Al Bundy;1047059 wrote:It could be done that way, or you could take the 2 highest ranked teams after the bowls have been completed in the present format.

Bama/LSU part III?

JU-ICE;1047004 wrote:Isn't a "Plus One" basically the same as a four team playoff? If they are going to have a plus one, they would have to come out when the bowl match-up are announced and say the winner of Game A will play the winner of Game B, correct?

yes...BCS#1 v. BCS#4, BCS#2 v. BCS#3, with winners playing the following week for NC

LOL @ "The importance of the regular season"... Wut?

A team who had already lost to the #1 team while playing that game @ home and DIDN'T EVEN WIN THEIR conference, let alone division, WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP...

So, what exactly is so important about the regular season?

ytownfootball;1046925 wrote:Jim Delany is and has been the lynchpin in this whole mess. His reluctance to make any changes has caused most of the conference re-alignment imo. That's the saddest part of it all imo.

Yeah, but I think Delany realizes now that in order for one of his teams to actually win a title game, he's going to need some type of a playoff system - especially with the recent Pac-12 vs Big Ten partnership.

The chances of a Big Ten team going undefeated now with a conference title game AND with the partnership with the PAC-12 is miniscule. Heck, we've already seen that the BCS and voters are more likely to take a 1-loss SEC team over a 1-loss B1G team (and I'm pretty sure the same will hold true for a 2-loss team). Thus, I think Delany is smart enough to see the writing on the wall that it's in his best interest to participate in SOME type of a playoff system - it's the only way we're going to [possibly] see a B1G team in the championship game again.

The SEC's stronghold over the BCS is unbelievable.

JU-ICE;1047004 wrote:Isn't a "Plus One" basically the same as a four team playoff? If they are going to have a plus one, they would have to come out when the bowl match-up are announced and say the winner of Game A will play the winner of Game B, correct?

Yes.

Boy the gripe #5 and #6 will have in this new system will be awful. As Colin Cowherd said every year we let 68 teams in the NCAA Tourney and still we've got a whole bubble of teams crying

How about the four highest rated conference champions after the conference championship games which are usually the second saturday in December. That was it is really an expanded playoff in disguise, since the best four conferences now have a conference championship. If an upset occurs in a conference championship game, then the fifth best team would qualify in. This past year LSU would have hosted Boise St., Oklahoma State would have hosted Oregon. It would have been Wisconsin fault that they were the big four conference champ that did not get ranked high enough prior at the end of the regular season and let BSU in the playoffs.

Classyposter58;1048178 wrote:As Colin Cowherd said every year we let 68 teams in the NCAA Tourney and still we've got a whole bubble of teams crying

I know many don't like the guy and YES he is a prick, but Colin is very smart and usually right about what he says. And I think he is right with this one as well.

What's the problem RIGHT NOW? Answer: Some people think OK State should have been in the title game over Alabama.

What WILL BE the problem in a playoff? Answer: #5 and #6 are going to cry that they should have been in the +1 or that there should have been an 8 team playoff.

Then you have an 8-team playoff. What's the problem? Answer: Teams #9 and #10 complain that they deserved a shot at the title.

Etc.

Sonofanump;1048213 wrote:How about the four highest rated conference champions after the conference championship games which are usually the second saturday in December. That was it is really an expanded playoff in disguise, since the best four conferences now have a conference championship. If an upset occurs in a conference championship game, then the fifth best team would qualify in. This past year LSU would have hosted Boise St., Oklahoma State would have hosted Oregon. It would have been Wisconsin fault that they were the big four conference champ that did not get ranked high enough prior at the end of the regular season and let BSU in the playoffs.

That is terrible.

Al Bundy;1047059 wrote:It could be done that way, or you could take the 2 highest ranked teams after the bowls have been completed in the present format.

I believe this is the most likely format. Then one of two things will happen - control of the other bowl match-ups will go back to the individual conferences (B1G maintains its Rose Bowl match-up against the PAC-12) and the BCS formula is just extended another week/month (to after the bowls) with the top two teams getting into the +1 championship. Or, the Cotton Bowl is added as a BCS Bowl and again there's more conference control over match-ups but the championship teams must come from one of those five bowls. There are a lot of things that'd have to be worked out in that case, though, because essentially autobids would be eliminated (and the power conferences would lock up 2-3 spots in the top bowls immediately).

Scarlet_Buckeye;1048229 wrote:I know many don't like the guy and YES he is a prick, but Colin is very smart and usually right about what he says. And I think he is right with this one as well.

What's the problem RIGHT NOW? Answer: Some people think OK State should have been in the title game over Alabama.

What WILL BE the problem in a playoff? Answer: #5 and #6 are going to cry that they should have been in the +1 or that there should have been an 8 team playoff.

Then you have an 8-team playoff. What's the problem? Answer: Teams #9 and #10 complain that they deserved a shot at the title.

Etc.

The difference is that #5 in football would have a small, yet reasonable chance of winning the NC, while #69 (or whatever) in basketball has none.

queencitybuckeye;1048255 wrote:The difference is that #5 in football would have a small, yet reasonable chance of winning the NC, while #69 (or whatever) in basketball has none.

The first team left out of the tournament usually would have a much more reasonable chance of winning a national championship than pretty much all of the automatic qualifiers.

queencitybuckeye;1048255 wrote:The difference is that #5 in football would have a small, yet reasonable chance of winning the NC, while #69 (or whatever) in basketball has none.

Wasn't VCU a "last four in" team? They were in the Final Four. So while there is a very small chance, it's still A chance.

karen lotz;1048259 wrote:The first team left out of the tournament usually would have a much more reasonable chance of winning a national championship than pretty much all of the automatic qualifiers.

Big Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, and Big East all have automatic qualifiers based on winning the conference tourney. Doubt the first team left out has much of a chance of winning a National Championship over any of those automatic qualifiers.

se-alum;1048362 wrote:Big Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, and Big East all have automatic qualifiers based on winning the conference tourney. Doubt the first team left out has much of a chance of winning a National Championship over any of those automatic qualifiers.

you're such a sleeper.


tell me which team has a better chance of winning the tournament. The first team left out, which is normally a team from a power conference, or an automatic qualifier from non BCS conferences? From this year's most recent Bracketology, Notre Dame and Arizona are the first two teams out. Do you think Lamar, Long Island, Stony Brook, Weber State, and Texas Southern have a more realistic chance at making a run than both Notre Dame and Arizona?

I should have said "most" not "pretty much all". Take out the 6 BCS conference winners and a team in most years like Gonzaga or Butler and there are about 23 teams in the tournament that have absolutely zero chance of winning it. The last team or two in are better than those 23 teams. You're trying too hard.

karen lotz;1048374 wrote:you're such a sleeper.


tell me which team has a better chance of winning the tournament. The first team left out, which is normally a team from a power conference, or an automatic qualifier from non BCS conferences? From this year's most recent Bracketology, Notre Dame and Arizona are the first two teams out. Do you think Lamar, Long Island, Stony Brook, Weber State, and Texas Southern have a more realistic chance at making a run than both Notre Dame and Arizona?

I should have said "most" not "pretty much all". Take out the 6 BCS conference winners and a team in most years like Gonzaga or Butler and there are about 23 teams in the tournament that have absolutely zero chance of winning it. The last team or two in are better than those 23 teams. You're trying too hard.

Yea, it's annoying, huh?!?

se-alum;1048385 wrote:Yea, it's annoying, huh?!?

huh

karen lotz;1048374 wrote:Do you think Lamar, Long Island, Stony Brook, Weber State, and Texas Southern have a more realistic chance at making a run than both Notre Dame and Arizona?

None would have any chance whatsoever at the NC. Someone mentioned VCU. They had a historic run yet only got 2/3 of the way.

I don't get how people don't understand that the #5 team has less of an argument than the #3 team, the #9 team has less of an argument than the #5 team, etc.

Are teams going to complain? Yes. Does adding additional teams to the playoff significantly lessen the validity of the complaints? Yes.

I don't think 4 teams is the ideal answer either, but it's a step in the right direction.

Mulva;1048418 wrote:I don't get how people don't understand that the #5 team has less of an argument than the #3 team, the #9 team has less of an argument than the #5 team, etc.

Are teams going to complain? Yes. Does adding additional teams to the playoff significantly lessen the validity of the complaints? Yes.

I don't think 4 teams is the ideal answer either, but it's a step in the right direction.

I think an 8 team playoff is the magic number. Just do it how the NFL does it. Champion from each of the 6 AQ conference gets in plus the 2 highest ranked teams left. Then match them up 1v8, 2v7, etc...

Pick6;1048423 wrote:I think an 8 team playoff is the magic number. Just do it how the NFL does it. Champion from each of the 6 AQ conference gets in plus the 2 highest ranked teams left. Then match them up 1v8, 2v7, etc...

My preference is 12. 5-8 host 9-12, winners go on the road in the second round to 1-4. Semis and finals at neutral sites.

Mulva;1048418 wrote:I don't get how people don't understand that the #5 team has less of an argument than the #3 team, the #9 team has less of an argument than the #5 team, etc.

Are teams going to complain? Yes. Does adding additional teams to the playoff significantly lessen the validity of the complaints? Yes.

I don't think 4 teams is the ideal answer either, but it's a step in the right direction.

Agree with this...My only point is a playoff isn't some perfect thing. It's going to have flaws. So don't act like a playoff system in college football would be perfect, because it wouldn't.

I say keep the BCS for ranking purposes and use the top 8 for a playoff. No automatic qualifiers because of being a league champion. The perceived best 8 teams dance. Higher ranked team hosts a game two weeks after last league championship game. Final four games go to BCS bowl locations 2 weeks later, while the other BCS bowls will still get their choices of team that didn't qualify for the playoff. The NCG will be auctioned before season begins.

It would be perfect if it were 8. Nobody bitches about the NFL playoffs when GB or PITT wins from the wildcard slot. If you can't be a top 8 team then either win more or play better teams.

se-alum;1048362 wrote:Big Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, and Big East all have automatic qualifiers based on winning the conference tourney. Doubt the first team left out has much of a chance of winning a National Championship over any of those automatic qualifiers.

Dumbest post I think I've ever read. - Signed, Alabama '12