Alright, All you 16 team playoff Honks!!!

Here's where we are. You can't justify a rational reason why we need FIVE "at-large" teams in a playoff. I can't justify a reason having an undefeated team excluded from the opportunity to play for a championship. So I have found a solution for both of us.



1. Extend the regular season to 13 games. Play from the last Saturday in August to the first Saturday in December. That allows for 13 games plus a conference championship if needed plus a bye week and maybe 2 depending on the year.



2. Create 4 regions



West- Pac10, WAC, MWC (28 teams)

Central- Big 12, CUSA, Big East (32 teams)

East- ACC, SEC, Sun Belt (33 teams)

North- Big 10, MAC, Independents (27 teams)



3. Regionalize the rankings. Have a coaches and media poll from each region. MWC coaches don’t have a clue about Big East teams, but they do have a clue about MWC teams as well as WAC and Pac10 teams if they are playing them all the time. Keep the ranking system local. Keep the national polls for fun.



4. Set aside the last three weeks of the season for regional nonconference play. The designation of home team will be assigned by conference on a yearly basis before the season begins. Example



2020 Pac-10 hosts MWC; MWC hosts WAC; WAC hosts Pac-10

2021 Pac-10 hosts WAC, WAC hosts MWC, MWC hosts Pac-10

2022 Same as 2020

2023 Same as 2021



5. Matchups will be determined by conference finish in that year. Rematches will not be played so next highest ranked team will play their next game. Example:



1st place Pac-10 (Oregon) hosts 1st place MWC (TCU)

1st place MWC (TCU) hosts 1st place WAC (BSU)

1st place WAC (BSU) hosts 2nd place Pac-10 (Arizona as they have already defeated Oregon)



2nd place Pac-10 (Arizona) hosts 2nd place MWC (BYU)

2nd place MWC (BYU) hosts 2nd place WAC (Nevada)

2nd place WAC (Nevada) hosts 1st place Pac-10 (Oregon)



And so forth.



The mismatched bottom feeders will be matched up with mismatched bottom feeders from other regions for example the 10th place Pac 10 team vs. 13th place MAC team.



6. The top ranked conference champion or independent team in each region plays in an UNSEEDED 4 team playoff to be played on a rotating basis between the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar. The bowl game that gets “left out” gets to select any 2 teams for their game before any other bowl game.



So it would look like this:



2020 Fiesta gets national semi pick #1. Sugar gets picks #2 and #3. Fiesta gets pick #4. Orange is the nonfinalist bowl.

2021 Orange gets national semi pick #1. Fiesta gets picks #2 and #3. Orange gets pick #4. The Sugar is the nonfinalist bowl.

2022 Sugar gets national semi pick #1. Orange gets picks #2 and #3. Sugar gest national semi pick #4. Fiesta is the nonfinalist bowl.



7. The semifinal bowl games are played on Jan 1 (Jan 2 if Jan 1 is a sunday). The Holiday, Capital One, Chik-Fil-A, and Cotton Bowls are upgraded in status to BCS type bowls. They will have first pick of all teams after the 3 major bowls. They will rotate in terms of opportunity. Each game will be played in prime time in between the semifinal and final games. There will be no Sunday games so they don't have to compete with the NFL. Example:



Friday January 1- Fiesta and Sugar

Saturday January 2- Holiday Bowl

Monday January 4- Cotton Bowl

Tuesday January 5- Capital One

Wednesday January 6- Chik-Fil-A

Thursday January 7- Orange Bowl

Friday January 8- Rose Bowl



8. The Rose Bowl will be the championship game each year.

It is the best bowl by far. It's easy to get to. Many airports to fly into. People like going to LA. It has the biggest stadium so more people can watch the game live. Make it like Omaha for college baseball.



Summary: This solves all problems. If you go undefeated you will be your region rep because you beat the other 1st place teams in your region. However, if you don't go undefeated you are subject to the wrath of the polls this makes nonconference games important. It gives teams like BSU and BYU who have a hard time bringing top flight nonconference competition to play at their place a way to make that happen, but the big boy programs can still play their 7 or 8 home games a year. This preserves the relevance and tradition of the bowl system and experience. No scrub "at-large" teams allowed to be called champions. There is still a break for Finals. It would not create any greater travel burden for anybody other than 2 teams.

Hell, I'd be happy with a plus 1 for now. That at least would be a start; it's certainly not the cure. The pie in the sky playoff scenarios are way beyond what the BCS will budge on.



If you took the top 4 teams and seeded them based on the BCS standings you'd have bama cincy - tcu texas - and then the winners for the nc.. I could get behind that big time, as would the rest of the country. All three of those games would be must watch tv, considering what was on the line.





(sorry Boise play someone on the road before you get your shot)

Why can't we have 5 at large teams? You telling me we can't find 5 teams that did not win their conference that are not good enough to win it all? That is pure silliness. Just look at the hoops tourney. And please, 11 auto bids? Really? Yeah, because the Sun Belt champ is a world beater. Come one. 16 teams, 9 auto bids, 7 at large.



2009 Auto bids:

Alabama(SEC)

Oregon (PAC 10)

Cincinnati (Big East)

Georgia Tech (ACC)

Ohio State (Big 10)

Texas (Big 12)

TCU (MWC)

Boise State (WAC)

East Carolina (C-USA)



At large:

Florida

Iowa

Virginia Tech

LSU

Penn State

BYU

Miami



No one would complain about the top 9, and most of the 7 at larges would be ok. It is maybe the last 3 in that would cause debate, but so what. Happens with hoops too, and the reality is that the last 3 in are long shots and debatable anyway.

craigoscarson wrote:
Hell, I'd be happy with a plus 1 for now. That at least would be a start; it's certainly not the cure. The pie in the sky playoff scenarios are way beyond what the BCS will budge on.



If you took the top 4 teams and seeded them based on the BCS standings you'd have bama cincy - tcu texas - and then the winners for the nc.. I could get behind that big time, as would the rest of the country. All three of those games would be must watch tv, considering what was on the line.





(sorry Boise play someone on the road before you get your shot)

I'd like a plus one right now too. However, in my solution BSU would have played a quality team on the road. If they proved worthy they would play for the NC.

Lawboy wrote:
Why can't we have 5 at large teams?

Having 5 "at large" teams (or more) would undermine the accomplishments of the respective conference champions of the conferences that the "at-large" teams come from.



It puts champion and nonchampion on the same plane which should not happen in a playoff situation trying to determine the best team in the country.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jko/lowres/jkon509l.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

mormonrasta wrote:
Here's where we are. You can't justify a rational reason why we need FIVE "at-large" teams in a playoff. I can't justify a reason having an undefeated team excluded from the opportunity to play for a championship. So I have found a solution for both of us.



1. Extend the regular season to 13 games. Play from the last Saturday in August to the first Saturday in December. That allows for 13 games plus a conference championship if needed plus a bye week and maybe 2 depending on the year.



2. Create 4 regions



West- Pac10, WAC, MWC (28 teams)

Central- Big 12, CUSA, Big East (32 teams)

East- ACC, SEC, Sun Belt (33 teams)

North- Big 10, MAC, Independents (27 teams)



3. Regionalize the rankings. Have a coaches and media poll from each region. MWC coaches don’t have a clue about Big East teams, but they do have a clue about MWC teams as well as WAC and Pac10 teams if they are playing them all the time. Keep the ranking system local. Keep the national polls for fun.



4. Set aside the last three weeks of the season for regional nonconference play. The designation of home team will be assigned by conference on a yearly basis before the season begins. Example



2020 Pac-10 hosts MWC; MWC hosts WAC; WAC hosts Pac-10

2021 Pac-10 hosts WAC, WAC hosts MWC, MWC hosts Pac-10

2022 Same as 2020

2023 Same as 2021



5. Matchups will be determined by conference finish in that year. Rematches will not be played so next highest ranked team will play their next game. Example:



1st place Pac-10 (Oregon) hosts 1st place MWC (TCU)

1st place MWC (TCU) hosts 1st place WAC (BSU)

1st place WAC (BSU) hosts 2nd place Pac-10 (Arizona as they have already defeated Oregon)



2nd place Pac-10 (Arizona) hosts 2nd place MWC (BYU)

2nd place MWC (BYU) hosts 2nd place WAC (Nevada)

2nd place WAC (Nevada) hosts 1st place Pac-10 (Oregon)



And so forth.



The mismatched bottom feeders will be matched up with mismatched bottom feeders from other regions for example the 10th place Pac 10 team vs. 13th place MAC team.



6. The top ranked conference champion or independent team in each region plays in an UNSEEDED 4 team playoff to be played on a rotating basis between the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar. The bowl game that gets “left out” gets to select any 2 teams for their game before any other bowl game.



So it would look like this:



2020 Fiesta gets national semi pick #1. Sugar gets picks #2 and #3. Fiesta gets pick #4. Orange is the nonfinalist bowl.

2021 Orange gets national semi pick #1. Fiesta gets picks #2 and #3. Orange gets pick #4. The Sugar is the nonfinalist bowl.

2022 Sugar gets national semi pick #1. Orange gets picks #2 and #3. Sugar gest national semi pick #4. Fiesta is the nonfinalist bowl.



7. The semifinal bowl games are played on Jan 1 (Jan 2 if Jan 1 is a sunday). The Holiday, Capital One, Chik-Fil-A, and Cotton Bowls are upgraded in status to BCS type bowls. They will have first pick of all teams after the 3 major bowls. They will rotate in terms of opportunity. Each game will be played in prime time in between the semifinal and final games. There will be no Sunday games so they don't have to compete with the NFL. Example:



Friday January 1- Fiesta and Sugar

Saturday January 2- Holiday Bowl

Monday January 4- Cotton Bowl

Tuesday January 5- Capital One

Wednesday January 6- Chik-Fil-A

Thursday January 7- Orange Bowl

Friday January 8- Rose Bowl



8. The Rose Bowl will be the championship game each year.

It is the best bowl by far. It's easy to get to. Many airports to fly into. People like going to LA. It has the biggest stadium so more people can watch the game live. Make it like Omaha for college baseball.



Summary: This solves all problems. If you go undefeated you will be your region rep because you beat the other 1st place teams in your region. However, if you don't go undefeated you are subject to the wrath of the polls this makes nonconference games important. It gives teams like BSU and BYU who have a hard time bringing top flight nonconference competition to play at their place a way to make that happen, but the big boy programs can still play their 7 or 8 home games a year. This preserves the relevance and tradition of the bowl system and experience. No scrub "at-large" teams allowed to be called champions. There is still a break for Finals. It would not create any greater travel burden for anybody other than 2 teams.

Now that is serious lawyer speak. Can we "justify" with a "rational reason" a "need" for the five at-large teams? We don't "need" college football to begin with so your statement is true. And justifying with rational reason is very subjective.



But for the sake of arguement, I "prefer" having the 16 team playoff because I like the idea of 16 teams that still have a shot at the national championship after all the season and confrence championship games are done. I will however underline "my" reasons that I feel are rational for the five at large teams.



First things first however. What happens if a team goes undefeated in conference play but goes 0-4 in non-conference play including losses to a couple of fairly weak teams? Say one of your non-conf losses was a blow-out to one of the other division champs who then plays your division number two and loses. But you beat his division number two and the champ of the other division. By your example the four loss team should be the regional champion and thus be the regional rep to the championship tournament even if they happen to be 9-4 and the other team ends at 12-1. Another senario could be, the one conference champ is undefeated and loses in the round robin play to a 3 loss champion but demolishes the other champion who just barely loses to the three loss champ. So the three loss team goes 2-0, the one loss team goes 1-1 and the other champ goes 0-2. What happens now? Another playoff? The three loss team goes and the one loss team goes to a consolation bowl. Unless the rankings say the one loss still goes. So the three loss champ claims foul because they beat the other two champs. Repeat that senario in at least one of the other regions and you have a whole lot of unhappy people. (kinda like how it is now)



With the 16 team playoff every champ is in it until they lose and throw in the five at large teams to round out the field with the best teams from that season and you get very few cries of foul. I would easily imagine that most fans would feel the NC was decided on the field (provided they don't use pac-10 refs) and that pollsters had nothing or nearly nothing to do with it . And what happens if Nebraska had beaten OK in this senario? Neb plays the #1'S from the other confs and provided they win those two games, end up in the playoffs while Texas has been eliminated. In the 16 team playoff, Tx (and Fla for that matter) could have lost the conf champ game and still had a shot at the NC. I see this as a good thing because Tx and Fla will be judged on their body of work instead of on the last game of the season.



No thanks, I'll stick with the idea of all the conf champs going to a playoff and five at large teams getting an invite based on rankings and/or sos. Some pretty good teams lose early season games and are then penalized the rest of the season because of those losses. Teams grow and improve throughout the season so I like the idea of having an early season stumble not end up being a complete fall from any possible chance of playing for the NC.. If they are going to crown someone an NC then they ought to make it possible for every team to have a chance to play for it.

mormonrasta wrote:

Why can't we have 5 at large teams?

Having 5 "at large" teams (or more) would undermine the accomplishments of the respective conference champions of the conferences that the "at-large" teams come from.



It puts champion and nonchampion on the same plane which should not happen in a playoff situation trying to determine the best team in the country.

So Fla is lower than Texas? Or had Tx lost to Neb they should be lower than Neb? Too much wiggle room in that thought for me.



I really enjoy March Madness, and would be very dissappointed if they only included conf champs.

First things first however. What happens if a team goes undefeated in conference play but goes 0-4 in non-conference play including losses to a couple of fairly weak teams? Say one of your non-conf losses was a blow-out to one of the other division champs who then plays your division number two and loses. But you beat his division number two and the champ of the other division. By your example the four loss team should be the regional champion and thus be the regional rep to the championship tournament even if they happen to be 9-4 and the other team ends at 12-1.

No. The matchups within the division are not playoff games. Rather, they are games that provide context for the rankings. The highest ranked conference champion represents the division. Your scenario greatly depends on how good the other conference champs are.

Another senario could be, the one conference champ is undefeated and loses in the round robin play to a 3 loss champion but demolishes the other champion who just barely loses to the three loss champ. So the three loss team goes 2-0, the one loss team goes 1-1 and the other champ goes 0-2. What happens now? Another playoff? The three loss team goes and the one loss team goes to a consolation bowl. Unless the rankings say the one loss still goes. So the three loss champ claims foul because they beat the other two champs. Repeat that senario in at least one of the other regions and you have a whole lot of unhappy people. (kinda like how it is now)

Once again, it would be the highest ranked team. If you have a 12-1 conference champ that played in a tough conference they would most certainly go over the conference champs with inferior records. However, if that 12-1 champ's only quality games of the year were against the other conference champs, it is very likely that the 9-3 team could get in over the 12-1 team. SOS has to still matter.



Bottom line, in my system if you go undefeated there is no doubt you will represent your division. If you don't go undefeated, you are subject to the polls. That way the high standard of the college football regular season is maintained.

With the 16 team playoff every champ is in it until they lose and throw in the five at large teams to round out the field with the best teams from that season and you get very few cries of foul. I would easily imagine that most fans would feel the NC was decided on the field (provided they don't use pac-10 refs) and that pollsters had nothing or nearly nothing to do with it .

Throw in 5 teams? Who determines these 5 teams? THE POLLSTERS!!!! So when you say the pollsters have nothing or nearly nothing to do with it that is completely false. 1/3 of the field is based on the arbitrary decisions of pollsters. That's substantial. Bottom line, it is impossible to take the subjectivity out of college football.



Few cries of foul? What about the teams who win their conference, but don't get a 2nd chance like the "at-large" teams do? How is that fair to them?

And what happens if Nebraska had beaten OK in this senario? Neb plays the #1'S from the other confs and provided they win those two games, end up in the playoffs while Texas has been eliminated. In the 16 team playoff, Tx (and Fla for that matter) could have lost the conf champ game and still had a shot at the NC. I see this as a good thing because Tx and Fla will be judged on their body of work instead of on the last game of the season.

Are you serious about Florida-Alabama? Wasn't that game decided on the field? Both teams went undefeated, but Alabama played a tougher schedule. They met in the SEC championship to determine the conference champion and therefore the best team in the conference. Alabama won decisively. End of discussion. Both teams are great teams, but we don't need a playoff to determine who is better. We KNOW who is better.



If Florida gets a 2nd chance beats Alabama in the playoff, does Alabama get a another chance to beat Florida? If the answer is no, then the system is completely bogus.



As far as your Texas-Nebraska example, once again it depends on how good the other conference champs are. It's hard to feel sorry for Texas if they lost because in my system if they win all their games they are in. Period.

No thanks, I'll stick with the idea of all the conf champs going to a playoff and five at large teams getting an invite based on rankings and/or sos. Some pretty good teams lose early season games and are then penalized the rest of the season because of those losses. Teams grow and improve throughout the season so I like the idea of having an early season stumble not end up being a complete fall from any possible chance of playing for the NC.. If they are going to crown someone an NC then they ought to make it possible for every team to have a chance to play for it.

Under my system every team would have a chance to play for a NC. Go undefeated you win the NC. Yeah, that's a pretty high standard, but that's what makes college football great and every game count. If you have an extended playoff you lower that standard and therefore decrease the meaning of games and the regular season as a whole. Games like BSU-Oregon, Florida-Alabama, and Alabama-Virginia Tech carry no meaning as win or lose all of those team get into a playoff.



If a pretty good team has an early season slip up and is denied playing for the National Championship, GOOD!!! Championships are for the great not the pretty good. The pretty good teams can enjoy their bowl game. The great teams don't slip up or slip up less than the pretty good.

imuakahuku wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
Why can't we have 5 at large teams?

Having 5 "at large" teams (or more) would undermine the accomplishments of the respective conference champions of the conferences that the "at-large" teams come from.



It puts champion and nonchampion on the same plane which should not happen in a playoff situation trying to determine the best team in the country.

So Fla is lower than Texas? Or had Tx lost to Neb they should be lower than Neb? Too much wiggle room in that thought for me.



I really enjoy March Madness, and would be very dissappointed if they only included conf champs.

What are playoffs supposed to do? The answer is find the best team in a given year. Florida MAY be better than Texas, MAY be better than Cincy, MAY be better than BSU, but we don't know for sure. What we do KNOW is Alabama is better than Florida. Since we KNOW Alabama is better than Florida we don't need Florida in the playoff because we KNOW they aren't the best team.



I enjoy March Madness too, but the tournament would have more integrity if it only included regular season conference champs (which it used to do, before they got greedy). Since they have opened it up to "at-large" teams the balance of power has gravitated to the 6 major conferences.



I would love it if they reduced the amount of "at-large" teams. I wouldn't miss the 8th place team in the Big East, or 3rd place team from the Big 10, or 4th place team from the ACC at all. I would like it even more if they had the top 16 regular season conference champs in the NCAA tournament and the other 17 conference champs and 47 "at-large" duke it out in the NIT.

Here's what it boils down to: There are so many intangibles, differences in SOS, matchups, timing, etc. etc. etc. So to give the top 1/10 of college football a chance to prove that they actually are the best is great. If you're not the best, then you will lose, and therefore your chance is over. If you are the best, you will win out, and be crowned gloriously because your team definitely proved it on the field and not some group of money-hungry bureaucrats in an air conditioned room somewhere. We give lots of teams a shot because there is a chance, however small, that they may be the best team, we don't crown all 16 teams, we just give them a chance unlike the current system.

Nice try rasta, but that's even more complicated and convoluted than what we have now. There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.



Here is the easy way to do it, and we can even use the national polls and computer rankings to come up with the seeding and 5 at large teams (I bet the AP would even join in on this one). We could even use the BCS's rules of no more than 2 per conference, no more than 3 losses, etc. I would even keep the Notre Dame rules in there.



The top 11 seeds would be the conference champions (this year it would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise St, Oregon, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Central Michigan, East Carolina, and Troy).



The next 5 in the rankings would then be considered (Florida #5, Iowa #10, Va Tech #11, LSU #12, Penn St #13). In this group, the SEC and Big 10 have two contenders. My first criteria would be head to head (in this case FL and Iowa get in, along with Va. Tech). If they didn't play eachother, the next tie breaker would be in-conference record. If that still doesn't select one, go with the rankings. So now you have your 12, 13, and 14 seeds. There can be no more representatives from the SEC, ACC, and Big 10.



The next highest ranked team is BYU (this year), they would get the number 15 seed. The next highest ranking is Miami, and they do not qualify based on they would be the 3rd ACC team. The next team is West Virginia from the Big East, and they would get the 16th and final seed.



Here would be the initial list of games.



1. Alabama 2. Texas

16. West Virginia 15. BYU



8. Georgia Tech 7. Ohio St

9. Central Michigan 10. East Carolina



5. Boise St 6. Oregon

12. Florida 11. Troy



4. TCU 3. Cincinnati

13. Iowa 14. Virginia Tech



Now I would make changes so that members of the same conference can't meet until the finals and prevent first round and if possible 2nd round rematches (only protecting the higher seeds-since I don't have all the schedules memorized, I didn't do this step, but I don't think there are any first round rematches). The final brackets would then be:



1. Alabama 2. Texas

16. West Virginia 15. BYU



8. Georgia Tech 7. Ohio St

9. Central Michigan 10. East Carolina



5. Boise St 6. Oregon

11. Troy 12. Florida



4. TCU 3. Cincinnati

13. Iowa 14. Virginia Tech





First 2 rounds will be at the higher seeds home field. National semi-finals would be held at 2 neutral sites (preferably one in the east and one in the west), with the championship game played at a different neutral site. (I wouldn't be opposed to playing the national semi-finals at the higher seeds place either to keep costs down).



The first playoff games would start the third week of December (this year 2 on the 17th, 2 on the 18th, 4 on the 19th), which is the same time bowl games start now. The next set of games would be the 4th week of December (2 on Friday, 2 on Saturday). The next set would be New Year's weekend (1 on Friday, 1 on Saturday). The championship game would be held the Friday (right before the NFL playoffs start on Saturday), or as the nightcap to wildcard Saturday.



With this schedule the games start 2 days before the bowl season scheduled this year and ends at the latest 2 days after the championship game.



Other exhibition (bowl) games could be scheduled during those off days during those normal two weeks. There would be some pretty interesting matchups available. I would suggest that the remaining top 25 teams be paired up as much as possible.



I would also let all teams (regardless of whether they are in the tournament or other exhibition games) be allowed to practice during that time in preparation for the next year.



I think this format answers all the questions about who gets in, keeps the conference season viable, would actually improve OOC matchups as they could enhance resumes if there is a stumble in conference (reason that Va. Tech is in over Clemson for example), puts a premium on head to head matchups (ie, had LSU beat Florida, but Florida ranked higher because that was their only loss outside of the SEC championship game, LSU gets in), and avoids rematches as much as possible. Plus it has the added benefit of keeping some additional exhibition games, and providing 15 additional practices for all teams, not just bowl teams (invaluable for teams changing coaches).

stuckinbig10country wrote:
There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.



Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?



Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

mormonrasta wrote:

There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.



Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?



Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

I'm so glad you don't run any sports league. If there were no "at-large" teams, then Arizona vs Pittsburg doesn't happen last year. If there were no "at-large" teams, then the Giants don't beat the Patriots. If there were no at-large teams, we don't get Dikembe Mutombo celebrating after beating the #1 seed in the NBA playoffs.



The best change in the format of any sports post-season in the last 15 years has been the addition of the wild-card (ie-at large team) in baseball. I am all for the NFL adding up to 4 more teams for the post-season. More games is better. In the end, you still have to be pretty darn good to be considered amongst the teams with a shot to win it all.



One of the reasons you only allow two teams in from each conference and keep them on opposite sides of the draw is to try and avoid a rematch of a championship or regular season game (which some championship games already have, ie Clemson and GT). For example, with my formula, if Alabama wins all of its games (which it would be favored to do on its home field), in order for them to meet Florida again, Florida would have to beat (if all higher seeds were to advance) Oregon @ Eugene, Cincinnati @ Cincy, and Texas @ Austin. If they can get through that, they darn sure would be the 2nd best team in the country, and maybe just didn't have a great game in the SEC title game and could be the best team.

Are you kidding me? Have you never watched the NCAA Hoops tourney? More often than not, a team wins that was not the conference champ. Plus, being a conference champ does not mean you were he best team in conference that year at times, and it also does not mean that you were better than other at-large teams. Thanks, but I'd take Florida over Boise State every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I would also take LSU over Georgia Tech. And I would take USC over Ohio State--just as the on field result showed. And USC is no BCS contender this year. Point being, it is better to be more inclusive than more exclusive with these matters, because upsets happen and it creates new paths and interesting games and match ups.

Rasta, because when the BCS idiots went and decided that any 'ol 2 loss team can be thrown into their "championship" game, pretty much ANYBODY became "DESERVING," based on any sense of rightness, fairness or sportsmanship.



I know your arguments already. LSU did, after all, win their conference. Don't get me wrong. I'll defend the right for every conference champion to be included in a playoff as vociferously as you do. There I agree with you 100%. In absence of all other options, I wouldn't mind seeing an 11-team playoff. Don't LOVE the idea of byes for the top 5 seeds, but meh, this is your pipedream, not mine, and that's neglecting to broach the sticky topic that the BCS will NEVER give that much power to non- CONFERENCES by placing as many of them into a playoff as entitleds, REGARDLESS who looks or is actually better.



Back to LSU though. It was obvious that LSU was the better team that year than the rest of the 2- and 1- and 0-loss teams they leapfrogged, especially after the result of the Cartel Game. The BCS did go beyond their own "precident" by giving them the 2-loss pass, but, they were already a Royal, which usually means they were on par with lesser BCS teams with one fewer loss (and 2 or 3 fewer in the case of non-'s), couple that with the fact that there was only 1 other BCS team with only 1 loss, and they didn't even their division, much less won or were the best team in their conference (still, by some definitions, with as few losses as one of the title game teams, and FEWER than the other, just as "deserving" as anyone).



So what do you do in the event of an '07? Everybody and their CHICKEN had two losses, most of them looked to be better than the two 1-loss and one 0-loss teams. Some of them were conference champs, and some weren't. And that begs the question, how much more "deserving" is a 2-loss Oklahoma than a 1-loss Kansas, strictly from a win-loss perspective? I realize that's just how the conferences are set up, and if a team feels it will be slighted by the way their conference champion is decided, they should attempt to fix it in-house, or leave the conference. No argument from me there either. Still, in my opinion, when you're talking 2- and 3- loss teams, inclusion based on a conference championship becomes cheaper, just because that champion has been put in the back seat enough times to put their "worthiness" into some question ANYWAY.



Further, you stated that it would be injust for Florida to get another shot at Alabama, seeing as that game was decided once already. Well, that happens all the TIME in conferences. '07 was a good example in VTech and BC. Why did VTech get the BCS spot with the win over BC, when VTech lost to them in the regular season? Wouldn't a tournament rubbermatch in fact be MORE fair, assuming one got an at-large? This is all splitting hairs, but it's easy to argue it both ways.



You dislike at-large bids. They give a "free pass" to teams that didn't win their conference. Got that. Thing is, this is really just a conceptual argument on what the words "deserving" or "worthy" mean. Last year, Texas, with wins against BOTH teams that they sat home watching play in their conference championship, and the exact same record as the other two best teams in its division, was a LOT more "worthy" of a playoff inclusion than, say, a 5-loss Buffalo, or even 4-loss BCS VTech.



I get it. You place enough worth on a conference championship that the idea of giving a team, no matter how good they actually are, a SHOT when they lost a nail-biter to a team with a worse record than theirs in a conference championship, is more palatable than giving five 1- or 2- or 3-loss teams a(n other?) SHOT against eleven conference champions. That's your choice. Most people disagree with you. Happy for everyone. Neither is gonna happen any time soon.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Rasta, because when the BCS idiots went and decided that any 'ol 2 loss team can be thrown into their "championship" game, pretty much ANYBODY became "DESERVING," based on any sense of rightness, fairness or sportsmanship.



I know your arguments already. LSU did, after all, win their conference. Don't get me wrong. I'll defend the right for every conference champion to be included in a playoff as vociferously as you do.

You clearly do not understand my arguments because I am NOT in favor of every conference champion to be included in a playoff. My proposal includes an actual playoff of 4 teams.

stuckinbig10country wrote:

stuckinbig10country wrote:
There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.



Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?



Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

I'm so glad you don't run any sports league. If there were no "at-large" teams, then Arizona vs Pittsburg doesn't happen last year. If there were no "at-large" teams, then the Giants don't beat the Patriots. If there were no at-large teams, we don't get Dikembe Mutombo celebrating after beating the #1 seed in the NBA playoffs.



The best change in the format of any sports post-season in the last 15 years has been the addition of the wild-card (ie-at large team) in baseball. I am all for the NFL adding up to 4 more teams for the post-season. More games is better. In the end, you still have to be pretty darn good to be considered amongst the teams with a shot to win it all.



One of the reasons you only allow two teams in from each conference and keep them on opposite sides of the draw is to try and avoid a rematch of a championship or regular season game (which some championship games already have, ie Clemson and GT). For example, with my formula, if Alabama wins all of its games (which it would be favored to do on its home field), in order for them to meet Florida again, Florida would have to beat (if all higher seeds were to advance) Oregon @ Eugene, Cincinnati @ Cincy, and Texas @ Austin. If they can get through that, they darn sure would be the 2nd best team in the country, and maybe just didn't have a great game in the SEC title game and could be the best team.

My proposal would add 60 games to the schedule and had it been implemented this year it would have featured matchups such as TCU-BSU, Oregon-TCU, Alabama-Georgia Tech, Texas-Cincy all BEFORE the playoffs begin. How awesome would that be?



You can have entertainment and integrity in the regular season.

How about instead of a yearly champion, we have a decade champion. With 120 teams, each team can play every other team over a 10 year stretch. There would be no conferences and no rivalries, just a new slate of opponents each season with no repeats over 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, the team with the best record is the champion. In the event of a tie, head to head is the first breaker, then best record against all teams tied, then against the teams that finished "next."



There, a solution that has integrity and includes all teams. It's the ultimate round robin.

CP, if that's a joke, I think it's hilarious! If not, I WISH I WISH I WISH it could happen!!!



:D :D :D