Possible Boise State/Nebraska series stalled because...

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'd probably add a few at-large teams, but overall, that'd work for me.

The "they were left out" argument is relevant never, and discussed for maybe the few days leading up to the first day of the tournament, and then its all moot and no one gives a fuck. That is how it goes down in Hoops, so I am certain it'd end up similarly college football.

There will be teams left out, but no one will care once the playoff starts.

[FirstTimer]

I'd probably add a few at-large teams, but overall, that'd work for me.

[FedEx227]

That's what I really want to get away from. I always argue on the side of no playoff, not because I don't want a playoff, I do... I just don't want it to become too ridiculous. 4 teams works for me because you can integrate that into the current Bowl system without any problems. 8 teams is okay but not ideal. Conference champions is okay, but once we start going at-large, watering down the pool, more annoying arguments about whos in whos out, etc.

4 is my dream scenario and the easiest for the NCAA to justify. 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3 - final game in the BCS championship game. Done.

[FirstTimer]

That's what I really want to get away from. I always argue on the side of no playoff, not because I don't want a playoff, I do... I just don't want it to become too ridiculous. 4 teams works for me because you can integrate that into the current Bowl system without any problems. 8 teams is okay but not ideal. Conference champions is okay, but once we start going at-large, watering down the pool, more annoying arguments about whos in whos out, etc.

4 is my dream scenario and the easiest for the NCAA to justify. 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3 - final game in the BCS championship game. Done.

I see your point but from a certain perspective adding at large to conference champions doesn't make logical sense because the purpose there was to go objective with the system. At large teams defeats that point. Not saying you were in support of at large teams...just kind of arguing along side of you.

The 2v3 1v4 things I guess works but if you are creating a playoff because the BCS doesn't work then it doesn't make much sense to create any sort of a playoff using the BCS/polling at all. I mean I guess it would "work" but it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense IMO.

[JeremyHight]

Any playoff system with more than 6 teams would destroy college football. Honestly, I'd rather go back to the old bowl system without even #1 facing #2 than go to something with 8+ teams involved. I cannot think of a single season where more than 6 teams had a legitimate claim to getting a shot at the title.

If it were up to me, I'd say that the best option would be taking the top 4 conference champions/independents as ranked by the BCS formula (with computers allowed to factor in MOV) to get a shot at the title. If you cannot win your conference, you don't get a shot. If you are outside of the top 4 conference champions or independents, you don't get a shot. It is simple and efficient, while still putting priority on the regular season, winning your conference, and being highly ranked in the polls.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Fuck independents, and fuck the old bowl system.

Holding onto that antiquated shit is part of what is killing the chances to get a playoff going.

Things change, things evolve. Watch how fast ND joins a league if there is a "champion only" playoff. And if they don't, fuck 'em.

As for a playoff "killimg the sport", that's laughable. Yes, because a playoff has been so terrible for college hoops. Every other sport on the planet is decided via playoff. College football would be bigger than ever with a playoff, because we'd finally have a legitimate postseason. People would eat that up.

[FirstTimer]

Any playoff system with more than 6 teams would destroy college football. Honestly, I'd rather go back to the old bowl system without even #1 facing #2 than go to something with 8+ teams involved. I cannot think of a single season where more than 6 teams had a legitimate claim to getting a shot at the title.

If it were up to me, I'd say that the best option would be taking the top 4 conference champions/independents as ranked by the BCS formula (with computers allowed to factor in MOV) to get a shot at the title. If you cannot win your conference, you don't get a shot. If you are outside of the top 4 conference champions or independents, you don't get a shot. It is simple and efficient, while still putting priority on the regular season, winning your conference, and being highly ranked in the polls.

I'd rather have this than ANY playoff system based off BCS rankings, w/ at larges etc.

[FirstTimer]

Fuck independents, and fuck the old bowl system.

Holding onto that antiquated shit is part of what is killing the chances to get a playoff going.

Things change, things evolve. Watch how fast ND joins a league if there is a "champion only" playoff. And if they don't, fuck 'em.

As for a playoff "killimg the sport", that's laughable. Yes, because a playoff has been so terrible for college hoops. Every other sport on the planet is decided via playoff. College football would be bigger than ever with a playoff, because we'd finally have a legitimate postseason. People would eat that up.

What's the current land speed record?

[JeremyHight]

Yes, because a playoff has been so terrible for college hoops.

When was the last time a regular season college basketball game really mattered? Honestly. You are saying you want a system where the regular season has almost no impact what so ever on the championship like in college basketball? Remember, in some conferences in college basketball, you can have zero wins all regular season, but by winning 4 games in the conference championship, still go to the Tournament and have a shot at the title. Ya, that is GREAT for college basketball.

[Atlas]

When was the last time a regular season college basketball game really mattered? Honestly. You are saying you want a system where the regular season has almost no impact what so ever on the championship like in college basketball? Remember, in some conferences in college basketball, you can have zero wins all regular season, but by winning 4 games in the conference championship, still go to the Tournament and have a shot at the title. Ya, that is GREAT for college basketball.

you are comparing a post season conference tourney to the regular season of college football... this makes no sense, as college football has no post season conference tourney... if anything, it would make conference games more competitive, and more so, a lot of college coaches/AD's would want to schedule more big time OOC matchups to prepare their teams for the playoff... both would be great for college football...

[FirstTimer]

When was the last time a regular season college basketball game really mattered? Honestly. You are saying you want a system where the regular season has almost no impact what so ever on the championship like in college basketball? Remember, in some conferences in college basketball, you can have zero wins all regular season, but by winning 4 games in the conference championship, still go to the Tournament and have a shot at the title. Ya, that is GREAT for college basketball.

Agreed. I've always thought that it's retarded that the regular season conference champ doesn't get an automatic bid but the conference tournament champion does. IMO conference championship week in college basketball is retarded as hell. You just played nearly 30 games total. 10-15 in conference. That should be MORE than enough to have to declare a conference champ and move on to "The Big Dance" time.

You basically play the 10-15 game conference schedule to seed a 3-4 game conference tournament at a neutral site.

College basketball has some aspects to it that are as brain dead, if not more so, than college football.

[mgoblue2290]

Anyone have any ideas on how to seed the teams in this thing?

I still think it has to be based on the BCS ranking system. I think it'd be a lot easier to win over some teams too if the NCAA agreed to do it based on that. The number of teams is the difficult part though. 8 teams seems like too many because with most conferences having championship games now, that'd be potentially playing a 16 game season. I think 4 teams would have to be the number. Or I guess 6 and top 2 get a bye, but that still means at two teams have the possibility of a 16 game season.

[FirstTimer]

I still think it has to be based on the BCS ranking system. I think it'd be a lot easier to win over some teams too if the NCAA agreed to do it based on that. The number of teams is the difficult part though. 8 teams seems like too many because with most conferences having championship games now, that'd be potentially playing a 16 game season. I think 4 teams would have to be the number. Or I guess 6 and top 2 get a bye, but that still means at two teams have the possibility of a 16 game season.

Keep in mind though my set up OOC games would be rendered essentially meaningless and may cease to exist as the conference championship would be the only thing that mattered. So you wouldn't be playng 16 games.

[Warner2BruceTD]

When was the last time a regular season college basketball game really mattered? Honestly. You are saying you want a system where the regular season has almost no impact what so ever on the championship like in college basketball? Remember, in some conferences in college basketball, you can have zero wins all regular season, but by winning 4 games in the conference championship, still go to the Tournament and have a shot at the title. Ya, that is GREAT for college basketball.

A larger majority of games matter in college basketball than college football. I will argue this till death.

College football is the sport where the least amount of games matter.

Right off the bat, before a single kickoff, every team (aside from Boise this year and this year only, assuming they go unbeaten and get into the NC game) in the WAC, MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, & independants not named ND are playing 12 meaningless exhibition games. 12-0, doesnt matter, means absolutely nothing.

Same thing applies to the lower rung BCS teams, who would also not be invited to the BCS Championship if they went unbeaten.

Then, once one of the remaining teams lose a game, unless you are one of the few big boys like Florida, Texas, et al, your season is now over, and you are now playing meaningless games. Lose a second game, and it doent matter who you are--you're now playing meaningless games the rest of the season.

"Every game counts!" is a crock of shit. It's dimishing returns. By the final weeks of the season, you have about 2 or 3 games that "matter", and 60 maeningless exhibitions.

And when you get to the postseason, you have 20+ meaningless exhibitions, and ONE FUCKING GAME that matters.

Hoops doesnt have the do or die aspect, but you could argue that EVERY SINGLE GAME means something, in terms of making the tournament field, seeding, etc.

The percentage of hoops games that "matter" DWARFS football. You know why? Hoops has a playoff, and every team starts the season with a chance to win it. NO CARTEL, no teams playing an entire schedule that doesnt count.

March Madness is FUCKING HUGE, and a football playoff would be even bigger.

[FirstTimer]

Hoops doesnt have the do or die aspect, but you could argue that EVERY SINGLE GAME means something, in terms of making the tournament field, seeding, etc.

The percentage of hoops games that "matter" DWARFS football. You know why? Hoops has a playoff, and every team starts the season with a chance to win it. NO CARTEL, no teams playing an entire schedule that doesnt count.

Because there are more games in general?