PHONE'S RINGING -- IT'S URBAN ON THE LINE
The take-away from the BCS NC game (which again I didn't watch -- ESPiN is not going to spoon-feed me an S-E-C circlejerk and tell me it's the game of the century).
If/when this playoff thing comes about -- ONLY CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS GET SEEDED. No rematches of in-conference games. Ever. Humble has been saying this for months. He's right.
And FWIW, I don't think every conference champion deserves to be in the discussion every year (looking at you ACC, Big East, and the non-AQs). In fact, this probably was a year when the B1G shouldn't have been considered. (No slam against Wisky or Sparty. It was just a down year for the conference.)
Now then... ND, BYU, Army, & Navy -- what are your plans? And no you don't get an exception.
I saw this buckshot and I immediately jumped in to repeat for the millionth time my desire that only conference champions are included. But I see you already echoed that for me NC! Thanks for the hat tip!
Like I've said forever, a four team playoff of the four highest ranked conference champs. Nothing more. It will avoid controversy - so long as everyone has access, no one is going to complain - and it will ensure that the regular season is still important (and conference games even more important, especially late in the season). Higher seeds get homefield advantage. Play the Final Four the same day as Army-Navy (second week of December). Losers automatically go to BCS bowls. Winners meet in the BCS Championship Game.
Humble: I 'm usually skeptical about a playoff, but like that format - a semifinal before the bowls, the bowls, then the CG. Has there much discussion/chatter concerning that model?
The only drawback I see is that it's a quick turn-around from conference CGs to the semifinal next week and, obviously Army and Navy wouldn't like it.
In the NFL, there's no break between the last week of the season and the wild-card round, so what's the worry about the quick turnaround?
Also, I think Arm-Navy would like this. More people would be paying attention to college football that weekend and would be watching Army-Navy as a primer or "undercard" of sorts leading up to the semi-final games. Army-Navy at 12:30, Semi-final 1 at 4:30, and Semi-final 2 at 8:30. What a day of college football! I also suggested that perhaps the Army-Navy game could be rotated to the site of the 8:30 semi-final game. It would allow the recruits to get out to a different city and fans to attend both games a la the NCAA tournament (one ticket gets you into both games). It would also provide a fitting tribute to the tradition of college football by honoring the Army-Navy game in this manner. My best friend is a West Point grad, and he said the cadets would be absolutely stoked about spending a weekend in Tuscaloosa, Columbus, Austin, Norman, et al, to watch Army-Navy and a semi game.
I know a plus-1 of only conference champs has been mentioned. And I'd assume that Delany, the Pac-12 commissioner, and the Big XII commissioner will be fighting for something similar. The Pac-12 (USC, mostly) has been a little let down by the system, as has the Big XII (see: 2008... similar situation with the roles of the Big XII and the SEC reversed... yet there was no all-Big XII championship game).
Lots of positives, but just to be clear: Army and Navy are at peace with the idea that they'd NEVER have the opportunity to play in a BCS NCG?
If I'm not mistaken, Army and Navy are off the week before that game. They could always keep that date open on their schedules to move the game up a week just in case one of the teams is knocking on the door of the BCS Final Four. But I'd imagine in most years this wouldn't be an issue.
ONLY CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS GET SEEDED
ONLY CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS GET SEEDED
Quoted for truth. Word to your mother.
Real fans stay for Carmen.
Ugh. That would mean this year a team like Wisconsin, Oregon, Clemson, and West Virginia would have gotten in over teams like Alabama and Stanford. You guys are so blinded by your hate your arguments can't be looked at as objective.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
"Without winners, there wouldn't even be civilization." -----------Woody Hayes
You're simply dismissing an argument (that only conference champions should be eligible for the final four) because you claim to know what it is the driving motivation ("blind hatred") behind some of the people who are making the argument?
An argument stands or falls on its own merits. The motivations of the people voicing the argument is relevant only inasmuch as such factors might hinder their abilities to flesh out the best points on behalf of that argument, etc. In this case, however, there are plenty of people who do not have "bind hatred" toward the SEC who are making the argument. Do you dismiss them out-of-hand, too?
Speaking of objectivity, you're among the group that is suggesting, based on two relatively isolated years of note (2006 and 2011), that teams that failed to win their conferences are regularly among the best four teams in the nation.
In reality, that's very rarely the case, again keeping in mind that we never really know which team is the 3rd best, versus 4th best, versus 5th best, etc.
When it was all said and done, was Michigan even among the four best teams in 2006? IMO, certainly Florida, Ohio State, and USC (which beat Michigan 32-18 in the Rose Bowl) were better, but we could also make a strong argument that LSU was better than Michigan, too. Heck, Boise might have given them all they could handle that year.
Btw, a conference-winners-only rule would have averted the two biggest controversies under the existing BCS championship format: the 2001 debacle (Nebraska v. Miami, FL) would have been avoided and, in 2003, LSU would have played USC instead of Oklahoma.
That is just silly. Look at this year, Alabama probably was the best team in the nation. Did they deserve to be in the national championship with LSU? No. Would they have deserved to be in a playoff this year? Ab-so-fucking-lutely and you are being silly if you think otherwise. Keep the BCS rankings and use them to create a 4 or 8 team playoff. We will start from there and expand.
Expand? That's just the point. I don't want it to expand.
The more teams you include in the playoff, the less meaningful the regular season becomes. Not to mention anything beyond a 4 team playoff and you'll essentially kill the bowl games, including The Grand-daddy. I'm sure Woody would have just LOVED that idea.
Fuck it guys! Let's just kill tradition! Let's make the regular season meaningless too! 32 team playoff! What? You're the 33rd team? You mad bro? Ok! After all, the NFL allows about 38% of their league to make the post-season, so why can't we have 38% of the FBS teams go to the playoff? Let's bump it to 46 teams then! Is everyone happy yet? Oh, what's that? You're the 47th team? Well the NBA has 50% of its teams make the playoffs, so let's bump it to 60 teams! Yay yay woohooo rabble rabble playoffs are ZOMG so frickin awesome!.
Or we could just have a 120 team playoff that starts in week one, like we do now.
Calm. The. Fuck. Down. I never said I wanted it to expand from there. But WHEN we get a 4-8 team playoff, expansion will be inevitable.
And that's exactly why it needs to be fought tooth and nail, because if it inevitably gets to 32 teams, you'll have first round matchups of Tulsa @ LSU, Southern Miss @ Alabama, Cincinnati @ Oklahoma State, Rutgers @ Stanford, and Toldeo @ Oregon. Riveting stuff. And in any given year, you're not going to see a single team seeded 25-32 beat a team seeded 1-8. Upsets in the post-season don't occur as often as upsets early in the year, since the ranklings at the end of the year reflect the team's entire body of work.
I don't think it would get that far. I think it might get to what the FCS does. That wouldn't catastrophic.
And the FCS championship just expanded to 20 teams, despite having fewer members eligible for the postseason. 126 teams - Ivy League - SWAC = 108 teams... 20/108 = .185.... .185 x 120 FBS teams = 22 team equivalent... inevitably rounded up to 24 teams to make a nice system where the top 8 get byes. Sorry, but I don't care to see Auburn go to Baton Rouge to get shredded again by LSU, or have Notre Dame or Cincinnati complain about being left out. You'll just create more controversy..... and kill the bowls, of course.
Is killing the bowls a bad thing? The Rose Bowl is the only one that cares about tradition anymore, and that's only when it's convenient for them to do so. They sold out for the BCS cash too, and once you cross that line it's kind of hard to go back later and say you are all about tradition again.
Bowls remind me of a kid playing baseball. Up until I was about 15 I played for the same team every year. We got a trophy at the end of every season from our coach. It was a nice gesture but when we were 14 and 15 and realized that only winning 3 games out of 15 meant we stunk, a trophy was really pretty unneccessary. Well bowl games have become those trophies. Ohio State, congrats you just had the worst season in at least a generation, since you tried really hard this year you get a bowl game, oh by the way here's a bag full of all the improper benefits you woudln't be allowed to have the rest of the season.
While some of the games were entertaining, there was a lot of really bad football being played in the bowls this year. The BCS has just become idotic. Auto bids, ratings, and teams with big followings trump good football. C'mon the BCS matchups were always about seeing great teams play Texas and Ohio State, Bosie Oklahoma State, Ok State and Stanford. Now we've come to Michigan/Va Tech and West Virginia/Clemson? Last year UConn and Oklahoma. I don't know just seems like the bowls have outlived their usefulness to me. Especially, now that the traditional conference tie ins don't apply anymore. They just aren't meaningful or significant like they once were.
You and Jake are getting side-tracked.
As of right now, there is about a 0.0001 chance that the bowls will be eliminated and about a 0.01 chance that the initial "playoff" format would exceed four teams.
The argument is that teams must win their conferences to be eligible to be among the final four.
I love- LOVE- the Army-Navy undercard to playoffs idea. I am not a fan of a playoff, but if it is conference champs only and highlights the Army-Navy game like that, I'll get over my playoff hatred pretty quickly.
I agree, several things to love about this concept, and the opportunity to showcase the Army v. Navy undercard is one of them.
To me, I want the 4, 8, 12, 16 best teams, whatever the playoff becomes. I want them them to use some sort of revamped BCS formula to come up with an "RPI" and let's have a selection committee to pick the teams and seed them.
I don't care about conference championships. If Ohio State and Michigan, LSU and Alabama, or Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech were all top teams in America in given seasons, they must be included. I WANT THE BEST TEAMS TO PLAY period. You still protect the regular season because quite honestly, if you lose more than 1 game, you probably won't have much of a chance especially in the 4 or 8 team scenario.
Now that conference tie-ins have mostly disappeared, and the bowls, conferences, and teams have sold out, we need to quit trying to protect this facade that winning your conference and going to a certain bowl is somehow special. Those days are gone and since we are workign toward a playoff with an actual champion, I want to see the best teams playing, if that means 4 teams from the SEC are better than the conference champ of the ACC so be it. I realize people have fond memories of the days of old, and I realize that it is still quite a spectacle to go to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl, I get all that, but It's really the only bowl left that sometimes cares about tradition, but not every year. What conference champs were really worthy this year to play for a title? Oklahoma State and LSU. Every other conference champ was pretty weak. Oregon had 2 losses, Clemson was a joke, Wisconsin? I don't think so and West Virginia LOL. Boise State was worth of playing but their conference is a joke. I don't know.
I still maintain that only taking conference champs greatly diminishes the importance of the regular season also! A team could lose 3 non conference games potentially and go on to win their conference and get a chance. We'll end up with 3 and 4 loss teams playing for a championship because much like college basketball the big non conference matchups, while fun to see will basically be glorified exhibitions with little meaning.
Only counting conference champs actually will devalue the regular season!
BT, (sigh). I will not watch the playoff format you propose (and if last night's tv ratings are any indication, a significant amount of cfb fans across the nation would not either.)
If team A beat team B in the regular season, they should not get another bite at the apple. We might not be able to prevent that with pre-season matchups or CCGs. But it sure as hell can be prevented in a playoff. And I don't care if the S-E-C has the best 12 teams in the country. They get one spot. One. If they don't like it, they can go create their NFL farm system and host ESPiN circle-jerks to the end of time.
Was Bama the better team last night? Don't know didn't watch the BCS NCG. Do you get my point?
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one's there to see it. Get my point now?
You're talking with SEC sour grapes in your mouth not as an objective fan.
So then you believe that in 2006 if Ohio State and Michigan got a title game rematch the ratings would've been terrible? Oklahoma and Texas possibly having a rematch would've had poor ratings too? I don't see it. Both those games were very entertaining games, matched up with programs who have fans all over the country, plus unlike B1G fans and fans of every conference who get tired of ESPN carrying on about the SEC all the time, SEC fans will tune in so they can pick apart every play and say SEE WE COULD"VE WON THAT GAME.
I guess I understand your point, but if the first game didn't end in a 9-6 outcome, but more like a shootout that the "Game" was when both teams were ranked 1 and 2, ratings would've been much different.
Also, aren't you one of the people who believes the regular season should mean something? That every game should count? Maybe I have you confused with other people but I thought that has always been one of your arguments against a playoff. Well, a playoff in your mold of conference champs means the regular season doesn't count every week because non conference is utterly meaningless. You can play 3 or 4 scrubs or play 3 top 10 teams and it doesn't matter because who cares if you lose a non-conference game.
In my scenario, where there's a selection committee and a BCS formula that acts an an RPI, not only do you have to win every week, it would benefit your program to step outside of conference play and take on the big boys, because if you don't, you'll certainly be left out.
We won't agree on this I'm sure, but the days of being a conference champ and that meaning something are over. Conference title games are money grabs that rarely match the 2 best teams in a conference together. Georgia, didnt' play Arkansas, Bama, or LSU in the conference season where their counterparts in the SEC east did, where they really the best in the east or just lucky to dodge those bullets?
Give me a playoff that answers those questions, not refuses to let teams in because they happened to be the 2nd best team in a great conference while the champ of a crappy conference makes it in instead. A system that let Wisconsin, Clemson, or West Virginia play for a title but left out the likes of Bama and Stanford is not a system I'm interested in.
Albert, see the initial comments (above) from NCBuckeye and Humblebuckeye.
The format they describe wouldn't lessen the emphasis on the regular season much at all. Yes, those four teams must win their respective conferences, but since only four conference winners out of 11 conferences would qualify, they typically could not afford to lose non-conference games.
I'm not sure how, under that formet, they'd handle the four independent schools, though.
I just think if you are going to try and make a playoff to determine a true champion, you need to make sure you include the best teams in that playoff. I've had 2 long posts trying to explain that. I'm not interested in a playoff that would exclude Alabama this year. Clearly, they were worthy of being there. That's it. To me if you don't include the best teams, the system is still a sham. If you are going to determine a true champ go all in and do it right.
Although, looking at the past, and decisions that have been made I have no faith that the powers that be in college football are capable of getting anything right on the first try or 2nd, or 3rd........
Relative to whatever the size of the tournament (number of teams participating), there will always be people who believe that one of the best teams was denied access to the playoff. This year, in addition to Bama and LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Stanford all had a claim to being among the top 4. If you discard conference champions, as you suggest, there is absolutely no way to make a clear choice between Oregon and Stanford.
In reality, we don't know which teams = "the best" (but we do know which teams won their conferences). Unavoidably, there will always be a subjective component, which is just fine. At least a conference champion requirement establishes some basic participation standards that are clear, definitive, and fair. Going into a season, a team will know that it must win its conference to play in the final four.
Under the status-quo, the "best" team is by no means guaranteed access to the NCG.
At least under the proposed change, the "best" team would not be denied access to a NCG while a fellow conference member, which did not win the conference, is granted access (hypothetical: UGA winning 2011 SEC CG).
Btw, the NCAA bball tournament does not include the best 72 teams, but no one seems to mind that the allegedly 57th and the 58th best teams are left out.
Yep, I am a member of the "every game meaning something" camp. See that's where Humble's plan shines. And also where last night's game failed. Miserably.
Limit the number of conference champions. Humble's four is the perfect number. Then you can still have an RPI. The four conference champions with the highest RPI get to play. So the OOC games will have an impact on selection thereby making sure that schools that aspire to the NCG don't schedule OOC cupcakes. They might get left out otherwise.
It takes polls and computer rankings out of the equation. Maintains the sanctity of the regular season. More people (across the country and not just the southeast) would be interested in the outcome which equals higher tv ratings and more money. And it lessens the ability of the SEC to steamroll their way into NCGs. (We should not be rewarding them for bad practices as the current system is doing.)
I don't get it, we play cupcakes too. Outside of this past Title game the SEC has earned everyone one of the 5.
BT wants the best x teams to be seeded. No matter conference affiliation.
I'm saying in the given environment of oversigning the SEC has certain teams that are able to go 2-3 levels deep with 5-4 star personnel. Which means that the x number of SEC teams that are selected will steamroll their way into the NCG. It will happen if only because of attrition. Everyone else will suffer injuries because of the extra games and will have to make due with an inferior player in a position. SEC schools will simply plugin player y instead of player z. Player y is only a step behind player z and would be the starter at any other school.
Bad practice should not be rewarded. It's not sour grapes. It's just logic.
Hasn't the SEC put a hard cap of 25 committs per team now? So, in 3 or 4 years the oversinging debate is pretty much moot anyway, at that point they'll be just like Ohio State when they need to get creative with the roster, ya know wait for the 2 or more medical hardships or transfers to add recruits, kind of like we are doing right now.
BT, there are still all kinds of loopholes that can be exploited. And the SEC is all about exploiting roster loopholes. Let me show you one.
If an SEC team obeys this new limit and signs no more than 25 players each year, then:
25 x 4 = 100.
100 > 85
If a team goes by the book, they could still be oversigned by as many as 15 scholarship players between Dec. 1 and Aug. 1. And that doesn't even take into account the creative uses of grey-shirting and medical hardship scholarships that have become prolific in the SEC (especially by the two coaches whose teams played Monday night).
BTW, the Big Ten has had a long-standing hard cap of 85 players on scholarship at a given time since 1956.
Here's the short of it. There are many ways that SEC teams are creating competitive advantages so their teams rise to the top. Some are legit like asst coaches salaries or investment in facilities. Oversigning is not legit though and IMO is the primary tool in their toolshed.
Plus, between national title appearences LSU has done NOTHING. Played in lousy bowls against mediocre opponents. If oversigning were such an advantage they would be playing in that national title game or at least be top 4 at the end of every year, And 1/3 of the SEC titles came from a team that didn't oversign. Not sure about Tennessee way back in the first year of the BCS, but oversigning has only become an issure that induces rage in the last couple of years when B1G teams were getting it handed to them on national TV by SEC squads. NEVER EVER EVER heard about it even as late as the OSU/LSU matchup in the BCS title game. This is a new development.
I wonder what it'll be when the SEC has several years of 25 commit classes and is still toward the top of the rankings.
I don't know the topic is aggrivating to me, I think the B1G schools need to look at what they are doing wrong to fail to compete not, fail to compete and point and say well they aren't playing fair! It's my understanding the SEC has always oversigned, so why was it Ok 10-15 years ago when the B1G was playing quality football too?
Excatly, something to blame. I hate hearing this excuse too. If it wasn't oversigning it would be something else someone would come up with to discredit the SEC or whatever conference is on top.
So you are only allowing 4 teams all conference champs with the highest RPI in and that's it? So conceiveably an undefeated Ohio State who beat a stud non conference team can be left out because the B1G is horrible ultimately lowering Ohio State's RPI?
Personally, I'd advocate a committee selection process. They evaluate all the conference winners, select and seed the four best teams, and announce the pairings on Sunday afternoon.
Preferably, the final four games would rotate every-other-year between a warm climate and cold climate locale. Fans would have only one week notice to travel, so you'd use smaller NFL-like venues that hold maybe 60,000 capacity, with the idea that a certain percentage of seats would be filled by locals, cfb junkies that don't have a team in the final four but live within reasonable driving distance, corporate partners, etc. And, of course, some really hard-core fans of the final four teams will travel on short notice for one game.
But just like now, the 5th team and it's fans will be pissed and lead boycott the 4 team playofff!!
Not to mention a team who doesn't win their conference title but has a higher RPI than 1, 2, or 3 of the teams selected.
BTA, you're really grasping for straws. Under my plan - if you go by BCS rankings - an undefeated AQ conference team would have never been left out. Only once would a non-AQ have been left out (2009 Boise... there were five undfeated teams at the end of the year... and EXTREME rarity).
So... 95% of the years, you're not going to have a three loss team. 95% of the time, you're not going to have an undefeated team left out. And 100% of the time, you're not going to have a team that failed to win its conference get a shot.
I really don't understand what's wrong with that system. More importantly, it preserves the bowl system.
You want a full playoff? Go watch the NFL. Boring in September when the games mean nothing. Boring in December when the best teams rest players. Fun in the playoffs though. no doubt. But I prefer College Football, where the "playoffs" start in week 1.
I guess I just don't see where having an 8-12 team playoff makes the regular season boring. All it does is give teams who deserve a shot to win it all, a shot to win it all. I personally think that a system that would've Omitted Alabama this year or Michigan in 2006, Texas in 09 is a system that isn't worth having is all. Just because they are conference champs doesn't mean you'll get the 4 best teams battling it out. I want to see the best teams get a crack. If they don't win they don't win, but in your proposal this year Alabama wouldn't be involved. The same team who just pounded the no doubt about it, best team in America who many were saying may have had one of the best seasons in college football history. I get it everyone hates the BCS, but I absolutely want rematches if they are deserved, and I don't care what the TV ratings are. So if 2 B1G teams meet in the finals of a playoff so be it. I fail to see how that makes September football boring, maybe I'm not the only one grasping at straws.
Everyone knows the SEC has been pushing a plus 1 for awhile now right? That our own conference, the BIG, is the main roadblock.
Not exactly what i've heard, which is that the BT and Pac12 are okay with a plus-one as long as they retain their traditional relationship with the Rose Bowl.
That's one of the strengths of the format describe above: semifinals; bowls; then NCG. If 1/2 BT/Pac12 team(s) lose in the semifinal, they'd be slotted back into the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, the Rose Bowl would be free to fill the slot with another school. The traditional bowl tie-ins and invites could be restored while having a 4-team championship bracket.
8 team playoff. Have a selection committee just like the NCAA committee for basketball and hockey. You take the Top 8 teams, higher seeded team gets home field advantage.
My personal preference is to have a 12 team playoff set up with 4 regions. Each "regional" will have a team with a bye, and one game matched up with other teams. SO, you would have LSU with a bye playing the winner of Stanford and Baylor. Think baseball's regional. SO the highest seed hosts that regional. Winner goes on to the "super regional" which would just be the home field of the highest seed homefield again, winner of that goes to the title game at a site that is bid on each year. It may be at one of the bowl sites, it may be at Jerry's world etc.
There are other logistical setups that would work too, they could do a pod that put the higher seed closer to home etc. Maybe tweak how the first 2 rounds are played.
I would have the teams selected by a committee. There would be no automatic bids, and I would used a revised BCS that would work as an RPI as an indicator. The new BCS instead of letting 2 polls count for 2/3 of the vote would use polls as an aggregate. I would add the AP poll to the 2 that are currently being used and average them all together to count as 1 fraction of the rating. I want strength of schedule and margin of victory to have weight too. Some sort of formula. It's one thing to beat LSU by a field goal, another thing all to gether to beat them 21-0 in t heir back yard. Those wins should not be looked at the same way, one is clearly much better. Strength of schedule would have more weight than margin of victory so that a team can just win by 70 every week to impress. I also would use a computer poll aggregate but I think their should be more knowledge about how the computers come up with their data.
I'd go for a totally dramatic change. This way Boise, TCU, and everyone get included. If you are number 12 you are probably not really worthy of being in the game, but 40% of the BCS teams were ranked lower than 10 this year anyway. If you can't Wisconsin at number 10, half the teams were 10 or lower.
People will still complain that they were left out, but that's always going to happen, most years the 11 or 12 seed probably won't win, but last year there were probably no less than 6 teams who had a legit claim to play for the title. The year before that there were how many undefeated teams? 4? This way they all get included and get a shot to show us what they are really made of.
Under BTA's 12 team system: Houston has one loss but gets left out of the 12 team playoff. The Houston fans are livid, since 3-loss Baylor is in it.
Under Humble's 4-team plan: Houston has no room to complain since they didn't even win their conference.
Under BTA's 12-team system: two-loss Michigan - despite having a more balanced team - is left out in favor of Baylor, a 3-loss team with no defense.
Under Humble's plan 4-team plan: Michigan has no argument because they didn't win their conference.
Under BTA's 12-team system: Virginia Tech in. ACC Champ Clemson out (despite dominating VaTech... twice).
Under Humble's 4-team plan: Neither team is in it.
Under BTA's plan: Wisconsin has to travel to Boise, despite the fact that Boise isn't in a major conference and didn't even win that mid-major conference, and despite the fact that Wisconsin just avenged one of it's two losses.
Under Humble's plan: Wisconsin travels to Baton Rouge as the 4th highest ranked conference champion. Sorry to all the teams ranked above Wisconsin (South Carolina, Kansas State, Boise State, Arkansas, Stanford, and Alabama), but you didn't win your conference.
Last team out in BTA's plan: Michigan, which has one less loss and is only .0183 behind the last team in (three loss Baylor). They'll surely have an axe to grind.
Last team out in Humble's plan: ACC Champ Clemson, which has one more loss and is a more than .210 points behind in the BCS standings than Humble's last team in (Big Ten Champ Wisconsin). No one is going to complain that Clemson was snubbed.
Actually, under my plan you don't take the strait top 12. I used LSU vs the winner of Stanford/Baylor just as an example. Every time I've mentioned a playoff I have mentioned a revamped BCS that has more components than the current equation and takes the importance of what 2 polls say. This new formula would give you an RPI/a guideline to judge if you will and it would probably address issues like the difference between Michigan and Baylor.
ALSO, I've said repeatedly, there should be a selection committee that decides which teams go. So, The playoffs don't neccessarily have to be the strait top 12 in this new BCS formula, but using more components than the current formula, a more accurate top 12 will result.
Are there problems with the system, probably but most systems do have some problems, and it can always bet tweaked later on. Teams will always complain that they weren't included because teams always do. I just am not in favor of 4 teams, only conference champs because which conference champ this year outside of LSU was more deserving of Alabama? Fact is, whether it pisses us off or not, whether we like it or not, Bama should have be included this year. Ohio State last year should've been able to be considered if there were a playoff, Arkansas too, and Stanford. I won't keep on and on anymore than I already had, but conference champs only just isn't the way to go in my opinion. You'll always have teams with whining. At least in my scenario it's a team like Clemson, Houston, Michigan, or Baylor who can't really make much of a case where as Bama this year being left out would just be ridiculous.
The SEC is really good. I'm sorry. We are all going to have to get over it. Myself included. Whenever we get a playoff, depending on how many teams get accepted into the playoff the SEC is probably going to rightfully have 2-3 teams in the playoff. Same would be for any conference that has multiple top teams in one year if we were to get a playoff. Sorry I'm not down to punish teams because they are in an amazing (football performance-wise) conference. In the current system, Alabama should not have been in the NCG with LSU, Oklahoma State should have been. But if this year would have had a playoff, Alabama would have as much as a right as anyone to be in said playoff.
Yes. The SEC has some terrible fans (so do we, but whatever. Every fan base/conference does.) and oversigning is shady shit, but they have amazing football teams. Look at it objectively, people.
Say, hypothetically, (1,000 to 1 shot, but still possible) you get an undefeated Notre Dame, undefeated Pac-10 champ, undefeated Big12 champ, undefeated SEC champ and an undefeated Big 10 champ, who gets left out of a 4 team playoff? If you go playoff, it's gotta be 8, 12 or 16 teams.
IMO, a non champ of a BCS conference winning the BCS NC was a 1,000 to 1 long shot for many people 10 years ago.
And five undefeated teams in a single year is about 1,000 to 1 shot these days thanks to conference championship games and realignment. The only year in recent memory that had 5 undefeated teams was 2009. Three of those undefeated teams - TCU, Boise, Cincinnati - have either switched conferences or are in a conference that will soon have a championship game (in the case of Cincy).
I wrote this a few weeks ago, and I think this playoff format would keep the regular season important, OOC games important, conf championships important, and may allow some wiggle room for non conf champs but not at the expense of deserving conf champs:
First, the BCS formula or something similar needs to be kept. Second there should be 8 teams involved. The first criteria for earning a spot would be to be a conference champion and finish in the top 16 in the poll (and that is for all conferences from the SEC to Sunbelt). If there are more than 8 conference champs in the top 16 then the lowest ranked champs will be left out (I doubt that in any given year that all conference champs will be in the top 16).
But there is a way for a team to get in the playoff without winning the conference. Obviously not all conference champions will be in the top 16 in the poll. I am pretty sure that in most years (this one included) not all 8 slots will be filled due to conference champs not meeting the criteria. If that is the case then there will be open spots (wild cards) given to the next highest ranked team who was not a conference champ and so on until all eight slots are filled. Once all teams are determined we use the BCS poll again to seed teams. Highest seeds host games until we get to two teams who will play on a neutral bowl sight.
This is how the selection would look this year:
LSU (SEC Champ)
Ok State (Big XII Champ)
Oregon (PAC 12 Champ)
Wisc (B1G Champ)
Clemson (ACC Champ)
3 open wild card slots because Big East, CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt, WAC, MAC, didn’t make the top 16
Bama (1st wild card slot)
Stanford (2nd wild card slot)
Arkansas (3rd wild card slot)
3. Ok State
I like Humble's plan better than BT's, this seems like a decent compromise.
I despise playoffs in college football, but it will happen sooner or later and when it does I really hope it is something like this or like Humble's plan. Conference championships need to mean something for the regular season to be worth a darn.
Look closer... you'll find the flaw. There are likely FOUR rematches in that seeding.
..... and then in the likely scenario that LSU, Alabama, Oregon, and Arkansas all win...
... and in the likely scenario that LSU beats Oregon again...
4. LSU vs. Arkansas/Alabama
So four of the seven games played in this eight team playoff would likely be rematches. Which is why we don't need this format: a lot of these teams already played. Under my format, there would be potential for only one rematch any way you slice it, so only one out of the three games could be a repeat, whereas the potential majority of games in this scenario are games we have already seen.
So has everyone who doesn't want rematches always felt this way, or just fell this way now because of the conference involved? I don't care what ESPN says or which coaches in the past lobbied against a rematch, what I want to know is did you honestly have such a problem with rematches between the number 1 team and the number 2 team from the same conference meeting back in 2005-2006, or were you totally in favor of an Ohio State Michigan rematch.
Yes I did oppose a rematch. You should have to win your conference if you want to win a national title. Tressel stated as much. That was the logic the voter's used to help Florida leapfrog Michigan in '06. And I like that logic, because it avoids controversy. As long as you codify it, no one has room to complain, because they'll know ahead of time what needs to get done, and it aplifies the importance of conference games and conference championships even more. Remember what the voters were saying before the SEC title game this year ("LSU is most likely in even if they are upset by Georgia)? So essentially, the SEC title game didn't matter. And I fully understand that under my plan, #4 Ohio State would have been left out in 2005. I'm fine with that. They lost to two teams ahead of them (Penn State and Texas). It would have been completely unfair to give Ohio State a second chance at either of those teams and not allow Georgia (the next highest ranked conference champ*... same number of losses as OSU, and arguably more quality wins) a shot at any of those teams.
*Notre Dame was #5... I'm assuming that my system would essentially force Notre Dame to finally join a conference.
The biggest thing to me is going to a selection committee like for the basketball tournament, with informed voters and a ratings system that is transparent.
There is far too much money riding on the BCS to have it decided by a bunch of people who don't even watch all the games in their area, and computer programs filled with "tweaks" to make them more closely match the poll results.
The biggest problem to me with only picking conference champs is we don't neccessarily know who the best team in the conferences are. The only way I could even begin to accept only conference champs being considered is if the conference is a round robin schedule every team plays eachother. If you still want to have a conference title game(which would be pointless but they are already) then go for it.
This won't happen though because it'll expand conference schedules meaning teams like Ohio State will have to sacrifice games against Eastern Michigan or Akron to get at least 7 homegames a year. Plus the conferences won't want to give up their title games.
Too many times teams in a division have a much harder slate of games than other teams in their division. Look at Florida this year compared to Georgia. At one point Florida went through a strtech Albama, @LSU,@Auburn, then a division game against Georgia. Georgia's slate against the SEC West included Ole Miss, Miss St, and Auburn. Florida plays the top two teams in the country and another ranked team. Georgia's toughest game is Auburn. South Carolina's slate was different too. They played Auburn, Miss St, and Arkansas. So, clearly the deck this year was stacked against Florida, and really South Carolina had to play a team who was in the top 10 from the other division while Georgia didn't either. Unless there is a round robin, we'll always have situations like this pop up in the current 2 division conference schedules.
VIEW ALL »
Scarlet and Gray, Every Day.
Quite simply, Eleven Warriors is the largest free Ohio State site on the internet. We're committed to remaining free and delivering you the Buckeye news and analysis you deserve.
Our Story | Meet the Staff
© 2006-2013 Eleven Warriors LLC.
Eleven Warriors is not affiliated with The Ohio State University. View full disclaimer.
The easiest way for you to contribute is to join the community. Signing up for a new account is 100% free, takes seconds and allows you to comment, participate in the forum and create your own blog posts.
If you'd like to support us with your wallet, you can: buy one of our amazing shirts or shop Amazon with this link. (Your prices remain the same and we get a commission).
We love hearing from you! Whether you want to work with us, discuss advertising opportunities, or pass us a hot tip, you're more than welcome to drop us a line.