College Playoff

[BUCKYLE]

Five different programs have won the BCSNC from the SEC. Compared to the ACC, B1G, Big East and Pac-10's single program winner, that is a broader brush. I get why Vandy or Miss State fans mouthing off seems silly. I get why its annoying. Let's just agree to disagree on the whole conference pride thing. We see it differently. Not saying we are "right", but that is how we roll. To figure out why we do you'd have to watch the entire Ken Burns series.

It's silly when anyone brags about other peoples accomplishments. Especially when it's someone you loathe...or claim to anyway. My theory is that all SEC fans secretly love every other SEC team. Like how homophobes are really gay. That's why not a single one of your rivalries are as good as The Game. You talk shit but secretly want to just turn off the tv and make out with UGA.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

It's silly when anyone brags about other peoples accomplishments. Especially when it's someone you loathe...or claim to anyway. My theory is that all SEC fans secretly love every other SEC team. Like how homophobes are really gay. That's why not a single one of your rivalries are as good as The Game. You talk [Mark May] but secretly want to just turn off the tv and make out with UGA.

GPA

 

[Gatorubet]

It's silly when anyone brags about other peoples accomplishments. Especially when it's someone you loathe...or claim to anyway. My theory is that all SEC fans secretly love every other SEC team. Like how homophobes are really gay. That's why not a single one of your rivalries are as good as The Game. You talk [Mark May] but secretly want to just turn off the tv and make out with UGA.

​

No.

 

[Muck]

You talk shit but secretly want to just turn off the tv and rest your testicles on UGAs cheek.

Fixed for accuracy.

Edit: Holy shit I just realized that idiot is from X-1's hometown.

 

[matcar]

It's silly when anyone brags about other peoples accomplishments. Especially when it's someone you loathe...or claim to anyway. My theory is that all SEC fans secretly love every other SEC team. Like how homophobes are really gay. That's why not a single one of your rivalries are as good as The Game. You talk [Mark May] but secretly want to just turn off the tv and make out with UGA.

Wake me up when folks here and other Big Ten fan bases don't trumpet their conference's relative successes in bowl games or NCAA tournament brackets. Every conference does it...

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Five different programs have won the BCSNC from the SEC. Compared to the ACC, B1G, Big East and Pac-10's single program winner, that is a broader brush. I get why Vandy or Miss State fans mouthing off seems silly. I get why its annoying. Let's just agree to disagree on the whole conference pride thing. We see it differently. Not saying we are "right", but that is how we roll. To figure out why we do you'd have to watch the entire Ken Burns series.

With all due respect..YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND! First of all you forgot Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and, Tennessee. Yes I included Tennessee in this. They haven't been relevant in..well who knows. You will never convince me in a million years that tOSU loses to any other conference that year..homerish..ok but damn that was a sick team. The problem isn't so much that your worthless teams talk, shit it's that your main schools..talk shit about championships won by rivals. According to this..I need to root for scUM when they play Bama. Hell maybe I should..and then hope both teams run the table after that..well until tOSU just fucking kills those fucking rodents in Columbus this November..The difference is scUM won't survive the rankings after the loss..and Bama will be fine. Maybe it's just a difference in values between the SEC and the BIG but you tell me scUM wins a NC in any year and I'll find a way to call bullshit on it, and conference be damned I won't use it in any argument.

 

[BB73]

I'll suggest these modifications to Delany's plan in order to help it gain more acceptance and minimize the chances at a split title, which I believe is the biggest drawback in his "take 4 conference champions from the top-6" proposal.

Step 1. Teams #1 and #2 in the 'modified BCS' standings get in. This makes a split title very unlikely, and avoids the new system leaving out any teams which would have been in the old BCS Title Game, which would be a step backward that must be avoided.

Step 2. Any conference champions that are between #3 and #6 get in until the 4th team is selected, but no conference can have more than 2 teams. So if the SEC somehow has the top-2 teams, but neither won the SECCG, the SECCG winner would NOT be in the playoff.

Step 3. If there are not yet 4 teams, select teams from teams #3, #4, #5, #6, etc. until there are 4 teams, with no more than 2 teams being from a single conference. NOTE - It's possible to make it to a #7 team that may or may not be a conference champion, due to the 2-team per conference limit.

There are some scenarios that could be controversial. A #3 Notre Dame team could be shut out of the playoffs by #5 and #6 conference champions. Too bad for them, but at least they won't be shut out if they're in the top 2. If they don't like that, they can join a conference for football. Besides ND and BYU, who would dislike this provision?

The limit of 2 teams from any conference will be complained about by Mike Slive. It's the same as the limit in the current BCS for 10 teams - but here the limit is only in place for a group of 4 teams, so it will come into play less frequently. But limiting it to 2 teams from any conference will help it gain acceptance from most of the university presidents, who would prefer to see the money more widely distributed.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

I'll suggest these modifications to Delany's plan in order to help it gain more acceptance and minimize the chances at a split title, which I believe is the biggest drawback in his "take 4 conference champions from the top-6" proposal.

Step 1. Teams #1 and #2 in the 'modified BCS' standings get in. This makes a split title very unlikely, and avoids the new system leaving out any teams which would have been in the old BCS Title Game, which would be a step backward that must be avoided.

Step 2. Any conference champions that are between #3 and #6 get in until the 4th team is selected, but no conference can have more than 2 teams. So if the SEC somehow has the top-2 teams, but neither won the SECCG, the SECCG winner would NOT be in the playoff.

Step 3. If there are not yet 4 teams, select non-conference champions from teams #3, #4, #5, #6, etc. until there are 4 teams, with no more than 2 teams being from a single conference.

There are some scenarios that could be controversial. A #3 Notre Dame team could be shut out of the playoffs by #5 and #6 conference champions. Too bad for them, but at least they won't be shut out if they're in the top 2. If they don't like that, they can join a conference for football. Besides ND and BYU, who would dislike this provision?

The limit of 2 teams from any conference will be complained about by Mike Slive. It's the same as the limit in the current BCS for 10 teams - but here the limit is only in place for a group of 4 teams, so it will come into play less frequently. But limiting it to 2 teams from any conference will help it gain acceptance from most of the university presidents, who would prefer to see the money more widely distributed.

 

[Muck]

Step 1. Teams #1 and #2 in the 'modified BCS' standings get in. This makes a split title very unlikely, and avoids the new system leaving out any teams which would have been in the old BCS Title Game, which would be a step backward that must be avoided.

2003 AP Champs - USC (#3 BCS)

 

[BB73]

2003 AP Champs - USC (#3 BCS)

But they weren't in the top-2 in the old BCS system, so the new proposal doesn't make them worse off. Delany's proposal would leave out BCS #1 Oklahoma, which could be considered a step backward.

And as a conference champion, USC would get in with step 2, so that situation isn't a problem in my proposal. 2003 would have taken the top-4 teams in the BCS, Oklahoma/LSU/USC/TSUN, leaving out Big XII Champion Kansas State since #8 isn't good enough for a 4-team playoff.

 

[tidetoit]

Here's a look at our four mythical playoff teams (from first through fourth) using the current BCS ranking system for each of the BCS seasons:

1998: Tennessee, Florida State, Kansas State, Ohio State
1999: Florida State, Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Alabama
2000: Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami (Fla.), Washington
2001: Miami (Fla.), Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon
2002: Miami (Fla.), Ohio State, Georgia, Southern Cal
2003: Oklahoma, LSU, Southern Cal, Michigan
2004: Southern Cal, Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas
2005: Southern Cal, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State
2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU
2007: Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma
2008: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama
2009: Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU
2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford
2011: LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford

tOSU would have made the Playoffs 5 times and the BIG 10 would have fielded two teams in the playoffs twice. The SEC would have only fielded two teams in the BCS Playoffs twice also. These are the results of what the current system would have produced in each of those BCS years. It's perfect - without the requirement that any team be a Conference Champion.

eta - The current ranking system works. The real problem is homerism pure and simple. If your team/conference isn't in the playoffs there must be something wrong with the system. BS!

 

[zincfinger]

I'll suggest these modifications to Delany's plan in order to help it gain more acceptance and minimize the chances at a split title, which I believe is the biggest drawback in his "take 4 conference champions from the top-6" proposal.

Step 1. Teams #1 and #2 in the 'modified BCS' standings get in. This makes a split title very unlikely, and avoids the new system leaving out any teams which would have been in the old BCS Title Game, which would be a step backward that must be avoided.

Step 2. Any conference champions that are between #3 and #6 get in until the 4th team is selected, but no conference can have more than 2 teams. So if the SEC somehow has the top-2 teams, but neither won the SECCG, the SECCG winner would NOT be in the playoff.

Step 3. If there are not yet 4 teams, select teams from teams #3, #4, #5, #6, etc. until there are 4 teams, with no more than 2 teams being from a single conference. NOTE - It's possible to make it to a #7 team that may or may not be a conference champion, due to the 2-team per conference limit.

There are some scenarios that could be controversial. A #3 Notre Dame team could be shut out of the playoffs by #5 and #6 conference champions. Too bad for them, but at least they won't be shut out if they're in the top 2. If they don't like that, they can join a conference for football. Besides ND and BYU, who would dislike this provision?

The limit of 2 teams from any conference will be complained about by Mike Slive. It's the same as the limit in the current BCS for 10 teams - but here the limit is only in place for a group of 4 teams, so it will come into play less frequently. But limiting it to 2 teams from any conference will help it gain acceptance from most of the university presidents, who would prefer to see the money more widely distributed.

I've never been a playoff advocate, but of all the proposals I've seen, this is probably the one I'd be most comfortable with. As an aside, if it became necessary in order to gain sufficient support for the proposal, to placate the pro-Notre Dame contingent, you could make Notre Dame qualify under Step 2. I.e. "Any conference champions, or Notre Dame, that are ranked between #3 and #6 get in until the 4th team is selected". I personally would be reasonably comfortable with that amendment, since Notre Dame generally plays a solid BCS-caliber schedule, from my perspective. But I agree with you that it would be better still for Notre Dame to put aside their preciousness and join a conference.

edit: And yet I just realized that you failed to account for the possible scenario that all of the top 6 teams in the BCS standings are from the SEC. Havoc!

 

[Buckeye513]

eta - The current ranking system works. The real problem is homerism pure and simple. If your team/conference isn't in the playoffs there must be something wrong with the system. BS!

And if my team can make the NC game without winning its division, there must be nothing wrong with the system.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

And if my team can make the NC game without winning its division, there must be nothing wrong with the system.

NFL and MLB have wild cards, and the NBA doesn't limit playoff teams to division winners.

 

[dragurd]

Not until all devision winners are in though. Therte is no system with wildcards that doesn't first include division winners that I know of.