It strikes me while watching the Div. 1 Football Championship......

[Collier11]

Correction. They USED to be played in late August. They pushed the start of the season to early September out of concern for the players. Football is a cold-weather sport, and late August in Tempe, AZ is miserable.

Now, some stadiums can accommodate night games, and many of those were featured games in August in the past. But not all stadiums are so equipped, and you are asking for every team to start in August. I don't think college presidents will go for it. IIRC, ADs led the fight against the early starts because of attrition.

Given all this, starting college football a week earlier may be fairly doable. It is on the other end (January) where I have some serious issues with your playoff idea.



Actually, many players struggle with academics in the fall, and you are asking them to start off the spring under even worse conditions.

There is a reason why college presidents have been adamant about not playing into the spring semester. Think about the student athletes and where they will be during the first week of school. What faculty member would ever advocate players traveling during the first week of the semester, especially given the academic struggles these students typically face.

I'm not making this up. My thinking aligns closely to college presidents'. Pretending that these arguments are weak is not going to get you a playoff.



Actually, it's the 7th. You're not talking about the 7th, but rather the 15th--a full week later.

Sure, your playoff idea is POSSIBLE. You can play football every freakin' week of the year if you want to. The question is: Is it worth it?

You are asking players to start a week earlier, and play a week later, for the purpose of settling a question that up until now never needed settling. So in my view it simply isn't worth it.

Now, if you could come up with a compelling reason why we need a playoff, then you could make your case more convincing for making these deleterious changes. But since college football's popularity has only grown in 100 years without it, I doubt you will get very far.

I was asked to put together a plan that works, I did. Are there some questions that would need to be ironed out, of course, but as it stands it would work.

Why do you assume football players would struggle so much with starting spring semester while playing, despite the fact that it would only be 2 teams which you seem to have ignored, I still dont get it. Cbb players have classes in 2 semesters, wrestlers do as well.

You asking me for legit reasons why we NEED a playoff is another issue. Again, I have never said we need a playoff, I do want one, I dont have to have one, I am just pointing out what should be obvious, that is the fact that it could be done

[Leroy Lizard]

I was asked to put together a plan that works, I did. Are there some questions that would need to be ironed out, of course, but as it stands it would work.

Well, I can create a 64-team playoff if I am willing to start the games early enough in the season. Anyone can do that.

You have to create a system that works and is good for college football. As it stands, your playoff idea is only designed to satisfy the fans' needs. It cares nothing about the student athlete whatsoever.


Why do you assume football players would struggle so much with starting spring semester while playing, despite the fact that it would only be 2 teams which you seem to have ignored, I still dont get it. Cbb players have classes in 2 semesters, wrestlers do as well.

Collier, I have taught college football players in my classes for many years. Have you?

I'm not just the average sports fan. I hand college athletes exams. I hand them final grades. I know what I am talking about.

As a college faculty member, I want my students on campus during the first week of school and focused on their academics. Don't you?

Seriously, I ask you. Do you want student-athletes on campus focused on their academics? The answer is, you really don't care. I mean, YOU REALLY DON'T.

I have had college basketball players in my classes. Believe me, we don't want any sport to emulate college basketball in terms of academics.

I cannot recall having any wrestlers in my class and I have no way of gauging their academic skills. It's graduation rate is higher than football's, but it probably admits fewer unprepared students.


You asking me for legit reasons why we NEED a playoff is another issue. Again, I have never said we need a playoff, I do want one, I dont have to have one, I am just pointing out what should be obvious, that is the fact that it could be done

Sure, it CAN be done (to the detriment of college football). That's what worries me. If it was logistically impossible, I wouldn't even bother responding to you.

[Collier11]

Well, I can create a 64-team playoff if I am willing to start the games early enough in the season. Anyone can do that.

You have to create a system that works and is good for college football. As it stands, your playoff idea is only designed to satisfy the fans' needs. It cares nothing about the student athlete whatsoever.

I did what I was asked to do, I dont know enough about the rest to really touch on it but I guarantee you it could be worked out.

Collier, I have taught college football players in my classes for many years. Have you?

I'm not just the average sports fan. I hand college athletes exams. I hand them final grades. I know what I am talking about.

As a college faculty member, I want my students on campus during the first week of school and focused on their academics. Don't you?

Seriously, I ask you. Do you want student-athletes on campus focused on their academics? The answer is, you really don't care. I mean, YOU REALLY DON'T.

I want anyone that represents my University to not sound like Vince Young when they speak in public, I cringe anytime academic reports are listed and OU hasnt done well or a few players are ineligible. Dont tell me what I do or dont care about. I think you are painting with too broad of a brush on your end by assuming that they cant handle it.

I have had college basketball players in my classes. Believe me, we don't want any sport to emulate college basketball in terms of academics.

I cannot recall having any wrestlers in my class and I have no way of gauging their academic skills. It's graduation rate is higher than football's, but it probably admits fewer unprepared students.

This is all students, athletes just get more of a focus. Some students come in and blow it away academically, some struggle early then get it together and graduate like I did, some struggle early and flunk out or drop out, you cant generalize that it is all athletes though. The point is, academic motivation is all in the mind of the individual, athlete or not.



Sure, it CAN be done (to the detriment of college football). That's what worries me. If it was logistically impossible, I wouldn't even bother responding to you.

Dont act like your opinion is SO important around here, remember that you are the one who asked me for a plan that worked and I gave it to you, once I gave it to you and you saw that it would work, you changed the argument. I entertain this debate with you because it is engaging, even though I dont agree with you and I think you are a little too close minded in most everything you talk about around here, I have no problem debating with you.

If you want me to give you a plan that would work in the Fall semester and go no later than Jan 7th I could, it might take more time but it could be done and that is the point, you keep acting like it is impossible and it isnt, and regardless of your thought process the academic standing of football players around the country wont go up in smoke if we had a playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

I want anyone that represents my University to not sound like Vince Young when they speak in public, I cringe anytime academic reports are listed and OU hasnt done well or a few players are ineligible. Dont tell me what I do or dont care about. I think you are painting with too broad of a brush on your end by assuming that they cant handle it.

Vince Young is our standard for academic excellence? Can he even string two sentences together?

I admit that Vince Young doesn't do much for my academic stance. I mean, it's difficult to coalesce the image of higher learning with VY, but I would like to think that he is the exception to the rule, and that UT football players don't represent the norm.

Okay, so the presence of UT football does screw up my argument. After all, running into stationary apartment buildings doesn't require the brains of a rocket scientist.


This is all students, athletes just get more of a focus. Some students come in and blow it away academically, some struggle early then get it together and graduate like I did, some struggle early and flunk out or drop out, you cant generalize that it is all athletes though. The point is, academic motivation is all in the mind of the individual, athlete or not.

We should be creating a system that makes it easier for athletes to succeed academically, not harder. A playoff system doesn't offer any advantages to the student-athlete, so it does not serve the purpose of the university.

So I just see no good coming of a playoff, other than satisfying the fans' need to settle an argument.


If you want me to give you a plan that would work in the Fall semester and go no later than Jan 7th I could, it might take more time but it could be done

There just aren't enough weeks in the time between early September and early January to install a 16-team playoff without making unnecessary sacrifices. Sure, we could give up bye weeks, and conference championship games, or have students study near final exams... but it simply isn't worth it. A playoff system is ultimately a selfish demand on part of the fans and media.

[TopDawg]

If teams didn't want to play that early game in August, they could schedule a bye week for that week.

The academics are a concern. But if Leroy is going to continue to dismiss a proposal that extends 1 week into the spring semester for two teams...if he thinks that is a big enough concern that the college presidents will not support a system that inflicts such academic harm...then I suppose we can't convince him otherwise. Personally, I don't think that's a big academic problem. At OU, the January 15th date would be prior to the start of the spring semester.


Your method remains flawed. Why should BCS standings be the defining selection for the postseason? Who should be automatic qualifiers? Who should be At-Large? Why should LSU, Va Tech, or Iowa get in over a conference champion?

The method we have NOW is flawed. Do you think that the smaller conferences are going to oppose an 8-team playoff that gives them a better chance at being in the national championship playoff just because it doesn't give their conference an automatic bid?

[TopDawg]

So I just see no good coming of a playoff, other than satisfying the fans' need to settle an argument.

You don't see any good coming from offering the student-athletes at TCU, Boise State and Cincinnati a chance to prove themselves to be the best in the nation this year? Maybe you honestly don't and that's fine. I do see some good coming from that, though. I think they've earned it and I think it's a shame that our current system doesn't allow them that chance.

[TopDawg]

So you have pushed the beginning back into the August heat, and pushed the end into the beginning of the Spring semester. And for what? To settle some silly question about which team is the best.

I appreciate the time Collier put into his explanation. But it's not the only option. The first round could be played one week earlier than he suggests (around Christmas) which would allow for the playoffs to conclude one week earlier.

But I really wanted to touch on your last point because you seem to be caught up on the idea that this is ONLY for the fans. But, seriously, do you think that the student-athletes at Boise State, TCU, Cincinnati (or Utah or Auburn or wherever else in the past) would prefer the current system or one that gave them an opportunity to win the national title on the field? The playoff systems we're suggesting have minimal...if any...impact on the academics of the fall and spring semester. How do our proposals "care nothing about the student athlete whatsoever"? The same hyperbolic statement could be made toward your stance.

[Leroy Lizard]

If teams didn't want to play that early game in August, they could schedule a bye week for that week.

ADs won't go for it. Bye weeks allow their players a chance to catch up on midterms. In fact, I used to schedule midterms for the players in my class to coincide with the bye week. (As a college prof, I can do that. I cannot reschedule final exams, however, without the Dean's permission.)

Besides, bye weeks are designed also to help a team heal from injuries. Hard to do that when you have shot your bye week away in Week 1.

Again, think things through a little. Bye weeks do serve purposes. Why not think about it a little bit before posting?


The academics are a concern.

There's an old saying: A crow can say the words.

Sure, you can SAY that academics are a concern. But nothing you have posted so far indicates that you pay little more than lip service to it.


But if Leroy is going to continue to dismiss a proposal that extends 1 week into the spring semester for two teams...if he thinks that is a big enough concern that the college presidents will not support a system that inflicts such academic harm...then I suppose we can't convince him otherwise.

So far you haven't convinced the college presidents otherwise either.

And here's why: Rather than thinking things through and weighing the pluses and minuses, you playoff proponents throw out ideas willy-nilly in the hopes that some will stick.

You say "concern for academics," but you're not concerned about academics at all. Certainly I have seen no arguments from playoff proponents that indicate that they worry about academics. Not a bit. ZERO.


Personally, I don't think that's a big academic problem. At OU, the January 15th date would be prior to the start of the spring semester.

Not at Alabama, which begins on January 11th.

The last day to drop is January 13th. So you have student-athletes trying to attend their first classes of the semester and adding/dropping courses, all the while preparing to play a national championship game 2,400 miles away.

With January weather, some schools will need to depart as early as Thursday, which means students will only attend three of the first five days of the spring semester.

They call that a "bad idea."

So there IS a difference between saying you're concerned about academics, and actually being concerned.


You don't see any good coming from offering the student-athletes at TCU, Boise State and Cincinnati a chance to prove themselves to be the best in the nation this year?

In terms of their reasons for being on campus? No.

It doesn't do much for their ability to land a job.

It doesn't help them academically.

So no, not really.


Maybe you honestly don't and that's fine. I do see some good coming from that, though. I think they've earned it and I think it's a shame that our current system doesn't allow them that chance.

This isn't about the players. This is about the fans and the media.

[TopDawg]

ADs won't go for it. Bye weeks allow their players a chance to catch up on midterms. In fact, I used to schedule midterms for the players in my class to coincide with the bye week. (As a college prof, I can do that. I cannot reschedule final exams, however, without the Dean's permission.)

Besides, bye weeks are designed also to help a team heal from injuries. Hard to do that when you have shot your bye week away in Week 1.

Again, think things through a little. Bye weeks do serve purposes. Why not think about it a little bit before posting?

Big 10 schools...you know, the ones that value academics...don't have any bye weeks until the end of the season. Perhaps that's to give their teams more time to prepare for finals, but apparently they don't see too big of a problem with scheduling all of their games back-to-back with no breaks. So maybe it's not as absurd as you'd have us think.

[Scott D]

The method we have NOW is flawed. Do you think that the smaller conferences are going to oppose an 8-team playoff that gives them a better chance at being in the national championship playoff just because it doesn't give their conference an automatic bid?

Using Collier's method the smaller conferences have no better opportunity to be in the National Championship game than they do in the current system. In fact, it gives credence to the polls being skewed even more to prevent exactly that.

[Leroy Lizard]

I appreciate the time Collier put into his explanation. But it's not the only option. The first round could be played one week earlier than he suggests (around Christmas) which would allow for the playoffs to conclude one week earlier.

Post the date, and then look at the final exam schedules. I think you will see a conflict.


But I really wanted to touch on your last point because you seem to be caught up on the idea that this is ONLY for the fans. But, seriously, do you think that the student-athletes at Boise State, TCU, Cincinnati (or Utah or Auburn or wherever else in the past) would prefer the current system or one that gave them an opportunity to win the national title on the field?

I have seen no indication that anyone has even asked them. Which is why this is all about the fans.

You're not fighting for the players on TCU's squad. Give me a break.


The playoff systems we're suggesting have minimal...if any...impact on the academics of the fall and spring semester.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have posted very detailed reasons why academics will be shortchanged. All you can respond is that you don't think it will be a big deal. You cite no evidence, whatsoever. You have no experience as a faculty member from what I can tell. College presidents don't agree with you.

So what exactly are you basing your opinions on?


How do our proposals "care nothing about the student athlete whatsoever"? The same hyperbolic statement could be made toward your stance.

I can cite you numerous instances where I argued on the behalf of academics. Can you?

[TopDawg]

There's an old saying: A crow can say the words.

Sure, you can SAY that academics are a concern. But nothing you have posted so far indicates that you pay little more than lip service to it.

Well I've thrown out options that don't interfere with the spring semester at all and you've ignored them. It IS possible to schedule an 8-team playoff without impeding on fall finals or the spring semester.

All in the interest of academics.

[TopDawg]

So far you haven't convinced the college presidents otherwise either.

And here's why: Rather than thinking things through and weighing the pluses and minuses, you playoff proponents throw out ideas willy-nilly in the hopes that some will stick.

You say "concern for academics," but you're not concerned about academics at all. Certainly I have seen no arguments from playoff proponents that indicate that they worry about academics. Not a bit. ZERO.

You've seen it, you just fail to acknowledge it. It's there. You just choose to ignore it and throw out hyperbolic statements.

[Collier11]

ADs won't go for it. Bye weeks allow their players a chance to catch up on midterms. In fact, I used to schedule midterms for the players in my class to coincide with the bye week. (As a college prof, I can do that. I cannot reschedule final exams, however, without the Dean's permission.)

You cant just keep saying ADs wont go for it, you dont know that and bye weeks are not used for midterms in that many cases. You are so delusional

Besides, bye weeks are designed also to help a team heal from injuries. Hard to do that when you have shot your bye week away in Week 1.

Again, think things through a little. Bye weeks do serve purposes. Why not think about it a little bit before posting?

you havent put one ounce of thought into any of your posts, you just ramble on incoherently with your hatred of playoffs like they are the end of the world



There's an old saying: A crow can say the words.

Sure, you can SAY that academics are a concern. But nothing you have posted so far indicates that you pay little more than lip service to it.

ITS NOT OUR JOB TO ANYMORE, I had my time in school and got my degree, it is now the players time to focus on that and they do, as a matter of fact graduation rates are rising in cfb last I heard



So far you haven't convinced the college presidents otherwise either.

And here's why: Rather than thinking things through and weighing the pluses and minuses, you playoff proponents throw out ideas willy-nilly in the hopes that some will stick.

You say "concern for academics," but you're not concerned about academics at all. Certainly I have seen no arguments from playoff proponents that indicate that they worry about academics. Not a bit. ZERO.

My entire post regarding the playoff format covered academics, are you that close minded that you just ignore it?


Not at Alabama, which begins on January 11th.

Big deal, doesnt affect the students, you are such a conspiracy theorist. Two teams playing 1 week into the 1st semester of spring isnt going to hurt anything. There were bowl games as late as January 10th in the past, possibly later, therefore your argument does not work. Just because your opinion disagrees doesnt make it right

The last day to drop is January 13th. So you have student-athletes trying to attend their first classes of the semester and adding/dropping courses, all the while preparing to play a national championship game 2,400 miles away.

If classes begin on Jan 11th then the last day to drop is not the 13th

With January weather, some schools will need to depart as early as Thursday, which means students will only attend three of the first five days of the spring semester.

They call that a "bad idea."

So there IS a difference between saying you're concerned about academics, and actually being concerned.


In terms of their reasons for being on campus? No.

It doesn't do much for their ability to land a job.

It doesn't help them academically.

So no, not really.

Wow you are like the Michael Bay of football arguments, blowing things up and making them all sparkly doesnt make for a better argument.


This isn't about the players. This is about the fans and the media.

The players want a playoff, the majority of coaches want one, the fans want one, the media wants one

[Collier11]

Using Collier's method the smaller conferences have no better opportunity to be in the National Championship game than they do in the current system. In fact, it gives credence to the polls being skewed even more to prevent exactly that.

This year, Cincy, TCU, and Boise would have all had a shot at the natl title, you are way off on this one

[Collier11]

You've seen it, you just fail to acknowledge it. It's there. You just choose to ignore it and throw out hyperbolic statements.

Thats what he does, he asks for proof of something and how it will work, you show him very clearly and he either moves to a diff argument or ignores it all together. In Leroys mind he cant ever be wrong if he doesnt see the facts in front of him, sad really.

[TopDawg]

Not at Alabama, which begins on January 11th.

The last day to drop is January 13th. So you have student-athletes trying to attend their first classes of the semester and adding/dropping courses, all the while preparing to play a national championship game 2,400 miles away.

With January weather, some schools will need to depart as early as Thursday, which means students will only attend three of the first five days of the spring semester.

They call that a "bad idea."

Agreed. That's why I've thrown out other options for scheduling the playoffs that don't interfere with the spring.

Of course, you're just waving your negativity wand to rain down on every idea we propose as if there aren't ways for an institution to get around those dates for students who meet special criteria. ALL sports interfere with academics to some extent and the institutions do a good job of working around those problems when they arise. The same could be done here.

Now, let me point out before you get all in a tizzy that I would rather avoid creating that problem altogether which is why I'm for the other playoff schedule that doesn't interfere with the spring semester.

[Scott D]

This year, Cincy, TCU, and Boise would have all had a shot at the natl title, you are way off on this one

No one can legitimately argue with a straight face that Boise ever deserves a shot at the natl title.

[Collier11]

What is funny is how Leroy acts like tests cant be taken on the road if need be but I have seen and heard of 100's of cases where the student takes a monitored test while on the road. Happens all the time. Also, Leroy says if you dont pass the final you automatically fail which isnt true either, I dont know where you teach Leroy but in most schools the entire semesters work counts, not just the final. I never had a class that was dependent on the final in order to pass. It typically helped more than it hurt unless you left yourself borderline between a C and a D

[Collier11]

No one can legitimately argue with a straight face that Boise ever deserves a shot at the natl title.

They were in the Top 12 of the BCS and beat a Top 10 team, based on that I can argue it and based on my playoff proposal that you asked for I can argue it

[TopDawg]

In terms of their reasons for being on campus? No.

So you claim to know their reasons for being on campus?


It doesn't do much for their ability to land a job.

You think this will hurt their ability to land a job? You think playing 2 more games during the winter break will hurt their ability to land a job?


It doesn't help them academically.

Nor does the system I proposed hurt them academically.

[Collier11]

Playing sports rarely hurts a kids ability to land a quality education, in fact it has opened more doors academically and professionally for athletes than they would have ever had access to had they not played sports

[Scott D]

In fact, I'll use an 8 team setup for you using the FCS (where Boise's entire conference belongs)

The 6 BCS conference champions get automatic spots. So that leaves 2 At Large spots. Since it's still going to be some sort of selection committee, we'll go ahead and give TCU one of those spots. That 8th spot STILL wouldn't go to Boise State no matter what, they'd still be shut out, and there would still be whining about it. Nobody is going to go watch Boise play any of the 7 schools except Boise people. The selection committee would still pick a second team from a power conference over them..in fact I'm 99% sure they'd put Florida back into the mix before they'd select an undefeated Boise State.

If anything the BCS poll would do nothing more than give them a pool from which to draw.

[Collier11]

Well in my system Scott, if you go undefeated that doesnt guarantee you a spot in the playoffs, that is why I said use the BCS to pick the 12 best teams. I would trust that more than just the humans or just the computers

[Leroy Lizard]

Big 10 schools...you know, the ones that value academics...don't have any bye weeks until the end of the season.

Wisconsin had a bye on 10/24. Illinois had a bye week on 11/21.

Nice try.


Perhaps that's to give their teams more time to prepare for finals, but apparently they don't see too big of a problem with scheduling all of their games back-to-back with no breaks. So maybe it's not as absurd as you'd have us think.

Am I seeing this correctly? You stated, "Perhaps that's to give their teams more time to prepare for finals."

My God, a playoff proponent that actually tried to examine the situation a little deeper and come up with an explanation not grounded in fantasy. It's a first.

Regardless, right now college football teams have the freedom to choose their bye weeks to reflect their own needs. You advocated stripping them of that choice, just to institute a playoff system. So who is looking after the needs of the schools, and who is looking only at his own needs?

[Leroy Lizard]

You've seen it, you just fail to acknowledge it. It's there.

Care to show me?

[TopDawg]

Using Collier's method the smaller conferences have no better opportunity to be in the National Championship game than they do in the current system. In fact, it gives credence to the polls being skewed even more to prevent exactly that.

Right now they have to finish in the BCS top 2 to make it to the national championship playoff. Under Collier's method, they have to finish in the BCS Top 12. That means they have a better chance.

Remember, this isn't about their chances to be in the national championship game (because under an 8-or-12-team playoff system they'd have to win some tough games to get there) it's about their chances to be in the national championship playoff. It's about giving them a chance to prove themselves on the field.

[Collier11]

Based on your arguments Leroy one could assume that you are not giving your students the best chance to succeed academically because you are on a football message board at noon rather than trying to find ways to better educate your students. I mean, athletes dont really get a Christmas break so dont you owe it to them to be looking for ways to better them as students?

[Scott D]

Well in my system Scott, if you go undefeated that doesnt guarantee you a spot in the playoffs, that is why I said use the BCS to pick the 12 best teams. I would trust that more than just the humans or just the computers

If you can't trust the humans or the computers, then you can't trust a playoff to be legitimate either.

[Collier11]

That makes no sense, as I said previously I would rather take the chance that the 12 seed get hot and win the tourney (and I can guarantee you that wouldnt happen twice in 25 years) than to have a flawed system just randomly pick two teams

[TopDawg]

Wisconsin had a bye on 10/24. Illinois had a bye week on 11/21.

Nice try.

2 out of 11. Everybody else played straight through.


Am I seeing this correctly? You stated, "Perhaps that's to give their teams more time to prepare for finals."

My God, a playoff proponent that actually tried to examine the situation a little deeper and come up with an explanation not grounded in fantasy. It's a first.

Leroy, you're being ridiculous. You and I have talked about this time and time again and I've always examined the situation more deeply. You lump me in with some imaginary fanbase that you've concocted in your head that cares only about their own entertainment and cares nothing about the students. It may come as a surprise to you that I am a faculty member too and have actually taught football students in my class. I care about them. I care that they succeed academically. My job depends on it. I'm not just throwing ideas out there willy nilly. The fact that you are asking me to show you where I've considered academics just goes to prove my point that you dismiss it every time I do. If I didn't care about academics I'd say "To hell with your concerns, let's play games during finals and on into February." But I don't. I've come up with a schedule that honors finals week and the beginning of the spring semester. From a strictly competitive playoff perspective, it's not ideal. But it does the job when considering the academic needs.


Regardless, right now college football teams have the freedom to choose their bye weeks to reflect their own needs. You advocated stripping them of that choice, just to institute a playoff system. So who is looking after the needs of the schools, and who is looking only at his own needs

Again, that's using Collier's system. I'd suggest a different schedule that would allow more bye week flexibility. I agree with you that the schools should have that flexibility.

[Leroy Lizard]

ITS NOT OUR JOB TO ANYMORE, I had my time in school and got my degree, it is now the players time to focus on that and they do, as a matter of fact graduation rates are rising in cfb last I heard

Oh, this is precious! I got my degree, screw 'em!! Bwahahaha!!!! That's just wonderful.

Wow, the concern for academics just oozes out of your writing.


My entire post regarding the playoff format covered academics, are you that close minded that you just ignore it?

Addressing and covering are two different things.


Big deal, doesnt affect the students, you are such a conspiracy theorist. Two teams playing 1 week into the 1st semester of spring isnt going to hurt anything. There were bowl games as late as January 10th in the past, possibly later, therefore your argument does not work. Just because your opinion disagrees doesnt make it right

You're playoff idea has the teams playing on January 15th, not the 10th.

Again, you can't pin playoff proponents down to anything. They say, "Well, OU classes don't begin until January 19." When I point out that Alabama's begin on January 11th, the argument shifts once more. "Well, it won't hurt that much."

[Leroy Lizard]

Based on your arguments Leroy one could assume that you are not giving your students the best chance to succeed academically because you are on a football message board at noon rather than trying to find ways to better educate your students.

Dude, do you realize how desperate your argument sounds?

[TopDawg]

Dude, do you realize how desperate your argument sounds?

It's almost as bad as saying "No, two of the eleven teams you're talking about didn't do that so your argument is total bogus. Nice try."

[Leroy Lizard]

You and I have talked about this time and time again and I've always examined the situation more deeply. You lump me in with some imaginary fanbase that you've concocted in your head that cares only about their own entertainment and cares nothing about the students. It may come as a surprise to you that I am a faculty member too and have actually taught football students in my class. I care about them. I care that they succeed academically.

Then argue for a system that gives them the best chance to succeed academically. I fail to see how any 16-team playoff satisfies that need. Do you?

[Collier11]

Oh, this is precious! I got my degree, screw 'em!! Bwahahaha!!!! That's just wonderful.

Wow, the concern for academics just oozes out of your writing.


My point once again that you keep CHOOSING to ignore is this, I was asked to put together a system that worked, I did, I admitted it had flaws but they could be addressed, I also took into account plenty of time for finals which again you ignore. I am not a college professor or an administrator so I dont have every single academic detail in front of me that I would need to consider. I put that together as a fan and took into consideration everything that you asked me to consider

Addressing and covering are two different things.



You're playoff idea has the teams playing on January 15th, not the 10th.

Again, you can't pin playoff proponents down to anything. They say, "Well, OU classes don't begin until January 19." When I point out that Alabama's begin on January 11th, the argument shifts once more. "Well, it won't hurt that much."

You are never going to be able to 100% meet the needs of every school Leroy, it is just not possible


Dude, do you realize how desperate your argument sounds?

so now you know what its like to look in the mirror and not like what you see considering I used that as an example of your arguments over the past few days in this thread

[Leroy Lizard]

It's almost as bad as saying "No, two of the eleven teams you're talking about didn't do that so your argument is total bogus. Nice try."

Here is what you said:


Big 10 schools...you know, the ones that value academics...don't have any bye weeks until the end of the season.

That statement is false.

[ndpruitt03]

Leroy you do realize that players have tests during the regular season all the time. How do they manage? They must just all fail anyway or have people cheating for them if it's as hard. Especially for road games. We might as well just stop college football altogether because it is just a distraction from school.

[Collier11]

Here is what you said:



That statement is false.

and many things you have said are false, such as "the ADs wont go for it, or the Presidents wont go for it" when the truth is that you have no idea. You think they wont go for it but you have no idea.

If you were truly honest about all of this you would admit that the lack of a playoff has nothing to do with the students either, its about the money money money. But then again, you have a problem with being honest or open minded

[TopDawg]

Here is what you said:



That statement is false.

Ok. And you said "ADs won't go for it. Bye weeks allow their players a chance to catch up on midterms."

Your "ADs won't go for it" statement is false.

[Leroy Lizard]

You are never going to be able to 100% meet the needs of every school Leroy, it is just not possible

Bowl games are scheduled away from final exams, and participation is purely by invitation.

So the system we have now satisfies the academic needs of college football. So why move away from it?

Now, if we NEEDED a playoff system, things would be different. But you haven't demonstrated any need for one.


so now you know what its like to look in the mirror and not like what you see considering I used that as an example of your arguments over the past few days in this thread

Collier, drop it. You're going nowhere with that silly argument.

[Collier11]

Bowl games are scheduled away from final exams, and participation is purely by invitation.

So the system we have now satisfies the academic needs of college football. So why move away from it?

Now, if we NEEDED a playoff system, things would be different. But you haven't demonstrated any need for one.

and in my playoff system, the playoffs were scheduled away from finals, in fact they followed your beloved bowl schedule, hell they even started a week later, so this statement right here proves how hypocritical you are. Plus, as TD said, if it needed to be moved up a week it could be


Collier, drop it. You're going nowhere with that silly argument.

Truth hurts dont it? I Proved my point, that is all I needed to do. You are wishy washy, you are presumptive, and you are also wrong. And for the FINAL time, I have never said we NEED a playoff, you asked me to show you how one would work, I did that and you freaked out and starting grasping, just get over it

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy you do realize that players have tests during the regular season all the time. How do they manage?

A lot of them don't. What's your point? That because they already struggle, we should be given free reign to make it even harder?


They must just all fail anyway or have people cheating for them if it's as hard. Especially for road games. We might as well just stop college football altogether because it is just a distraction from school.

Now we resort to the "baby and the bath water" argument. Because playing football makes it tough on students to succeed academically, we should be allowed to make it as hard as we want on them, or shut the system down completely.

C'mon, man. We can do better than that.

[Collier11]

Alot of regular students dont manage either, I guess we should take away their ability to work and play as well...man, college is just too hard to play a game or have responsibilities outside of school I guess...you are getting desperate Leroy, really desperate

[Leroy Lizard]

"the ADs wont go for it, or the Presidents wont go for it" when the truth is that you have no idea. You think they wont go for it but you have no idea.

It's called conjecture. And my statements are clearly conjecture. And I supported the conjecture with reasoning.

The statement about Big-10 schools was not conjecture, but factual. And it was in error.

But I don't think it is any big deal. A minor nit.


If you were truly honest about all of this you would admit that the lack of a playoff has nothing to do with the students either, its about the money money money. But then again, you have a problem with being honest or open minded

I'm not so open minded that my brains fall out. You are not asking me to b open-minded, but rather to be a sucker. Not falling for it.

As for the money argument, state what money you are talking about. All the playoff proponents crow about how many billions of dollars a playoff will generate, but then in the same sentence go on to say that the bowl system pumps too much money to the schools. So something's up.

[TopDawg]

Then argue for a system that gives them the best chance to succeed academically. I fail to see how any 16-team playoff satisfies that need. Do you?

I'm not arguing for a 16-team playoff. I'm arguing for an 8-team playoff.

Will an 8-team playoff eventually turn into a 16-team playoff? All other sports seem to indicate that it will. But all other sports are different. They don't have the same logistical and academic hurdles that football would face if they went from 8 to 16. So maybe that's enough to keep football from going to 16.

But maybe it's not. Maybe you're right that an 8-team would inevitably move to 16 teams. But here's the confusing part. Sometimes you say that an 8-team playoff "won't" happen because of the academic concerns. Sometimes you say that an 8-team playoff "shouldn't" happen because of the academic concerns. Despite our disagreement on the reality or impossibility of handling the academic concerns, if you really do think that academic concerns "won't" allow a playoff to happen then why are you worried about a 16-team playoff? If it will interfere with academics then it won't happen. Right? The presidents and ADs won't let it.

Personally, I agree with a lot of you that an 8-team playoff would definitely eventually lead to discussion of a 16-team playoff and so on. But I don't think that moving to an 8-team playoff is going to suddenly make everyone forget that the "specialness" of the regular season and academics concerns need to be considered. I think that any discussion of a 16-team playoff will heavily consider those important issues (and many others we've discussed). So although I agree that an 8-team will lead to some people wanting a 16-team, it seems to me that some of you are afraid the post-season will turn into some runaway monster that we won't be able to control. I don't share that fear.

[Leroy Lizard]

Alot of regular students dont manage either, I guess we should take away their ability to work and play as well...man, college is just too hard to play a game or have responsibilities outside of school I guess..

Your playoff arguments have really degenerated to the juvenile level. You should stick to "Why we need a playoff" and "Here is why my playoff idea won't hurt academics."

[TopDawg]

It's called conjecture. And my statements are clearly conjecture. And I supported the conjecture with reasoning.

The statement about Big-10 schools was not conjecture, but factual. And it was in error.

Fair enough. But your conjecture was more misleading than my statement. You said "AD's won't go for it." I showed proof that they will. While Wisconsin and Illinois didn't do it this year, they DID do it last year. So, in fact, AD's WILL go for it.

You're right. My mistake was a minor nit. But your conjecture that ADs won't go for it wasn't. They WILL go for it.

Even still, I've suggested a plan that won't force them to.

[Collier11]

Ive done that, you took this to the juvenile level a long time ago with your 'take my ball and go home' mentality, im just playing on your level now

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Anything more than a +1 is too much

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not arguing for a 16-team playoff. I'm arguing for an 8-team playoff.

Which means you are arguing for a 16-team playoff, because an 8-team playoff will grow into a 16-team playoff.

Could a four-team playoff work and preserve academics? Absolutely.

Could an eight-team playoff work and preserve academics? I suppose. It's a little tougher than a four-team playoff, but it could be done.

But I know what happens to four-team playoffs... they become eight-team playoffs. And I know what happens to eight-team playoffs... they become 16-team playoffs.

And I have a lot of history to back up my predictions.

For example, the BCS is, for all practical purpose, a two-team playoff. Did the BCS settle the probems? No, it made fans demand a bigger playoff even more than before.


Will an 8-team playoff eventually turn into a 16-team playoff? All other sports seem to indicate that it will. But all other sports are different. They don't have the same logistical and academic hurdles that football would face if they went from 8 to 16. So maybe that's enough to keep football from going to 16.

Maybe not. You're asking me to consider an eight-team playoff in the PRAYER that it won't turn into a 16-team playoff.

I have a better idea: Don't start the ball rolling in the first place.


Despite our disagreement on the reality or impossibility of handling the academic concerns, if you really do think that academic concerns "won't" allow a playoff to happen then why are you worried about a 16-team playoff? If it will interfere with academics then it won't happen. Right? The presidents and ADs won't let it.

If I really felt that college presidents and ADs always did the right or sensible thing, I wouldn't have to worry about any of this. They can be rolled just like anyone.


So although I agree that an 8-team will lead to some people wanting a 16-team, it seems to me that some of you are afraid the post-season will turn into some runaway monster that we won't be able to control. I don't share that fear.

Look at the size of the fields in college basketball, baseball, and FCS football. Now, tell me what you think will happen in FBS football?

This is not hard to predict.

[TopDawg]

Anything more than a +1 is too much

I disagree, but I'd gladly take a 4-team playoff. Would you prefer it to be two games where the winner of each game was guaranteed to play in the "+1" game or a situation where after all of the bowls are played, we take the BCS rankings and play for it all?

[ndpruitt03]

Why do you think there's no difference between 8 and 16 teams? There is a huge difference between the 2. Unless college football adds a ton of teams there will never be more than an 8 team playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

ut your conjecture was more misleading than my statement. You said "AD's won't go for it." I showed proof that they will. While Wisconsin and Illinois didn't do it this year, they DID do it last year. So, in fact, AD's WILL go for it.

You're right. My mistake was a minor nit. But your conjecture that ADs won't go for it wasn't. They WILL go for it.

Even still, I've suggested a plan that won't force them to.

Your idea was that everyone would burn their bye week on the first week of the season. I fail to see how you have supported that. All you have is nine out of 11 ADs in ONE conference burning their bye week at the END of the season. The two situations are not even remotely similar.

To tell college football to burn their bye week at the start of the season is no different then telling them that they will no longer have a bye week. Why would any AD go for that?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I would say the first option but the 2nd one would be interesting as well..

[Leroy Lizard]

Unless college football adds a ton of teams there will never be more than an 8 team playoff.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiight.

[TopDawg]

Which means you are arguing for a 16-team playoff, because an 8-team playoff will grow into a 16-team playoff.

Could a four-team playoff work and preserve academics? Absolutely.

Could an eight-team playoff work and preserve academics? I suppose. It's a little tougher than a four-team playoff, but it could be done.

But I know what happens to four-team playoffs... they become eight-team playoffs. And I know what happens to eight-team playoffs... they become 16-team playoffs.

And I have a lot of history to back up my predictions.

And I have some thoughts on why it won't happen or why it wouldn't be as bad as some people think.

But I'm glad we can agree that an 8-team playoff could work without infringing on the academic demands of the players.

To your other point...the ball is already rolling. I agree with you that the BCS is a two-team playoff. I hope it leads to a 4, then an 8 team playoff. Right now I don't hope that it leads to a 16-team playoff. I just don't see how we can preserve the regular season and honor the academic demands of the students with a 16-team playoff. But maybe after growing to 8-teams, the answer to those problems becomes apparent. Maybe not. I don't know.


Look at the size of the fields in college basketball, baseball, and FCS football. Now, tell me what you think will happen in FBS football?

You're right. Looking at the other sports, it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't grow to 16 in college football. But two things:

1) Do you agree that college football has some unique barriers to it's expansion that those other teams don't? (i.e. - regular season charm and academic concerns with a new semester.)

2) I'm glad that when the MBB folks were sitting around back in the early 70's trying to decide if they should expand to 32 teams, they didn't let concerns of further expansion stop them. And although I don't know for sure, I'm confident that those concerns existed back then. "If we go to 32, it'll eventually lead to 64." I'm glad it went to 32 and then grew to 64. Does it make it harder on the student athletes to succeed academically? Yes, it's 32 more teams-worth of them traveling during midterms. It's an extra week of games for 4 teams-worth of them. But I think that all things considered, it's a good thing. When I traveled with the team I didn't hear too many of them griping about how much harder it was to succeed academically. The ones that were in it for academics found ways to make it happen. The ones who weren't...let's face it...they weren't going to be studying if they were at home either. If anything, being on the road might've help eliminate some of the distractions they would normally face.

[TopDawg]

Your idea was that everyone would burn their bye week on the first week of the season. I fail to see how you have supported that. All you have is nine out of 11 ADs in ONE conference burning their bye week at the END of the season. The two situations are not even remotely similar.

To tell college football to burn their bye week at the start of the season is no different then telling them that they will no longer have a bye week. Why would any AD go for that?

Sorry if that was confusing. My idea about the early bye weeks was an answer to your concerns about Collier's idea...not an indication of the schedule I would propose. That's what I meant when I said "Even still, I've suggested a plan that won't force them to." I was referring to my other plan, not my answer to your objection with Collier's plan.

But, as I pointed out, Wisconsin and Illinois did it last year. So that's now 11 out of 11 ADs in one conference who aren't opposed to scheduling their games all back-to-back. So while it's true that there are a lot more ADs that don't do it, I'm not sure it's fair to say...as you did...that ADs won't do it.

[TopDawg]

I would say the first option but the 2nd one would be interesting as well..

A part of me wishes that the 2nd option would've been the way the current system evolved. The current system allows more smaller schools to get into the BCS bowl games because it opens up two more spots...which is good...but it would've been interesting to see what it would've looked like to have the BCS games played out as they were before and then have the rankings refigured and an additional bowl game played with (more often than not) two of the BCS bowl game winners going head-to-head.

[Leroy Lizard]

To your other point...the ball is already rolling. I agree with you that the BCS is a two-team playoff. I hope it leads to a 4, then an 8 team playoff. Right now I don't hope that it leads to a 16-team playoff.

Then you'd better try to stop it now. Because once it gathers enough steam to make it to eight teams, there's no stopping it.

It's like opposing a tax. Some interest group wants X taxed, but of course they always want the tax to be initially itty bitty. But once you pass the law to get the tax on the boards, increasing the tax is easy.



I just don't see how we can preserve the regular season and honor the academic demands of the students with a 16-team playoff. But maybe after growing to 8-teams, the answer to those problems becomes apparent. Maybe not. I don't know.

At that point it won't matter. No one is going to care about academics once the playoff mania starts. Look at college basketball. If there is any sport that the NCAA needs to check the mania, it's college basketball. Grades are horrid. Some teams don't graduate any players over a six year span. But it's out of control, and I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to help. If anything, they will expand the field even more.

Quote:
Look at the size of the fields in college basketball, baseball, and FCS football.


1) Do you agree that college football has some unique barriers to it's expansion that those other teams don't? (i.e. - regular season charm and academic concerns with a new semester.)

Charm? They are already telling marching bands to not play during certain times because the Jumbotrons are displaying commercials. At some point, schools will begin to drop the traditional halftime show altogether. You have 15 minutes in front of 80,000 people available. Letting your Pride of Oklahoma run around on the field during that time is going to be seen as a huge waste of money.

Charm is only a barrier as long as people fight for it. But every year the new breed cares less and less about it. I see a playoff system as just another way to erode the tradition of college football.

[Leroy Lizard]

But, as I pointed out, Wisconsin and Illinois did it last year. So that's now 11 out of 11 ADs in one conference who aren't opposed to scheduling their games all back-to-back. So while it's true that there are a lot more ADs that don't do it, I'm not sure it's fair to say...as you did...that ADs won't do it.

Now you have me confused. Do what? Burn their bye weeks at the start of the season?

I'm not sure who would get the job of telling ADs that we are going to start a week earlier, but they can burn their bye weeks during that time. Surely, many ADs would put two and two together and realize that they are simply giving up their bye week. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[TopDawg]

I see a playoff system as just another way to erode the tradition of college football.

I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. You've raised some legitimate concerns about playoff structures and all, but it sounds like this is really what you want to avoid...the further erosion of college football traditions that you value.

Like you, there are a lot of college football traditions that I hold near and dear to my heart. But complacency with letting the smaller schools get the shaft is one I'd like to see disappear. If it means that some of the other traditions that I enjoy will be weakened, I'm okay with that.

Forty years from now I may look back at college football and wonder what happened. Just like the old folks do now. Just like the old folks did in the 90's, the 80's, the 70's, the 60's, etc. Some of the traditions are going to change no matter what and some of them are going to stay no matter what. I'm okay with that give-and-take, but I want to see a playoff because it will allow those smaller schools a better chance to play for all the marbles and that's something that I value and that I don't mind losing a few other traditions over.

[Collier11]

Then you'd better try to stop it now. Because once it gathers enough steam to make it to eight teams, there's no stopping it.

See, you are doing nothing but making baseless assumptions. If you believe which you seem to that ADs and presidents care about the students then they will never let it get "too" big.



At that point it won't matter. No one is going to care about academics once the playoff mania starts. Look at college basketball. If there is any sport that the NCAA needs to check the mania, it's college basketball. Grades are horrid. Some teams don't graduate any players over a six year span. But it's out of control, and I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to help. If anything, they will expand the field even more.

You keep bringing this up as your fall back argument but in reality it doesnt work. The real people that make these decisions care about academics, or atleast they are supposed to. Therefore the fact that you are arguing against us on behalf of academics is weak. If they have a playoff in the future and those people care so much as you say then they wont let it balloon up.

Quote:
Look at the size of the fields in college basketball, baseball, and FCS football.

Look how many teams there are compared to football



You dont look at any of the ways it will work and when you do you just pull out the academic card again but it doesnt work like that Leroy because in reality we arent the ones who will make the decision, it is those people who do academics for a livng

[TopDawg]

Now you have me confused. Do what? Burn their bye weeks at the start of the season?

No, this whole discussion started with your claim that I was an imbecile for even suggesting that an AD would even consider the idea of playing all of their games back-to-back. But 9 of 11 Big 10 teams did it this year and the two that didn't, did it last year.


I'm not sure who would get the job of telling ADs that we are going to start a week earlier, but they can burn their bye weeks during that time. Surely, many ADs would put two and two together and realize that they are simply giving up their bye week. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

This year the season started the first weekend of September and finished the first weekend of December (except Army/Navy). But, all teams got 2 bye weeks. If I understood Collier's plan correctly, he moved the start (and end) of the season up one week. That still gives teams two byes and allows them to be done in time for his playoff scenario to unfold. So, if ADs were concerned about the heat in late August (as you mentioned) then they could use one of their byes on that first week and then still have another one to burn later. Alternatively, we could just eliminate one bye week and start the season the first week of September, leaving them with one bye week.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. You've raised some legitimate concerns about playoff structures and all, but it sounds like this is really what you want to avoid...the further erosion of college football traditions that you value.

I oppose playoffs for a number of reasons. Academics and tradition are the two biggest.


It sounds like you are a reasonable man.

Now, let me turn my attention to that idiot, Collier.


You keep bringing this up as your fall back argument but in reality it doesnt work. The real people that make these decisions care about academics, or atleast they are supposed to. Therefore the fact that you are arguing against us on behalf of academics is weak. If they have a playoff in the future and those people care so much as you say then they wont let it balloon up.

How does "at least they are supposed to" translate into "they will make the right decisions"?

People make bad decisions all the time. How did VY end up on a college campus?


Look how many teams there are compared to football

I fail to see how the number of teams has anything to do with it. The NFL has 32 teams, but 12 playing in the playoffs.

The total number of teams is not the issue. Rather, it's how many teams do you need to shut everyone up? Eight teams will not do it in FBS football. 16 might. We could end up with 32.

[Leroy Lizard]

So, if ADs were concerned about the heat in late August (as you mentioned) then they could use one of their byes on that first week and then still have another one to burn later.

Again, it does little good to start the season earlier, then tell the ADs they can use up their bye week. That is no different than starting the games at the same time and removing their bye week option.

I'm not sure where teams got two bye weeks. For example, Iowa started on Sep. 5 and played all the way through to Nov. 21, with Nov. 28 their bye. Where is the other bye?

[Scott D]

Why do you think there's no difference between 8 and 16 teams? There is a huge difference between the 2. Unless college football adds a ton of teams there will never be more than an 8 team playoff.

and the hoops tourney was never going to be more than 32..oh wait, it's 64....oh wait, it's 65...oh wait, we're discussing increasing the number to over 100 potentially.

[Scott D]

That makes no sense, as I said previously I would rather take the chance that the 12 seed get hot and win the tourney (and I can guarantee you that wouldnt happen twice in 25 years) than to have a flawed system just randomly pick two teams

So instead of randomly picking 2 teams in a flawed system, you want a flawed system to randomly pick 12 teams randomly seed them with random matchups in the hopes that it randomly settles an argument that is unwinnable?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

and the hoops tourney was never going to be more than 32..oh wait, it's 64....oh wait, it's 65...oh wait, we're discussing increasing the number to over 100 potentially.

THIS

[Collier11]

Now, let me turn my attention to that idiot, Collier.

Classy Leroy. I have answered every single post that you have directed at me, too bad I cant say the same for you. You hear what you want to hear and post what you want to post without ever taking into consideration the facts, your whole argument is based off of assumptions, mine is based off of fact.

How does "at least they are supposed to" translate into "they will make the right decisions"?

Well, their job is to care about academics, doesnt mean they will. If you dont think they will make the right decisions with a playoff what makes you think they are doing such now? Again, hypocritical.


I fail to see how the number of teams has anything to do with it. The NFL has 32 teams, but 12 playing in the playoffs.

College isnt the NFL

The total number of teams is not the issue. Rather, it's how many teams do you need to shut everyone up? Eight teams will not do it in FBS football. 16 might. We could end up with 32.

well the current # of 2 certainly isnt working now is it?


So instead of randomly picking 2 teams in a flawed system, you want a flawed system to randomly pick 12 teams randomly seed them with random matchups in the hopes that it randomly settles an argument that is unwinnable?

Your thought process is backwards on this Scott. Think about what you just said, you are saying that a flawed system picking only 2 teams and leaving the rest out is better than a flawed system picking 8 or 10 or 12 and giving them a shot. If the system is flawed I would rather open up the competition to 1 or 2 that dont deserve it as opposed to closing it off to 5 or 6 that do deserve it

[Collier11]

THIS

I dont get what the argument here is, the fact that a playoff might be expanded too much has nothing to do with the fact that a playoff is more fair

[Leroy Lizard]

I have answered every single post that you have directed at me, too bad I cant say the same for you.

Do you have any questions for me? Go ahead and ask.


Well, their job is to care about academics, doesnt mean they will. If you dont think they will make the right decisions with a playoff what makes you think they are doing such now? Again, hypocritical.

This is nonsense.

Right now, I think my local police force is doing a good job of following regulations. That doesn't mean they can't be tempted to ignore regulations in the future, nor does it mean that I place all of my trust in their decision-making in every instance.

Try to be reasonable. This "all or nothing" argument isn't well thought out.


I fail to see how the number of teams has anything to do with it. The NFL has 32 teams, but 12 playing in the playoffs...

College isnt the NFL

Well, college basketball isn't college football, and neither is college baseball, golf, or badminton. Yet, playoff proponents always try to compare the viability of those playoff systems with that of college football.

Frankly, the NFL is closer to college football than college basketball. At least they're the same sport.

Now, given all that, what evidence do you have that there is a cap on the size of playoffs in a sport (other than the obvious one that you cannot have more teams participate than exist)?

With 105 teams, I see nothing to stop a playoff in FBS growing to 16 teams. So far, playoff proponents have offered nothing to indicate such a cap exists.

[Leroy Lizard]

I dont get what the argument here is, the fact that a playoff might be expanded too much has nothing to do with the fact that a playoff is more fair

I don't think we arguing over the fairness of a playoff system.

A playoff can be perfectly fair. In fact, the fairness increases as the number of participating teams grows, hence the problem.

[Collier11]

Do you have any questions for me? Go ahead and ask.



This is nonsense.

Right now, I think my local police force is doing a good job of following regulations. That doesn't mean they can't be tempted to ignore regulations in the future, nor does it mean that I place all of my trust in their decision-making in every instance.

Try to be reasonable. This "all or nothing" argument isn't well thought out.

You are the one saying you dont trust a playoff because of the inevitability of expansion. Well if you cant trust that if there ever was a playoff, they would put it together thoughtfully and with academics 1st, how can you trust that the current system they have is honorable either?



Well, college basketball isn't college football, and neither is college baseball, golf, or badminton. Yet, playoff proponents always try to compare the viability of those playoff systems with that of college football.

The only thing being compared is that if it can work in every single college sport (its not like other sports are refusing due to academic issues or integrity issues) then it CAN be done

Frankly, the NFL is closer to college football than college basketball. At least they're the same sport.

you are comparing professional athletes with amateur ones, not at all the same

Now, given all that, what evidence do you have that there is a cap on the size of playoffs in a sport (other than the obvious one that you cannot have more teams participate than exist)?

Well you cant say there is a cap because there is no playoff, as it has been stated, if there was a playoff there would need to be a cap or atleast some trust in the higher ups that they wouldnt exploit the athletes even more than they are now

With 105 teams, I see nothing to stop a playoff in FBS growing to 16 teams. So far, playoff proponents have offered nothing to indicate such a cap exists.

Listen, I dont want a 16 team playoff either. You are dealing in hypotheticals though. You cant worry about that til we even have a 4 team playoff. If the discussions began seriously to have a playoff then that would need to be planned into the final decision.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Without conference realignments and some sort of scheduling rules, I don't think a playoff is fair....

How do you determine what 8 teams or 16 or 32 teams get in? whats fair about the process used to decide?

[Collier11]

I don't think we arguing over the fairness of a playoff system.

A playoff can be perfectly fair. In fact, the fairness increases as the number of participating teams grows, hence the problem.

Well Scott argued that a imperfect system that selects 2 is more fair than an imperfect system that selects 8 or 10 or 12 and I strongly disagree with that

[Collier11]

Without conference realignments and some sort of scheduling rules, I don't think a playoff is fair....

How do you determine what 8 teams or 16 or 32 teams get in? whats fair about the process used to decide?

Well like I said previously, the BCS does a pretty good job of determining who the strongest teams are, I just dont think it does a good/fair job of determining the best 2. I think using the BCS in its current state or in a tweaked state to consider SOS would be as fair as possible to select the Top 8 or whatever

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Last BCS rankings
1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2

IMO, Florida, Oregon, and Ohio State don't deserve another shot at the NC.....Boise already beat Oregon...Alabama beat Florida...To me, thats not fair

[Leroy Lizard]

You are the one saying you dont trust a playoff because of the inevitability of expansion.

Okay, I can go along with that.


Well if you cant trust that if there ever was a playoff, they would put it together thoughtfully and with academics 1st, how can you trust that the current system they have is honorable either?

Sorry, but your logic is twisted. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say.

The closest thing I can make of it is: Since the current system is not perfect, then any change to the current system can only be good.

Or,

Since the current system is not perfect, then there is no logical basis for opposing any changes to the system.

Or something like that. Either way, it doesn't make much sense.



Well, college basketball isn't college football, and neither is college baseball, golf, or badminton. Yet, playoff proponents always try to compare the viability of those playoff systems with that of college football.

The only thing being compared is that if it can work in every single college sport (its not like other sports are refusing due to academic issues or integrity issues) then it CAN be done

Again, you can only make that statement if you equate college football with the other sports.

And to some degree you can. But comparing college football to the NFL is certainly no bigger stretch than comparing it to college basketball, or golf.


You are comparing professional athletes with amateur ones, not at all the same

Yes, on that account they are quite different. But consider the comparison between football and basketball.

Here's one:

In college basketball, you can host a regional tournament, invite a dozen teams, and get four of your regular season games out of the way over a span of one or two days and at a single site.

You can do that in golf, and tennis, and lacrosse, and wrestling, and just about all other collegiate sports.

But you can't do that in college football. And you can't do it in the NFL either. So on that account, college football and the NFL are quite similar, much more similar than college football and college basketball.


Well you cant say there is a cap because there is no playoff, as it has been stated, if there was a playoff there would need to be a cap or atleast some trust in the higher ups that they wouldnt exploit the athletes even more than they are now

That isn't a plan; it's a prayer. A very weak prayer.


Listen, I dont want a 16 team playoff either. You are dealing in hypotheticals though. You cant worry about that til we even have a 4 team playoff. If the discussions began seriously to have a playoff then that would need to be planned into the final decision.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no! I'm not going to be suckered by a four-team playoff.

[Collier11]

Why does 1 loss eliminate you? Why should ut get the benefit of doubt for beating exactly...1, 2, 0 good teams?

[ndpruitt03]

The NCAA Tournament in basketball has been 64 teams(it's 65 but not really we all know it's 64) for 25 years, it is not changing. 64 out of 330 teams are playing in the post season that's rougly 20% of the teams in college football. The same equivilant in college football is 12 bowl games(24 teams) The season in college basketball is vastly more important that the season in college football for this reason. You can't be just above .500 and make post season play in basketball.

[Collier11]

[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;2797415]

The closest thing I can make of it is: Since the current system is not perfect, then any change to the current system can only be good.

Or,

Since the current system is not perfect, then there is no logical basis for opposing any changes to the system.

Or something like that. Either way, it doesn't make much sense.


No, what Im saying is that in your stated opinion, a new system of playoffs could not be trusted because expansion would water it down while hurting academics. Well, if you believe that then how are you so confident in the current system in which you defend? The same people put that system together



Yes, on that account they are quite different. But consider the comparison between football and basketball.

Here's one:

In college basketball, you can host a regional tournament, invite a dozen teams, and get four of your regular season games out of the way over a span of one or two days and at a single site.

You can do that in golf, and tennis, and lacrosse, and wrestling, and just about all other collegiate sports.

They do that because of the smaller budgets and the much larger number of teams that participate

[sooner ngintunr]

Why does 1 loss eliminate you? Why should ut get the benefit of doubt for beating exactly...1, 2, 0 good teams?

So UT (and UF) should get a chance at the MNC if they can't even win their conference?

They would still have been top eight if they lost to Nebbish.

Conference championships should mean something. You are basically saying that they shouldn't.

To implement a playoff you would have to eliminate CCG.

And also, no one wants to watch a rematch of any game already played (BSU/UO, UF/'Bama), well, I sure as hell don't.

[Leroy Lizard]

No, what Im saying is that in your stated opinion, a new system of playoffs could not be trusted because expansion would water it down while hurting academics. Well, if you believe that then how are you so confident in the current system in which you defend?

Because I can examine it. There is no mystery about the current system. I know when the games are played. I can judge it on its own merits.

Why this appeal to authority? Judge the system on its merits, not who created it.


They do that because of the smaller budgets and the much larger number of teams that participate

Who cares WHY they do it? I am pointing out that in those other sports, one CAN do it, but not in football.

This is why you can host a volleyball championship on Dec. 5, but not in college football. In volleyball, you can host regional tournaments and get oodles of games in over a short period of time. But college football and the NFL requires a one game per week per site schedule, so on that account they are similar.

Now, if you want to say that you cannot compare college football to the NFL, fine. But if so, I don't want to hear any more "they can do it in other sports" crap.

[Collier11]

So UT and UF should get a chance at the MNC if they can't even win their conference?

They would still have been top eight if they lost to Nebbish.

Conference championships should mean something. You are basically saying that they shouldn't.

To implement a playoff you would have to eliminate CCG.

And no one wants to watch a rematch of any game already played (BSU/UO, UF/'Bama), well, I sure as hell don't.

You didnt want to see OU/tx in the natl title game last year?

I certainly did. There are teams in the NFL who dont win their division and go on to win the super bowl, if you arent having a playoff then choosing the conf champ is logical, if you have a playoff then there will be some non conf champs who make it, nothing wrong with that IMHO

[sooner ngintunr]

You didnt want to see OU/tx in the natl title game last year?

I certainly did. There are teams in the NFL who dont win their division and go on to win the super bowl, if you arent having a playoff then choosing the conf champ is logical, if you have a playoff then there will be some non conf champs who make it, nothing wrong with that IMHO

OU/UT last year in the MNC? No way, not me.

Nothing wrong with that but then you would be eliminating some of the Conf champs. Definitely something wrong with that.

If Nebraska beats UT and wins the Conference then that allows UT to go on to play for the MNC and Nebbish can't? How is that fair?

[sooner ngintunr]

See how quickly you get more than 8 teams? LOL.

[Collier11]

Well in this case it is pretty easy to explain, the Big 12 North is really weak. The big 12 would need to eliminate divisions 1st of all. Neb was an extremely flawed team who played the game of their lives that night. Sometimes that happens, doesnt mean Neb is more deserving to play for a natl title

[Collier11]

[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;2797427]

Why this appeal to authority? Judge the system on its merits, not who created it.



Who cares WHY they do it? I am pointing out that in those other sports, one CAN do it, but not in football.

Because the BCS as it stands is extremely flawed. D1 CFB has become a huge billion dollar business, that cant be denied. Because of this there are a lot of teams that are fairly or unfairly being left out of the pot, thats 1 major issue. The other is the championship issue which we have exhausted.

[Leroy Lizard]

The current BCS system has everyone mad. Boo hoo hoo! The system isn't fair!!!

So, we go to a four-team playoff. Now, it all sounds good. Alabama, Texas, Cinncinatti, and TCU are in.

But suppose UT lost. Now the crying really begins. Boise St. cries "No fair! Florida gets in with one loss, and we get left out even though we are undefeated! Call your Congressmen!!

So what now? Expansion!!! Clearly four teams will not work, so we need eight.

But which eight? No one can come up with a fair system because teams from weak conferences get screwed or unfairly benefit. Why? Because with only eight teams there is no way to grant all conference champions an automatic bid. So which conferences? If you grant automatic bids to the major conference champions but not the other conference champions, you are back in court again. If you rely solely on the BCS, then you have the same problems as you have now.

So, we expand again to 16 teams. Now all conference champions can be included. It is still unfair though, because some teams will be able to participate in the playoffs simply by winning the Sun Belt conference, losing three out-of-conference games. So the crying continues.

And this is what is going to happen.

[Collier11]

you think

[sooner ngintunr]

Well in this case it is pretty easy to explain, the Big 12 North is really weak. The big 12 would need to eliminate divisions 1st of all. Neb was an extremely flawed team who played the game of their lives that night. Sometimes that happens, doesnt mean Neb is more deserving to play for a natl title

But wouldn't the same thing happen in a playoff? Aren't CCG a kind of playoff, UT loses they're out.

You are saying that they would more deserving to play for the MNC than a team that they just lost to? Thats not a playoff mentality.

And how do you eliminate divisions with out eliminating teams?

Are you talking about 8 10 team conferences? What do you do with the rest of the teams?

I'm not seeing any more fairness in this whole playoff idea than in the BCS.

[Leroy Lizard]

you think

Well, I have a lot of history on my side.

[Scott D]

The NCAA Tournament in basketball has been 64 teams(it's 65 but not really we all know it's 64) for 25 years, it is not changing. 64 out of 330 teams are playing in the post season that's rougly 20% of the teams in college football. The same equivilant in college football is 12 bowl games(24 teams) The season in college basketball is vastly more important that the season in college football for this reason. You can't be just above .500 and make post season play in basketball.

There are numerous articles like this (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4728939&name=katz_andy) in the past two weeks or so that date back to 2006 where there is discussion, mostly led by coaches to expand the basketball tournament to 128 teams. You're naive if you think there won't be further expansion at some point to the basketball tournament.

And yes, a team can be just over .500 and make the NCAA tournament...they do all the time, they're called upset Cinderellas from insignificant small conferences that may win a game in the Tourney if they get a favorable seeding.

[Scott D]

well the current # of 2 certainly isnt working now is it?



Your thought process is backwards on this Scott. Think about what you just said, you are saying that a flawed system picking only 2 teams and leaving the rest out is better than a flawed system picking 8 or 10 or 12 and giving them a shot. If the system is flawed I would rather open up the competition to 1 or 2 that dont deserve it as opposed to closing it off to 5 or 6 that do deserve it

my thought process isn't flawed at all on this. It's simple math, the larger the pool to draw from the greater the chance for the flaws to be magnified. Realistically those 5 or 6 that you consider closed off are subjective as to whether or not they are actually deserving of the opportunity.

[ndpruitt03]

There are numerous articles like this (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4728939&name=katz_andy) in the past two weeks or so that date back to 2006 where there is discussion, mostly led by coaches to expand the basketball tournament to 128 teams. You're naive if you think there won't be further expansion at some point to the basketball tournament.

And yes, a team can be just over .500 and make the NCAA tournament...they do all the time, they're called upset Cinderellas from insignificant small conferences that may win a game in the Tourney if they get a favorable seeding.

That article is someone speculating. It has zero % chance of happening. Just a a playoff in football probably has no chance in happening.

[Scott D]

As I said, there are more articles, I just put that one up because Andy Katz is one of the few people at ESPN who seems to understand what he is talking about. Some of the biggest players in the basketball are pushing for it, such folks as Coach K, Jim Boeheim.

I think what you'll find happening is exactly what Katz speculates at the end. The Hoops tourney will be expanded to 68, from there it remains the slippery slope to 72 then to 76.

TV drives tournaments and playoffs, not fans, not players, not coaches. If TV thinks there is a market for it, they'll get an expansion pushed through.

[Leroy Lizard]

LeCrone said the committee engaged the National Association of Basketball Coaches, especially after Syracuse didn't make the field in 2007 -- when Syracuse was 10-6 in the Big East -- and there being a bit of a stink about the Orange's being excluded.

Yep, there it is. You just can't have enough teams to make everyone happy.

[Collier11]

But wouldn't the same thing happen in a playoff? Aren't CCG a kind of playoff, UT loses they're out.

You are saying that they would more deserving to play for the MNC than a team that they just lost to? Thats not a playoff mentality.

Im not saying that ut would be more deserving, im just saying that it doesnt prove Neb to be more deserving. The season is too long and complex to just choose two teams and say, "well, they are the best, go win a title" that is completely unfair IMO

And how do you eliminate divisions with out eliminating teams?

Heh? Lots of conferences dont have divisions

Are you talking about 8 10 team conferences? What do you do with the rest of the teams?

Conferences can stay how they are or do as they wish with adding and subtracting, the only thing with the conferences I would do away with are those who have divisions

I'm not seeing any more fairness in this whole playoff idea than in the BCS.

In a playoff you are opening up the possibility of winning a national title to more than 2 teams, how is that not fair? 1 loss doesnt make a worse team sometimes. Sure, in a playoff you might have a higher seed win from time to time but I would rather see that than see a year like this where I feel like Cincy and TCU are both just as good as Bama and ut

[Collier11]

my thought process isn't flawed at all on this. It's simple math, the larger the pool to draw from the greater the chance for the flaws to be magnified. Realistically those 5 or 6 that you consider closed off are subjective as to whether or not they are actually deserving of the opportunity.

but in the current system, so are the top 2. So unless you completely eliminate a national champion, the fairest way is for a playoff

[Scott D]

In a playoff you are opening up the possibility of winning a national title to more than 2 teams, how is that not fair? 1 loss doesnt make a worse team sometimes. Sure, in a playoff you might have a higher seed win from time to time but I would rather see that than see a year like this where I feel like Cincy and TCU are both just as good as Bama and ut

And if Georgia Tech or Florida won your playoff? Without facing one of the teams that prior to the playoff was undefeated?

[Collier11]

Someone will always be unhappy with something, because of that the only way to do things is the fairest way

[Collier11]

And if Georgia Tech or Florida won your playoff? Without facing one of the teams that prior to the playoff was undefeated?

So be it. The Giants won the Super Bowl a few years ago when it was clear that the Pats were the better team for the entire year but at the end of the year the Giants were better

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Why does 1 loss eliminate you? Why should ut get the benefit of doubt for beating exactly...1, 2, 0 good teams?

so congratulations bama on destroying florida in your championship game..but they could play you in the playoffs and your SEC title win means crap...

[Leroy Lizard]

In a playoff you are opening up the possibility of winning a national title to more than 2 teams, how is that not fair?

Ask Syracuse. They invite 65 teams to the playoffs, and Syracuse thinks they got screwed because they were not invited.

It isn't human nature to think a system is fair. Even a 16-team playoff will have teams crying at the end.

[Scott D]

So be it. The Giants won the Super Bowl a few years ago when it was clear that the Pats were the better team for the entire year but at the end of the year the Giants were better

That example plays into step's response to you.

[Collier11]

so congratulations bama on destroying florida in your championship game..but they could play you in the playoffs and your SEC title win means crap...

better alternative to going undefeated or being a 1 loss team and not even having a shot I would say


Ask Syracuse. They invite 65 teams to the playoffs, and Syracuse thinks they got screwed because they were not invited.

It isn't human nature to think a system is fair. Even a 16-team playoff will have teams crying at the end.

and as I said before, 1 or 2 crying out of 8 or 16 is better than 4 or 5 or 10 crying out of 2

[Leroy Lizard]

so congratulations bama on destroying florida in your championship game..but they could play you in the playoffs and your SEC title win means crap...

This year, the SEC CCG had everything on the line. In an eight-team playoff, it is meaningless because both teams get in regardless.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

i love you c11

[Collier11]

That example plays into step's response to you.

yea, atleast the team playing the best at the end of the year can say they won it on the field as opposed to someone like texas this year who has beaten some would say zero really good teams and they are playing for it all because they were preseason top 3

[stoops the eternal pimp]

a few years ago, in an 8 team playoff, Mizzou would have got a 3rd shot at OU..

[Leroy Lizard]

and as I said before, 1 or 2 crying out of 8 or 16 is better than 4 or 5 or 10 crying out of 2

But you're not going to have 1 or 2 teams crying. The bigger the playoff, the more teams on the cut.

[Collier11]

happens all the time in other sports, Mizzou got a 3rd shot at us in the ncaa tourney a few yrs back and we beat them to go to the final 4, if you lose it is heartbreak, so be it

[Collier11]

But you're not going to have 1 or 2 teams crying. The bigger the playoff, the more teams on the cut.

Its alot easier to eliminate the unworthy teams in CFB

[Leroy Lizard]

Its alot easier to eliminate the unworthy teams in CFB

Depends on whose definition of "unworthy" you are using.

[Collier11]

A 8-3 team in football is alot easier to eliminate than a 23-8 team in college basketball

[Collier11]

i love you c11

I know

[Scott D]

yea, atleast the team playing the best at the end of the year can say they won it on the field as opposed to someone like texas this year who has beaten some would say zero really good teams and they are playing for it all because they were preseason top 3

so we exclude Texas because they didn't play anyone? By that definition we exclude Boise because they absolutely didn't play anyone. TCU? didn't play anyone....Guess we'll just go ahead and eliminate everyone except the SEC since they are the only ones that have anyone worth playing.

[Collier11]

TCU won on the road at Clemson who was a pretty good team this year, Boise beat a top 10 Oregon team who is going to the Rose Bowl.

The best team texas beat was a 4 loss Neb or a 5 loss OU

Besides, my point isnt to eliminate texas, my point is that they havent proven above any reasonable doubt that they are in fact one of the two best teams out there

[Leroy Lizard]

A 8-3 team in football is alot easier to eliminate than a 23-8 team in college basketball

Like many playoff proponents, you misunderstand the nature of the malcontent's complaints.

Once a playoff gets instituted, a playoff berth in itself becomes the holy grail. Every team wants to be considered a playoff team and missing the cut becomes a big deal.

Syracuse went 10-6 in their conference. They weren't arguing that they were the best team in the country and needed a chance to prove it. Instead, they were arguing that they deserved a berth, because playing in the playoffs in itself is a big reward.

I am sure that when the field was expanded, fans thought that so many teams now had a shot that there was no possible way a team could end up complaining at the end of the year. But that is what happened.

So an 8-3 team left out of the playoffs while another 8-3 gets in is going to cause a lot of commotion. That is why increasing the size of the tournament doesn't alleviate the problem; it worsens it. There are a lot of teams that think they are in the top 16 in the country. Not many teams think they are in the top four.

And this is going to be a big problem for an eight-team playoff, because teams from the minor conferences will claim they deserve an EQUAL chance at getting into the playoffs.

[Collier11]

In the Top 16 this year there were only 4 three loss teams, in the top 12 there were 2, in the top 8 there were zero. 2 of the 3 loss teams in the top 16 were #s 15 and 16

[Leroy Lizard]

So all the four-loss teams will get into the mix.

Remember, Syracuse ended up 10-6 in conference and still cried about being excluded. You give an inch, they take a mile.

[sooner ngintunr]

In the Top 16 this year there were only 4 three loss teams, in the top 12 there were 2, in the top 8 there were zero. 2 of the 3 loss teams in the top 16 were #s 15 and 16

And #17 had 3 losses and #19, etc. Why would Miami get in over Pitt? What about 'Zona they had 4 losses but a way tougher schedule. LSU shouldn't be there. LOL.

Central Michigan only had 2 losses, why are they left out your playoff?:D

fun thread guys, carry on.

[ndpruitt03]

The only way a 3 loss team gets in the mix is if you have a playoff with conference champs. 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams. But that playoff idea sucks IMO.

[Leroy Lizard]

Don't forget OSU. They lost to to UT, Oklahoma, and Houston, all decent teams. And their loss to OU is understandable, given where they had to play.

Right now, OSU doesn't care. #16 or #19, whatever. But wait until a playoff berth depends on it.

[Leroy Lizard]

The only way a 3 loss team gets in the mix is if you have a playoff with conference champs. 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams. But that playoff idea sucks IMO.

What teams get in this year under your playoff idea?

[ndpruitt03]

If there's a playoff they probably play the OU game a little different and don't come out with such a poor game plan.

[sooner ngintunr]

If there's a playoff they probably play the OU game a little different and don't come out with such a poor game plan.

Yeah because their first ever BCS bowl game wasn't enough motivation.:rolleyes:

CFB needs a playoff system in order for LosuR to have a decent game plan to try and beat OU. That's classic OP material there.

[ndpruitt03]

What teams get in this year under your playoff idea?
I think that's a stupid idea. I like the 8 team playoff with the top 8 in the BCS.

[ndpruitt03]

Yeah because their first ever BCS bowl game wasn't enough motivation.:rolleyes:

CFB needs a playoff system for LosuR to beat OU. Classic.

They might not have made the BCS anyway.

[sooner ngintunr]

They might not have made the BCS anyway.

[hairGel]THATS NOT TRUE!!!1

The real reason they lost to OU is because they suck.:D

[ndpruitt03]

[hairGel]THATS NOT TRUE!!!1

The real reason they lost to OU is because they suck.:D

That too.

[Scott D]

I think that's a stupid idea. I like the 8 team playoff with the top 8 in the BCS.

a straight top 8 in the BCS has already been proven flawed. If you want to base seedings on BCS rankings that is one thing. I can already see the cluster**** that the 2007 season would have caused in this formula. We're using the December 2nd rankings since that was just after the CCG's.

1. Ohio State v 8. Kansas
2. LSU v. 7. USC
3. Virginia Tech v. 6. Kansas
4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia

so 3 of our 8 playoff teams are from a single conference. 6 of 8 are from the three 12 team conferences, the remaining two are from the Big-10 and Pac-10.

Big 12 - 3
SEC - 2
ACC, Pac-10, Big-10 - 3

Undefeated Hawaii at 10th gets left out (and based on how Georgia laid the wood to them, deservedly so)

West Virginia feels they deserve to be there, afterall they still won the Big East despite losing to a Pitt team with a poor record that week.

You've done nothing to solve the argument that the Mountain West has been making for years, and our buddy Joe Barton is probably pushing some other motion before the House about how the BCS Playoff is unfair and exclusionary.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think that's a stupid idea. I like the 8 team playoff with the top 8 in the BCS.

Which is the nearly the same system that has everyone screaming "anti-trust, anti-trust!"

[Leroy Lizard]

Undefeated Hawaii at 10th gets left out (and based on how Georgia laid the wood to them, deservedly so)

Well, that last part is hindsight. At the time of the seedings, Hawaii would be Joe Barton's pet team.

So we institute a playoff system that just makes the unfairness higher stakes. Yeah, that's going to solve a lot of problems.

[ndpruitt03]

a straight top 8 in the BCS has already been proven flawed. If you want to base seedings on BCS rankings that is one thing. I can already see the cluster**** that the 2007 season would have caused in this formula. We're using the December 2nd rankings since that was just after the CCG's.

1. Ohio State v 8. Kansas
2. LSU v. 7. USC
3. Virginia Tech v. 6. Kansas
4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia

so 3 of our 8 playoff teams are from a single conference. 6 of 8 are from the three 12 team conferences, the remaining two are from the Big-10 and Pac-10.

Big 12 - 3
SEC - 2
ACC, Pac-10, Big-10 - 3

Undefeated Hawaii at 10th gets left out (and based on how Georgia laid the wood to them, deservedly so)

West Virginia feels they deserve to be there, afterall they still won the Big East despite losing to a Pitt team with a poor record that week.

You've done nothing to solve the argument that the Mountain West has been making for years, and our buddy Joe Barton is probably pushing some other motion before the House about how the BCS Playoff is unfair and exclusionary.

I think it may be even better if you use a committee like they do for the NCAA using everything including BCS and all types of polls and stats.

[Scott D]

And more food for thought....say they get the bright idea that we'll go ahead and create 8 "Super Conferences" 12 teams each..so we're trimming D-1A down to 96 teams from the current 120 (something that we know NickZepp approves of). Ok, now do we say "Ok, the 8 conference champions, all of whom had to win a CCG get the berths in the National Championship Playoff, and we'll create a few lesser bowls for teams that were no worse than 7-5 during their season."

We already know there will be controversy when a "big boy" (ala Texas) finishes with 1 or 2 losses, but loses or doesn't play in a CCG where a 3-4 loss team wins for that automatic representation. What will be the next step? The public outcry about how there need to be at-large bids in the playoffs. So we'll add 4 at-large bids to accommodate those 1 or 2 loss teams that didn't go to or win the CCG for whatever reason. But we're only giving 4 spots now....what happens that year when there are 6 teams that are considered deserving of those 4 slots and 2 get left out? More teeth gnashing over how unfair the selection process is...so we'll tweak the process some more..hey let's make it 8 at large bids. By making it 16 teams we've opened a whole other can of worms...you've opened the door for more teams and fans to say that they deserve as much of a chance to get in as the 8 at-large teams to get in.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think it may be even better if you use a committee like they do for the NCAA using everything including BCS and all types of polls and stats.

So does undefeated Hawaii get in or not? If you want to stay out of court, you had better make it so.

What is hysterical is that the Congressional legislation being bandied around will become every playoff proponent's worst nightmare. Be careful what you wish for.

[Scott D]

I think it may be even better if you use a committee like they do for the NCAA using everything including BCS and all types of polls and stats.

The NCAA Basketball selection committee is the most corrupt body east of USC, and west of FIFA.

[ndpruitt03]

So does undefeated Hawaii get in or not? If you want to stay out of court, you had better make it so.

What is hysterical is that the Congressional legislation being bandied around will become every playoff proponent's worst nightmare. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure that Hawaii team was good enough, they weren't as good as other teams that were put in the BCS from the lower conferences, hell BYU is probably better this year than that Hawaii team was. But they would have a shot at getting in. It's much better to argue if a team is good enough to make a playoff IMO than to argue if a team should be playing for the NC at all.

[Scott D]

I'm not sure that Hawaii team was good enough, they weren't as good as other teams that were put in the BCS from the lower conferences, hell BYU is probably better this year than that Hawaii team was. But they would have a shot at getting in. It's much better to argue if a team is good enough to make a playoff IMO than to argue if a team should be playing for the NC at all.

That Hawaii team had no business in the BCS at all, anyone who had seen them play a single game that season knew that. However, in 2007, that would have been the team that would have been the example used for a team that got shafted in a playoff system. West Virginia would have been the other team, especially coming from a BCS Conference.

We STILL would have had Joe Barton and Orrin Hatch trying to take down the system. That is what playoff proponents seem to conveniently forget when arguing that there are bigwigs in support of their position.

[Leroy Lizard]

Scott, they don't see it. To playoff proponents, playoffs are wonderful because their own playoff model will, naturally, be the one instituted. They can't conceive of anything else being adopted, so they can't see the unrest the playoffs will cause.

Suppose you pick the top 8 in the BCS. If an undefeated Boise St. gets in, the message becomes loud and clear: Dump all your tough games and try to finish undefeated. If Boise St. loses to Oregon, they have no chance of playing in the playoffs. But if they schedule Kent St. instead and finish undefeated, their chances are not too bad with an 8-team playoff if the top 8 get selected.

On the other hand, if Boise St. is denied because of its weak schedule, it cries foul! "The BCS is rigged against minor conferences."

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not sure that Hawaii team was good enough, they weren't as good as other teams that were put in the BCS from the lower conferences, hell BYU is probably better this year than that Hawaii team was. But they would have a shot at getting in.

I didn't ask whether they were good enough. I asked whether they get in, yes or no?

If no, see you in court. Is that what you want?

[ashley]

I have said before. The presidents do not want the NCAA to control this. They are correct.

[Leroy Lizard]

You mean, you agree with the presidents? Not sure your point.

[ndpruitt03]

So does undefeated Hawaii get in or not? If you want to stay out of court, you had better make it so.

What is hysterical is that the Congressional legislation being bandied around will become every playoff proponent's worst nightmare. Be careful what you wish for.

The current system should be in court also by your logic. The have less than 0 chance to win a national title in this system. They get to go to a meaningless bowl game and get their brains beat in.

[Leroy Lizard]

The current system should be in court also by your logic.

Except I am perfectly consistent in my view that Congress should stay the Hell out of college football.

Are you?