Playoff campaign launched...

[8timechamps]

It's only a matter of time...




WASHINGTON -- Proponents of a college football playoff are launching a new national campaign aimed at taking down the BCS.

The "We Want a Playoff Now" campaign was introduced Thursday on Capitol Hill. It includes the lobbying firm The Moffett Group, headed up by former Rep. Toby Moffett, D-Conn., and the communications firm New Partners.

Along with that effort, two congressmen are forming the Congressional Collegiate Sports Caucus. The congressmen, Texas Republican Joe Barton and Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, are reintroducing Barton's 2009 bill aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system. The longshot bill would ban -- as unfair and deceptive -- the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless it's the outcome of a playoff.

Bowl Championship Series executive director Bill Hancock said that coaches and athletes prefer the bowl system to a postseason tournament, adding that decisions about college sports are best left to those in higher education, not politicians.


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

[badger]

If the SEC was so high and mighty, they would have had their own confernece's playoff to determine which if its mighty teams would take down the rest of the world, similar to USA Basketball sending its "Dream Team" to the Olympics.

Two teams from the same conference is a sham unless there's a playoff.

[LASooner]

I jokingly mentioned months ago that ESPN is secretly behind all the conference realignment for the purposes of bringing down the BCS, and push a playoff agenda they secretly want, while publicly talking about how great the BCS actually is. Now I'm starting to believe that I might have been on to something.


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2274/2404325409_5543da1791.jpg

[Breadburner]

A +1 would have sufficed this year....

[sooneredaco]

IMO it will not happen until some big name college coaches and perhaps former NCAAF players get behind it. Now this may sound crazy, but with all of the media attention that Tebow gets, could you imagine the light he'd shine on this if he got behind it (plus his healing powers couldn't hurt it any)? Tebow, Urban, Stoops, Mac, Saban and others should ban together to make this happen. Them along with influential media types like Rome, Dan Patrick, Bob Costas etc.... Those type of folks along with the both Dems and Reps could make it happen. Then and only then could it actually happen IMO.

[SoonerMom2]

Don't forget the people who call the shots -- college Presidents. Big time donors are not going to make this a reality. Is Pickens behind this?

[the-rover]

Hancock mentions coaches and players prefer the BCS.....I'd like to see some poll numbers. What about the fans of college football? Without the fans, there would be nothing. We, as fans, deserve better.

[OU_Sooners75]

Hancock says it is better left those that are in higher education and not politics....

Well, isn't the vast majority of the D-1A teams public universities funded by state and federal monies? Isn't every school given money from the federal government for grants and loans?

Well, if so, then the federal and state governments have every right to make rules on this.

[OU_Sooners75]

Hancock mentions coaches and players prefer the BCS.....I'd like to see some poll numbers. What about the fans of college football? Without the fans, there would be nothing. We, as fans, deserve better.

Good luck with that...because more and more coaches and players are against the BCS, even some that have benefited from the BCS prejudice.

[Spray]

Count me in.

In 4 years I've gone from wanting the old bowl system back to wanting a 16 team playoff.

I'm so in.

[Jacie]

Bowl Championship Series executive director Bill Hancock said that coaches and athletes prefer the bowl system to a postseason tournament, adding that decisions about college sports are best left to those in higher education, not politicians.

Wait, is this guy suggesting that BCS executives are in any way, besides spending lavish amounts of money on junkets and gifts for college AD's, connected to higher education?

[budbarrybob]

Where's the popcorn emoticon????

[toast]

If they're successful it will be the first thing politicians have accomplished in my lifetime.

[8timechamps]

I jokingly mentioned months ago that ESPN is secretly behind all the conference realignment for the purposes of bringing down the BCS, and push a playoff agenda they secretly want, while publicly talking about how great the BCS actually is. Now I'm starting to believe that I might have been on to something.




Once ESPN has made a decision about which side of the fence they're on, the train can move down the track. I think they've decided that the money a play-off could bring outweighs the BCS money, and now they want a play-off.

I thought the "ESPN Conspiracy" about conference realignment was funny, until it started happening. Now I think it's just the way things are with ESPN being the biggest kid on the block and all...

[Sooner74]

It didn't start with congress that's for sure. It is in my personal knowledge that some very well known people have been talking behind the scenes and the NCAA is actually already in the process of being sued for the BCS. They just don't say that on ESPN cause ESPN doesn't know jack. ESPN doesn't have an investigative bone in their body. ESPN has also been known to squash stories about playoffs unless they have an agenda in mind.

[mainline13]

Hancock says it is better left those that are in higher education and not politics....

Well, isn't the vast majority of the D-1A teams public universities funded by state and federal monies? Isn't every school given money from the federal government for grants and loans?

Well, if so, then the federal and state governments have every right to make rules on this.

If we were talking about GE College Bowl, I would agree. Or, let's put it this way: The federal government gave all taxpayers a rebate; so that gives the federal government the right to control their personal lives. That work for you, too?


The point, I believe, was that elected officials should have some higher priority items to address.

[Caboose]

Oh great politicians have joined the mindless playoff cult. This will end well.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Don't forget the people who call the shots -- college Presidents. Big time donors are not going to make this a reality. No shiite. Taking this issue up with congress, the courts, or any part of govt. is Babba Streisand! The change should be through the NCAA. It is CLEARLY NOT A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT.

[SoonerMom2]

More Government control is not the answer -- some members of Congress want everything going through them they don't like. Congress needs to fix the Government making it smaller with less regulations. When they can do a budget every year, then I might listen but the Senate has not done a budget since the fall of 2007 and this is the House's fist budget since then as well. Why would we listen to a group of people who cannot even pass a budget?

[Scott D]

Congress can't even handle running this country correctly, anyone who wants them involved in trying to "fix" college football really wanted to live in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign.

[badger]

Don't forget the people who call the shots -- college Presidents. Big time donors are not going to make this a reality. Is Pickens behind this?

College presidents are very much beholden to who pays the bills, though --- in the case of public institutions, that's the state legislatures and the big money donors. I would think that since students' tuition burdens are more and more getting handled by federal loans, and many universities also rely on government research grants, even private school presidents might be a tad bit obliged to listen to Congress, as they don't want those money spigots turned off.

College president's eyes also get really big when money is waved in their faces. A playoff is a potentially VERY lucrative venture compared to the bowl system, because bowls usually don't make money for universities. But home playoff games, or payouts for visiting another university for a playoff game? Score!

[8timechamps]

First, this isn't a Congressional issue. So, those of you worked up about the way Congress is spending their time, you can relax. The campaign is being fueled by lobbyist...and we all know that lobbyist are the root of most evil in Washington. However, they have a much better chance of getting the issue moving than polls that show fans want a playoff.

At some point the good old boy network (that runs the BCS) will be gone (their not exactly spring chickens), and a younger group of folks will be in place to advance the playoff agenda. Needless to say, the BCS as we know it won't be around next year.

[StoopTroup]

If they're successful it will be the first thing politicians have accomplished in my lifetime.


lol

[StoopTroup]

Needless to say, the BCS as we know it won't be around next year.

What does as we know it mean? There are so many folks who run these Bowl to contend with that I really find it hard to believe that their way of life and the Refs who are involved and the local communities of the Bowls will all suddenly come to an agreement to make significant changes to their agreements with the Conferences and TV Networks by next year.

[OU_Sooners75]

If we were talking about GE College Bowl, I would agree. Or, let's put it this way: The federal government gave all taxpayers a rebate; so that gives the federal government the right to control their personal lives. That work for you, too?


The point, I believe, was that elected officials should have some higher priority items to address.

Where does the government not control what we do?

I can't drive a car without a license, in which they can revoke for whatever reason they wish.
I cannot drive a car while talking on a phone or blaring my radio.
I cannot operate a vehicle legally without my seat belt fastened.
I cannot walk across the street without using a sidewalk.
I cannot smoke in any restaurant I wish to.
If I am uninsured, then the government will give me insurance...in which they tell me what doctors I can and cant visit. They also tell me what treatments they will pay for and if some isn't covered then I am screwed.

You may live in a fantasy world under the pretense of freedom, but how free are you? Yes, you can say what you wish, within reason. You can assemble. You can vote.

But that is about as far (Minus a few others) your freedoms go!

[oudavid1]

Green Bay is the best team in the NFL. Dallas beats them in the Super Bowl.
LSU pummels Bama in MNC.

Which is more controversial?

Playoffs are for teams who are not consistent all year long. Could you imagine an OU QB going for a Heisman but is rested because we clinched home field. Yawn. System is fine.

[OU_Sooners75]

Green Bay is the best team in the NFL. Dallas beats them in the Super Bowl.
LSU pummels Bama in MNC.

Which is more controversial?

Playoffs are for teams who are not consistent all year long. Could you imagine an OU QB going for a Heisman but is rested because we clinched home field. Yawn. System is fine.

This is the biggest load of bull**** I have ever heard!

Ask your UCO footbal buddies who the NCAA D2 national champion was! Was it the #1 team heading into the playoffs or the Gorillas of Pittsburgh State (KS)?

Ask the players of 4A Oklahoma High School football who the State Champion was?
Ask the same for A?

Ask the players of D3 who the champion was, do the same for D-1AA.

You may be surprised how little controversy there is in the leagues that have a championship playoff.

[OU_Sooners75]

Point is David, a Champion raises to the occasion not for just one game, but for all games that matter the most!

[oudavid1]

This is the biggest load of bull**** I have ever heard!

Ask your UCO footbal buddies who the NCAA D2 national champion was! Was it the #1 team heading into the playoffs or the Gorillas of Pittsburgh State (KS)?
Comparing D1 top tier to D2 top tier is a joke.

Ask the players of 4A Oklahoma High School football who the State Champion was?
Ask the same for A?

Ask the players of D3 who the champion was, do the same for D-1AA.

You may be surprised how little controversy there is in the leagues that have a championship playoff.

Ok, so do we need a playoff to know that Wisc-Whitewater and Mount Union need to play for title?
Same with LSU, Alabama, and OSU late this season.
OSU vs ISU was a good watch because it mattered. Alabama vs Arky Mattered, OU vs OSU mattered.


Point is David, a Champion raises to the occasion not for just one game, but for all games that matter the most!

Or get the lucky bounce, lucky injury to other team, or referees help?
I want the team that showed consistently it was better.

Fans wont rush the field for playoff berths in October. Sorry, I dont want college football diluted like the NFL just because the SEC out-recruits everyone else and has more than one team committed to good defense.

[OU_Sooners75]

Ok, so do we need a playoff to know that Wisc-Whitewater and Mount Union need to play for title?
Same with LSU, Alabama, and OSU late this season.
OSU vs ISU was a good watch because it mattered. Alabama vs Arky Mattered, OU vs OSU mattered.

You failed to answer the D2 question...
You say the OSU vs. ISU mater, but you failed to mention that the LSU vs. Bama game mattered...essentially it didnt. What about the 8 games OSU won against teams with winning records.

You can choke your chicken thinking of the BCS all you want...fact is the system in place right now is not determined on the field, but in the minds of humans. You can say the season matters til you are blue in the face...but when you allow a team that did not even win their division, let alone conference in the "National Championship Game" it is not a championship game.






Or get the lucky bounce, lucky injury to other team, or referees help?
I want the team that showed consistently it was better.

Fans wont rush the field for playoff berths in October. Sorry, I dont want college football diluted like the NFL just because the SEC out-recruits everyone else and has more than one team committed to good defense.

You want to talk about lucky bounces....what is more luckier than Bama losing at home to LSU and getting the chance to play them again for the MNC?

Fans don't need to be rushing the fields period...name the last time that has happened at OU!

You say you don't want CFB diluted like the NFL....

1. There are 4 times the amount of teams.
2. Less than 2% of the teams get a chance to win a national championship.
3. Human Bias and the Bull Crap System does more to ruin the sport than anything else!

Like I said, I understand your fascination of the BCS...I really do...but I don't understand why you think it is a good system...it has way more flaws than any other determination of a champion in any sport, world wide!

I guess you think the Yankees and Red Sox were the two teams in the Majors last year?


Oh, and the $EC doesn't out recruit anyone...they skirt the rules and get away with it. They also have a knack, in fact all but 3 $EC teams, to over sign players and to cut players they gave a scholarship for if they are not meeting expectations.

$EC is very unethical when it comes to recruiting.


I fail to see your man love for the $EC!

[jkjsooner]

Green Bay is the best team in the NFL. Dallas beats them in the Super Bowl.
LSU pummels Bama in MNC.

Which is more controversial?

Ignoring the fact that you have two NFC teams playing in the Super Bowl....


Mighty convenient of you to say that Dallas beats Green Bay yet LSU beats Bama.

I'll turn that around on you. How about if Green Bay beats Dallas and Bama beats LSU. Now which is more controversial.

If you're going to make up a hypothetical at least make a fair one. Assuming an upset in the pros and not in college is stacking the deck for your side. Unfortunately I've seen you make these types of arguments far too often so I'm beginning to question whether you have the mental capacity to even recognize that you're stacking the deck in your favor.


Playoffs are for teams who are not consistent all year long. Could you imagine an OU QB going for a Heisman but is rested because we clinched home field. Yawn. System is fine.

In a 4 or 8 team playoff, no team would have the luxury to guarantee home field advantage prior to the last game of the year. If that were possible it would be very rare.

Again, you keep bringing up situations from the pros that simply would not be appicable in most college playoffs.

[oudavid1]

You failed to answer the D2 question...
You say the OSU vs. ISU mater, but you failed to mention that the LSU vs. Bama game mattered...essentially it didnt. What about the 8 games OSU won against teams with winning records.

They all mattered. LSU beating Bama put them in SEC championship. D2 football is not D1 football so I found it irrelevant

You can choke your chicken[great expression] thinking of the BCS all you want...fact is the system in place right now is not determined on the field, but in the minds of humans. You can say the season matters til you are blue in the face...but when you allow a team that did not even win their division, let alone conference in the "National Championship Game" it is not a championship game.
[other teams like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State decided their fates on the field by losing to teams we would all agree they are still better than. Alabama and LSU did their jobs.]






You want to talk about lucky bounces....what is more luckier than Bama losing at home to LSU and getting the chance to play them again for the MNC?
[They are only lucky that LSU didnt lose, which LSU didnt]
Fans don't need to be rushing the fields period...name the last time that has happened at OU!
[2000, I believe Oklahoma won a championship game that year]
You say you don't want CFB diluted like the NFL....

1. There are 4 times the amount of teams.
2. Less than 2% of the teams get a chance to win a national championship.
3. Human Bias and the Bull Crap System does more to ruin the sport than anything else!

Like I said, I understand your fascination of the BCS...I really do...but I don't understand why you think it is a good system...it has way more flaws than any other determination of a champion in any sport, world wide!
[I like it because it makes every game matter and that is the only reason why. College football is the only sport without practice games or playoffs and it has the biggest stadiums of any major sport and the most "religious" followings. College football is more intense than the NFL]
I guess you think the Yankees and Red Sox were the two teams in the Majors last year?
[I am a Yankee fan, but no, there are 30 I believe.]

Oh, and the $EC doesn't out recruit anyone...they skirt the rules and get away with it. They also have a knack, in fact all but 3 $EC teams, to over sign players and to cut players they gave a scholarship for if they are not meeting expectations.

$EC is very unethical when it comes to recruiting.


I fail to see your man love for the $EC!

[I love winning, not more than everything, but more than a lot. And the SEC just voted to not allow their own teams to do that anymore. And they out-recruit and out-develop their talent. They consistently have the best defensive talent. I love defense. ]

[sooneredaco]

Silly argument David...

Cardinals were not the nest team in baseball all year, but they are without a doubt World Champions. The Mavericks were not the best team in the NBA all year but they are world champions.

[oudavid1]

Ignoring the fact that you have two NFC teams playing in the Super Bowl....
[I tried using a team that was relevant to fans in my area, oops]

Mighty convenient of you to say that Dallas beats Green Bay yet LSU beats Bama.

I'll turn that around on you. How about if Green Bay beats Dallas and Bama beats LSU. Now which is more controversial.

[Neither, One of the top 2 teams in both leagues won a title.]

If you're going to make up a hypothetical at least make a fair one. Assuming an upset in the pros and not in college is stacking the deck for your side. Unfortunately I've seen you make these types of arguments far too often so I'm beginning to question whether you have the mental capacity to even recognize that you're stacking the deck in your favor.
[Would you like me to stack it against me?]


In a 4 or 8 team playoff, no team would have the luxury to guarantee home field advantage prior to the last game of the year. If that were possible it would be very rare.
[8 team or 4 team playoff dosnt bother me much (since I am the one your talking too), I would prefer a 4 team though. But I would rather see every single game count as well as SOS matter. But that is just me.]

Again, you keep bringing up situations from the pros that simply would not be appicable in most college playoffs.
[Like what, I am reading and typing a lot so i get lost on what your talking about]

.

[oudavid1]

Silly argument David...

Cardinals were not the nest team in baseball all year, but they are without a doubt World Champions. The Mavericks were not the best team in the NBA all year but they are world champions.

Most people argue that MLB and NBA seasons are too long and a waste and only for money. NFL and NCAAF seasons most say are not long enough. Not comparable in my mind. In the curent system, NBA and MLB are marathons, NCAAF is a sprint. You cannot let up. Which is more exciting, a sprint or a marathon?

[jkjsooner]

Ok, so do we need a playoff to know that Wisc-Whitewater and Mount Union need to play for title?

Maybe. Maybe there's a one or two loss team who played a much tougher schedule. Maybe some years a 10-2 team who played an absolutely brutal schedule is better than two undefeated teams. We have no way to know.


Or get the lucky bounce, lucky injury to other team, or referees help?
I want the team that showed consistently it was better.

But this ignores the fact that a single loss will often knock a team of the national title game. That means a lucky bounce, lucky injury, or referee's help is even more likely in college as it just has to happen in one game to alter a team's fortunes.

Assuming few teams in a playoff, it would be hard to argue that the winning team didn't have the best season.

Take this year, let's assume we had a four team playoff and OSU beat Bama and then LSU in the playoff. Would you argue that anyone had a better year than OSU?

What all four teams accomplished throughout the season is close enough that the winner of such a tournament could easily argue that they had the best year - even when considering the playoff games on an equal basis with regular season games.

But, anyway, you'll keep bringing up NFL scenarios that simply have no relevance to a college football playoff...

[OU_Sooners75]

[I love winning, not more than everything, but more than a lot. And the SEC just voted to not allow their own teams to do that anymore. And they out-recruit and out-develop their talent. They consistently have the best defensive talent. I love defense. ]

yet, you found d3 relevant so you commented on it?

David, I appreciate your opinion, I really do...but it is a very flawed and brainwashed opinion.

[OU_Sooners75]

10 years ago, the Big 12 had the best defensive talent...it goes in cycles.

Just like 10-15 years ago, the SEC was pass happy and the Big 12 was run happy.

[jkjsooner]

Would you like me to stack it against me?

No but if your argument has merit it should stand on its own without stacking the deck in your favor.

If you stack the deck as you did, people who are smart enough to detect that you did it will simply dismiss your argument.

[oudavid1]

yet, you found d3 relevant so you commented on it?

David, I appreciate your opinion, I really do...but it is a very flawed and brainwashed opinion.

YOU KNOW WHAT!!!.....you might have a point there. I grew up on this BCS. That is really why I like it.


10 years ago, the Big 12 had the best defensive talent...it goes in cycles.

Just like 10-15 years ago, the SEC was pass happy and the Big 12 was run happy.

I really hope your right. And remember, nine 10 years ago. I like to study a little football history, but right now computer science takes up my free time.

[oudavid1]

No but if your argument has merit it should stand on its own without stacking the deck in your favor.

If you stack the deck as you did, people who are smart enough to detect that you did it will simply dismiss your argument.

If this argument(playoff vs BCS) had enough merit to stand on its own, it wouldn't be argued about like this.

[jkjsooner]

Silly argument David...

Cardinals were not the nest team in baseball all year, but they are without a doubt World Champions. The Mavericks were not the best team in the NBA all year but they are world champions.

Take out the "world" in those statements and I'll agree with you.

When I worked on a project with European firms we talked sports all the time. There were three complaints we often got:


Why do you call your game football.
Why do they wear armor. (Yes, they called it armor.)
Why are you so American-centric that you call your champions "world" champions.


The first two absolutely drove me nuts. The last one, well, they have a very good point.

[oudavid1]

Take out the "world" in those statements and I'll agree with you.

When I worked on a project with European firms we talked sports all the time. There were three complaints we often got:


Why do you call your game football.
Why do they wear armor. (Yes, they called it armor.)
Why are you so American-centric that you call your champions "world" champions.


The first two absolutely drove me nuts. The last one, well, they have a very good point.

Tell em to get a team together and let us know the time in place. -Green Bay Packers (obviously I am not really speaking for Packers)

US is dominate in Olympic sports such as Basketball. Hockey, not so much. They have us there.

[starclassic tama]

it's not arrogant to call our football team world champions. i'd unload the farm on the packers -63 against the world team. basketball is still dominate, but i would hesitate to call the NBA champion the world champion considering the USA has lost in basketball in the past 10 years.

[jkjsooner]

Tell em to get a team together and let us know the time in place. -Green Bay Packers (obviously I am not really speaking for Packers)

US is dominate in Olympic sports such as Basketball. Hockey, not so much. They have us there.

We haven't exactly been dominant in basketball as of late. We won in Beijing thanks to Coach K's leadership but prior to that we had been very disappointing for over a decade. That's kind of irrelevant as many (but no longer all) of the great international players play in the NBA.

But, anyway, being the best team at something does not qualify one to call themselves world champion unless there is actually a world-wide competition.

As for American/Canadian football, sure no team outside the US could beat the Green Bay Packers but considering American/Canadian football is played so sparingly outside the US and Canada (it has a decent following in Germany and Japan and is a minor sport is some other countries) calling it a world championship is kind of lame. It's like the Gaelic football or hurling teams calling themselves world champions. Sure they're the best teams in the world but it's hardly a worldwide competition.

I might as well make up a sport in my back yard and call myself a world champion...

[jkjsooner]

it's not arrogant to call our football team world champions. i'd unload the farm on the packers -63 against the world team. basketball is still dominate, but i would hesitate to call the NBA champion the world champion considering the USA has lost in basketball in the past 10 years.

The problem with basketball is that there is a world championship and I would dare say those teams would beat the NBA's best team considering those teams are comprised of NBA all-stars in addition to stars from other professional leagues.

[sooneron]

Count me in.

In 4 years I've gone from wanting the old bowl system back to wanting a 16 team playoff.

I'm so in.

16? Uh, no! You might want to realize that there are currently 4 teams with 3 losses in the top 16. No team with that many losses deserves a shot. Let's not make this "feel good little league everybody gets a trophy" crap.

Maybe 8.

[SoonerorLater]

I haven't been a proponent of the playoff system because it creates about as many problems as it solves. For all of the acrimony directed at the BCS they have done remarkably well putting the teams on the field with the best body of work for the year. A system that works for the NFL wouldn't necessarily translate to College Football. If anything I would prefer to go back to the way championships were decided pre BCS with a few modifications in the polls.

[jkjsooner]

I haven't been a proponent of the playoff system because it creates about as many problems as it solves. For all of the acrimony directed at the BCS they have done remarkably well putting the teams on the field with the best body of work for the year. A system that works for the NFL wouldn't necessarily translate to College Football. If anything I would prefer to go back to the way championships were decided pre BCS with a few modifications in the polls.

Ugh. You mean the days when the top 2 teams didn't always meet in a bowl game? The days when a #1 ranked independent could avoid the #2 team if they felt their margin was sufficient?

Or are you saying the Bowl Coalition days when we had #1 and #2 match up - unless they happened to be from the PAC 10 or Big 10?

No thanks.

[PLaw]

You failed to answer the D2 question...
You say the OSU vs. ISU mater, but you failed to mention that the LSU vs. Bama game mattered...essentially it didnt. What about the 8 games OSU won against teams with winning records.

You can choke your chicken thinking of the BCS all you want...fact is the system in place right now is not determined on the field, but in the minds of humans. You can say the season matters til you are blue in the face...but when you allow a team that did not even win their division, let alone conference in the "National Championship Game" it is not a championship game.







You want to talk about lucky bounces....what is more luckier than Bama losing at home to LSU and getting the chance to play them again for the MNC?

Fans don't need to be rushing the fields period...name the last time that has happened at OU!

You say you don't want CFB diluted like the NFL....

1. There are 4 times the amount of teams.
2. Less than 2% of the teams get a chance to win a national championship.
3. Human Bias and the Bull Crap System does more to ruin the sport than anything else!

Like I said, I understand your fascination of the BCS...I really do...but I don't understand why you think it is a good system...it has way more flaws than any other determination of a champion in any sport, world wide!

I guess you think the Yankees and Red Sox were the two teams in the Majors last year?


Oh, and the $EC doesn't out recruit anyone...they skirt the rules and get away with it. They also have a knack, in fact all but 3 $EC teams, to over sign players and to cut players they gave a scholarship for if they are not meeting expectations.

$EC is very unethical when it comes to recruiting.


I fail to see your man love for the $EC!

True, CFB is and always has been eye candy. The only way to crown a true champion is with a playoff system. Until then, it is all mythical.

BOOMER

[jkjsooner]

I'm going to go back to my most unique plan.

Split division 1 into 6 groups of 20 teams with as many common conference teams in the same grouping as possible. (The reason for this grouping revealed later.)

Each team is responsible for scheduling 9 games. Mostly these would be conference games with one non-conference games. The non-conference game gives the independents plenty of options to fill their 9 game schedule.

After this part of the schedule is completed, we enter a stage of four games pitting like-vs-like competition. 9-0 teams would be matched with 9-0 teams (as much as possible). Each week the schedule would be reorganized with like vs like.

The six grouping would identify when teams get a home game or an away game. This would be predefined for logistical purposes.

Group 1 - HHAA
Group 2 - HAHA
Group 3 - HAAH
Group 4 - AHAH
Group 5 - AHHA
Group 6 - AAHH

Teams from the same grouping could not meet in this scenario because of their matching H/A dates. That's why common conference members would be matched in the same group as you would not want rematches anyway.

After this, you would have the BCS/bowls as normal.

In this system:


Good teams would play more big games.
The cream would truly rise to the top and this system would be very effective in determining where all teams stand - no matter how easy or tough their first 9 games were.
The bell curve of wins would be "squeezed" as bad teams play bad teams and good teams play good teams.
Even though top teams would have more losses, the regular season would remain supremely important.


This will never happen as it's too radical of a change but I do think it would lead to a very exciting season. Twice at the end of the season you would travel to an away game without knowing where you would be going until a week before the game. Obviously that would be a logistical challenge. You would also have to come up with the algorithm to pit teams against each other and it would have to include rules against rematches. You'd probably want to adjust the "like vs like" component at the bottom end of the scale as nobody would be interested in finding out who the worst team was and this would in fact do that.

[SoonerorLater]

[QUOTE=jkjsooner;3427448]Ugh. You mean the days when the top 2 teams didn't always meet in a bowl game? The days when a #1 ranked independent could avoid the #2 team if they felt their margin was sufficient?

Or are you saying the Bowl Coalition days when we had #1 and #2 match up - unless they happened to be from the PAC 10 or Big 10?

Actually I was thinking about even before that when the champions were decided based on the regular season before the bowl games. Before the flaming starts let me say that this was a system that was in place when Oklahoma came to prominence. It worked very well for OU. Another reason I think this would be good is that it gives teams the incentive to schedule tough OOC games. No more patsy schedules hoping to get in and win one bowl game. It would make the regular season even more important than it is. The teams that win championships would have to risk it all every week to build a resume.

I would change the voting for the polls. I would go back to using the AP and I would still use the coaches poll but include Division II coaches also since they may have less on an axe to grind. Throw out the top and bottom 5 percent of each poll. College Football just lends itself to a more subjective determination of a champion even though I know a lot of people just aren't going to be happy without a playoff..

[SoonerorLater]

True, CFB is and always has been eye candy. The only way to crown a true champion is with a playoff system. Until then, it is all mythical.

BOOMER

Yes but that is the beauty of college football. The never ending debate about who is best. That's why I love college football so much more than the NFL. There is nothing wrong with some ambiguity. It's what makes it interesting.

[rekamrettuB]

A +1 would have sufficed this year....
Really? Ask LSU if they would think a +1 would suffice this year. A few years, yes...2007, 2008 come to mind. 2009 Texas/Bama...no need for a +1. 2002 OSU/Miam...no need. That's the thing is people say a certain scenario would work for "this" year but when you go back it's just as screwed up in others.

And what is a "+1" To me a +1 is play all the bowl games and whoever comes out #1 and #2 meet. Or are you saying a +1 is simply a 4 team playoff? 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3, winner vs winner? If so, this year everyone saying Bama doesn't deserve it because they didn't win their conference is now extending that to 2 teams that didn't win their conference in a 4 team playoff. I bet Oregon would be pretty pissed off about beating Stanford, winning the Pac XII, and the only reason they aren't in it is they lost game 1 to the #1 seed...same as Bama. Yep...a 4 team playoff this year would remove all doubt.

Bottom line is without tearing all the conferences apart and setting them up equal, college football is not set up for a playoff.

[sooneron]

Really? Ask LSU if they would think a +1 would suffice this year. A few years, yes...2007, 2008 come to mind. 2009 Texas/Bama...no need for a +1. 2002 OSU/Miam...no need. That's the thing is people say a certain scenario would work for "this" year but when you go back it's just as screwed up in others.

What about 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006? See? in the MAJORITY of years, it could make sense. That's what counts, the majority of instances.


And what is a "+1" To me a +1 is play all the bowl games and whoever comes out #1 and #2 meet. Or are you saying a +1 is simply a 4 team playoff? 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3, winner vs winner? If so, this year everyone saying Bama doesn't deserve it because they didn't win their conference is now extending that to 2 teams that didn't win their conference in a 4 team playoff. I bet Oregon would be pretty pissed off about beating Stanford, winning the Pac XII, and the only reason they aren't in it is they lost game 1 to the #1 seed...same as Bama. Yep...a 4 team playoff this year would remove all doubt.
Uh, didn't oregon lose to usc, as well?



Bottom line is without tearing all the conferences apart and setting them up equal, college football is not set up for a playoff.

Disagree. Look at the AFC West/AFC South/NFC West this year... All divisions in the nfl are not equal.

[jkjsooner]

Before the flaming starts let me say that this was a system that was in place when Oklahoma came to prominence. It worked very well for OU.

No it didn't. The only way Wilkinson's teams were given a shot at a title was for them to go undefeated the previous year. (49/50, 54/55, 55/56)

I would have been nice to at least have a chance in 1949 and 1954.

Sure we wouldn't have won the 1950 title under the current system but we may have won the 1949 and 1954 titles.

And, frankly, I don't want what "worked well for OU". I want the most fair system that crowns the most deserving team.

[jkjsooner]

If so, this year everyone saying Bama doesn't deserve it because they didn't win their conference is now extending that to 2 teams that didn't win their conference in a 4 team playoff.

I for one have never said that. I think requiring a team to win their conference is a ridiculous requirement and could yield undesirable results.

Afterall, you have a system that you feel identifies the 2/4/8 whatever best teams. Requiring a conference championship is simply a hurdle from getting the best X teams.


I bet Oregon would be pretty pissed off about beating Stanford, winning the Pac XII, and the only reason they aren't in it is they lost game 1 to the #1 seed

Oregon had their chance. They lost two games. Had LSU been a conference game then Stanford would have been in the PAC 12 championship game.

As a person outside the PAC 12, when discussing who should be represented in a national title game or playoff, it makes no sense for me to concern myself on whether the LSU/Oregon game was a conference game or not.

And that points to the exact reason why I don't want to require conference champions. Stanford had a better season than Oregon. Non-conference games should not determine a conaference championship. They should play a role in any national title considerations - whether it be a single game or a four/eight/whatever team playoff.

I have no problem with Stanford being in above Oregon. Oregon could have lost all three non-conference games and won the PAC 12. That would not mean they were more deserving than Stanford.

[rekamrettuB]

What about 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006? See? in the MAJORITY of years, it could make sense. That's what counts, the majority of instances.

Could make sense...key word is could.

2001? 10-2 Colorado deserved a shot?
2003? Why would 10-2 Michigan deserve a shot at LSU? OU? USC?
2004? Did Texas deserve another shot? Same Bama argument.
2006? Did 10-2 LSU deserve a shot?

A lot of the years you discuss the #4 team really doesn't deserve it when you look at the entire season. That's the deal is you open it up for those teams that may not be as deserving. Then if some of the #4 teams above get in...guess what...people will start screaming that #5-8 deserve a shot. Then it's 16...we've seen it with the basketball tourney.


Uh, didn't oregon lose to usc, as well?
Sorry...meant to put their only "other" loss...the loss that puts them behind a Stanford team that they dominated and beat for their conference championship.



Disagree. Look at the AFC West/AFC South/NFC West this year... All divisions in the nfl are not equal.
4 teams in each divison means equal. I wasn't saying break them into even powers because it would be impossible from year to year.

You either have to tear it all done and build it from scratch with some type of common structure or it won't even be close to fair.

[rekamrettuB]

I for one have never said that. I think requiring a team to win their conference is a ridiculous requirement and could result undesirable results.

I haven't either. I think Bama deserves to be in from what I've seen but most of the anti-Bama/rematch talk has fallen back on not winning their conference...and followed up with "we need a playoff with the top 4". People are arguing for a playoff and think this year proves there should be one. This is not a good year for a playoff argument. 2007, 2008 for sure were. College football is a different beast because of conference affiliations.

[oudavid1]

We haven't exactly been dominant in basketball as of late. We won in Beijing thanks to Coach K's leadership but prior to that we had been very disappointing for over a decade. That's kind of irrelevant as many (but no longer all) of the great international players play in the NBA.

But, anyway, being the best team at something does not qualify one to call themselves world champion unless there is actually a world-wide competition.

As for American/Canadian football, sure no team outside the US could beat the Green Bay Packers but considering American/Canadian football is played so sparingly outside the US and Canada (it has a decent following in Germany and Japan and is a minor sport is some other countries) calling it a world championship is kind of lame. It's like the Gaelic football or hurling teams calling themselves world champions. Sure they're the best teams in the world but it's hardly a worldwide competition.

I might as well make up a sport in my back yard and call myself a world champion...

Thats how I became the worlds greatest holder.

[OU_Sooners75]

YOU KNOW WHAT!!!.....you might have a point there. I grew up on this BCS. That is really why I like it.



I really hope your right. And remember, nine 10 years ago. I like to study a little football history, but right now computer science takes up my free time.

Look at the history. Sorry classes taking up all your time...but:

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?doWhat=archive&sportCode=MFB have fun!


Just going off scoring and total defenses:

2001:
Scoring defense: Big 12: 2 top 5, 4 top 10, 5 top 15, 6 top 30. SEC: 1 top 5, 2 top 15, 5 top 30
Total Defense: Big 12: 3 top 5, 5 top 10, 5 top 30. SEC: 0 top 5, 1 top 10, 2 top 30.


The take over by the SEC happened in 2003. But even then, it has not been every single year.

2008, they were not the best defensive conference. 2010 they weren't the best defensive conference.
2005, they weren't the best defensive conference.

2003 also marked a transition in their offensive philosophies from their west coast run and gun offenses to more power set and pro set offenses.

People want to pretend that the SEC is all this greatness simply because 5 different teams (soon to be 6) have had wonderful or record setting seasons by their standards.

You can go further back.

There have only been a total of 2 decades since WWII that the SEC as a conference has been dominant. The rest were switched between the Big 8 (now big 12), and the Big 10. With the occasional few year runs of the Pac-8 (now Pac-12).

Big 8 has had 90s, (Nebraska and KSU the better part the entire decade)...1970s with OU and Nebraska. 1980s with OU and Nebraska and even Colorado showing signs late in the decade. 1950s was all Big 8 (or big 6 or 7 whatever it was called back then).

SEC has the last half of the 2000s (a decade that was dominated in the first half by the Big 12). 1960s mainly by Bama...and the 1970s can be said they were second best. This is really all the SEC has had when talking best conferences.

[OU_Sooners75]

Tell em to get a team together and let us know the time in place. -Green Bay Packers (obviously I am not really speaking for Packers)

US is dominate in Olympic sports such as Basketball. Hockey, not so much. They have us there.

In all Fairness,the NHL is closer to being a true world champion since there are teams in more than one country.

[OU_Sooners75]

it's not arrogant to call our football team world champions. i'd unload the farm on the packers -63 against the world team. basketball is still dominate, but i would hesitate to call the NBA champion the world champion considering the USA has lost in basketball in the past 10 years.

But then again you are talking all-star type teams vs. each other...not one team that plays a season together.

I would take Thunder or Mavs or any other top NBA team vs any European team!

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm going to go back to my most unique plan.

Split division 1 into 6 groups of 20 teams with as many common conference teams in the same grouping as possible. (The reason for this grouping revealed later.)

Each team is responsible for scheduling 9 games. Mostly these would be conference games with one non-conference games. The non-conference game gives the independents plenty of options to fill their 9 game schedule.

After this part of the schedule is completed, we enter a stage of four games pitting like-vs-like competition. 9-0 teams would be matched with 9-0 teams (as much as possible). Each week the schedule would be reorganized with like vs like.

The six grouping would identify when teams get a home game or an away game. This would be predefined for logistical purposes.

Group 1 - HHAA
Group 2 - HAHA
Group 3 - HAAH
Group 4 - AHAH
Group 5 - AHHA
Group 6 - AAHH

Teams from the same grouping could not meet in this scenario because of their matching H/A dates. That's why common conference members would be matched in the same group as you would not want rematches anyway.

After this, you would have the BCS/bowls as normal.

In this system:

Good teams would play more big games.
The cream would truly rise to the top and this system would be very effective in determining where all teams stand - no matter how easy or tough their first 9 games were.
The bell curve of wins would be "squeezed" as bad teams play bad teams and good teams play good teams.
Even though top teams would have more losses, the regular season would remain supremely important.

This will never happen as it's too radical of a change but I do think it would lead to a very exciting season. Twice at the end of the season you would travel to an away game without knowing where you would be going until a week before the game. Obviously that would be a logistical challenge. You would also have to come up with the algorithm to pit teams against each other and it would have to include rules against rematches. You'd probably want to adjust the "like vs like" component at the bottom end of the scale as nobody would be interested in finding out who the worst team was and this would in fact do that.

yeah, that idea of yours would never come to fruition....in any league!

[LASooner]

Tell em to get a team together and let us know the time in place. -Green Bay Packers (obviously I am not really speaking for Packers)

US is dominate in Olympic sports such as Basketball. Hockey, not so much. They have us there.

In the early 2000s a group of NFL-Alumni went to Australia and played some ex-pro Australian rules players in Australian rules football and they lost by 1 point, having never really played the game. The Aussies were supposed to come back to the US the next year and play American football, it never happened. Armor or not, NFL players are beasts, the "armor" makes it easier to hit harder. There was an episode of sports science that proved that it's significantly more dangerous to play with pads than without.

[oudavid1]

yeah, that idea of yours would never come to fruition....in any league!

GREAT WORD. Just saying.


In the early 2000s a group of NFL-Alumni went to Australia and played some ex-pro Australian rules players in Australian rules football and they lost by 1 point, having never really played the game. The Aussies were supposed to come back to the US the next year and play American football, it never happened. Armor or not, NFL players are beasts, the "armor" makes it easier to hit harder. There was an episode of sports science that proved that it's significantly more dangerous to play with pads than without.

Honey badger dont care, he'll play 11 bears covered in salmon.

[OU_Sooners75]

GREAT WORD. Just saying.

You mocking me?

[oudavid1]

You mocking me?

No really, I like that word.

[OU_Sooners75]

No really, I like that word.

That's what I thought.

:texan: