8 Team Playoff
December 8th, 2013 at 8:30 AM ^
Forget about Wisconsin.
December 8th, 2013 at 9:39 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
It sure looked to me that they stopped playing after the Penn State loss.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^
Bazinga.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
The "every week is a playoff" argument is utter bullshit. Why is 1-loss MSU behind 1-loss Auburn? Or 1-loss Alamaba even? Alabama lost WAY after MSU. I guess every week wasn't actually a playoff for Alabama. The current system is such unmitigated crap that it just blows my mind when someone claims they actually like it.
Teams play radically different schedules. When you play radically different schedules, the only real way to determine a champion is with some sort of playoff system. The only real question should be, 8 teams or 16 teams?
December 8th, 2013 at 4:59 AM ^
There already (basically) is almost an 8-team playoff with the conference championships -- OSU basically fell out of the final four because of the conference championship game.
December 8th, 2013 at 7:33 AM ^
then follow that MSU was in the final four, but we all know that won't be the case.
December 8th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
What kind of eight-team "playoff" has twelve teams playing in six games and pares down to two teams in the next round with only 3-4 of the twelve teams having a realistic shot to move on to the next round going in? That doesn't sound like a playoff to me.
December 8th, 2013 at 5:27 AM ^
So after beating OSU, you want '97 Michigan to beat Coaches Poll #1 Nebraska in the Big Ten Championship and then win 3 more games against top 8 teams? I only have maybe 40 years before I'm dead. Please stop thinking of ways to make championships impossible. How about we just play Chicago and crown ourselves Champions of the West every year? Who's with me?
December 8th, 2013 at 5:36 AM ^
you find another school with whom you can share your negativity.
December 8th, 2013 at 6:45 AM ^
Brilliant. While I'm at it, I might as well change my parents, my name, my wife, my kid, my house, my dna and become the 3rd baseman of the Columbus Clippers.
December 8th, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 5:59 AM ^
If you somehow believe that adding a playoff makes it statistically more difficult and/or rare for a team to win a championship, then I don't think you're very good at math.
If that is sarcasm, on the other hand, well done.
December 8th, 2013 at 6:17 AM ^
Sarcastic? Me? No, I really just want to play one game a year. Against The University of Chicago.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
That's a great idea.
Dave, are you listening? Dave?
Let's settle this "Champions of the West" thing from 1902 once and for all. Winner gets possesion of "The Victors" as their fight song.
December 8th, 2013 at 7:15 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:40 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:20 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^
Yes it is. The NCAA used to only play 11 game regular seasons.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:56 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
What does it matter if the Big10 had 10 teams or not? (they had 11 by the way) It still lengthened the season.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:03 AM ^
I'm going OT here, but your avatar looks delicious. Even though it's Sunday morning.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^
How the hell do you know that FSU and Auburn are the best 2 teams?
I guarantee with 100% certainly that there is no way you can conclusively determine FSU and Auburn are the best 2 teams based on the information available. It is not possible. Sure, it might be your opinion, but your opinon isn't worth the paper you would write it down on.
December 8th, 2013 at 7:43 AM ^
Myself? I long for the pre-BCS days when January 1st was the holy day of college football, if not sports in general. This year would have been especially great. Florida State vs. Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. Auburn vs Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl. Michigan State vs Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Alabama vs Baylor in the Fiesta or Cotton Bowl. Four great games, all with national championship implications, all played on the same day -- not spread out over several days or even weeks. If things dropped just right, Michigan State could have still found themselves crowned National Champs under this format.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:24 AM ^
TV, man.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^
I remember those days. And I agree: this BCS and the next playoff version aren't better, because the notion of true champions is misplaced. With teams playing silo schedules, you never really know if Nebraska 97 or Michigan 97 could have beaten each other. Still true now, really, since Michigan State won't get a chance to play Florida State. Mostly thats okay for every team except the singular one that gets to crown itself King.
December 8th, 2013 at 7:49 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:51 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 7:53 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^
I think the Conf. Champ Game is basically the first round of the playoffs.
I think it's moving to where there are going to be 4 monster conferences and everyone else will be left in the dust.
4 conference champs that will fight it out
That way you can have a 12 game reg season and still only play 15 at the most. Some may argue that is even too many games.
Then people can bitch about the seedings and the location of the games. There will also be something to complain about.
Something else to complain about would be the lower teams that don't quite make it into these super conferences. It would be like a death penalty of some sort but that's where we are headed I think.
College football will almost be cut in half from 100 and whatever we have now down to 64 teams.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:13 AM ^
I believe it was Business Insider in an article last month that posited a model for an 8-team playoff wherein you had the conference champions from the power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12) plus three at-large bids which would come from wherever basically (probably runner-ups, other conferences, etc...). All of it would be committee-driven anyway, so the bids for at-large spots could be a fun debate in themselves. It would be intriguing, in my opinion, but I am also in favor of waiting to see how the first several cycles of the new format play out before we start clamoring for an expanded playoff.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:13 AM ^
of the 4-Team system do we need to qualify as "several", before tweaking it again to make it an 8-Team Playoff? Regardless of the exact model used, complaints from the #5 team are tons more valid than complaints from the #9 team. Going to 8 somewhat eliminates regional bias for choosing between two or more deservin teams for the last 1 or 2 spots.
Besides, enough of us on this forum (myself included)are too old to have this drag out too long before an 8-team system is implemented. I'd love to see it happens before I join the "Depends Generation".
December 8th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
Admittedly, part of me is going on a sesne of, "It took forever to get this far, so we're stuck with it for a bit", but I would be willing to give this a fair shot - just to see the quality of the selections (there's something that will be an interesting debate this time next year) - because I would like to see how it goes even if I would probably prefer the 8-team model myself.
December 8th, 2013 at 11:20 AM ^
When it's 8, why not make the same argument for 16? Won't complaints from the #9 team be much more valid than from the #17 team? You can always find a rationale for adding more teams. It will always be less compelling than the previous ones.
We went to 2 to avoid split titles.
We are going to 4 to avoid undefeated major conference teams maybe getting left out.
Reasons for going to 8 are far less compelling.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
Eight is good because it gets all the major conference champs plus it leaves room for at-larges.
Four makes you trade off conference champs for other conference champs / at-larges.
Sixteen is just not necessary.
With Eight, you can be confident you've cast a big enough net to pick up the true "best team", yet is still leaves room for these fun debates.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
you're going to see a system that doesn't even try to pick the best eight teams. Between the automatic qualifiers and special rules for non-AQ schools, 1-3 of the top eight will get left out most years. There will be plenty of complaining about deserving schools getting left out. #20 is in but #6 (or higher) is out because of one loss. The only solution, go to sixteen.
December 8th, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
4 conference champs that will fight it out. That way you can have a 12 game reg season and still only play 15 at the most. Some may argue that is even too many games.Wouldn't that mean a 13-game regular season and 16-game maximum? I'm assuming you'd still have conference-championship games.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:15 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:34 AM ^
Alabama and Baylor. Stanford lost two games and neither was what you would really call a good loss. MSU beat OSU and no other ranked teams and would have by far the worst loss of the bunch.
December 8th, 2013 at 8:51 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 8:58 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 9:49 AM ^
December 8th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
Everyone bitching about the regular season not meaning anything should get behind this idea. Playoffs limited to ONE team per conference--the conference champion. Take the 6 major conference champs. Fill in 2 teams from non-auto qualifying conferences/independents and go. If you don't win your conference, then too f'ing bad.