[INDENT]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. [/INDENT]

This. 4 teams is better than the current system, 6 teams would be better yet, and don't you dare go over 8 teams.

If you can't play your regular season and come in at least ranked 8th, you don't deserve a shot.

jpake1;1048489 wrote: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.

Your fictional playoff would have 3 SEC schools and no B1G schools in it.

Sonofanump;1048554 wrote:Your fictional playoff would have 3 SEC schools and no B1G schools in it.

Here's the breakdown for the last 10 years if we just took top 8:

2011:
3 SEC
2 B12
2 Pac 12
1 MWC

2010:
2 SEC
2 B1G
2 Pac 12
1 B12
1 MWC

2009:
2 SEC
1 B12
1 Pac 12
1 B1G
1 Big East
1 MWC
1 WAC

2008:
3 B12
2 SEC
1 Pac 12
1 B1G
1 MWC

2007:
3 B12
2 SEC
1 Pac 12
1 B1G
1 ACC

2006:
3 B1G
2 SEC
1 Pac 12
1 Big East
1 WAC

2005:
2 B12
2 B1G
1 SEC
1 Pac 12
1 ACC
1 Independent

2004:
2 SEC
2 B12
2 Pac 12
1 ACC
1 MWC

2003:
2 SEC
2 B12
2 B1G
1 Pac 12
1 ACC

2002:
2 B12
2 B1G
2 Pac 12
1 SEC
1 ACC

Total hypothetical playoff appearances, by conference, over the past 10 years:
19 SEC
18 B12
14 B1G
14 Pac 12/10
5 ACC
5 MWC
2 Big East
2 WAC
1 Independent

And over the past 5 years:
11 SEC
10 B12
7 Pac 12
5 B1G
4 MWC
1 ACC
1 Big East
1 WAC

The ones who would be adamantly against it would probably be the ACC as they would not have had a representative in 5 out of the past 10 years, and just one out of the last 5 (not saying they deserve it, just that it would really diminish the value of their conference when laid out like this).

If there is only going to be 8 teams then the number of conferences needs to be consolidated down to eight.
Makes no sense at all to be in a conference if the winner of said conference does not get an automatic playoff berth.

I say 16 teams using the 11 conference winners, the highest ranked independant and the four highest ranked teams who did not win their conference filling in the other four slots.
Set the matchups by rank #1 vs #16, #2 vs #15 etc
That's four weeks of games starting the week after the conference championship games.

Sonofanump;1048554 wrote:Your fictional playoff would have 3 SEC schools and no B1G schools in it.

None of them deserve to be in it this year.

It's only going to be a +1 for the forseeable future at best.

ytownfootball;1048621 wrote:It's only going to be a +1 for the forseeable future at best.

Baby steps, it certainly would have been a ratings buster if they had that this year and other years.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1048513 wrote:Dumbest post I think I've ever read. - Signed, Alabama '12

You do realize that was in response to a statement made about the basketball tourney don't you.

I'm not a fan of conference champions getting an automatic bid. The best 8 teams should go, plain and simple. Look at some of the league champions we've had the past few years- they're simply not an elite 8 team. I don't care if you see 4 SEC teams in there and no BIG teams if that happens to be the best 8. I DO NOT want to see teams ranked in the 20's getting in because they won a conference while you have a #6 SEC team left out because they didn't win the best conference in football.

GOONx19;1046867 wrote:http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/alabama-lsu_produces_lowest_tv.html

13.8... Lowest in the BCS era.

Haven't the ratings been getting lower for the past several years? I may be mistaking, but I thought that the ratings have been getting worse over the last 4 or so years.

8 or 12 would be ideal. 16, although symmetrical, starts to become bloated. 4 is too few, but a decent start. The general rule is that they have to have AQ where winning your conference means something. In an 8-team setup, I would want 6 AQ conference champions qualify, one non-AQ conference champion, and one wildcard that can be from any conference or be independent. In a 12-team setup, all 11 champions get in by default and one at-large from any conference or an independent.

If the regular season is a playoff, make it one. The regular season would eliminate all but one team from each conference.

Sykotyk;1049022 wrote:8 or 12 would be ideal. 16, although symmetrical, starts to become bloated. 4 is too few, but a decent start. The general rule is that they have to have AQ where winning your conference means something. In an 8-team setup, I would want 6 AQ conference champions qualify, one non-AQ conference champion, and one wildcard that can be from any conference or be independent. In a 12-team setup, all 11 champions get in by default and one at-large from any conference or an independent.

If the regular season is a playoff, make it one. The regular season would eliminate all but one team from each conference.

A good plan, whatever is is contemplated it should be recognized that a 40+ day layoff for any team isn't good and just makes it more difficult for teams to be fresh for the game. College football is the only sport where there is such a long layoff.

all this jibberish is for naught...it will be a +1 for a long while.

I just don't see the point of having automatic qualifiers. Winning your own conference is enough in itself. I don't think it warrants you getting a pass for the elite 8. A coaches goal is to get his 11 best players on the field. Why shouldn't college football want the best 8 teams in the playoffs? If you don't make the playoffs, then you get an automatic invite to one of the BCS bowls that aren't in the rotation for the playoffs. That should be good enough since it's what they're used to getting-- win your conference, go to a BCS bowl.

jpake1;1049435 wrote:I just don't see the point of having automatic qualifiers. Winning your own conference is enough in itself. I don't think it warrants you getting a pass for the elite 8. A coaches goal is to get his 11 best players on the field. Why shouldn't college football want the best 8 teams in the playoffs? If you don't make the playoffs, then you get an automatic invite to one of the BCS bowls that aren't in the rotation for the playoffs. That should be good enough since it's what they're used to getting-- win your conference, go to a BCS bowl.

How do you prove who the best eight were? Because a few media hacks and coaches who aren't even watching all the games says so? So, we use the BCS top 8, now what? We continue to use a flawed system to regulate a system that already doesn't have a standardized or balanced schedule?

If you use conference champions, you've narrowed down one team out of a pack of 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, etc. There's no dispute. In a league with a title game, everyone plays everyone in their division. If there's a tie in a division, one of the teams had to have won it. They move on to the conference title game. Whether the two teams played in the regular season or not, the two teams in the conference title game play eachother in a de facto elimination game. After the season, there is no dispute A beat B on the field for the conference title.

In a league without a conference title game, there was a round-robin schedule. Best record wins. A tie goes to the head-to-head winner. Again, proven on the field.

I don't understand how people keep harping on 'we want the best' but don't give any insight into just how they plan on determining who is the best. This is how we determine it. If you're third best in the nation by a bunch of Harris Interactive wonks but you lost to the #1 team who happens to be in your conference, tough shit. You had your chance. You were weeded out through the process of elimination. You don't get a do-over because some people voting on a poll think you're really good.

There's no perfect way to do anything. The question to me is which produces the stronger field, the conference champion approach, or a BCS-type approach? In most cases, I'd argue the latter.

queencitybuckeye;1050532 wrote:There's no perfect way to do anything. The question to me is which produces the stronger field, the conference champion approach, or a BCS-type approach? In most cases, I'd argue the latter.

Absolutely the BCS approach.

Rarely has the bcs failed to produce the two best teams.

Use the BCS system to rank them. Not too many people get their panties in a bunch about the overall top 8 teams. It's the championship match that gets heat year in and year out and the bowls themselves that pick lower ranked teams over higher ranked teams like they did Boise this year.

But you'd rather see a team schedule FCS South, Akron, Alabama State, and FIU for the OOC schedule (because they have no reason to play tough OOC games now because the BCS doesn't matter, they just need to win their conference to get a chance) and then win their crap ACC or Big East conference going 6-2 with a final ranking of #21 OVER a top 8 team in the nation thats from the SEC or BIG that happened to lose to the undefeated #1 team in the nation on the road that is a conference foe.. even though the scheduled two top 25 teams from other conferences and won and also beat 3 top 25 teams in their own league?

I hope you're not are bitching about me sunshine, because my post have stated numerous times you keep the BCS to rank teams-- there's the insight if you missed it. Your idea only tells you who the best is in the conference (Alabama might disagree though). Guess what, not all conferences are created equal. And shitty conferences shouldn't warrant automatic bids. But hey, if you'd rather watch #19 Clemson and #23 FSU play for for all the marbles over #5 OSU or # 8 Texas just because they didn't win strong conferences because #3 Wisc and #2 OU did, have it your way.

SportsAndLady;1050603 wrote:Absolutely the BCS approach.

Rarely has the bcs failed to produce the two best teams.

Wrong, they have always fielded deserving teams but other deserving teams were left out many times.

Skyhook79;1050897 wrote:Wrong, they have always fielded deserving teams but other deserving teams were left out many times.

Huh?

The top 2 teams are usually in the bcs title game. That's my point.

gorocks99;1048583 wrote:Here's the breakdown for the last 10 years if we just took top 8:

The ones who would be adamantly against it would probably be the ACC as they would not have had a representative in 5 out of the past 10 years, and just one out of the last 5 (not saying they deserve it, just that it would really diminish the value of their conference when laid out like this).

Are these pre-bowl games or post?

Why don't we just go back to doing bowls the way we used to with tie-ins and then take whoever is #1 vs #2 after and having a title. Also no team outside the top 15 is allowed to participate regardless of winning conference. And at large bids go in order of ranking, not just randomly having #11 play #13 This year it would of been...

Rose: #5 Oregon(Pac-12) vs #10 Wisconsin(B1G)

Fiesta: #2 Alabama(At Large) vs #3 Oklahoma State(At Large)

Sugar: #4 Stanford(At Large) vs #1 LSU(SEC)

Orange: #15 Clemson(ACC) vs #6 Arkansas(At Large)

SportsAndLady;1050603 wrote:Absolutely the BCS approach.

Rarely has the bcs failed to produce the two best teams.

How do you know Oklahoma State wasn't better than Alabama?

How do you know Utah wasn't the best team in the country 3-4 years ago? What about TCU last year?

They don't, jordo. They just read the polls and go with the majority. And then when #2 beats #1, they don't realize that is proof that the system is flawed. If you really could pick who was best, #2 would never win. They wouldn't ever be better. So saying they can be wrong about #1 because #2 beats #1, they don't correlate the data to the fact #3 could be better than #2 for the exact same reason. And even, possibly, better than #1.

but, they stick their head in the sand and treat the polls as gospel.

To the people pointing to the ratings and saying that it is proof that the system needs changed...

Let's assume everything is the same: Alabama and LSU played earlier in the season and the results were the exact same. The whole season progresses the same. Same end rankings, etc. The difference is, there is a playoff. No specific format, it doesn't matter. The bottom line, Alabama and LSU end up winning whatever format and play in the National Championship game.

Do you honestly think the ratings would have been any different for that game?