# NCAAFB: 16 game playoff?



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

This is a crazy year.
If West Virgina loses or has a terrible game in one of their last 2 games...

OHIO STATE will be playing for the national championship.... very good chance.

Which means Unranked-Michigan will still get to go to the Rose Bowl... (since they hold the tie braker over Illinois) With Illinois now having LESS of a chance of a BCS bowl game... or even a New Year's Day game.



Crazy end season.... and even more so of a reason that they need a 16 game playoff...

You have a chance of looking at a national title game with two single-loss teams.. And un-defeatued team looking from the outside in...

And an unranked team playing in the RoseBowl, while a highly ranked team might not even get to play on New Year's Eve....

I think a 4 week playoff system of the top 16 teams... scattered accross 15 different bowl game (with each week being the more prestigeous ones)... would rack in $$$$$$$$$$ both attendance, TV, promotion gear, ect....

Could you imagine the raitings of the final play-off weekend... and then a "super bowl" of college football... on a weekend (where it belongs, not on a weekday).

That could end the year... and then lead right into the playoffs for the NFL... two months of high quality football...


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

I would love to see a playoff but probably 4 or 8 teams because there is no way more than 8 teams even deserve a shot.

Also, I don't think just because Ohio St. makes the national championship, the Rose Bowl will take the second place B10 school. If I remember right, they will take other highly ranked teams if the PAC10 or B10 champion is involved with the National Championship.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cdizzy said:


> I would love to see a playoff but probably 4 or 8 teams because there is no way more than 8 teams even deserve a shot.
> 
> Also, I don't think just because Ohio St. makes the national championship, the Rose Bowl will take the second place B10 school. If I remember right, they will take other highly ranked teams if the PAC10 or B10 champion is involved with the National Championship.


Well given the structure of today's BCS... the top 14 teams are eligible for the BCS bowls (hence the 16).

As for the Rose Bowl.
Well... then that is good for Illinois then... as they could still play in the Rose Bowl then.. 

As with the results of the last two days alone, Illinois has a very good chane move up to the top 14 on the BCS rankings and BCS bowl eligible.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

I agree cdizzy I think 8 teams would be good.

I would actually like to see the winner of the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East and the top 3 other teams from the other conferences/Independents get the other 3 spots.

Still use the BCS rankings. Depending where the 8 teams rank in the BCS rankings what seed they get in the playoffs.

Then you would have two rounds of playoff games to get to the two teams in the national championship. Then the teams would have Christmas week off and then the national championship game would be some time the week after.


----------



## eakes (Sep 22, 2007)

The BCS and "championship game" should be scrapped. When the season ends in November, have a final poll and designate a National Champion. The bowl games can then return to what they should be - a fun game and reward for the players with no 'championship' pressures.

Start a 4 or 8 or 16 team tournament and we will wind up with a 64 team tournament like basketball. Each college team would play an 8 game schedule over September and October. The 'tournament would start about the second or third week of November and play three weekends at the home field of the higher ranked team. The next four games would be played on New Year's day. The winners of those games play a week to 10 days later followed by the "Championship Game". The last three week,s games would be played at designated in-door facilities. We can scrap all the bowl games because they do not make sense in a tournament environment.

I just hope I never see this happen!!!


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

BMoreRavens said:


> I would actually like to see the winner of the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East and the top 3 other teams from the other conferences/Independents get the other 3 spots.


Sure, leave out my PAC10 conference.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

cdizzy said:


> Sure, leave out my PAC10 conference.


Sorry, the PAC10 also needs to be added. So that leaves two spots. I thought I was missing a conference.


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

Actually, that leaves 4 spots because 10 teams get in a BCS game(including the national championship).

The National championship game is now seperate from the big 4 BCS games.


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

Nevermind, I see what your saying. 2 more spots to reach the 8 team playoff.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

eakes said:


> The BCS and "championship game" should be scrapped. When the season ends in November, have a final poll and designate a National Champion. The bowl games can then return to what they should be - a fun game and reward for the players with no 'championship' pressures.
> 
> Start a 4 or 8 or 16 team tournament and we will wind up with a 64 team tournament like basketball. Each college team would play an 8 game schedule over September and October. The 'tournament would start about the second or third week of November and play three weekends at the home field of the higher ranked team. The next four games would be played on New Year's day. The winners of those games play a week to 10 days later followed by the "Championship Game". The last three week,s games would be played at designated in-door facilities. We can scrap all the bowl games because they do not make sense in a tournament environment.
> 
> I just hope I never see this happen!!!


So should we scrap the basketball tournament... March-Madness as well?

I mean those basketball kids only play 26 or so games... and then should just get ranked and the votes/computers pick who the best is.... instead of letting their hard work prove itself.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

There is too much money tied up with bowl games for them to go to a championship playoff, unless there is a major scandal of somekind with the BCS, or some other act of God, were stuck with the drivel they spout.

I would favor a 16 team play off and the season limited to 10 games.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I hate that there is no division I (now the bowl division) playoffs. Somehow the lower divisions manage to schedule and play a playoff... and you know those kids need the academics even more because they are not getting the "press" that the top division gets.

A year like this one is a very good example of why we need a playoff, because the two teams on top this year might not be the best just the ones that didn't lose last!

There are so many bowl games now, that teams with 6-6 records go to bowls! Do we really need those bowls? Wouldn't those lower tier bowls be much more compelling and money-making if they featured playoff rounds instead of 2 teams with barely elligible records?

You can't tell me there isn't money being left on the table by not using those lower tier bowls to play the early rounds and then the "big time" bowls get the final rounds and presumably the higher profile or at least better played games.

I think I also like a 16 team playoff. There are so many schools that just the top 8 would likely ignore teams like Boise St of last year that went undefeated and clearly was a worthy team as evidenced in last year's bowl game victory.

A lot of folks are just being stubborn and holding onto the past with the current bowl and voting system. It's a real shame we can't let those kids play it out on the field in a tournament rather than luck-of-the-draw voting at the end of the season.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Playoffs will not work and will never happen.

- The idea of "spread the bowls over the playoff games" is just stupid. Bowl games are vacations planned for by the fans of a team. You actually expect people to show up, in mid-December at a "Peach Bowl" playoff game between, say, Penn State and Kansas and then have people show up, in mid-December, at a "Gator Bowl" playoff game between Penn State and UCLA? Take a gander at the sea of empties at most early round NCAA tournament sites, consider college football is 10 times more seat, and understand that playoffs will have to be, until the final, home games.

- That means Lincoln, Nebraska in late December. Burrrr.

- Look at LSU-Arkansas last night? Wonderful. Under playoffs, a meaningless game.

- Look at the wonderful thing that college football's regular season is. Its wonderful. Why change? So ESPN can have another night of high ratings? It will KILL the regular season. Kill it.

- The best system was, of course, before there was a BcS. Just have the bowls and make up the matchups after the season. If a team plays a cupcake schedule and goes undefeated but the pollsters think somebody else is more deserving of the NC, fine. Life. Play a tougher schedule next time. (See, Penn State in the 1970s to understand this topic).

- Under the bowl system, most teams are happy going to a bowl. Most every team walks off as a winner. In playoffs, one winner.

Reform is needed. For one thing, the mid-major Big East needs to be excluded, or the other mid-majors included, but don't let the northeast kill college football.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> There is too much money tied up with bowl games for them to go to a championship playoff, unless there is a major scandal of somekind with the BCS, or some other act of God, were stuck with the drivel they spout.
> 
> I would favor a 16 team play off and the season limited to 10 games.


Why? I would think the bowls that are part of the playoff system would be able to generate even MORE money.

And you could then still have the other 30+ bowls.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SamC said:


> - The idea of "spread the bowls over the playoff games" is just stupid. Bowl games are vacations planned for by the fans of a team. You actually expect people to show up, in mid-December at a "Peach Bowl" playoff game between, say, Penn State and Kansas and then have people show up, in mid-December, at a "Gator Bowl" playoff game between Penn State and UCLA? Take a gander at the sea of empties at most early round NCAA tournament sites, consider college football is 10 times more seat, and understand that playoffs will have to be, until the final, home games.


So... if the vacations are "planned"....

Were am I planning my vacation spot? For Illinois football.
Am I making reservations in California for the Rose Bowl... or in Floriday for the Capital One bowl.

Am I am requesting the New Year's holiday off work? or some other days.

The "fans" that get to go to these destinations are the ones that have some good finances and can pay the "less then 4 week" airline fees, higher rates for hotel rooms... and can take a chance on eating some reservations if they guessed wrong.

Or tap into "vacation" firms that will get you to the big game.

Not that any of those issues will be resolved by a playoff system.

And actually... I think even MORE fans of a team would be able to watch their team live, if it was more then one game.

I would bet you would have zero problems filling any of those stadiums with fans... especially if it is single elimination.



> - Look at LSU-Arkansas last night? Wonderful. Under playoffs, a meaningless game.


Why? Under the right playoff structure... that could mean the difference between a BYE week...
Or playing the 16th rank team, vs a 7/8 matchup?

And LSU could still end up losing their next game... which would mean they may not even make the playoffs if there was one...
Because of their loss to Arkansas

Same thing goes for tonights Kansas-Missouri game...

But right now... Writers (who don't necessary watch every game they are voting on), Coaches (who again... don't necessarily watch every game they are voting on), and mathmatics (basically "on paper") determin who is the best team.

Instead of all the intagebiles of the actual "game" and the talent of the players/coaches determining who is the champion team.

Even in HIGH-SCHOOL football they have playoffs... and it is getting so popular here in Illinois, that they are even televising them.

About everywhere you look... Playoffs work, they found a way... everywhere except Division I - NCAA Football.

I personally... am only intrested in watching maybe three bowl games this season.
Which ever one Illinois is in...
The Rose Bowl (hopefully they are one in the same)...
The National Championship...

All the others.... I will not be recording or making adjustments to my schedule to watch. If I happen to be around and nothing going on, I'll flip it on... else...

NFL Playoffs... I try to watch every game, each weekend.
NCAA Tournament... glued to the TV all weekend.
IHSA (Illinois High School Association), I have watch several of their playoff games this season


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And... with a playoff system...

Hawaii would haven't to pleed and beg for a shot at the title.
They would have a legit chance to prove they are the best...


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

Here's the playoff schedule:

National Championship Game - January 26, 2008 (week before Super Bowl 43 on Sat)
Final 4 - January 19, 2008 (Sat)
Elite 8 - January 12, 2008 (Sat)
Sweet 16 - January 5/6, 2008 (Sat/Sun)
Play in round - December 29/30, 2007 (Sat/Sun)

24 Teams, 8 get Play in round byes (SEC, Pac10, Big10/11, Big 12, ACC, BE, WAC and Mountain West conference champs - ND can bump any conference champ if has 10-2 record or better, bump champ with worst record or BCS (or similar) ranking if bottom two or more are tied with worst record)

Remaining 16 at-large bids are play in rounds - these CAN include Bowl Subdivision teams, if they're good enough - (say App State went 12-0 or something like that)

All other teams are eligible for bowls.

This will work. College presidents will complain about football going over two semesters, but they don't say crap about college basketball...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Every year someone screams "if you think you were ripped off, play a tougher schedule".

It is physically impossible for every school to play a tough schedule. Impossible. There are only 12-13 regular season games in any given year. Most teams are in a conference where at least half of those games are pre-determined and out of the school's control to schedule. With only 6 vacant slots at most to cover, there is no way for everyone to play a tough schedule.

For every Hawaii that is told to play tougher opponents... there is a Michigan being told NOT to schedule lightweights. Michigan would be taken to task for putting App St on the schedule in most years as it is an "easy win"... but not this year. In order for Boise St, Hawaii, and the "lower tier" schools to play tougher opponents, the "recognized" upper tier must play a "weaker" schedule. You simply can't have it both ways, to berate a school for scheduling a weak game while berating the weak school for not playing a tough game.

Also... the "regular season is meaningless with a playoff" crowd... The regular season already is biased. Teams that do not start in the top 10 have a hard time getting there even if they go undefeated. Right now 2 undefeated teams still not in the top spot and they are the only ones left! Also... The one-loss teams tend to get ranked by who lost most recently. Florida could lose in week #2 and then win out and displace a team that starts 11-0 and loses their final game. Both teams could be 11-1 and Florida overtakes the other simply for having lost earlier, no matter who they lost to!

Voters, be they writers or coaches, also tend to vote the same schools higher. This happens in basketball too where traditional powerhouse conferences get higher pre-season rankings... but at least there we get a tournament to play things out. In football, playing the games on the field only matters to a certain degree.

Teams are told not to "run up the score" but teams are ranked according to margin of victory. Florida could be 10-0 and win by 10 points and drop in the polls because the voters thought they should have won by more.

There are still some top tier division schools that have never played each other in the history of the NCAA... and even a rotating schedule wouldn't even things out for many many years.

A playoff doesn't guarantee the best team wins the championship either... but at least takes it out of the hands of the voters who only give 2 teams a chance.

Hawaii is a good example this year of an undefeated school who has a tough time scheduling teams. Why would Michigan agree to a home-home with Hawaii when it means a LONG trip to Hawaii for a game they could lose and be considered a cupcake schedule? Whereas Hawaii will be taken to task for not scheduling tougher. And folks will say "every game counts" except they won't count some games played by some teams because those are "weak" teams. And yet, if it were so easy to go undefeated why would we only have 2 left?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Right. Lets play football until mid-January. That give basketball a big 5 week regular season. 

And you really expect people to show up, on six days notice, to a 4 game series played in domes. And spend the week or more set up that they do with bowls.

Nah. Just abolish the BcS and let the pollsters pick the champions on Jan 2nd. Any system that values 11-1 in a league with Syracuse, Louisville and Pitt over 11-1 in a league with Penn State, Wisconsin and Purdue, is broken.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SamC said:


> - Look at LSU-Arkansas last night? Wonderful. Under playoffs, a meaningless game.


Okay, this argument annoys me more than any other. It is always trotted out from the anti-playoff crowd. And it makes no sense. If this game were between two two-loss schools would it be a worse game? No. So, the GAME ITSELF was wonderful. Also, what about all those wonderful conference tournament games in basketball that mean nothing except the jockey of a seed or two. I guess those kids don't play hard and the fans don't get into it, huh?

Besides, if you only have a few teams in the playoff, then the games mean a lot. In fact, MORE games will mean something in the title way of looking at things. Under the BCS, very few games "mean" anything. And yet, these "meaningless" games are still enjoyable and mean a lot to their fans and the schools themselves.

Right now, there is a very entertaining U-dub/Wazzu game going on. By your definition, it is a meaningless game. Gee, I guess no one should watch it. Maybe we should watch the boring KU/Mizzou game only because it is "meaningful."


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SamC said:


> Right. Lets play football until mid-January. That give basketball a big 5 week regular season.
> 
> And you really expect people to show up, on six days notice, to a 4 game series played in domes. And spend the week or more set up that they do with bowls.
> 
> Nah. Just abolish the BcS and let the pollsters pick the champions on Jan 2nd. Any system that values 11-1 in a league with Syracuse, Louisville and Pitt over 11-1 in a league with Penn State, Wisconsin and Purdue, is broken.


Okay, which side are you on? You are bashing a playoff yet you just berated a non-playoff system (BCS or polls).


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Teams are told not to "run up the score" but teams are ranked according to margin of victory. Florida could be 10-0 and win by 10 points and drop in the polls because the voters thought they should have won by more.


Here is how messed up the BCS is. The polls naturally take into account margin of victory because PEOPLE vote and they don't see the games, they see the score.

Yet, the BCS instructs its computer rankers to ignore margin of victory.

So, they tell one set of rankings to use one system and the other a different system. And yet, computer systems can use a diminishing returns system that negates big blowouts yet rewards teams for winning by 2 TDs rather than 1 pt.

(This is why Sagarin has two sets of rankings on the USA Today website.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SamC said:


> Right. Lets play football until mid-January. That give basketball a big 5 week regular season.
> 
> And you really expect people to show up, on six days notice, to a 4 game series played in domes. And spend the week or more set up that they do with bowls.
> 
> Nah. Just abolish the BcS and let the pollsters pick the champions on Jan 2nd. Any system that values 11-1 in a league with Syracuse, Louisville and Pitt over 11-1 in a league with Penn State, Wisconsin and Purdue, is broken.


Last time I checked... the basketball plays a LOT of their games during the weekdays and there is still plenty of room for them on Saturday and Sunday. for some marquee games...

The bowl locations would already be known... so the NCAA would have plenty of time to "setup" for the games. As for the fans... well for a LOT of the bowl games, the tickets are already sold to NON-SCHOOL specific fans, but fans of NCAA football. So while yes, the die hards that want to go to every single game will do some scrambling... I bet they wouldn't complain much.

Again, I still point back to Illinois this season... where am I making my reservations? California? Florida? Texas? Somewhere else...

It is already a difficult time of the year to travel, because of cost of tickets and weather concerns... Let alone vacation time at work, since most companies grant holiday week vactions before December...

So for those regards... it isn't going to change much.

Any system... that bases a large chunk of it's determination on a very small group of people (the human polls)... has a major flaw in it, just by nature.

Sports are to be played... not voted on.
Championships are to be won... not to "convince" some people to vote for them and win a vote.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

How about this for goofy!

#6 ranked Georgia won yesterday, and should move up in the polls since #1 lost during the week.

#19 Tennessee also won yesterday.

Tennessee has 3 losses, Georgia has 2... hence the higher ranking for Georgia.

Tennessee beat Georgia, however... AND as a result of that will be in the SEC title game. Georgia will be sitting and waiting to see what bowl they get into.

No matter what Tennessee does, however, they have no shot at all for a national championship because of their 3rd loss even though they might end up the SEC champion. IF enough teams lose, Georgia could find themselves in the championship game based on ranking.

Does any of this (from either side) make sense?

Clearly the game Tennessee won over Georgia isn't "counting" in the polls because of the huge disparity in the rankings of the teams with Georgia way up even though having lost that game. So how is it that all the games count now but wouldn't count if there were a playoff? Seems to me like all the games don't really count now either.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Where is it written that winning the "national championship" is all of that? By ESPN.

In the good ole days, the "national championship" was a nice extra, voted on by, mostly northeastern sportswriters, after the season. The true achievement was going to the historic bowl associated with your conference. Big 8 teams had a great year if they went to the Orange Bowl. SEC teams if they went to the Sugar Bowl. Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Etc. 

The BcS is a broken system, because it includes one mid-major league and excludes the others, and by having one "big" game, it makes all of the others "little" (See under: Chase, NASCAR; and FedEx Cup, PGA, for more information on how to destroy a regular season with contrived playoffs.) Simply have the bowls and if two teams end up 11-1 and did not play because of conference bowl commitments, so f***ing what? Its better than a team that went 11-1 against Marshall, Western Michigan, East Carolina, Mississippi State, and a string of disfunctional fan-less small time programs in a joke league playing for the "national championship" over the BIG TEN CHAMPION. And better than watching #16 lose to #1 in a half-empty "Peach Bowl".


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Well... now reviewing the rankings and the results of this weekends action in the polls.

How could you not argue that some sort of playoff system is warranted.

LSU loses... not for the first time... but for the 2nd time.
They have come close to loosing multiple times this year..

Yet... they remain in the top 5 (in the AP poll).

You have Hawaii... who has one heck of an offense...
I don't care who they play... that offense is powerfull enough to hang with anyone. They just barely brake into the top 10... Undefeated... And just inside the minimum to be BCS bowl eligible (at #12)

Kansas only falls to 6th... Even though they made a game of it in the 4th... they were dominated by Missouri up until that point.

You now have a plausable situation where:
Ohio State could end up playing Georgia for the national championship
Two teams that not just one week ago, were no longer in the discussion of being part of the national championship game.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You now have a plausable situation where:
> Ohio State could end up playing Georgia for the national championship
> Two teams that not just one week ago, were no longer in the discussion of being part of the national championship game.


It is not plausable. WVU will beat Pittsburgh, as it beats all of the Leastleftovers. It is a MASSIVE upset when WVU loses any conference game, and it will be for years to come. That league is a joke. Nobody on any team is there, other than WVians on WVU, for any reason other than they were rejected by the True Majors.

Taken a look a the sea of empties at any Leastleftovers game, other than WVU? You actually expect any team in that joke league to compete with WVU. It will never happen. When VPI, BC, and Miami moved up to the ACC, the created a "big one, little eight" joke league. It is failure for WVU not to be undefeated every year against schools with one-tenth the resources it has.

It will be WVU being s***mized by Ohio State, or WVU-Missouri, which will be a nice game, just not one that involves any of the top 15 teams in the country.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SamC said:


> It is not plausable. WVU will beat Pittsburgh, as it beats all of the Leastleftovers. It is a MASSIVE upset when WVU loses any conference game, and it will be for years to come. That league is a joke. Nobody on any team is there, other than WVians on WVU, for any reason other than they were rejected by the True Majors.
> 
> Taken a look a the sea of empties at any Leastleftovers game, other than WVU? You actually expect any team in that joke league to compete with WVU. It will never happen. When VPI, BC, and Miami moved up to the ACC, the created a "big one, little eight" joke league. It is failure for WVU not to be undefeated every year against schools with one-tenth the resources it has.
> 
> It will be WVU being s***mized by Ohio State, or WVU-Missouri, which will be a nice game, just not one that involves any of the top 15 teams in the country.


And Michigan didn't lose to Appalache State (sp?) earlier this year.

This year, has been a crazy crazy year.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

HDMe said:


> How about this for goofy!
> 
> #6 ranked Georgia won yesterday, and should move up in the polls since #1 lost during the week.
> 
> ...


That game really shows how utterly crazy this year's football season was.

UF killed UT
UT beat down UGA
UGA beat UF
Huh?

The thought of UGA playing in the Rose Bowl v. USC is VERY exciting to me but the chances of that are slim. Seems we are destined for the Orange Bowl (Ugh...) against VT

Many amongst the Sugar Bowl committee are hoping for 1-2 scenarios to unfold and PRAYING a few more NOT to unfold....it will be interesting


----------



## innersanctum (Nov 30, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> This is a crazy year.
> If West Virgina loses or has a terrible game in one of their last 2 games...
> 
> OHIO STATE will be playing for the national championship.... very good chance.
> ...


I thought the tie-breaker goes Conference record, Overal Record, Common opponents (Michigan lost to Ohio State, Illionois beat Ohio State, Michigan Beat Illinois, Ohio State beat Michigan), PF, PA. In this scenario, Illinois finishes second in the Big 10. I checked the Big 10's website and they list Illinois as second but I am not sure if that is because I comes before M or not.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

innersanctum said:


> I thought the tie-breaker goes Conference record, Overal Record, Common opponents (Michigan lost to Ohio State, Illionois beat Ohio State, Michigan Beat Illinois, Ohio State beat Michigan), PF, PA. In this scenario, Illinois finishes second in the Big 10. I checked the Big 10's website and they list Illinois as second but I am not sure if that is because I comes before M or not.


According to the paper today, it seems that may be correct.
As they are discussing that Illinois would be the next choice.

But reading more this weekend, it appears that if the Big Ten Champion is in the national title game... the RoseBowl/BCS commitee gets to select the participants.... While they historically favor BigTen teams (because of the traditions) there is no guarantee they will select Illinois.


----------



## golfnut-n-nh (Mar 26, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So should we scrap the basketball tournament... March-Madness as well?
> 
> I mean those basketball kids only play 26 or so games... and then should just get ranked and the votes/computers pick who the best is.... instead of letting their hard work prove itself.


...and why is it that D3 has a 32 team playoff, D2 has a 24 team playoff, and 1-AA has a 16 team playoff? It's all about the money that the conferences in the BCS do not want to share!:nono:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

golfnut-n-nh said:


> ...and why is it that D3 has a 32 team playoff, D2 has a 24 team playoff, and 1-AA has a 16 team playoff? It's all about the money that the conferences in the BCS do not want to share!:nono:


It could be a 24 or a 32.... wouldn't really matter to me.
I selected 16 to be a first step from what was just a vote, and then a top 14 BCS, then to 16.

The only problem with getting bigger, would be more weekends that would be needed.... and I think once you get past 4 weekends, then logistics could get in the way.

I would have no problem if they even went to a 4 team playoff..
Just something to improve a very flawed system right now.

There is no perfect system... until you eliminate all the conferences... and setup divisions (like professional sports)... which just is never going to happen.

So there will always be "something" wrong with it... like teams #17-20 wil complain that they are not in.... but even looking at the rankings as of today.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ultimately no system would 100% ensure the best team wins... but any kind of playoff would be better than the voter-biased system we have now.

In basketball a couple of years ago George Mason got to the final four in the tourney... but left up to the top-25 voters would not have even been in the field most likely.

In years where we have clear separation with the top 2 teams and the rest of the field, the current bowls work out ok... but the more years we have like this one with no team separating from the rest of the pack as the "class" this year, the harder it will be to argue against a playoff.

And you can't tell me that universities couldn't make a lot more money with a playoff of meaningful games than they do in those bowl games with the 6-6 barely qualifiers!


----------



## alevine1986 (Jul 10, 2007)

A playoff would make the most sense. A #1 vs #16 in the "Peach Bowl" would easily draw a bigger crowd than a disappointed Auburn vs a over-rated Virginia. Also, since the name of the game is TV money, the playoff game would get WAY better ratings.

The rankings are a joke this year. Tell me how...

Virginia Tech, who is 10-2, has two losses to Boston College and LSU, who are both also 10-2, and is ranked above both schools.

West Virginia plays in about as good of a conference as Hawaii and is poised to go to the BCS title game with an 11-1 record and Hawaii won't go with a 12-0 record. 

The ACC, which was an awful football conference before Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech joined has so many medicore teams ranked with Florida State and Miami down and BC and VT just beating the leftover garbage.

WV and VT should be ranked behind Missouri, Ohio State, Kansas, Georgia, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, Boston College, Arizona State, and Hawaii.

That being said, they should all be in a tournament, so we don't have to rely on our opinions and have this matter settled on the field.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

alevine1986 said:


> The rankings are a joke this year. Tell me how...
> 
> Virginia Tech, who is 10-2, has two losses to Boston College and LSU, who are both also 10-2, and is ranked above both schools.


The "answer" is something I posted in one of my posts... Va Tech lost games a while back, whereas BC and LSU has lost more recently. Every year teams that lose early end up rising above teams that lose late.

I don't agree with that way of voting... especially when you factor in that LSU lost both of their games in triple overtime, so even the LSU losses are "quality" losses really.

Va Tech is not as good as their ranking might indicate. I'm an ACC fan, and I've recognized that all year.

I also see every year examples of Team B beating Team A and yet Team A stays ranked ahead of Team B. It's crazy.



alevine1986 said:


> West Virginia plays in about as good of a conference as Hawaii and is poised to go to the BCS title game with an 11-1 record and Hawaii won't go with a 12-0 record.


That confuses me too. I'm not going to bash West Virginia, because they may be good... but there is no way the Big East would be confused with the SEC or even the Big Ten in football power... so I am amused when folks say Hawaii hasn't played anyone, when I can't think of any major powers that West Virginia has played either.

Today on ESPN it was also brought up that Hawaii tried to have Michigan on the schedule, but Michigan backed out.

"They" always like to argue that Hawaii needs to prove itself for a couple of years, like Boise St or Marshall.. then "earn" respect for the future... except in a few years their roster will be turned over and it's a new ballgame... and yet Michigan and Notre Dame come in with high rankings even if they stink up the joint the previous year... so "past performance" doesn't seem to weigh equally across all the teams.



alevine1986 said:


> The ACC, which was an awful football conference before Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech joined has so many medicore teams ranked with Florida State and Miami down and BC and VT just beating the leftover garbage.


Yep.. Again, I am an ACC fan... but honestly, watching all the games I have watched this year... even the good ACC teams are not top ten calibre teams. IF Boston College had won out, then I'd begrudgingly count them for going undefeated but I can't say they played any tougher of a schedule than Hawaii did, honestly... the ACC isn't that tough this year.

There are years the ACC hasn't gotten respect that it deserved... but this is NOT one of those years.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I agree the system is farked now. If you are not one of perrennial 15-20 top teams, you have no chance of being ranked top 10 preseason. If you are not ranked top 10 pre-season, it is really difficult to get to number 1 or 2 to have the chance to play for the NC in a normal year (I will say this year has been a little wacky so there is more turnover at the top). 

However, I just don't see anything changing as the season is already too long and the money is in place supporting the status quo. About hte best I think we can ever hope for is a +1 system where they have one more game after the main bowl week as it currently exists and have the teams ranked 1 and 2 after than play. Of course, there are still prblems but it would be much better than now and would preserve most of the current system so it has half a chance.


----------



## alevine1986 (Jul 10, 2007)

Lee L said:


> I agree the system is farked now. If you are not one of perrennial 15-20 top teams, you have no chance of being ranked top 10 preseason. If you are not ranked top 10 pre-season, it is really difficult to get to number 1 or 2 to have the chance to play for the NC in a normal year (I will say this year has been a little wacky so there is more turnover at the top).
> 
> However, I just don't see anything changing as the season is already too long and the money is in place supporting the status quo. About hte best I think we can ever hope for is a +1 system where they have one more game after the main bowl week as it currently exists and have the teams ranked 1 and 2 after than play. Of course, there are still prblems but it would be much better than now and would preserve most of the current system so it has half a chance.


This wouldn't be as close to as good of a playoff. I'll give you an example. In 2005, Texas and USC were only undefeated teams at the end of the season and rightfully ranked 1 and 2. In a +1 system, would Texas have had to play a 1 loss team to win the NC? USC was the best 1 loss team in the country, would they rematch? If USC wins that game, who's the NC?


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

If OU beats Missouri, will be interesting to see whether Rose Bowl takes UGA or Illinois

I am sure Jim Delaney will do everything he can to get Illinois in it (and rightfully so as the Big 10 Commish) but I am hoping they can do what they did in '04 and take a higher ranked team (Texas at the time was 10-1 and ranked Top 5) over the traditional matchUp (which in 2004 was a 10-1 California team instead of USC which was in the NC game).

Immediate family of mine works for the Sugar Bowl Committee down here and has talked to some of the Rose Bowl Officials....seems he really can't get an answer either way of what they are thinking.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

alevine1986 said:


> This wouldn't be as close to as good of a playoff. I'll give you an example. In 2005, Texas and USC were only undefeated teams at the end of the season and rightfully ranked 1 and 2. In a +1 system, would Texas have had to play a 1 loss team to win the NC? USC was the best 1 loss team in the country, would they rematch? If USC wins that game, who's the NC?


I agree it is definitely not as good. However, IMO, the +1 system has a small chance of being approved by the powers that be while a playoff has absolutely 0 chance.


----------



## alevine1986 (Jul 10, 2007)

Lee L said:


> I agree it is definitely not as good. However, IMO, the +1 system has a small chance of being approved by the powers that be while a playoff has absolutely 0 chance.


You're right and it seems that the big holdup is all the money they make off the bowls. I would think that there would be WAY more money generated by a 16 team playoff because there would be more interest in lesser bowls, which would equate to more fans in the stands, more eyeballs watching TV, which would bring more money from the networks.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SamC said:


> It is not plausable. WVU will beat Pittsburgh, as it beats all of the Leastleftovers. It is a MASSIVE upset when WVU loses any conference game, and it will be for years to come. That league is a joke. Nobody on any team is there, other than WVians on WVU, for any reason other than they were rejected by the True Majors.





Earl Bonovich said:


> And Michigan didn't lose to Appalache State (sp?) earlier this year.
> 
> This year, has been a crazy crazy year.


Ummm... not to pour salt into the wound... but um?

That un-plausable situation where OSU and Georgia could be in the National Championship... One half of that equation is now in the book... The other half is 15 football minutes away from possibly happening...


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Congratulations to Pitt. For a team with 1/10th the resources to beat WVU is a massive upset. It took two such upsets to keep the Leastleftovers losing streak in national championships alive at 31 years (the longest other one among BcS cartel members is 7).


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

It's Sunday morning and now we have losses by Mizzou (expectedly) and WVU (unexpectedly).

So who goes to the NC game? Probably Ohio State. Are they joined by a 2-loss Georgia (who couldn't even win their own conference), or undefeated Hawaii (who would need to make a huge jump from 12 to 2 in the rankings).

No matter who goes to the NC game, there will be charges of conference favoritism, weak schedules, and undeserving.

If ever there was a time to scrap the BCS and create a playoff, it is this season.

But I would be surprised if a playoff (beyond a plus-1) were created. That is because the only people whose opinion counts are the college presidents. And they really don't care who the national champion is. Unless their school wins the championship, it doesn't matter to them who wins, or how deserving the winner is.

What the presidents mostly care about is how football can generate revenue for their schools. And right now, the bowl system generates more money.

Bowl games create the big money, the long-term sustainable money. The bowl games are the opportunity for the college presidents to throw a single huge party, inviting the right politicians and donors for networking and check writing. 

If you go to a playoff system, the top schools in the country lose that opportunity since their party is divided among 3 or 4 playoff games. And what happens if a big donor shows up to round 1 while the senator he wants to meet shows up to round 2? What happens if someone is waiting to go to round 3, and the team doesn't make it that far?

Sure a playoff may be better at naming a champion, but it is worse at providing fund-raising opportunities. And the college presidents, the only ones with a vote, care a lot more about fund-raising opportunities than naming champions.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

A playoff makes too much sense, so it likely will never happen.

This year is one of the best shining examples of why voting doesn't work... and we need a playoff.

I wish Hawaii was being considered, as the only undefeated team... and all the folks who say "they don't play anyone tough" consider that the BCS people *could* force a tough game by putting them in the championship game... but that won't happen either, so Hawaii can't catch a break even by winning all their games... something that all those "tough" teams couldn't manage.

Ohio State should NOT be in the title game. They shouldn't rise to #1 by default because the teams in front of them lost when they did not play a game. Their conference doesn't have a title game like some of the others that lost this weekend... so why wouldn't the same "strength of schedule" come into play, and teams like Missouri/OK who had to play a title game for their conference count more than a conference not playing one.

Georgia shouldn't go either... because even though they are ranked higher than teams they have lost to... they weren't even in their conference title game.

Even though I don't think Va Tech is the best team in the country... you have to start looking at Va Tech as a conference champion... or LSU as a conference champ that only lost 2 games in triple overtime all season... and then Oklahoma who just won their conference.

Kansas can't bubble back up since they didn't win their conference, even with one loss.

And still, no one even talking about Hawaii being undefeated.

For my money, and the way things have played out...

I think the "right" game would be LSU and Hawaii. Hawaii the only undefeated team left... and LSU had the best losses of anyone (2 triple overtime losses) and still won their conference title game.

Any other matchup has to have some voter bias included and not taking the entire season into account (which "they" claim every game counts).

But I still wish we had a tournament. This year not only needs it, but would result in a bunch of great playoff games.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

One solution to the "money" generated by bowls.

If it was a 16 team playoff.

Then the all the money/revenue generated goes into a big "pot"
Then payouts to the schools are pro-rated by one placement you finish in the playoff struture.

All the first round losers get one same cut
All the 2nd round losers get one same cut
All the 3rd round losers get one same cut
Then 2nd and 1st get appropriate cuts.

And the margins in those "cuts" don't have to be that significant, that from a $$$ aspect there is a big difference...

There are many ways you can iron out all the "issues" 

Just a few years back we had two teams from major conferences finish undefeated....
Now this year we have this crazy last 4 weeks of the football season.


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

How about that Earl. I was close to telling you, when you started this thread, that there was no way Illinois was getting in to the rose bowl. Unreal.

Boy, I'm glad I kept my mouth shut! Congrats.


----------

