In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I totally agree. I feel 8 will give the selection panel enough room for error to make sure they get it right. On another note, to keep the college football feel to it, they should hold the games on campus until the title game. Youd see tailgating and packed stadiums like never before. You think a matchup like FSU/OU or UT/tOSU in primetime was hyped up, an 8 team playoff on campus would blow that out of the water.
There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with nothing to lose.
See, if you made it conference champs only, everbody has a chance if you just win your conference. You have to think about the "playoff" starting at the beginning of your conference schedule, not the end. The OOC schedule can be whatever you want in order to prep you for conference play. Then, when you start your conference play, its game on. That makes every human element not on the field of play academic. Its all too simple. Some conferences "appear" to be better than others, but whos to say? Last year for example, everyone screams SEC SEC when the best conference, from top to bottom was guess who? B12 baby. People arranged their conferences for revenue, so thats on you if it appears to be tougher than others.
In this format, the jackpot appears to be Boise. IMO, they will run roughshod over the BIGE most years, especially with WVU and TCU out of the way. If WVU and TCU had stayed, youd have a pretty interesting conference race there.
Looking waaay down the road, do we really want a CCG in the B12? Right now, we are the only conference that will have a true champion.
This from a thread the other day.
Upon further review, about half the time in the past, the BcS easily got the top 4 correct.
Now about half the time #5 would have had a legit beef but the interesting thing, only once did 2 teams have a beef. The point is, while personally I'd have no problem with 8 teams, 4 actually has worked very well
1998 Tenn 0 FSU KSU tOSU 1 loss and #5 is 1 loss UCLA Debate
1999 FSU VaTech Neb 1 Bama 2 #5 Tenn didn't win SEC
2000 OU 0 FSU 1 Miami 1 Udub 1 1 loss Va Tech #5 lost to Miami
2001 Miami 0 Neb 1 Colo 2 Oregon 1 Fla #5 2 losses CC thing makes this a debate . (even with only 1 loss, Neb lost head to head to CU and CU won CC so Neb out, Fla in, no debate)
2002 Miami tOSU (unbeaten) Georgia 1 USC 2 #5 Iowa 1 Debate (2 loss USC over 1 loss Iowa? hope not)
2004 USC OU Auburn (all unbeaten) Texas and #5 Cal would still be whining but that's what Cal does best, whine.
2005 Oregon was a 1 loss #5 while tOSU as 2 loss #4, certainly room for bitching there. OTOH, tOSU won their conference while Oregon didn't (if that matters to anyone)
2006 LSU is #4 but lost their conference while USC with the same losses was #5 and won theirs.
2007 Now here is a wild year #1 tOSU and #7 Kansas the only two 1 loss teams. LSU VaTech Oklahoma Georgia Mizzu are the 5 teams in the middle (and in order) with 2 losses. top 4 were conference champs, so everyone else take a seat.
2008 OU Florida TEXAS Bama with 1 loss USC #5 (they certainly have a beef) unbeaten Utah #6 and 1 loss TT #7. Since the CC seems to be pushing teams up, I can see either Bama or TEXAS sliding out of the Top 4.
2009 Bama TEXAS Cinncy TCU all unbeaten #5 Fla 1 loss #6 Boise 0 losses Since Bama beat Fla only Boise St has a beef if you want to take that seriously.
2010 Auburn Oregon TCU Stanford #5 Whisky has one loss so them taking Stanford's place makes sense
2011 LSU Bama Okie St Stanford Oregon #5
The point was how well the system worked. Top 3 is pretty clear but about half the time, #4 is a crap shoot with someone getting legitimately screwed half the time.
This post was edited by IDMAS 2 years ago
I really wish they would have considered 8 teams as well. There is still emphasis on the regular season with an 8 team playoff. I think the biggest issue/fuss that will be raised is when you have a 3-4 loss ACC Champ not get selected over a 2 loss Pac-12, SEC non champ. Granted the non champ may be the better team, but that conference champ that doesn't get it will scream bloody murder. This will be more of an issue that the previous model that has been used.
Thank goodness your viewpoint is in the minority. Let's take your least extreme example first:
You want to limit eligibility to "Conference champion or runner up." Who was the runner up in the Big 12 in 2008? The crappy North team that BlowU beat? Texas? Tech? Probably the crappy North team, which means you've now pushed 2008 Texas out of the playoff, a clearly unfair result. And for what purpose? So 11-2 (regular season) Cincinnati who lost 52-26 to blowU and 40-16 to UConn can participate? Give me a freaking break.
Your other points are even worse
1) I think you said at one point all conference champions should be in. That's just ridiculous. If you win a weak conference with three losses, you do not deserve a shot at the national title. You'd have to get to a pretty big (bigger than 8) number of seeds before I'd be comfortable allowing clearly inferior teams in just because they happened to win a weaker conference. This is an exercise to determine the best team, not to make sure everyone feels loved.
2) I really have no idea what you're saying with the nonsense quoted above, but if you're saying there should be something like a 24 team playoff with FCS conference champs playing big schools in early rounds, that is not even worthy of a response.
I really prefer this model, but I'll be surprised if it ever happens.
"I've heard some of our fans say, 'We were always an SEC school. We just didn't know it," athletic director Bill Byrne said.
except you are assuming because a team has a loss they aren't the best team or playing the best football when it matters. Hiccups happen in all sports. Remember, part of being ranked near the top at the end of the year is about losing early in the season. that makes zero sense. Go to 08. Tx beats OU early but loses late. OU jumps Tx and gets the nod.
I rather have a bias and eight good teams over only conference winners.
So you would support a format that would have resulted in 2008 in the MAC runner up being a part of a playoff but Texas, at worst the #3 team in the country, not?
You would also support cutting down the career of the vast majority of football players by 2 games per season (and depriving fans of the vast majority of schools of those two games) so the MAC runner up can play a first round "playoff" game?
Honestly, Willow01's ideas are the kind of stuff that sounds good until you start using your brain and actually thinking through how it would work in practice.
Thats fine if thats what you want. IMO, thats what got us here in the first place, but oh well. With a conference champs model, you know exactly what you have to do from day one. The criteria doesnt change from year to year and things that have nothing to do with the play on the field would be worthless to talk about or even consider. There would be no debate because you know exactly why youre not in the postseason playoff. It would sting some people who "THINK" their second place team is better than another conferences champ, but its the "THINK" part I dont like. Let the conferences decide how to choose its champ and let it fly. All too easy.
It's definitely not the answer. The talking heads will complain about this just as much as they complain about the BCS especially if their pet team doesn't make it. There is no solution to keep them happy. Personally, I loved the old arrangement with all the bowls and the arguments and whining that went on. Remember when Paterno had the opportunity to play UT, but chose to go to the Orange Bowl then whined for years because UT was named #1.
Texas most likely doesn't win a national championship in '05 in the old system.
Actually I'm not assuming anything.
I'm taking the Final BcS poll then discussing whether or not #5 would have a beef based on such issues as head to head, conference champs SOS and number of losses.
In '08 one of TEXAS or Bama would have slid back in favor of USC which in fact won it's conference which is more than equitable. And you are ignoring the fact that TEXAS slid back due to a BigXII rule not a BcS rule.
My point is that more often than not, the final 4 from the BcS worked well enough that a committee could have fixed some of the more glaring errors.
8 teams might be better but generally, the BcS got it right with their Top 4.
If I go 8 teams, then the Pac 10, Big 10, Big XII ACC and SEC conference champs are invited and the committee selects the next 3 teams plus seeds everyone (IMHO).
Logistics of an 8 team playoff would be a nightmare though.
Telling someone that they aren't using their brain is not real persuasive. I really think that the addition of games 11 and 12 to the regular season didn't do any favors to the players and gave a lie to the argument that a playoff would harm academics. Sixteen teams would be my preference for a playoff. Whether that is eight conference champs plus eight runners-up or six conference champs plus ten at-large teams, I really have no preference. No matter what system one comes up with, there will always be somebody who comes up with an example of why that system sucks. The result is paralysis.
On the logistics angle, how so? If its on campus, its just another road game. Now, if it stays in the bowls, then I see your point.
You are asking fans of at least half the teams (assuming all on campus) to make 3 road trips in 3 weeks usually with 7 days to make said plans.
That is a great deal of travel.
Obviously that isn't what I meant when it comes to the FCS involvement, go back and read it again and if you still don't get it (ONLY involves packaging the TELEVISION CONTRACTS) then you have the business mind of a teenager. That idea would make ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FBS AND FCS PLAYOFFS A TON OF MONEY. To the rest of your points, first of all different conferences are setup different ways. To put your 2008 tantrum asleep, the Horns should have been that South representative in the Big 12 Title game and would have pounded Mizzouri just like they did earlier in the season if it wasn't for a stupid rule that had a ridiculous conflict of interest. Go grab your pacifier and kleenax. Once a true playoff is instituted and in place, conferences will make adjustments; but still have different set ups. NCAA/BCS Playoff have little control over that.
Now back to my main point. Yes all of the conferences should have a participant or two. If you do it ANY other way then it would involve opinionated polls or a selection committee. Want an easy avenue to the playoffs if you are a UT or OU? Then go join one of the weaker or easy smaller conferences I guess, but that won't happen because your overall revenue during the regular season would take a huge hit. Like I already pointed out, if these smaller or weaker conference representatives are such worse teams than the SEC or Big 12 representatives then that will show in the earlier rounds! Will that happen most seasons? Maybe or maybe not. At least it would be decided ON THE FIELD. Is a Boise or Cinncinatti going to make a deep playoff run every year? No they aren't, but could they in a 3-5 year window? ABSOLUTELY. This is the land of opportunity and everyone deserves the opportunity to show that they are that much better than David and really are Goliath or that they really can compete.
Anything that takes more than the conference champion and the runner up is not a whole lot different than we have now because it would diminish the regular season (WIN YOUR CONFERENCE OR BE A RUNNER UP) and the playoffs participants would be decided by opinions and not on the field results.
Are you a communist? On what planet does it make sense that 1-A playoff money should be shared with 1-AA teams just because the 1-A teams can make a lot of money with a playoff. The NFL makes a lot of money so they should share it with the CFL.
Your dismissal of 2008 is unpersuasive. If Texas should have been the South representative, then you are saying blowU is the team that would not have been the Big 12 champ or runner up. So now you've excluded the #2 ranked team in the country in favor of Cincinnati, a team blowU beat by 30. Great plan.
Your irrational hatred of committees is bizarre. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they sure as hell would do a better job of choosing the 8 most deserving teams than arbitrarily requiring indisputably unworthy teams to participate.
You keep talking about fairness, but how is it fair to tell kids from a top 8 program that they don't get to participate in the playoffs because "David" needs a chance? Go back and read Mack Brown's quotes from 2008 about having to explain things to the seniors. That situation is the perfect example of relying on a system with rigid rules instead of taking a step back and using common sense.
The fact of the matter is the college football landscape has conferences of have's and have not's. If the goal is to choose a fair way to determine the best team on the field, it's completely ass backwards to not make an effort to determine the best teams to be in the field to begin with. To penalize teams for playing in good conferences is nutty. There's a reason you're in the minority.
By the way, back in the day, the NCAA basketball tourney only took conference champs. The result was the NIT and the champion of the NIT was often considered just as important as champion of the NCAA tourney, meaning that NCAA tourney failed to fairly determine a champ by excluding non-conference champs who were often top 5 teams in the country.
Your accusations of me being in the minority are just your way of beating your chest and trying to shove your stupidity down someones throat. My playoff idea (ESPECIALLY COMBINING THE FBS AND FCS TELEVISION PLAYOFF PACKAGE) has been given accolades by some top commentators along with some important figures in College Athletics. No I am FAR OPPOSITE of a communist you wingnut. 1-A (FBS) isn't "sharing" anything with 1-AA (FCS) with my idea wingnut.....FBS is getting FCS MORE EXPOSURE which equates to more revenue for FCS while FBS gets MORE AIRTIME under the agreement which equates to more revenue for BOTH.
Your continued attempts to bring up 2008 just show how stupid you are in trying to defend opinionated polls. Why? Because the final results that season were derived from a rule that DEPENDED ON OPINIONATED POLLS WINGNUT!
Who says a program is Top 8 huh? Coaches, sportwriters, who? Your intelligence is lacking so you continue to be habitual and focus on "polls" because that is what has always existed.
Your NIT example is laughable and once again shows that you are either intellectually dishonest or stupid. Sorry but I call a spade a spade. First of all the NIT started before the NCAA tournament and was taken over by five New York-area colleges: St. John's, Fordham, Wagner, Manhattan and NYU. You are right about one thing, the first NCAA tournaments were very small and restricted to conference champions. Back in the 30s and 40s, that was even more limiting than it would be today, because a lot of teams (including powerhouse programs of the time like small schools DePaul and Marquette) played as independents. As a result, the NIT usually had a better field than the NCAA. Back then, the NCAA only let a few larger conferences participate kind of what you want with the football playoff now!!
Thanks for making my point.
Also, at the time college basketball wasn't really a big deal in the sports landscape and media was extremely limited. Playing a tournament in New York, at Madison Square Garden, represented a chance for teams to get media attention back then and looks from NBA scouts that they might not have gotten playing in the widespread locations of an NCAA tournament. Certainly don't have a lack of media today!
Thanks for playing...
DLev really knows how to win friends and influence people, huh?
I don't want to be friends with or influence that guy. I'm just happy to know that at least for the four team round the powers that be beat back the (minority) calls to require conference champions instead of the best four teams to be involved in the playoff.
And once again wingnut....who are the best four teams. Who are the "powers that be"?
If there has been argument it's been a single team. No reason for 8 IMO, I like regular season battles to mean more.
Regular season still means a lot with eight teams. How many teams each week have zero fear that they might not be in the top-eight? I'm fine with the four, but eight would be better.
Not interested in the poster bickering but the point I was trying to make by listing all the top 4 teams was that as bad as the BcS was, it got the final 4 right well more often than not.
There really isn't that much debate about #5 much less #6 or #7.
And I do think winning the conference is a big deal so take 2008 for example, you have TEXAS and Bama as "wild cards" with USC sitting at #5 and a conference champ. Simple solution, the team with the weaker SOS between TEXAS and Bama is out and USC is in.
Now you are going to have a year like 1998 where you have 1 unbeaten then 4 teams with the same record and all conference champs. Again, if head to head is not a tie breaker then it's SOS.
This also serves CFB well as teams will be reluctant to play all cupcakes for fear their SOS will be too low. Frankly you could even use a sub-set of OOC SOS as another judgement factor to penalize teams for trying to go soft.
The point is, 4 has historically worked better than most think.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports