College Playoff

[MililaniBuckeye]

Gawd, I hate that line. You don't know what I know.

If there were a 16-team playoff, ESPN would try to hype a 4-4 SEC team into the top-16. It's not out of the question.

EDIT:
In the final BCS Standings of 2007, Tennessee was #16 in the BCS with 4 losses. They weren't all conference losses, but that shows it could happen.

In the final BCS standings of 2003, Florida was #15 in the BCS, once again with 4 losses, not all conference losses.

Hey, you don't know if I know what you know...ya know?

I'd think that a four-conference-loss team would not make the top sixteen as the fourth loss would come later in the season (a four-loss team with all losses coming in conference means non of the losses came in the early OOC schedule). Even so, that four-loss team would have to likely beat the #1 seed at the #1 seed's home field, then beat three more significantly higher-ranked teams. You've pointed out two isolated instances in the 14 seasons under the BCS. I think the chances of a team with four conference losses making the 16-team cut is very, very unlikely.

 

[knapplc]

One thing that really, really kills the experience of football for me is the commercial break. SO DAMNED MANY, and they are so long. If most commercials weren't inane drivel it wouldn't be as bad, but when you watch a game and in 20 minutes of real time you get 7-10 minutes of commercials, which can happen depending on TDs scored, injuries, timeouts or change-of-possession, AND the commercials are painfully stupid, it just kills it for me.

Most of the time I'm watching a game I'll turn it on and hit pause, and let it run about 45 minutes to an hour out, then come back and watch it, just so I can FF through the commercials. Hate them, and I hate the way they break up the game.

It's better if there are two or three games on at a time, because you can typically bounce between games, but all too often they've got them lined up so when one goes to commercial, they're all at commercial.

 

[jwinslow]

My preference is an 8-team playoff.

The problem is that expansion beyond that is inevitable, and will sacrifice the greatness of the regular season.

 

[jwinslow]

You've pointed out two isolated instances in the 14 seasons under the BCS. I think the chances of a team with four conference losses making the 16-team cut is very, very unlikely.

That's assuming the mid-majors are included in the BCS rankings. Superconferences could easily pull out and do their own thing.

Twice is too many times, particularly when there are many years with mediocre teams ranked in the mid-teens. The four loss teams don't have the market cornered on undesirable playoff teams.

 

[BB73]

I'd think that a four-conference-loss team would not make the top sixteen as the fourth loss would come later in the season (a four-loss team with all losses coming in conference means non of the losses came in the early OOC schedule). Even so, that four-loss team would have to likely beat the #1 seed at the #1 seed's home field, then beat three more significantly higher-ranked teams. You've pointed out two isolated instances in the 14 seasons under the BCS. I think the chances of a team with four conference losses making the 16-team cut is very, very unlikely.

In 2011, the following SEC teams played 2 conference games in September:

Georgia
S Carolina
Florida
Vandy
Ole Miss
Miss St (had 2 SEC losses by Sept 15th)

If you still don't think a 4-loss SEC team could make the top-16 of the BCS, I think you're kidding yourself in order to justify your affinity for the 16-team playoff.

 

[buxfan4life]

Superconferences could easily pull out and do their own thing.

This is what I would like to see, 6 or 8 conferences, only the champions go to the playoffs. That will then preserve a majority of the regular season as being totally relevant. No controversy. Takes ESPiN's influence and general human bias out of the selection process.

It will probably never happen because it makes too damn much sense.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

If you still don't think a 4-loss SEC team could make the top-16 of the BCS, I think you're kidding yourself in order to justify your affinity for the 16-team playoff.

Don't you dare kid what I don't know...

 

[kn1f3party]

8-team playoff, top 6 conference champions--based on ranking not AQ or any other crap, and the highest 2 already not in. This year it would have been:

1 - LSU
2 - Oklahoma State
3 - Oregon
4 - Boise State
5 - Wisconsin
6 - Clemson
7 - Alabama
8 - Stanford

LSU / Stanford
Oklahoma State / Alabama
Oregon / Clemson
Boise State / Wisconsin

Hard to say how that pans out, but it would have been a lot more intriguing than the BCS bowls.

 

[knapplc]

8-team playoff, top 6 conference champions--based on ranking not AQ or any other crap, and the highest 2 already not in. This year it would have been:

1 - LSU
2 - Oklahoma State
3 - Oregon
4 - Boise State
5 - Wisconsin
6 - Clemson
7 - Alabama
8 - Stanford

LSU / Stanford
Oklahoma State / Alabama
Oregon / Clemson
Boise State / Wisconsin

Hard to say how that pans out, but it would have been a lot more intriguing than the BCS bowls.

Three rounds of games with those teams? I'm watching. Who wouldn't?

 

[muffler dragon]

8-team playoff, top 6 conference champions--based on ranking not AQ or any other crap, and the highest 2 already not in. This year it would have been:

1 - LSU
2 - Oklahoma State
3 - Oregon
4 - Boise State
5 - Wisconsin
6 - Clemson
7 - Alabama
8 - Stanford

LSU / Stanford
Oklahoma State / Alabama
Oregon / Clemson
Boise State / Wisconsin

Hard to say how that pans out, but it would have been a lot more intriguing than the BCS bowls.

I realize I'm being pedantic, but when WV beat the living shit out of Clemson... this just shows there are more problems than what meets the eye.

 

[Oh8ch]

8-team playoff, top 6 conference champions--based on ranking not AQ or any other crap, and the highest 2 already not in. This year it would have been:

1 - LSU
2 - Oklahoma State
3 - Oregon
4 - Boise State
5 - Wisconsin
6 - Clemson
7 - Alabama
8 - Stanford

LSU / Stanford
Oklahoma State / Alabama
Oregon / Clemson
Boise State / Wisconsin

Hard to say how that pans out, but it would have been a lot more intriguing than the BCS bowls.

Boise St did not win the Big East this year.

Arkansas was the #5 team in the country this season. You gave their spot to a Clemson team that finished outside the top 20.

Six of the final top 7 ranked teams were from just two conferences. Giving out playoff spots to champions from unbalanced conferences makes about as much sense as the current system.

And just out of curiosity - is there really anyone out there who doesn't believe Alabama was the best team in CFB this season? If not, why do we need a playoff? Increasing the chances that the best team gets upset by making them play more games does not increase the chances of crowning the right champion.

I agree that the bowl system is not what it used to be, but that has as much to do with absurd expansion of bowl games and current BCS structure as the lack of a playoff.

As a classic traditionalist I wouldn't have minded watching LSU play Okie St, watching Alabama absolutely destroy Oregon or Wisky or Boise, and then arguing who is really the best team for the next 8 months. Pretending that the NC game settles things and taking away those subjective arguments is what I dislike most.

All that said - bring on an 8 game playoff. Anything but another LSU-Alabama "classic". Just make it the "best" 8 teams regardless of division and let us spend the next 8 months arguing about why the 9th best team should have been included.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I realize I'm being pedantic, but when WV beat the living shit out of Clemson... this just shows there are more problems than what meets the eye.

Which is why conference championships can, at times, mean jack shit. You take the top 8 or 16 teams as ranked by BCS rankings and seed them. If one of the conference champs doesn't make it, tough shit.

 

[Oh8ch]

And one more thing. Absolutely no rematches.

If it was "settled on the field" once - that counts. If you lost the first time and come up for a rematch you forfeit.

 

[jwinslow]

Arkansas was the #5 team in the country this season. You gave their spot to a Clemson team that finished outside the top 20.

Arkansas was the fourth place SEC team. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on rankings.

Six of the final top 7 ranked teams were from just two conferences. Giving out playoff spots to champions from unbalanced conferences makes about as much sense as the current system.

Says you and what rationale?

And just out of curiosity - is there really anyone out there who doesn't believe Alabama was the best team in CFB this season? If not, why do we need a playoff? Increasing the chances that the best team gets upset by making them play more games does not increase the chances of crowning the right champion.

I think Alabama was a lousy choice in a terrible year for CFB, which was as bad on the field as it was off of it.

Bama played two tough games. They lost the biggest one, at home. Then they were given a trophy for not failing both times.

For months, Bama wasn't in the same stratosphere as LSU.

For 3 hours, in their second try, Bama was finally better than LSU.

All that said - bring on an 8 game playoff. Anything but another LSU-Alabama "classic". Just make it the "best" 8 teams regardless of division and let us spend the next 8 months arguing about why the 9th best team should have been included.

Talk about foolhardy systems.

Yeah, let's set up a system to give ESPN even more control over the postseason. If we're lucky, we can get 50% of the playoffs reserved for Disney's chosen ones.

 

[BB73]

Which is why conference championships can, at times, mean jack shit. You take the top 8 or 16 teams as ranked by BCS rankings and seed them. If one of the conference champs doesn't make it, tough shit.

Importance of the regular season, I'd like you to meet my friend, Jack Shit.