College Playoff

[ORD_Buckeye]

When all the dust settles, I at least hope that Slive had the common decency to give Delaney a reach-a-round.

 

[DallasHusker]

Isn't the whole reason for having a playoff so that we get closer to letting the best teams at the end of the year decide it on the field? If so then why all the talk that you MUST win your conference? I understand no one wants to see 2 SEC teams, etc as part of the 4 but it sure seems like we are trying to say we have a system that comes closer to finding a true champion but we are hanging on to sacred cows too. Seems rather ironic to me. The more I look at this the better the pre-BCS days look with the traditional bowls in play and let the votes come in after they are all played to do a final ranking. I guess you could let the top 2 teams at that point duke it out if need be. That would be a plus one system I guess?

If all the conferences operated equally - in terms of academic admissions criteria, oversigning, multi-year vs single year scholarships etc - I think your argument would be more valid. As it is, the SEC with their much looser standards gives them an unfair advantage over other conferences like the B1G.

 

[Muck]

Did you even read what I posted?

Yes your argument that teams currently in one of 'those' four conferences prove that you can't ignore teams that aren't was quite...well it was quite something.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Which remains an opinion, no matter its frequency. And not a very reliable one either:
Translated: You have to give the other 56 teams a fair shake

Reality: We don't give 52 non-BCS conf teams a shot at a title, not counting Boise or ND

You're telling me that number can't grow by 4? Especially if expansion creates even more of a disparity?

The 52 teams that have no real shot at a title, especially in the SEC era:

1. Southern Miss ... CUSA
2. Marshall
3. ECU
4. UAB
5. UCF
6. Memphis
7. Houston
8. Tulsa
9. Southern Methodist
10. Rice
11. UTEP
12. Tulane
13. BYU ... Independents
14. Navy
15. Army
16. Ohio ... MAC
17. Temple
18. Kent State
19. Bowling Green
20. Miami
21. Buffalo
22. Akron
23. NIU
24. Toledo
25. Western Michigan
26. Ball State
27. EMU
28. CMU
29. Wyoming ... MWC
30. SDSU
31. Wyoming
32. Air Force
33. Colorado State
34. UNLV
35. New Mexico
36. Arkansas State ... Sun Belt
37. W Kentucky
38. La Lafayette
39. FIU
40. N Texas
41. La Monroe
42. Troy
43. MTSU
44. FAU
45. La Tech ... WAC
46. Utah State
47. Nevada
48. San Jose State
49. Fresno State
50. Hawaii
51. New Mexico State
52. Idaho

The bolded teams either have actually won a national title (BYU), finished undefeated in the regular season since implementation of the BCS (Marshall 12-0 in 1999, Hawaii 12-0 in 2007), or were bonafide contenders for the national titles at least once in your lifetime (Houston in 1990, Air Force in 1985). Both Houston and Air Force also had 13-1 and 12-1 records respectively recently. You just can't wholesale eliminate nearly half the schools in I-A just because they historically haven't been great, and can't say that just because you're not a member of one of the four chosen power conferences you're not worthy of a shot at the title. Having the 16-team playoff ensures that any team that has a legitimate shot at the title gets it, and also ensures those who had a great regular season get seeded highest (thus keeping the regular season meaningful). All is takes for a normally shitty school to become a valid title contender is a great player or two, or a great head coach (such as Meyer at Utah).

 

[Ryan36_1]

If all the conferences operated equally - in terms of academic admissions criteria, oversigning, multi-year vs single year scholarships etc - I think your argument would be more valid. As it is, the SEC with their much looser standards gives them an unfair advantage over other conferences like the B1G.

The more pertinent point is when an SEC team plays a bunch of SEC teams, and a PAC team plays a bunch of PAC teams and there is little overlap of comparable opponents, then even the most brilliant of methods of comparison are only slightly better than a WAG. And brilliant is not on the list of adjectives I would use to describe the current BCS ranking system.

 

[jwinslow]

The bolded teams either have actually won a national title (BYU)

Which isn't really relevant to the current system. Army once got the benefit of the doubt too. That doesn't change the fact that they are basically excluded from the title hunt.

finished undefeated in the regular season since implementation of the BCS (Marshall 12-0 in 1999, Hawaii 12-0 in 2007)

Marshall - 12th place behind SEVEN 2+ loss teams, including two 9-3 teams.

Hawaii - 10th place behind SEVEN two loss teams.

Yeah, clearly they have a shot at the title

or were bonafide contenders for the national titles at least once in your lifetime (Houston in 1990, Air Force in 1985).

Also not relevant to the current system.

You just can't wholesale eliminate nearly half the schools in I-A just because they historically haven't been great

and yet they do that every single year, as your BCS examples demonstrated

, and can't say that just because you're not a member of one of the four chosen power conferences you're not worthy of a shot at the title.

They already exclude them via disrespect in the polls, that disparity will only increase if 4 super conferences emerge.

Having the 16-team playoff ensures that any team that has a legitimate shot at the title gets it, and also ensures those who had a great regular season get seeded highest (thus keeping the regular season meaningful).

Still having some meaning doesn't mean it hasn't lost a significant amount of its meaning, particularly the suspense riding on every single game. With sixteen teams, you don't have to truly panic until you lose three games, because lots of mediocrity can sneak in at the 13-16 range.

What makes College Football so special is that every game can dash or vault a team's title hopes. If you can get in with 3-4 losses, the importance of winning those games drops off significantly. You only have to win most of them, and out of conference, region viewers will have less to celebrate if Pitt knocks off WVU. A shuffle in seeding is a huge difference between title game elimination.

All is takes for a normally shitty school to become a valid title contender is a great player or two, or a great head coach (such as Meyer at Utah).

Except Utah wasn't a title contender, despite being undefeated and led by the future #1 pick in the draft.

 

[Buckeye86]

The bolded teams either have actually won a national title (BYU), finished undefeated in the regular season since implementation of the BCS (Marshall 12-0 in 1999, Hawaii 12-0 in 2007), or were bonafide contenders for the national titles at least once in your lifetime (Houston in 1990, Air Force in 1985). Both Houston and Air Force also had 13-1 and 12-1 records respectively recently. You just can't wholesale eliminate nearly half the schools in I-A just because they historically haven't been great,

Yes you can.

and can't say that just because you're not a member of one of the four chosen power conferences you're not worthy of a shot at the title.

See above response.

Having the 16-team playoff ensures that any team that has a legitimate shot at the title gets it, and also ensures those who had a great regular season get seeded highest (thus keeping the regular season meaningful).

No it doesn't.

All is takes for a normally shitty school to become a valid title contender is a great player or two, or a great head coach (such as Meyer at Utah).

Yawn. Heaven forbid we don't get to see Utah versus Pittsburgh in the first round of a 16 team playoff as everyone prays that the top teams don't injure their best players making it to the final rounds.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, because 5 teams of 52 teams listed might have been "worthy" on some (personal) metric, we have to bullshit ourselves into believing those other 47 teams "deserve" something?

Cut.
The.
Fat.

I don't really care who gets "invited" to the big boy table. But, stop the charade that FAU is playing for the crystal football.... or that they "deserve" to do so. Round the shit up and have them play for some other championship.

 

[Ryan36_1]

I think that what needs to be talked about more is the way teams are ranked in any system. The human element needs a complete overhaul, in my IMO. The final polls are clearly now a matter of 'who we want to be in championship game' and not 'who we think the best teams are'. And even tossing out bias, the qualifications of the voters - coaches and media alike, is questionable - and that's being nice.

I think the polls are fine week to week rankings, but the final rankings should be done in a different manner. My suggestion is some sort of hybrid between polls and the basketball committee. Have a committee - conference representatives and media - discuss the merits of each team and cast individual rankings. The composite of these rankings would decide final BCS standings - either on their own or in combination with the final computer rankings. The committee should be small - 10 to 12 representatives - and the votes public.

While this system wouldn't prevent voter manipulation - like there was last year with Okie State last year, for example - it would take away the quasi-anonymity that we have now. Of the population of CFB fans, what percentage do you think even knows that Okie State was ranked as low as 6 in final polls last year (I would argue very few) and further more, how many can name the voters that placed them that low? (I would argue far fewer - I know I can't)

Looks like there will be a committee if the proposed plan is approved. Won't solve problems that teams like 2011 Okie State, 2009 TCU (could have), and 2006 scum faced, but at least we can skip the Emperor-has-no-clothes farce the current polls are.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Which isn't really relevant to the current system. Army once got the benefit of the doubt too. That doesn't change the fact that they are basically excluded from the title hunt.Marshall - 12th place behind SEVEN 2+ loss teams, including two 9-3 teams.

Hawaii - 10th place behind SEVEN two loss teams.

Yeah, clearly they have a shot at the title

Yeah, media bias had nothing to do with that.

Also not relevant to the current system.

Which shows the current system is fucked up.

Except Utah wasn't a title contender, despite being undefeated and led by the future #1 pick in the draft.

Exactly my point...they should've been. Look at their 2008 team which beat the shit out of SEC powerhouse Alabama. The 2008 Utah team could've hung with anyone that year.

Limiting access to the title game to a select group of "superconferences" does not give all teams an opportunity if they for some reason are otherwise good enough.

The only reason you strongly advocate keeping the title game to teams in the B1G (and SEC, PAC 12, and Big 12) is that you're a fan of a team in one of those conferences. I guarantee you that if you were a fan of Utah or any other team that has a had a great undefeated regular season lately, you'd be whistling a very different tune.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So, because 5 teams of 52 teams listed might have been "worthy" on some (personal) metric, we have to bullshit ourselves into believing those other 47 teams "deserve" something?

Cut.
The.
Fat.

I don't really care who gets "invited" to the big boy table. But, stop the charade that FAU is playing for the crystal football.... or that they "deserve" to do so. Round the shit up and have them play for some other championship.

Those other 47 teams only "deserve" something if they earn it. Don't keep them from the playoffs just because they're not in one of your "chosen" conferences if they otherwise prove on the field if they are worthy.

 

[Muck]

You just can't wholesale eliminate nearly half the schools in I-A just because they historically haven't been great, and can't say that just because you're not a member of one of the four chosen power conferences you're not worthy of a shot at the title.

Again? Or are you saying that the 1978 split never happened?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Again? Or are you saying that the 1978 split never happened?

??

 

[Muck]

??

Do you think that those Div IAA playoffs that you wax so endlessly about existed forever?

In the 70's the NCAA realized that roughly half of the teams participating in Div 1 football had no realistic shot at ever being competitive over a long period of time with the largest schools. So they did exactly what you have stated cannot be done. They created a new division strictly for the larger schools with more resources. They named it IA. And that happened only 5 years after the original I/II/III split.

I'm just pointing out that we've been down this road before. This is not an unprecedented situation.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Can those 50+ schools up and quit the NCAA and start thier own governing body? I mean that is a lot of universities that are being told that basically they aren't good enough to compete for the title. I'd imagine there are some pretty bright and even proud people at those schools that could come up with a organization that can accomplish the following.....



NCAA Membership

The NCAA is made up of three membership classifications that are known as Divisions I, II and III. Each division creates its own rules governing personnel, amateurism, recruiting, eligibility, benefits, financial aid, and playing and practice seasons ? consistent with the overall governing principles of the Association. Every program must affiliate its core program with one of the three divisions.

Might even do it better in all honesty. They could have thier own championships.