Yes 37% (273 votes) No 15% (106 votes) I want more than four teams involved, all should be conference champs 18% (128 votes) I want more than four teams involved, all don't have to be conference champs 31% (223 votes) Total Votes: 730 Comments Show All Comments buckeyedude 11 May 2012, 6:58 am If they don't use conference champs, what is the purpose of having a conference in the first place? SilverBullet 11 May 2012, 9:29 am Its simple, you take the six major conference champions along with the 2 highetst ranked at-large teams. thats 8 teams, place those teams in your 4 major bowls (Rose,Sugar,Orange,Fiesta) and you have your first round of the playoffs. After first round, from remaining 4 teams you take the highest 2 seeds and reward them with priveledge of hosting the semi-finals. Then play the NC in 1 of the 4 major bodwl sites listed above on a rotational basis... And play all the other lesser bowls as usual, before the 4 major bowls. Now you have a playoff system built in to the traditional bowl system, and the regular season keeps it's integrity because of the importance of winning you conference and being the higher seed (as to host a playoff game). Ive been saying it for years, even went so far as to have the plan notarized and submitted. Lol...No one's listening hodge 11 May 2012, 9:46 am Highest rated conference champs within the top 8, from there, next highest teams get at-large berths. Last year: #4 'Bama @ #1 LSU (at large berth gives lesser seeding--read: more value for conference champ), #3 Oregon vs. #4 Oklahoma State. In my opinion, Oregon deserved a nod ahead of Stanford--they had one loss in conference (to the #5 team in the BCS) and another loss to #1 LSU...no question they deserved a higher ranking. It's an injustice to a playoff if Stanford gets in ahead of Oregon last year. btalbert25 11 May 2012, 10:04 am Hodge I'm not morally opposed to your proposal, but in that situation I'd like to see more teams invited. Maybe do 6 teams or something. Although I'm not sure there were 4 conference champs that were really good enough last year. I do think, though, most years, 4 conference champs would be good enough, and you could do 2 at larges. I just don't support a system with all conference champs only, especially when we've seen better conferences with 2 teams better seemingly better than everyone elses teams. The Big 12 South and the SEC West at different times have had 3 teams better than any team in the ACC and Big East. Arguably the B1G too. hodge 11 May 2012, 10:22 am Personally, a six team playoff is my ultimate goal: same rules apply. Top seeds go to the highest rated conference champs (in order) in the top eight (maybe ten if we're talking a 6 team), then at-large berths go to round out the field. This way it's a lot easier to get in if you win a championship, but you're not totally excluded if you're truly among the nation's elite--you just don't get a home game. Under this scenario: #1 LSU (#1 in polls): BYE, faces the winner of #6 Stanford (#4) @ #3 Oregon(#5) #2 Okie State(#3): BYE, faces the winner of #5 'Bama(#2) @ #4 Wisconsin(#10) A PAC 12 rematch (which was an awesome game), and the SEC's elite at Camp Randall? Sign me up. Phoenix824 11 May 2012, 9:59 am Since we are only getting 4 teams at this point. I want the top four teams to be in the playoff however I think there should be some consideration for a confrence champ. I believe I saw one proposal where if a confrence champ was ranked either #5 or #6 they would bump the non-champ. I am ok with that. IMO Oregon #5 who was the PAC 12 champ last year should bump Stanford #4 (who they beat H2H) last year if we had had a four team playoff. My personal preference would be everything re-aligns into 4 (16) team conferences. Then we would could have an 8 team playoff and maintain the importance of the regular season. 8 Division winners play for Confrence Championship. 4 Confrence Champions play for spot in NC game. But that will be a few year. Triv 11 May 2012, 10:29 am If we were to go to an 8 team playoff the regular season would need to be shortened. You can't ask kids who play in a physical conference such as the B1G or SEC to play a full 12 or 13 game schedule and then expect them to go play the 3 toughest games of the year in back to back to back games. That's too much physical pressure to put on a college kid IMO. I'm all for an 8 team if the regular season is shortened to maybe 10 games Sorry Urban, Woody is still my favorite btalbert25 11 May 2012, 10:54 am Conferences should cut out the title games and you can cut out a game against a crappy non conference team. Of course the conferences make a killing off the title game and Ohio State won't sacrifice a 7th or 8th home game and all the money that comes pouring in from it. I hate conference title games and think they are pointless. Maybe half the time they match up the 2 best teams in the conference. Mark 11 May 2012, 10:45 am No way should all be conference champs. Then you'll see a Va tech in the playoff instead of a much better Big ten or SEC team. cplunk 11 May 2012, 11:16 am If you didn't win your conference, then your only argument is "I want your perception of the strength of my conference to match my perception". Conference champs only please. If the issue is some conferences being weaker, then i'd resolve that by making the top level be four conference of 12 teams each, each with a conference champ game. It is silly to think there is a reasonable way to select a playoff from 117 teams. Perception plays too large of a role. btalbert25 11 May 2012, 11:56 am Perceived strength seriously? Like it or not, the SEC had 3 and possibly 4 teams that could of won the B1G last year. In a bowl game, I would of taken LSU, Bama, Arkansas, Georgia and maybe even South Carolina over Wisconsin last year. We can say perceived strength of conference and feel good about it but c'mon man like or not the SEC is really good. Those 5 teams I just mentioned would of won the ACC and Big East with ease. I think they all end up high in the pecking order of the B1G. TheHumbleBuckeye 11 May 2012, 12:15 pm Actually, I would have taken Wisconsin over LSU, Georgia, and South Carolina. I'd take Bama over Wisconsin. And I think Arkansas would be a tossup (Don't like the matchups against Arkansas' 4 and 5 wide sets, but then again I think Russell Wilson would have been far and away the best QB Arkansas' suspect defense saw all year). I absolutely think Wisconsin could have been last year's national champion if the cards had fallen the right way. Without those two plays, Bucky could have been 13-0 and matched up against LSU, which I contend would have been a VERY favorable matchup for Bucky. Wisconsin would get there points - LSU hadn't seen a balanced offense all year until the title game when Saban let AJ frickin McCarron throw some wobbly short outs and slants and for the first time all season LSU's secondary had to be on their toes for both the run AND the pass (as opposed to them seeing so many run heavy or pass heavy teams all year). Wilson would have torched LSU's extremely undisciplined secondary. btalbert25 11 May 2012, 1:53 pm I don't know, Wisky losing to MSU once, Ohio State, Oregon, and almost losing a 2nd time to MSU doesn't convince me they'd beat LSU or Bama. The way Georgia finished the year I was very impressed. They could win it all this year. That team has a lot of great players coming back. Anything could happen in 1 game, I understand that, so maybe Wisky could beat them maybe not. I'm not convinced they would win any of those games. Run_Fido_Run 11 May 2012, 2:41 pm Wisky's defense was not good enough to challenge for a national championship last year, but I would have liked them against Ark, South Carolina, or UGA. TheHumbleBuckeye 11 May 2012, 4:15 pm Wisconsin's defense doesn't have to be that great. LSU's offense was 86th in the country. Assuming they're not bailed out by special teams (as they were so many times), I like Wisconsin's chances. LSU had a power running attack with absolutely no ability to pass. I think Wiscy puts up 35 on LSU, and LSU only manages 24. Like I said, I just like the matchup. And I don't like the matchup with Arkansas. Those 4 and 5 wide sets would be tough for Wiscy's defense to stop, and I could see a shootout with Arkansas having the distinct advantage of having a more uptempo offense late in the game. cplunk 11 May 2012, 1:15 pm Irrelevant. Today's SEC strength has no relevance to my statement. You may agree with the perception, and the perception may CURRENTLY be right, but it is still JUST PERCEPTION. There can, and will, be many times it is wrong, or held over from past events. joel121270 11 May 2012, 1:18 pm Well said, you can't win your conference then better luck next year. joel121270 11 May 2012, 1:15 pm @ BT, you say "Like it or not, the SEC had 3 and possibly 4 teams that could of won the B1G last year". I take issue with that because those teams don't play in the same environment that all of these BIG teams play in, expecially late October and November. To me, that's a totally different ball game if they played any games up here. So to say they could have won it is a little short sighted. Granted, I understand that LSU and BAMA were very strong teams and I don't deny that but a lot of the reason the SEC is clamoring for a neutral field is exactly my point above and they know coming up this way would make things a whole hell of a lot different than playing in warmer climates. I think LSU and BAMA would have been the only threat to UW last year as well. hodge 11 May 2012, 1:25 pm For what it's worth, LSU and 'Bama both play power offenses. I mean, look at Les Miles, he's obsessed with Schembechler's counter runs. And Trent Richardson would have been just as at-home north of the Mason-Dixie line in any B1G offense. Like it or not, the SEC's elite plays very similar offensively to the B1G, they just have more depth and athleticism. btalbert25 11 May 2012, 1:56 pm How many Big 10 games would be considered "Cold Weather" though? Those teams go on the road to Lexington and Knoxville to play. Those aren't "warm climates" It's not as if there are a lot of games where snow blankets the field or it's below freezing in B1G country anymore in the fall. I don't know, maybe I'm way off base, but I just can't recall too many B1G games in recent years where the cold would really negatively impact the game. Sure there are rainy days, but they get those in the 50's-and 60's in the south in November too. hodge 11 May 2012, 2:14 pm Well, that's largely because the season ends in November. If homefield playoff games happened, Camp Randall would be like Lambeau--except with "Jump Around." btalbert25 11 May 2012, 4:34 pm My comment was that there were 3 or 4 teams that could win the big 10 and the response I got referenced weather. January would definitely change things(not sure if the outcomes would be much different though), but I was referring to conference ball and responding to a comment about different climates. Another Jason 11 May 2012, 11:48 am I like some sort of system where conference champs are given preference but non-champs aren't entirely ruled out. By including only 4 out of 120 teams in 11 conferences and a few independents, it makes it hard to construct a fair system that achieves that. One thing I think people overlook is that if the current BCS system is used to seed the teams, then the results of the human polls will reflect the system in place. That is, if it's a conference champs only system, then I believe a team like Wisconsin would be ranked higher than #10 in the final polls, simply because of the knowledge that they will be in the playoff. Their two losses would be argued away as flukes, like LSU's in '07. If it's a top-four regardless system, then teams from "weaker" conferences will not get high rankings. If some other method is used to select the field, then who knows? Ultimately, I think either more teams need to be chosen or fewer need to be chosen from. Nick 11 May 2012, 3:26 pm IMO Can't be NATIONAL Champs and not a conference champ.. A conference champ is a body of work award throughtout the seaon a Nat'l title can be won in just one or two games. buckeyedude 11 May 2012, 8:35 pm I think the SEC has some built in advantages that the B1G doesn't have. #1. the weather is better. Have you noticed how southern and western teams dominate the NCAA baseball tourney? Conversely, how does the SEC do in college hockey? Wait. Never mind. #2. the bowl games are played mostly in the sun belt. I really think this advantage is underestimated. Many times when midwest teams go to Florida, California or Arizona, they look at it like a vacation. If they are playing a team from one of those states, it's just another game to them. Alex Root 11 May 2012, 9:03 pm Ok if it is a 4 team playoff which is what it is going to be to start off at. You have to have it limited to conference champions. If you don't win your conference let alone your division tough luck you had your shot good luck next year. I hated the bama lsu game it was boring and I didn't even watch it, and I believe it was one of the lowest rated championship games ever. For me its not about the SEC is better and the Big east sucks so the SEC should get 2 and the Big East should get none. This deal will go down in 2014 and by that time the Big East won't get an automatic bid becuase they really do suck and everyone is leaving the conference. So I am all for having only conference champions, even when OSU beat Michigan in the 1v2 game I wasn't in favor of playing michigan again they had their shot and lost. Unless you go to a 6 team or 8 team playoff its all conference championship.