BCS Playoffs..UPDATE 6/5. Pac-12 Commish Larry Scott is fucking awesome

[mgoblue2290]

Yeah just some form of playoff in place is a good first step. I have no doubts that once we have a 4 team playoff, it will grow into some 16 or 32 team monstrosity.

 

[kyhadley]

Any sort of playoff system is better than the current system.

 

[Atlas]

12 teams is perfect IMO... give the top four a bye and boom, you have a nice playoff... anything more than that is doo doo...

 

[Senser81]

It's time to let go of the Rose Bowl traditions. This isn't 1959, and there have been plenty of Rose Bowls in the last 15 years that have not featured the Big 10 vs Pac 10 champ.

The Rose Bowl continues to hold up needed progress for a real playoff. Let these archaic traditions go and let's move forward.

The whole Rose Bowl deal is funny. I thought the reason for the BCS was because the Rose Bowl had such an ironclad arrangement with the Big10 and Pac10, it was difficult to get a true #1 vs. #2 matchup. Instead of Penn State playing Nebraska in the game of the century, we got Penn State playing a mediocre Oregon team in the Rose Bowl.

Also, until the early 1970's the final college football polls were released at the end of the regular season, so the bowl games were nothing more than glorified exhibitions. Not a whole lot has changed since then, really, but the whole idea of upholding tradition with the bowl games is false, because the tradition doesn't go back very far.

 

[JeremyHight]

Ugh, I hate how college football is making steps towards the right direction and people in this thread want them to run past the goal and be god awful on the other side of the spectrum. One of the big complaints about our current system is the AQ conference champions, but now we want that in a playoff? We want to give non-power conference teams a shot, but want over half the bids going to BCS teams?

Give me a four team playoff with only the top four ranked conference champions. No AQ conferences, no bids automatically going to BCS teams. Simply put, if you are a conference champion from any conference (or independent, I guess) you could get in if you are among the best ranked.

 

[Senser81]

Give me a four team playoff with only the top four ranked conference champions. No AQ conferences, no bids automatically going to BCS teams. Simply put, if you are a conference champion from any conference (or independent, I guess) you could get in if you are among the best ranked.

This makes the most sense for me. We don't want a repeat of the LSU-Bama title game debacle (Bama wins the season series, 1-1), but we also don't want a system that is too restrictive.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Ugh, I hate how college football is making steps towards the right direction and people in this thread want them to run past the goal and be god awful on the other side of the spectrum. One of the big complaints about our current system is the AQ conference champions, but now we want that in a playoff? We want to give non-power conference teams a shot, but want over half the bids going to BCS teams?

Give me a four team playoff with only the top four ranked conference champions. No AQ conferences, no bids automatically going to BCS teams. Simply put, if you are a conference champion from any conference (or independent, I guess) you could get in if you are among the best ranked.

:no:


Non-BCS teams will still get fucked over in a 4 team playoff if its based on rankings. Every conference champ should make the playoffs (with some kind of rule built in for independents, bot quite sure how it would work) and if you don't win your conference too bad.

 

[Bear Pand]

Looks like nothing bigger than 4 teams. Fuck Yes.

Fixed

if you win a shit conference too bad.

Fixed

Any sort of playoff system is better than the current system.

Disagree.

I have no doubts that once we have a 4 team playoff, it will grow into some 16 or 32 team monstrosity.

Please no.

 

[JeremyHight]

:no:


Non-BCS teams will still get fucked over in a 4 team playoff if its based on rankings. Every conference champ should make the playoffs (with some kind of rule built in for independents, bot quite sure how it would work) and if you don't win your conference too bad.

If they do away with the Coaches poll, which is one of the most biased pieces of crap you could ever imagine, then I don't have a problem with rankings. There will always be preseason rankings, but as long as people don't have a specific, monetary allegiance to a team or conference doing well, then it won't be a problem if a team is able to prove themselves on the field.

Also, if it does go to a playoff, I see no reason why the AP wouldn't come back to be a part of the BCS formula, since their main point in leaving was due to the flaws of selecting a single matchup to culminate a season.

On a final note... all conference champions should make a playoff? Really? Give me a valid reason why a team like Louisiana Tech should earn a shot at the title that isn't "They COULD win" or "They won the WAC". I'm all for giving small schools a shot, but giving teams a shot simply for winning a bad conference with a bad record doesn't signify that they should automatically be in. If all conferences were specifically equal, sure, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they aren't. Instead, we just take the top four conference champions regardless of AQ or not and it would still give these teams a shot at making the playoffs if their play on the field dictates it, but not just clutter the system just for the sake of playing nice.

 

[Atlas]

im fine with four, but they should never extend it beyond 12 teams IMO...

 

[Bear Pand]

My issue with only 4 teams is that preseason rankings still pretty much control who has a chance and who doesn't. Outside the Top 10-15? Really not a hell of a lot of a chance to break into that Top 4. Better than the top 2 but with the rankings we all know they are way to heavily favoring to teams rated highly to begin with.

Last season (2010):

Aurburn started #22/#23.
Stanford started unranked.
Oregon was still top 10-15 but at #11.

All ended up in top 4 right before the bowls. 09 Cincy/TCU same thing.

The teams that'd struggle the most to climb and break into the top 4 would be non-BCS teams that come out of nowhere. Like Houston only being able to get to #6.

Plus I think it's reasonable to argue that the preseason top 15 rankings do manage to hold the "best" 4 teams in the nation the majority of the time...even though I hate preseason polls.

 

[Bear Pand]

On a final note... all conference champions should make a playoff? Really? Give me a valid reason why a team like Louisiana Tech should earn a shot at the title that isn't "They COULD win" or "They won the WAC". I'm all for giving small schools a shot, but giving teams a shot simply for winning a bad conference with a bad record doesn't signify that they should automatically be in. If all conferences were specifically equal, sure, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they aren't. Instead, we just take the top four conference champions regardless of AQ or not and it would still give these teams a shot at making the playoffs if their play on the field dictates it, but not just clutter the system just for the sake of playing nice.

Because people love upsets and rooting for underdogs. They want to recreate the perfect March Madness system that let a sub .500 Western Kentucky team in this year.

Or they root for a team that plays in a trash conference.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Because people love upsets and rooting for underdogs. They want to recreate the perfect March Madness system that let a sub .500 Western Kentucky team in this year.

Or they root for a team that plays in a trash conference.

Rich coming from a Purdue fan :smh:

 

[JeremyHight]

Rich coming from a Purdue fan :smh:

You never answered my post asking you to give me a reason LTU should be in the playoffs. Also, I think you misclicked the groan button.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Because people love upsets and rooting for underdogs. They want to recreate the perfect March Madness system that let a sub .500 Western Kentucky team in this year.

Or they root for a team that plays in a trash conference.

People dont seem to realize that D-1A college football has only 120 teams while D-1A college basketball has over 300 teams.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

People dont seem to realize that D-1A college football has only 120 teams while D-1A college basketball has over 300 teams.

11 or 12 from 120 is far more selective than than 68 from 300+, trying to compare a 12 team playoff to march madness is ridiculous.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

11 or 12 from 120 is far more selective than than 68 from 300+, trying to compare a 12 team playoff to march madness is ridiculous.

I didnt compare 12 team playoff to march madness, i was referring to the people who want a 32 or 64 team playoff.

12 teams is about right to me, as long as its the best 12.

 

[Bear Pand]

Rich coming from a Purdue fan :smh:

Oh Purdue sucks I know. I'm not delusional about it like the people who believe the Sun Belt champ deserves a playoff bid are.

You won't hear me making arguments like "but...but...let Purdue in if they don't deserve to be there they'll lose anyway!"

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Sub Belt champ getting a playoff bid >>>>>> Alabama who can't even make their own conference championship game getting to play for a NC

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Take 2006 for example I'll take the Sun Belt champ getting in if it means Boise got the chance to play for a championship because they wouldn't have with any kind of 4 team playoff. Or 2009, either Boise or TCU would have been screwed. Every conference champ getting a bid is the only fair way to make sure every deserving team gets a shot.