I'm pissed that the deal is through 2025. Hope they are willing to break that so they can go to an 8 or 16 team playoff eventually.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
I'm pissed that the deal is through 2025. Hope they are willing to break that so they can go to an 8 or 16 team playoff eventually.
It has taken 143 years just to get this. Be humble.
16 teams seems like a logistical impossibility. Football isn't basketball. I was originally up for an 8 team playoff but have changed my mind. I like the idea of four teams so you don't have dilution of conference play and conference championship games might have some meaning. In basketball, the NCAA tourney, for me at least, has made the conference championships less important unless you need a win to get into the big dance.
Just my .02.
I hope it doesn't get anywhere near 16 teams. The thought of the 20th ranked team whining about how they can't play for a national championship annoys the hell out of me already.
The "N + 1" team or "N + 2" team will always bitch, but as we have seen in prior threads, four teams generally includes most teams in the NC conversation. I really don't care about teams from second level conferences. Run the B1G or SEC or Big 12 gauntlet and then get back about your 11-1 season.
Today's meeting had representatives from 11 conferences and ND. So who really thinks that a playoff format that qualifies 1/3 of that number is stable for more than a couple years? Another round of playoffs brings 4 more games - eventually the money wins out and the field expands to 8, especially given the 6 (?!) sites that will rotate as semifinal sites under this proposed system. Funny number, isn't that? It would exactly cover an 8 team playoff for quarter & semifinals.
Top two get byes.
we have to be fair. It needs to be 144 teams. We have to let in the top teams in D2 as well.
This way no one will bitch who got in and who was left out. The playoffs can start in September.
Works for me. I would prefer eight, but I could live with six.
To see the dilemma you have with only four, you have to look way, way back to . . . gee, you only have to look back to last year.
Alabama, LSU, OK ST would probably be consensus picks, but who is the 4th team? B1G Champion Wisconsin? Pac 12 Champion Oregon? #4 ranked Stanford? You are leaving out some teams with real merit. This is not just leaving out the "65th team" in the NCAA Basketball tournament.
Six or Eight ensures that all the major conference champions are typically represented, as well as a couple of at-larges with merit.
Oh well. Four it is for now. Better then Alabama-LSU.
"You don't have a dilution of conference play?" "Conference championship games might have some meaning?" When a bad joke like last season can happen with two teams, conference championship games already don't mean anything. Under the proposed "system," all they are is another chance for a team to lose and get passed over by a second-place team.
I would go to eight teams. I would also count conference championship weekend as the play-in round, and make a pool out of smaller conference champions, the highest-ranked indie, and possibly a team like Alabama last year, and make them play "play-in games" the same week as conference championships.
That would only take one week longer than the current system, and it would create a de facto sixteen-team playoff. Since the FCS had a twenty-team playoff last season, no argument about "logistics" or the "extra strain put on student-athletes" can be taken as remotely serious.
Football would have a true champion, and the NCAA would make even more money. Everybody would win here. Except, of course, the bowls, who are obviously still using their payola to pull a lot of strings behind the scenes.
To rebut, basically, every one of your points/complaints, spend some time this fall checking out the playoffs in each of the other divisions of college football.
The rational opposition to such a system comes from college presidents and faculty who fear a substantial disruption to their campuses in the period around finals. A 16 team playoff would almost mandate on-campus games in early to mid December, the moment in the fall semester that presidents and faculty believe should remain relatively free of distractions on their campuses. They are substantially opposed to the flood of media, television infrastructure, and fans that an on campus playoff at the D1 level would bring as disruptive to the central academic missions of the university.
At the lower levels, this is much less of a concern because the attention from media and fans is not even comparable. Those playoffs aren't substantially disruptive because far fewer people care.
But there may be something to be said for the argument that players at this level are faster/harder-hitting and that perhaps it's more physically difficult to get through a season if it's that long. Given what we're learning about the long-term consequences of this sport, I think we have to be cautious about how much we can ask players to play.
Dratted double post
goes to 16 under any curcumstances whatsoever. I'd be ok with 8, because it makes sense that you could have the 4 qualterfinals be the 4 Major Bowls, but that's it.
would mean fans would have to travel to three different bowl sites. Most of us can barely afford one. The quarters would have to be on campus in that scenario.
I think beyond 4 is pushing it. At the end of the day, we have to remember that these are student-athletes, who are not getting paid a dime for their services (I don't want to get into the whole "should athletes be getting paid?" argument, thats a whole other can of worms). Its hard enough to ask these kids to play and practice nearly every day for 12 games, as well as stay on top of all their classes. Add in a conference championship game, then at least 2 playoff games to get to a national title, and now these kids are playing a minimum of 15 games to get to a national championship.
I'm always a fan of more football, but at some point, the expense for the kids is just too high. Maybe the amount of games won't matter too much down in SEC country, where most of the schools don't give a shit about their academics anyway. But I think most players around the country would start voicing real concerns with playing an 8-16 team playoff.
More than Four could never work in College Football.
It would be like asking the FCS teams to settle their championship by having a playoff that includes 16+ teams. That would never work. Wait . . . what?
You do realize that DIII has an extensive playoff format and their players are also student athletes, but aren't even being compensated with a free education, right? They manage just fine.
I'm so sick of this argument. I used to sway back and forth: not anymore.
The "kids" get to become local celebrities. They get a free education, often at a place they never would have sniffed otherwise. They get free room and board and meal plans. So what if they aren't being paid in cash? They are being paid in opportunity. If they don't like it, then don't go to school. Or join the CFL. Or don't play football.
As others have already pointed out: FCS, D2 and D3 football players do the same shit for none of the same level of exposure, opportunities and gifts. Acting like D1 football players have it rough is PC sports nonsense.
I'm happy with four teams. Make the regular season mean something. Don't dilute it like basketball has done. Besides, it's not very practical to have an eight- or sixteen-team playoff. How many games can we realistically ask these guys to play? They've got a 12-game regular season, plus conference title games, plus the playoffs. You'd be asking college players to play basically an NFL schedule, without the benefit of practice squads and midyear free agent signings to shore up depth.
IMO, the absolute maximum number of games should be 14, with some byes thrown in. I don't want the playoffs to be a battle of attrition. Scrap the conference-title games (which are just a cheap money grab anyway) and keep the playoff at four teams.
You just beat me.
I hope that they allow other teams outside the SEC to participate. A guy can dream, right?
2025? What the hell.
Better than the BCS, but this still doesn't solve that much.
Don't worry, contracts these days don't mean much. That can and will be changed a few times before 2025.
Better than the BCS, but this still doesn't solve that much.
What is it you want to be solved?
Welp, gonna jump on this thread I guess.
So they said that the 4 team is the best option and that 6 and 8 are too big. What is gonna be their explanation when they agree to a larger play-off for the next agreement?
I actually agree that 6 or 8 is too much, unless they got rid of conference championship games, but I don't like that as much.
As it stands, almost all teams with a shot at the national title will play 12 games, plus a conference championship game, a semi-final game and a final, making 15 games altogether. That's a lot of football (and travel) for students. Add in another week for them and they'd be playing near non-stop from the start of the season through January.
I like 4. If you're the 5th best team, you don't get a chance, sorry. We don't need college kids playing as many football games as the pros.
I think they should just get rid of the conference championship game. The best record in the conference should win the conference. Period.
I get what you're saying, but now that the conferences are getting bigger, that wouldn't be that fair because the schedules are so different, and you could miss the other best team in your conference and still win. Plus, it's an extra game for every conference and it's fun.
If you got rid of conference title games (which would be 12 games or however many conference there are) just for an extra round of the playoffs, you'd take away a big game for a lot of schools just so the top schools could play an extra one.
If we could scrap the Big Ten CG, then we could go back to having a single division, with the OSU game being at the end of the season again (with the right to advance to the playoffs possibly at stake), with no possible rematch. I'd love that. I'd take that over the present setup in a heartbeat.
If other conferences have gotten too big, hey, that's their fault. If multiple teams share the conference title, good for them. I don't see that as a big problem.
that a team in contention will play three postseason games, I'd rather play a Big Ten team for the first round. Even if we're talking about replacing a very good team (say, number four Missouri) with a good team (number eleven Wisconsin), I'd rather keep things interesting within the conference, and play one of the other nine teams we've played forever, plus our shiny new additions.
Well, they SHOULD get rid of conference championship games...too often you have a undefeated Alabama playing a 3 loss S. Carolina team or something like that. That game is unecessary.
My dream would be to get rid of conference championship games. Mandate that no conference can be more than 10 teams, play all 9 teams in your conference (and 3 non-conference games). Have an 8-team playoff...I don't care if it's seeded by committee or BCS standings (but not conference winners). Keep the bowls.
This would mean the majority of college football would play 13 games. Some just 12...although, I'd give them the option to schedule a scrimmage with each other if they choose to do so. Rank the non-bowl teams and start at the top giving the top non-bowl teams first pick on whether or not they want to host a scrimmage.
You'd have 4 teams play 14 games and 2 teams play 15 games.
That's actually less than what happens now (and will be happening).
It just makes too much sense. I don't care if you have 12 conferences of 10...and CFB is oversaturated with teams as it is now (I'd prefer 6 to 8 conferences of 10 teams)...just use that format and call it a day.
Your plan makes sense, but it's a wholesale change, and requires far more regulation (telling conference how many teams they can have) than would be possible, especially with the history some conferences have. I'm thinking more of a feasible system based on what we already know won't change (or can reasonably predict won't change).
EDIT: Also, very rarely does an undefeated Alabama play a 3-loss South Carolina in champpionship games. LSU played 2-loss UGA this year, 1-loss Wisconsin played 2-loss MSU (1-loss in conference), and had USC not been on bowl ban, you would have had 2-loss Oregon (1-loss in conference) play 1-loss USC. That's all pretty typical, and they all have pretty big implications.
Cyclical anyways. 15 years ago the SEC west was a joke and UT and Florida were on top of the SEC. I agree with a poster above, if they are going to form these giant conferences then a championship game is inevitable.
The primary function of conference championship games is to generate revenue, which is important for the schools given that bowls aren't as lucrative as they once were. But if the playoffs are as profitable as people suggest, that changes everything. Then, the conference-title money becomes less important and that game can be dropped.
Who should leave the SEC, Big Ten and Pac 12? More importantly, what are the presidents of Big Ten schools going to say when you say, "alright, we need to throw out two schools your school has been associated with for a century and have $500m in lost CIC money this fiscal year because of it"? I doubt you could convince MSC that Michigan would be better off without Northwestern and Purdue (or insert other non-elite football school here) in the Big Ten and the CIC.
only adds one more round. Everybody plays 12 games in the season, only 2 teams from each conference play in the championship game. Playoffs begin, 8 teams play in the first round. All of those 8 teams would have been in a bowl game any way, so at that point, there are no additional games added. From the 4 surviving winners, 2 will only play one more game, So in the end, 2 teams played 1 extra game and 2 teams played 2 extra games. I think all the players on those 4 teams would be more than happy to play those extra games for a shot at a National Championship.
I'm not talking about the teams who lose in the first round. But keep in mind that almost all of the 8 teams would be teams who played in a conference champ game (especially the ones who are likely to win). That means that before your 8 team tourney starts, most of the teams have played 13 games. The two teams that play in the final will have played 16 games. That's too many.
Saying the the players would be happy to play another game to win a title is irrelevent. They'd play 20 if if meant they got a title. It doesn't mean it's the best thing for them on a yearly basis.
dude highschool kids play 14-15 games to win it all...college kids can play 16
every other collegiate division.
Of course, it helps that at lower divisions, the games aren't as hard-hitting. There aren't too many future NFL guys in the D-II ranks. I'd imagine that FBS players generally suffer more serious injuries than FCS/D-II/D-III players, owing to the fact that they're going up against bigger, faster opponents, making those collisions more impactful.
If FBS college teams are going to play 16 games to win it all, the postseason could be a battle of attrition - only without the benefit of practice squads to shore up depth, à la the NFL.
But high school kids never have to travel across country and shack up in hotel rooms for half of those games. They ride in a bus across town, maybe across the state, and are home that night. And not only is high school a lot less depanding academically than college, high school football is a lot less demanding than college football. All that is involved is far form equal.
The problem isn't the individual game, it's everything that's involved in it.
Maybe in MI but not in FL. Two out of state games.
Laste year only one out of state...
"Scheduling FCA and Skyline means Manatee won’t get a rematch with New Jersey power Don Bosco Prep, which beat the Hurricanes last fall in Bradenton en route being named the nation’s prep football champion by MaxPreps and USA Today."
I really like Brian's system, but I'll take it.
Starting the 2014 season... as in we still have 2 more years of the BCS? I thought it would only be one. Unless they mean the 2013-14 season, 2014 being when the playoffs would be held... someone care to clarify?
According to wiki they've already scheduled the BCS games for January 2014 which would lead me to believe we're talking about the 2015 games. They really shouldn't call it just "2014" - football is a split year sport since we've got games going 10 days in January.
It's really not that confusing. I've never seen a football season written as "2011-2012" and I've never been confused. And for most teams, it's not a split year sport, just the teams who make it to a January bowl game, which is a small percentage of the teams.
I haven't seen that either, but I had previously heard that there would only be one more year of the BCS, so it had me confused a bit.
If the only topic is the BCS I think it's more than a bit confusing when they just say it's going to start in 2014 when the actual games won't be played until 2015. Generally speaking, yes, this season is the 2012 season and that's the end of the it but when the topic of conversation is the BCS I think it's worth throwing the dash on there since none of the games happen in that year.
statement that 6 or 8 teams are too many.
Maybe it is just me. I had dental surgery today and probably shouldn't be posting.
This season and next season will decided by the BCS, and after that the playoff will take hold.
Meh. A few years and people will be bitching about this system too. Who wants to see a four team SEC matchup anyways.
Until now all you had to do was be undefeated. The incentive for schools wasnt to actually beat anybody, so much as just don't lose. Now that strength of schedule, and head to head are being taken into account I wonder if this will change the criteria used to rank teams too, or will rankings stay as "who didn't lose this week? Okay, they're #1 by default, then"
Can't we at least celebrate for a split second that this is a better version than the BCS?
Yes, it's not going to be perfect but it might work out okay enough.
4 teams is perfectly fine...I mean seriously how many times is the 5th ranked team going to have that big of a beef for being left out?
We didn't have this in 2006 :(
Why - so our game with USC would have been a semifinal rather than the Rose Bowl? Would that have made it any better?
Or more realistically, so we get beat up on by Florida in a semi final rather than USC in the Rose Bowl? Unless you think we would have beaten Florida that year, but I seriously don't.
Did you think we had a chance against UF in 2007?
Yes, I did. But that's not the point. The point is we have the benefit of hindsight right now, and I know how good we were in 2006 and how good Florida was in 2006 (and USC). We lost kinda bad, and Florida smoked OSU.
Could we have beaten them? It's always possible. But that's like saying I'd like to play that 2007 Rose Bowl over again. I suppose a different result could happen, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't look just like it did.
Did you think we had a chance against UF in 2008?
Jesus imagine the vetting process of the selection commitee. You think VPs go through an argeous process... Shiat. Not an enviable position.
And wtf does ND do now? Talk about conference weight being an all time bump
To hell with Notre Dame.
Agreed but curious what this does to their conference or lack there of in the future.
would seem to be a shot across ND's bow.
They will have to annually keep a schedule like this year and win, which is gonna be pretty damn tough to do. They might have backed themselves into a big time corner. Its awfully tough to see them in a NC any time soon. They are such knot heads for not join the BIG the hundreds times we offered. They are the girl you chased in HS and then years later when you are successful and looking good are beggin for a second chance.
Spare me the tears. A one-loss Notre Dame is going to get picked in the top four every time, even at the expense ot a one-loss team from the B1G or Pac 12, and even if their strength of schedule is weak. Not fair, but that's how it is, even with an "impartial" selection committee.
Any idea how much time there will be between the semifinals and championship game?
I know there's the potential for a lot of travel between game sites, so 1 week doesn't seem like enough. But waiting 2 weeks for the Super Bowl is brutal.
1 week. Semi's are on Dec 31st/Jan 1st, Final is on the Monday the next week.
So after skimming over the comments am I the only one that is excited there is a new 4 team playoff? Cuz I'm sure as heck not feeling the excitement here. I mean come on now, this is the end of 143 years of waiting for a playoff structure and the death of the bcs formula. If you think about it, everyone here was dying for a plus 1 system just a few years ago. With that system you still depended on the polls to determine if there would be another game. Meow at least it's guaranteed.
It's something, it's likely better than the current BCS system or any of the previous BCS iterations, and it's a step. But it still leaves a lot to be desired, including way too long of a break between the conf championship and the semifinal game plus the lack of campus sites for semi's. But maybe we'll get there when we go to 8 or 16 in the next 4 to 6 years.
What if int he future we only have four major conferences? Then wouldn't it be likely that each conference champion gets a spot in the four-team playoff?
The problem then would be that any team not in one of those conferences wouldn't have a shot at all. Any D1-A team should have a shot. What if a team like TCU or somebody who isn't a big name now hires a great coach, builds a great team, and schedules tough teams and beats them? They at least need to have a shot.
going to lie in the arcana of selection. (Say that 3 times fast, it will still be true.)
HUGE factor is the seletion method. Isn't a mathematical formula (like what the BCS used) better than 4 guys trying to pick the 4 best teams? Realistically, what human has absolutely no agenda? Or can be entirely unbiased?
I think it should be humans who incorporate the computers into their decision. Take last year, for example. The top 4 was LSU, Bama, OKSt. and Stanford. Oregon, who won the Pac-12 and beat Stanford, was #5, the major difference between Oregon and Stanford was that Oregon played LSU out of conference by Stanford didn't. The humans would see that and put Oregon in over Stanford, which is deserved. I'm sure the humans would throw the #7 or #8 team in there for no good reason, but they could see discrepancies like the one last year.
You think the guys writing the programs don't have agendas? They have all kinds of prejudices built into their code. And none of it is public.
If only a few years ago we could have gotten our revenge on Ohio. Better late than never....
In what, the third-place game?
I think our team would have had a better chance against UF than OSU did.
This had nothing to do with them coming around to 4 or 8 or 16 as "best". The schools from the big conferences and especially the coaches love old scattered meaning less bowl system because it's great for job security and maintaining their power.
The new TV contract instigated this playoff expansion and it will instigate the next one.
The conferences "loyalty" to bowls? That's all a smokescreen to keep alive the vestiges of the fat cat post season system that has frankly raped schools financially for decades. But again coaches love it because they can sell a good season going to a lame bowl game and AD's love it because they normally get a bonus when the team appears in one.
Same with the inane worries about kids missing class. They think we're stupid? Most of this would take place in winter break and besides kids are already practicing during break for the silly bowl games anyways.
As far as the new 4-team system, to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King, Jr. from his 1965 Oberlin College Commencement address:
We aren't where we are going to be, but thank god we aren't where were.
Seriously. Why all the hate on a four-team playoff? I don't mind four teams because it's football, and they can't get too carried away by expansion. I could never see them going past eight teams. By locking in to a 12-year TV contract, they can cement the four-team model.
I'm all for it.
the fact that they are going to rotate the semi-final games among SIX different bowls? If you are going to keep the bowls, why elevate the f-ing Gator or Pawn Stars Bowl or something to the level of national semi-final?? Stupid. there has been far too much dilution of bowls as it is.
It will probably be the Cotton Bowl (already big bowl) and somelike like the Capital One bowl maybe. I'm crossing my fingers that the Little Ceasers Pizza Pizza Bowl gets picked.
In all seriousness they should really consider a bowl in Indianapolis or Chicago. Detroit would be a great venue too, but nobody would want to travel there
They've already said that the 6 Bowls will be in the Southwest, Southeast, or Texas.
Sorry to the rest of the country, you don't count. Toursim (and junkets) over competitive balance.
"access" by having extra bowls participate. As usual, this will likely mean phoney access and an attempt to avoid Congress and lawsuits. So it will probably be a couple of bowls that usually have teams from non-AQ conferences
As far as I'm concerned this new format will cause even more controversy. Typically with the current BCS system in place there are only one or two teams with a legitimate gripe that they were over looked for a title shot. Good luck with making everyone happy by selecting four teams for a playoff. There will be at least a minimum of eight teams every year that feel they were screwed instead of one or two. I don't think a playoff works unless you have more teams involved. College football is unique from the NFL and that's why it's so popular.
Eh I think you're making something out of nothing. A lot of the time, everyone will just tell the number 7 team to STFU. Looking back at the last few years there's not really that much controversy either. Going back to 2006:
2011: This past year. LSU, Bama, and Okie State. The only issue is with the PAC-12 and Stanford vs Oregon. The next grouping was 10-2 Arkansas (lost to Bama/LSU), 11-1 Boise, and 10-2 Kansas State. None of those guys had a legitimate claim
2010: Auburn, Oregon, and TCU are all undefeated. For the 4th spot it's a tossup between 11-1 Stanford, Wisconsin, and OSU (and I guess MSU too, but there's no way they're getting in without a perfect season). Next group is Big 12 champ Oklahoma at 11-2, but they have losses to Missouri and Texas A&M, so they're out. Arkansas has 2 losses to Auburn and Alabama
2009: The almost-perfect scenario. Alabama, TCU, Texas, and Cincinnati are all undefeated. So is Boise State, but they're kinda out anyways (for the first time ever, the Big East trumps something else when Big East>WAC)
2008: Big test here. Oklahoma and Florida are 12-1, so they're 1-2. Texas and Alabama are 11-1 and 12-1 respectively, but both lost their conferences to the aforementioned teams. So out of the two, one will get in. But what about undefeated Utah? Of the other ranked teams Penn State is really the only one that has an issue. Texas Tech lost their conference, Boise is WAC, and OSU has 2 losses
2007: OSU, LSU, VT, and Oklahoma are 1-4. The next groupings: Georgia, Missouri, USC, and Kansas, are all runner up's in their conference/divisions.
And finally 2006: Going in, OSU and Florida are 1-2. Sitting at 11-1 is Michigan, Louisville, and Wisconsin. We lost to the No. 1 team, so our loss is stronger than Wisconsin's (to us), or Louisville (Rutgers). Then there's conference Champs USC and Oklahoma and conference runner up LSU (10-2). Not trying to be a homer, but I feel like we would get the No. 3 spot. USC lost to unranked Oregon State and UCLA, and Oklahoma had 2 losses to 18th Oregon and 7th Texas. Throwing out bowl results we were a penalty away from a perfect season, so I think we would be plugged in over USC and Oklahoma. From there it's a fight between LSU, Oklahoma, and USC for the 4th spot. Wisconsin and Louisville would be arguing, but there's no way 3 Big Ten teams would be in, and PAC/SEC/Big 12>Big East
I dunno, lot's of quality teams getting left out of the 4th spot in your illustration. It does not look that clear cut at all.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on it then. I think there's only one or two teams that would have a claim to being left out, except in a few clusterfuck years which will pop up every now and again. At a max per year, we're really only looking at 1 or 2 teams that could have a claim, and most of the time, those teams are conference champs with 2 losses (Boise aside)
I thought 8 teams would be a good playoff system..
Pac 10 vs. Big 10 in Rose Bowl
SEC vs. Big 12 in Sugar Bowl
ACC vs. Big East in Orange Bowl
Notre Dame or At Large Team vs. non-AQ conference champ or At Large Team in Fiesta Bowl
Have all these teams seeded 1-4 after all these games are played and go from there. But, I have to admit, any system is going to have it's flaws some years. Even this 4-team system.
I don't understand how this is difficult to fit into the academic calender. Play the games as followed:
1st Round: Christmas
2nd Round: New Years Day
Championship: Jan. 8th
The AD's, Presidents and BCS love to use that argument. They will magically figure it out once the money starts rolling in.
pumped for the BCS to go to a four team playoff.
as Lebron said "bout damn time". never thought I'd quote that dbag, but what can ya do.
The one thing though that I don't like about the playoff is that it's still somewhat determined by who the committee selects. What if the selection is just as close/difficult between the 4 and 5 "seeds" as it has been to figure out 2 or 3? somebody is always going to be unhappy. Another thing, championship game going to the highest bidding city? Me no likey.
I like that the championship game goes to the highest bidder because it gives us the chance that there will be championship games in the Big Ten footprint. We're already locked out of that happening for the semi's, at least we have a chance for the championship.
Of course, it will be a blue moon when a Big Ten team gets picked for the final four and wins its semi despite never having home field advantage and gets to a championship game that happens to be in the Big Ten footprint. . . but I'm saying there's a chance.
I will go on record as saying that I actually don't mind this setup, although I will always find it amazing that it took the conferences this long to agree on something which seems, at least on paper, ridiculously simple and indeed, something that was one of the first ideas to be presented anyway, I believe. To me, it makes all the sabre-rattling that followed seem like it was for show on some levels. No matter now, I suppose.
One thing I am interested in is how the criteria will be weighted - they mention wins and losses, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and conference championship. It seems like that places some impetus on, say, Notre Dame (and other independents), as some have mentioned, to consider joining a conference, lest they have to string together some 12-0 showings under Kelly.
The nature and qualifications of the selection committee will make or break controversies, it seems, but ultimately the goal seems to be managing them, not eliminating them, which is probably fine. Part of me wonders if the traditional non-AQ conferences are a little scared of being relegated to obscurity though, but then, as we have seen, you simply move to the conference with the better TV deal.
At the end of the day, this does make some sense - they are students first and foremost and there is no need to turn this into the month-long weekend-capping affair that is the NFL postseason, and really, this is probably a step up from the current system and it seems like all the contracts surrounding it will allow for learning to take places and formats to be adjusted, if needed. That is certainly something better than what existed.
For Wolverineinabag to show up and provide an SEC perspective.
RDT, you broke my heart.
I feel like the female lead in the movie "Tootsie". I'm offended by how he deceived me, but I miss him.
This is the best news since I heard that Andi Anderson would play Danaerys Targaryan in season 3
I'm a little surprised by how many folks want an 8-16 team playoff. Even if it was bowl propoganda, college football really does have the best regular season in sports. Playoffs do ruin that - including the BCS. When an NFL team loses their first game, you always think "wait 'til next week." When it's college football? Depression sets in.
As for the new format, I don't think it's bad - preserves the Rose Bowl's importance, so the game is either a national semi-final or the traditional B1G-Pac12 matchup. I'd have preferred home games with a neutral site title on Jan 1st for numerous reasons. But the biggest unknown to me is still the selection criteria - we've heard whispers, but a committee is no better than a poll to me. Last year a committee would have put Stanford in ahead an Oregon team that beat them by 20 points in Palo Alto and won the conference. Why do I say that? Because the committee members are probably poll voters who ranked Stanford 4 and Oregon 5. While OK St-Alabama was the bigger debate and the bigger impetus for a playoff (for obvious reasons), the example that should have come to mind was Stanford-Oregon, at least when talking about selection criteria.
And I can already see the next time a controversey happens like Stanford-Oregon, or OU-UT 2007, or 'Bama-OK St for the #4 spot, people will be clamoring for more spots in a play-off. NO! Playing in a playoff means you've had a regular season worthy of consideration for a national title. If you've lost one game (yes, even the pokes who I defended loudly last year) and there's another undefeated team, you've got no argument. In modern history there've never been more than 6 undefeated teams in a given season. Any playoff that's >6 is no longer just about picking a national champion based on excellent regular season. It's about the play-off itself, a second season.
In 2025, the changes that should be made will involve how tough it is for fans to travel to two neutral site locations, and get tickets to a national title game on a week's notice. Hopefully they'll keep the three "contract" bowls as National Championship sites only, with home games for the semis in late November/early December. But if the conversation is about how to expand the field to little sister's of the poor, then remember how real "playoff-creep" is.
Because they want to keep the semi's within the current Bowl system, the Big Ten is the only conference that will never get home field advantage. The SEC, Pac12, Big12, even the ACC will always have a shot at a home field advantage by being seeded number 1 or 2.
So at least they could throw the Big Ten a small bone:
Stipulate that if the Big Ten is the 1 or 2 seed (which would put them in the Rose Bowl as the "home team"), they would not have to play a Pac12 team there. If a Pac12 team is the 3/4 seed, they would switch sites with the other 3/4 seed.
This would not happen very often, but it is a way to slightly make up for the fact that the Big Ten never has home field advantage by ensuring at least that they don't have home field disadvantage despite being a 1/2 seed.
I don't mind being the "home team" and playing LSU in the Rose Bowl. But I do mind being the "home team" and being rewarded for it by having to play USC in their backyard in the Rose Bowl.
If they are going to whimp out about having the semi's at campus sites, at least throw us this bone.
And I would go along with that for everyone. LSU is a 3/4? Tough shit, you can't play in the Sugar Bowl; same goes for USC and the Rose. I can't think of a single sport that allows a lower seeded team home advantage over a higher seed, I'd be interested to see if there is one in the world.
I'd go even further and give the Big Ten a new bowl in Indianapolis* that takes a 1/2 seeded Big Ten team and allow the Pac to host in the Rose, SEC in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange and BXII in the Fiesta.
*You could make this bowl equivalent to the SEC v. BXII game, and make it a second place game with the ACC or something, but stipulate that they have the top bowl team if it's selected as the top or second seed by the committee.
Maybe even have the Big Ten's semi game in... Detroit.
love for Indianapolis is strong (and somewhat confusing, IMO).
I can't think of a single sport that allows a lower seeded team home advantage over a higher seed, I'd be interested to see if there is one in the world.
NIT, if your school is being used for the NCAA March Madness (See what happened to Dayton this past year).
Not really an entire sport, or an institutional setup, but it certainly happens. And UD folks did not feel that it was very fair, either.
But do schools bid for March Madness hosting rights? If Dayton asked to host an NCAA regional knowing they might lose home court for the NIT, the situations seem a little different.
This is a long thread and I don’t have a whole lot of time this morning, so I apologize if this has been previously covered.
I love the notion of a playoff, even if it would be infinitely better if played on campus, which is obviously out of the question considering the nature of the current BCS bowls. However, I hope that this does not destroy the Rose Bowl’s legacy at Michigan. For years, getting to Pasadena was the benchmark for Michigan teams – the thought of that disappearing hurts, even if a playoff is better for the game.
As a Michigan fan I could really care less about knowing 100% who is the best team in college football is and I don't really care about who is most deserving to be in the National Championship game. In fact I kind of enjoy the fun discussions that no one can prove of who is better and/or more deservingl I really only care about one thing...Michigan getting there. It doesn't bother me if they share a natl title because at least they shared it.
All this does to me is decrease the chances we ever win it. It's another game we have to win against a top-4 team. So instead winning one game now we need to win two. And lets face it, in the old(er) formats if we went undefeated we'd probably get in. We're not Boise or even PSU for that matter. We don't typically get left out. So all we had to do was win one game or even before the BCS beat the Pac10 champ. Now we have to win two games. I find that frustrating.
But, it sure helps the SEC who may have 2 or even 3 teams up there. I guess it's time to finally start beating them...although we haven't had as much trouble as other B1G teams. I just wish all the games weren't played in CA, FL, & TX...would it kill someone to have a semifinal in the Midwest???
It is extremely difficult to run a season undefeated. If we lose a game or two during the regular season and can make it into the playoff bowl system, then our chances of winning a national championship are better than the zero chance we would have with one or two loses.
I would prefer a playoff between the following BCS bowl winners, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, then have a semifinal playoff between the 4 winning teams, then a championship game! But a 4 team system is better than no playoff!
i think this is great for the sport
i think this is great for the sport
itll be interesting to see how the rules and setup of this chnges
throughout the next decade and even beyond
throughout the next decade and even beyond
throughout the next decade and even beyond
unfortunately this might result in alot of rematches like the one we had this year
any chance ann arbor hosts the championship game?
at least it will give 4 teams now a shot at the title...
Do they really think a brand new format will last to 2025 without having to make wholesale changes?