Want a playoff instead of the BCS silliness?

[Okla-homey]

I joined this morning. Why? Because we need a playoff. srsly.

http://www.playoffpac.com


Playoff PAC is a federal political committee dedicated to establishing a competitive post-season championship for college football. The Bowl Championship Series is inherently flawed. It crowns champions arbitrarily and stifles inter-conference competition. Fans, players, schools, and corporate sponsors will be better served when the BCS is replaced with an accessible playoff system that recognizes and rewards on-the-field accomplishment. To that end, Playoff PAC helps elect pro-reform political candidates, mobilizes public support, and provides a centralized source of pro-reform news, thought, and scholarship.

[SoonerofAlabama]

If we do rid the world of the BCS, we will still have years before we can go to the playoff system. I would rather have the BCS than the old system of crowning a champion for every newspaper. I do not think that it would be difficult for teams to get the location, but the NCAA doesn't want to change. These bowl games also lose schools hundreds of thousands of dollars, for example Connecticut in our bowl game. That is why I believe many schools are open to a playoff. Even when they make money, it isn't very much. It also isn't fair when one teams goes unbeaten and doesn't get a chance at the National Title. I am open to a playoff, but it would still take years to develop like the NCAA Basketball Tournament has. If we did get the playoff, how many teams would play, where would they play, and most importantly for the NCAA, how would it make money?

[oudavid1]

Long live the BCS.

[SoonerPride]

Regular season that matters + BCS > Regular season that doesn't matter + post season tournament.

No sale.

[OULenexaman]

I'm in....

[bigfatjerk]

The regular season is already worthless in college football for about 95% of the teams. It only matters if you are a top 10 type team maybe.

[agoo758]

:mad: ugh.... not more of this crap. Now I need another reisen....


http://www.beecroftfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/riesen-300x300.jpg

[picasso]

Only if the teams that are conference champs and have the best records are in.

The basketball championship is pure bull****. A team should be rewarded for an entire season.

[sooner_born_1960]

Who does this PAC lobby?

[MeMyself&Me]

Why is it that 'need' a playoff? I love college football without it!

[NormanPride]

Does the regular season not matter in the NFL? People seem pretty pumped about every game in that league...

[MeMyself&Me]

Does the regular season not matter in the NFL? People seem pretty pumped about every game in that league...

I get annoyed when people say this as well and I'm anti-playoff. I think what they mean to say is that in terms of determining a champion, a tournament is too far weighted to the post season and changes the dynamic of what college football is. We've seen plenty of examples in other sports where teams that were most certainly NOT the best over the course of the season crowned a champion simply cause they were hot in the post season. That's not what college football is.

[oudavid1]

Does the regular season not matter in the NFL? People seem pretty pumped about every game in that league...

yeah to watch it on TV. Its Sunday.

The NFL has a few top tier teams sellout, but they have had a huge problem with blackouts. Jacksonville and Cincinnati. Tennessee dosnt even sell out.

Oh and those stadiums are a lot smaller on average.

[Caboose]

The regular season is already worthless in college football for about 95% of the teams. It only matters if you are a top 10 type team maybe.

You are a top 10 type team based on your regular season. In fact, where ever you fall in the rankings prior to the bowl games, it is due completely to your regular season. Whether you are #1 prior to the bowls or # 119... your status was determined by your regular season results. Therefore the regular season was meaningful for EVERY single team, whether they were 13-0 or 0-12.

What makes the regular season meaningless is when one team goes 13-0 and then has to play some 9-4 team to advance past the 1st round in some cockamamie playoff system. By even playing that game you are essentially saying that 9-4 = 13-0... that 9-4 is just as deserving as 13-0... which immediately begs the question of what point is it to go 13-0 when all you have to do is go 9-4... or 8-5... or theoretically 6-6... and be rewarded with the same opportunity as a 13-0 team? If it doesn't matter whether you are 13-0 or 6-6 in the regular season, then how can you possibly assert that the regular season meant something?

[Caboose]

Does the regular season not matter in the NFL? People seem pretty pumped about every game in that league...

It matters far less than it does in college football. 16-0 teams play 9-7 in the playoffs = regular season didnt mean much.

[agoo758]

Does the regular season not matter in the NFL? People seem pretty pumped about every game in that league...

Not as pumped as I am for college football games.

I may miss a few Sundays, but never any Saturdays.

[WichitaSooner]

why do people insist on f***ing with college football????? You people go ON and ON about how every other damn worthless sport on the planet has a playoff... why isn't that enough "playoffs" for you? Why do you insist on forcing your agenda on what is currently the best sport on the planet already? Leave it the f*** alone already....

[crackback]

College football needs a playoff

[sooner_born_1960]

Who does this PAC lobby?
'Cause if it's congress, not only no, but hell no. Homey, please tell me aren't of the mind that congress should get involved in college football.

[WichitaSooner]

College football needs a playoff


NO it doesn't....

every other college sport has 2 things in common with each other... they all have a playoff, and they all wish they were football.

Besides, as an OU fan, you would be just plain stupid if you want a playoff... all it does is increase the opportunity for some ****-ant school to win it because they have less injuries than the big schools that had to grind out a schedule in a REAL conference.

College football does NOT need a playoff.

[sooner_born_1960]

Playoff PAC helps elect pro-reform political candidates...
That's what I feared. I don't think any politician should be involved in this. This is entirely up to the NCAA and the member institutions.

[Caboose]

College football needs a playoff

Your argument is so compelling. I have change my mind.

[crackback]

I think it should be 6 to 8 teams

[SoonerPride]

I think it should be 6 to 8 teams

Why not 16?
or 32?
or 64?

I want reasoning.


(This should be fun) :pop:

[crackback]

6 to 8 teams would be more fun

[SoonerPride]

6 to 8 teams would be more fun

then a field of 64 would be even more fun...

[crackback]

No I'd keep it at 6 to 8

[Caboose]

6 to 8 teams would be more fun

Ultimately this is the only honest answer the playoff people have. They know damn well extending a playoff to 6 or 8 or 16 or 32 or 100 teams wouldn't "decide it on the field" or "determine a true champion" or any other catchphrase they parrot. The truth is they just think it would be fun and neato and exciting... and maybe it would be... but it damn sure wouldn't "work". At least this guy is honest.

Sorry though, I would rather keep what is great about college football intact than you have your cheap thrill by making it the XFL or NFL Lite.

[crackback]

I think it'd work and be fun

[oudavid1]

People argue about anything. So keep it like it is.

[crackback]

No they should change it

[Caboose]

I think it'd work and be fun

Define work.

[oudavid1]

No they should change it

so people can argue when boise state is a 3 seed instead of a 2 seed. Please. The only thing they would be leaving is money.

[crackback]

No they should change it so it would work and be fun

[swardboy]

People, do not feed the troll.

[bigfatjerk]

College football needs a regular season that matters. A playoff will help do that.

[yermom]

where should these politicians place the importance of college football? above protecting marriage and closing the borders?

i guess we need to find something else to do now that they killed Osama

[OU_Sooners75]

If we do rid the world of the BCS, we will still have years before we can go to the playoff system. I would rather have the BCS than the old system of crowning a champion for every newspaper. I do not think that it would be difficult for teams to get the location, but the NCAA doesn't want to change. These bowl games also lose schools hundreds of thousands of dollars, for example Connecticut in our bowl game. That is why I believe many schools are open to a playoff. Even when they make money, it isn't very much. It also isn't fair when one teams goes unbeaten and doesn't get a chance at the National Title. I am open to a playoff, but it would still take years to develop like the NCAA Basketball Tournament has. If we did get the playoff, how many teams would play, where would they play, and most importantly for the NCAA, how would it make money?


We would have years before going to a playoff? What? Please explain!

[OU_Sooners75]

Here is my thoughts on this playoff thing....


There are 120 fulltime D-1A schools. UMass is in transitition to make the move up, that will make it 121 schools.

Of those schools only 14 are private schools:
Stanford
Miami (FL)
Northwestern
BYU
Notre Dame
Tulane
Syracuse
Duke
Wake Forest
Tulsa
Vanderbilt
Rice
Baylor
Texas Christian

That is just 11.67% of the schools that are private schools.

That said, with roughly 88% of the schools being publicly funded, I think we the people, should have a major say in how the issue of determining a national champion is determined. If this means our government should take up the issue, then so be it. If that means we should put it to a national vote so be it.

How it is set up now, there is plenty of corruption to ensure the system stays intact for a very long time.

The NCAA controls everything when it comes to every sport, but major college football. The controlling party there is the Bowl Committess, which has been proven to be a corrupt system.

Anyway, determining who the national championship should never come down to polls and media bias. It should always be left to competition on the field of play!

[OU_Sooners75]

Regular season that matters + BCS > Regular season that doesn't matter + post season tournament.

No sale.


Only a fool will think the Regular season would not matter with a playoff.

[OU_Sooners75]

yeah to watch it on TV. Its Sunday.

The NFL has a few top tier teams sellout, but they have had a huge problem with blackouts. Jacksonville and Cincinnati. Tennessee dosnt even sell out.

Oh and those stadiums are a lot smaller on average.


When you charging damn near double the ticket price than CFB, then, yeah, you wont have a great following week to week.

However, selling out your stadium does not change that the playoffs do not take away the excitment of the regular seson.

If this was true...why is there a big following of fans for MLB and their 162 game schedule. What about the NHL and NBA? they all have playoffs and they all have a good attendence viewership during the regular season.

[OU_Sooners75]

What makes the regular season meaningless is when one team goes 13-0 and then has to play some 9-4 team to advance past the 1st round in some cockamamie playoff system. By even playing that game you are essentially saying that 9-4 = 13-0... that 9-4 is just as deserving as 13-0... which immediately begs the question of what point is it to go 13-0 when all you have to do is go 9-4... or 8-5... or theoretically 6-6... and be rewarded with the same opportunity as a 13-0 team? If it doesn't matter whether you are 13-0 or 6-6 in the regular season, then how can you possibly assert that the regular season meant something?


And let me guess, you are one of those that think there are undefeated teams every year in CFB, right?

In the 14 years of the BCS, the perecentage of undefeated teams has been higher than any other 14 year span in CFB history. Why? Because now, it is all about the rankings. If you are not #1 or #2 going into a bowl game, you have ZERO shot at being crowned the national champion. Now, we get teams like Florida playing Schools for the deaf and blind...and then getting good home field draws to make it to a national championship game. We get teams that never have to leave their home state and get to play in a national championship. And then we get to witness teams not have to leave their home state or city to win a national championship.

The old system, you could be #1 playing #12 in a bowl game. Win and you could very well not be the National Champion.

The only good thing the BCS has done was give a better pairing in the BCS Bowl games. And even then, there have been seasons that they were not correctly paired.

I would much rather watch my team win the conference title, then go into a 3 or 4 round playoff and win a National Championship, than to watch my team win a conference title and play a 8-4 team in a single bowl game and not even get a chance to prove to the world if they are worthy or not.

[SoonerofAlabama]

People always use the "The regular season won't matter" excuse. That is ridiculous. I would think that you would need to win the conference or have a certain record to be in the top eight or ten teams to play for the title.

[ouwasp]

Like I've said in other playoff threads, I've been in favor of a playoff since the late '70s when OU went 11-1 several times and finished #3.

I don't believe it will happen soon because the powers-that-be are simply deaf to the fans and in love with their beloved bowls... :rolleyes: ...

If the BCS would just restore the Strength of Schedule component, that would mollify me somewhat.

[texaspokieokie]

I think it should be 6 to 8 teams

how in the hell would a 6 team playoff work.

how bout 9 or 13 ??
:D

[OU_Sooners75]

Like I've said in other playoff threads, I've been in favor of a playoff since the late '70s when OU went 11-1 several times and finished #3.

I don't believe it will happen soon because the powers-that-be are simply deaf to the fans and in love with their beloved bowls... :rolleyes: ...

If the BCS would just restore the Strength of Schedule component, that would mollify me somewhat.


Even with the SOS would make a slight difference IMO. There is a way to manipulate that as well as anything else.

If they really want to make a better system, they need to go back to the original BCS with SOS and margin of victory.

However, they should add one other thing at least to that. And that is margin of loss.

How bad did a team lose (if they lost) when they are top 5 team should say a lot more about a team then playing a bunch of panzies and having a mov of 50 points.

That or do a point difference criteria. points scored - points allowed = points difference.

[SoonerofAlabama]

I am saying that it won't happen now or next season, but in a few years a playoff could happen.

[OU_Sooners75]

how in the hell would a 6 team playoff work.

how bout 9 or 13 ??
:D


about the same way as a 10 or 12 team would. Pig tail matches.

[OU_Sooners75]

I am saying that it won't happen now or next season, but in a few years a playoff could happen.


It wont happen in a few...but if the NCAA finally decided to implement a playoff, then it would happen within a year or two of their decision.

[texaspokieokie]

about the same way as a 10 or 12 team would. Pig tail matches.

i'll bite, what is a "pig tail match" ???

[SoonerofAlabama]

If a playoff does happen, what happens to the BCS?

[sooner_born_1960]

In a six team bracket, the two highest seeds get a bye. The other four play for the two spots.

[JLEW1818]

i love the BCS

I love the thought of getting ready to see the rankings in 2008, when The King is smiling on live tv before the announcement is made on fox, and all longhorns dreams go down the drain when they see his face.

i love that.

[OU_Sooners75]

i'll bite, what is a "pig tail match" ???


Odd numbered playoff matchups...

Like with 65 teams...

They play one play-in game before actual first round games.

12 team tourney you have 4 teams with byes, while 8 play their first round...that first round can be what some consider to be a pigtail round to even the tourney up.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc are what they consider to be even. Anything not fitting that pattern, are considered odd for playoff/tournament styles.

At least that has been the way I have always knew it. In wrestling we called them pig tail matches.

[Caboose]

And let me guess, you are one of those that think there are undefeated teams every year in CFB, right?

Find me one person on earth who thinks that.




In the 14 years of the BCS, the perecentage of undefeated teams has been higher than any other 14 year span in CFB history. Why? Because now, it is all about the rankings. If you are not #1 or #2 going into a bowl game, you have ZERO shot at being crowned the national champion. Now, we get teams like Florida playing Schools for the deaf and blind...and then getting good home field draws to make it to a national championship game. We get teams that never have to leave their home state and get to play in a national championship. And then we get to witness teams not have to leave their home state or city to win a national championship.



Relevance?



The old system, you could be #1 playing #12 in a bowl game. Win and you could very well not be the National Champion.


Relevance?


The only good thing the BCS has done was give a better pairing in the BCS Bowl games. And even then, there have been seasons that they were not correctly paired.

Relevance?



I would much rather watch my team win the conference title, then go into a 3 or 4 round playoff and win a National Championship, than to watch my team win a conference title and play a 8-4 team in a single bowl game and not even get a chance to prove to the world if they are worthy or not.

What does this have to do with anything? "Conference Champion" != National Champion. Why would you assume that a team deserves to play for a National Championship just because they won their conference? Do you think UConn should have been playing for a the NC last year?

[Dwight]

No

[texaspokieokie]

Odd numbered playoff matchups...

Like with 65 teams...

They play one play-in game before actual first round games.

12 team tourney you have 4 teams with byes, while 8 play their first round...that first round can be what some consider to be a pigtail round to even the tourney up.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc are what they consider to be even. Anything not fitting that pattern, are considered odd for playoff/tournament styles.

At least that has been the way I have always knew it. In wrestling we called them pig tail matches.

in a real serious playoff, everyone should play the same number of games. anything else would be unfair. JMHO
no "byes"

[texaspokieokie]

i love the BCS

I love the thought of getting ready to see the rankings in 2008, when The King is smiling on live tv before the announcement is made on fox, and all longhorns dreams go down the drain when they see his face.

i love that.

Beautiful !!!!

[MeMyself&Me]

Assuming all conference winners go to a post season tourny, don't you think there is less motivation to win games like OU/FSU. I think both teams would play much more vanilla and starters would come out sooner than normal... sort of like NFL preseason games. Cross divisional regular season games in the NFL count for division championships so those games are not comparable to college on this point.

[silverwheels]

I don't want the BCS, but I also don't want a playoff. Where do I sign up for that?

[OU_Sooners75]

in a real serious playoff, everyone should play the same number of games. anything else would be unfair. JMHO
no "byes"

I agree 100% with that.

[OU_Sooners75]

What does this have to do with anything? "Conference Champion" != National Champion. Why would you assume that a team deserves to play for a National Championship just because they won their conference? Do you think UConn should have been playing for a the NC last year?

If you cant see any "relevance" then maybe you should stop watching the sport.

Obviously you are already too oblivious to the fact that any D-1A playoff would have nothing but conference champs or top 10-16 teams. Meaning a team is more than likely a conference champ is a team is ranked that high.

Since you asked...Ill answer. How it is set up now, you have to be in favor by the media to get a shot at the National Championship. What makes the BCS relevant? It isn't. It is nothing more than a popularity contest. And that was evident back when Boise State was the only undefeated team in 2006. It was evident when with just 4 or 5 weeks left in the regular season in 2010, Auburn and Oregon finally jumped TCU in the rankings, to popularity theirselves a spot in the BCS Championship.

CFB as we know it is nothing more than a glamorous Beauty Pageant for men!

[MeMyself&Me]

It didn't take long for the "If you don't agree with me you're stupid" post to show up.

[Caboose]

If you cant see any "relevance" then maybe you should stop watching the sport.

If you cant explain the relevance maybe you should stop interjecting it into a thread where it makes no sense.


Obviously you are already too oblivious to the fact that any D-1A playoff would have nothing but conference champs or top 10-16 teams. Meaning a team is more than likely a conference champ is you are ranked that high.

So is it seeded by conference champions or rankings? Make up your mind.


Since you asked...Ill answer. How it is set up now, you have to be in favor by the media to get a shot at the National Championship. What makes the BCS relevant? It isn't. It is nothing more than a popularity contest. And that was evident back when Boise State was the only undefeated team in 2006. It was evident when with just 4 or 5 weeks left in the regular season in 2010, Auburn and Oregon finally jumped TCU in the rankings, to popularity theirselves a spot in the BCS Championship.

Nobody asked you anything remotely like what your response.


CFB as we know it is nothing more than a glamorous Beauty Pageant for men!

Do you have a valid point, or are you just going to trot out the tired and busted catchphrases?

Here, Ill supply the next one for you - "A playoff determines the winner on the field!" Run with it, Forrest.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Will the BCS ever allow a playoff?

[OU_Sooners75]

Will the BCS ever allow a playoff?


Well, if the NCAA says there will be a playoff, then the BCS has no choice, unless they want to form their own league.

[SoonerofAlabama]

But is there any chance the NCAA will ever force that to happen?

[OU_Sooners75]

If you cant explain the relevance maybe you should stop interjecting it into a thread where it makes no sense.

See kiddo, there is the thing, what I posted may be mindless drivel (nothing short of your mindless drivel may I add), but it is all facts in the history of college football...Maybe you should actually try watching the sport.



So is it seeded by conference champions or rankings? Make up your mind.

Would it matter which they had? I honestly think and feel it should be all conference champions regardless of which conference they are affiliated with. However, then we get into a march madness thing...when some teams who would not even be in the top half or 2/3 of one of the big 6 conferences would be in the playoff leaving some teams that are well deserving, out...

So to remedy that, all conference champs (11) and then take the highest 5 ranked teams (regardless of conf. affiliation) to make a 16 team field.




Do you have a valid point, or are you just going to trot out the tired and busted catchphrases?

Im waiting on some pro-bcs person to give a valid point. Want a valid point? It is estimated that a playoff would generate about 2 times the money that is generated by the bowl system today. Whats the point? Because the BCS is not all the much concerned about a national champion, they want to pair the best match up, that generates a big profit for all in return. It is about money, and the BCS thinks they are the answer.

Want another point? The Bowl system is very much out dated. When you can 6-6 and make a bowl game. When 70 of the 120 teams are playing in a bowl game...there is too much saturation, rendering the BCS useless and only looking for money...not a true national champion. Which oddly enough was never the meaning of the BCS....they just wanted to pair the #1 vs. #2 teams (of the BCS Rankings) together in a bowl game.

And before you try to counter with your drivel...If this sport is not about money..if the BCS is about a true national championship, then why are they constantly refusing to even implement a plus one, which is a four team playoff, even after at least 3 occassions the regular season ended with more than 2 undefeated teams.

So, with that said, I am still waiting for some blow hard that beats off to the BCS to give something other than some stupid, illogic excuse such as, "meaningless regular season." Much like you gave earlier in this thread.

Whodthunkit?

[OU_Sooners75]

But is there any chance the NCAA will ever force that to happen?


There is always a chance. The thing that was keeping it from becoming reality in the past has been the University Presidents and even the old NCAA President Myles Brand.

Now there is a guy in charge of the NCAA which is actually in favor of at least looking at the possibility of a playoff. Which really doesn't mean much.

I think what makes the playoffs closer to being a reality today is the fact that corruption on bowl committees are starting to surface.

That, and people have a better media service today when it comes to CFB than ever before, the internet.

A playoff will evidentually happen...when? Who knows.

But like I said in an earlier post. with 88% of the universities being publicly funded that are associated with D-1A (FBS) football, then yes, it can become a reality since they are government funded institutions.

[texaspokieokie]

It didn't take long for the "If you don't agree with me you're stupid" post to show up.

it always happens.
lotsa times it's true.

[Osama Bin Laden]

If you don't want the top 8 ranked teams at the end of the regular season to play it out at neutral sites, there's a good chance you're way past your prime. Get real people.

Edit: And I dare someone to convince me that scenario would take anything away from the regular season. If you can't see it would actually add to it, you should take your blinders off.

[A Sooner in Texas]

If you don't want the top 8 ranked teams at the end of the regular season to play it out at neutral sites, there's a good chance you're way past your prime. Get real people.

You're in Hell; what do you care?

[Osama Bin Laden]

Because despite all the common misconseptions, hell actually has DirecTV and ESPN's college gameday package. I know, I would have never guessed either.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Because despite all the common misconseptions, hell actually has DirecTV and ESPN's college gameday package. I know, I would have never guessed either.

But what about porn? Do you miss your personal stash?

[sooner_born_1960]

Has one university president ever come out in favor of a playoff?

[Osama Bin Laden]

Porn? Never heard of it.

[texaspokieokie]

If you don't want the top 8 ranked teams at the end of the regular season to play it out at neutral sites, there's a good chance you're way past your prime. Get real people.

Edit: And I dare someone to convince me that scenario would take anything away from the regular season. If you can't see it would actually add to it, you should take your blinders off.

Me,myself & Me

see,it happened again !!!!!
i'd as soon talk to a wall.

[Osama Bin Laden]

^ If people would work on their common sense, I wouldn't feel the need to tell you what you should already know. Believe me, I don't like it either.

[JRAM]

Anyone who wants a college football playoff either hasn't researched the situation or is too dumb to read. Anyone with any sense wants it to stay the way it is.

[LASooner]

Someone convince me, pulling only 8 teams for a playoff from 119 FBS teams would "ruin" the regular season.

How exactly would that work? It's not like the Big East getting a bid to the Fiesta bowl with 7 wins. There's no way a team with more than 2 losses is going to get into an 8 team playoff, unless all the teams in the top 8 have 2 losses.

[Osama Bin Laden]

Someone convince me, pulling only 8 teams for a playoff from 119 FBS teams would "ruin" the regular season.

How exactly would that work? It's not like the Big East getting a bid to the Fiesta bowl with 7 wins. There's no way a team with more than 2 losses is going to get into an 8 team playoff, unless all the teams in the top 8 have 2 losses.

Preserve the regular season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[MeMyself&Me]

Anything with six or more slots is going to guarantee the champions of the 'big 6' conferences a spot. How do you think that OU/FSU game would be played this coming season with a post season tournament? It would be a lot of vanilla and starters out early... like NFL preseason. YAY!

There's one example. There are others. Come on guys, you're not thinking this through. It would have an effect on the regular season, you just want your tournament so bad you refuse to consider it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Declaratory statement with no facts or argumentation.

If you can't see the truth of this, you're not only stupid, but probably a communist and a child molester.

[Cornfed]

Can you imagine the arguments of the people that didnt get in?

[texaspokieokie]

Can you imagine the arguments of the people that didnt get in?

especially if a failed one was tejas.

[sooner_born_1960]

One way to not ruin the season is to not take automatic qualifiers. Take the top six or however many rated teams. Then those "preseason" games are still important.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

why do people insist on f***ing with college football????? You people go ON and ON about how every other damn worthless sport on the planet has a playoff... why isn't that enough "playoffs" for you? Why do you insist on forcing your agenda on what is currently the best sport on the planet already? Leave it the f*** alone already....

I agree with this brazilian percent..

[MeMyself&Me]

One way to not ruin the season is to not take automatic qualifiers. Take the top six or however many rated teams. Then those "preseason" games are still important.

I don't see a way that would ever get the support from a majority of colleges. But you are right in that there would be a lot more motivation to win those games if you did not automatically take conference winners.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I love college football..I think anything more than a +1 is too much.

[sooner_born_1960]

I love college football..I think anything more than a +1 is too much.
Which is a four-team playoff, using the highest four ranked teams. I could accept that.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

The problem is though is most people aren't..They go right into a 8, 16, etc scenario that I just can't go with.

[MeMyself&Me]

double post

[MeMyself&Me]

Which is a four-team playoff, using the highest four ranked teams. I could accept that.

No, that's not what a plus 1 is. A Plus one is like the old system of everyone doing their own thing for bowls... then taking the top two teams for a game one week or so after the last bowl. Thats why it's called plus 1 and not a 4 team playoff.

[sooner_born_1960]

If the BCS had a plus one, it would be 1-4, 2-3. The winners would face each other.

[MeMyself&Me]

That is not what a plus one is. That's a four team tourny. Not the same thing.

[Cornfed]

especially if a failed one was tejas.

I'm sure it would be OUs fault.

[sooner_born_1960]

That is not what a plus one is. That's a four team tourny. Not the same thing.
Who do you think would play the two games before the "one"?

[Bama Yankee]

The BCS is not perfect, but it has been very effective at doing what it was designed to do: match up the #1 and #2 teams in a champtionship game. Since 1992 the college football championship game (Bowl Coalition from 92-94, Bowl Alliance from 95-97, BCS from 98-present) has matched up the two best teams (#1 vs #2) every year except three (1994, 1996 & 1997). Even in those exception years, you had #1 vs #3 or #2 vs #3 (they couldn't get the Rose Bowl involved and thus those early systems were flawed).

During the same time frame (from 1992 to this year) the NFL has only had their top two teams (the #1 seeds from each conference) matched up in the Super Bowl TWICE (1993 & 2010). The more teams you have in a playoff, the less likely you are to get the two best teams reaching the final.

Also, since 1979 when the NCAA basketball tourney expanded from 32 to 40 teams there has only been ONE year where all four #1 seeds made it to the final four: 2008. This year's tourney was a great example of how expanding the number of teams has diluted the quality of the championship game, no one would make the arguement that we saw the two best teams in college basketball on the court in the championship game this year.

So, the BCS has actually done a better job of letting the fans see the two best teams meet in a championship game than a playoff (NFL) or a tournament (NCAA b-ball).

[MeMyself&Me]

Who do you think would play the two games before the "one"?

It would depend on the conference contracts with the bowls. Like when the Big 8 winner always went to the Orange Bowl and the SEC winner always went to the Sugar Bowl and so on.

After all bowls are played. Take the top two teams for one more game. That's what plus one is. There's one more game after everything else and there is no seeding. That's why it's called plus one.

There are others that make arguments for 4 team playoffs within the BCS. They are not the same thing.

[OU Engineer]

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 4, 2024) -- Texas defeated Stony Brook last night in the thrilling iPad 17.0 NCAA Championship Game presented by Five Guys, ending the 13th-seeded Sea Wolves' quest for a Cinderella trophy. The game capped yet another thrilling edition of "December Madness," the 16-team college playoff that's captivated America in the 10 years since a grueling Department of Justice investigation prompted leaders of the now-defunct Bowl Championship Series to finally throw up their hands in defeat and turn over control of the postseason to the folks in Indianapolis.

The 2023-24 tourney set yet another ratings record for ESPNU27, which has helped turn the college postseason into the most popular sporting event outside of the Super Bowl, drawing even more viewers than the 73rd season of Dancing with the Stars (featuring the former baby from the E*Trade commercials).

"These are the greatest four weeks in sports," said Texas head coach Major Applewhite. "We're just so fortunate that our third-string quarterback stepped up after the first two went down earlier in the tournament, and that half our freshman class allowed us to pull their redshirt in the semis. They really sacrificed for the team, just like all those guys in casts back in our locker room."

While Monday night's game served as a memorable finale, the season leading up to it was mostly forgettable. Regular-season attendance was down across the country for the ninth straight year, as fans at Penn State, Nebraska and other schools with large stadiums stopped turning out once their teams were eliminated from playoff contention. This year's Alabama-Auburn game, once the sport's fiercest rivalry, was played in front of 20,000 empty seats, as both teams entered the game just 5-6.

Once upon a time those teams would still have gone into their season finale with bowl berths on the line. However, 28 of the 35 bowl games played in 2010 went out of business within three years of the playoff's inception, as ESPN realized it could get higher ratings airing weeknight shows previewing the following weekend's playoff action than it could showing the Alamo Bowl. The Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls continue, but, much like basketball's NIT, they've become known mostly as scores that run across the ticker during playoff games.

Meanwhile, in the month since the regular season ended, Ohio State, Florida, Iowa and 17 other schools fired coaches who failed to reach the playoffs. All had been on the job no more than three years, now the average tenure for most head coaches.

In other news, Illinois captured the first-ever Limbo League championship last weekend. Upon seeing a drastic decline in fan interest among teams that rarely win their conference (and thus rarely reach the playoff), about half of schools formerly in conferences like the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC could no longer afford to fund their programs and decided to drop down to a newly created NCAA level somewhere between FBS and FCS. The Illini emerged from a field that also included Oregon State, Baylor and N.C. State. Only the SEC remained fully intact, with Ole Miss still dogged in its belief that it will one day climb the mountaintop. It has gone through eight coaches in 10 years.

There are still 64 FBS teams, the symmetry of which has led to an emergency meeting of the NCAA's board of directors next month. There, they will discuss the ongoing debate to expand the tournament to 32 teams.

"It's the right thing to do," said Virginia Tech coach Stan Greenberg, whose team was denied an at-large berth for the seventh straight year. "The system we have now is a joke."



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/05/18/mailbag.sleeper.contender/index.html#ixzz1MoZyajrf

Interesting prediction... :pop:

[Bama Yankee]

Interesting prediction... :pop:

Good stuff, but I doubt they could keep it to 16 teams for that long... ;)

I've heard a lot of people say that the other NCAA football divisions have playoffs and they point to them as examples of what the "big boys" could do. Well, let's take a look at their playoffs (a lot of the following info came from Wikipedia):

Division I-AA (I still use the old-school term):
"When Division I-AA was formed for football in 1978, the playoffs included just four teams, doubling to eight teams in its fourth season of 1981. In 1982 the I-AA playoffs were expanded to 12 teams, with each of the top four seeds receiving a first-round bye and a home game in the quarterfinals. In its ninth season of 1986, the I-AA playoffs were expanded again to a 16-team format, requiring four post-season victories to win the title. Eight conference champions received automatic bids, with the remaining eight bids available on an at-large basis. The top four teams are seeded; however, the matchups are not strictly set up by these seedings as geographic considerations are also taken into account to minimize travel. In April 2008 the NCAA announced that the playoff field would again expand to include 20 teams beginning in 2010. At the same time, it announced that the number of conferences receiving automatic bids would increase to 10."

Division II:
From 1964 to 1972, four regional bowl games were played that led up to a wire service poll to determine the final champion. A playoff was started in 1973 and now they include 24 teams.

Division III:
In 1969, the NCAA started two regional championship games for small college teams. In 1973, they developed a national championship game. They started with a four team playoff, now they have 32.


I also found this nugget from an article about the D3 playoffs from last year:
"The bracket for the 2010 NCAA Division III (D3) football playoffs was released on Sunday, November 14th. As in Division I football, there will no doubt be plenty of griping about which teams got in the tournament and which were left out, and about the match-ups that some teams are facing. A number of one-loss teams did not get into the playoffs: Rowan, Pacific Lutheran, and Redlands, while several teams with multiple losses made the field. Two teams that were on the bubble, Montclair State and Coe, made it into the playoffs"

Remember they have 32 teams in this playoff and they still have "griping" from teams who were "left out".

I'm sure all of the above playoffs started out as good ideas from "fair-minded" folks, but as you can see they have all evolved into large "tournaments" where the top teams have to play extra games to win the championship. I wouldn't mind a four-team playoff in D1 (I still can't think of a team ranked 5th or lower who ever "got screwed" out of a shot at the NC), but I don't see any way they would keep it that small, they just couldn't help themselves.

[bigfatjerk]

Right now with the system we have now there are more teams in the College Football post season by percentage than in any other sports post season. There's 70 teams in a college football post season out of 120.

[MeMyself&Me]

The problem with calling a big tourney a flaw in this discussion is that I think the tournament folks would be quite happy with 30+ teams. They just want they're playoff. We're not supposed to be thinking about anything else.

[MeMyself&Me]

Right now with the system we have now there are more teams in the College Football post season by percentage than in any other sports post season. There's 70 teams in a college football post season out of 120.

Since most of those games aren't to establish a national champion and this discussion is about how to establish a champion... kinda irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But I get it, you think there are too many bowls. Fine, don't watch the ones you don't like.

[OU_Sooners75]

Assuming all conference winners go to a post season tourny, don't you think there is less motivation to win games like OU/FSU. I think both teams would play much more vanilla and starters would come out sooner than normal... sort of like NFL preseason games. Cross divisional regular season games in the NFL count for division championships so those games are not comparable to college on this point.

Yeah, because seedings would have nothing to do with anything.

If you honestly think that a coach or a player will take it easy in a game that is deemed big, then you really have no clue what competition is about.


Actually you would likely see more top 10 teams scheduling each other and less of the Florida vs. Citadel or Texas vs. Sam Houston State.

[bigfatjerk]

I don't see a tournament with 30 teams ever happening in college football because there's only 120 teams in college football. 1aa will never have that big a post season either. It's had a playoff forever.

[JLEW1818]

just win all your games and be OU

[MeMyself&Me]

Yeah, because seedings would have nothing to do with anything.

If you honestly think that a coach or a player will take it easy in a game that is deemed big, then you really have no clue what competition is about.


Actually you would likely see more top 10 teams scheduling each other and less of the Florida vs. Citadel or Texas vs. Sam Houston State.

I could see them being concerned about seeding if the cross-conference games were played after conference play was over or nearly locked up but most of those games are played early in the year, early enough that most teams haven't even played a conference game. I think for teams that think they have a shot at winning a competitive conference, which is the only sure shot at getting into the tournament, they would be MUCH more concerned about staying healthy and not showing too much of what they like to do that than they would be about actually winning those games. The key here is that the only sure shot at getting in the tourney is winning the conference.

Also never said that players would take it easy. I'm saying coaches would hold back by not playing their starters as long and using more vanilla playcalling.

[OU_Sooners75]

No, that's not what a plus 1 is. A Plus one is like the old system of everyone doing their own thing for bowls... then taking the top two teams for a game one week or so after the last bowl. Thats why it's called plus 1 and not a 4 team playoff.


Wow...your really aren't that bright are you?

Plus one involves 3 games and 4 teams.

Hence, a four team playoff.

If the BCS did a plus one, you can almost bet, that it would be the top 4 bcs teams.

[Bama Yankee]

We actually already have a playoff system...they just only allow two teams in it. ;) I could live with a four-team playoff system (if you could guarantee that it would not be expaned, but you can't make that guarantee). I just can't understand why anyone thinks that a team that is ranked 5th or worse in the final BCS poll even "deserves" a shot at winning the NC. I understand the Auburn argument from 2004 (a four-team playoff would have solved that), but has there ever been a #5 team that can honestly say they got "screwed" out of a chance to play for the NC? Why would we need more than four teams?

[OU_Sooners75]

I could see them being concerned about seeding if the cross-conference games were played after conference play was over or nearly locked up but most of those games are played early in the year, early enough that most teams haven't even played a conference game. I think for teams that think they have a shot at winning a competitive conference, which is the only sure shot at getting into the tournament, they would be MUCH more concerned about staying healthy and not showing too much of what they like to do that than they would be about actually winning those games. The key here is that the only sure shot at getting in the tourney is winning the conference.

Also never said that players would take it easy. I'm saying coaches would hold back by not playing their starters as long and using more vanilla playcalling.
:confused:

So, in your opinion, when the games are played determines the importance of the game?

Really? As it is now, each and every team has a goal of winning their conference before the season begins.

As it is now, each team wants and has a goal to win every game. They have a few games on their schedule that they circle or want to put emphasis on. That would not change with a playoff system. These types of goals will not change with a playoff in place.

People want to say that a playoff will ruin the regular season of college football, why? A lot of people say that, but they give no actual logical reason as to why they think that!

Everything I hear is about how at the end of the season teams will be playing their back-ups much like the NFL does.

That may ring true if you have a 2 or more game lead in the conference standings and if the playoff brings in auto teams like conference champions only.

I am really mixed at how a playoff should be. top 8? conference champs? A mix of both? IDK, but I can see the regular season being meaningless if you have automatic births.

If the coaches would hold back,why don't they do it now? OU can afford to lose to Florida State and still be in the hunt...so why not just go vanilla until we play against Texas?

Why? Because it is called competition...and the players and coaches are competitors...they want to win every game...so they are not going to hold back against top notch competition...to suggest otherwise suggests you are not a competitive person yourself.

[OU_Sooners75]

We actually already have a playoff system...they just only allow two teams in it. ;) I could live with a four-team playoff system (if you could guarantee that it would not be expaned, but you can't make that guarantee). I just can't understand why anyone thinks that a team that is ranked 5th or worse in the final BCS poll even "deserves" a shot at winning the NC. I understand the Auburn argument from 2004 (a four-team playoff would have solved that), but has there ever been a #5 team that can honestly say they got "screwed" out of a chance to play for the NC? Why would we need more than four teams?


And where is the playoff? Oh, the regular season and the championship game is determined by a mix of ranking systems and not on the field.

Why do we call it the regular season if it is in fact the playoff structure?

No, major college football does not have a true playoff system...maybe by defition only, but it is not a playoff or national championship tournament.

[MeMyself&Me]

Wow...your really aren't that bright are you?

Plus one involves 3 games and 4 teams.

Hence, a four team playoff.

If the BCS did a plus one, you can almost bet, that it would be the top 4 bcs teams.

Plus one and a 4 team playoff are not the same thing. Let me ask you this, if it was, why the differing terminology?

I remember when 'plus 1' was first discussed with seriousness several years back and I remember what it was. It was just an added game after the bowls without seeding.

By the way, is it possible that you can have a discussion with someone without being a jerk? Seems you can't make a post without calling someone stupid or ignorant or some such. Must be nice to be you... :rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

Plus one and a 4 team playoff are not the same thing. Let me ask you this, if it was, why the differing terminology?

I remember when 'plus 1' was first discussed with seriousness several years back and I remember what it was. It was just an added game after the bowls without seeding.

By the way, is it possible that you can have a discussion with someone without being a jerk? Seems you can't make a post without calling someone stupid or ignorant or some such. Must be nice to be you... :rolleyes:


Do the math Einstein and let me know what you come up with.

2 games one week...4 teams.
next week 2 teams....1 game.

That is a plus one format.


Four team playoff:

First round:
#1 vs. #4
#2 vs. #3

Championship:
Winner of 1v4 vs. winner of 2v3.

Hmmmmm.....

The difference, One of them has a seeding (4 team playoff) while the other one has 4 teams playing one week and 2 playing the next without an actual definition of who those teams are.

Hence the reason I stated it like I did:

Plus one involves 3 games and 4 teams.

Hence, a four team playoff.

If the BCS did a plus one, you can almost bet, that it would be the top 4 bcs teams.

I may be a jerk...but your stance on the issue is showing a lot of ignorance or stupidity because you are wanting to say that a 4 team playoff is not the same as a plus one...when in fact they are essentially the same damn thing.

[PrideMom]

Give it a rest! A play off would water down the season....travel would be impossible, and there would still be people complaining about a team that did not get in, or one that did that shouldn't...

[OU_Sooners75]

Give it a rest! A play off would water down the season....travel would be impossible, and there would still be people complaining about a team that did not get in, or one that did that shouldn't...


Okay...because travel is possible today, right?

Watered down in what way?

And anyone can bitch and gripe...but did they earn the spot to be there? Obviously not...so bitch all you want.

The BCS as it is now just just 1.67% of the teams in D-1A football a chance to play for a BCS title.

[Bama Yankee]

And where is the playoff? Oh, the regular season and the championship game is determined by a mix of ranking systems and not on the field.

Why do we call it the regular season if it is in fact the playoff structure?

No, major college football does not have a true playoff system...maybe by defition only, but it is not a playoff or national championship tournament.

Actually, I look at it this way: the current regular season is almost like a "double elimination" tournament (you lose two games and you're pretty much out). Then you have the semi-finals for conferences with Championship games. The BCS Championship Game is the finals. Any team in a major conference that makes it through a gaunlet like that deserves to be the National Champion. No more games are needed. Adding a playoff that allowed more than four teams in would cheapen the result in my opinion.

Let's say you let 8 teams in and Oklahoma runs the table giving Texas and Oklahoma State their only losses during the season, would you want to play either one of them again (assuming they would be ranked in the top 8) in a "playoff"?

Also, under your playoff system how would you determine which teams made it in? Wouldn't you have to use some sort of ranking system or selection committee (any automatic qualifying system would allow too many teams in, see the NCAA b-ball tourney, for example)? If so, wouldn't you still have teams that felt they were "left out" of the dance and couldn't people still say that your champion wasn't decided on the field?

[MeMyself&Me]

It seems you might be mistaking what I'm saying. Think of it like the old way where conferences had their own ties with the bowls. 1 didn't necessary play 4 and 2 didn't necessarily play 3. You might have a 1 vs 6, a 2 vs 5, a 3 vs 10, and a 4 vs 6... and so on in the bowls. After the bowls are over, re-rank the teams and play a 1 vs 2.

That's Plus One. That's why it's called Plus One. That's why there's a different term.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SEEDING AND NO TOURNEY. This has been discussed in the past but has been thrown to the side in favor tor tourney discussion.

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually, I look at it this way: the current regular season is almost like a "double elimination" tournament (you lose two games and you're pretty much out). Then you have the semi-finals for conferences with Championship games. The BCS Championship Game is the finals. Any team in a major conference that makes it through a gaunlet like that deserves to be the National Champion. No more games are needed. Adding a playoff that allowed more than four teams in would cheapen the result in my opinion.

Let's say you let 8 teams in and Oklahoma runs the table giving Texas and Oklahoma State their only losses during the season, would you want to play either one of them again (assuming they would be ranked in the top 8) in a "playoff"?

Also, under your playoff system how would you determine which teams made it in? Wouldn't you have to use some sort of ranking system or selection committee (any automatic qualifying system would allow too many teams in, see the NCAA b-ball tourney, for example)? If so, wouldn't you still have teams that felt they were "left out" of the dance and couldn't people still say that your champion wasn't decided on the field?


So, you are in favor of media and humans determining who the top two teams are?

I wonder if anyone diputed Syracuse Basketball title back when they have Anthony on their team, even though they had something like 8 or 9 losses on the season, while teams like UNC had just a couple.

Dont get me wrong, I love the excitement of college football, but the way they determine who plays for what many consider the national championship is very much flawed.

[OU_Sooners75]

It seems you might be mistaking what I'm saying. Think of it like the old way where conferences had their own ties with the bowls. 1 didn't necessary play 4 and 2 didn't necessarily play 3. You might have a 1 vs 6, a 2 vs 5, a 3 vs 10, and a 4 vs 6... and so on in the bowls. After the bowls are over, re-rank the teams and play a 1 vs 2.

That's Plus One. That's why it's called Plus One. That's why there's a different term.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SEEDING AND NO TOURNEY. This has been discussed in the past but has been thrown to the side in favor tor tourney discussion.


WOW....I am not mistaking anything. I know very well what you are saying...however, a plus one is essentially a four team playoff....anyone wanting to say otherwise is just showing some ignorance or stupidity.

Also, if the BCS went to a "plus 1" then you can bet they would be setting it up very much like a four team playoff. The only way a plus one would be like the old system is if the BCS is no longer running the show, and the old system is in place.

[MeMyself&Me]

WOW....I am not mistaking anything. I know very well what you are saying...however, a plus one is essentially a four team playoff....anyone wanting to say otherwise is just showing some ignorance or stupidity.

You can not actually be reading my posts.

Also, if the BCS went to a "plus 1" then you can bet they would be setting it up very much like a four team playoff. The only way a plus one would be like the old system is if the BCS is no longer running the show, and the old system is in place.

If the BCS went to a four team playoff, it would be called just that. Not, plus one.

I think you must be the worst in the world at, "if you don't agree with me your stupid". What a rational argument. Can you be any more inflammatory? Surely this isn't they way you really are, is it?

[Bama Yankee]

The BCS as it is now just just 1.67% of the teams in D-1A football a chance to play for a BCS title.

Why do you say that? Sure, some teams in "minor" conferences might have the odds stacked agains them. But, iff you play in a "major" conference and run the table you have a very real shot at playing for the NC. If Baylor or Vandy were to shock the world next season and go undefeated would they meet in the BCS NC game? If they were the only two undefeated teams the answer is absolutely (and they would be deserving of their shot). They only teams that really have a gripe are the major conference undefeated teams who finish at #3 or #4 (how often has this happened? a handful maybe?). Their gripe could be eliminated with a simple four-team playoff.

Any team that is willing to join a major conference and play a tough schedule can earn a chance to play for the BCS title by winning all of their games.

[SoonerPride]

I think you must be the worst in the world at, "if you don't agree with me your stupid". What a rational argument. Can you be any more inflammatory? Surely this isn't they way you really are, is it?

Now you know why he's on many people's ignore lists.

Don't waste your time.

[Bama Yankee]

So, you are in favor of media and humans determining who the top two teams are?

I wonder if anyone diputed Syracuse Basketball title back when they have Anthony on their team, even though they had something like 8 or 9 losses on the season, while teams like UNC had just a couple.

Dont get me wrong, I love the excitement of college football, but the way they determine who plays for what many consider the national championship is very much flawed.

Show me a #5 team in any previous final BCS poll that you can honestly say "deserved" to play for the NC...

Also, how would you propose to "pick" the teams in your playoff?

[OU_Sooners75]

Why do you say that? Sure, some teams in "minor" conferences might have the odds stacked agains them. But, iff you play in a "major" conference and run the table you have a very real shot at playing for the NC. If Baylor or Vandy were to shock the world next season and go undefeated would they meet in the BCS NC game? If they were the only two undefeated teams the answer is absolutely (and they would be deserving of their shot). They only teams that really have a gripe are the major conference undefeated teams who finish at #3 or #4 (how often has this happened? a handful maybe?). Their gripe could be eliminated with a simple four-team playoff.

Any team that is willing to join a major conference and play a tough schedule can earn a chance to play for the BCS title by winning all of their games.


If is a mighty big word, iff must be even bigger...:D

Here is the thing though...unless you have some prestige or success in other sports than football, you may get an invite from one of the big 6 conferences. If not, then you may as well forget the notion.

Let me ask this:

Did TCU deserve a shot at the National Championship last year?
Did Boise State deserve a shot in 2006?
Did Utah in 2008?

Why do I ask that? Well, simple, they should have been given a better chance. I wont go as far to say they would win a playoff championship, but how it is now, they were left outside looking in when it comes to national championship talk in todays BCS format. Why?

Popularity...Oregon, Auburn, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, and LSU are all from a big 6 conference...they got the chance over Utah, BSU, and TCU.

Then people want to say, well, if did this or did that...well, I remember 2006 pretty well...Boise State was the only undefeated team in the nation that year...still didnt get a chance.

Well, maybe they should play in a tougher conference. Oh so now it is a bias against the conferences that are not part of the Big 6? Okay.

The BCS is flawed. Go back to the old system or go to a playoff. But the BCS needs a major overhaul or get out of the way.

[MeMyself&Me]

Now you know why he's on many people's ignore lists.

Don't waste your time.

Thanks for the advice. I was really trying NOT to do that.

[OU_Sooners75]

Show me a #5 team in any previous final BCS poll that you can honestly say "deserved" to play for the NC...

Also, how would you propose to "pick" the teams in your playoff?


Oh, so we can be selective now.

Show me where TCU (2010), USC (2003), Auburn (2004), Washington and Miami (2000), Boise State (2006), Utah (2008) all didnt deserve a shot at playing for it all too!

As far as #5's...you find me a source that shows all final BCS rankings and Ill find you some.

However, I would say if you are in the top 8 in the BCS, you most likely deserve a shot...losing a game or two doesnt make you unworthy.

[OU_Sooners75]

Thanks for the advice. I was really trying NOT to do that.


If you would stop trying to pass on the idea of a plus one not being a 4 team playoff, then maybe you would not get the comments of, "your not that bright are you" or "showing ignorance or stupidity."

Other than that, dont go getting overly sensitive.

[OU_Sooners75]

Now you know why he's on many people's ignore lists.

Don't waste your time.


Like yours?

I enjoy being on ignore lists...just goes to show those that think they know something cant take it when confronted by a dissenting opinion and get all butt hurt in the process. :eek:

[OU_Sooners75]

I think you must be the worst in the world at, "if you don't agree with me your stupid". What a rational argument. Can you be any more inflammatory? Surely this isn't they way you really are, is it?


Okay, lets try this again:

So you are saying that if the BCS went to a plus one, they would put the #5 team in a plus one game over the #3 or #2 team?

So you are saying that they would keep the #1 vs #2 matchup and then the winner of that game will play the new #2 team?

Oooooookay....Yeah...that makes a lot of sense.

Now, the way the BCS would do it would be to play a "plus one game" by taking the top 4 teams and pitting them against each other. Then they would take the two winners the following week and play the title game.

hmmm.....call it what your lil heart desires, but it is a four team playoff no matter how you try to word it.

[Bama Yankee]

If is a mighty big word, iff must be even bigger...:D

Here is the thing though...unless you have some prestige or success in other sports than football, you may get an invite from one of the big 6 conferences. If not, then you may as well forget the notion.

Let me ask this:

Did TCU deserve a shot at the National Championship last year?
Did Boise State deserve a shot in 2006?
Did Utah in 2008?

Why do I ask that? Well, simple, they should have been given a better chance. I wont go as far to say they would win a playoff championship, but how it is now, they were left outside looking in when it comes to national championship talk in todays BCS format. Why?

Popularity...Oregon, Auburn, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, and LSU are all from a big 6 conference...they got the chance over Utah, BSU, and TCU.

Then people want to say, well, if did this or did that...well, I remember 2006 pretty well...Boise State was the only undefeated team in the nation that year...still didnt get a chance.

Well, maybe they should play in a tougher conference. Oh so now it is a bias against the conferences that are not part of the Big 6? Okay.

The BCS is flawed. Go back to the old system or go to a playoff. But the BCS needs a major overhaul or get out of the way.

Last year TCU might have deserved a shot (a four team playoff would have allowed that). But then do you think that #4 Stanford should have gotten another shot at Oregon? Should #8 Arkansas have gotten another shot at Auburn? Should #16 have gotten another shot at Auburn (I would have loved to see it, but we had our chance and blew it)?

I don't think Utah in 2008 and Boise State in 2006 "deserved" anything more than they received. Their schedules were so weak that an undefeated season against those teams didn't earn them a spot. The system worked. Had they played some tougher teams, they might have had a legitimate gripe. But running the table against weak opposition doesn't "prove" a thing.

Look, I will agree with you that the current system is "flawed". But you have to admit that ANY system you devise will have flaws. The old system had MAJOR flaws, people say the BCS has flaws, a playoff system will have flaws (someone will always cry about getting "left out"). But, the current system gives us a matchup of the top two teams every year. You might be able to add a couple of teams to the mix, but anything more than four will cause more problems than it solves.

[MeMyself&Me]

Had a hard time getting google to show old news reports from a while back. Kept getting results from the 2008 era where Slive was putting forth a four team tourney but using the name of an older idea... perhaps to passify those that just fear the word 'playoff' itself. I always correct people on this point because the misuse of the term is an annoyance for one but it also reeks of the same ilk that politicians have when they use buzz words to get people to act on misinformation.

The oldest reference I could get was from a 2004 story. It's not the original point of this idea (even says so here) but it does reference that it is a revival of an idea that was talked about before:


But this season's USC-Oklahoma-Auburn logjam — three undefeated teams impossible to fit into a single title game — has revived talks of an alternate "plus-one" proposal.

Play the four current bowls as a sort of preliminary round. Re-rank the teams, or use a selection committee, to identify two national championship qualifiers. And have them square off in the fifth game for the national championship.

Of course, if that format were in effect this season and USC, Oklahoma and Auburn won their initial bowls (the Trojans and Sooners wouldn't meet in the Orange in that scenario), the BCS would be in the same pick-two-of-the-three predicament.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bowls/2004-12-29-playoffs_x.htm


The key point is that a true Plus-One involved reranking after the bowls. The reranking makes seeding impossible and distinguishes it from a tournament. It also doesn't limit the participants to 4 teams prior to the bowls. However, I think this idea has been dismissed because it doesn't really give what the tourney supporters want. But the term is still thrown around from time to time when someone wants a 'playoff' without using the word 'playoff' because those that aren't paying attention may not know what they really mean (like in Slive's case). If we're going to have an honest discussion, it's important to understand what the terms mean. If you want to talk about a four team playoff, then say so. If you want to talk about a plus-one, then say so.

[Bama Yankee]

Oh, so we can be selective now.

Show me where TCU (2010), USC (2003), Auburn (2004), Washington and Miami (2000), Boise State (2006), Utah (2008) all didnt deserve a shot at playing for it all too!

As far as #5's...you find me a source that shows all final BCS rankings and Ill find you some.

However, I would say if you are in the top 8 in the BCS, you most likely deserve a shot...losing a game or two doesnt make you unworthy.

Why shouldn't "losing a game or two" make you "unworthy"? Should Florida have been forced to play a 1-loss Bama AGAIN in 2008? Should Bama have been forced to play a 1-loss Florida AGAIN in 2009?
Losing a game is something you can control. If you lose a game, then you really don't have a gripe. Now, if you play in a major conference and you run the table (like Auburn in 2004) and you still get left out then you have a gripe (but, again a four team playoff would have solved that).

Those smaller teams should try to join a major conference (like Utah and TCU have done), play against the "big boys" and they will get their shot. If they are not allowed into a major conference (due to some bias) then that is what they should complain about, not the BCS.

[Bama Yankee]

Had a hard time getting google to show old news reports from a while back. Kept getting results from the 2008 era where Slive was putting forth a four team tourney but using the name of an older idea... perhaps to passify those that just fear the word 'playoff' itself. I always correct people on this point because the misuse of the term is an annoyance for one but it also reeks of the same ilk that politicians have when they use buzz words to get people to act on misinformation.

The oldest reference I could get was from a 2004 story. It's not the original point of this idea (even says so here) but it does reference that it is a revival of an idea that was talked about before:



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bowls/2004-12-29-playoffs_x.htm


The key point is that a true Plus-One involved reranking after the bowls. The reranking makes seeding impossible and distinguishes it from a tournament. It also doesn't limit the participants to 4 teams prior to the bowls. However, I think this idea has been dismissed because it doesn't really give what the tourney supporters want. But the term is still thrown around from time to time when someone wants a 'playoff' without using the word 'playoff' because those that aren't paying attention may not know what they really mean (like in Slive's case). If we're going to have an honest discussion, it's important to understand what the terms mean. If you want to talk about a four team playoff, then say so. If you want to talk about a plus-one, then say so.

I think you are correct in your distinction between a four-team playoff and the Plus-one system.

Speaking of the Plus-one system: it looks good when you have 3 or 4 undefeated teams going into the bowls or two undefeated teams after the bowls. But what about when you only have two undefeated teams going into the bowls or only one undefeated team after the bowls? If Oklahoma runs the table and is the only undefeated team after the bowls and a one-loss Texas wins their bowl game and finishes ranked number two, should there be a Plus-one then? I wouldn't think so. The problem is that NO system is perfect and people can always come up with something about any system that is not fair.

[MeMyself&Me]

I think you are correct in your distinction between a four-team playoff and the Plus-one system.

Careful there... you're going to make someone really grumpy. :D

Speaking of the Plus-one system: it looks good when you have 3 or 4 undefeated teams going into the bowls or two undefeated teams after the bowls. But what about when you only have two undefeated teams going into the bowls or only one undefeated team after the bowls? If Oklahoma runs the table and is the only undefeated team after the bowls and a one-loss Texas wins their bowl game and finishes ranked number two, should there be a Plus-one then? I wouldn't think so. The problem is that NO system is perfect and people can always come up with something about any system that is not fair.

I can't really argue on it's behalf as I'm not a big proponent of it. I can say it's less offensive to me than a tournament but I also don't see why people that want a tournament would be happy with a 'true' plus one cause it only puts off the controversy that bothers them so much by one week. It was an option that was talked about quite a bit in the 2000 - 2003 time frame though.

;)

[okierider]

Here is my thoughts on this playoff thing....


There are 120 fulltime D-1A schools. UMass is in transitition to make the move up, that will make it 121 schools.

Of those schools only 14 are private schools:
Stanford
Miami (FL)
Northwestern
BYU
Notre Dame
Tulane
Syracuse
Duke
Wake Forest
Tulsa
Vanderbilt
Rice
Baylor
Texas Christian

That is just 11.67% of the schools that are private schools.

That said, with roughly 88% of the schools being publicly funded, I think we the people, should have a major say in how the issue of determining a national champion is determined. If this means our government should take up the issue, then so be it. If that means we should put it to a national vote so be it.

How it is set up now, there is plenty of corruption to ensure the system stays intact for a very long time.

The NCAA controls everything when it comes to every sport, but major college football. The controlling party there is the Bowl Committess, which has been proven to be a corrupt system.

Anyway, determining who the national championship should never come down to polls and media bias. It should always be left to competition on the field of play!

Thank you ...a voice of reason !!!! Competition on the field in every sport except this one ...... And to say that a no loss TCU deserves no shot at the title because of the the conference they are in is just weak. Take the top 10 or so teams and decide it on the field ,then the season "matters" and it gives everyone a chance ...

[Bama Yankee]

Thank you ...a voice of reason !!!! Competition on the field in every sport except this one ...... And to say that a no loss TCU deserves no shot at the title because of the the conference they are in is just weak. Take the top 10 or so teams and decide it on the field ,then the season "matters" and it gives everyone a chance ...

How do you determine the "top 10" in your system? Would you have to use a poll? Would you try to only take the conference champions? what about at-large bids? What about the #11 team? saying that they don't deserve a shot at the title just because they are #11 is just weak... ;)

My point is: you show me a playoff system and I'll show you a "flaw" in it. Plus, as long as you have polls determining who is "in" then you will have teams complaining about being left out (NCAA b-ball takes 68 and you still have complaints, NCAA div III takes 32 and you still have complaints). Thus, you will never resolve the perceived "problem" of the champion not being decided on the field and some folks will still feel like they "don't have a chance"...

[Bama Yankee]

Since I'm a reasonable guy I would be willing to compromise a little. How does this sound:
I might be willing to go along with a four-team playoff if I could be guaranteed that it would never be expanded to add more teams (that is impossible to guarantee and just like the b-ball tourney they couldn't help themselves, but I'll pretend it is possible for the sake of argument). But first, you would have to force the Notre Dames of the world to join a conference. Then you would have to make sure all the conferences had at least 12 teams and a championship game (this would get rid of a lot of the "pretenders" who skate through the season). Then, two weeks after those conference championship games you could play the first round (#1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3) getting it down to the same two-team Championship game scenario we have currently. You would only be adding two games to the season, you keep the bowls and everyone gets their playoff. This system would have solved pretty much every gripe I've heard from any team throughout the BCS years (2004 Barn, 2009 Boise St/TCU, 2010 TCU).

So, how do you playoff supporters feel about my proposal? :D

[OU_Sooners75]

How do you determine the "top 10" in your system? Would you have to use a poll? Would you try to only take the conference champions? what about at-large bids? What about the #11 team? saying that they don't deserve a shot at the title just because they are #11 is just weak... ;)

My point is: you show me a playoff system and I'll show you a "flaw" in it. Plus, as long as you have polls determining who is "in" then you will have teams complaining about being left out (NCAA b-ball takes 68 and you still have complaints, NCAA div III takes 32 and you still have complaints). Thus, you will never resolve the perceived "problem" of the champion not being decided on the field and some folks will still feel like they "don't have a chance"...

Show me the bowl system and bcs system and I can show you all the flaws in it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with rankings or polls...the problem lies when you use a ranking system to say these two teams are more deserving to play for a national title than the other 118 schools.

What is the problem with that? Well, it is a bias. ESPN has a vested interest to pimp the SEC. Why is that a big deal? ESPN is the major and most watched sports network in the world. So when they put out views of certain things, people will tend to migrate to their ideals. So if they say Auburn and Oregon are the most deserving, the polls start to reflect that.

Want proof? Just go look back at the coach's and harris polls after Auburn beat LSU and Oregon beat Stanford. TCU was ranked higher in the coaches, AP, and Harris until ESPN started slobbering over both schools. at which time, Auburn made the huge jump to No. 1 and Oregon making the push to #1, then to finish #2 after Auburn beat Alabama. However, TCU for the majority of the year was ranked higher than both teams, only to be left outside looking in. Fair? Maybe...but it is definitely flawed!

Why did that happen? Because in the BCS, 2/3 of the ranking is done by human bias. Humans that think this team is so much better than another team because they play for this one conference while this other team plays ina weak conference...so they automatically should not be given the chance to play for what many consider to be the national championship.

And then you have seasons like 2007. Where there are no undefeated teams and yet LSU makes it to the championship game against Ohio State, even though LSU was no more deserving than Oklahoma, Missouri, West Virginia, and other schools.

The only thing the BCS has ever done right was match their #1 vs. #2 every year. And even then, when they are not happy with the matchup they go to tweak the system. Like after 2003 when OU lost to KSU in the Big 12 championship and still held onto the #1 BCS ranking. They took Margin of Victory out of it. After 2004, they decided to take out Strength of Schedule, because for 4 of 5 years, the Big 12 sent teams to the championship game only to lose it 3 of those 4 times. Why? Because the Big 12 had some very tough conference teams by SOS standards.

So what does the BCS look like now? 6 computer rankings that cannot get a decent ranking because they cannot add what humans can, which is the preception of dominance and strength. And then two human polls that can be looked at as a joke.

1. The coaches poll. Everyone respects this poll because it is presumably filled out by coaches. When in fact more SIDs fill these out than coaches do. Coaches do not have time to watch every game. They do not have time to study each team or to even know who the best is. Most of the time, they just go off what they see, and that is no different than what you or I do.

2. The Harris Interactive Poll. When you get a poll that has people voting for Duke, you know it is a freaking joke!

At least in a playoff the teams can settle it on the field.

What is the best playoff system? Who really knows. There will always be people unhappy for missing the chance. So you cannot please everyone...and you cannot pretend to make a system that will do that.

What about a 16 team tournament? all conference champs (11 teams)...sure you may have 3 or 4 that really should not be there, but hey, they did win their conference...and the highest 5 ranking teams that are not conference champs.

If that is too much or too many teams...

Take the top 8-10 teams. Use a ranking system much like the BCS or RPI. Seed them by ranking.

Yeah, #9 or #11 may bitch and moan about being left out...but oh well.

There are all different ways of creating a viable playoff. Pick one that everyone can aggree on and go from there. It may not make everyone happy, but the BCS is not agreed upon by all schools and is very much flawed like you want to say you can show a flaw for any playoff.

[OU_Sooners75]

Since I'm a reasonable guy I would be willing to compromise a little. How does this sound:
I might be willing to go along with a four-team playoff if I could be guaranteed that it would never be expanded to add more teams (that is impossible to guarantee and just like the b-ball tourney they couldn't help themselves, but I'll pretend it is possible for the sake of argument). But first, you would have to force the Notre Dames of the world to join a conference. Then you would have to make sure all the conferences had at least 12 teams and a championship game (this would get rid of a lot of the "pretenders" who skate through the season). Then, two weeks after those conference championship games you could play the first round (#1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3) getting it down to the same two-team Championship game scenario we have currently. You would only be adding two games to the season, you keep the bowls and everyone gets their playoff. This system would have solved pretty much every gripe I've heard from any team throughout the BCS years (2004 Barn, 2009 Boise St/TCU, 2010 TCU).

So, how do you playoff supporters feel about my proposal? :D

Four teams is a good start, but it is not and should not be a final stopping point.

What happens if there ever gets a day with 200 D-1A teams? There are 120 fulltime teams now. 4 is only 3.33% of the teams. I say there should be no more than 10-15% of the teams in a playoff ever.

NCAA Basketball, there is roughly 30% of the teams involved. NFL there are roughly 38% of the league involved. NBA there is roughly 50% of the teams involved. NHL, there is roughly 50% of all teams involved.

10-12 teams, even 16 teams is a good %age in my opinion to have a playoff, but no more than that ever!

With that said, The top 10 teams works wonder. If you use all conference champs, then go to 11 teams. Want 16? Go to conference champs plus the top 5 teams that are not conference champs.

4, 8, 10, 12, 16...they are all better than what we have now.

[Bama Yankee]

Four teams is a good start, but it is not and should not be a final stopping point.

What happens if there ever gets a day with 200 D-1A teams? There are 120 fulltime teams now. 4 is only 3.33% of the teams. I say there should be no more than 10-15% of the teams in a playoff ever.

NCAA Basketball, there is roughly 30% of the teams involved. NFL there are roughly 38% of the league involved. NBA there is roughly 50% of the teams involved. NHL, there is roughly 50% of all teams involved.

10-12 teams, even 16 teams is a good %age in my opinion to have a playoff, but no more than that ever!

With that said, The top 10 teams works wonder. If you use all conference champs, then go to 11 teams. Want 16? Go to conference champs plus the top 5 teams that are not conference champs.

4, 8, 10, 12, 16...they are all better than what we have now.

200 teams in Div I someday? I hope not, we have too many as it is...

Okay, so we go with 11 conference champs and 5 at large. Please explain how in your 16 team tournament that you can expect a team that has played a 12-game regular season and a conference champ game to then play FOUR more games to be crowned the champion? Why should a 13-0 team from the SEC or Big 12 ever have to play a 6-6 conf champ from the Big East or the Sun Belt (last year FIU won the Sun Belt at 6-6 and UConn made the BCS with an 8-4 record)?

The problems with anything more than 4 teams to a playoff is that you are adding too many games (making it more difficult for the teams and the fans) and you end up diluting the quality of your title game (see my post earlier about the NFL playoff and how they have only had their top two teams in the Super Bowl twice in 20 years).

[Sooner_Tuf]

Glad we have that settled, when does it go in to effect?

[JLEW1818]

playoff starts in year 2075

[stoops the eternal pimp]

hopefully after Im gone

[texaspokieokie]

playoff starts in year 2075

i'm for that. by that time i'll be a faint memory. probly not even that.

[Bama Yankee]

playoff starts in year 2075

Good, that will give us a chance to claim at least two dozen more NC's... ROLL TIDE!!!:D

[Caboose]

200 teams in Div I someday? I hope not, we have too many as it is...

Okay, so we go with 11 conference champs and 5 at large. Please explain how in your 16 team tournament that you can expect a team that has played a 12-game regular season and a conference champ game to then play FOUR more games to be crowned the champion? Why should a 13-0 team from the SEC or Big 12 ever have to play a 6-6 conf champ from the Big East or the Sun Belt (last year FIU won the Sun Belt at 6-6 and UConn made the BCS with an 8-4 record)?

The problems with anything more than 4 teams to a playoff is that you are adding too many games (making it more difficult for the teams and the fans) and you end up diluting the quality of your title game (see my post earlier about the NFL playoff and how they have only had their top two teams in the Super Bowl twice in 20 years).

Honestly, don't bother. The guy does not think like a logical person. I put him on ignore yesterday like most others have. Not worth your time.

[OU_Sooners75]

200 teams in Div I someday? I hope not, we have too many as it is...

Okay, so we go with 11 conference champs and 5 at large. Please explain how in your 16 team tournament that you can expect a team that has played a 12-game regular season and a conference champ game to then play FOUR more games to be crowned the champion? Why should a 13-0 team from the SEC or Big 12 ever have to play a 6-6 conf champ from the Big East or the Sun Belt (last year FIU won the Sun Belt at 6-6 and UConn made the BCS with an 8-4 record)?

The problems with anything more than 4 teams to a playoff is that you are adding too many games (making it more difficult for the teams and the fans) and you end up diluting the quality of your title game (see my post earlier about the NFL playoff and how they have only had their top two teams in the Super Bowl twice in 20 years).


Like I said a few times now...there is many different ways you can run this.

Personally, If I was the HMFIC, I would change the cfb landscape all together and go with just an 8 team playoff.

1. I would move the lower tiered conferences like C-USC, Mid America, and Sun Belt to D-1AA. This would reduce the number of conferences to 8.
2. I would make it where all teams were to be in a conference...no more independent schools. If you wanted to remain independent you get bumped down with the lower tiered conferences.
3. I would reduce (or add to) the number of teams in each conference to 10, making D-1A 80 teams and no more.
4. All teams in a conference must play each other in a round robin format. No more conference championship games.
5. Each team gets at most 11 regular season games. 9 conference and 2 non-conference games.
6. Only conference champions make the national champions playoffs. That is 8 teams or 10% of the teams in the division. No at large or any other teams. You dont win your conference, you do not go, period!
9. Have a ranking system like the BCS or RPI to seed all 8 teams.
10. First round is home game for Highest seeded teams.
11. Second round is home game for higher seeded teams.
12. Championship round is a neutral site rotating host cities and is played two weeks after second round.

Now to actually answer your question. If there is a playoff, they need to make all conferences play by the same rules...they either all play a championship game or none of them do. If none of them, then they need to make a round robin system or a way to make it legit for all member schools of that conference.

Next, why did Oklahoma have to play an 8-4 UCONN team in their Bowl game? At least in the playoff, the lesser teams would get weeded out earlier instead of getting to a big payout for nothing. However, I obviously am in favor of all conference champions being invited. Sure, youll get teams that are weak, but then again, the BCS already places weaker teams in the BCS Bowl games anyway..so whats the difference?

Too many games by whose standards?

You do know that in Oklahoma, if you want to be the 6A state champion you have to play 15 games to do so, right? 10 regular season games and 5 state playoff games.

Not sure how true it is, but heard in Texas that one of the smaller divisions they have to play 6 rounds of playoff games. :eek:

So in high school to be considered a state champion you play 15-16 games. The same can be said in D-1AA and on down in the NCAA ranks...as well as the NAIA ranks. But when we start talking about that many games in the premiere college football league, it is too many games. :rolleyes:

Let me guess, your next argument against a playoff is travel expenses for the teams?

Well, you do know that most of the BCS teams this past year, made absolutely no money on the game because they have to buy any unsold tickets to the games. UCONN sold just over 7K tickets I heard, and have to buy over 10K that didnt sell.

You do know that economists did a study and researched this very issue. The BCS only makes half of the potential that a playoff can when it comes to money and revenue for the sport. But hey, its about #1 vs #2, not about money, right?

[Sooner_Tuf]

Just move whole conferences to lower divisions all on your own? That ought to go over like a lead balloon. But as long as you are happy. Plus it would be a shame to see someone go to all that work when they have no input and have nobody listen. That would suck.

[OU_Sooners75]

Just move whole conferences to lower divisions all on your own? That ought to go over like a lead balloon. But as long as you are happy. Plus it would be a shame to see someone go to all that work when they have no input and have nobody listen. That would suck.

Yeah, because it is obvious only one person can make it happen. Figure of speech considering I was asked what I would do. ;)

But in order to make it more of a level playing field that can be seen as the most fair way to determine a national champion, restructuring of the highest level of college football needs to be done. Maybe call the top 8 conferences a Super Division or whatever.

[Bama Yankee]

Like I said a few times now...there is many different ways you can run this.

Personally, If I was the HMFIC, I would change the cfb landscape all together and go with just an 8 team playoff.

1. I would move the lower tiered conferences like C-USC, Mid America, and Sun Belt to D-1AA. This would reduce the number of conferences to 8.
2. I would make it where all teams were to be in a conference...no more independent schools. If you wanted to remain independent you get bumped down with the lower tiered conferences.
3. I would reduce (or add to) the number of teams in each conference to 10, making D-1A 80 teams and no more.
4. All teams in a conference must play each other in a round robin format. No more conference championship games.
5. Each team gets at most 11 regular season games. 9 conference and 2 non-conference games.
6. Only conference champions make the national champions playoffs. That is 8 teams or 10% of the teams in the division. No at large or any other teams. You dont win your conference, you do not go, period!
9. Have a ranking system like the BCS or RPI to seed all 8 teams.
10. First round is home game for Highest seeded teams.
11. Second round is home game for higher seeded teams.
12. Championship round is a neutral site rotating host cities and is played two weeks after second round.

Now to actually answer your question. If there is a playoff, they need to make all conferences play by the same rules...they either all play a championship game or none of them do. If none of them, then they need to make a round robin system or a way to make it legit for all member schools of that conference.

Next, why did Oklahoma have to play an 8-4 UCONN team in their Bowl game? At least in the playoff, the lesser teams would get weeded out earlier instead of getting to a big payout for nothing. However, I obviously am in favor of all conference champions being invited. Sure, youll get teams that are weak, but then again, the BCS already places weaker teams in the BCS Bowl games anyway..so whats the difference?

Too many games by whose standards?

You do know that in Oklahoma, if you want to be the 6A state champion you have to play 15 games to do so, right? 10 regular season games and 5 state playoff games.

Not sure how true it is, but heard in Texas that one of the smaller divisions they have to play 6 rounds of playoff games. :eek:

So in high school to be considered a state champion you play 15-16 games. The same can be said in D-1AA and on down in the NCAA ranks...as well as the NAIA ranks. But when we start talking about that many games in the premiere college football league, it is too many games. :rolleyes:

Let me guess, your next argument against a playoff is travel expenses for the teams?

Well, you do know that most of the BCS teams this past year, made absolutely no money on the game because they have to buy any unsold tickets to the games. UCONN sold just over 7K tickets I heard, and have to buy over 10K that didnt sell.

You do know that economists did a study and researched this very issue. The BCS only makes half of the potential that a playoff can when it comes to money and revenue for the sport. But hey, its about #1 vs #2, not about money, right?

Good stuff. That is a well thought out proposal and I actually like a lot of it. I really like the idea about reducing the number of D1 teams. Also, I understand that you would have to reduce the number of regular season games (go back to 11) and eliminate the conf. champ. games if you wanted to play the extra 3 playoff games. So, your plan would add any games for the playoff teams, but it would reduce the number of games for ALL of the other teams and thus it would be a hard sell (I realize that you would be the HMFIC but you would still have a tough time with teams giving up all that money).

So, all in all, I think you have a good system (with flaws like every system, but a solid plan that could work if you could get it implemented). Ironically, my plan and your plan are very similar. Since I would still use the conf champ games, then that step would cull my 8 teams down to four. So, we are pretty close on our plans. I just feel like my plan would be easier to get through (since it doesnt eliminate any games and only adds two).

Lastly, to your point about the high school playoffs making teams play 15 or 16 games...well, with all due respect, this ain't high school... :D Seriously, any plan that has 8 or more teams in a playoff will have trouble unless they eliminate some games (as your plan does) because the players are already being pushed to their limits under the current number of games. I would hate to see us "kill the golden goose" just for the sake of a playoff system.

[ouwasp]

I agree with this brazilian percent..

Aww... to heck with them Brazilians! All they like is SOCCER :confused: and nuts:P . Coffee too. They remind me of mooslems.

I'm pro-playoff, but if the feds get involved they'd prolly screw it up by demanding teams from Utah, Idaho, and the East Coast be given automatic slots.
:gary:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I love college football...To take something I already enjoy to the fullest every Saturday in the fall and then make sweeping changes to it and expect it to be the same...The problem is that if you make the changes and they suck, you are stuck with them..

[ashley]

Why are we trying to change the greatest game in the world.

[Osama Bin Laden]

Why are we trying to change the greatest game in the world.

Because believe it or not, the greatest game in the world can be greater.

[MeMyself&Me]

Because believe it or not, the greatest game in the world can be greater.

If it's a playoff that you think makes it better, I would say it only makes it better for people that think a post season tournament is the most important think is sports. The rest of us enjoy college football the way it is now, at least in part because of how unique it is.

[Osama Bin Laden]

If it's a playoff that you think makes it better, I would say it only makes it better for people that think a post season tournament is the most important think is sports. The rest of us enjoy college football the way it is now, at least in part because of how unique it is.

This is exactly the part I don't get. It would still be the same college football you know and love today. What other sport has 120 teams, with 30 having a realistic shot at the championship at the start of the season? A playoff doesn't change that. The only thing that changes by taking the top 8 ranked teams at the end of the season and having them play it out is you have a higher quantity of quality (and let's be honest, meaningful) football at the end of the season. Nothing about the regular season changes. Every game is still life or death, because you're fighting 120 other schools for 8 spots. But instead of only the #1, 2, and 3 ranked teams' games mattering in the last month of the regular season, now the #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 ranked teams' games are life and death. Why wouldn't you want to trade for that? Because once the playoff is set, now the top 2 or 3 or 4 teams that were probably set to make the playoff at the end of the regular season, are now playing in the best type of football there is, playoff football. So yea, in that sense you can say it takes a little away, but don't try and tell me it doesn't do more good than bad. Regular season football is great, but it's not the same as when it's a win or go home environment. But college football is big enough that you really can have the best of both worlds. I mean, you guys remember how much good football was played last bowl season. Every bowl game but ours was the highest quality football. Now imagine that Rose Bowl wasn't a consolation game, and actually had something riding on the line. Like a chance to beat another team next week and then play for the championship. And for the people who say 'but it won't matter, you'll still have people complaining they should have got in', grow the **** up. Who cares if the #9 team thinks it should have got in. It's a hell of a lot better than an undefeated #3 team being given exactly zero chance to win the championship. Case ****ing closed.

[MeMyself&Me]

This is exactly the part I don't get. It would still be the same college football you know and love today. What other sport has 120 teams, with 30 having a realistic shot at the championship at the start of the season? A playoff doesn't change that. The only thing that changes by taking the top 8 ranked teams at the end of the season and having them play it out is you have a higher quantity of quality (and let's be honest, meaningful) football at the end of the season. Nothing about the regular season changes. Every game is still life or death, because you're fighting 120 other schools for 8 spots. But instead of only the #1, 2, and 3 ranked teams' games mattering in the last month of the regular season, now the #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 ranked teams' games are life and death. Why wouldn't you want to trade for that? Because once the playoff is set, now the top 2 or 3 or 4 teams that were probably set to make the playoff at the end of the regular season, are now playing in the best type of football there is, playoff football. So yea, in that sense you can say it takes a little away, but don't try and tell me it doesn't do more good than bad. Regular season football is great, but it's not the same as when it's a win or go home environment. But college football is big enough that you really can have the best of both worlds. I mean, you guys remember how much good football was played last bowl season. Every bowl game but ours was the highest quality football. Now imagine that Rose Bowl wasn't a consolation game, and actually had something riding on the line. Like a chance to beat another team next week and then play for the championship. And for the people who say 'but it won't matter, you'll still have people complaining they should have got in', grow the **** up. Who cares if the #9 team thinks it should have got in. It's a hell of a lot better than an undefeated #3 team being given exactly zero chance to win the championship. Case ****ing closed.

First and foremost, trying to say college football needs to look like other sports will not help you convert those of us that like college football the way it is because we don't agree with you on that point. We like that it is different.

Second, I don't mind discussing a tournament vs non-tournament with people but I would prefer to talk about a tournament that is a realistic possibility. I can't see how an 8 team tournament would ever get the majority of colleges approval because it doesn't satisfy enough of the needs of both the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. I think you really have to be discussing a 16 team tournament for that.

Third, I don't think the best kind of football is playoff football. I think the best kind of football involves a regular season where each game is just as important as any game in the post season.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Sixteen seems like a lot. As I have understood it, an eight team format has the best shot.

[silverwheels]

Third, I don't think the best kind of football is playoff football. I think the best kind of football involves a regular season where each game is just as important as any game in the post season.

Too bad that's not true even with the current system.

[MeMyself&Me]

Sixteen seems like a lot. As I have understood it, an eight team format has the best shot.

The 'big 6' conferences are going to want guaranteed access to that 8 team tourney via conference champions. Without that, they will not support it.

That only leaves 2 spots for at large teams and conference champs from the lesser conferences. I don't think those 2 spots are going to be enough to satisfy both the big conferences desire to have their at large teams access and the lesser conferences desire for inclusion which means neither side would be on board.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Okay, but every conference needs two?

[I Am Right]

NO!

[OU_Sooners75]

Good stuff. That is a well thought out proposal and I actually like a lot of it. I really like the idea about reducing the number of D1 teams. Also, I understand that you would have to reduce the number of regular season games (go back to 11) and eliminate the conf. champ. games if you wanted to play the extra 3 playoff games. So, your plan would add any games for the playoff teams, but it would reduce the number of games for ALL of the other teams and thus it would be a hard sell (I realize that you would be the HMFIC but you would still have a tough time with teams giving up all that money).

So, all in all, I think you have a good system (with flaws like every system, but a solid plan that could work if you could get it implemented). Ironically, my plan and your plan are very similar. Since I would still use the conf champ games, then that step would cull my 8 teams down to four. So, we are pretty close on our plans. I just feel like my plan would be easier to get through (since it doesnt eliminate any games and only adds two).

Lastly, to your point about the high school playoffs making teams play 15 or 16 games...well, with all due respect, this ain't high school... :D Seriously, any plan that has 8 or more teams in a playoff will have trouble unless they eliminate some games (as your plan does) because the players are already being pushed to their limits under the current number of games. I would hate to see us "kill the golden goose" just for the sake of a playoff system.

Maybe, but most teams already play 6 home games...unless your Ohio State and Texas where you play around 8 a season. ;)

Before the advent of conference championships, teams only played 11 games most of the time.

[Bama Yankee]

Maybe, but most teams already play 6 home games...unless your Ohio State and Texas where you play around 8 a season. ;)

Before the advent of conference championships, teams only played 11 games most of the time.

They only added that 12th regular season game five years ago and since they did it for financial reasons, I'm not sure they would be willing to see it go...

From a 2005 article (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801872.html) about adding the 12th game:

The prospect of extending the season had raised the concerns of the reform-minded Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which urged NCAA officials to reject the 12th game until the impact of rigorous new academic standards had become clear. ACC officials unanimously opposed it, arguing that an 11-game season was sufficient for college students. The American Football Coaches Association also lobbied against it, fearing the physical toll it would take on their squads.

But with millions of dollars of untapped revenue at stake, NCAA board members met behind closed doors yesterday and voted, 8-2 with one abstention, in favor of adding a 12th game.


For football powers such as Michigan, Ohio State and Tennessee, which play in 100,000-seat stadiums that dwarf the typical NFL venue, an extra home game could mean more than $3 million per year in additional revenue.

[texaspokieokie]

i think 1970 was 1st year for 11 games.

extra game good for big schools, but for schools that are loosing money, extra game = extra loss.

[OU_Sooners75]

They only added that 12th regular season game five years ago and since they did it for financial reasons, I'm not sure they would be willing to see it go...

From a 2005 article (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801872.html) about adding the 12th game:

The teams that play more home games than away games, it was for money. Anything they do in this sport is about money.

That is also the reason a playoff of some shape or form will most likely happen within the next 10-15 years if not sooner. Money!

Only half of the D-1A teams made extra money with the extra game...the other half had to use what money they got to cover their travel arrangements to that extra game. And if they even made money, then it was not that much...Dont let ticket sales numbers in whole dollar amounts misguide your thinking. That extra game made it where they had to pay concession people, security, event staff, officials, coaches, the visiting team, etc, before making any money on the game. So the money they did make was very little if at all any.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Have we ever had a poll on this subject? What about one about which teams should join the Big XII in the future?