Srsly? Pac12 is anti-BCS, pro-Playoff!
First time I have heard anything like this -- a major player, no less than the entire Pac12 -- now going to vote AGAINST the BCS to move TO A PLAYOFF. Mention is that only conf champs would be eligible.
I've always thought Pac12 and B1G sort of march in step, given Rose Bowl and now the agreement of cross-conf games year to year etc. This would seem to be a break in that.
ummm isn't the B1G starting to change there tone and supporting atleast a 4 team playoff?
yeah, but i think that is less a product of their desire for a playoff and more from their desire to placate the unruly masses.
Right, because that's always been a primary consideration of these conferences.
The new(ish) Pac-12 commissioner has acquired a shake-things-up reputation already---and by and large that seems to have been good for the conference. Add to that the Pac-12's pretty lame bowl tie-ins (the Rose plus a buch of games no one watches) and it's not hard to see that Playoff($) >> Rose-and-five-thorns($)---and if it is limited to Conference Champs only, that means that none of the other "power" conferences can ever have two, and depending on how you count that means even in a four-team playoff, the Pac-12 champ is almost certainly in.
The future is NOW!
There is no consistyuency at all outside the (supposedely) PAC 12 to discard the bowl system or the BCS, including the B1G. And there is no one currently endorsing the idea of doing away with the BCS--even recent 4 team playoff advocates would have the championship game as the BCS title game.
Sucks to the supposede consistyuency!
with the only conference champs stance (rhyme time!). if it takes the Pac 12 getting some heat to get this thing right for the next 15 years, then that is fine.
That's because we, in the Pac-12, suck at sports. If we were to be put into a pool of elite college teams, we would be exposed. And by we, I mean ASU. USC and Oregon are the top heavy good teams. Everyone else, not so much.
And I for one am all for that. The polling system is possibly the most corrupt aspect of the bcs. There shouldnt even be an initial poll until week 8 or 9. We dont know how good any team is till they start playing in conference.
Rule #1 regardless of a playoff or BCS is a team that does not win their conference should not be allowed to play in the Title game (especially if that other team is in the same conference).
So Michigan State is the only team eligible to win March Madness, since the other top teams--Kentucky, Syracuse, NC, Duke, Baylor, Ohio, Kansas--didn't win their conferences? Why should the rules be different for football compared to every other sport?
How does that work for Independents? Say M loses to Ohio in the B1G championship game like in 2006 but is still ranked in the top 4? Are they out and ND at number 5 gets in? I would be okay with the Big 12 or ACC champion getting in but would be pissed if a lower ranked independent got in. Why should teams in conferences have an additional hurdle?
An independent, by definition, cannot be a conference champion. Therefore, independents should not be eligible for a playoff consisting of conference champions. If Notre Dame doesn't like that, too bad--they should have joined the B1G when they had the chance (or should join if they have the chance again).
I would put the indies in a pool and treat them like a conditional conference. If the "champion of the indies" is ranked inside of the playoff number, let them in. If not, don't.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^
just told ND to sign up or shut up.
It would appear the Pac12 and the B1G have ND as an independant in their sights anyway.
the same thing happened this year, and Alabama still got a chance to play LSU again for the title. A little consistency here, please.
agreed. plus 2006 hurt extra bad becasue of the late hit called on shawn crable (or was it prescot burgess?) that wasn't late and wasn't helmet to helmet, and then the urban meyer whine fest that followed., and then this year's rematch brought all those painful memories back. I am all for conference champs only, or in ND's case they have to be undefeated.
It was a legit call. It could have gone either way, but I don't fault the ref. Just a tough situation.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
Today, with all the spread QBs, not so much.
It would still be the best of the teams and it would force ND to finally join a conference fergodsakes!! In an 8 team playoff system, however, it wouldn't matter if you won your conference.
I'm all for having all conference champions in the playoffs. My favorite thing about college basketball is all of the mid-major conference tournaments and how it gives the small school a chance to compete on the big stage. I want to see the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, and CUSA champions in, otherwise, why even let them compete in a division where we completely exclude them from winning a championship?
that all the presidents are afraid of. but i agree it would be a most dope format.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that in principle. But in hoops, you can play multiple games in a weekend. The problem in football is that you are trying to have a meaningful playoff in as few games/weekends as possible. In a realistic playoff system, you can really only expect to play about 3 or 4 games (if that). So every team you admit comes at the cost of excluding some othe very good, and arguably "deserving" team. And let's face it, if you take teams like the MAC champ or the Sun Belt winner, you can expect a lot of blow-outs and uncompelling first-round matchups.