For all the BCS haters out there..

[FirstTimer]

Of course, in all those sports they play twice or three times as many games.

Basketball: 30's
Baseball: I don't give a fuck. Really high.
Soccer: Like 16 or something...plus conference tournament and NCAA tournament
Football: 12

:withstupid:

Last I checked the NFL doesn't play twice as many games...and it would seem that people don't mind that league having a multi loss champion seeing as it's the most popular professional league in America.

[Fox1994]

I think a 16-team playoff with 11 conference champs and five at-larges would be great. I wouldn't mind a 32-team playoff with 11 conference champs, 11 second-best in the conference teams.

An imperfect playoff > the current BCS system

And I think they should restructure the regular season, as well, to accommodate for playoffs. Make it less regular season games...

I certainly don't have the perfect system, but if it exists it'll only be figured out once the NCAA and the schools decide they want a playoff.

[Hasselbeck]

LSU won't be in the conference championship game because it plays in the same division as Auburn. South Carolina could lose to Clemson next week, then beat Auburn the following week and be the official "SEC Champion" with 4 losses.

Does that make them more deserving of a national title shot than LSU? Under your proposal, 1-loss Auburn and 1-loss LSU would sit at home while 4-loss South Carolina got to play Oregon/Boise/TCU in a first-round game.

You can't penalize LSU for playing in the best division in the country (five ranked teams last I checked). If they were in the East, they'd be playing Auburn in Atlanta in two weeks.

Such a tired ass argument. Seriously. Every single March this happens in the college basketball tournament. You know what would have happened if the BCS took over the NCAA Tournament? Butler would have NEVER EVER EVER been in the National Championship game. Gonzaga would be Boise State and TCU every year. George Mason? LOL at them even getting an invite much less going on an historic run.

What about the NFL? The 16-0 Patriots would have just played the Cowboys that year. Rayman would be cool with that.. and the Patriots probably would have too. The Giants would have been screwed. The 2008 Cardinals? The 2005-06 Steelers? Oh wait.. they'd be screwed as well.

You can go on and on with every single sport and draw up this scenario.. but if South Carolina won the almighty SEC (which is what SEC homers will always paint it as), then proceeded to beat .. lets say Nebraska-TCU-Oregon en route to a title.. you mean to tell me they would deserve that less because they lost some garbage regular season games?

There are flaws in a playoff system, sure, but a "third place team" running a gauntlet against the best of best? Who cares.. they'd clearly be the deserving champion in that case.

[NAHSTE]

Such a tired ass argument. Seriously. Every single March this happens in the college basketball tournament. You know what would have happened if the BCS took over the NCAA Tournament? Butler would have NEVER EVER EVER been in the National Championship game. Gonzaga would be Boise State and TCU every year. George Mason? LOL at them even getting an invite much less going on an historic run.

What about the NFL? The 16-0 Patriots would have just played the Cowboys that year. Rayman would be cool with that.. and the Patriots probably would have too. The Giants would have been screwed. The 2008 Cardinals? The 2005-06 Steelers? Oh wait.. they'd be screwed as well.

You can go on and on with every single sport and draw up this scenario.. but if South Carolina won the almighty SEC (which is what SEC homers will always paint it as), then proceeded to beat .. lets say Nebraska-TCU-Oregon en route to a title.. you mean to tell me they would deserve that less because they lost some garbage regular season games?

There are flaws in a playoff system, sure, but a "third place team" running a gauntlet against the best of best? Who cares.. they'd clearly be the deserving champion in that case.

Fair enough, and I'd support South Carolina getting a shot ALONG WITH a 1-loss Auburn should they win the SEC CG, but not instead of. I support the inclusion of deserving at-large bids getting over the winner of say, the Sun Belt ... Unless the winner of the Sun Belt is ranked in the top 8, that is.

[Hasselbeck]

Fair enough, and I'd support South Carolina getting a shot ALONG WITH a 1-loss Auburn should they win the SEC CG, but not instead of. I support the inclusion of deserving at-large bids getting over the winner of say, the Sun Belt ... Unless the winner of the Sun Belt is ranked in the top 8, that is.

I can agree with the Sun Belt thing. I personally wouldn't mind auto bids for all conferences, because I think that's most fair.. but in my ideal playoff you basically would just allocate an at-large berth for a Sun Belt team having a great year.

Remember when Ball State almost ran the table out of the MAC conference before losing to shitty Buffalo? Basically had Ball State won that game and went 13-0.. they'd be in the playoffs under all these scenarios.

I don't know, I just don't really see the big deal about a 16-team playoff.. whether or not the MAC/Conference USA/Sun Belt champs are included or not. IMO, if Troy shocked Oregon.. that'd be as exciting as any postseason game in recent memory. Think about how often we watch 1-16, 2-15 matchups in March for basketball.. in the long run, sure it probably kills that glamorous matchup of the top two teams playing each other or something.. but in that moment, there's nothing better than a possible upset.

And if Oregon took care of business in a 16 team playoff against a low level team? Guess what.. their next game is against the 8th or 9th best team in the field. And so on.

This all sounds WAY better than the New Mexico Bowl between Miami-Ohio and Army. But that's just me I guess.

[Bear Pand]

lol i remember that undefeated ball state team, everyone knew they sucked even their coach. I remember him coppin' pleas trying to avoid undefeated Boise in the Humanitarian Bowl.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=jn-ballst120408

They only beat 3 teams with winning records, ducked a bowl matchup with Boise, then got blown out 45-13 by Tulsa in the GMAC bowl.

I don't know, I just don't really see the big deal about a 16-team playoff.. whether or not the MAC/Conference USA/Sun Belt champs are included or not. IMO, if Troy shocked Oregon.. that'd be as exciting as any postseason game in recent memory. Think about how often we watch 1-16, 2-15 matchups in March for basketball.. in the long run, sure it probably kills that glamorous matchup of the top two teams playing each other or something.. but in that moment, there's nothing better than a possible upset.

And if Oregon took care of business in a 16 team playoff against a low level team? Guess what.. their next game is against the 8th or 9th best team in the field. And so on.

The reason for having a 16 team playoff field should be because there are 16 deserving teams that have a legitimate shot at winning a championship. Not including teams just for the sake of it, because it's "fair" or just because they won a bad conference. Sure the 1 in 100 times, or 1 in 500 times a team like Troy beats Oregon it'd be exciting, but the other 99.9999% of the time it's just a complete waste of time. Yeah the bowl games we have now are also a waste, but if a playoff system is going to be implemented why not set it up so all the games are meaningful and competitive? I don't see how it's possible to do this with a 16 team structure, just way too many teams get in.

[FirstTimer]

The reason for having a 16 team playoff field should be because there are 16 deserving teams that have a legitimate shot at winning a championship. Not including teams just for the sake of it, because it's "fair" or just because they won a bad conference. Sure the 1 in 100 times, or 1 in 500 times a team like Troy beats Oregon it'd be exciting, but the other 99.9999% of the time it's just a complete waste of time. Yeah the bowl games we have now are also a waste, but if a playoff system is going to be implemented why not set it up so all the games are meaningful and competitive? I don't see how it's possible to do this with a 16 team structure, just way too many teams get in.

1. All the games in the playoff are meaningful just because the winners advance towards the NCG.

2. You can't know if they are competitive until the game is actually played.

[packersfan4eva]

:withstupid:

Last I checked the NFL doesn't play twice as many games...and it would seem that people don't mind that league having a multi loss champion seeing as it's the most popular professional league in America.

College sports

[Bear Pand]

1. All the games in the playoff are meaningful just because the winners advance towards the NCG.

2. You can't know if they are competitive until the game is actually played.

I disagree. You could use this same logic to justify a 100 team field. At some point too many teams get in and the games lose their meaning and/or won't be competitive. I think 16 is past that point, especially if scrub teams get auto-bids.

And I don't understand what the NFL having multi-loss champions has to do with anything. NFL has multi-loss champs because the gaps between the best teams to average teams and best teams to worst teams aren't nearly as wide as they are in CFB. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all.

[Rayman]

Such a tired ass argument. Seriously. Every single March this happens in the college basketball tournament. You know what would have happened if the BCS took over the NCAA Tournament? Butler would have NEVER EVER EVER been in the National Championship game. Gonzaga would be Boise State and TCU every year. George Mason? LOL at them even getting an invite much less going on an historic run.

What about the NFL? The 16-0 Patriots would have just played the Cowboys that year. Rayman would be cool with that.. and the Patriots probably would have too. The Giants would have been screwed. The 2008 Cardinals? The 2005-06 Steelers? Oh wait.. they'd be screwed as well.

You can go on and on with every single sport and draw up this scenario.. but if South Carolina won the almighty SEC (which is what SEC homers will always paint it as), then proceeded to beat .. lets say Nebraska-TCU-Oregon en route to a title.. you mean to tell me they would deserve that less because they lost some garbage regular season games?

There are flaws in a playoff system, sure, but a "third place team" running a gauntlet against the best of best? Who cares.. they'd clearly be the deserving champion in that case.

I hate you. :pissed:


Also, Wade would have hung a nice "Automatic Qualification" banner in his office.

[FirstTimer]

I disagree. You could use this same logic to justify a 100 team field.

:obama:

Slippery slope....You could also justify then not even playing a regular season....

So how many teams do you think should be in the NCAA basketball tournament?

And I don't understand what the NFL having multi-loss champions has to do with anything. NFL has multi-loss champs because the gaps between the best teams to average teams and best teams to worst teams aren't nearly as wide as they are in CFB. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all.

Who said there would be lots of multiloss champions. I just made the point that having a multi loss champion in CFB wouldn't blow too many minds as
1. It happens in a sport where there is/would be a comparable amount of games

and 2. Does it REALLY matter if the NC of college football has 0,1,or 2 losses? Especially if a playoff format is adopted? I mean is that REALLY going to be a sticking point?

[Hasselbeck]

Once again - why does it matter if a multi loss team won the championship? If they beat .. lets say 2 or 3 of the top 5 or 6 teams in the country to get to that point, doesn't that far outweigh those 2 or 3 losses they had coming into this whole thing?

A playoff reveals the true champion. The BCS meanwhile leaves way too many questions unanswered.

[Bear Pand]

:obama:

Slippery slope....You could also justify then not even playing a regular season....

So how many teams do you think should be in the NCAA basketball tournament?

Basketball already has a playoff set up no need to mess with it. Too bad they do dumb things like expand the field to 68 teams for no reason.

Who said there would be lots of multiloss champions. I just made the point that having a multi loss champion in CFB wouldn't blow too many minds as
1. It happens in a sport where there is/would be a comparable amount of games

and 2. Does it REALLY matter if the NC of college football has 0,1,or 2 losses? Especially if a playoff format is adopted? I mean is that REALLY going to be a sticking point?

I didn't say there would or wouldn't be. I just said comparing CFB to the nfl is kinda of weak. I also don't think it's a big deal to have 0,1,2 loss champions. All of these things have already happened.

My beef is letting teams with 3+ losses into a playoff bracket which could very well happen with 16 teams fields. Autoconference bids would get teams with even more losses in.

Once again - why does it matter if a multi loss team won the championship? If they beat .. lets say 2 or 3 of the top 5 or 6 teams in the country to get to that point, doesn't that far outweigh those 2 or 3 losses they had coming into this whole thing?

A playoff reveals the true champion. The BCS meanwhile leaves way too many questions unanswered.

I'm not arguing the merits of the BCS vs a 16 team playoff field, I'm arguing the merits of a 16 team field vs an 4 or 8 team one. If CFB is going to implement a playoff system I just hope they choose a good one.

[FirstTimer]

Basketball already has a playoff set up no need to mess with it. Too bad they do dumb things like expand the field to 68 teams for no reason.

That's not the point of why I was asking..

I didn't say there would or wouldn't be. I just said comparing CFB to the nfl is kinda of weak.

It's the same sport and a comparable # of games would be played. That's all I was saying.

My beef is letting teams with 3+ losses into a playoff bracket which could very well happen with 16 teams fields. Autoconference bids would get teams with even more losses in.

If the 1 loss or 2 loss teams don't like it they could always just oh say....not lose their games. At least they are controlling their own destiny.

I'm not arguing the merits of the BCS vs a 16 team playoff field, I'm arguing the merits of a 16 team field vs an 4 or 8 team one. If CFB is going to implement a playoff system I just hope they choose a good one.

I just don't want the teams chosen to have any subjectivity to it. We have a chance to get this right. I'd prefer not to mess it up(again)

[mgoblue2290]

I'm just glad our main disagreement is over how many teams should get in and how teams should get in. At least we're all in agreement some form of playoff has to be put in place.