Possible Boise State/Nebraska series stalled because...

[JeremyHight]

i still have a hard time figuring out how/why you think a playoff would weaken the regular season... you argued OOC games wouldnt matter, but i still think smart coaches would schedule at least 2 good teams for OOC team to prepare them for the playoffs and to "test" the team... the in conference games would possibly be MORE impassioned, as all teams would want to win the conference to get into the playoff...

I don't think any playoff would lessen the regular season, I think that too big of a playoff would lessen the regular season. I'd rather take too few, than take too many. Why? Because when you start taking too many teams, you start devaluing regular season losses. Losses should impact whether or not you get a shot at the title and although you might be playing the best football at the end of the season, your ENTIRE season should matter, not just how you played at the end.

I have long said that a 4 team playoff with the top 4 conference champions and an improved BCS formula (Margin of Victory allowed for computers and replacing the Coaches Poll with the AP) would benefit college football. But if it went to 8 or 16 teams, then all of a sudden, late losses don't mean anything. Early losses don't mean anything. Just get to the top 16 and you are set. Why would teams try a big OOC opponent when they know that all that have to do is breeze through some easy OOC opponents, beat a majority of their conference and finish the season 10-2, thus getting into the playoffs?

As a WVU fan, you will remember several years ago when WVU had the stars align and was one win away from the NC game. Would that game have mattered as much if win or lose, WVU was guaranteed a place in a 8 or 16 team playoff? Of course not. WVU still would have tried, but at the end, would have shrugged their shoulders and still packed their bags and prepared to play for a championship even though they lost their final game. How does that not lessen the importance of the regular season?

really, the fairest way to go about this is to use a tiered system: split DI-A into two divisions (i know, just bear with me) organize the 60 best teams into 6 10 team conferences , same with the other 60 in the lower division, all conference winners get into their subsequent playoff, top two teams get a bye, play it out, boom you have a champion... from there, take the 6 playoff teams from the lower division and move them to the upper division the next season, replacing the 6 worst performing teams from the "better" division...

I don't like it simply because in some cases, teams can burst out of the middle. The year before Ohio State won it all, they were 7-5 and lost their bowl game. They might have been in the lower division if they only had to play the top 60 teams. So instead of a once in a lifetime 14-0 season and arguably the most exciting single season for any team ever, we get them beating up on the lower division and really accomplishing nothing.

It is a good idea for fairness, but overall, it hurts the sport.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'll take just taking the champs.

I'll take anything over what we have now.

I wouldn't.

I'm tired of half assed solutions. Give me a completely new landscape or system or just go back to pre-BCS and say fuck it. I've never once had a problem getting hyped up for college football regardless if a game was "meaningless".

 

[Atlas]

Ok?............Good for them? And maybe I don't think their systems are worth a shit either in terms of the way they pick teams..........................Polls/BCS=shitty way to pick teams for a playoff.

obviously, im talking about this as a tool to go with my 6 10 team conferences idea, so it would solely be used for seeding purposes, not to see who gets invited...

 

[FirstTimer]

obviously, im talking about this as a tool to go with my 6 10 team conferences idea, so it would solely be used for seeding purposes, not to see who gets invited...

Then in that case don't have any polling done until after the season.

 

[Atlas]

I just looked it up, Div II is already at 24 teams but FCS is only set to expand to 20, starting this postseason. I guess there are 4 teams who get byes?

But yeah, now that they've expanded to 20 it'll be 24 then 28 then 32 before you know it. I'm in favor of a playoff, I think the BCS sucks. But I'm worried about the slippery slope aspect of too many teams wanting to be included.

4 team playoff is fine by me. Any undefeated team automatically gets in and from there the top remaining conference champions get in based on a selection committee.

DII is only doing that to try and garner more attention and b/c they have more total teams in their division... 4-6 team playoff is perfect in my eyes...

 

[Atlas]

I don't like it simply because in some cases, teams can burst out of the middle. The year before Ohio State won it all, they were 7-5 and lost their bowl game. They might have been in the lower division if they only had to play the top 60 teams. So instead of a once in a lifetime 14-0 season and arguably the most exciting single season for any team ever, we get them beating up on the lower division and really accomplishing nothing.

It is a good idea for fairness, but overall, it hurts the sport.

apologies, but a 7-5 team would never move down... there would be plenty of 1,2 and 3 win teams in the upper tier, and quite frankly, i cant think of a team that won 4 or less teams in one season and then won the National Title the next...

 

[JeremyHight]

apologies, but a 7-5 team would never move down... there would be plenty of 1,2 and 3 win teams in the upper tier, and quite frankly, i cant think of a team that won 4 or less teams in one season and then won the National Title the next...

They were 7-5 with their 7 wins being against Akron, Indiana, Northwestern, San Diego State, Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan. If instead of bottom dwellers like Akron, Indiana, and San Diego State and instead had to play better teams, I would easily say that they could be a team under .500. They could have been relegated depending on who else was in their division.

I would like to hear your comments on the WVU example, though.

 

[Atlas]

I would like to hear your comments on the WVU example, though.

all homerism aside, i still think that WVU team was the best team in CFB that year and would have won a NT if there had been a playoff... i see your point, but we are talking about a team that still won their conference and was considered one of the best teams that year, not some shitsquad who got lucky and caught the conference in a down year (Illinois in 2007, Pitt in 2004, Cincy in 2008, whoever wins the ACC every year)... i am not for a playoff of more than 6 teams, so your point is moot, and having said playoff would not weaken the regular season...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

On one hand, you guys are telling me rivalries mean more than titles, yet on the other hand, you are also saying rivalries would be hurt by a playoff if both teams were likely playoff teams.

Well, which is it? If these precious rivalries meant as much as you say, nothing could hurt them.

Talk your way out of that.

If the rivalries truly are the most impotant thing, a playoff wouldn't hurt them. Nothing would.

 

[Fox1994]

What the haters of the "little guys" don't understand, is a playoff would finally shut up guys like me, and the Boise's, when the "little guys" get stomped in the playoffs every year.

But to not give EVERYONE a chance at a championship, and just arbitrarily pick two teams to play, is outrageous. Every college football fan should be outraged, and demand change.

:smugusa:

....

But you're given an opportunity. The smaller schools. Butler was in the College Basketball National Championship this year, man. Fucking Butler. Who knew Butler before this year? Nobody. Nobody would've picked them. Playoffs aren't perfect, nothing's perfect, but it is a definitive system. Everyone's given a chance and you're given one shot to prove you're the best.

And you can argue that "the bowl system has the regular season as a palyoff" and this and that and the other thing, but in any case nothing is going to get changed until "the cartel", as W2B so aptly named them, can be convinced that they're going to make more money off of a playoff.

....

If the rivalries are more important than the bowls, then they'd probably be more important than playoffs, too... Thereby, that really means nothing. If Ohio State is more interested in beating Michigan, and vice versa... then what else really matters? I mean, what bearing does that have on our argument?

---

What I find most interesting is that everyone is worried about the value of the regular season.

Pro-Playoff: "The regular season is made more important because of the playoff."

Pro-bowls: "The regular season is made more important because of the bowl system."

I'm confused. You both have points, and the argument is cyclical.

---

Personally, I'd be in favor of an 8-team playoff with the six BCS schools and the two non-BCS schools with the best records and conference records or something...

Or a 12-team with the eleven conference champs and a wild card... Or the best indy team.

Idk. Whatever happens, people are going to be disappointed in something, but I'd personally prefer a playoff.

 

[NAHSTE]

4 teams, every undefeated team gets in and the top conference winners fill out the field from there. This would've sent TCU, Boise, Alabama and Texas into the playoffs last season.

That's the best way. Do it.

 

[Fox1994]

4 teams, every undefeated team gets in and the top conference winners fill out the field from there. This would've sent TCU, Boise, Alabama and Texas into the playoffs last season.

That's the best way. Do it.

I feel like you're being mostly sarcastic, but I'm not opposed to it.

 

[Primetime]

*Knew who Butler was before last year*

 

[NAHSTE]

I feel like you're being mostly sarcastic, but I'm not opposed to it.

I wasn't being at all. I truly think that's the simplest and most feasible way; one that will ruin the game the least and anger the fewest amount of people. And for the record, I've been pro-playoff this whole time. But I am a staunch "regular season preservationist," if you will.

 

[Fox1994]

*Knew who Butler was before last year*

Maybe I used too much hyperbole and should've just stuck with "Thought Butler was going to be in the National Championship last year."

I wasn't being at all, I truly think that's the simplest and most feasible way that will fuck things up the least and anger the fewest people.

Oh. Okay. Cool. :2thumbs:

 

[Primetime]

They're in the same conference as UW-Green Bay. Probably wouldn't know otherwise.


....sorry to hijack the thread.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Unless you are a Ohio St or Michigan fan, nobody cares about OSU/Michigan if both teams are 9-2 and out of the title hunt. It's basically a meaningless game for anyone who could give a fuck about the bragging rights.

If the game determines a playoff spot, it now has enormous juice nationwide, and everyone cares. It makes the game bigger.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

4 teams, every undefeated team gets in and the top conference winners fill out the field from there. This would've sent TCU, Boise, Alabama and Texas into the playoffs last season.

That's the best way. Do it.

I'm fine with that, but you will have guys like FedEx crying about it when somebody like Ball St or Hawaii sneaks in.

Because, you know, those teams have no right to compete for some reason.

I'm a fan of the 6 BCS legue winners, plus the two best at large. Any unbeaten mid major is guarunteed a spot ahead of any non league winner. More than two unbeatens you go to SOS for the tiebreaker. This at least guaruntees you will get the 3 or 4 best teams in the field,probably the top 5 or 6 realistically. Some years, you would have no non BCS teams, which would please the FedEx crowd.

I dont agree with the FirstTimer opinion of "of you cant come up with a good playoff, then no playoff at all". A shaky playoff is the lesser of the evils. Juat about any playoff idea with 12 or less teams is better than the BCS.

 

[NAHSTE]

There has to be a common ground here, because everyone essentially agrees on the general principles. However, there is so much money on the line that nobody ever wants to do anything.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Why don't some of you guys come clean?

It's pretty obvious why an Ohio St fan would want to protect THE CARTEL.

Call it like it is. You like that 20-25 teams control everything, because you are one of them. Lame.

QFT

Nailed it, if you're an SEC fan who think its their champ's god given right to play in the NC (not aimed at anyone, just an example), then obviously you won't want the 'little guys' getting a shot.