, a journalist for the Denver Post, once wrote of such a taunt to a defeated team, "The three-letter word...was far more cutting than any four-letter word they could have hollered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Invitation_Tournament

Now you might think that the bowls will survive. Go ahead and line up your arguments to convince your buddies. But you won't convince the bowls, because they know better. Why do you think they fight playoff systems so vehemently? They're not stupid. They know what will happen to their viewership once a playoff is instituted. See the above quote to understand their true fears.

[noobalicious]

That pretty much highlights a huge problem with your idea.

Well Oregon State would not qualify as it stands right now since they are a conference champion not ranked in the top 10. Therefore, USC would grab that spot as an at-large. I think it's fair to say that USC is more deserving.

[goodolesooner]

Fine, but that doesn't address anything I said in my post.

All I'm saying is if you have two teams that possibly aren't the only deserving teams, there probably needs some form of a small playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

All I'm saying is if you have two teams that possibly aren't the only deserving teams, there probably needs some form of a small playoff.

Heh. Small playoff. Ye who fails to read history is doomed to repeat it.

[8timechamps]

You're assuming that is their goal. However, most smaller teams strive to become bowl champions. Eastern Michigan has no chance of ever winning a national title in a playoff system, even if they could somehow make it to the playoffs (especially if the first round is played on the higher-seed's home field. What chance do they have of beating OU in Norman?) However, a bowl system gives them something to play for each year. They may not win the national title, but they can become bowl champions by God.


Huh? What team doesn't strive to be a champion, a national champion should it be available to everyone? Maybe right now, they realize that the system doesn't give them a fair chance to attain it.



Sure, by inviting a ridiculously large number of teams. In another post, I stated why the number of teams in a football playoff will grow. Your desire to ensure that all teams are given an equal chance of competing for a national title pretty much confirms my argument.

I never mentioned that a ridiculously large number of teams should be invited. If a team can go undefeated, and play at least a decent OOC/Conference schedule, then they should have the ability to at least play for the championship. I'm not saying that a team should be rewarded for playing in a weak conference, rather they should be rewarded for playing a better OOC schedule if they are in a weak conference. For example, Bosie State scheduled (and beat Oregon), Utah scheduled (and beat) Michigan and Oregon State, and Ball State scheduled (and beat) Indiana. While Michigan, Indiana and Oregon State aren't great teams this year, they are quality D1 opponents that strengthen their respective OOC schedules. Ball State is one team that doesn't have as much of an argument as Utah or Boise, and probably because they play in such a weak conference.






I think it is just as bad for us to decide what will make them happy.


Let's be honest, CFB is so popular because of the fans. But even if you look past that (and I'd say the majority of the fans want a playoff), I'd guess that somewhere in the neighborhood of 95%+ of the players are for a playoff.



And if Boise St. ends up ranked undefeated and #9, then they were not given an equal chance to compete for the national title. Since this lies contrary to the fundamental premise of why a playoff is necessary, the call will be to extend the number of teams to 12.

I think I am missing your point here. Bosie State is currently #9, if they take care of business over the next two weeks, they will be in the top 8.

I hear the argument that no matter how many teams get invited, there will be more teams that feel like they should have been. But, that happens every year in the NCAA basketball tournament and in the lower divisions of CFB. It doesn't change the enjoyment for most fans. There have been years that I thought OU should have made the big dance, but didn't. It didn't keep me from watching it or enjoying it.

As for the bowl games, sure they may lose a little luster, but they won't go away. I can't speak for everyone, but the CFB fans I know and watch games with, couldn't care less about the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl but will still watch some of it. Hell, I'll be watching some of tonight's thrilling N Illinois v Central Michigan game. Because I'm a diehard CFB fan.

All I am saying, is let the players decide the championship. Not some overweight sportswriter in Idaho.

[Collier11]

You are missing the point 8timechamps, Leroy is that overweight sportswriter in Idaho, the only difference is that he is a professor but with the same out of date and out of touch views

[TMcGee86]

Does the phrase "genie out of the bottle" mean anything to you?

Instituting a playoff is a hurdle that Div 1A has yet to overcome. Extending the playoff to include more teams is much easier once the playoffs have been created. All you have to do is get the snowball rolling. It will become bigger pretty much on its own.

There is a reason why the three most important playoffs in college sports started out small and ballooned to include large numbers of teams: Human nature. As humans, we tend to forget what makes something special to begin with and only think about the lowest common denominator (that is, things we think will make it more exciting, at least in the short run). So when OU misses the playoff by being ranked #5, the call by Sooner fans will be to increase the number of teams. Every year, another cadre of fans will join the list.

How many bowl games did we begin with? 1. How many do we have now? So many that there may not be enough teams to play in them. Again, it's human nature.

So based on history and human nature, I can predict what is going to happen. And it is asinine to think that college football will be able to stop the inevitable.

Now, if you are in favor of a 16-team playoff, then my argument doesn't apply to you. (I have other counterarguments, but that is for another thread.) But if you don't want a 16-team playoff and think that a four-team playoff is the answer, then you are hopelessly naive.


You still haven't answered the question. I know it's human nature, but it's human nature to institute a playoff, yet that hasn't happened.

How are the powers that be going to change all of the sudden?

They wont. Keep the BCS, just add one game. That is not drastic enough to start a snowball.

If they can keep it out this year, they can keep it out next year. There is no law that says they have give in.

They have 100 years of going against human nature. No reason it will change now.

Naivete or not, I think a 4 team playoff solves the greatest amount of gripes while creating the least amount of new ones.

[TMcGee86]

Great. We will create the football version of the NIT, except football is a helluva lot more expensive to host than basketball.

A bowl system will not be able to survive the huge shift in focus towards the tournament. As the number of teams asked to play in a tournament increases (and it WILL increase), fan interest in the consolation games will dwindle to nothing. Right now the Independence Bowl is nothing to brag about, but teams still want to go if invited. And they love to win the game. Consolation games? Pfffffft.

Host some games between NFL teams that didn't make it into the playoffs and see if anyone shows up.

Still not convinced?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Invitation_Tournament

Now you might think that the bowls will survive. Go ahead and line up your arguments to convince your buddies. But you won't convince the bowls, because they know better. Why do you think they fight playoff systems so vehemently? They're not stupid. They know what will happen to their viewership once a playoff is instituted. See the above quote to understand their true fears.


You win 6 games you are bowl eligible. If ever there was a "consolation bracket" it's the current system. :rolleyes:

And people watch because people gamble. Instituting a playoff will not change that.

[soonerfan28]

Top 12 teams with the top 4 getting to sit the first week. I think I heard Bob Carpenter talking about it on the radio the other day and it's the only one that makes since to me. I guess you could use the the 5 vs 12 with the game being played at the 5's home field with the 6 vs 11 , 7 vs 10 , and the 8 vs 9 with the game being played at the home of the highest ranked in all of those. Then in the second round use the BCS bowls. After that I don't know.

[madillsoonerfan5353]

:pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

You still haven't answered the question. I know it's human nature, but it's human nature to institute a playoff, yet that hasn't happened.

Because of the logististics involved. People want a playoff, just like they want reality tv. Doesn't make reality tv a good thing.

Solve the logistics, and the fans will simply jump to the next level of desire: More and more teams.

Look at history if you don't believe me. We already know what is going to happen if a playoff is instituted. There is no mystery here.

Again, if you want a 16-team playoff, then that is a different matter. But if you want only a small playoff and you cannot understand why a small playoff will turn into a larger playoff, then no amount of logic or history will do any good.


How are the powers that be going to change all of the sudden?

They wont. Keep the BCS, just add one game. That is not drastic enough to start a snowball.

Sure it is. Once a four-team playoff gets going, the call will be for eight teams. And anyone thinks otherwise has not been paying attention.


Naivete or not, I think a 4 team playoff solves the greatest amount of gripes while creating the least amount of new ones.

Oh ho! You think fans are going to be satisfied all of a sudden? Tell us which four teams will play in the playoff and the arguments will begin.


You are missing the point 8timechamps, Leroy is that overweight sportswriter in Idaho...

There is no need for this crap.

[Leroy Lizard]

Top 12 teams with the top 4 getting to sit the first week.

If you are going to go with 12, you might as well go with 16. Same number of weeks.

[Collier11]

There is no need for this crap.

You are far too uptight for this board...ive wasted many a hour trying to talk sense into you, now I am just going to give you a hard time...lighten up

I will say that your "logistics" argument is as bad as the one that a football playoff cant be had due to academic issues concerning Finals

[shaun4411]

According to this formula, an undefeated conference champion could still be left out. But probably the biggest reason for wanting a playoff is so that "every team gets a chance." If a team finishes undefeated and still doesn't get to compete in the playoffs, what chance did they really have?

it will encourage them to schedule more difficult ooc schedules.

[Collier11]

Its a give and/or take...Playoff would likely mean better ooc games, BCS means crappier ooc games, unless of course you are OU and we schedule big time programs every yr

[Leroy Lizard]

it will encourage them to schedule more difficult ooc schedules.

Didn't we already discuss this? Didn't we already conclude that predicting the difficulty of a schedule years in advance is difficult? I could have sworn that we also decided that it isn't always easy to get a good team to play you.

Again, consider Fresno State. Tough, tough schedule... well, maybe not. It sure looked tough at the beginning of the year, but what happened? And if Fresno State had finished undefeated this year, their schedule would have looked even weaker.

But we will continue to ignore the facts and, two days later, post yet another "just schedule tougher OOC games" statement.


You are far too uptight for this board...ive wasted many a hour trying to talk sense into you,

How about using some reason and logic? You might try that.

[Collier11]

How about using some reason and logic? You might try that.


Where havent I used reason and logic, my entire playoff discussion has been reasonable and logical. Yours on the other hand, your arguments are it growing too big, academics, and logistics which can all be figured out. If JUCO and D2 can figure it out Im sure the mega sport that is CFB can figure it out

[Leroy Lizard]

Where havent I used reason and logic, my entire playoff discussion has been reasonable and logical. Yours on the other hand, your arguments are it growing too big, academics, and logistics which can all be figured out.

Well, figure it out then. Go ahead.

And by figure it out, I don't mean "pretend that it isn't a problem" or "hope the problem will not appear" or "pray that the problem will go away on its own." Because that's basically been your stance.

[Collier11]

Oh Leroy you silly man, what is the problem? Its not my job to figure it out, there are people that get paid alot of money to figure those things out. If every other sport can figure it out then im sure the most powerful sport can figure out a fair way to determine a true natl champion.

One argument that pisses me off is what about team 5 or what about team 9, etc...there will always be someone that is pissed off but I would much rather it be determined on the field, typically in college football in a given yr there are never more than 6-10 teams that are deserving anyway

[8timechamps]

it will encourage them to schedule more difficult ooc schedules.

Bingo!

Leroy said that you can't tell how good a team is years in advance (when the schedules are made). That's true, however, you know what a "quality" opponent is a few years in advance. A good example is Michigan. Utah scheduled Michigan and won (at their place). Even though Michigan is struggling this year, it's a quality opponent and a quality win.

The computer polls will not give Utah as much credit because of the numbers (Michigan's poor season), however, the human voters will recognize that even though Michigan is down this year, they are a big time program and any team that can win in the Big House deserves to be rewarded in the polls.

That's why under my proposed plan, the polls (both human and computer) will reamain intact. The bowls will remain intact. The difference is that the top eight teams at the end of the regular season will enter the playoff.

The top four get a home game (or you could even use four smaller bowl games by region), then use the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta for the remaining three games (each year one of the bowls would be removed and used for the next best matchup).

[8timechamps]

Well, figure it out then. Go ahead.

And by figure it out, I don't mean "pretend that it isn't a problem" or "hope the problem will not appear" or "pray that the problem will go away on its own." Because that's basically been your stance.

Maybe I'm missing your point. What is your argument for leaving things the way they are? You've asked the pro-playoff folks to sell you on the idea, what is your reasoning for not having a playoff?

[Collier11]

Just to chime in futher I will give you a rough layout of my plan

Option A

Top 4 in the Final BCS have a four team playoff, all games hosted by BCS games

Option B and most preferable

Top 8 in Final BCS(not all conf champions cus there are conf champions that dont deserve to be in the playoff, ex: ACC Champ this yr)

1st round hosted by highest seed, final four by BCS...Only takes 3 weeks which is shorter than the bowl season

If we did decide on a 16 team I would want all 11 Conf champions and the next 5 highest ranked in the BCS with the 1st two rounds hosted by highest seed

Think about how much money that would bring, we all know that it is all about money anyway

[TMcGee86]

Because of the logististics involved. People want a playoff, just like they want reality tv. Doesn't make reality tv a good thing.

Solve the logistics, and the fans will simply jump to the next level of desire: More and more teams.

Look at history if you don't believe me. We already know what is going to happen if a playoff is instituted. There is no mystery here.

We are in complete agreement that fans will clamor for more teams.





Again, if you want a 16-team playoff, then that is a different matter. But if you want only a small playoff and you cannot understand why a small playoff will turn into a larger playoff, then no amount of logic or history will do any good.

Again, I agree history and logic both indicate such an outcome.

The point is, history, logic, and fans, are all screaming for a playoff right now. Yet none exists.

The BCS will not become powerless just by instituting a plus-1. The ability for them to ignore the cries from the masses will be just as strong as it is now. Actually, it will be stronger under such a scenario. They would then have the ability to say we have a playoff, if you want to be in it, win more games. Then reiterate every single argument they use right now for why they wont institute a larger one.


Sure it is. Once a four-team playoff gets going, the call will be for eight teams. And anyone thinks otherwise has not been paying attention.

I absolutely think this. As stated above, this isn't the issue. They ignore these cries now, the only difference under my plan is that they have a better platform with which to ignore the cries in the future.


Oh ho! You think fans are going to be satisfied all of a sudden? Tell us which four teams will play in the playoff and the arguments will begin.


Exactly right. This will not solve all the problems. This is why I think it's the best plan. All the arguments about the regular season being a playoff, and the BCS creating an atmosphere of discussion every year, and keeping College football relevant, are all still intact under such a plan.

You keep the "good" and minimize the "bad".

[Blues1]

The Best Thing we can Hope for is a "Plus One" game after The Bowls - and we will Be Lucky to get that...Though --- This Year May Force More talk about a Plus One Game - Got a feeling it may be a Cluster F%^& after all the Bowl games on who is the Real # 1 which will Keep college football in the News into early or middle February -- JMHO.... :)

[8timechamps]

Not to mention the continued addition of worthless bowl games. Some argue that to make it to a bowl and become champions of that bowl is what drives some teams. Given the numerous useless bowl games out there, I'd say a playoff would make much more sense than providing fifty bowl games, some of which can't even fill up half their seating capacity.

If there's room for the St. Petersburg and Eagle Bank bowls, there's room for a playoff.

[Curly Bill]

Where havent I used reason and logic, my entire playoff discussion has been reasonable and logical. Yours on the other hand, your arguments are it growing too big, academics, and logistics which can all be figured out. If JUCO and D2 can figure it out Im sure the mega sport that is CFB can figure it out

One of the talking heads was on Mike and Mike this morning pointing out the logistical difficulties as well. Big Mike had no competent answer to those problems either, other then just arguing that we need a playoff.

Really though...you guys that want a playoff so bad work out those problems and get back to us. Oh wait...you guys get together on that one perfect playoff system first, since everyone of ya is convinced your idea is best.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think the current formula is the best

[Curly Bill]

Maybe I'm missing your point. What is your argument for leaving things the way they are? You've asked the pro-playoff folks to sell you on the idea, what is your reasoning for not having a playoff?

Here's mine: a playoff is no better then the current system, it's just different.

...and the argument that other sports or levels of FB have a playoff is not a compelling argument.

[Collier11]

Here's mine: a playoff is no better then the current system, it's just different.

...and the argument that other sports or levels of FB have a playoff is not a compelling argument.


How can you possibly say that a playoff wouldnt be better than the current system and how can you possibly say that the logistics cant be figured out. It really isnt that hard

Lets see, a computer and a bunch of pollsters determining who is worthy of playing for a natl title or let them settle it on the field. C'mon Curly

[8timechamps]

Here's mine: a playoff is no better then the current system, it's just different.

...and the argument that other sports or levels of FB have a playoff is not a compelling argument.

Why do teams play in the NCAA? I'm guessing that most of them (and all of those that actually play) want to win the national title. The problem with the current system, is that it doesn't afford every team the same, fair chance to do so.

The bottom line is that I (along with the other pro-playoff folks) want to see the champion crowned on the field. Not based on what sportswriters and coaches assistants think.

I'll be the first one to tell you that I think college football is great. I'll also follow that up by saying the biggest flaw in cfb is that it doesn't allow for a true national championship game.

I didn't see Mike & Mike this morning, what is the logistical problem with a playoff?

[Curly Bill]

Why do teams play in the NCAA? I'm guessing that most of them (and all of those that actually play) want to win the national title. The problem with the current system, is that it doesn't afford every team the same, fair chance to do so.

The bottom line is that I (along with the other pro-playoff folks) want to see the champion crowned on the field. Not based on what sportswriters and coaches assistants think.

I'll be the first one to tell you that I think college football is great. I'll also follow that up by saying the biggest flaw in cfb is that it doesn't allow for a true national championship game.

I didn't see Mike & Mike this morning, what is the logistical problem with a playoff?

Largely involves fanbases and getting them to multiple games that might be spread across the country over the weeks that a playoff would take. Final exams and the need to work around them, etc...

I think that stuff could probably be worked out, I'm just not in favor of working them out for a system that would not be any better then the one in use, but instead would just be different.

[Curly Bill]

How can you possibly say that a playoff wouldnt be better than the current system and how can you possibly say that the logistics cant be figured out. It really isnt that hard

Lets see, a computer and a bunch of pollsters determining who is worthy of playing for a natl title or let them settle it on the field. C'mon Curly

...and how would we pick the teams that get to be in this playoff?

...and here's the kicker -- when you tell me your way, it's gonna be different then most every other playoff proponents. That tells me that there is no magically perfect system, because if there was you guys would mostly all come up with the same one.

[Collier11]

Well there are basically 3-4 options to start off with, 4, 8, or 16 teams or even 12 with 4 byes.

My way to pick the teams would involve the BCS rankings, the reason I go by BCS rather than conf champs is cus there will be conf champs who dont deserve a shot like the ACC this year where the conf champ will have 3 or 4 losses.

I could go alot deeper with the explanation but you get the premise

Of course there is no perfect way, there will always be teams left out. In D2 they do it by super regional rankings, in the NFL many think they should have 8 from each conf rather than 6, etc...that is stuff where the overall argument doesnt bother me that much compared to the BCS now where we have a computer and a bunch of biased pollsters picking the final 2. With the current system it is about when you lose, not how or who you lose to. That is rediculous. At least with a playoff it will be decided on the field.

[Curly Bill]

Well there are basically 3-4 options to start off with, 4, 8, or 16 teams or even 12 with 4 byes.

My way to pick the teams would involve the BCS rankings, the reason I go by BCS rather than conf champs is cus there will be conf champs who dont deserve a shot like the ACC this year where the conf champ will have 3 or 4 losses.

I could go alot deeper with the explanation but you get the premise

So...you're going to let a computer and a bunch of pollsters decide who gets into a playoff? I thought you were against computers and pollsters deciding things?

[Collier11]

I dont have a problem with the BCS picking the top 8 or whatever it may be, that still leaves it up to the teams to win it on the field. I have a problem with them deciding who plays for the title when there are always 5-10 undefeated or 1 loss teams and some random computer just picks two and says its good

[Leroy Lizard]

...and here's the kicker -- when you tell me your way, it's gonna be different then most every other playoff proponents. That tells me that there is no magically perfect system, because if there was you guys would mostly all come up with the same one.

Most importantly, each playoff proponent has their own playoff idea that "would solve the problem" and attack the playoff ideas of others. Yet, none of them have any guarantee that their own playoff system will be chosen.

In essence, they are pro-playoff because they think their own system will be adopted. That is one reason I am anti-playoff. I have seen some good ideas, but I doubt they will be adopted. Instead, we will get some screwball system that will have tremendous flaws. And at that point, the damage is done.

Be careful what you wish for, because you can't go back.

[Collier11]

I dont think any of us have attacked anyone elses playoff idea, I know I havent. I think any playoff would be better than the BCS as long as it isnt bigger than 16 tops.

LL, you could use your same argument for the BCS, how many times has it had to be changed cus it doesnt work? No system will be 100% but atleast a playoff lets it be decided on the field.

[Leroy Lizard]

LL, you could use your same argument for the BCS, how many times has it had to be changed cus it doesnt work?

It has had to be changed because people are never satisfied. The same bellyaching will occur with a playoff, especially if we are limited to choosing only eight. (Which eight?) The result: More and more teams will be invited so that no one feels left out.

A 16-team playoff would probably kill the regular season. A team could drop two, even three games and still get in.

Again, be careful what you wish for.

[Curly Bill]

Yup, If anyone thinks a lot of teams can lay claim to deserving to be in the top two, to be in the current NC game, how many would feel they deserve to be in the top 8, the top 16, or whatever?

I can see 20-something teams and their fans arguing they're one of the top 8 teams in the country and should be included in the playoff.

[Collier11]

top 8 would be easier to decipher than top 2 in most seasons

[SoonerMachine]

I have seen some good ideas, but I doubt they will be adopted. Instead, we will get some screwball system that will have tremendous flaws. And at that point, the damage is done.

Be careful what you wish for, because you can't go back.

Actually, I have to agree with this... they (NCAA) will find a way to pick the strangest option.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why did you spend so much time crafting a playoff scenario that has zero chance of ever even being considered (let alone adopted)?

Forumla Ideas...not scenarios that will be adopted.

But then again...thanks.


If you look at D-1A, there about 90-100 teams that are worthy of keeping their D-1A status on attendance alone.

If the NCAA judged the teams that are FBS by the same standards that got them into the division, then there would not be 120 teams. Period, end of discussion.

And yes, if the NCAA wanted to, they could make it madatory for every team to be in a conference and limit the number of conference members to 8. This does not include other sports, just for football.

Is what I suggested going to ever happen? NO! But then again, it would be a starting point. If the NCAA is going to make a playoff system, then they must require that all conferences determine their champion the same way.

[OU_Sooners75]

You're assuming that is their goal. However, most smaller teams strive to become bowl champions. Eastern Michigan has no chance of ever winning a national title in a playoff system, even if they could somehow make it to the playoffs (especially if the first round is played on the higher-seed's home field. What chance do they have of beating OU in Norman?) However, a bowl system gives them something to play for each year. They may not win the national title, but they can become bowl champions by God.



Sure, by inviting a ridiculously large number of teams. In another post, I stated why the number of teams in a football playoff will grow. Your desire to ensure that all teams are given an equal chance of competing for a national title pretty much confirms my argument.



I think it is just as bad for us to decide what will make them happy.



And if Boise St. ends up ranked undefeated and #9, then they were not given an equal chance to compete for the national title. Since this lies contrary to the fundamental premise of why a playoff is necessary, the call will be to extend the number of teams to 12.


You are awefully critical of everyone's thoughts or opinions on the matter. Who died and made you the judge of people opinions on this site?

Ever hear of starting points, and you exaggerate those points to get what you want?

It happens every day in business.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Yup, If anyone thinks a lot of teams can lay claim to deserving to be in the top two, to be in the current NC game, how many would feel they deserve to be in the top 8, the top 16, or whatever?

I can see 20-something teams and their fans arguing they're one of the top 8 teams in the country and should be included in the playoff.

exactly..they let 65 teams in the NCAA tournament and people still cry about those 4 or 5 teams that don't get in...and some people don't think 65 is enough....

I think if the playoff proponents would be for a +1 that would be good..but they want to jump to a 4-8-16 team format without considering the negatives...I believe the wise SAS said that

[Leroy Lizard]

top 8 would be easier to decipher than top 2 in most seasons

Right now, we can almost all agree that Tech and Bama are the top two. Not so sure the top eight is so easy to define, since we have the problem of "if they are undefeated, they must be given a chance to play for the title."

So to really solve the problem with the BCS, all undefeated teams will have to be elevated into the top eight. But that is really going to **** off a bunch of people. Just wait until a one-loss OU team gets to stay home while so that an undefeated Toledo team plays for all the marbles.

Now, some of you will say that Toledo didn't play a tough enough schedule, so that they shouldn't be given the chance. I suggest that you go out behind the store and settle your own differences.


You are awefully critical of everyone's thoughts or opinions on the matter. Who died and made you the judge of people opinions on this site?

I feel bad about that, considering that everyone else i here is soooooo considerate of my arguments. If there is one thing I realize about Soonerfans, it is that my arguments will always be treated respectfully and that no one will ever resort to personal attacks.

Signed, Fat Dude from Idaho

PS None of the quotes you posted are highly critical. Are you suggesting that I cannot even argue my points?



Ever hear of starting points, and you exaggerate those points to get what you want?

It happens every day in business.

Oh, I see. We get a playoff by demanding far more than is reasonable. College football will be so taken aback by our radical demands that it will give us a reasonable playoff system as a compromise.

Sure.

Okay.


And yes, if the NCAA wanted to, they could make it madatory for every team to be in a conference and limit the number of conference members to 8. This does not include other sports, just for football.

The NCAA may be able to make a team join a conference, but it cannot force a conference to accept a team. So that pretty much shoots down your idea.

Any attempt by the NCAA to dictate how conferences run their operations will result in conferences pulling out of the NCAA to form their own association. The NCAA has no intention of doing any such thing simply to satisfy your entertainment needs.

[Collier11]

Actually, I have to agree with this... they (NCAA) will find a way to pick the strangest option.

Now that we can probably all agree on

[Collier11]

Leroy Lizard:Right now, we can almost all agree that Tech and Bama are the top two.
More than 50% of the country would disagree with you on this


So to really solve the problem with the BCS, all undefeated teams will have to be elevated into the top eight.
No, they would be in the top 8 is it was merited

But that is really going to **** off a bunch of people. Just wait until a one-loss OU team gets to stay home while so that an undefeated Toledo team plays for all the marbles.
This would never happen, EVER!! You cant make the most extreme cases to back your opinion cus they dont work

Now, some of you will say that Toledo didn't play a tough enough schedule, so that they shouldn't be given the chance. I suggest that you go out behind the store and settle your own differences.
Retarded


I feel bad about that, considering that everyone else i here is soooooo considerate of my arguments. If there is one thing I realize about Soonerfans, it is that my arguments will always be treated respectfully and that no one will ever resort to personal attacks.

I avoid personal attacks on this board about 99.9% of the time, but you need to look in the mirror at your argument/discussion style and realize that you are combative and come off as thinking you know more than anyone else and no one elses opinion is ever right compared to yours. If you dont want people to disagree with you so strongly and personally then change the way you discuss. There are only about 3 ppl on this entire board who act like this and one of them is you. Im not saying you are a bad guy, but thats the way you come off.

Signed, Fat Dude from Idaho
I made that statement referring to you being one of those people who just sit behind a computer screen and act like your opinion is exact and no one better question it


Oh, I see. We get a playoff by demanding far more than is reasonable. College football will be so taken aback by our radical demands that it will give us a reasonable playoff system as a compromise.

what about our demands is radical, over 80% of cfb fans want a playoff, most coaches want a playoff, it is just the super rich who are lining their pockets and a small portion of fans that dont want one

[8timechamps]

First, I have yet to see one pro-playoff person attack another. We all want the same thing. I personally think an 8 team playoff would be great, but if for some reason, the NCAA/BCS adopted a +1, 4, 6, or 12 team playoff, I'd be happy. At least it's settled on the field.

The bottom line for so many of us is that we want to see the championship "played" out. Not just selected. Of course college football is great now, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.

If college football was perfect, the NCAA would never change anything. They do, almost yearly. It's also possible that they realize they made a mistake and changed it back. Look how many rules have been changed over the years. Many of them are for the saftey of the players, however, many are for the fans.

I guess I don't see the logistical problem. Fans will travel. If your team makes the playoffs, you'll go where they are. Not you personally, just the fanbase. As for the argument that it cuts into finals, etc. That can be addressed by starting the playoffs on a date that will allow teams to play out their games so that they conclude the playoffs by the same time frame the current bowls conclude.

No matter what number of teams the NCAA/BCS allowed into a playoff, there will always be a couple of teams that argue they should have been in. Oh well, that's life. No different than the NCAA tournament. I can tell you that if OU finished 9-2 or 8-3, and we were ranked #9 or #10, and we didn't get into the playoffs, I would be disappointed, but I would probably also think that we weren't deserving of a spot. Again, no different than the years we didn't make the NCAA bball tournament.

Imagine if we had an 8 team playoff this year. How great the two or three weeks would be. As a college football fan, I'd be in heaven. All the matchups would be games we all want to see, and in the end, we get to see a real championship game. You can't tell me you wouldn't watch.

[Collier11]

Thats the problem with LL, he would watch but he would still tell you that he wouldnt ;)

[8timechamps]

I think your 100% correct.

Anybody that's a CFB fan would watch every minute of a real national title game.

[Leroy Lizard]

First, I have yet to see one pro-playoff person attack another. We all want the same thing.

No you don't. Some want a four-team playoff, and consider a 16-team playoff to be too large. Others think that the playoff needs to be at least eight teams. Some want conference champions to get automatic bids, while others think that such a system rewards teams for playing in weak conferences.

Playoff proponents argue all the time. Sure, they all want a playoff. But the details are what matters.


I personally think an 8 team playoff would be great, but if for some reason, the NCAA/BCS adopted a +1, 4, 6, or 12 team playoff, I'd be happy. At least it's settled on the field.

What about a 16-team playoff?


I guess I don't see the logistical problem.

Because you haven't thought about it hard enough. Or you have, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the problems.

Playoff proponents will argue that there is huge money out there... and that finals are not a problem... and that the regular season won't suffer... and that fans will make the trips. No matter what problems are presented, there response is always the same -- it will all work out somehow.

Yet, we don't have a playoff. There must be a reason we don't. Rather than attack those who oppose playoffs, why not think about it some more? There must be something out there that causes concerns from those who make the decisions.

I have looked into it pretty carefully and I think I know what bothers these people. I've tried to tell you, but you won't listen.

So what is ultimately going to happen is that we end up with a 16-team playoff, and no one cares about the regular season anymore. Lose a game? So what? Lose two games? No big deal as long as you are a traditional powerhouse. And when all is said and done, fans will complain like hell that things were better in the old days, when the regular season games seemed to matter more.

But you can't go back. Any harm that the playoffs incur (whether be it a loss of the bowl games, low scores on final exams, or meaningless regular season games) will be permanent. And just like tv shows (another venture where pleasing the masses is the bottom line), college football will begin to suck. But it will be too late to do anything about it.

[Collier11]

No you don't. Some want a four-team playoff, and consider a 16-team playoff to be too large.

Its a discussion, thats the point of this board...no one is arguing

Others think that the playoff needs to be at least eight teams. Some want conference champions to get automatic bids, while others think that such a system rewards teams for playing in weak conferences.

That is just different ideas being thrown about, it isnt any of our resonsibility to come up with the plan officially so we discuss different ways we would prefer it, same as any other topic

Playoff proponents argue all the time. Sure, they all want a playoff. But the details are what matters.

No actually they dont, you are the only person arguing and all you have are the same sad arguments that dont work





Because you haven't thought about it hard enough. Or you have, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the problems.

Then explain the logistical issues wise one, cus I dont see any that couldnt be figured out quite easily...A playoff would last the same amount of time as a bowl season, 2-4 weeks...if they can play your beloved bowl games during a 4 week period im sure they can do a playoff during that same alotted time period

Playoff proponents will argue that there is huge money out there... and that finals are not a problem... and that the regular season won't suffer... and that fans will make the trips. No matter what problems are presented, there response is always the same -- it will all work out somehow.

Yet, we don't have a playoff. There must be a reason we don't. Rather than attack those who oppose playoffs, why not think about it some more? There must be something out there that causes concerns from those who make the decisions.

There is a reason we dont, cus the Pac 10 and Big 10 want their beloved Rose Bowl and cus of the TV contracts currently in place

I have looked into it pretty carefully and I think I know what bothers these people. I've tried to tell you, but you won't listen.

No you havent, if you had you would go into detail but you never do that, just the same arguments over and over

So what is ultimately going to happen is that we end up with a 16-team playoff, and no one cares about the regular season anymore. Lose a game? So what? Lose two games? No big deal as long as you are a traditional powerhouse. And when all is said and done, fans will complain like hell that things were better in the old days, when the regular season games seemed to matter more.

Who cares if it is a 8 team or 16 team playoff, atleast it is decided on the field...The regular season wont suffer, does the NFL regular season suffer...dont think so!

But you can't go back. Any harm that the playoffs incur (whether be it a loss of the bowl game
We have far too many bowl games as it is, we celebrate mediocrity and the bowl games arent even at 40% capacity alot of times
low scores on final exams
This is funny, are you really that self absorbed? As I stated earlier, a playoff can be played during the time that the bowls are going on...dont have to change that at all
or meaningless regular season games) will be permanent.
NOPE
And just like tv shows (another venture where pleasing the masses is the bottom line), college football will begin to suck. But it will be too late to do anything about it.

I havent heard one good argument from you or any other person about how this will make college football suck...makes no sense, it is just a whiny way to reason it in your head because we all know that you could care less about college athletics and the spirit of competition, all you care about is your little professor bubble that you live in. Face it, some student athletes dont give a crap about the crap you and some other teachers are forcing down their throats.
If you want to talk about a real issue, why dont you discuss how universities drain us of our money and leave us in debt just to take a bunch of classes that have no bearing on my ability to function in society, be a successful person, or be educated. Did I really need to read 5 Fanny Burney books my senior yr so I could have a good education, NO!

[JLEW1818]

has the rash gone away yet?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

what a bold statement!

[Collier11]

what a bold statement!

ZING! :D

[8timechamps]

No you don't. Some want a four-team playoff, and consider a 16-team playoff to be too large. Others think that the playoff needs to be at least eight teams. Some want conference champions to get automatic bids, while others think that such a system rewards teams for playing in weak conferences.

Playoff proponents argue all the time. Sure, they all want a playoff. But the details are what matters.

Yes, we do. We all want a playoff, and I am quite certain that any playoff would be welcome by all pro=playoff proponents.




What about a 16-team playoff?

Didn't realize I needed to list every option. I figure it was implied. But, yes, sixteen would be fine too.




Because you haven't thought about it hard enough. Or you have, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the problems.

Playoff proponents will argue that there is huge money out there... and that finals are not a problem... and that the regular season won't suffer... and that fans will make the trips. No matter what problems are presented, there response is always the same -- it will all work out somehow.

Yet, we don't have a playoff. There must be a reason we don't. Rather than attack those who oppose playoffs, why not think about it some more? There must be something out there that causes concerns from those who make the decisions.

Yes, I have thought about it. Please explain to me the difference in extending the season by a few games for a few teams, from a team that currently makes a bowl game? The only difference is the weekend of the game. Otherwise, the practice is still the same (and that includes weekends too). I am assuming you never played athletics in college. The devotion of time doesn't change if you are going to a bowl game.



I have looked into it pretty carefully and I think I know what bothers these people. I've tried to tell you, but you won't listen.

So what is ultimately going to happen is that we end up with a 16-team playoff, and no one cares about the regular season anymore. Lose a game? So what? Lose two games? No big deal as long as you are a traditional powerhouse. And when all is said and done, fans will complain like hell that things were better in the old days, when the regular season games seemed to matter more.

But you can't go back. Any harm that the playoffs incur (whether be it a loss of the bowl games, low scores on final exams, or meaningless regular season games) will be permanent. And just like tv shows (another venture where pleasing the masses is the bottom line), college football will begin to suck. But it will be too late to do anything about it.


The reason for the current BCS/Bowl structure, and why the powers that be are resistant to change is based on money/power. Just like everything else ni our society. The few that have the power can control the money. Mark my words, there will be a D1 playoff instituted at some level (whether it be a +1, or a variation of teams) within the next 10 years. And once it is in place, your right, there will be no going back...because anti-playoff people will realize how great it is.

Again Leroy, what is your argument against a playoff? Tell us all about the logistical problems a playoff presents? We haven't heard anything from you, yet you keep saying we are brushing aside the issues. What are the issues exactly?

[Bama/OU]

Big 12 vs SEC

1 vs 1
2 vs 2
3 vs 3
..........

and screw everybody else

That's what I'm sayin'....

Everybody else will either lose or not make it anyways.....

[Curly Bill]

top 8 would be easier to decipher than top 2 in most seasons

I don't agree with this at all.

[BoulderSooner79]

top 8 would be easier to decipher than top 2 in most seasons


I don't agree with this at all.

Top 8 would have a much higher probability of capturing the team that would survive a playoff than the top 2, but it would quadruple the arguments of who gets in. They still argue heatedly over who is in or out after picking 65 teams in hoops.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes, I have thought about it. Please explain to me the difference in extending the season by a few games for a few teams, from a team that currently makes a bowl game?

A 16-team playoff is tremendously different. You are talking about four weeks of games for a team, as opposed to one. Even an eight-team playoff requires three times as many weeks as a single bowl game.

The last time I looked, 4 > 1 by a significant factor.


I am assuming you never played athletics in college. The devotion of time doesn't change if you are going to a bowl game.

And you have played in both systems (playoff and bowl games) and are therefore able to make this comparison?


Top 8 would have a much higher probability of capturing the team that would survive a playoff than the top 2, but it would quadruple the arguments of who gets in. They still argue heatedly over who is in or out after picking 65 teams in hoops.

Which is why we will eventually end up with a 16-team playoff.

[effay]

A playoff would allow many Big XII and SEC teams to basically have two losses and still get in every year. Is this really what we want? Loosing a big game wouldn't really matter anymore and teams might rest their starters at the end of the season if they hadn't lost yet, making for throw-away games. Heck, the Big XII Championship would probably be irrelevant every year.

And, ya, I know you'll still want to win every game to improve your seeding, but the fact remains that you don't have to.

My thoughts:
-College football is awesome now because every game matters, and big games matter even more. Heck, even how you win games matters.
-A playoff would dilute the regular season and make college football suck.
-The BCS isn't that bad and people will find something else to complain about even if we have a playoff.
-I'm tired of adding more games to the season. It just results in more injuries and thus more crappy games where a good team looses because their star player is out. Do we really want the best team to be the healthiest one?
-How many people really have the time/money to travel to the Cotton Bowl, Big XII Championship, a bunch of playoff games, and then the NC?

Ways to improve the BCS:
-Replace the Fiesta Bowl with the Cotton Bowl in Jerry's stadium.
-Do whatever needs to be done to make all auto-bid conferences have a championship game.
-Tell Notre Dame to go to Hell.

[Stitch Face]

I know one thread got locked for bringing this up earlier, but it just came up again on 60 Minutes. Looks like Obama may be on here to argue with Leroy soon.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27738481/

[effay]

"The regular season wont suffer, does the NFL regular season suffer...dont think so!"

I do. Playoff teams routinely rest their players during the last 2 or 3 games of the season. The last thing I want in college football is a system that allows teams to do this. I know I enjoy college football considerably more than pro precisely because if you loose a game in the pros, you are still okay.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's called playing to the crowd. We need the Federal government to stay out of college sports.

[JLEW1818]

Stanford 17, USC 10

wow USC should be eliminated from any type of Title game consideration.

[Leroy Lizard]

Consider that in a 16-team playoff, USC would probably still be able to play for the national title even if they had lost to Stanford.

[8timechamps]

A 16-team playoff is tremendously different. You are talking about four weeks of games for a team, as opposed to one. Even an eight-team playoff requires three times as many weeks as a single bowl game .

The last time I looked, 4 > 1 by a significant factor.


When a team makes a bowl game, practice continues as if it were still playing regular season games. If a team makes a BCS bowl game, and their last regular season game is the last week in November, the same amount of time is used to prepare for the bowl game as it would if there were a 4 week playoff . The time is already committed.

Last time I looked 4=4.



And you have played in both systems (playoff and bowl games) and are therefore able to make this comparison?


I have played athletics at the college level. I do speak from a level of knowledge though. My cousin did play D1 football (for an SEC team that made three bowl games in the four years he was there). He'd be the first one to tell you that the time commitment would be the same.



Which is why we will eventually end up with a 16-team playoff.

I doubt we will end up with a 16 team playoff. I suspect it will be either 4 or 8.

[8timechamps]

It's called playing to the crowd. We need the Federal government to stay out of college sports.

Federal government has been in college sports for a long time. Maybe that's what it's going to take to open the eyes of the BCS bigwigs.

[shaun4411]

A playoff would allow many Big XII and SEC teams to basically have two losses and still get in every year. Is this really what we want? Loosing a big game wouldn't really matter anymore and teams might rest their starters at the end of the season if they hadn't lost yet, making for throw-away games. Heck, the Big XII Championship would probably be irrelevant every year.

And, ya, I know you'll still want to win every game to improve your seeding, but the fact remains that you don't have to.

My thoughts:
-College football is awesome now because every game matters, and big games matter even more. Heck, even how you win games matters.
it still would in a playoff situation
-A playoff would dilute the regular season and make college football suck. please elaborate on that. how many championship calibur teams slip up and lose a game and spend the rest of the season seeking retribution in a 1-loss season (see usc, ou, texas, florida (and tech after 11/22) )
-The BCS isn't that bad and people will find something else to complain about even if we have a playoff. like what? like how its all settled on the field?
-I'm tired of adding more games to the season. It just results in more injuries and thus more crappy games where a good team looses because their star player is out. Do we really want the best team to be the healthiest one?
of course not. with a playoff, there would be no more conference championships. you can easily make the season 10, 11, or 12 weeks long by realigning the ooc schedule
-How many people really have the time/money to travel to the Cotton Bowl, Big XII Championship, a bunch of playoff games, and then the NC?
ncaa tourney isnt suffering these sort of setbacks. attendance wouldnt be a problem if the 1st round gave the higher seeded teams a home game.
Ways to improve the BCS:
-Replace the Fiesta Bowl with the Cotton Bowl in Jerry's stadium. sure
-Do whatever needs to be done to make all auto-bid conferences have a championship game. agreed
-Tell Notre Dame to go to Hell. +

in the end, a playoff is needed. thats the only way to solve problems like this. not computers, or voters. settling it on the field quells rumors and removes reasons for bitching. make it an 8 team playoff. there has never been a season where more than 8 teams had a legit position to claim rights to play for the national championship. at the end of the season, the top 8 ranked teams play for it all. make all coaches and ap/harris poll votes public each and every week to keep everyone honest.

imagine ou, tech, texas, florida, alabama, usc (throw in penn st and utah to give them a reason to stop bitching). 6 of those 8 teams could easily be the best team in the country. how can you possibly form a legit argument against letting them battle it out on the field to determine who is the best? the voters say alabama and tech are the best...but are they?

[shaun4411]

A playoff would allow many Big XII and SEC teams to basically have two losses and still get in every year. Is this really what we want? Loosing a big game wouldn't really matter anymore and teams might rest their starters at the end of the season if they hadn't lost yet, making for throw-away games. Heck, the Big XII Championship would probably be irrelevant every year.

And, ya, I know you'll still want to win every game to improve your seeding, but the fact remains that you don't have to.

My thoughts:
-College football is awesome now because every game matters, and big games matter even more. Heck, even how you win games matters.
it still would in a playoff situation
-A playoff would dilute the regular season and make college football suck. please elaborate on that. how many championship calibur teams slip up and lose a game and spend the rest of the season seeking retribution in a 1-loss season (see usc, ou, texas, florida (and tech after 11/22) )
-The BCS isn't that bad and people will find something else to complain about even if we have a playoff. like what? like how its all settled on the field?
-I'm tired of adding more games to the season. It just results in more injuries and thus more crappy games where a good team looses because their star player is out. Do we really want the best team to be the healthiest one?
of course not. with a playoff, there would be no more conference championships. you can easily make the season 10, 11, or 12 weeks long by realigning the ooc schedule
-How many people really have the time/money to travel to the Cotton Bowl, Big XII Championship, a bunch of playoff games, and then the NC?
ncaa tourney isnt suffering these sort of setbacks. attendance wouldnt be a problem if the 1st round gave the higher seeded teams a home game.
Ways to improve the BCS:
-Replace the Fiesta Bowl with the Cotton Bowl in Jerry's stadium. sure
-Do whatever needs to be done to make all auto-bid conferences have a championship game. agreed
-Tell Notre Dame to go to Hell. +

in the end, a playoff is needed. thats the only way to solve problems like this. not computers, or voters. settling it on the field quells rumors and removes reasons for bitching. make it an 8 team playoff. there has never been a season where more than 8 teams had a legit position to claim rights to play for the national championship. at the end of the season, the top 8 ranked teams play for it all. make all coaches and ap/harris poll votes public each and every week to keep everyone honest.

imagine ou, tech, texas, florida, alabama, usc (throw in penn st and utah to give them a reason to stop bitching). 6 of those 8 teams could easily be the best team in the country. how can you possibly form a legit argument against letting them battle it out on the field to determine who is the best? the voters say alabama and tech are the best...but are they? they change their votes for rankings almost every single week because of on-field performance.

[JLEW1818]

ZERO RANKINGS, ZERO BOWLS.


ha

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think Shaun believes in his argument

[Stitch Face]

I think Shaun believes in his argument

I think he makes some good points. In fact, just the other day I was thinking


A playoff would allow many Big XII and SEC teams to basically have two losses and still get in every year. Is this really what we want? Loosing a big game wouldn't really matter anymore and teams might rest their starters at the end of the season if they hadn't lost yet, making for throw-away games. Heck, the Big XII Championship would probably be irrelevant every year.

And, ya, I know you'll still want to win every game to improve your seeding, but the fact remains that you don't have to.

My thoughts:
-College football is awesome now because every game matters, and big games matter even more. Heck, even how you win games matters.
it still would in a playoff situation
-A playoff would dilute the regular season and make college football suck. please elaborate on that. how many championship calibur teams slip up and lose a game and spend the rest of the season seeking retribution in a 1-loss season (see usc, ou, texas, florida (and tech after 11/22) )
-The BCS isn't that bad and people will find something else to complain about even if we have a playoff. like what? like how its all settled on the field?
-I'm tired of adding more games to the season. It just results in more injuries and thus more crappy games where a good team looses because their star player is out. Do we really want the best team to be the healthiest one?
of course not. with a playoff, there would be no more conference championships. you can easily make the season 10, 11, or 12 weeks long by realigning the ooc schedule
-How many people really have the time/money to travel to the Cotton Bowl, Big XII Championship, a bunch of playoff games, and then the NC?
ncaa tourney isnt suffering these sort of setbacks. attendance wouldnt be a problem if the 1st round gave the higher seeded teams a home game.
Ways to improve the BCS:
-Replace the Fiesta Bowl with the Cotton Bowl in Jerry's stadium. sure
-Do whatever needs to be done to make all auto-bid conferences have a championship game. agreed
-Tell Notre Dame to go to Hell.

+

in the end, a playoff is needed. thats the only way to solve problems like this. not computers, or voters. settling it on the field quells rumors and removes reasons for bitching. make it an 8 team playoff. there has never been a season where more than 8 teams had a legit position to claim rights to play for the national championship. at the end of the season, the top 8 ranked teams play for it all. make all coaches and ap/harris poll votes public each and every week to keep everyone honest.

imagine ou, tech, texas, florida, alabama, usc (throw in penn st and utah to give them a reason to stop bitching). 6 of those 8 teams could easily be the best team in the country. how can you possibly form a legit argument against letting them battle it out on the field to determine who is the best? the voters say alabama and tech are the best...but are they? they change their votes for rankings almost every single week because of on-field performance.

[Leroy Lizard]

make it an 8 team playoff. there has never been a season where more than 8 teams had a legit position to claim rights to play for the national championship. at the end of the season, the top 8 ranked teams play for it all.

Here we go again.

Eight-team playoffs become 16-team playoffs.

[goodolesooner]

Nothing more than a final four. I'd be happy with a BCS +1 (if necessary)

Anything over 4 would be a bit too much.

[Collier11]

Here we go again.

Eight-team playoffs become 16-team playoffs.

Thats all you got and it isnt even a good argument

[shaun4411]

Here we go again.

Eight-team playoffs become 16-team playoffs.

collier is right, that isnt a good argument. a playoff would be situated simply to determine the champion. there is never a situation where 16 teams have a legitimate shot at the championship game. in many seasons its 3 or 4. in recent memory its been 5 or 6 . and in the past couple seasons, including this one, its 5 or 6 with 1 or 2 midmajors who are either undefeated or have 1 loss. i think 8 would quell the bitchin and crown a real champion. if the best team loses in the 1st round at home, tough turkey. guess you really werent the best team.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

i think 8 would quell the bitchin and crown a real champion. if the best team loses in the 1st round at home, tough turkey. guess you really werent the best team.

First of all, nothing will quell the bitchin..There will always be a gripe about something concerning the post season. The NCAA basketball tourney lets in 65 teams, and there is always a gripe about 2 or 3 teams that get left out.

So Oklahoma beats Missouri twice last year during the regular season. In an 8-team playoff, they get in.

1. Do they really deserve a shot at the NC?
2. If they beat Oklahoma in the playoffs, are they the better team? According to your argument, they are.

[8timechamps]

Thats all you got and it isnt even a good argument

I still don't even know what the dudes argument is. I've asked him to give his argument (in a specific way), and have yet to see anything except "it's logistical problems", and "once there is a playoff, the damage is done".

Don't look now, but NCAA basketball is starting. I'm sure Leroy won't watch any OU games. Afterall, there is a playoff at the end of the season, and according to him, the regular season doesn't mean anything.

[8timechamps]

1. Do they really deserve a shot at the NC?
Who knows? But at least they get a chance to prove it on the field.


2. If they beat Oklahoma in the playoffs, are they the better team? According to your argument, they are.
How is that different than say the NE Patriots last year? According to the "experts" they were by far the best team in the NFL, but, they couldn't back it up. They had their chance and couldn't get it done. Does it ever hurt the ratings when two teams from the same division (that have already played each other twice in the regular season) meet in the playoffs? No.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

They already had chances to prove it on the field though..13 chances. Who knows? Judging by the fact OU already beat them twice, everybody knows.

The 16-0 mark the Patriots had meant nothing..And then to say that a playoff wouldn't make regular season games less meaningful in college football..See IMO, that proves the point about how it would change the regular season.

Playoffs have nothing to do with the best team winning and more to do with who can get hot at the beginning of the playoffs and make a run..

[8timechamps]

Playoffs have nothing to do with the best team winning and more to do with who can get hot at the beginning of the playoffs and make a run..

If your talking about baseball, then I agree 100% (see the Rockies 2007 run).

There is no such thing as a football team getting "hot" after 12 or 13 games. You're either able to outplay your opponent, or you're not.

As I've said in previous posts in this thread, the notion that a playoff system would some how "ruin" the regular season is a BCS dreamed up excuse.

Look no further than college basketball. I plan to watch every minute of the Sooner's game tonight (and any other game that's televised). I will enjoy it just as much as I would if there wasn't a playoff. Not to mention that there isn't a player out there that would play less motivated because there is a playoff at the end of the season.

Will it possibly diminish the importance of a (very) few games? Maybe. But if it does, it's small price worth paying to see the national championship settled on the field, and not in someone's office.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

If your talking about baseball, then I agree 100% (see the Rockies 2007 run).

There is no such thing as a football team getting "hot" after 12 or 13 games. You're either able to outplay your opponent, or you're not.



Seems like the Superbowl champs from last year would fit that mold..Heck they didn't even win their own division...

I understand the idea behind what people want in a playoff...I can see positives in it that would work good in theory..I there hasn't been a scenario I have seen that would make things better....and most playoff people aren't willing to even talk +1....

Let me ask you this then..because anybody who makes the case for something should be able to explain the negatives of it..

What would the negatives be if there was a playoff?

[Collier11]

Seems like the Superbowl champs from last year would fit that mold..Heck they didn't even win their own division...

I understand the idea behind what people want in a playoff...I can see positives in it that would work good in theory..I there hasn't been a scenario I have seen that would make things better....and most playoff people aren't willing to even talk +1....

Let me ask you this then..because anybody who makes the case for something should be able to explain the negatives of it..

What would the negatives be if there was a playoff?

You didnt ask me but ill answer

An undefeated team having to play 2 or 3 games as opposed to 1(although they do this in all other sports including lower levels of cfb)

Possibly losing a game off of the sched in the regular season

A playoff getting too big, I think 16 would be the absolute max I would ever want to see although 4 or 8 would be ideal

Other than that, all the other ones can be figured out such as the season being too long, finals, logistics, etc...

[8timechamps]

I understand the idea behind what people want in a playoff...I can see positives in it that would work good in theory..I there hasn't been a scenario I have seen that would make things better....and most playoff people aren't willing to even talk +1....

Speaking only for myself, I would be happy with any kind of playoff. I'd be just as happy with a +1 as I would with an 8 team playoff.




Let me ask you this then..because anybody who makes the case for something should be able to explain the negatives of it..

What would the negatives be if there was a playoff?


If there are problems, I think it will have more to do with the first year or two than with anything else. The adjustments that all the bowls will have to go through I'm sure won't be pleasant. The conferences will need to be on the same page in terms of championship games (or even how to determine a champion). All of that will be tough to go through for the first time.

Then there is the issue of hearing from the teams that think they should be in the playoff. I don't expect bitching to go away. As long as there is something to gain from any competition, there will always be bitching. Much like the three or four basketball teams each year that complain about not making it into the field of 65.

My problem is that I am a diehard college football fan. Not to be confused with a "traditionalist". I want to see the championship played out. Not selected.

It's only a matter of time before the BCS/NCAA makes a move toward a playoff. Could be a few years, could be 15 years. But, they can't ignore the majority forever. The frustration that I have is that once a playoff is in place, and people see how great it is, the BCS will realize that they shouldn'thave been so resistant to change.

Reminds me of the years and years people complained about ties in college football. Once the NCAA finally gave in, people complained that the system the NCAA adopted would ruin the game. We now see that it has only added to the attraction of (IMO) the greatest sport on earth.

[soonervegas]

Keep 12 game season
Implement conference championship games for all conferences.
65 team playoff - top 2 big 10 teams can have a playin game.
Final two teams play best of 5
Season runs from August 31st till sometime in April.

[8timechamps]

Keep 12 game season
Implement conference championship games for all conferences.
64 team playoff
Final two teams play best of 5
Season runs from August 31st till the following August 29.

Fixed it for you.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

spek to 8 time and c11...I understand your points of view..good jorb fellas....

I don't have time to go all into my opinion now, but at least I think it can be discussed now

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

11 game regular season and all conferences must have a conference championship game

The conference champions of the Big 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, PAC-10 and Big East receive automatic bids. The next six highest ranked teams in the BCS, regardless of conference, receive bids.

The highest 4 rated BCS teams receive a first round bye, and the rest of the teams are seeded based on their BCS ranking. Thus, if the season ended today
(using the highest BCS ranking to determine conference champions if they have the same records)

Bye Teams
1 Alabama
2 Texas Tech
3 Florida
4 Penn State

5-12
5 Cincinnati
6 Miami
7 Texas
8 Oklahoma
9 USC
10 Utah
11 Boise State
12 Ohio State

December 13th Games Played at Higher Seed
Game 1 Ohio State @ Cincinatti
Game 2 Boise State @ Miami
Game 3 Utah @ Texas
Game 4 USC @ Oklahoma

December 20th
Cotton Bowl Winner of Game 1 vs Penn State
Peach Bowl Winner of Game 2 vs Texas Tech
Gator Bowl Winner of Game 3 vs Florida
Fiesta Bowl Winner of Game 4 vs Alabama

January 1st
Orange Bowl Winner of Cotton vs Winner of Peach
Sugar Bowl Winner of Gator vs Winner of Fiesta

January 8th
Rose Bowl Winner of Orange vs Winner of Sugar

[Howzit]

for entertainment only, but maybe we could submit it to someone who cares after this thread reaches 30-40 pages :D

1- keep the precious BCS rankings. heaven forbid we drop this gem.

2- toss out conference tie-ins. every conference has an equal shot of being there. yes, even you BigEast.

3- all conferences play a championship game. if it means adding teams to get to 12 in a conference, so be it. yes, notre dame, that means you. it's time to stop being self rightous and get your asses into the Big10. so, you get 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games (i suggest you use these wisely - i'm talking to you, auburn and k-state).

4- top 8 team IN THE BCS RANKINGS at the end of the season (including conference championship games) get into the playoff. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE 6 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS +2 OUTSIDERS, THIS MEANS THE TOP 8 TEAMS... PERIOD!!!! if you don't like it, play better or get out of the sucky big east conference. if boise state finishes in the top 8, good for them.

5a- top 4 seeds get home games. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5. hey, we're going to reward you for playing good football.

OR 5b- keep the seeding and make the 4 BCS bowls (orange, etc...) the first round of games. the only problem i have with this is travel for fans. too much travel for the winners' fan base in the final 3 games.

6- rotate the NATIONAL SEMI-FINALS and NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP from year to year/locations to location. don't call it some cheesy name like the "college football superbowl" or something like that. the "National Semi Final" will do just fine.

7- all other bowl games with remain intact and just as meaningless as they do now. i know, they're fun and all, but do we really need the poulan weedeater bowl anymore?

8- just for good measure, if anyone mentions the words "heisman trophy" before november 1, they will be shot on sight.


thoughts/comments


Too lazy to see if someone else already posted this, so....

I like most of this, but number 1 has no sarcasm from me. I think the BCS is not a bad system for deciding the 8 teams in the playoff.

...add 2 bowl games (existing bowls) to make a total of 6 BCS bowls. They rotate from year to year, with 4 of them being 1st round games, and the remaining 2 being semis.

Normal 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, blah blah blah seeds.

Add a Championship game.

No home games.

The end.

[Curly Bill]

If your talking about baseball, then I agree 100% (see the Rockies 2007 run).

There is no such thing as a football team getting "hot" after 12 or 13 games. You're either able to outplay your opponent, or you're not.
.

So...you're saying the NY Giants were the best FB team all season last year? Hell, everyone admits they happened to get it going at the right time of year.

[SoonerMachine]

2008 BCS 8-team Playoff Formula:

1. After the regular season ends, rank all eleven D–1A conference champions by the BCS:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 – OU (12-1) – Big 12
#2 – Florida (12-1) – SEC
#5 – USC (11-1) – Pacific 10
#6 – Utah (12-0) – Mountain West
#8 – Penn St. (11-1) – Big 10
#9 – Boise St. (12-1) – WAC
#12 – Cincinnati (11-2) – Big East
#19 – Virginia Tech. (9-4) – ACC
#32 – East Carolina (9-4) – Conference USA
#39 – Buffalo (8-5) – MAC
(NR) – Troy (8-4) – Sun


2. Select the six highest ranked conference champions (regardless of conference):

#1 – OU – Big 12
#2 – Florida – SEC
#5 – USC – Pacific 10
#6 – Utah – Mountain West
#8 – Penn St. – Big 10
#9 – Boise St. – WAC

3. Select the two highest ranked at-large teams (conference or independent):

#3 – Texas – Big 12
#6 – Alabama – SEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st Round:

#1 OU hosts #9 Boise St.

#2 Florida hosts #8 Penn St.

#5 USC hosts #6 Utah

#3 Texas hosts #4 Alabama (at-large elimination game)

2nd Round:

Highest rank hosts lowest rank

Second highest hosts third lowest

3rd Round:

Winners play in the national championship game.

[Crucifax Autumn]

My idea...just have one. Period!

I don't care how many teams or what the criteria are, but I'm sick and tired of trying to talk football with NFL fans and saying dumb **** like "if the polls come out this way we're in the BCS championship game. I want to say if we win this one we're in the playoffs.