Fanblogs.com: Conference honchos say no-way to playoffs
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
So basically, most of the country wants a playoff except the Pac10 and the Big Televen. So, just let them play in the Rose Bowl every year, and the rest of us can have our playoff. I'd bet it'd only be about 1 year before the 2 conferences changed their minds.
JB
· 1 year ago
haha funny
Zac
· 1 year ago
That "Big Televen" thing, good stuff!!!
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Good post, We could have a true Champion and a Rose bowl champ People will get burnt out on USC vs OSU every year and folks like Keith Jackson can hype it up and call it the grandaddy whatever. True Champs aint scared of playing the best, some teams are in leagues were their chances are better than B-12, ACC or SEC.
ksuwild
· 1 year ago
Money talks and BS walks.
In the end there is to much money to me made with a playoff system for it to be passed up much longer. Money isn't the reason the system should change per say but it will ultimately be what tips the scale.
Hey Skip, Utah was undefeated in 04' too... they weren't exactly chopped liver either.
fosterkeats
· 1 year ago
Roy Kramer's almost dead anyway...
Skip
· 1 year ago
Utah coming out on top in a 4-team tournament with USC, Auburn, and Oklahoma would have been an upset of absolutely titanic proportions. Though I guess that's sort of the point of having a playoff.
40AcresOfBurntOrange
· 1 year ago
Just give me a plus one and ill be satisfied..... for now anyways.
HookEmHorns!
JB
· 1 year ago
There it is....return the favor :)
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
1, h
ACC TB
· 1 year ago
The promotional code for the 2008 ACC Football Ticketmaster presale is:
acc
Log on to ticketmaster and type it in when it asks you for a password.
JB
· 1 year ago
I agree, no matter what format you use, somebody will always be complaining about getting left out. With and eight team playoff, team 9 and 10 will complain, and so on.
And besides, what would college football be without controversy and bowl games???
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Team 9 and 10 don't matter.
There has never been a season where more than 4 teams have legitimate claims to play for the National Championship. Most seasons don't even have 4.
JB
· 1 year ago
Exactly Joe are you for or against a playoff???
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Definitely for it. I'd like to at least see a 4 team playoff, if not an 8 team playoff just to mix it up a little, and give some of the "little guys" a chance.
I'm a fan of Appalachian State and have attended 2 of their National Championship games and a few playoff games. Those games are great fun, and rival the excitement of some of the bigger match ups of D1-A teams. I'd love to see the excitement of an actual legitimate title game.
However, I love the bowl tradition and wouldn't want to impose on that too much. I think a 4 team playoff could mostly preserve the integrity of the bowls, and even use some of the current BCS bowls in the playoff in a rotating fashion.
You?
JB
· 1 year ago
IDK, i am just extremely skeptical of completely changing the postseason. How would you determine who gets in????? You cant just go top 4 or top 8. All BCS conferences champs must be included. How would you determine the at-large??? in my mind there is just to many questions, but i would be open minded to a playoff format if it kept the bowl games like you said
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Use the current BCS system. I think it certainly has its flaws, but for 4 or 8 spots it'd be a solid system in my opinion.
Zac
· 1 year ago
"There has never been a season where more than 4 teams have legitimate claims..." I beg to differ. Last season practically all of us agreed NO team had a claim, not even 11-1 OSU. It follows, therefore, many teams had a claim; many more than 4. Otherwise, how was it that LSU got picked to play OSU over GA, OK, or USC, for example?
I came to realize early on that a 16 or 24 team play-off is over-board, but I have shown how a 10 team play-off may work. The elimination/preliminary round and 1st round can be held at the site of the higher seed, resulting in little if any impact upon the bowl system. But you've heard above; the presidents don't want to resolve the football season "deep" into the 2nd semester. Well, if a play-off resulted in the championship being played the 2nd or 3rd weekend, and they wanna call that deep, I'd say they're the ones piling it higher and deeper.
I also agree there haven't been that many seasons where-by there have been arguably more than 3-5 teams with a legitimate claim. In that case, what’s wrong with a 4 team play-off, and given things haven’t gone crazy with the # of teams involved in the Div-2 ranks, how does it automatically mean things will go crazy in the BCS ranks?
I personally would like to see a play-off. I know better than to think it’ll solve all the existing problems with the current system. I’m of the opinion it will be better. It won’t break my heart if it never happens; it’s not that important to me. What I can’t stand are most of the arguments against (Some arguments make sense.), as they sound more like excuses to me than sound basis. Ultimately, it comes down to money. When someone proves it can happen where everyone involved makes more money than with the current system, it’ll happen. Till then, I guess we’ll just have to keep up the debate.
JB
· 1 year ago
in 10 team would u give top 2 a bye???
Zac
· 1 year ago
JB, in a Top-10 play-off, you would have an Elimination/Preliminary round, where-by #10 plays at #7, and #9 plays at #8. The winners round out the top 8, where-by Round 1 (quarter final) pits #8 at #1, #7 at #2, #6 at #3, and so on. The Semi-Final round would take up two New Years Day bowl games. The Championship Round would be played 2 weeks later. It's that simple. What with 34 bowls out there, I don't see this system being a problem.
JB
· 1 year ago
Hey then 10 sounds good to me! Give berths to the BCS top 10 and let 7-10 play for a spot in the elite eight, to borrow a basketball term
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm not sure that it'll happen either but I'd love to see it. All systems will be criticized and they will all have some flaws. In my eyes, the 4 team playoff has the fewest.
I think last year was quite the anomaly. Under the belief that no team had a legitimate claim, then whoever is 5th definitely doesn't have an argument. My point is simply that if you're 5th, you've done something to make people believe that there are 4 teams that are better than you. Those fans/teams/coaches would complain about being 5th instead of 4th, just like they'd complain about being 119th instead of 118th, but if they'd just win more games, they wouldn't have to worry about it.
I'm not saying it's perfect but it's certainly a better way, and I think we'd be able to say that we honestly have a legitimate title holder year after year.
JB
· 1 year ago
In my mind if thier was gonna be a playoff it would need to be eight teams
Here is an example(based on nothing just an example!!!!!) say this is the final standings
Include all 6 BCS copnference champs and the twwo highest ranking at large teams and seed them in the order they are ranked (even if an at large is higher than a champ)
Higher ranked team would be home in the first round (BYU @USC...Clem@OU....WVU@AUB.....LSU@OSU)
Keep home field for the next round---assumed winners (LSU@USC.....AUB@OU)
National Championship game would rotate between the four BCS bowl games and the higher seeded team would play as the home team
How does that sound?
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I'm all for a playoff so you're preaching to the choir in a way. I just wouldn't want to tamper with the traditional match ups in bowl games too much. 4 teams is the least amount that you could have and still have a real playoff, so it's the best to preserve the tradition.
JB
· 1 year ago
Joe i wasnt tryin to convince you for a playoff, just trying to see what you thought about the format :)
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Do we run out of "reply"s or something? Why does it do this?
Anyway, yeah, I understand. I'm just more for the 4 team one personally, but that's just for the bowls.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I like the format, but would replace the seeding with traditional BCS Bowl alignments. Instead of all the BCS conference champions, why not simplify it by taking all conference champions in the top 12 of the BCS standings instead? If a BCS champion (Say ACC or Big East) does not get into the top 12 they are not in the playoffs, if another does they are.
The current title game could be moved to new years and be renamed the consolation bowl and feature two BCS eligible teams that did not make the playoffs.
cougar_fan
· 1 year ago
I like this but just let it be top 8 no guarunteed spots for BCS conferences (We don't want a weak ACC or Big East champ getting in (e.g. Pitt 2004)).
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
Just let the writers figure out who the best teams are. That way they can pick the teams that will make the most money in the bowl games. Further corrupting college football and driving prices to see teams play even higher. Also all conferences should have pay per view and that way none of us could watch the games without paying.
This system would virtually guarantee the rise of old time greats like Notre Dame and Alabama. While keeping lesser teams like Auburn, Kansas, WVU out of the championship game.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I think the original claim is especially valid last year.
Zero teams with a valid claim is still less than four.
I don't remember a year where more than two teams had a valid claim after the bowls. (2004 included, though it is closest)
A plus one, involving all undefeated conference champions then the conference champions determined by the BCS standings sounds the best to me. This strongly reflects my mid major bias, and I can already here the complaints that sometimes the best teams don't win the conference title.
The first games could easily by set in the BCS bowls on a rotating basis, potentially allowing the Rose Bowl preference in hosting a game involving PAC 10 and/or Big Televen teams.
Last year it would have featured: Hawaii, LSU, Ohio State and Virginia Tech
Hawaii would have gotten their first round beating, and the rest could not be less exciting than LSU Ohio State was.
cougar_fan
· 1 year ago
Amen
jake
· 1 year ago
I would like to see an 8-team playoff consisting of the conference champions from each BCS conference plus 2 non-BCS at-large bids.
JB
· 1 year ago
IDK maybe it is just me but in a playoff, you run the risk of losing all of your NC caliber teams to an upset. Last Year you would have LSU VT Mizzou OSU USC WVU Hawaii and UGA???? the good teams would beat up on each other and leave nothing left in the tank for the game that matters......my vote dont mess with it !!!!!
jake
· 1 year ago
Actually, with my format it would have been OU, LSU, USC, VT, OSU, WVU, Hawaii, then probably BYU. Sounds like one hell of a party to me. Winning championships is all about resilience. If a team won its conference and the 2 playoff games against that kind of talent, it would certainly be impressive and entertaining. Bowls could also keep their affiliations by having Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls as first round of the playoff matchups.
JB
· 1 year ago
BYU instead of UGA, no way, go with BCS top 8
jake
· 1 year ago
Well then what's the point in having the MWC, Conf USA, MAC, etc. Should they have "NIT-like" playoff? Or should they move those mid-major programs into a separate sub-division?
JB
· 1 year ago
Then they have to be good enough to get into the BCS top 8.... if they dont bettter luck next year.....
o yea, we forgot a clause that adds ND if they go .500 haha ;)
JC
· 1 year ago
Here is my solution
1. Why not 16 team- 11 conference champions & 5 at-large teams including Indepedents.
2.Clemson Joe, I agree with you. If Pac-10 & Big Televen don't want it, we can have it without them and make room for 2 more at-large teams- 9 conference champions & 7 at-large
4cornerz
· 1 year ago
Playoffs! Playoffs!
JB
· 1 year ago
I guess you are all UGA or USC fans??? aha j/k
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Playoffs! Playoffs! Did someone say PLAYOFFS! Playoffs! Playoffs! I just hope that we can see all the games! Playoffs!
hricane23
· 1 year ago
The SEC guy said not in his lifetime. How old is he? Maybe we only need to wait until he kicks the bucket?
I can hear some of you already, and I won't name names. So, before anyone jumps on me for being "insensitive", and accuses me of suggesting this gentleman's early demise would help the playoff situation, I'm asking how old he is to see how long until we can reasonably assume he should pass naturally. I will include him and his family in my prayers every night, praying for a long, healthy life.
JB
· 1 year ago
Actually, this guyu isnt even commisioner anymore (since 2002). Mike Slive is the commish he is only 68 and has the same stance on the matter
Zac
· 1 year ago
We only have to wait until next year for the Big East's Tranhese, to leave; that is.
Zac
· 1 year ago
And here was I, this eye-tal-yun stal-yun, ready to make him an awffa he could not refuze.
achillesOSU
· 1 year ago
im sick of the excuses that people make about the big 10 and pac 10 holding things up.. the truth is that most of the conferences are against it and that they just like having the scapegoat so they dont look like the bad guys.
Bevo_Boy
· 1 year ago
Any proof or did you just make this up to support those conferences?
theoman
· 1 year ago
Well I see and have read that a total of 3 confrence Head Honchos got interviewed! SO WHAT? How many confrences are there? 10 till my understanding 3 of 10 is not even a majority. This article is great for using as toilet paper! Thats about all its worth. Furthermore the commisoner for SEC thinks that there is "No support Nationally for a Playoff system? Who is he refering to or should I say what color is the sky in his world...because last I read there was huge interest in the public for some sort of playoff system. I mean College Baseball has it, college basketball has it, college socer and almost all college sports EXCEPT FOR COLLEGE FOOTBALL has some sort of PLAYOFF SYSTEM! I rest my case!
Tigers318
· 1 year ago
For this to work you would need 8 teams and that is 3 extra games for two of the teams. Then people will want to cut into the regular season.
i like the bowl games it is what makes college football well.... college football!!!
Zac
· 1 year ago
If you re-read the article, it's not even 3 of 10. MWC's, Craig Thompson, admits his coaches and administrators want a play-off, but they don't want to be left out. (Can't blame em there.) So, he's not exactly against a play-off. Rather, he wants to know in what form it would be before he weighs in on the subject. In effect, it's only 2 of 10 indicating disinterest. Now, if you recall a previous thread discussing the PAC-10, it wasn't the conference which was against it, only their lead commissioner. So, for those who think the PAC-10 is the hold up, not entirely true.
You are correct on one point, it is not entirely true that the Pac-10 is the hold up. There are plenty of votes of other "no" votes to back up that Pac10 - Big10 alliance.
Zac
· 1 year ago
Well, you got me there, Kevin. I didn't know of the meeting and apparently completely missed the reference to it up top. (Which is it, by the way?)
Now for my next silly question: Do you recognize the following?
"It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit. If they continue to push it, and try to push us into a corner ... "
This is a quote from PAC10 Commissioner, Tom Hanson from an article titled, "PAC10: We Will Not Support A BCS Playoff", which you posted on July 27, 2007. While he did indicate that the Presidents of each member school were opposed, the quote above indicates there are others "colleagues" who are interested. Now, I don't know how many the "s", which indicates plural, represents. It could be 2 it could be 10. The point is, there is still interest at his level.
As for my comment, not only was it based upon Tom Hanson's quote (the PAC-10 part of it, that is), but it was based upon "theoman's" comment above mine; not to mention, the quote by Craig Thomson, MWC Commissioner, which doesn't exactly indicate disinterest, only concern of being left out if there was a play-off.
As for the article you referenced. I agree; it does state there wasn't enough support. I didn't see a vote tally, however, to substantiate who was and was not in favor of a play-off. In fact, if I had to make a guess, it seemed to me the article indicated the primary reason for the "no" vote were the 2 years remaining in the BCS contract; after which, the idea may resurface. So, at least for the next 2-3 season, I have to concede; it ain't happening. Thanks for the feedback.
theoman
· 1 year ago
Well maybe that was the way College football once was but in todays world, There is no way that it still works. Money is being tossed around and a TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPION IS NOT Real anymore. THE BCS IS BULL! IT DOES NOT TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THAT! Enough of the BCS. Time is NOW and we need a BOWL SERIES WITH PLAYOFFS!!! Big Dela 3 EXTRA GAMES BIG WOOP! The system stinks as it is and WE NEED A REAL PLAYOFF SYSTEM TO REALLY DECIDE WHO IS THE TRUE #1. CASE CLOSED!!!
Dan
· 1 year ago
We all want the playoff, even the commissioners. But ultimately, the current system works and gets the job done; determine the best two teams in the country and produce a national champion. My only problem with the current system is what happened in the 2004. Now I still believe that Oklahoma and LSU were the right teams in the national championship game, but there should absolutely be no shared championships. Unless your in the title game, no chance for a shared title.
Football Picks
· 1 year ago
I love that Kramer doesn't see support for it??? What he means is that there is no support for it up his own a** since that's clearly where his head is!!!!
Sorry to kinda spam the site with links to my webpage... but I didn't think y'all would read through a thesis paper of a post.
JB
· 1 year ago
Good, i totally agree with this format!!!...but do i ever think it will happen......no (unfortunately)
Skip
· 1 year ago
"Once there's a four-team playoff there will be an 8-team playoff. Once there's an 8, there will be a 16."
Tranghese is 100% right. Once you have a 4-team playoff with the top four conference champions--why not include all BCS leagues? How do you decide between them? Polling? We have the current system because people thought that polls were an unfair way to choose a champion, but now it's OK to use them for qualification purposes? Fairness then dictates expanding to 8 teams, with the six BCS champs plus two at-large. But then a 10-3 big boy gets included over an 11-0 midmajor, and you have to expand to 16 to accommodate all conferences. After all, if Boise State can beat Oklahoma, anything can happen! Etc. etc. etc.
In my opinion, Auburn 2004 is the only team that has truly gotten screwed in the BCS era. Everyone else had their chance.
Football Picks
· 1 year ago
I believe a playoff will happen eventually. Maybe I just NEED to believe that to get through each season of mythical champions but I do believe it. Eventually the 100 year old ADs and school presidents will die and younger blood will move in and realize the opportunity they have with a hybrid playoff bowl system and it will get done. The plus one game is a great start, it's a 2 team playoff. Like Skip said, then 4, then 8, then 16 and eventually we'll all be complaining that it's gotten too big. But that's a much better problem to have!
Skip
· 1 year ago
Can we at least all agree that a 16-team playoff would be bad for college football?
Football Picks
· 1 year ago
Compared to what? To the current system, no. Compared to an 8 team playoff, perhaps. But I really don't see that a 16-team playoff is bad for college football.
Gatorboy41
· 1 year ago
The conference champion would be the fairest way to go, if you a does not win their conference, they should not play for the NC.
If there were a playoff, the teams that would suffer most, would be the teams that, never really have a real chance at the NC year after year, and struggle just to get in a bowl. The teams that consistantly o 8-5, 9-4, would suffer, because they would not play for the NC, so if you took away the bowl games, they would get nothing, and really don't believe that there would be enough time to play all the bowl games, and then have a playoff system. But I am in favor of a playff of some sort.
I feel that UGA should have had a shot at the NC, but even in a playoff system where the conference winner play in the playoffs, UGA would still not have played in the playoffs.
Gatorboy41
· 1 year ago
Skip, that would be awsome, but I have a question. Would it be fair to take a team that won their conference with a record of 8-5 to the NC playoffs, or take a team that did not win the conference , but had a record of 11-2, and loss their conference playoffs. A playoff would be the less evil, but it would have its issues.
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
You of all people should think 2004 was an exception. USC ,Auburn and your team Utah all finished unscathed. Unless you think Utah didnt have any kind of valid claim. But I for one think there offense was good enough to play with anyone that year.
Its certainly not inconceivable that all BCS conference schools could post a one loss team,and a non BCS team have an undefeated team in the same year.
We will certainly see 3 undefeated teams again in the future. Plus one is better then nothing but would have to try and find a way to be fair.
Even Utah deserved some love in 2004. But under most proposals ive seen they would have been left out of a plus one.
Has anyone else noticed how the BCS goes out of there way not to match the teams we would love to see play each other in bowl games? Even if you dont have a play off why couldnt they match a team like USC and Georgia especially when the Big 10 champion cant make the Rose bowl due to being in thye NC game. Sure it would have ended in a split national crown but that would have been a great game. You can plug any two BCS teams in you want still seems they are just trying to avoid controversy.
JB
· 1 year ago
Utah??? who did they play in '04
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
It wasn't OU, sorry Ben..
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
JB
They played a WAC schedule with wins out of conference over Texas A&M, Arizona and North Carolina. Certanly not the toughest schedule. However they did beat Pittsburg in the BCS fiesta bowl. I guess my point is that if NON BCS schools will never have a chance to win the NT ( examples Boise State, Hawaii,Utah)then why not just put them in aseperate conference all together. The BCS sort of already does that by not giving any other conferences automatic bids. That way you eliminate the playing field before the season even starts. Of all the NON BCS conference schools ive seen play since the inception of the BCS i think 04 Utah was prehaps the best team.
And BTW i was trying to respond to UTAH's earlier post but it just happend to come out under yours....:)
zach17
· 1 year ago
The PAC-10 and the Big 10(11) dont want any part of a play-off because then they get exposed. The PAC-10 will show how top heavy they are in USC... and I give no love to any other PAC-10 school till they prove they can play. And the Big 10(11) is horrible down the board. Ohio State beats everyone then goes to the national championship undefeated and gets destroyed by a superior team. And if they had a playoff then they would probably lose first round if they drew a SEC team or even a Texas, Oklahoma, or even a WVU... so of course they wouldn't want a playoff. And it wouldn't be fair for anyone seeing as how a playoff would benefit an SEC team anyways because they are used to a brutal week in week out scedule during the regular season. So playing a caliber opponent two weeks in a row would not be anything out of the norm for them. Where as for any other conference it would. The Big XII is making there strides of becoming a very well rounded conference in the last couple of years... but still has a ways to go.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
Lets see here....in 2007 CAL went 3-6 in the PAC-10 (7-6 overall) and defeated TN by 14 pts who went 6-2 in the SEC and was the SEC East Champ.
SEC fans need to stop the chant, that all SEC fans do, that is SEC is the greatest/toughest & no one else can compete in our conference.
Aurburn University checks
· 1 year ago
Wow a lot of comments on this post
This is a quote from PAC10 Commissioner, Tom Hanson from an article titled, "PAC10: We Will Not Support A BCS Playoff", which you posted on July 27, 2007. While he did indicate that the Presidents of each member school were opposed, the quote above indicates there are others "colleagues" who are interested. Now, I don't know how many the "s", which indicates plural, represents. It could be 2 it could be 10. The point is, there is still interest at his level.
avnish0
· 1 year ago
hi,guys The teams that consistantly o 8-5, 9-4, would suffer, because they would not play for the NC, so if you took away the bowl games, they would get nothing, and really don't believe that there would be enough time to play all the bowl games, and then have a playoff system.I think last year was quite the anomaly. Under the belief that no team had a legitimate claim, then whoever is 5th definitely doesn't have an argument.
Rocky
[url="http://www.addictionrecovery.net/west-virginia"]Addiction Recovery West Virginia[/url]
All Comments
People will get burnt out on USC vs OSU every year and folks like Keith Jackson can hype it up and call it the grandaddy whatever. True Champs aint scared of playing the best, some teams are in leagues were their chances are better than B-12, ACC or SEC.
In the end there is to much money to me made with a playoff system for it to be passed up much longer. Money isn't the reason the system should change per say but it will ultimately be what tips the scale.
Hey Skip, Utah was undefeated in 04' too... they weren't exactly chopped liver either.
HookEmHorns!
acc
Log on to ticketmaster and type it in when it asks you for a password.
And besides, what would college football be without controversy and bowl games???
There has never been a season where more than 4 teams have legitimate claims to play for the National Championship. Most seasons don't even have 4.
I'm a fan of Appalachian State and have attended 2 of their National Championship games and a few playoff games. Those games are great fun, and rival the excitement of some of the bigger match ups of D1-A teams. I'd love to see the excitement of an actual legitimate title game.
However, I love the bowl tradition and wouldn't want to impose on that too much. I think a 4 team playoff could mostly preserve the integrity of the bowls, and even use some of the current BCS bowls in the playoff in a rotating fashion.
You?
I beg to differ. Last season practically all of us agreed NO team had a claim, not even 11-1 OSU. It follows, therefore, many teams had a claim; many more than 4. Otherwise, how was it that LSU got picked to play OSU over GA, OK, or USC, for example?
I came to realize early on that a 16 or 24 team play-off is over-board, but I have shown how a 10 team play-off may work. The elimination/preliminary round and 1st round can be held at the site of the higher seed, resulting in little if any impact upon the bowl system. But you've heard above; the presidents don't want to resolve the football season "deep" into the 2nd semester. Well, if a play-off resulted in the championship being played the 2nd or 3rd weekend, and they wanna call that deep, I'd say they're the ones piling it higher and deeper.
I also agree there haven't been that many seasons where-by there have been arguably more than 3-5 teams with a legitimate claim. In that case, what’s wrong with a 4 team play-off, and given things haven’t gone crazy with the # of teams involved in the Div-2 ranks, how does it automatically mean things will go crazy in the BCS ranks?
I personally would like to see a play-off. I know better than to think it’ll solve all the existing problems with the current system. I’m of the opinion it will be better. It won’t break my heart if it never happens; it’s not that important to me. What I can’t stand are most of the arguments against (Some arguments make sense.), as they sound more like excuses to me than sound basis. Ultimately, it comes down to money. When someone proves it can happen where everyone involved makes more money than with the current system, it’ll happen. Till then, I guess we’ll just have to keep up the debate.
I think last year was quite the anomaly. Under the belief that no team had a legitimate claim, then whoever is 5th definitely doesn't have an argument. My point is simply that if you're 5th, you've done something to make people believe that there are 4 teams that are better than you. Those fans/teams/coaches would complain about being 5th instead of 4th, just like they'd complain about being 119th instead of 118th, but if they'd just win more games, they wouldn't have to worry about it.
I'm not saying it's perfect but it's certainly a better way, and I think we'd be able to say that we honestly have a legitimate title holder year after year.
Here is an example(based on nothing just an example!!!!!)
say this is the final standings
1. USC- PAC 10 Champ
2. OU-Big 12 Champ
3. Aub- SEC champ
4. OSU- Big 11 Champ
5. LSU
6. WVU- Big East Champ
7. Clemson- ACC Champ
8. BYU - MWC Champ
Include all 6 BCS copnference champs and the twwo highest ranking at large teams and seed them in the order they are ranked (even if an at large is higher than a champ)
Higher ranked team would be home in the first round (BYU @USC...Clem@OU....WVU@AUB.....LSU@OSU)
Keep home field for the next round---assumed winners
(LSU@USC.....AUB@OU)
National Championship game would rotate between the four BCS bowl games and the higher seeded team would play as the home team
How does that sound?
Anyway, yeah, I understand. I'm just more for the 4 team one personally, but that's just for the bowls.
The current title game could be moved to new years and be renamed the consolation bowl and feature two BCS eligible teams that did not make the playoffs.
Further corrupting college football and driving prices to see teams play even higher.
Also all conferences should have pay per view and that way none of us could watch the games without paying.
This system would virtually guarantee the rise of old time greats like Notre Dame and Alabama. While keeping lesser teams like Auburn, Kansas, WVU out of the championship game.
Zero teams with a valid claim is still less than four.
I don't remember a year where more than two teams had a valid claim after the bowls. (2004 included, though it is closest)
A plus one, involving all undefeated conference champions then the conference champions determined by the BCS standings sounds the best to me. This strongly reflects my mid major bias, and I can already here the complaints that sometimes the best teams don't win the conference title.
The first games could easily by set in the BCS bowls on a rotating basis, potentially allowing the Rose Bowl preference in hosting a game involving PAC 10 and/or Big Televen teams.
Last year it would have featured:
Hawaii, LSU, Ohio State and Virginia Tech
Hawaii would have gotten their first round beating, and the rest could not be less exciting than LSU Ohio State was.
o yea, we forgot a clause that adds ND if they go .500 haha ;)
1. Why not 16 team- 11 conference champions & 5 at-large teams including Indepedents.
2.Clemson Joe, I agree with you. If Pac-10 & Big Televen don't want it, we can have it without them and make room for 2 more at-large teams- 9 conference champions & 7 at-large
I can hear some of you already, and I won't name names. So, before anyone jumps on me for being "insensitive", and accuses me of suggesting this gentleman's early demise would help the playoff situation, I'm asking how old he is to see how long until we can reasonably assume he should pass naturally. I will include him and his family in my prayers every night, praying for a long, healthy life.
i like the bowl games it is what makes college football well.... college football!!!
You are correct on one point, it is not entirely true that the Pac-10 is the hold up. There are plenty of votes of other "no" votes to back up that Pac10 - Big10 alliance.
Now for my next silly question: Do you recognize the following?
"It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit. If they continue to push it, and try to push us into a corner ... "
This is a quote from PAC10 Commissioner, Tom Hanson from an article titled, "PAC10: We Will Not Support A BCS Playoff", which you posted on July 27, 2007. While he did indicate that the Presidents of each member school were opposed, the quote above indicates there are others "colleagues" who are interested. Now, I don't know how many the "s", which indicates plural, represents. It could be 2 it could be 10. The point is, there is still interest at his level.
As for my comment, not only was it based upon Tom Hanson's quote (the PAC-10 part of it, that is), but it was based upon "theoman's" comment above mine; not to mention, the quote by Craig Thomson, MWC Commissioner, which doesn't exactly indicate disinterest, only concern of being left out if there was a play-off.
As for the article you referenced. I agree; it does state there wasn't enough support. I didn't see a vote tally, however, to substantiate who was and was not in favor of a play-off. In fact, if I had to make a guess, it seemed to me the article indicated the primary reason for the "no" vote were the 2 years remaining in the BCS contract; after which, the idea may resurface. So, at least for the next 2-3 season, I have to concede; it ain't happening. Thanks for the feedback.
And here is the other article that is mentioned in the first one.
http://orangeandtrue.wordpress.com/sports/bcs-n...
Sorry to kinda spam the site with links to my webpage... but I didn't think y'all would read through a thesis paper of a post.
Tranghese is 100% right. Once you have a 4-team playoff with the top four conference champions--why not include all BCS leagues? How do you decide between them? Polling? We have the current system because people thought that polls were an unfair way to choose a champion, but now it's OK to use them for qualification purposes? Fairness then dictates expanding to 8 teams, with the six BCS champs plus two at-large. But then a 10-3 big boy gets included over an 11-0 midmajor, and you have to expand to 16 to accommodate all conferences. After all, if Boise State can beat Oklahoma, anything can happen! Etc. etc. etc.
In my opinion, Auburn 2004 is the only team that has truly gotten screwed in the BCS era. Everyone else had their chance.
If there were a playoff, the teams that would suffer most, would be the teams that, never really have a real chance at the NC year after year, and struggle just to get in a bowl. The teams that consistantly o 8-5, 9-4, would suffer, because they would not play for the NC, so if you took away the bowl games, they would get nothing, and really don't believe that there would be enough time to play all the bowl games, and then have a playoff system. But I am in favor of a playff of some sort.
I feel that UGA should have had a shot at the NC, but even in a playoff system where the conference winner play in the playoffs, UGA would still not have played in the playoffs.
Unless you think Utah didnt have any kind of valid claim. But I for one think there offense was good enough to play with anyone that year.
Its certainly not inconceivable that all BCS conference schools could post a one loss team,and a non BCS team have an undefeated team in the same year.
We will certainly see 3 undefeated teams again in the future. Plus one is better then nothing but would have to try and find a way to be fair.
Even Utah deserved some love in 2004. But under most proposals ive seen they would have been left out of a plus one.
Has anyone else noticed how the BCS goes out of there way not to match the teams we would love to see play each other in bowl games?
Even if you dont have a play off why couldnt they match a team like USC and Georgia especially when the Big 10 champion cant make the Rose bowl due to being in thye NC game. Sure it would have ended in a split national crown but that would have been a great game.
You can plug any two BCS teams in you want still seems they are just trying to avoid controversy.
They played a WAC schedule with wins out of conference over Texas A&M, Arizona and North Carolina. Certanly not the toughest schedule.
However they did beat Pittsburg in the BCS fiesta bowl.
I guess my point is that if NON BCS schools will never have a chance to win the NT ( examples Boise State, Hawaii,Utah)then why not just put them in aseperate conference all together. The BCS sort of already does that by not giving any other conferences automatic bids.
That way you eliminate the playing field before the season even starts. Of all the NON BCS conference schools ive seen play since the inception of the BCS i think 04 Utah was prehaps the best team.
And BTW i was trying to respond to UTAH's earlier post but it just happend to come out under yours....:)
SEC fans need to stop the chant, that all SEC fans do, that is SEC is the greatest/toughest & no one else can compete in our conference.
This is a quote from PAC10 Commissioner, Tom Hanson from an article titled, "PAC10: We Will Not Support A BCS Playoff", which you posted on July 27, 2007. While he did indicate that the Presidents of each member school were opposed, the quote above indicates there are others "colleagues" who are interested. Now, I don't know how many the "s", which indicates plural, represents. It could be 2 it could be 10. The point is, there is still interest at his level.
Rocky
[url="http://www.addictionrecovery.net/west-virginia"]Addiction Recovery West Virginia[/url]
Thanks for posting.
Iowa Treatment Centers