It strikes me while watching the Div. 1 Football Championship...... [Archive]

cortezsooner

12/18/2009, 11:29 PM

......that all the kids look really stupid and semi-retarded having missed all that classwork the past 4 weeks for the playoffs! And they all look really angry that they've been subjected to a 16 team playoff to determine an actual champion! I know they're all wondering why in the heck the BCS format can't work for them instead of the silly playoff system???? Especially the National Champion 3rd ranked Villanova players, who wouldn't have even had the chance to play for the title in a BCS format......They all have to be completely angry at being subjected to these stupid playoffs, when they could have been in class studying instead!!!!! And it only gets worse next year, as the Playoffs go to 20 teams and an extra round!!!!

Ok, in all seriousness, it's completely ridiculous that the top college football division is the ONLY team sport in the country that don't decide their champion with a playoff. Imagine if the NFL suddenly decided to put a BCS system in place, and got rid of the playoffs...Top 2 teams at the end of the season play in the Super Bowl? Yeah, right......

College Football fans could put a stop to this in one year if they would all band together.....If, for one year EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL FAN would refuse to go to ANY Bowl game...We would have Playoffs the next year. Guaranteed!

The excuses are total garbage, it's a complete money thing....and if we could hit 'em where it hurts, a Playoff would get done. If every Bowl, including the BCS Championship Game, had empty stands for a year, there's no way Playoffs wouldn't be installed the following year.....

But, could you ever get all College Football Fans to do that? No.......so we're stuck with the stupid BCS....

adoniijahsooner

12/18/2009, 11:32 PM

......that all the kids look really stupid and semi-retarded having missed all that classwork the past 4 weeks for the playoffs! And they all look really angry that they've been subjected to a 16 team playoff to determine an actual champion! I know they're all wondering why in the heck the BCS format can't work for them instead of the silly playoff system???? Especially the National Champion 3rd ranked Villanova players, who wouldn't have even had the chance to play for the title in a BCS format......They all have to be completely angry at being subjected to these stupid playoffs, when they could have been in class studying instead!!!!! And it only gets worse next year, as the Playoffs go to 20 teams and an extra round!!!!

Ok, in all seriousness, it's completely ridiculous that the top college football division is the ONLY team sport in the country that don't decide their champion with a playoff. Imagine if the NFL suddenly decided to put a BCS system in place, and got rid of the playoffs...Top 2 teams at the end of the season play in the Super Bowl? Yeah, right......

College Football fans could put a stop to this in one year if they would all band together.....If, for one year EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL FAN would refuse to go to ANY Bowl game...We would have Playoffs the next year. Guaranteed!

The excuses are total garbage, it's a complete money thing....and if we could hit 'em where it hurts, a Playoff would get done. If every Bowl, including the BCS Championship Game, had empty stands for a year, there's no way Playoffs wouldn't be installed the following year.....

All those Ivy League students must be getting stupider by each round:D

cortezsooner

12/18/2009, 11:38 PM

All those Ivy League students must be getting stupider by each round:D

Exactly!!!! It's a shock to me that the Ivy League hasn't refused to be part of such a silly playoff system....I wouldn't be surprised if the collective IQ of the students at those schools drop several points with each playoff round.

Curly Bill

12/18/2009, 11:41 PM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

soonerspudman

12/18/2009, 11:43 PM

What? You mean that wasn't a exhibition game I just watched? I've been robbed!

Spanish Sooner

12/18/2009, 11:43 PM

Exactly!!!! It's a shock to me that the Ivy League hasn't refused to be part of such a silly playoff system....I wouldn't be surprised if the collective IQ of the students at those schools drop several points with each playoff round.

Per wikipedia

"Today the Ivy League is categorized to be in the Football Championship Subdivision of Division I football by the NCAA. As such the Ivy League teams are eligible for the postseason tournament held to determine the national champion. The winner of the Ivy League receives an automatic bid and any other team may qualify for an at-large selection by the NCAA. However to date all eligible teams have declined the invitation, citing rules governing the Ivy League regarding academic concerns posed by the extended schedule. As it is the Ivy League plays a strict 10 game schedules opposed by all other FCS members' 11 or 12 game regular season."

TahoeSOONER

12/18/2009, 11:48 PM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

How many years must it be proven that we NEED a playoff to determine who's the best team?

Whether it's a bunch of one loss teams or multiple undefeated teams they should be able to play until they're beaten or the last team standing.

It wouldn't be that hard to accomplish and we can get rid of these bull**** nonconference cupcakes.

Jut my humble opinion but it will happen eventually, it must for creditability sake.

BOOMER!

Curly Bill

12/18/2009, 11:50 PM

Who exactly needs a playoff?

TahoeSOONER

12/18/2009, 11:53 PM

Who exactly needs a playoff?

The majority of College football fans seem to think so.

Ask Utah, Cincy or Boise fans.

Most good CFB fans can recognize when a system is failing.

Not that a playoff wouldn't come with it's own set of issues.

Curly Bill

12/18/2009, 11:56 PM

The majority of College football fans seem to think so.

Ask Utah, Cincy or Boise fans.

Most good CFB fans can recognize when a system is failing.

Not that a playoff wouldn't come with it's own set of issues.

The majority of college fans no more NEED a playoff then they NEED a Ferrari. Much like wanting a Ferrari, they merely want a college playoff. To say there is a NEED for one is an exercise in hyperbole.

TahoeSOONER

12/18/2009, 11:58 PM

Some people need creditability.

Personally I think the greatest sport in the world NEEDS better creditability.

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 12:08 AM

There sure are lots of people that watch D-1 college football...

...apparently it does not NEED better creditability.

Collier11

12/19/2009, 12:15 AM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

you mean like, playing it out on the field, no way

Collier11

12/19/2009, 12:15 AM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

you mean like, playing it out on the field, no way

Collier11

12/19/2009, 12:16 AM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

you mean like, playing it out on the field, no way

Collier11

12/19/2009, 12:16 AM

so nice I said it thrice

SPuL

12/19/2009, 12:20 AM

^3 times :D

cortezsooner

12/19/2009, 12:20 AM

Every other team sport has a playoff so that has to be the way to do it?

What a very compelling argument! :rolleyes:

Well, it's as compelling as any of the reasons against it.....because we all know they are BS. The excuses are bogus....and you know it!!

SPuL

12/19/2009, 12:21 AM

......

cortezsooner

12/19/2009, 12:22 AM

Double post for me too....

tommieharris91

12/19/2009, 12:23 AM

Well, it's as compelling as any of the reasons against it.....because we all know they are BS. The excuses are bogus....and you know it!!

you mean like, playing it out on the field, no way

Collier11

12/19/2009, 12:27 AM

hell we are finding out even more tonight with the Fiesta bowl stuff how criminal the BCS is

cortezsooner

12/19/2009, 12:28 AM

Great, now I said it twice :):)

Must be twice as true!!

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 12:28 AM

cortezsooner

12/19/2009, 12:33 AM

Board acting up...double posts.

cortezsooner

12/19/2009, 01:44 AM

Per wikipedia

"Today the Ivy League is categorized to be in the Football Championship Subdivision of Division I football by the NCAA. As such the Ivy League teams are eligible for the postseason tournament held to determine the national champion. The winner of the Ivy League receives an automatic bid and any other team may qualify for an at-large selection by the NCAA. However to date all eligible teams have declined the invitation, citing rules governing the Ivy League regarding academic concerns posed by the extended schedule. As it is the Ivy League plays a strict 10 game schedules opposed by all other FCS members' 11 or 12 game regular season."

I'm betting that the players from some past Undefeated Ivy League team were snickering all the way to class the day the Playoffs started. Probably feeling sorry for the players on the teams that were getting ready to compete for a National Championship on the field. "Do you realize how lucky we are? Those poor dumb saps still playing football while we're studying!"

Crucifax Autumn

12/19/2009, 01:49 AM

I like bacon!

BoulderSooner79

12/19/2009, 02:06 AM

I'm sick of the double posts

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 02:24 AM

"Today the Ivy League is categorized to be in the Football Championship Subdivision of Division I football by the NCAA. As such the Ivy League teams are eligible for the postseason tournament held to determine the national champion. The winner of the Ivy League receives an automatic bid and any other team may qualify for an at-large selection by the NCAA. However to date all eligible teams have declined the invitation, citing rules governing the Ivy League regarding academic concerns posed by the extended schedule. As it is the Ivy League plays a strict 10 game schedules opposed by all other FCS members' 11 or 12 game regular season."

I love it. Playoff proponents can't even get out of their own way.

As Spanish Sooner has pointed out to the dumbasses in this thread, Ivy League schools refuse to participate in the playoffs. Something about academics.

Dumbasses.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 02:45 AM

Here is the email address of Drew Faust, President of Harvard.

[email protected]

You can email her to convince her that her football team needs to play in the playoffs, by golly. Because you, a typical football fan, really knows what's best for academics.

Ha ha ha! Good luck.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 02:55 AM

"Today the Ivy League is categorized to be in the Football Championship Subdivision of Division I football by the NCAA. As such the Ivy League teams are eligible for the postseason tournament held to determine the national champion. The winner of the Ivy League receives an automatic bid and any other team may qualify for an at-large selection by the NCAA. However to date all eligible teams have declined the invitation, citing rules governing the Ivy League regarding academic concerns posed by the extended schedule. As it is the Ivy League plays a strict 10 game schedules opposed by all other FCS members' 11 or 12 game regular season."

I love it. That is just tooooo good.

Thanks for saving me the trouble, Spanish Sooner. I've only mentioned to the playoff nuts in here a million times that Ivy League schools don't participate in the playoffs because of academics, but apparently they can't eat their bratwurst sandwiches and read at the same time.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 03:13 AM

My posts keep disappearing.

beer4me

12/19/2009, 06:47 AM

The majority of college fans no more NEED a playoff then they NEED a Ferrari. Much like wanting a Ferrari, they merely want a college playoff. To say there is a NEED for one is an exercise in hyperbole.

To be fair nobody NEEDS college football in any way shape form or fashion either.

Your life is not dependent on the BCS either. So that argument is moot.

It could go completely away and not a single person would die from it (with the exceptions of those that would shoot themselves):D

But some of us that think the current system is the suc and would love to see some form of a playoff.

Our opinion is no more right or wrong from those of you who think the BCS is the greatest gift to CF.

beer4me

12/19/2009, 06:49 AM

Dayum this board is acting retarded today :mad:

adoniijahsooner

12/19/2009, 11:21 AM

Dan Thompson

12/19/2009, 11:22 AM

Our President wants a playoff, Senator Oren Hatch (sp) also wants a playoff.

adoniijahsooner

12/19/2009, 11:34 AM

I love it. Playoff proponents can't even get out of their own way.

As Spanish Sooner has pointed out to the dumbasses in this thread, Ivy League schools refuse to participate in the playoffs. Something about academics.

Dumbasses.

I think it's ok for people to make mistakes without being called dumbasses. You know, we are only talking about football?

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 03:01 PM

Our President wants a playoff,

I'm convinced. We don't need a playoff.

GottaHavePride

12/19/2009, 03:04 PM

Jut my humble opinion but it will happen eventually, it must for creditability sake.

Some people need creditability.

Personally I think the greatest sport in the world NEEDS better creditability.

There sure are lots of people that watch D-1 college football...

...apparently it does not NEED better creditability.

Apparently the word credibility has no creditability around here.

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 03:10 PM

I was just copying the other guy, it's all his fault. :O

gotpoi73

12/19/2009, 03:29 PM

nah, let the computers decide who the fictitious champion is. i have no interest in watching the top 8 or 16 college football teams settle it on the field.

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 03:34 PM

nah, let the computers decide who the fictitious champion is. i have no interest in watching the top 8 or 16 college football teams settle it on the field.

Lets make it really awesome and have 64 or 128 settle it on the field!!! :rolleyes:

gotpoi73

12/19/2009, 03:48 PM

Lets make it really awesome and have 64 or 128 settle it on the field!!! :rolleyes:
Come on Curly, don't be such a cynic. A 16 team playoff doesn't excite you a little?

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 03:55 PM

Come on Curly, don't be such a cynic. A 16 team playoff doesn't excite you a little?

As soon as teams 17 and 18 complain that they should have been included there'll be a cry to expand the playoff to include more deserving teams, then we'll have 32 teams, then when teams 33 and 34 complain we'll have 64 teams, and on and on...

Nope, doesn't excite me at all. It's not a better system than we have now, it's just different.

Collier11

12/19/2009, 04:13 PM

I don't have any excuses for keeping the BCS.

It's not a great system, but then neither is a playoff, it's just different.

...and oh yeah! Everyone else is doing it so it has to be the best!!! :rolleyes: :O

How is a playoff not a great, or atleast better system...the champion is decided on the field, case closed

1890MilesToNorman

12/19/2009, 04:15 PM

Mud wrestling should be part of the Miss America Pageant too. If folks is gonna vote on **** then there should be some good **** to vote on.

The BCS needs to add a swimsuit contest just to make it even.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 04:16 PM

I hate that "case closed" crap. So weak.

You ask, "How is a playoff not a great, or at least better system"? Have you been paying attention to any of the playoff discussions we have had here over the years? Do we have to go through all this again?

Collier11

12/19/2009, 04:20 PM

Leroy, you have proven over the years that your opinion on anything regarding football or athletics matters very little, you are nothing more than a hateful old professor that thinks that the world will end if football gets any bigger, go on and tell us now how it will affect academics and all of that crap while EVERY SINGLE MUTHER F*CKING SPORT in college or pro athletics has some sort of a playoff, yea D1 cfb is the one that has it correct

You have millions of dollars being funneled thru these bowl games, apparently you have people being reimbursed for political contributions, and yet again we have a computer telling us who is the best team in the nation when there are 5 undefeated teams and several other 1 loss teams who are pretty damn good

Petro-Sooner

12/19/2009, 04:31 PM

New Mexico bowl people!!!!

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 04:32 PM

Leroy, you have proven over the years that your opinion on anything regarding football or athletics matters very little, you are nothing more than a hateful old professor that thinks that the world will end if football gets any bigger, go on and tell us now how it will affect academics and all of that crap while EVERY SINGLE MUTHER F*CKING SPORT in college or pro athletics has some sort of a playoff, yea D1 cfb is the one that has it correct

Except the Ivy League schools refuse to participate in your beloved playoffs, citing academic reasons. Gee, why not look into it a little further, heh?

You have millions of dollars being funneled thru these bowl games, apparently you have people being reimbursed for political contributions

You sound like a hairy-armpitted, tree-hugging, earth muffin. "It's the big, bad corporations and their evil money!"

Go ahead and blame the bogey-man for your problems. There are reasons why we don't have a playoff system, and until you figure them out (ha!) you will continue to tilt at windmills.

Collier11

12/19/2009, 04:38 PM

we dont have a playoff because the out of touch with reality presidents and bowl officials are rolling in the money, not that hard.

Ivy League schools decided a long time ago that there would be little or no emphasis on athletics and that is fine, the rest of the schools have obviously decided that athletics are quite important

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 05:04 PM

Oh ho! It's the other "bogeymen," the college presidents.

Ivy League schools decided a long time ago that there would be little or no emphasis on athletics

Attendance for Harvard vs Yale, 2009: 52,692
Attendance for FCS national championship game, 2009: 14,328

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Collier11

12/19/2009, 05:15 PM

You sure are short sighted for being a college professor, do you really think attendance was what I was talking about?

gotpoi73

12/19/2009, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE=Curly Bill;2795334]As soon as teams 17 and 18 complain that they should have been included there'll be a cry to expand the playoff to include more deserving teams, then we'll have 32 teams, then when teams 33 and 34 complain we'll have 64 teams, and on and on...

to hell with 17 and 18. you could tell them , well they should have played better. but with more than 2 undefeated, how do you determine who gets in? i don't think texass is any better than tcu or cincy. had tcu or cincy been the preseason #1, they would be in the championship ,but since they weren't they have no chance to play for the title. doesn't seem right

Then

1 Florida (58)
2 Texas (2)
3 Oklahoma
4 USC
5 Alabama
6 Ohio State
7 Virginia Tech
8 Mississippi
9 Oklahoma State
9 Penn State
11 LSU
12 California
13 Georgia
14 Boise State
15 Georgia Tech
16 Oregon
17 TCU
18 Florida State
19 Utah
20 Brigham Young
21 North Carolina
22 Iowa
23 Notre Dame
24 Nebraska
25 Kansas

Now

1 Alabama
2 Texas
3 Cincinnati
4 TCU
5 Florida
6 Boise State
7 Oregon
8 Ohio State
9 Georgia Tech
10 Iowa
11 Virginia Tech
12 LSU
13 Penn State
14 Brigham Young
15 Miami (FL)
16 West Virginia
17 Pittsburgh
18 Oregon State
19 Oklahoma State
20 Arizona
21 Stanford
22 Nebraska
23 Utah
24 USC
25 Wisconsin

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 05:46 PM

You sure are short sighted for being a college professor, do you really think attendance was what I was talking about?

Okay, let's go back:

Ivy League schools decided a long time ago that there would be little or no emphasis on athletics...

Over 52,000 show up for the Harvard-Yale game

the rest of the schools have obviously decided that athletics are quite important

Only 14,000 show up for the national title game. (Is that even half-capacity?)

In summary, over 52,000 people show up to watch two teams that have no interest in playing for a national title, four times more than the number that show up for the national title game. Clearly, chasing national titles is not that critical to college football and refusing to participate in the playoffs has not diminished fan interest one iota.

sooner ngintunr

12/19/2009, 06:03 PM

How is a playoff not a great, or atleast better system...the champion is decided on the field, case closed

The BCS champ is decided on the field.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 06:12 PM

Case closed.

1890MilesToNorman

12/19/2009, 06:52 PM

How has this been decided on the field?

Bama 13-0
Tejas 13-0
Cincy 12-0
TCU 12-0
Boise 13-0

This is decided in offices around the country working the phones all year, don't be stupid.

GottaHavePride

12/19/2009, 07:11 PM

Over 52,000 show up for the Harvard-Yale game

There's a BIG difference between number of fans attending a game and effort and funds allocated by the schools to the purpose of becoming more competitive at that sport. That's what Collier11 means by "emphasis on athletics". Attendance numbers are irrelevant data. Budgets, investments in new facilities, coaches' salaries, recruiting methods, etc. is data you should be citing here.

Partial Qualifier

12/19/2009, 07:11 PM

WTF is this.. Bizarro Thread? :confused:

The general consensus, to include everyone who's NOT a D1 college president or Kevin Weiberg, is that the BCS sucks major *** and, simultaneously, screams for a playoff.

I think 8 teams is plenty. Keep everything in place: the BCS rankings system, the bowls. Let the seedings with those 8 teams decide home field and that's where the playoffs are held. Champ. game location: wherever.

ndpruitt03

12/19/2009, 07:13 PM

Watching the Div 3 National title makes me want a playoff more.

Curly Bill

12/19/2009, 07:24 PM

Watching the Div 3 National title makes me want a playoff more.

Seriously, people watch that?

There wasn't a peewee game somewhere to watch? :D

gotpoi73

12/19/2009, 07:26 PM

Okay, let's go back:

Over 52,000 show up for the Harvard-Yale game

Oh, the game that's been played every year since 1876 actually has regional interest?

Only 14,000 show up for the national title game. (Is that even half-capacity?) Actually more than half-capacity. The stadium holds 20,668. Not bad since Montana is over 1500 miles away, and Nova is almost 700 miles away

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 07:35 PM

There's a BIG difference between number of fans attending a game and effort and funds allocated by the schools to the purpose of becoming more competitive at that sport. That's what Collier11 means by "emphasis on athletics".

Why is it that 52,000 people will show up to watch two teams that have no interest in playing for the national title? If "settling it on the field" is soooo important, then why would this game interest anyone? Certainly, paying close attention to academics hasn't hurt the popularity of this game.

And if the FCS championship game is soooo successful, why does it annually draw fewer fans than many high school games?

The general consensus, to include everyone who's NOT a D1 college president or Kevin Weiberg, is that the BCS sucks major *** and, simultaneously, screams for a playoff.

The question is whether the consensus is correct. In my view, the average college football fan is an idiot. My gut feeling is that college presidents agree with me.

Besides, once you highlight a particular playoff model the consensus plummets. I oppose all playoff models.

GottaHavePride

12/19/2009, 08:04 PM

Why is it that 52,000 people will show up to watch two teams that have no interest in playing for the national title? If "settling it on the field" is soooo important, then why would this game interest anyone? Certainly, paying close attention to academics hasn't hurt the popularity of this game.

And if the FCS championship game is soooo successful, why does it annually draw fewer fans than many high school games?

OK, you keep quoting that attendance figure for the FCS (former Div I-AA) championship game.

1. Since 1997 that game has been played every year at Finley Stadium, home stadium of the University of Tennessee - Chattanooga.

2. Maximum capacity of that stadium is 20,668. So this year's attendance of 14,328 is actually roughly 70%. The teams involved were Villanova and Montana.

3. Attendance at that game - played at UT-Chattanooga - when Montana is involved has ranged from 12,000 to 17,800.

3. Missoula, Montana (home of the University of Montana) is 2,105 miles from Chattanooga. Similarly, Villanova University is located in a suburb of Philadelphia, PA, 735 miles away from Chattanooga.

4. Flights from Missoula, Montana, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, are currently priced at $925 per ticket for ECONOMY class.

5. The Harvard-Yale game was held at the Yale Bowl, capacity 61,446. So your 52,000 attendance figure is 85% capacity.

6. New Haven, CT, is 135 miles from Cambridge, MA. Cambridge is less than 3 miles from Boston, MA, metro-area population 4.5 million.

So you're saying that in spite of being a 2 hour drive from Boston, Harvard and Yale can't manage better than 85% capacity for their annual game, while two schools an average of 1,420 miles away from the site of their game can manage 70% attendance with only one week's notice due to the playoff format?

You're not making your case so well.

sooner ngintunr

12/19/2009, 08:10 PM

How has this been decided on the field?

Bama 13-0
Tejas 13-0
Cincy 12-0
TCU 12-0
Boise 13-0

This is decided in offices around the country working the phones all year, don't be stupid.

Thanks for the personal attack.:rolleyes:

The two teams with the toughest schedules that remain undefeated are playing for the MNC.

People seem to forget when this whole thing actually was decided by votes. It definitely is not that way today. At least today, computers play a part.;)

Ask The King if he would have rather had a playoff. Jes sayin.

Leroy Lizard

12/19/2009, 08:28 PM

Percent capacity means nothing. If they hosted the national title game in a stadium twice the size the same number would show. The only time capacity makes a difference is if the game sells out, which means more could have showed up than did.

The record for Harvard-Yale was set in 1921, at 55,000. Today, long after both teams decided that playing for the national title was not in their best interests, the game still draws nearly the same number of fans, proof that there is no need for a national title game. Fans will still pour out to see a game in which neither team has any interest in winning the national title.

Ergo, there is more to college football than "settling the true champion on the field."

Collier11

12/20/2009, 12:21 AM

Okay, let's go back:

Over 52,000 show up for the Harvard-Yale game

Only 14,000 show up for the national title game. (Is that even half-capacity?)

In summary, over 52,000 people show up to watch two teams that have no interest in playing for a national title, four times more than the number that show up for the national title game. Clearly, chasing national titles is not that critical to college football and refusing to participate in the playoffs has not diminished fan interest one iota.

still not what im talking about, dont be such a dumbass, oh sorry, didnt mean to use your words against you

The BCS champ is decided on the field.

not even close, not even close

Collier11

12/20/2009, 12:23 AM

Thanks for the personal attack.:rolleyes:

The two teams with the toughest schedules that remain undefeated are playing for the MNC.

People seem to forget when this whole thing actually was decided by votes. It definitely is not that way today. At least today, computers play a part.;)

Ask The King if he would have rather had a playoff. Jes sayin.

yea cus texas had such a tougher sched than TCU and Cincy

Collier11

12/20/2009, 12:24 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/20/2009, 12:34 AM

you have the most illogical, contrived, idiotic arguments..

Yeah, yeah... just go ahead and tell all the Ivy League fans to STOP WATCHING THEIR TEAMS PLAY FOOTBALL. Don't those fools at Yale and Harvard understand that you have to have a playoff to make the game meaningful?

Collier11

12/20/2009, 12:51 AM

and again, yet again, what the hell does that have to do with any of this? Making the game meaningful isnt the argument, crowning a true national champion is the argument

sooner ngintunr

12/20/2009, 12:52 AM

yea cus texas had such a tougher sched than TCU and Cincy
for sure they did bro.

Cincy, slightly less tuff. (had some squeakers)
TCU, not even close. ( but they blew everyone out, except for AF:O )

Me, I'm not totally pissed that TCU and Cinci don't get a chance for the MNC.

'Bama and UT have earned where they are at. No one on this board last year was saying **** about the BCS sending the wrong team. (except for UTerus fans)

I'll say it again, people seem to forget when the polls actually decided who won the MNC.

Like it or not, deny it if you want, the title is decided on the field.

Collier11

12/20/2009, 01:04 AM

for sure they did bro.

Cincy, slightly less tuff. (had some squeakers)
TCU, not even close. ( but they blew everyone out, except for AF:O )

Me, I'm not totally pissed that TCU and Cinci don't get a chance for the MNC.

'Bama and UT have earned where they are at. It is what it is.

I'll say again, people seem to forget when the polls actually decided who won the MNC.

Like it or not, deny it if you want, the title is decided on the field.

yea cus that Big 12 sched and those 4 creampuffs that tex played non conf were really that tough this year :rolleyes:

Sure, the title that the computers mandate is decided on the field but in most years such as this when there are multiple really good teams, we have no idea who really is the best

sooner ngintunr

12/20/2009, 01:09 AM

Was KU the best team in CBB in 88? Someone on here please say yes, because you're ****ing wrong.

a playoff is just a different ends to the means. not necessarily a better way to determine it.

OU was 2-1 against the National Champion in a playoff system. or was it 3-1? think it might have been 3-1. drunky, yes.

The BCS aint as broke as some think.

Collier11

12/20/2009, 01:38 AM

sooner ngintunr

12/20/2009, 01:52 AM

any system that keeps out 3 other undefeated teams is wrong, maybe a playoff isnt perfect but it is def better than the BCS. Id rather have a team get hot and win it that may not be the quite the best ala kansas in 88 (very unlikely in football btw) than to have a computer tell me who is the best team

Lets see just how clear it is that tex is better than the other 3

Tex best wins- vs 3 loss and ranked Osu, 5 loss OU, and 4 Loss and ranked Neb
TCU best wins- against 5 loss Clemson, 3 loss and ranked Utah, 2 loss and ranked byu
Boise best wins- 2 loss and ranked Oregon, 5 loss Fresno
Cincy best wins- 4 loss and ranked Oregon st, 4 loss Rutgers, 3 loss and ranked Pitt, 3 loss and ranked west virginia

Non conf sched

tex- ul monroe, wyoming, utep, ucf
Cincy- Se mizzou, Oregon St, Fresno st, Illinois
Boise- Oregon, miami(oh), bowling green, uc davis, tulsa
Tcu- virginia, tex st, clemson, smu

Man, youre right, that is really clear cut

like I said, cincy comes close. Texas for sure has the tougher schedule though, you can't really argue it.

You're calling for a playoff, I'm sayin Cinci doesn't deserve it over UTerus. We are arguing different points I think.

this year... undefeated Big12 Champ>undefeated Big East champ> undefeated MWC champ, its not close IMSO.

Its what we got, The two best teams playing it on the field, just like the last few (dozen) years, which is better than what we can say about the previous 40 (100?) years.

Collier11

12/20/2009, 02:10 AM

how can you say that its not even close, texas hasnt really beaten anyone more impressive than Pitt, they havent beaten anyone more impressive than oregon, I guess about as impressive as Clemson or oregon st

Leroy Lizard

12/20/2009, 02:58 AM

Making the game meaningful isnt the argument, crowning a true national champion is the argument

You have yet to establish why crowning a true national champion (which I suppose only a playoff can provide) is necessary.

At the FCS, we already know it is not. An entire league refuses to participate, and the outcome produces no drop in fan interest. Hell, their games are probably as well attended as anyone else in their division. Furthermore, the league cites academics as the reason, and you have not provided any way of refuting their argument.

A playoff system serves nothing more than a battle cry by malcontents who do not understand the game and what it means. To people like you, college football is aimed purely for your own entertainment, like an action movie or the NFL.

You will cry, cry, cry until you have ruined this sport for good.

ndpruitt03

12/20/2009, 09:11 AM

Collier11

12/20/2009, 11:22 AM

stoopified

12/20/2009, 12:52 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/20/2009, 02:18 PM

Sports are played to win, sure you get several great life lessons from playing sports and you learn discipline, but you play TO WIN THE GAME.

Then why does the Ivy League continue to still play games and, at the same time, refuse to participate in the playoffs?

If hosting a true national championship is the only way to satisfy the need to win, why wasn't a playoff system instituted from Day 1 in college football?

Until now, what has been the point of playing college football games if the current system does not satisfy the need to win?

Curly Bill

12/20/2009, 02:21 PM

Whether you want to admit it or not Leroy, and im sure you wont since you are likely from the "sports are for good pure competition and thats all club" Sports are played to win, sure you get several great life lessons from playing sports and you learn discipline, but you play TO WIN THE GAME.

Then you should like the current system of bowl games where at the end of the season half the teams in those games are "winners" as opposed to a playoff where there's one "winner." ;) :P :D

Leroy Lizard

12/20/2009, 02:59 PM

But, could you ever get all College Football Fans to do that? No.......

... because the fans enjoy the games.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 11:22 AM

Good lord, the straw-man arguments in this thread could feed the Roman cavalry for a decade.

TUSooner

12/21/2009, 11:37 AM

Who exactly needs a playoff?

I WANT lots of things that I don't NEED. I don't NEED a playoff. I don't even NEED a champion. I've learned to enjoy each game for what it is, and in my mind there is no such thing as a "meaningless" game. So I understand your point, and that of Leroy Lizard, et alia, it's honest at least.

That said, stop making a meal out of it.

Lots of people, including me, WANT a legitimate champion, and the only way to get one is to have a playoff. The excuses for not having a play-off and a legit champ (other than the obvious, honest reason of we don't need one and the Powers That Be don't want one) are absolute pure 100% BS. Its money talking, and talking dirty to boot.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 11:49 AM

Other than Oxygen, water, money, and food, we really dont need anything...therefore that argument is idiotic. I dont need a BJ but I sure would like one, it makes sense to get one because the benefits of getting one far outweigh the benefits of not getting one

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 01:06 PM

You haven't established that the benefits of a playoff outweigh the harm. You can only guess, and what I'm saying is that your guesses are not well thought out.

My problem with playoff proponents is that they never take into account anything more than the superficial. For example, it's not like they have reasoned the academic argument out --- they just simply dismiss it altogether.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 02:25 PM

Leroy, I will get to the rest of your argument in a little bit but the academic issue is a non-issue, all other divisions manage to work it out, why couldnt Div 1? You tell me why the biggest, most powerful division cant work it out. They may need to take time to get all of the logistics worked out but I see no scenario where it couldnt be worked out.

I see you even bringing that up as a reach at best

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 02:37 PM

Leroy, I will get to the rest of your argument in a little bit but the academic issue is a non-issue, all other divisions manage to work it out, why couldnt Div 1?

Gee, and they wonder why I say that playoff proponents simply dismiss the academic argument?

They may need to take time to get all of the logistics worked out

That is nothing more than saying, "Let's put in the playoff first; we'll discuss (not solve) the academic problem later."

Work out the logistics NOW. Don't just pray the problem will go away.

And this points to another problem I have with playoff proponents: They don't CARE if academics becomes a problem, because all they want is the playoff. If a playoff game takes place two days before a final exam, do you think the fans will care about the unnecessary burden on studying? Hell no. The fans got their playoff, and that's all the fans care about.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 03:12 PM

That is not at all what im saying and again you are reaching for a reason to gripe about playoffs and the reasons you are finding are the wrong ones, a playoff will consist of 1 missed day tops but games could easily be scheduled on weekends.

Bowl games you are there for a full week and that was worked out wasnt it?! Also, if you have a 8 team playoff, you only have 2 teams missing more than 2 weekends, 4 teams will miss more than 1. THis isnt that tough to figure out Leroy, dont bring up the academic issue just to argue because that is so easily delt with. Plus your precious bowl games can be preserved, we have covered this 100 times.

JLEW1818

12/21/2009, 03:12 PM

fantasy... lol

Collier11

12/21/2009, 03:15 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 03:30 PM

That is not at all what im saying and again you are reaching for a reason to gripe about playoffs and the reasons you are finding are the wrong ones, a playoff will consist of 1 missed day tops but games could easily be scheduled on weekends.

One missed day? What the Hell are you talking about?

I hand out final exams. I score them. And I know the effects of long-distance travel on exam performance.

A player could end up playing a game on Saturday evening in Arizona, and taking a final exam on the following Monday morning in North Carolina. That is INSANE.

But to you guys, who cares? You got the playoffs, and that is all that matters. So you don't offer any solutions to the academic problem, you just hope it won't crop up. That is not exactly good planning.

Bowl games you are there for a full week and that was worked out wasnt it?!

I have never had a problem with bowl travel and final exams, because bowl games are scheduled away from final exams, which is why they don't start until so late in the year. Are you going to guarantee that such will be the case with a playoff?

No, you cannot make such guarantees, because the people who are pushing for a playoff don't care about academics. At all. ZERO.

Also, if you have a 8 team playoff, you only have 2 teams missing more than 2 weekends, 4 teams will miss more than 1.

What about the players on those teams? They don't count?

And any eight-team playoff will transform into a 16-team playoff. So to argue that it's only an itty-bitty playoff doesn't fool me one bit. I know where the playoffs are going -- 16 teams. And I don't see how any 16-team playoff can take place without compromising student athletes' final exam performance.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 03:35 PM

man, that was hard and I dont even work for the NCAA, surely they can figure that out with your rediculous academics are in trouble argument

You are assuming an eight-team playoff. How many will it be eventually?

Look at college basketball. How many did it start with? How many does it have now?

Look at college baseball. How many did it start with? How many does it have now?

Look at the FCS playoffs. How many did it start with? How many does it have now?

Once a playoff is initiated, the real crying begins. More teams! More teams!

Unfortunately, too many that oppose a 16-team playoff get suckered into supporting Playoff Lites, not realizing what they are going to get eventually. I'm not nearly that dumb.

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 03:41 PM

Collier11

12/21/2009, 03:42 PM

One missed day? What the Hell are you talking about?
NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND

I hand out final exams. I score them. And I know the effects of long-distance travel on exam performance.

The NCAA sure doesnt think that it affects college baseball, wrestling, bball, or the lower divisions of football

A player could end up playing a game on Saturday evening in Arizona, and taking a final exam on the following Monday morning in North Carolina. That is INSANE.

But to you guys, who cares? You got the playoffs, and that is all that matters. So you don't offer any solutions to the academic problem, you just hope it won't crop up. That is not exactly good planning.

Putting words in my mouth, the schedule I laid out follows the bowl schedule, therefore if you ahve no issue with the bowls then my schedule shouldnt bother you unless you are a hipocrit?

No, you cannot make such guarantees, because the people who are pushing for a playoff don't care about academics. At all. ZERO.

Never once said that, you want me to say that but I never have

What about the players on those teams? They don't count?

Oh give me a fugging break

Try again Leroy

Collier11

12/21/2009, 03:44 PM

I heard just yesterday that there is some discussion on expanding the NCAA basketball tournament field...

...I'm sure that'd never happen with football though. I mean just give us an 8 team, a 16 team playoff and we'd be happy with that forever. :rolleyes:

...my ***! Anyone who seriously thinks that is delusional. :O

so tell my how the expansion of the cbb tourney has ever hurt anyone? It is the biggest sporting event in the country minus the Super Bowl and I have never heard one complaint from the students, presidents, ADs, and on down the line

The expansion of the CBB tourney or a CFB tourney is a whole other issue, has nothign to do with Leroys BS academics will fall in the flames argument

Pricetag

12/21/2009, 03:44 PM

Leroy, if your main argument is about the academics, you should be boycotting the big money sports like football and basketball out of general principle. These aren't the Texas State Fightin' Armadillos we're talking about here--they are athletes first, students second. Whether that should be the case is certainly debatable, but it is reality.

soonerborn30

12/21/2009, 03:45 PM

I like how certain people are pretending that academics matter a lick in college football. It's not like these kids don't have people doing this stuff for them anyway. Please.

The real problem one someone touched on earlier about travel for the fans. How many of us on here could afford to fly to Glendale and then travel to say New Orleans or Pasadena the next week? Not to mention room and board, game tickets, etc. How does this get paid for?

This is a "grass is greener" situation. First, we just had a poll determine the champ. Now we have the BCS. Next we'll have a playoff. Is it unreasonable to think that won't be enough and people are screaming for something else in another 10 years?

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 03:46 PM

so tell my how the expansion of the cbb tourney has ever hurt anyone? It is the biggest sporting event in the country minus the Super Bowl and I have never heard one complaint from the students, presidents, ADs, and on down the line

The expansion of the CBB tourney or a CFB tourney is a whole other issue, has nothign to do with Leroys BS academics will fall in the flames argument

Hell yeah! Lets just have a playoff starting day one and let everyone in. You want single or double elimination?

Collier11

12/21/2009, 03:48 PM

I for one dont want CBB to get any bigger and I would never WANT CFB to be bigger than 16, Leroys argument was academics related to the expansion, so how does that hurt anyone?

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 03:49 PM

I for one dont want CBB to get any bigger and I would never WANT CFB to be bigger than 16, Leroys argument was academics related to the expansion, so how does that hurt anyone?

Cheapens the whole thing?

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 03:50 PM

I for one dont want CBB to get any bigger and I would never WANT CFB to be bigger than 16, Leroys argument was academics related to the expansion, so how does that hurt anyone?

You can want that all you want, but once the ball is rolling it would get larger, and larger, and larger....

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 03:58 PM

Putting words in my mouth, the schedule I laid out follows the bowl schedule, therefore if you ahve no issue with the bowls then my schedule shouldnt bother you unless you are a hipocrit?

One small problem with your attempt to equate a bowl schedule with a playoff schedule: When teams play in the playoffs, they play on multiple weekends. When teams play in a bowl game, they only play once.

For players on a team that advances to the championship game, we are talking about four weekends consumed by super-high-stakes football games, not one.

And if you can't see the difference between four weekends and one, well....

And when do these weekends occur? Right smack in the middle of final exams. That is simply a bad idea.

Oh give me a fugging break

Gee, I wonder where I got the idea that playoff proponents simply dismiss the academic argument?

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 04:03 PM

I like how certain people are pretending that academics matter a lick in college football. It's not like these kids don't have people doing this stuff for them anyway. Please.

Some do. A few take advantage of their sports scholarships to get an education, reasoning that their future in pro sports isn't very likely and that they need to do as well as they can academically.

And those are the players that concern me, not the future pros.

The real problem one someone touched on earlier about travel for the fans. How many of us on here could afford to fly to Glendale and then travel to say New Orleans or Pasadena the next week? Not to mention room and board, game tickets, etc. How does this get paid for?

Amazing. A player will have to figure out some way to study for a final exam while on a plane, but the fans are worried about affording the travel expenses?

But I hear you... the excessive travel will be a problem for fans.

This is a "grass is greener" situation. First, we just had a poll determine the champ. Now we have the BCS. Next we'll have a playoff. Is it unreasonable to think that won't be enough and people are screaming for something else in another 10 years?

Eventually, 16 teams is a given. Whether big-time college football can withstand the call for 32 teams is an open question. Right now, I would say that a 32-team playoff is unlikely, but things can change once the genie is let out of the bottle.

soonerborn30

12/21/2009, 04:18 PM

Well, yeah I'm worried about the fans...because I am one. I figure I'll let the players worry about finals, since they're the students and all. Nobody made them do this. They want to play football. Having a rough travel schedule won't make their finals any harder than mine were as a working adult. Forgive me if I don't feel their pain.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 04:29 PM

I figure I'll let the players worry about finals, since they're the students and all. Nobody made them do this.

I don't think we can get out of this by saying, "They got themselves into it." Using your reasoning, we could inflict any misery we wanted on them. A playoff will be initiated by others; they will have little choice in the matter.

The university and its faculty are entrusted with making good decisions to enhance the chances that students will succeed academically. A playoff does not fit within that mission.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:29 PM

I remember how people were against the Wild Card when it came to the NFL and MLB playoffs. But now it provides another nice dimension. I like it. I'm glad it was added.

Right now I'd like an 8-team playoff but not a 16-team playoff. I don't think a 16-team playoff would evolve quite as quickly as some of you seem to. Would it eventually get there? Probably. Is there a possibility that it would continue to grow past 16? Absolutely.

But I look at it like this. I'd rather have a post-season tournament that grows a little too big than no post-season tournament at all. Is 64 teams too many for CBB? Maybe. But I'm glad that when the NIT folks were looking into the possibility of starting their CBB post-season basketball tourney, they didn't listen to the naysayers who warned about the possibility that 6 teams could eventually expand to 40.

Incidentally, the NIT expanded to 40 teams from 2002 to 2006 and then reverted back to 32 teams which, if nothing else, proves that if expansion is in fact unavoidable, it's not irreversible.

Yes, the academic concerns are legit. Whether or not academics is currently as important as it SHOULD be is of little concern to me. That doesn't mean we should disregard it entirely. But adding two more games (going from the current structure to an 8-team playoff) is something that can certainly be worked out. Perhaps one less regular season game would allow the 1st round of the playoffs to be played when conference championships are currently played. No games on the 2nd and 3rd weekends of December, when finals usually occur. At this time you have 4 teams (plus other bowl teams) left in the mix. You could have them play the final weekend of December in the semis. The championship game could be 1 or 2 weeks later which would be prior to the start of the spring semester.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 04:35 PM

One small problem with your attempt to equate a bowl schedule with a playoff schedule: When teams play in the playoffs, they play on multiple weekends. When teams play in a bowl game, they only play once.

Lets try this again Leroy since you repeatedly fail to pay any attention, 64 teams staying an entire week or 8 teams possibly playing 3 games, please tell me how that is any worse? There are currently 64 or maybe more teams that go to bowl games and spend up to a week there. That 3 game playoff schedule can follow the bowl schedule, therefore staying away from finals completely

And when do these weekends occur? Right smack in the middle of final exams. That is simply a bad idea.

Actually they dont, at all...they are all before finals, the last game may bleed into the 2nd semester by 1 weekend but that is only for 2 teams

Gee, I wonder where I got the idea that playoff proponents simply dismiss the academic argument?

Again, you cant just say I have given academics no consideration, it doesnt work like that. I have answered your question regarding academics very simply, are you so dense that you cant figure it out? I can now see your professor attitude coming out

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:38 PM

You people need some Christmas cheer. If it helps any, I doubt that the conversation being held here will have any impact on the actual future of a playoff. The stakes aren't as high as some of you seem to think they are.

Pricetag

12/21/2009, 04:40 PM

Perhaps one less regular season game would allow the 1st round of the playoffs to be played when conference championships are currently played.
One game from 12, or one game from 11? That twelfth game has been pretty much worthless. I'd be fine dropping the regular season to ten games, as long as the quality of the non-conference games was better.

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 04:42 PM

I don't think there's any remote possibility of a college football playoff soon.

I just like playing devil's advocate to those that just want them so darn bad. :D

We want, no we NEED, a playoff.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:43 PM

One game from 12, or one game from 11? That twelfth game has been pretty much worthless. I'd be fine dropping the regular season to ten games, as long as the quality of the non-conference games was better.

Yeah, back to 11. Nobody is using that 4th non-con to schedule a good team. If they have the philosophy of scheduling a tough team, they'll do it with 3. If they have the philosophy of scheduling patsies, they'll just schedule one more.

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 04:43 PM

By the way: colleges will not voluntarily give up a regular season game to accomodate a playoff.

Loss of revenue and all that, you know for those that don't make the magical mystery tour of playoff games.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 04:44 PM

Lets try this again Leroy since you repeatedly fail to pay any attention, 64 teams staying an entire week or 8 teams possibly playing 3 games, please tell me how that is any worse?

The problem is not summative. You can't say that each player on a 64-team bowl schedule has a .2 misery index, so 64*.2 = ....

That is a total bogus argument not even worth discussing.

Actually they dont, at all...they are all before finals, the last game may bleed into the 2nd semester by 1 weekend but that is only for 2 teams

But you can't have games being played on the weekend after final exams either. How are players expected to study during finals week when they have a high-stakes playoff game that coming weekend?

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 04:46 PM

Incidentally, the NIT expanded to 40 teams from 2002 to 2006 and then reverted back to 32 teams which, if nothing else, proves that if expansion is in fact unavoidable, it's not irreversible.

Bad argument. The NIT makes such little money that reducing the field may have even been a good economical move. That will not happen in big-time FBS football.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 04:56 PM

The problem is not summative. You can't say that each player on a 64-team bowl schedule has a .2 misery index, so 64*.2 = ....

That is a total bogus argument not even worth discussing.

So more or less you are saying that you have no legit argument for the fact that I have taken into account academics. You would rather just spout off that I hate academics (even though I have a college degree) and I dont care about the athletes well being. Whatever Leroy, the only thing you have on your side is that there isnt currently a playoff, Thats it!

But you can't have games being played on the weekend after final exams either. How are players expected to study during finals week when they have a high-stakes playoff game that coming weekend?

LEROY, for the love of all things good LISTEN, my playoff schedule which I threw together in 2 seconds follows to a T the bowl schedule. If you have no problems with the bowl games then you have no problem with my playoff schedule. The academic side of it can be worked out, just admit it and quit being so unnecessarily hard headed, and yes, it should be worked out BEFORE a playoff were to ever be instituted.

If you dont like playoffs just admit it and be done with it but quit trying to tell me the academics would suffer because they dont in any other sport and they wouldnt in major CFB, the people whose job this would be could figure it all out, I assure you

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:56 PM

Bad argument. The NIT makes such little money that reducing the field may have even been a good economical move. That will not happen in big-time FBS football.

So what you're saying is that there are unforeseeable conditions that could lead to to a reduction in the number of teams participating in a playoff. Right?

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:57 PM

If you have no problems with the bowl games then you have no problem with my playoff schedule.

Let me save him the keystrokes: he has a problem with the bowl games. We've been down this road before.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 04:58 PM

and just because it isnt happening this year or next or 10 years from now doesnt mean we cant argue it Curly, even if it is pointless :D

Collier11

12/21/2009, 04:58 PM

Let me save him the keystrokes: he has a problem with the bowl games. We've been down this road before.

Well in one of his posts he plainly said he has no issue with the bowl games or the schedule they follow, so he is either a hipocrit or full of sh*t

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 04:59 PM

By the way: colleges will not voluntarily give up a regular season game to accomodate a playoff.

Okay. If that's the case then we'll start the season one week earlier. Still have the 12 games with the same playoff schedule.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 05:00 PM

Well in one of his posts he plainly said he has no issue with the bowl games or the schedule they follow, so he is either a hipocrit or full of sh*t

Maybe I've misrepresented his stance. It seems to me that I remember him saying (last year when we had a similar conversation) that he didn't like the bowl schedule either. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 05:04 PM

Here is his exact quote from 2 pages ago

"I have never had a problem with bowl travel and final exams, because bowl games are scheduled away from final exams, which is why they don't start until so late in the year. Are you going to guarantee that such will be the case with a playoff?"

yet when I propose to him that the playoffs would follow the bowl schedule he changes his tune, so like I said, hipocrit or full of sh*t?

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:04 PM

It would be a truly wild occurrence if FBS football scaled back a playoff.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 05:05 PM

and here goes a whole other argument, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:07 PM

LEROY, for the love of all things good LISTEN, my playoff schedule which I threw together in 2 seconds follows to a T the bowl schedule.

Two problems with your idea.

1. It assumes that there is no difference between bowl dates and playoff dates. There is a huge difference. With a bowl schedule, my team is only playing one game, and I get to choose the bowl that best accommodates final exams. Virginia, for example, refused to play in one bowl game because it fell on the week after final exams.

With a playoff system, my team has to play four consecutive games on dates it cannot choose. There are no other playoff systems a team can choose to participate in.

2. I only saw three dates listed. Sixteen-team playoffs feature four dates.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 05:08 PM

It would be a truly wild occurrence if FBS football scaled back a playoff.

As much trouble as it was to get a 2-team playoff, it would be a truly wild occurrence to me if FBS went to a 16-team playoff.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:18 PM

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 05:19 PM

Are you kidding? FCS already did it, and the pressure to expand at the FBS level will be even greater.

Once you initiate a playoff, increasing the number of teams just gets easier and easier. FCS, college baseball, and college basketball have taught us that lesson.

Well, they have taught some of us.

Was it this hard for the FCS, college baseball or college basketball to get a 2-team playoff?

As you like to point out ad naseum, FBS is different.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 05:22 PM

Two problems with your idea.

1. It assumes that there is no difference between bowl dates and playoff dates. There is a huge difference. With a bowl schedule, my team is only playing one game, and I get to choose the bowl that best accommodates final exams. Virginia, for example, refused to play in one bowl game because it fell on the week after final exams.

Thats funny cus Virginia didnt qualify for a bowl game this year. The Playoff games could be played strictly on Saturdays after Christmas, it would still work

2. I only saw three dates listed. Sixteen-team playoffs feature four dates.

Thats cus I was talking about a 8 team playoff

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:31 PM

I am not sure what it took to get a two-team playoff.

FBS is certainly different than FCS, college baseball, or college basketball, and that's the problem. The money and visibility of FBS is even greater than those other sports, so the uniqueness of FBS makes it even MORE likely that a playoff system will balloon in size.

After all, instituting the BCS didn't diminish the crying; it INCREASED it. Learn the lesson.

College football fans will not be happy unless the playoff is so large that their favorite team is almost guaranteed to be admitted if it has anything resembling a decent season.

After all, having Prairie View A&M miss a 32-team cut is one thing; having USC miss an eight-team cut is a whole 'nother matter. Do you think ESPN is going to stand aside and watch their pet football team get left out? They will call for an expansion, and since college football has already sold out to the playoff idea there will be little to stop it.

Once college football sells out to playoff marketers, it's over.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:33 PM

Thats cus I was talking about a 8 team playoff

Oh, sell us on the small version, expand it later. (This is how you cook a frog.)

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 05:34 PM

I am not sure what it took to get a two-team playoff.

FBS is certainly different than FCS, college baseball, or college basketball, and that's the problem. The money and visibility of FBS is even greater than those other sports, so the uniqueness of FBS makes it even MORE likely that a playoff system will balloon in size.

After all, instituting the BCS didn't diminish the crying; it INCREASED it. Learn the lesson.

College football fans will not be happy unless the playoff is so large that their favorite team is almost guaranteed to be admitted if it has anything resembling a decent season.

So do you think that FBS is so popular that the playoff will expand until it includes everyone? Or do you think there is a point that it would stop growing?

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 05:39 PM

Lets say just for hypotheticals, we already have bowl games running from Dec 18-Jan 8. So with this years calendar as an example

Round 1- Sat and Sun of the week of Dec 19-20
Semis- Sat and Sun of the week of Jan 2-3
Championship- Saturday night January 9th...

man, that was hard and I dont even work for the NCAA, surely they can figure that out with your rediculous academics are in trouble argument

This is what hurts the Bowl fans argument alone. most of college football has a playoff. Div 1aa, div 2 div 3, naia. JUCO, there's more college football players and teams getting ready for playoffs late in the year that those getting ready for bowl games.

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 05:45 PM

You can want that all you want, but once the ball is rolling it would get larger, and larger, and larger....

There are over 300 div 1 teams in college basketball. Only 1/3rd of them are post season teams

In college football there are around 120 teams in div 1a. About 70(over 55%) of them are in their post season games. I'm sorry but the bowl season cheapens the season much more than college basketball's tournament ever has. Why do you think teams like Texas and Florida schedule 3 or 4 bad teams in the OOC?

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 05:46 PM

I contend that part of what makes FCS so popular is the importance of the regular season. I contend that one of the bad parts about FCS is that it's possible to go undefeated and not win the national championship. I think that there is a happy medium.

I think we can incorporate a playoff that eliminates the possibility that someone can go undefeated and not win the national championship? Will it eliminate some of the importance of the regular season games? Perhaps, but it will also ADD more importance to more games that currently have little. (I've been over this multiple times and I think you understand my argument here.)

I think that the people who make the decisions about college football understand that the importance of the regular season is vital to FCS' popularity. I'm confident that a move to an 8-team playoff will add more value to the regular and post-season than it takes away. Perhaps it's inevitable that a move to a 16-team tournament will happen. But I'm confident that, if and when it does, it'll be because the analysis is the same: it adds more value to the regular and post-season than it takes away (without interfering with academics).

I don't think that any sport has made a post-season expansion that they thought would hurt the overall sport. I'm confident that college football decision-makers would do the same. Understanding that part of what makes college football so great is the importance of the regular season, they'll do all they can to preserve that. Right now, that might mean capping it at 8. But down the line, 16 might be perfectly workable.

Years from now all us old folks might look back on it and yearn for yesteryear when things were simple, but the new generations will love it and they'll continue to mold it into something greater.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 05:48 PM

I dont think the regular season is really that important unless you start off ranked in the Top 10, I think a playoff would make the regular season a hell of a lot more important for a lot of teams

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 05:51 PM

Do you think after OU lost 2 games that the regular season was really that as important? I don't know especially for a lot of players that have been in the NC race their entire careers at OU. And it really hurts that there's no difference between the lower teir bowls really. The pay out is not really that different from any of the Big 12 bowls till the BCS bowls. Except maybe the Cotton Bowl. And the schools only get a small part of that payout to the rest gets split between the conference.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 05:54 PM

So do you think that FBS is so popular that the playoff will expand until it includes everyone? Or do you think there is a point that it would stop growing?

There are barriers that would be tough to overcome. The first weekend of December is pretty much slated for CCGs, and college presidents have been adamant that playoff games do not extend into the spring semester. Based on this, a 16-team playoff is almost certainly what we well end up with.

This is what hurts the Bowl fans argument alone.

The FCS playoffs began two weeks prior to what is being proposed here. But FBS cannot accommodate such a schedule without (1) removing the CCG or (2) cutting back on the regular season. Neither is tenable.

If FBS is to institute a 16-team playoff like FCS, it will have to begin during the second weekend of December, which does not leave enough time to play all four weeks without infringing on final exams.

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 05:55 PM

I dont think the regular season is really that important unless you start off ranked in the Top 10, I think a playoff would make the regular season a hell of a lot more important for a lot of teams

There's things you can do to make the regular season more important with a playoff like an 8 or 16 team playoff can have home field for the first rounds. Higher ranked teams get that. You would almost have to be undefeated or have one loss to get home field. You can also use bowl venues for the finals games.

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 06:00 PM

There are barriers that would be tough to overcome. The first weekend of December is pretty much slated for CCGs, and college presidents have been adamant that playoff games do not extend into the spring semester. Based on this, a 16-team playoff is almost certainly what we well end up with.

The FCS playoffs began two weeks prior to what is being proposed here. But FBS cannot accommodate such a schedule without (1) removing the CCG or (2) cutting back on the regular season. Neither is tenable.

If FBS is to institute a 16-team playoff like FCS, it will have to begin during the second weekend of December, which does not leave enough time to play all four weeks without infringing on final exams.

Okay so teams play all through the regular season during tests and school yet they can't play during the same time to start a semester next year? You can have 4-5 weeks of playoffs from about mid December till late January if you really want and it wouldn't miss much if any school. I'm sorry this arguement is weak. Most schools in the country are done with school by December 10th-15th. They don't start back up till about a month later maybe a little less than that. And teams in the current system practice almost every day still instead of studying for finals all the time. And what about the current teams that had bowls this last week. How did they ever make it? There were about 4 bowl games already and they all had finals also. They must have had everyone fail.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 06:00 PM

I don't think that any sport has made a post-season expansion that they thought would hurt the overall sport. I'm confident that college football decision-makers would do the same.

Right now they are standing up against the playoff nuts and everyone is tearing into them. Now you are saying, "Go ahead and cave in to our demands now, but if we ask for a bigger system in the future please ignore us."

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 06:03 PM

College football has the worst regular season because of the post season right now. It wasn't true of that at one time. When there were many less bowls. But right now with more than half the teams getting to a post season game the regular season is so watered down. I think if the regular season really mattered in college football they would get rid of at least 10-15 of the bowls they currently have.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 06:06 PM

goingoneight

12/21/2009, 06:07 PM

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 06:11 PM

16 teams is too many. Since when did 16 teams present a legit argument to be National Champion in college football?

Conference champs of the BCS conferences, two at large (or "Wildcards"). This allows for no more assuming our 1-loss conference champ is better than your conference champ argument, and allows for the Boise States of the world. If'n the Boise States of the world don't produce an unbeaten contender, then you look to your 2004 Texas's and your 2009 Floridas, etc.

I actually do agree with this because of the fact that there are 120 teams in div 1a, 16 teams is too many. But to me 8 is perfect. But I think you just go with the top 8 in some type of committee using everything including BCS. Same way they do it in Basketball.

You could even keep the bowls if you want although I still think there should be less bowls. There's just too many right now.

sooner ngintunr

12/21/2009, 06:14 PM

Lets say just for hypotheticals, we already have bowl games running from Dec 18-Jan 8. So with this years calendar as an example

Round 1- Sat and Sun of the week of Dec 19-20
Semis- Sat and Sun of the week of Jan 2-3
Championship- Saturday night January 9th...

man, that was hard and I dont even work for the NCAA, surely they can figure that out with your rediculous academics are in trouble argument

The sundays would never work. NCAA is not going to go up against the NFL.

Why couldn't they have 2 games at the same location on Saturday? Kind of like NCAA BB. I don't even know if it would work, or how it would work, but it would be one heck of a tailgate.

I also find it amusing that everyone's playoff includes "the top 8 BCS teams" the 6 champions from "BCS" conferences.

Maybe the BCS isn't all that bad?

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 06:14 PM

Okay so teams play all through the regular season during tests and school yet they can't play during the same time to start a semester next year?

I don't think I understand your point. We have a departmental rule that if you don't pass the final exam, you cannot pass the course.

Obviously, final exams are not the same as midterms. They represent the last chance a struggling student has to pass a course.

Furthermore, I can move a midterm to accommodate a player's midseason games, although I have not had to. I cannot move a final exam without permission of the dean, and my current school does not allow it.

You can have 4-5 weeks of playoffs from about mid December till late January if you really want and it wouldn't miss much if any school.

Absolutely not, and I am not aware of any college presidents that would support such an idea. In fact, many playoff proponents would drop their support if the games continued playing deep into the beginning of the spring semester. I don't know any faculty that would support it.

So clearly playing such games must be harmful academically. (Think about it.) Of course, that doesn't mean that the pressures to increase the number of participating teams won't overrule such concerns, which is why I oppose all playoffs.

I'm sorry this arguement is weak. Most schools in the country are done with school by December 10th-15th. They don't start back up till about a month later maybe a little less than that. And teams in the current system practice almost every day still instead of studying for finals all the time.

That isn't my understanding. When I taught at OU most of the players were given plenty of study time and did not practice much at all until it got closer to the game. Where are you getting your information?

And what about the current teams that had bowls this last week. How did they ever make it? There were about 4 bowl games already and they all had finals also. They must have had everyone fail.

They play one relatively low-stakes bowl game and they're done. Contrast that with four consecutive weeks of high-stakes playoff games. The two situations are not even on the same planet.

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 06:20 PM

Right now they are standing up against the playoff nuts and everyone is tearing into them. Now you are saying, "Go ahead and cave in to our demands now, but if we ask for a bigger system in the future please ignore us."

No, I'm not saying "Put aside your better judgment and cave in to our demands now, but use your better judgment later."

But I'm not hearing...from the people that matter...why we can't go to an 8-team playoff. Every excuse I've heard is, in my opinion, a solvable problem.

So what I'm saying is "Why can't we go to an 8-team playoff? Here's why I think it'll work. If there are good reasons why we're not, let me know. If there are not good reasons, then let's do it." It's the same stance I'd have for a 16-team tournament.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 06:20 PM

I actually do agree with this because of the fact that there are 120 teams in div 1a, 16 teams is too many. But to me 8 is perfect.

Well, you're not going to get eight teams, you're going to get 16.

The media doesn't care what you want. It only knows that 16 teams means more $$$$$. The bigger the playoff, the more money they get. And so they will stoke the fires for expansion. And once you have eight teams, stopping 16 becomes tougher.

Take a look at FCS. At one time they thought eight teams was enough. Now it's 16.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 06:21 PM

TopDawg, how do you cook a frog?

"Put aside your better judgment and cave in to our demands now, but use your better judgment later."

??????????????

TopDawg

12/21/2009, 06:23 PM

TopDawg, how do you cook a frog?

??????????????

I said that was not what I was saying.

Leroy Lizard

12/21/2009, 07:58 PM

Sorry TopDawg, misread your post.

So what I'm saying is "Why can't we go to an 8-team playoff? Here's why I think it'll work. If there are good reasons why we're not, let me know. If there are not good reasons, then let's do it." It's the same stance I'd have for a 16-team tournament.

You can argue for a four-team playoff if you want, and there will be few logistical barriers to it.

Now, within two years everyone will be unhappy with the system. So we will need an 8-team playoff. And what will be the rallying cry for the expansion? "It is only another week of football. I don't see the big deal."

Then, the 8-team playoff will leave everyone unsatisfied. We will need a 16-team playoff. "It is only another week of football. What's the big deal?"

Before you know it, we end up with the NFL.

That is why I asked you if you know how to cook a frog. The people that want to turn college football completely into a mini-NFL are not going to push for a 16-team playoff, but rather the 4-team playoff. Because they know that once they get any type of playoff system in place, it becomes easier to expand.

Think about the creation of the current two-team playoff, the BCS. It didn't diminish the demands from sorehead fans for a large-scale playoff, it INCREASED them. And that's the way the system always works.

That is why I oppose all playoff systems.

ndpruitt03

12/21/2009, 11:24 PM

Well, you're not going to get eight teams, you're going to get 16.

The media doesn't care what you want. It only knows that 16 teams means more $$$$$. The bigger the playoff, the more money they get. And so they will stoke the fires for expansion. And once you have eight teams, stopping 16 becomes tougher.

Take a look at FCS. At one time they thought eight teams was enough. Now it's 16.
Aren't there more teams in the FCS? Also The argument that it would go from 8 to 16 just like that is stupid. The Major conferences will always dominate college football. The most realistic 8 team playoff will have the 6 major conferences with an at large bid even though I'm not in favor of that.

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 11:37 PM

It's not stupid at all to suggest that once there's a 4 team playoff, there'll soon be a cry to move to 8 teams. It's the nature of things, inflation if you will. It happens with prices, it happens with grades in school, and it happens with playoff formats -- you can book it.

All it would take is some fatcat program to be team #5 on the outside of you guys tidy little 4 team playoff. Not only that but ESPN and the like would constantly push for a bigger tournament to increase their revenue.

Collier11

12/21/2009, 11:41 PM

Curly Bill

12/21/2009, 11:44 PM

So let me get this straight Curly, you would rather have some computer formula that no one even understands to tell you who the best teams are as opposed to letting 8 or 16 teams play it out on the field?

I really quite frankly could not give a crap. You guys that so fervently want a playoff tickle me though.

We want, no we NEEDa playoff!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Crucifax Autumn

12/22/2009, 12:10 AM

I need a BJ...the playoff would be fun to watch while I get it.

Curly Bill

12/22/2009, 12:14 AM

I need a BJ...the playoff would be fun to watch while I get it.

Quite the multitasker huh? :D

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 02:04 AM

Aren't there more teams in the FCS?

I doubt the size of the FCS has stopped growing.

Besides, what percentage of teams participate in the NFL playoffs? 12 out of 32. Now extrapolate that to 105 college football teams and what do you get?

And college football fans will argue that their playoff NEEDS to be bigger than the NFL because of the disparity in ability between teams.

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 02:07 AM

Right now 70 teams out of 120 teams go to the post season in FBS. That's 60% much higher than that of any other major college sport. Shouldn't you be complaining about that?

cortezsooner

12/22/2009, 02:53 AM

I'm like a proud Father to see that this thread had grown to 9 pages and a HUGE amount of bickering in a short 2 days.....SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can only dream that they grow up to be this much fun.....

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 05:05 AM

Right now 70 teams out of 120 teams go to the post season in FBS. That's 60% much higher than that of any other major college sport. Shouldn't you be complaining about that?

No. Is there a reason I should?

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:12 AM

So 70 teams participating is good but 8 or 16 teams in a playoff is bad, I think you need to remove head from butt

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 10:39 AM

No. Is there a reason I should?

You are basically saying you don't believe in your own argument.

TopDawg

12/22/2009, 01:55 PM

I really quite frankly could not give a crap. You guys that so fervently want a playoff tickle me though.

We want, no we NEEDa playoff!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

We don't need, no we don't WANTa playoff!!!! :mad:

:D

Scott D

12/22/2009, 02:19 PM

I'm betting that the players from some past Undefeated Ivy League team were snickering all the way to class the day the Playoffs started. Probably feeling sorry for the players on the teams that were getting ready to compete for a National Championship on the field. "Do you realize how lucky we are? Those poor dumb saps still playing football while we're studying!"

The Ivy League doesn't care, afterall they don't have athletic scholarships that are affected by whether or not they play in a postseason or not. The players likely don't care all that much, they didn't go to an Ivy League school to get to the NFL, they went to an Ivy League school to become a CEO.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 02:23 PM

So 70 teams participating is good but 8 or 16 teams in a playoff is bad, I think you need to remove head from butt

Two things...

1. the BCS does what it's supposed to do, pit #1 v #2, everything else is at the discrection of the Bowls.

2. Say next year they expand to #1 v #4 and 2 v 3. Sure as Soonerus posting something stupid the complaints will come out of the woodwork about how they should expand to 8..once they do that, the gripes will be 16...then 32...then 64.

Christ, if the nonsense rumors about the NCAA Basketball Tournament haven't proven how much of a cluster**** the NCAA is making of a tournament haven't turned you off to the concept in the BCS, then nothing will.

But hey, if you really want to see 100 teams in the hoops tourney more power to you, I sure as **** won't watch until they're in a late round. You figure a lot more people won't watch because it'll become too long of a tourney and you're talking about a ton of lost revenue both on site and via television from a lower viewership until near the end.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 02:42 PM

See I am one that thinks that postseason should be a reward, not a right. I think 64 in the bball tourney is as big as it should ever get. I think in football I would be happy with 4, I would prefer 8 and I would never want the tourney bigger than 8 or 12, 4 teams getting 1st rd byes in the 12 team playoff or 10 with 2 teams getting 1st rd byes.

In CFB, most teams outside of the top ten could never win 3 games against top competition, it just isnt basketball and they dont have the same arguments. I realize people would grip about being left out but id rather have 1 team getting left out of 8 than 5 teams getting left out of 2.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 03:03 PM

The problem is that teams being left out isn't enough for Basketball anymore. So how long do we have to keep adding teams to a football one until we're up to all 120 teams being seeded? Do we drop the regular season down to 5 games to accomodate this playoff? Do we just get rid of a regular season altogether and seed everyone based upon their finish the previous season?

It's easy to argue for a top 8 now, but we'll run into that season where it could be argued that 12 teams are legitimate contenders, then it'll move to 16 then 20 then 24 then 28 then 32..etc

Collier11

12/22/2009, 03:12 PM

True but in bball there are over 300 teams, I think there are probably 20 or so that dont deserve to go to the tourney every year but atleast it is open to those who win their conf unlike football. Having said that, I dont believe every conf winner in football deserves a shot at the natl title.

I think the regular season could be kept at 12 games, with a playoff you are still only looking at 15 games for the two title game teams, most teams play 13 or 14 now so I dont think it would hurt for 2 teams to have to play 1 extra game. Now if they did a playoff I think they would have to hold the polls til after 2 or 3 games for fairness. Unfortunately one of the downfalls of a potential playoff is that it might lead to more teams but considering how long it has taken just to get a true natl title game out of the BCS, I dont see that happening for a long long time if it even does. It is still a risk im willing to take

TopDawg

12/22/2009, 03:17 PM

2. Say next year they expand to #1 v #4 and 2 v 3. Sure as Soonerus posting something stupid the complaints will come out of the woodwork about how they should expand to 8..once they do that, the gripes will be 16...then 32...then 64.

Okay. And if we can find a reasonable way to accommodate 16, 32 or 64 without compromising academics or the charm of the regular season, then let's do it.

Personally, I don't think that's possible. But I do think it's possible with 8.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 03:20 PM

So 70 teams participating is good but 8 or 16 teams in a playoff is bad, I think you need to remove head from butt

I think you need to move beyond the superficial (the number of teams playing in the postseason). I already explained the difference between a bowl system and a playoff system (something about teams playing consecutive weeks).

Don't be such a dummy.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 03:24 PM

playing consecutive weeks is not an issue, they do it in every single college sport and college football in every single division except one, quit being so hard headed. It can be done without issue

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 03:25 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 03:28 PM

True but in bball there are over 300 teams, I think there are probably 20 or so that dont deserve to go to the tourney every year but atleast it is open to those who win their conf unlike football. Having said that, I dont believe every conf winner in football deserves a shot at the natl title.

Some playoff proponents do.

And when a playoff is announced, conference winners will either get an automatic bid (angering half the public) or will not (angering the other half).

So, you have a playoff system that half the public thinks is unfair. There is only one solution: expansion.

The idea is that if enough teams get invited, the bickering will drop. When will that occur? I can tell you it won't be at 8 teams, for I have yet to see an eight-team playoff that treats minor conferences completely fairly AND gives teams from a tough conference a fair shot.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 03:31 PM

playing consecutive weeks is not an issue, they do it in every single college sport and college football in every single division except one,

C'mon Collier! A bowl system has each team play ONE game, and on a date of their choosing. They can choose a date to accommodate their own final exam schedule, like Virginia did a few years back.

A playoff system has teams play multiple, consecutive weeks. A 16-team playoff will require four consecutive weeks of play for two teams, which will make scheduling around final exams difficult.

Now, do you understand the difference?

Scott D

12/22/2009, 03:32 PM

As I've stated before, the problem isn't what playoff proponents think it is. The problem is that there are too many conferences, it's not like ole nickyzepp says and that there are too many teams, it's that there are too many conferences. If you eliminate conferences which by it's nature eliminates teams then it becomes a viable discussion. But not until that point is reached is any sort of playoff discussion going to have any validity to anyone outside of the pie in the sky perfect world discussion.

also keep in mind that comparmentalizing D-1A to fit a playoff system you're going to essentially blow up D-1AA's playoff system by overloading them with probably 40-45 more teams.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 03:34 PM

There's too many teams in college football that make the post season. Look at Iowa State they basically scheduled a bowl with 4 OOC games that were all winnable and they lost one of those. They won 3 games in conference and are in a bowl. They lost to one of their bad OOC teams and still went to a bowl. Post season should be a reward not a given. Why not just have every team go to a bowl?

A bowl game is an invitational. A city chamber of commerce gets together with a promoter to schedule a game, in which it invites teams to play. The teams don't have to participate, and the fans don't have to attend.

Now, if you think there are too many bowl games, that is an easy problem to solve. The number of bowl games has nothing to do with the viability/need for a playoff system.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 03:56 PM

Some playoff proponents do.

And when a playoff is announced, conference winners will either get an automatic bid (angering half the public) or will not (angering the other half).

So, you have a playoff system that half the public thinks is unfair. There is only one solution: expansion.

16 vs 1 or 15 vs 2 is a lot diff in bball than football

The idea is that if enough teams get invited, the bickering will drop. When will that occur? I can tell you it won't be at 8 teams, for I have yet to see an eight-team playoff that treats minor conferences completely fairly AND gives teams from a tough conference a fair shot.

C'mon Collier! A bowl system has each team play ONE game, and on a date of their choosing. They can choose a date to accommodate their own final exam schedule, like Virginia did a few years back.

A playoff system has teams play multiple, consecutive weeks. A 16-team playoff will require four consecutive weeks of play for two teams, which will make scheduling around final exams difficult.

Now, do you understand the difference?

So in college basketball college football in all other divisions except one, in collge baseball, wrestling, tennis, golf, and on and on and on, they can manage to figure it out but division one football cant? You are really naive or just really hard headed, probably a little bit of both I guess

Scott D

12/22/2009, 04:39 PM

Ok Collier, we'll for the sake of argument use FCS as a base model.

When FCS started they had a playoff of 4 teams. That would be in 1987, starting next season they are expanding the playoff from 16 to 20. Out of the 16 teams they have they have 8 Automatic Qualifiers (their version of BCS conferences), and 8 At Large qualifiers. Two of the conferences in FCS don't participate in the FCS Playoffs, the Ivy League and the SWAC.

So you're back to my original point. You need to pair down the FBS to meet the goals that you want to set with a playoff.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 04:52 PM

So in 22 years, after seeing that it could support it financially and academically it has expanded to 20 teams...is that really an issue, I dont want 20 teams in the D1 playoff but 20 wouldnt be that big of a deal would it?

I do agree that breaking it down further would help, I think that The Big 6 conferences should probably be D1 and the rest should be 1AA. If the boises and utahs and tcus want to be in D1, form a conference or join a better one.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 04:56 PM

I'm not anti-playoff btw, I just don't see a logical way to make it happen that isn't going to result in pissing off more people than the current system does.

Sooner04

12/22/2009, 04:57 PM

http://lonestarlifer.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/burger.jpg

Collier11

12/22/2009, 05:02 PM

I dont get how it will **** off more people

This is how I see it, tell me where you disagree?

Preserving Bowls- Teams that dont qualify for the tourney can still be invited to bowls, the semis and champ game can be incorporated into the BCS games if that is what is wanted to preserve the prestige of the big bowls

Academics- IF all other sports in college can figure this out, it can be figured out for D1 football. If you have a 8 team playoff you have 4 teams playing 1 weekend, 4 playing 2 weekends, and 2 playing 2 weekends. It can be worked into the bowl time slot so academics arent affected

Money- We always hear that there is so much money in bowl games but I fail to see how there is more money in a TCU vs Boise BCS game than a USC vs Boise quarterfinal game or a OU vs Va Tech semifinal game, etc...

Fans cant travel- simple, this also makes the reg season even more important. 1st round higher seed gets a home game, semis and finals are 2 weeks apart and in neutral locations. Hell, have semis at home, either way will work.

If you have 8 teams the 9th will feel robbed, if you have 16, the 17th will feel robbed. So you are telling me that isnt better than a system where you depend on a computer system, if you arent preseason top 10 you barely have a shot anyway, and going undefeated doesnt even gaurantee you a shot. Hell, there are 1 and 2 loss teams some seasons that deserve a shot.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 05:25 PM

On the Academics point...

The playoffs in FCS start at Thanksgiving, and are over by Finals. So you're willing to drop the entire schedule period of Thanksgiving week and Championship week so that you can finish a playoff in order to not negatively impact academics?

What are the hosting sites? Where is the plan? How many teams? What kind of venues? What time periods are we discussing? What are the qualifiers?

Collier11

12/22/2009, 05:28 PM

There were 14 saturdays this year between the last saturday in August and Thanksgiving weekend, it can be done like that if the reg season is lowered to 11 games or you can follow the current format and have the 1st rd pre finals, same weekend as conf title games now, then have the semis and finals the last weekend of december and 1st weekend of january which is when bowl games are played now

Collier11

12/22/2009, 05:29 PM

Well to follow what I listed above, Host site for 1st rd is the higher seeded team
Rd two and champ can alternate between BCS games as it does now

Listen, there is a lot of stuff that would have to be figured out, regardless of what some people on here say (leroy), it can be worked out and I WOULD want it worked out prior to any playoff being instituted, especially the academic part

and to set the record straight, I dont have to have a playoff, I dont need a playoff, the current BCS format is very unfair but I can live with it, I just think the fairest way in the spirit of competition is to form a playoff and as long as certain issues can be worked out, a playoff can and will happen at some point in the future.

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 05:47 PM

With the current system there still needs to be changes to make the regular season matter again. Less bowl games and either have every conference with a title game or take all title conferences away.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 05:52 PM

I say have a preseason poll for the fans then dont have another poll til game 4.

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 05:57 PM

I say have a preseason poll for the fans then dont have another poll til game 4.

I don't think that would really change much. People will see a Florida as better than a BYU or TCU or Boise even if they lose 1 game in the first 4 weeks.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 05:58 PM

it would change the big name bias, the thing now is that preseason teams 1-4 or 5 basically are protected unless they lose but then they still usually dont drop too far.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 06:13 PM

With the current system there still needs to be changes to make the regular season matter again. Less bowl games and either have every conference with a title game or take all title conferences away.

Last I checked the AP isn't required to crown the crystal football winner the National Champion...just ask USC and LSU.

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 06:26 PM

Last I checked the AP isn't required to crown the crystal football winner the National Champion...just ask USC and LSU.
I'm not talking about the National Champion I'm talking about the teams that aren't BCS teams. Bowl games are a given just about. You don't have to fight to go to a bowl game. You don't have to earn a bowl game. You just get them and they lead to teams that really don't care about playing bowl games.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 06:35 PM

yep, Middle Tennessee State looked like they didn't want to be there, Wyoming sure looked like they didn't want to be there, so did Fresno State. Rutgers absolutely looked like they didn't care about being there either.

sooner ngintunr

12/22/2009, 07:08 PM

Bowl games are a given just about. You don't have to fight to go to a bowl game. You don't have to earn a bowl game. You just get them and they lead to teams that really don't care about playing bowl games.

You just took this thread to a new level of nonsense.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 07:19 PM

There were 14 saturdays this year between the last saturday in August and Thanksgiving weekend, it can be done like that if the reg season is lowered to 11 games

So you are asking all teams to take a one-week financial hit so that some teams can participate in a post-season playoff.

While we're at it, we'll wave the magic wand and have all conferences host a title game, or have all teams join a conference.

It's difficult to argue with playoff proponents because their ideas are almost rooted in reality.

Not gonna happen. Nor should it. Is a playoff so necessary that we have to cut regular season games to fit it in?

or you can follow the current format and have the 1st rd pre finals, same weekend as conf title games now,

So what are you going to do the conference championship games?

Playoff proponents love to wave these magic wands. Regular season too long? Just magically make it shorter. Conference championship game schedules in the way? Pretend that these games don't happen.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 07:21 PM

Listen, there is a lot of stuff that would have to be figured out, regardless of what some people on here say (leroy), it can be worked out and I WOULD want it worked out prior to any playoff being instituted, especially the academic part

This is the mantra of those who cannot answer to the problems associated with their ideas: It will somehow be magically solved by others in the future.

That isn't a plan; it's a prayer.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 07:36 PM

So in college basketball college football in all other divisions except one, in collge baseball, wrestling, tennis, golf, and on and on and on, they can manage to figure it out but division one football cant? You are really naive or just really hard headed, probably a little bit of both I guess

Okay, for the umpteenth time:

FCS: 16-team playoff that begins Thanksgiving weekend. FCS does not feature conference championship games that I am aware of and hosts one less regular season game than FBS. Furthermore, the media pressure to perform athletically at the expense of academics in the postseason is nothing like FBS.

College basketball. All games are hosted at a single site and over a few days, unlike college football. College basketball also has the worst graduation rate of all college sports. Also, the playoffs are over well before final exams take place.

The rest of the sports are not even worth mentioning, since the media pressure to succeed despite academics is practically nil in comparison to FBS football.

In summary, FBS football is the big, bad boy of collegiate sports and cannot be compared to other sports.

Yet, in about two hours another chubby, meathead playoff proponent wearing his Chicago Bears sweatshirt and reeking of bratwurst will once again demand to know why playoffs work in other divisions.

TUSooner

12/22/2009, 07:47 PM

This is the mantra of those who cannot answer to the problems associated with their ideas: It will somehow be magically solved by others in the future.

That isn't a plan; it's a prayer.

This all a bunch of goofing off, and that post misses the point altogether. We internet geniuses could come up with a perfect plan (though it's not our job to do it) and it wouldn't matter one wee bit. That's because the only reason there's not a playoff is that the people who could quickly and easily make one happen do not want it to happen. The status quo gives the right people enough benefit (e.g., money) to induce them to keep things just as they are. The only legitimate reason not to have a FBS playoff is not caring if there is a more objectively chosen champion than we get now. Now, that may be a good enough reason for some; it's a legitimate position. But don't anyone kid themselves: All other excuses and obstacles are just smoke screens.

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 08:22 PM

You just took this thread to a new level of nonsense.

Look at OU in some BCS games in recent years. Those are supposed to be the games you care about.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 08:25 PM

Okay, what am I supposed to be looking for when I look at these past games?

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 08:30 PM

We internet geniuses could come up with a perfect plan (though it's not our job to do it) and it wouldn't matter one wee bit. That's because the only reason there's not a playoff is that the people who could quickly and easily make one happen do not want it to happen.

You either have a well-thought out plan that addresses the problems of a playoff system, or you don't. To say that you don't have one because a bunch of meanies control college football is a copout.

The only legitimate reason not to have a FBS playoff is not caring if there is a more objectively chosen champion than we get now.

I've provided plenty of legitimate reasons for opposing an FBS playoff. To call them "non-legitimate" simply because you don't agree with them is arrogant.

Besides, no one has provided any reason why we need a more objectively chosen champion, given that FBS football has succeeded wildly for over 100 years without one. (A fact that is continuously overlooked by playoff proponents.)

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 08:32 PM

Okay, what am I supposed to be looking for when I look at these past games?

OU's come out like they don't care in these games because they don't really mean anything. Last year was different they played hard the entire game but in other past bowl games in recent years there's no real incentive to care about these games. It's led to real flat performances against teams OU would beat earlier in the season handily.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 08:41 PM

OU's come out like they don't care in these games because they don't really mean anything. Last year was different they played hard the entire game but in other past bowl games in recent years there's no real incentive to care about these games. It's led to real flat performances against teams OU would beat earlier in the season handily.

That is just fan perception nonsense. When fans' feelings get hurt, they always complain that the team (sniff) doesn't care about winning and the players play (boo hoo) with no emotion.

"Look at the coach! He isn't tearing into people. He just stands there with no emotion..." It's crap.

There is no emotion meter one can use to measure the intensity of a football team. Just about any team that has a bad game when they are heavily favored gets accused of not caring about the outcome.

It's also an underhanded way of discrediting the other team's play. "Well, if we had really tried we would have crushed you, but our players didn't really want to win this one yadda yadda yadda."

sooner ngintunr

12/22/2009, 08:43 PM

OU's come out like they don't care in these games because they don't really mean anything. Last year was different they played hard the entire game but in other past bowl games in recent years there's no real incentive to care about these games. It's led to real flat performances against teams OU would beat earlier in the season handily.

So when OU loses a bowl game, the bowl doesn't mean anything. got it.

And you are saying the reason OU loses these games is because these games don't mean anything?

I understand why you were red for so long.

OU doesn't beat any of those teams handily. At home, maybe we win. On the road I'm not so sure.

We aren't losing to cupcakes in our bowl games bro. We've lost to VERY good football teams.

Except maybe LSU, they sucked that year, sort of. I hate them. We had that one.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 08:57 PM

So you are asking all teams to take a one-week financial hit so that some teams can participate in a post-season playoff.

Nope, they can still play 12, its not for me to figure out, im just saying there are different options.

While we're at it, we'll wave the magic wand and have all conferences host a title game, or have all teams join a conference.

If there was a playoff we wouldnt need conf title games, if they wanted to still have them they could though

It's difficult to argue with playoff proponents because their ideas are almost rooted in reality.

Not gonna happen. Nor should it. Is a playoff so necessary that we have to cut regular season games to fit it in?

Dont have to, pay attention, your basis of argument are false claims. Everything ive said is very possible and very realistic. Its not my job to put together a plan, im just throwing out possibilities. If you want a real plan let me know and just for you Leroy, ill put one together

So what are you going to do the conference championship games?

Playoff proponents love to wave these magic wands. Regular season too long? Just magically make it shorter. Conference championship game schedules in the way? Pretend that these games don't happen.

Its not that hard, they have lengthened and shortened the season several times in the last decade

This is the mantra of those who cannot answer to the problems associated with their ideas: It will somehow be magically solved by others in the future.

That isn't a plan; it's a prayer.

Like I said, if you want an actual thought out plan ill give you one but it really doesnt prove anything...consider it a Christmas present though, just let me know

Okay, for the umpteenth time:

FCS: 16-team playoff that begins Thanksgiving weekend. FCS does not feature conference championship games that I am aware of and hosts one less regular season game than FBS. Furthermore, the media pressure to perform athletically at the expense of academics in the postseason is nothing like FBS.

College basketball. All games are hosted at a single site and over a few days, unlike college football. College basketball also has the worst graduation rate of all college sports. Also, the playoffs are over well before final exams take place.

The rest of the sports are not even worth mentioning, since the media pressure to succeed despite academics is practically nil in comparison to FBS football.

In summary, FBS football is the big, bad boy of collegiate sports and cannot be compared to other sports.

Yet, in about two hours another chubby, meathead playoff proponent wearing his Chicago Bears sweatshirt and reeking of bratwurst will once again demand to know why playoffs work in other divisions.

They work in other divisions and in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPORT, all you do is throw out false accustations and trumpet your bs stance, why dont you answer that logically. Why is it that wrestling, baseball, other divisions of football, track, hockey, golf, tennis, basketball, and on and on, why is it that all of them can make playoffs work while still filling the academic needs of their students? Ill be waiting for an answer

Curly Bill

12/22/2009, 09:07 PM

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:08 PM

btw, if you want me to give you an actual thought out plan how this will work I want to know your paremeters, # reg season games, conf title games or not.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:09 PM

These games didn't mean anything? I sorta remember them keeping score, but maybe that's just me.

I think it is highly unfair to just generalize that OU or any other team doesnt care about bowl games. You can watch some and just tell that one team or the other doesnt care but not in general I dont think. The only bowl games where I questioned OU was the 01 Cotton Bowl and the 1st quarter or 2 of the Boise game. Other than that, I have no doubts

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:15 PM

They work in other divisions and in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPORT, all you do is throw out false accustations and trumpet your bs stance, why dont you answer that logically. Why is it that wrestling, baseball, other divisions of football, track, hockey, golf, tennis, basketball, and on and on, why is it that all of them can make playoffs work while still filling the academic needs of their students? Ill be waiting for an answer

oh fer cryin' out loud here we go again!!!

Okay, I already took care of FCS football and college basketball. Since you posted no objections to my own, I can assume that I don't have to go over those again, right?

College baseball: Playoffs begin in early June, long after the final exam period ends.

Collegiate wrestling: Playoffs occur in March, well away from final exam periods.

Collegiate bowling: Playoffs occur in April, well away from final exam periods.

Collegiate fencing:: Playoffs occur in late March, well away from final exams.

In fact, here is the NCAA site for championship games for every sport. SHOW ME ONE SPORT THAT SCHEDULES ITS CHAMPIONSHIPS NEAR FINAL EXAMS.

http://www.ncaa.com/champ/index.html

Football is unique because it is traditionally an autumn sport, placing the finale in December near final exams. FBS is unique in of itself because it has a longer regular season and features conference championship games. Most importantly, it grabs the majority of fan interest and revenue of any sport.

What else will satisfy you? Or will anything satisfy you?

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:23 PM

So what you are saying is that all of these sports can manage to schedule around finals but big bad football cant ever possibly figure it out, lame argument and a baseless one at that

ndpruitt03

12/22/2009, 09:30 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:34 PM

So what you are saying is that all of these sports can manage to schedule around finals but big bad football cant ever possibly figure it out,

And why is that?

THINK!!!

College football is (1) a purely AUTUMN sport and (2) difficult to schedule multiple games in a short period of time. It doesn't have the luxury of scheduling games in the summer or across semesters, and it cannot scrunch the games together to produce a clear playoff roster within only a couple of months.

Because football games are logistically difficult to schedule, you cannot play them all in one location over a period of one or two days.

None of the other sports listed on the NCAA are purely autumn sports. Only football.

Now, if you want to schedule football across both the winter and spring semesters, then you could have a situation like college basketball. But no one that matters wants that.

Okay, do you get it yet? Do I have to explain it one more time?

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:37 PM

2006 Boise State OU came out looking flat down 28-3 or whatver it was They were getting embarrassed and looked like the didn't care for the first half.

"Looked" flat and "looked" like they didn't care. What kind of measurement is that?

2007 West Virginia again some thing they looked completely out of it and were destroyed by a decent WVU team. And this was with a complete idiot as their coach.

Again, they "looked" completely out of it.

As if fans can tell if players are really into it. It's just fan perception, and of little value.

birddog

12/22/2009, 09:42 PM

Leroy, is the most pretentious, arrogant sob i've ever seen on the innerwebs. i can't believe what i am actually reading.

it's like a friggin donkey is posting here.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:44 PM

Leroy, is the most pretentious, arrogant sob i've ever seen on the innerwebs. i can't believe what i am actually reading.

But I'm also right.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:46 PM

BTW, Collier, if you look at the Fall championships tab on the NCAA site, you will notice that the championship games for every sport except football takes place no later than Dec. 5, well before final exams.

This is no accident. Maybe if you think about it long enough, you will understand why they want the games over before the second week of December.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:47 PM

Let's look at some of the recent BCS games

2006 Boise State OU came out looking flat down 28-3 or whatver it was They were getting embarrassed and looked like the didn't care for the first half. That team did have the leadership to come back and win it.

2007 West Virginia again some thing they looked completely out of it and were destroyed by a decent WVU team. And this was with a complete idiot as their coach.

Dont agree with that at all about the WVU game, it was 20-15 in the 3rd quarter when we tried that onside kick and momentum shifted, our D wore out, and the score ended up looking pretty bad. We were also without 7 starters.

Against Boise, we looked very flat for the 1st half but we def got it turned around, unfortunately we couldnt stop a 4th and 88

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:48 PM

"Looked" flat and "looked" like they didn't care. What kind of measurement is that?

Again, they "looked" completely out of it.

As if fans can tell if players are really into it. It's just fan perception, and of little value.

Its a message board, all we have to go by as fans is perception. Just like you have never been in any meetings regarding anything playoff involved so all of your BS excuses are just guesses by you

But I'm also right.

ive never once found an instance where you were right, id challenge you to find 5 people on this board who have ever agreed with you

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:49 PM

and I think pretentious is exactly how alot of college professors act, acting like we dont pay their fuggin salary and they are Gods gift to education, but thats a whole other discussion

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:51 PM

and I think pretentious is exactly how alot of college professors act,

Yeah, but I'm right. Never forget that.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:52 PM

ive never once found an instance where you were right, id challenge you to find 5 people on this board who have ever agreed with you

Right is right. It isn't up to a vote. Especially a vote among those that don't have a clue.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 09:55 PM

I see your attempt at humor there Leroy and what you are saying is so laughable that it almost worked

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 09:57 PM

I see your attempt at humor there Leroy and what you are saying is so laughable that it almost worked

Me smells a diversion.

BoulderSooner79

12/22/2009, 10:05 PM

We are sooo close to solving this playoff issue - I'm gettin' all tingly.

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 10:09 PM

Heh.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 10:11 PM

Let's look at some of the recent BCS games

2006 Boise State OU came out looking flat down 28-3 or whatver it was They were getting embarrassed and looked like the didn't care for the first half. That team did have the leadership to come back and win it.

2007 West Virginia again some thing they looked completely out of it and were destroyed by a decent WVU team. And this was with a complete idiot as their coach.

So your entire basis for your entire argument is based off the example of one school on two occasions?

Utah looked pretty damn excited to be in the Sugar Bowl last year, Ole Miss didn't look disappointed to be in the Cotton Bowl, Arizona looked pretty excited to be in the Las Vegas Bowl...we can go on and on about teams that were just so absolutely disappointed to be in a bowl game..because that game was meaningless.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 10:13 PM

btw, if you want me to give you an actual thought out plan how this will work I want to know your paremeters, # reg season games, conf title games or not.

Actually as the playoff person, the burden is on you to give the parameters on how your playoff system would work within the arguments that have been framed as to why the system should remain as it currently sits.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 10:16 PM

I dont have any burden of proof because this is just a thread to discuss for entertainment purposes...if I was asked to put together a system for examination by the NCAA I would have no problem doing that but I havent been.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 10:16 PM

Convince me that a playoff is better with a workable model.

There, now the burden of proof is on you.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 10:19 PM

azz! ;)

I will put together a workable model no problem, what am I working with?

Is it 8 team, 10 team, 16? Are there conf title games? Or do you just want me to put one together without the benefit of parameters?

Scott D

12/22/2009, 10:22 PM

Only parameter is it has to be completed no later than December 5th.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 10:27 PM

Good deal, ill have it to you Dec 4th

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 10:42 PM

No, let's see it now.

Scott D

12/22/2009, 10:52 PM

Good deal, ill have it to you Dec 4th

you're already 2 and a half weeks late.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 10:52 PM

ill get it ready, if you want me to actually put thought into it then you cant be impatient mister "I pee sitting down"

Collier11

12/22/2009, 10:53 PM

you're already 2 and a half weeks late.

Im nearly a year early in starting actually :D

Leroy Lizard

12/22/2009, 11:40 PM

You're going to need it.

Collier11

12/22/2009, 11:50 PM

This is using the 2010 calendar as my guide: This was actually quite feasible an easy to put together.

1)Season starts Saturday August 28th

2) You then have 13 weeks to play 12 games, no one loses a game

3) Regular season ends on Saturday November 20th

4) Conference title games remain intact for conferences who want them, these are played on Thanksgiving weekend

5) You have first round playoff games Saturday Dec 4th, this is a normal saturday gameday for college football, these games are played on the higher ranked teams home field. There are 12 teams in my preferred playoff with 4 1st rd byes for the top 4 seeded teams. Seeding will be determined by the Top 12 teams in the BCS ranking using the current formula

6) There are no games played between December 5th and December 30th if you are in the playoff, remember that most teams currently wait 3-5 weeks to play a bowl game so the wait is no different. Also, bowl games currently begin the 18th so this gives teams an extra week for finals.

7) Bowl games will remain intact for any team who does not qualify for the tournament. These can follow the current schedule although the BCS games will rotate to host the title game every 4 years, this will not change.

8) Rd 2 between the 8 remaining teams will again be played on the higher seeds home field on New Years Eve or January 1st

9) The semis will be played on January 7th and 8th at the site of the BCS game currently in rotation, whatever BCS game that is not in the rotation will get the two highest non playoff teams every year

10) The national title game will be played at the BCS site on January 15th, merely extending the season by 1 week

Using 2009's final BCS standings this is what we would have had

Rd 1- Bama, Texas, Cincinnati and TCU all get 1st rd byes
5) Florida hosts 12 Lsu
6) Boise hosts 11 Va Tech
7) Oregon hosts 10 Iowa
8) Ohio state hosts 9 Georgia Tech

Rd 2- Considering that all higher seeds win you would have the following
1) Bama hosting 8 Ohio st
2) Texas hosting 7 Oregon
3) Cincinnati hosting 6 Boise
4) Tcu hosting 5) Florida

Semis- Lets say just for the sake of this that The Fiesta Bowl is out of the rotation this year and the seeds still hold true

1) Bama vs 4 Tcu at the Orange Bowl
2) Texas vs 3 Cincinnati at the Sugar Bowl

Finals- Seeds hold true again, you have
1)Bama vs 2) Texas at the Rose Bowl

So, for 108 teams you have the usual 12 games plus a bowl if they qualify
The most games a team would play considering conf title games would be 16, we had a team play 15 games as recently as 2003 in the big 12 and a team play 14 games the last 3 years in the big 12 so no, playing the extra games is not a deal breaker.

You asked for a playoff format that would work, there ya go. Is it perfect, no. Could it use more than a cpl hours thought, of course. But it will work and Leroy if you try to act like it wont for some reason you arent being realistic. I have covered all bases and like I said, while it isnt perfect it would work...so SUCK IT...:D

Leroy Lizard

12/23/2009, 12:11 AM

1)Season starts Saturday August 28th

That is a full week before anyone is playing games this year, and you are asking all teams to begin on that date. Sure, we can always just start the game earlier and earlier to fit any system, but college presidents moved the games up because of the intense heat. Also, schools don't want to begin playing games well before students arrive on campus, for obvious reasons.

You also have the final game taking place as late as January 15th, which is too late in the Spring semester.

Think about the student-athletes. They are trying to begin a new semester on the right track, but you have them playing high-stakes playoff games to start their spring semester. College presidents are not going to go for it.

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.

Not worth it.

Leroy Lizard

12/23/2009, 12:12 AM

Now do you see why other sports can do it, and FBS football should not?

Collier11

12/23/2009, 12:16 AM

Games have been played in late August several times over the last 5 or 6 years, several schools are already in session, some arent but some are.

Why is Jan 15th too late in the spring semester, in most cases it is 1 week into the semester, maybe 2. Dont give me the players are trying to get on the right track stuff, they do it in fall, they can do it in spring, especially since it will only be for 2 teams, 2, that is all.

And you cant say college presidents wont go for it, they already have, bowl games used to end on the 1st, then the 2nd, then the 4th, now its the 8th or 9th.

I give you your solution and this is the best you can come up with Leroy, typical. Your arguments are weak, as always. Again, if you dont like a playoff then just say it, as I have said before, even in the thread, I am not a 'Gotta have it, Gotta have it' playoff guy, I do want one but I dont think it is the end of the world if we dont have one. I was asked how it would work, I presented it, it would work, get over yourself.

Leroy Lizard

12/23/2009, 12:32 AM

Games have been played in late August several times over the last 5 or 6 years, several schools are already in session, some arent but some are.

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.

Why is Jan 15th too late in the spring semester, in most cases it is 1 week into the semester, maybe 2. Dont give me the players are trying to get on the right track stuff, they do it in fall, they can do it in spring, especially since it will only be for 2 teams, 2, that is all.

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.

And you cant say college presidents wont go for it, they already have, bowl games used to end on the 1st, then the 2nd, then the 4th, now its the 8th or 9th.

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.