it is my godgiven right to know beyond any doubt who the best team in college football is each year, and i will not rest until this is taken care of!


any tournament w/ more than just conference champs would be dumb.

12/11/2008 12:20:13 AM

why?

even if the teams in the say, SEC, have three teams that are one loss and yet one of those matchups dont play each other, not even in the championship

one of those is undeserving?



you gotta include more than just the conf. winners

I say you keep the ranking system thats in place now...and use the top 16 to go into a playoff system.

heck, you could even have a NIT style championship for those left out, the other 8,9 or 10 teams

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM. Reason : f]

12/11/2008 12:26:05 AM

jesus h christ.

what are you trying to do to my beloved college football?

12/11/2008 12:28:25 AM

haha ok maybe the NIT thing is a little much

but you know it would eventually happen

12/11/2008 12:33:32 AM

it already has happened. i give you the papajohns.com bowl.

no need to make a playoff out of it though.

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 12:41 AM. Reason : really though, 8 teams is plenty for football. PLENTY.]

12/11/2008 12:40:29 AM

The NFL does 12. 8-12 teams should be plenty for any college playoff.

12/11/2008 1:04:21 AM

8 teams would be fine.

6 conference champions are in, 1 at large reserved for a non-bcs team if they finish in the top 12 in the final BCS standings, 1 at large for the highest ranked team in the BCS that isn't a conference champ.

Done. You don't need more then that, that blanket of 8 teams would certainly cover all the teams that should play for the NC(generally I'd say that beyond #4 or 5 I've never felt those teams were deserving anyway).

16 teams is to many, that swings it the other way, if you have teams like GT in it then its lost the value.

My setup works and accomplishes what needs to be accomplished.

12/11/2008 10:07:12 AM

Without reading through the rest of the thread here is my opinion on it.

The biggest problem with a tournament while still trying to let all the previous BCS sites have a game is that fans would have to travel all over the place. I love the idea of 8 teams, three week tournament. First round is at the home teams school, 2nd round is at a BCS site, championship is at a BCS site. The fourth BCS site hosts the game between the 9/10 teams and it rotates every year.

12/11/2008 10:15:35 AM

the fans have to travel for men's basketball. What is the difference?

12/11/2008 10:16:59 AM

But they still get to play in a region closer to their hometown for the first few games.

12/11/2008 10:32:00 AM

Yeah the last thing that would really worry me is inconveniencing the traveling fan.

I think most Texas fans would tell you right now they would prefer their team be playing in some type of playoff instead of worrying about the travel logistics of it.

I do like the idea of a home game first round, really reward those teams, and then the 9/10 game satisfies getting the 4th bowl involved.

I'd take anything though personally. 4 teams, and an one, 8 teams, 32, whatever. This system is just stupid. And I am not even mad and the NC game this year because I think it is the 2 best teams, but I just hate how the rest of the bcs bowls shake out and have left us with some unappealing games. Playoff games would motivate me to watch more then CInci.

12/11/2008 10:35:00 AM

^It is one of the least of your worries, but I can guarantee it's one of the top ten reasons this has been pushed back until 2015.

12/11/2008 10:51:07 AM

^^^ Only the top seeded teams get to stay close to home.

If it's not a problem with the NCAA basketball tournament, I don't get why everyone claims it will be a problem for football??

12/11/2008 11:04:14 AM

for starters, football stadiums hold 3-4times as many people as basketball arenas.

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : and the whole thing would be shot if they didn't sell the games out.]

12/11/2008 11:06:05 AM

Not to mention that the playoff would occur during the Holiday season, when expendable income isn't usually prevalent, nor is traveling to 2-3 different cities in 3 weeks feasible.

12/11/2008 11:31:55 AM

It works in Basketball because gate revenue is a small fraction of the money involved when you consider TV deals, advertising, sponsors, etc.

Hell, even under the current system a good portion of the seats and most of the boxes for the BCS bowls are sold to corporate sponsors. That would have no bearing on fans traveling.

^Now that's a reason I can understand.

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM. Reason : d]

12/11/2008 11:33:17 AM

and its a lot harder to travel a football team and staff and equipment of 100+

basketball is 20 people with nothing to bring

12/11/2008 11:44:17 AM

^^You are correct though, they do cater to a corporate crowd. However, the corporate crowd will not attend a Rose Bowl game on December 27th that features Cinci and VT. Nor will the Rose Bowl allow this to happen anyways, that's a whole 'nuther story.

12/11/2008 11:53:02 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention that the playoff would occur during the Holiday season, when expendable income isn't usually prevalent, nor is traveling to 2-3 different cities in 3 weeks feasible."

I feel like the games would be great games and exciting they would be able to sell the stadiums out. You really are only asking them to sell out 4 additional games, since you'd use the other bowls that all sellout anyway. I mean NFL teams sell out their playoff games and I find that to be similar because all the sudden the season ends and you could potentially play 2-3 extra playoff home games and you don't even really know until a week or two before at times. If it was the big teams like USC/Texas/Bama, those stadiums are full regardless so not a problem. If a team like Utah was all the sudden hosting a first round playoff game I think the fans in the area would be so pumped they would travel and figure out how to get that stadium full. You know if we ever had a team that hosted some type of first round NCAA playoff we'd get that stadium filled up.

Another option is that instead of playing the first round at home, make the first round use 2nd tier bowls like the Cotton Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Gator Bowl, Car Care Bowl(Jk). Neutral field but since those games are good draws anyway, they should be even bigger with the teams they would get.

12/11/2008 12:54:09 PM

Nope Nope Nope


2nd Tier bowls still need to have their games between the teams that dont make the playoffs.

The Best and Only solution right now is for a plus one game.

This year it would have been crazy but you would have had 2 rematchs in the semi-finals

1) Florida vs 4) Alabama @ Sugar Bowl - JAN 1st

2) Oklahoma vs 3) Texas @ Fiesta Bowl - JAN 1st

Winners play in National Championship game a week later

12/11/2008 1:01:41 PM

No way you could do both of those games on Jan 1 unless the Rose Bowl had the NC game. You'll hear it more and more, the granddaddy will be a major factor in deciding any kind of playoff system.

12/11/2008 1:10:17 PM

My only problem with limiting the amount of teams to say 8 with the 6 BCS conference champions getting automatic bids is that some teams won't schedule a tough OOC schedule so that if they lost in their championship game then they would still have a decent enough record to get one of the at-large spots.

Here's a scenario:

LSU meets Georgia in the SEC title game. LSU is undefeated up until then. Georgia has 3 losses, but beats LSU. LSU then has one loss, but played a terrible OOC schedule that consisted of Western Carolina, Louisiana Tech, North Texas, and Tulane.

Oklahoma has gone 11-1 up until this point with their lone loss at Oregon who is in the Top 25. They lose to Nebraska in the championship game giving OU 2 losses on the season. Their other OOC opponents were Sam Houston State, Tulsa, and Boise State.

Why should LSU get the at-large BCS spot over Oklahoma when Oklahoma played a much more difficult schedule? That's why I favor a tournament that has more than one BCS team at-large spot. A 12 team playoff could possibly work.

Otherwise I'm in favor of a +1 situation with all the other bowls still intact.

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2008 1:49:59 PM

how about bcs conference champs + two non-bcs conference champs, determined by a bcstype system? that's reall your best move as far as teams are concerned, if you ask me. the logistics of it are still a mess.

and that said, i'm still not in favor of a playoff.

12/11/2008 1:59:49 PM

The "Plus One" will be the 1st playoff type that you will see


- Top 4 teams in the final BCS standings play each other

- It doesnt matter if your a conference champion or not as long as you are in the top4

- conference champions still go to BCS bowls

- Another BCS bowl is added such as Chic-fil-a or Cotton Bowl

12/11/2008 2:51:56 PM

the chicfila bowl should not be allowed to be a bcs bowl until they put 'peach' back in the name.

12/11/2008 3:00:29 PM

Quote :

"2nd Tier bowls still need to have their games between the teams that dont make the playoffs."

Why? Those bowls don't particularly have any meaning to the teams.. All it would do if you used the 2nd tier for the 1st round is bump the teams that don't make the playoffs down to the 3rd tier bowls making those bowls stronger more appealing games. The trickle down effect would still keep all the bowls, but would increase the level of teams in all the bowls, make for better matchups, and more revenue.

To many teams make bowls right now anyways, it is a damn joke.

12/11/2008 6:01:46 PM

^^^ I agree, it will be an evolution from BCS to playoff if anything. The first step is adding the + 1 game. Then over time as the sport increases in parity, it may make sense to expand to 6 or 8 teams in a small playoff. Right now though, its arguable that at the end of the year the best team is ranked in the top 4 of the BCS polls. The +1 system solves the fundamental flaw of the BCS; Failure to produce a undisputed champion every year. Other than that glaring issue the BCS mostly gets it right.

12/11/2008 11:19:53 PM

meh....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

i'd honestly say 7 of the top 10 teams have a legitimate shot at winning against every other team on there... I realize that's a very "Any Given Sunday" type mentality but the big12 south proves to me a playoff system is needed.

12/11/2008 11:57:47 PM

^Big 12 south already played off. Oklahoma won. They are the best team in Big 12. Whats the point of doing it all over again? It would make the first conference playoff meaningless. The BCS has nothing to do with the Big 12's tie breaker rules. Regardless I think they got it right, Texas hasn't played anybody and OU has.

12/12/2008 12:03:47 AM

okay but here's the thing, the big12 has a playoff system. they play a whole season and then have a championship game. no need to replay that.

fuck it, a seven game series is the only way to determine the TRUE champ.

[Edited on December 12, 2008 at 12:04 AM. Reason : ^ bah, fuck off.]

12/12/2008 12:04:28 AM

lol neither of you can convince me that the 5th tie breaker (being the notoriously "what have you done for me lately" bcs rankings) created a definitive big12 south champion.


and to back up that statement. have the TT/OK game first then the TX/OK game second then the TT/TX game 3rd (same results as this year), and TT goes to the big12 championship.
exact same situation and results other than time with a completely different result.

and even more to the point .... What do you think would have happened if the order had been changed and the TX/OK game was the third game played tx>ok, tt>tx, ok>tt (ie they all still beat each other but TX was the last one to win).


TX would have gone to the big12 championship bc of the BCS standings rewarding people who lose early.
I think OK is a better team than TX, but I have an incredibly hard time saying OK deserves to be in the NC over a texas team that beat them.

i vote for an 8 team play off.

1 Oklahoma
2 Florida
3 Texas
4 Alabama
5 USC
6 Utah
7 Texas Tech
8 Penn State

would be a great fucking series of games. Utah and USC have def shots at upsets to me, if Penn State could control the ball they may beable to keep OK off the field enough to keep up with scoreing.

USC's defense would give them a chance in every game




[Edited on December 12, 2008 at 12:32 AM. Reason : s]

12/12/2008 12:20:16 AM

I agree that resorting to the 5th tie breaker to decide champion isn't going to give you a definitive champion but its just dumb luck to have three teams perform at such a similar level.

Hell, you could even argue that the 5th OT in a game doesn't give you a definitive winner. Once you get to 5 OT's the teams have proven that they are fairly even. At this point your deciding which team is the better team by who has the better kicker. This is a frivolous way to decide who is better, much like the Big12's 5th tie breaker.

Frankly I'm getting tired of the big12 circle jerk. I will laugh my ass off when they all three lose their bowl games.

12/12/2008 1:13:15 AM

OKAY OKAY OKAY OKAY

Enough with the Playoff talk


PREDICT EACH BCS GAME

ORANGE BOWL

Cincinnati 31 Va. Tech 24

SUGAR BOWL

Alabama 38 Utah 7

FIESTA BOWL

Texas 41 Ohio State 38 2OT

ROSE BOWL

USC 31 Penn State 10

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

Florida 41 Oklahoma 27

12/12/2008 9:18:53 AM

Quote :

"16 team playoff would ruin the sport. period"

And not having a legitimate champion helps things?

Quote :

"Conference Championship game would be a uneventful since most likely both teams get into the tourney regardless if they won or lost."

The hell it would. 16 teams with 11 conference berths prevents that scenario. Plus, you can't tell me that the ACC #2 gets in to the playoffs this year. Finally, let's look at the BCS this year... Bama lost their championship game, where did they go? right. Texas lost, where did they go? Right. OSU was #2 in its conference, where did they go? right. You've already got your "nightmare scenario."

Quote :

"Although, it has failed to give us a uncontested National Champion every year. I think this can be easily fixed with a +1 system."

So, what happens when all six BCS conferences give an undefeated champion? Who gets in?

Quote :

"The most interesting and followed teams get priority and teams no one cares about get the shaft."

Mmmm, that sounds fair. Fuck the teams that no one cares about, they don't deserve a championship. Fuck em.

Quote :

"If you want to watch cinderella win a NC, wait till March. I want to watch the best teams go head to head, thats what the BCS gives us."

A fitting ending to a post of sheer stupidity. The BCS rarely gives us the best teams, head to head. How the fuck can you even decide that by picking only 2 teams? The BCS was designed for one purpose: keeping the money in the big conferences, and it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams

12/19/2008 11:06:06 PM