sherm03;1209306 wrote:Very valid point. So the playoffs would have been:

1 LSU 13-0
3 Oklahoma State 11-1
10 Wisconsin 11-2
15 Clemson 10-3

That sounds absolutely horrible. A 3-loss team gets in before 3 different 1-loss teams? Come on now...that's just terrible.

No it sounds much better than watching 2 media hyped up teams for small minds whereas we already know who was better because they won it on the field. Seems like you are more upset that ND will have to join a conference to even have a shot at getting blown out in a playoff game.

sleeper;1209325 wrote:No it sounds much better than watching 2 media hyped up teams for small minds whereas we already know who was better because they won it on the field. Seems like you are more upset that ND will have to join a conference to even have a shot at getting blown out in a playoff game.[/B]

I'm not sure why it wouldn't let me take the bolded part off my last statement. I even tried to edit it and it still wouldn't change. I did lol at you responding in bold.

I will say it again, in case you missed it every other time, but my feelings have nothing to do with ND. ND will not have to join a conference with this system. Swarbrick was quoted as saying, "Our interest was ensuring we had an opportunity to play ourselves into any championship model, and we do. There's no obstacle to that for us. If we earn it, we can play in it." And I don't care about getting blown out of a playoff game because it's no different than watching ND get blown out of the BCS bowls they have been in during the recent past. My gripe is that I liked the Bowl System. I liked the tradition. I liked that college football was different. But if it has to change, I want it to change for the better. Limiting the playoffs to just conference champions does nothing to resolve the question of a true national champion (which is what playoff supporters were claiming they wanted). This is pretty evident by the fact that we still can't come to an agreement on how to even pick the top 4 teams to play in that playoff. If you are going to change college football...and make the postseason like all the other sports'...then put the best four teams into a playoff and to the victor goes the spoils.

**EDIT** And as I said earlier today, I am OK with the selection committee giving conference champions the edge if there are two schools with the same record and one was a CC and the other was a runner-up. But I think it's stupid to pass over teams that had better records in better conferences simply because they weren't the CC to get to a shitty CC from a shitty CC.

The way I look at it is like this:

If you can't win your conference do you really have that much of a gripe about not winning the championship? I dont think so.


So what if another team that does win their conference gets in over you. They won their conference regardless of how it happened. You had your chance to win yours, and you didn't.


Sure it is a bit unfair if a 10-2 Big East #1 team gets in over a 11-1 SEC #2 team but all that SEC team had to do was win their conference and they would have made the playoffs.


Every team knows what it takes at the beginning of the year to make the playoffs, win your conference.

If Georgia Tech is the fourth best conference champion, then they should play in the playoff. Not sure if that can be stated any more clearly.

I wonder if another implausible scenario can be made up. No shit has ever been twisted and nothing has gone over my head. Do you have any other attacks towards me? No wonder the College Board has the reputation that it does. When one does not agree, personal attacks commence. No debate on ideas, just ridicule.

Sonofanump;1209360 wrote:If Georgia Tech is the fourth best conference champion, then they should play in the playoff. Not sure if that can be stated any more clearly.

I wonder if another implausible scenario can be made up. No shit has ever been twisted and nothing has gone over my head. Do you have any other attacks towards me? No wonder the College Board has the reputation that it does. When one does not agree, personal attacks commence. No debate on ideas, just ridicule.

Exactly.

We can argue the formula all we want, but the way it is, everyone is on the same playing field.

Win and youre 99% in the playoffs.


If it every happens that there are 5 undefeated teams, then FOL

karen lotz;1209275 wrote:Oregon would have been eliminated by LSU opening week. Why should they get a potential rematch but Bama can't? Because they played in a weaker conference?

I'd shy away from that unless you like seeing the likes of Savannah State as non conference games.

sherm03;1209354 wrote:I'm not sure why it wouldn't let me take the bolded part off my last statement. I even tried to edit it and it still wouldn't change. I did lol at you responding in bold.

I will say it again, in case you missed it every other time, but my feelings have nothing to do with ND. ND will not have to join a conference with this system. Swarbrick was quoted as saying, "Our interest was ensuring we had an opportunity to play ourselves into any championship model, and we do. There's no obstacle to that for us. If we earn it, we can play in it." And I don't care about getting blown out of a playoff game because it's no different than watching ND get blown out of the BCS bowls they have been in during the recent past. My gripe is that I liked the Bowl System. I liked the tradition. I liked that college football was different. But if it has to change, I want it to change for the better. Limiting the playoffs to just conference champions does nothing to resolve the question of a true national champion (which is what playoff supporters were claiming they wanted). This is pretty evident by the fact that we still can't come to an agreement on how to even pick the top 4 teams to play in that playoff. If you are going to change college football...and make the postseason like all the other sports'...then put the best four teams into a playoff and to the victor goes the spoils.

**EDIT** And as I said earlier today, I am OK with the selection committee giving conference champions the edge if there are two schools with the same record and one was a CC and the other was a runner-up. But I think it's stupid to pass over teams that had better records in better conferences simply because they weren't the CC to get to a shitty CC from a shitty CC.

Yeah I don't know what's up with these forums, Justin is clueless.

I now see your point of view.

It's official: four-team playoff through at least 2025.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014

Hopefully they move the bowl games back to Jan. 1. That used to be such a great day to watch football, but now there are far fewer games.

Al Bundy;1212404 wrote:Hopefully they move the bowl games back to Jan. 1. That used to be such a great day to watch football, but now there are far fewer games.

Do you want the semifinals on Jan 1st or the non playoff bowl games then?

The Rose Bowl will be played Jan 1 at 5pm regardless of if it's a semifinal or not, according to Adam Rittenberg:

When would the playoffs take place?

The five or six bowls in the playoff rotation likely will take place around Jan. 1. The Rose Bowl will keep its traditional New Year's Day afternoon time slot, whether or not it's a national semifinal. A new contract for the Rose Bowl is expected this week and will last through the 2026 game. The Rose Bowl contract always has been completed before the BCS contract.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52166/bcs-presidents-meeting-primer

gorocks99;1212424 wrote:The Rose Bowl will be played Jan 1 at 5pm regardless of if it's a semifinal or not, according to Adam Rittenberg:



http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52166/bcs-presidents-meeting-primer

Cause the Rose Bowl thinks it's better than everyone else.

WebFire;1212426 wrote:Cause the Rose Bowl thinks it's better than everyone else.

Well, that and the parade. I'm sure the city of Pasadena would hate to move the parade or separate the two events. And considering the Rose Parade gets around 70 millions viewers worldwide each year it's a big deal

WebFire;1212426 wrote:Cause the Rose Bowl thinks it's better than everyone else.

Well it is. Also it says three of bowls will be on Dec 31 and three on Jan 1, therefore two other bowls will also be a Jan 1 game.

Maybe they can then shorten the regular season to 11 games again too. I don't know about a 15 game season for college teams though

Classyposter58;1212527 wrote:Maybe they can then shorten the regular season to 11 games again too. I don't know about a 15 game season for college teams though

why? High school plays 15...sometimes more in other states

Pick6;1212555 wrote:why? High school plays 15...sometimes more in other states

They also play 12 less minutes a game. I guess it doesn't matter but I'm worried about overkill here. Conference title followed by 2 playoff games? That's rough

Classyposter58;1212572 wrote:They also play 12 less minutes a game. I guess it doesn't matter but I'm worried about overkill here. Conference title followed by 2 playoff games? That's rough

conference title would be followed by approximately a month off, correct?

also to add, many high school players play both ways, unlike in college. Theoretically, high school players play 18 minutes more a game than college players. Not to mention high school doesnt have a bye-week (ohio anyways)

Pick6;1212583 wrote:conference title would be followed by approximately a month off, correct?

also to add, many high school players play both ways, unlike in college. Theoretically, high school players play 18 minutes more a game than college players. Not to mention high school doesnt have a bye-week (ohio anyways)

Not to mention, every other college division handles it just fine.