According to pretty much every major news service out there, the BCS is dead. The current plan is a 4-team playoff, with the details undecided so far, but one interesting tidbit is the death of the Automatic Qualifier designation for the 6 "power" conferences. There may or may not be a requirement for teams to be a conference champion in order to participate in the playoff.
B1G commish Jim Delaney and PAC-12 commish Larry Scott are on record as in favor of the conference champion requirement, while SEC commish Mike Slive and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick are both very much against the idea, if for very different reasons.
Thoughts/comments/predictions on where this goes?
I like the Plus one format, where 1v4 2v3 play in BCS games and the winners play in the title game. I like the bowl games so thats why I would prefer that. I do think that winning your conference is probably a good idea, but i am not sure. Sure I hate the SEC and 2 of their teams will probably get in more often then not. But Think back to 2006 with Michigan and OSU. Michigan deserved to be in a playoff if they had it then. So idk if I am for having to win your conference or not. Idk maybe since almost every conference has a Championship game the rule could be you have to at least make that game to be in.
I agree, 4 teams is all you need. The last thing you want to do is water down the regular season. It's not like with the BCS each year we all feel like there are over 6 teams that are worthy of a title shot. This year Okie State and Stanford both had major flaws. No one wanted LSU-Bama. This was the worst thing that could have happened to the BCS. So maybe it took us having a sh*t season to get a better format.
IMO(of course) I think more than 4 teams dilutes the quality of team you are putting in. If you look back at the past decade at the top 4 teams in most cases it would be awesome to see. In some years, there wouldn't even be the need due to having two clear cut undefeated teams.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
This format sounds good to me. I agree that 4 teams is all you need. There usually hasn't been more than 4 teams in the national title discussion in what I will call controversal seasons. It's usually only 3, so really you're throwing in a 4th team that likely wouldn't be in the discussion under the current format.
To me, it balances out what I love about college football and one thing that bugs me. I love how important regular season games are, and that will continue. I also like that one dumb loss doesn't necessarily screw you over. Teams these days seem to have an off day at one point or another. Everybody this season certainly did (LSU didn't until the championship game, but still, you get my point). In no other sport or league that I am aware of do you see an undefeated team win the championship. Granted, college football has fewer games than those other sports.
You can take one loss, look pretty damn impressive outside of that one off game, and you still get a shot. I think it would be very fair for a 2011 Oklahoma State or even a 2010 Ohio State who had basically one really bad half in one game in those respective seasons to suffer one loss. It wouldn't have helped OSU in 2010 with Wisconsin also going 11-1 in the regular season and beating us. I guess ironically it would help if Wisconsin was 8-4 and out of the way for us. Also, teams change throughout the season. 2009 OSU was not great in September and early October, but in late October, November, and January, they certainly looked like a borderline top 5 team.
The only issue I have is that there have been seasons where there are 2 clear top teams. Think back to 2002, where Ohio State and Miami were clearly the two best teams in the nation. What would we have thought if both teams had to play a semifinal game first before getting to what was seen as a perfectly fair championship game under the current system? Maybe an upset would've happened one way or the other. I'm not going to delve into a "doesn't guarantee that the best team wins the championship" argument, because I don't think any existing playoff system in sports guarantees that, so there's no point in complaining about that. It would just seem silly to play semifinal games when there are two clear top teams on their own tier.
I strongly prefer the winning conference requirement. Of course Mike Silve isn't in favor of that - his conference produced a national champion that didn't win the conference or even their division, and two teams in the championship game. Notre Dame isn't in a conference, so you could theoretically just exempt them from that requirement and require them to be in the top 4 in the rankings and to be ranked higher than all non-conference champions.
Class of 2010.
Would like to c it played up here where weather is a factor and c how the.SEC can handle it with there speed on a wet and snowy field..
Norte Dame should not get special treatment. Make the rule that only conference champs can get in. The Domers can decide if they want to join a conference or not.
Personally I would like to see a 16-team playoff where you have all 12 conf. champions seeded in order of their BCS ranking, plus 4 at-large teams, and perhaps even have the first 4 teams or so get a bye week for the first round as a reward for having a great regular season -- they can heal up and get ready for round 2. I think 4 teams is too few, especially with how fickle the BCS rankings are at times.
God is pissed at Notre Dame. They sold out and put more seats in and covered up touchdown Jesus. God is a Boston College fan now. Notre Dame will remain average for eternity .
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
@Gluefingers
No way a deity could be a BC fan and allow them to go through with hiring Bollman, lol. It's like sentencing them to carrying around a ball and chain for however many years he's there. More like the deity is the fan of every team BC plays.