Discussion? Let's do it.
I like where the conference commissioners are going with this. I am a conference champion proponent, and I hope they go along this route. When you look at human polls over the years, there is one thing that's fairly consistent: by season's end all you're really left with is a ranking of records based W-L number. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than looking at the top-4 conference champions by W-L record, and in the case of a tie at the #4 position, the consensus found in a poll should suffice. People who think a 9-3 team is going to get into the 4-team playoff are probably gravely over-exaggeriating this risk.
As long as all of the teams have championship trophies it could be considered the greatest playoff in sports.
I'm for the top 4 teams, but I think we're going to get something in the middle.
One thing to think about for the reason we may not get conference champions only is Notre Dame. Yes, they've been irrelavant lately, but they make $$. The NCAA is all about the money.
It'll be exciting to see where this goes!
I don't see how it will be agreed upon to make it 4 conference champions. The SEC is already trumpeting the fact that LSU and Alabama were both worthy of playing in the NC last year, and in the conference champion model, only one would've made it.
I don't think you can just look at wins and losses and conference champions. What if you are a conference champion and your conference is weak? Obviously an SEC champion, even with a loss (or two), would look better than an ACC champion who may be undefeated, because of the level of competition. I am not opposed to a human committee deciding the 4 best teams, although I don't know if I trust them to get it right.
The question is, are you okay with having more than one team from a conference involved in the 4 team playoff? What about 3 conference champions and one other team that is deserving but not a conference champ (or Notre Dame)?
One of my biggest gripes with the current BCS is that each BCS conference is guaranteed a team from their conference will be in a BCS bowl. Not only did this make for some horrible games, but you are rewarding a team and a conference who didn't deserve to be there, just because they are a BCS member. I always thought they should've said, yes each BCS conference will be represented if you have a top 10 ranked team in your conference, otherwise we will go with an at-large since you neglected to provide a worthy team.
@TennBuckeye- I get what you're saying about conference strength, but you also exposed the greatest problem with the system. When you say obviously the SEC champ would be stronger than the ACC champ, what are you basing that on? No games have been played yet for this season.
Thats been the biggest issue with the BCS, and will be the biggest issue with the committee too. Each year should be taken solely on its own. The teams from last year are NOT the teams this year. Unfortunately, it's likely people will base close decisions on perception caused by previous years, and therein lies the source of many upcoming disputes in selecting the four.
The SEC is not obviously stronger than the ACC in 2012/13. General perception may be so, and it may be right, but only results on the field in the season in question should matter.
thats why I'm in favor of conference champs only. It's measurable. No perception is involved. Along with it I'd reduce the top level of football to four 12 or 14 team conferences. There are too many D-1 schools that are simply never going to be competitive at the upper echelon. Conference champs only please. Stop using perception.
I don't really think necessarily that the SEC champ is better than an ACC champ. Although I do live in SEC country and I hear every day how they are the best and no one else holds a candle and blah, blah, blah. I should've put 'Obviously' in quotations, because like you said, it is the perception that the SEC champ is always going to be better.
I wonder though, if you go with 4 conference champs, there will still need to be a way to determine who are the top 4 conference champs, right. Currently there are what, 6 BCS conferences and Notre Dame, so at least 2 teams will be left out. And what about a team from a non-BCS conference? How will they fit into this equation? Would they have a chance to get into the playoff?
I like the idea of all conf. champs with perhaps one at-large team. If it's a 4-team play-off make it the 3 highest ranked conf. champs (to ensure the regular season is valued) and an at-large team with the best record / sos combination.
@TennBuck- well since I'd only have four conferences that wouldn't be an issue. Only the top 48 or 56 teams of the current 117 would remain in D-1
Disclaimer: I wrote this before I was aware of the details of what they were going to do.
According to the last 14 years of BCS polls, 3 of the top-4 are usually conference champions. I envision some years where there is some controversy, but I think having added Conf. Champ. weight towards teams that finish with equal numbers of losses will be a good compromise and will allow teams like a 1-loss USC ranked outside the top-4 to get into the playoff.
I would like the BCS ranking to continue, but just select the top 4 teams and tell the rest to shut it. I'd rather the playoff games be mid-level bowl games and a championship played one week later. That way we can keep the traditional bowl games alive with all their matchups and just leave the top four team out of it.
I don't think it should have to be confernce champions. Alabama was clearly the best team in the country last year and didn't win their conference. I guess I'd hate to see Urban lead the Buckeyes to an undefeated regular season, slip up in the B1G championship game, and not make the top 4 playoff. Not having to win your conf also fixes the Notre Dame/ mid major problem. I say leave the BCS in place, have a commitee vote on the top 4 based on polls. In most cases there will either be 1 clear cut unbeaten, or 3 really good 1 loss teams in the mix.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
Just glad the BCS system as we know it will be gone.
The top two seeds in the playoff should be conference champions, and then the bottom two seeds can be the two best remaining teams. How about that?
Class of 2010.
@Showthem Which conferences? SEC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac 10 all make a case for that privelege in any given year
@ BUCK-I.8
I am not "Showthem" but I would surmise he means in whatever ranking system exists. Probably will still be the BCS ranking system. So it would be whoever was #3 and #4 in said rankings.
I thought I had read that Jim Delaney wanted 3 conf. champs and 1 "at-large" which is similar.
Looking forward to the change.
This is admittedly not an important question, and barely fits within this thread, but I just started wondering: is the crystal football tied to the BCS specifically? Does that mean we're getting a new national championship trophy? Say what you want about the BCS, but I actually like the trophy. In addition, it seems dumb to switch trophies every time we change the way we get to a champion. Any insight or opinions on this?
When told OSU set school record for 50+ games this year, UFM said "That's good. We're gonna break that next year."