CFB Playoffs: Big Ten talks about campus-site semifinals

Submitted by Sambojangles on

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-idea-a-college…

The Big Ten is more-or-less okay with a 4-team playoff with the semifinals on campus sites. Obviously nothing is official, but it seems to me that with every major conference supporting a playoff-type substance, something will happen in the near future to improve the BCS.

I especially like the questions at the bottom, and hope very few compromises are made on those important points.

manchild56

February 6th, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

the truth for the most part I am okay with this set up. I think anything other than what we have now is going to have flaws, but I think if everyone really puts their heads together this could really work. Plus keep the other 78 bowl games so other teams still get their pay days.

go16blue

February 6th, 2012 at 5:46 PM ^

Sounds good. I do really like the home site idea, and think it will be great for the sport. Can you imagine a Florida-UM semifinal in January in Ann Arbor? The weather alone could be a huge story. Plus, theres no chance a game like that would sell out (although it does favor the northern school, as opposing fans are far less likely to take a road trip north than we would be for, say, the Sugar Bowl).

oriental andrew

February 6th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

That might be interesting, but a warm-weather school going someplace cold happened very rarely since the BCS era started.  I've bolded them below.  Some are just cold-ish (like VT and Oregon). 

Year, #4 @ #1 and #3 @ #2

1998: osu @ Tennessee and KSU @ FSU

1999: Alabama @ FSU and Nebraska @ VT 

2000: Washington @ Oklahoma and Miami @ FSU - To avoid a rematch, might have a 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 matchup, with Miami @ Oklahoma and Washington @ FSU

2001: Oregon @ Miami and Colorado @ Nebraska - they might switch it up here too, getting Colorado @ Miami and Oregon @ Nebraska

2002: USC @ Miami and Georgia @ osu

2003: Michigan @ Oklahoma and USC @ LSU

2004: Teaxs @ USC and Auburn @ Oklahoma

2005: osu @ USC and PSU @ Texas

2006: LSU @ osu and Michigan @ Florida.

2007: Oklahoma @ osu and VT @ LSU

2008: Alabama @ Oklahoma and Texas @ Florida

2009: TCU @ Alabama and Cincy @ Texas

2010: Stanford @ Auburn and TCU @ Oregon

2011: Stanford @ LSU and Okie St @ Alabama

 

Two Hearted Ale

February 6th, 2012 at 7:14 PM ^

I have questions (and answers).

 

When would the semi-finals be held?  I'd like to see them held on the same day the week after conference championships but two weeks might be necessary for travel arrangements. Either way the championship game could be played around new year's day.

 

Who picks and seeds teams?  I think an impartial committee should do it.  A group of experts who actually watch games.  That means the coaches poll is out.

 

Can semi-final losers still go to bowls?  Yes.  I dont think it would be very hard to slot them in somewhere.

 

Can it be done this year?  I wish.

 

 

CoachBuczekFHS

February 6th, 2012 at 5:48 PM ^

Moving to a playoff system is an important and necessary step for college football. However, I think finding a way to incorporate the traditional big bowls (rose, sugar, etc.) is also important. We should have a thread for playoff format ideas. Bunch of Michigan guys thinking up great ideas....what could go wrong? 

Needs

February 6th, 2012 at 6:49 PM ^

Incorporating the big bowls into the playoffs is a bad idea. It asks fans to travel long distances two weeks in a row. Very few will do that. Thus, the atmosphere for the championship game will be terrible, Super Bowl-type substance. Teams who lose semi-finals could still be invited to the traditional bowl games, though I'm sure the bowl committees will throw a shit-fit, because even fewer people would come to those games than go to the non-championship BCS games (Rose excepted) now.

justingoblue

February 6th, 2012 at 7:48 PM ^

Sure, the Rose ain't what it used to be, but it's still a very, very important game that represents a Big Ten championship.

The Rose Bowl logic wasn't the problem, it was failing to close. USC won multiple national titles in the Rose Bowl from the Bo period-BCS period. We had a chance at least twice (winning in 1976 and being allowed to go in 1973) and just didn't pull it off.

MGoSoftball

February 6th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^

and to some extent ohio.  I would hate to see the luster and pagentry of the Rose Bowl be lost.

Although I have to say it.  A playoff with the higher seed getting the semi final and the Championship game being bid out is the only system I can support.  Can you imangine if we made it to the final game and we hosted it? 

I would imagine that us, ohio, ND, Penn State and possibly Nebraska could bid a very high price for the NC game.

That's right...I said it.  First I congratulate sparty then I half-@ssed support a playoff?  What next? SB Championship for the Univeristy of Toronto????

MSHOT92

February 7th, 2012 at 7:51 AM ^

having been to the rose bowl twice...it's a grand game with all the history behind it...however as a few have said it ain't what it used to be...BUT with that said you still see with regularity a B1G/PAC champions matchup unaffected by the four team playoff...and as they already have in place, let the conference winners be the first criteria, and if one or both of them are eligible for the national playoff system, then they can pick teams at large...and more importantly eliminate the 'autobid' system and allow the bowls themselves to select teams...assuming they follow the same conference agreements...you could rearrange the major BCS bowls to pit conference champions...this would reward teams that not only belong to a conference (ND reference here...) but also reward conference champions...and as said with the Rose, IF one of the champs/both are 'eligible' for the national champions playoff...the bowl has the option to select teams at large...the major bowls can still be featured and the playoff system could begin in late December and culminate on Jan 2....personally I HATE the current setup where everything drags on for weeks...by the MNC game I'm basically no longer as interested...we've lost the magic of New Year's day games...I'm ok with the feature bowls getting the spot light on Jan 1...and the national championship game the next day stand alone for it's own spotlight...just don't care for dragging this mess out so long.

BlueAggie

February 6th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^

So, more or less on the same day, the Big Ten declares that home-site college football playoff games are worthwhile, but home-site college hockey conference playoff games are too much hassle?  WHY CAN'T HOCKEY HAVE NICE THINGS?

Red is Blue

February 6th, 2012 at 6:55 PM ^

Delaney said he is working on "coming up with something that does not kill the baby with the bath water."  Yeah, that would be bad.  Kinda like stabbing the messenger.

cheesheadwolverine

February 6th, 2012 at 7:10 PM ^

Unless you have a schedule where every team plays every other team the same number of times (a la European soccer), there is no way to ever determine who has a better resume.  Look at the debates around which shitty team deserves to get the last at-large bid in the gargantuan tourna-splosion that is the NCAA basketball tournament.

cheesheadwolverine

February 6th, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^

Perfect.  Every game still matters...ish, and you guarantee that the team with the best season is your champion, something that can't be said for either the current system or a larger playoff.  Plus campus sites is awesome.  The atmosphere would be unlike anything in North American sports that I can think of.

mGrowOld

February 6th, 2012 at 7:25 PM ^

Of course we should have a four team playoff and of course we should have the semi's on campus.  On MINNESOTA'S campus and have them there permanently every year.  Playing a game or two in January in the Gophers nice, new outside stadium will teach those pansies from the SEC a thing or two.

If it's good enough for hockey it's good enough for football.  I'm in.

Tater

February 6th, 2012 at 7:44 PM ^

I want to see every conference champion have a chance.  6 majors champions and two at-large slots from smaller conferences, and one slot allowed for the highest-ranked indie if the indie is in the top eight, would be great.  They could have quarters at campuses, and then piggy-back it onto the B1G proposal.

If they allow every major conference champion in, it would make the conference championships actually mean something.  Also, if it was a test of conference champions, instead of a beauty contest determined by polls, teams would be encouraged to schedule more games like Michigan/Bammer without risking a chance at the "championship" to do it.

 

MGoKereton

February 6th, 2012 at 8:33 PM ^

That's precisely why the idea of the at-large is so important. Without it, there's no negative side-effects to schools challenging a bunch of cupcakes before the division games start. It's basically a preseason.

If a team goes out there and beats some top notch teams but falters in their championship game, I believe they deserve a spot in this new format because of their level of competition. However, this brings up the question of where the at-large cutoff is. I think two teams works fine and gives us an 8 team playoff if we want to take 6 major conference champs.

After that, we basically have a "March Madness" type scenario once it gets to the Elite 8. The Big Ten champion will be in the "Rose" division, SEC champ in the "Sugar" division, and so on. First two sets of games are played at the university of the higher ranked team (rewards regular season, especially #1 and #2 teams, which will be guaranteed to be on opposite sides of the "bracket" so they can only meet in the championship game). Championship played at a neutral site. Seems like a good idea to me.