I hate Colin Cowherd, and I think he looks like a jackass talking to himself in a radio booth. But he makes some GREAT points if you watch the video.
I hate Colin Cowherd, and I think he looks like a jackass talking to himself in a radio booth. But he makes some GREAT points if you watch the video.
I really don't think we should be discussing such things. I just hope our team can triumph once next season.
This is one of the topics you WANT to discuss.
I think you missed the joke...
YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT PLAYOFFS!??
Don't talk to me about playoffs!!
I think an overall traveling bowl/playoff system is pretty fair. I don't think it's right that teams constantly have to play SEC schools in the south for their bowl games. Or having the nerve to call someone the home team when they play USC or UCLA at the Rose Bowl. I'm a southern boy at heart, but the football purist in me, would love to see the national championship played at Lambeau or Soldier field, in early January.
The argument will always be that people won't travel to those locations for a bowl, which I think is wrong. Look at the Super Bowl, no matter where it's played, they have no issue selling the game out. No offense to the state of Indiana, but who really wants to go to Indianapolis? And yet people came in droves. I want to see how these spread teams, and teams predicated on speed thrive in the bitter cold and snow, not being able to feel their toes or fingers. It adds an element of intrigue to the games, and I for one, would love to see it happen.
How in the hell is this redundant!?! Please, go find another southerner prepared to say what I just did.
It isn't. It is just this shitty moderating system and some idiot moderating anyone he does not like.
Brian really needs to change the system so that it requires at least three votes before a post is hidden.
Until then, I encourage everyone to vote up any hidden posts, no matter what.
Not sure why this guy has a -1. His points are all valid. It is a pretty shitty moderating system.
but if i did, it would be this one.
TBH I could care less if people travel to an away playoff game in B1G country because I know the students and alumni will pack the house. Which makes home field much more of an advantage. I don't think the B1G is talking about Lambeau or Lucas as much as they are talking about the Big House and the Shoe. Its the way it should be, and it takes power and money out of the fraudulent BCS system.
You aren't part of some brilliant, diabolical, Saban-hatched plan to win over the hearts and minds of other fanbases, are you?
My thoughts exactly.
Regardless, happy to have intelligent fans from other teams opening up conversations on the state of college football here.
"but who really wants to go to Indianapolis?"
Maybe it's from coming up in Flint and living throughout the Detroit/Toledo/Sandusky/Cleveland area....
But I fell in love with Indy. If I were ever to move back to the city, Indy would be high on list.
There's no maybe about that. What other cities have you been to?
NYC (mostly Manhattan)
Which was awesome for about a week and then I was ready to leave.
...there will never be a "fair" playoff system. Conferences each have different rules, different schedules, different revenues all of which make access to the whatever playoff inherently unbalanced.
The first step to a true "national" champion would be to eliminate regional conferences and have uniformly enforce rules and balanced schedules across the board.
Frankly, the bowls are a better system for college football because they embrace the spectacle of non-uniformity rather than suppress it.
"Frankly, the bowls are a better system for college football because they embrace the spectacle of non-uniformity rather than suppress it."
Pfffft, take your well reasoned, though dissenting, opinions elsewhere! Go back to RCMB so we can continue rating the women who come into Starbucks.
we talkin bout practice
how they mention all the conferences and Notre Dame? Who cares what they think?
Well considering they have a membership deal witht he BCS they're included in every potential setup
I think its a great idea, now if we can get the mgoplayoffs where the Rose Bowl is where the NC is played we'll be all set.
The NC game can be played there, but the Rose Bowl should still exist as a matchup of the best-eligible B1G and Pac-12 teams. No way Delaney gives that up. I wouldn't want to, either. As far as the NC game being played there, I don't know if I even like that. So whenever USC makes it to the title game, they get homefield advantage? I think Delaney is right to suggest that the NC game be moved around like the Superbowl.
shit what the Notre Dame AD thinks. Neither the Sun Bowl nor the Champs Sports Bowl will be part of this playoff, so ND has nothing to worry about.
I don't like playoffs. It makes regular season not meaningful.
There was article in WSJ recently titled "The regular season for suckers" concerning meaningless regular season in all sports except college football
"Being No. 1 in the regular season has become a quaint anachronism relevant only in college football. In each of the four major leagues, the best regular-season team has won the title less than half the time since 1966—with baseball (29%) being easily the lowest."
Other quote "Had this been college football, this season's 9-7 Giants might've been consigned to the Gator Bowl. (One could argue they would've deserved it, too."
I agree completely with the article, Please dont make this greatest game meaningless.
If you limit the # of teams that get in to 4 or 6 it is not meaningless. Especially if teams get homefield advantage in the 1st/2nd rounds with the Championship at a neutral site.
Edit: Also, no auto-bids. That is how shitty teams like the Giants (football) or Cardinals (baseball) are able to win championships simply by winning their crappy diviision and getting hot at the end of the season.
FWIW, the Giants would have been in the playoffs regardless as long as they still take 6 teams from both conferences.
Actually as I quite painfully remember, the Cardinals won the WIld Card to get into the playoffs this year. Although if you're referring to their 06 title(which would be painful for many Tigers fans here on teh board), then your point is stil valid.
I think most people would agree that college football has one of the most meaningful regular seasons, I think they would also agree there is still room for improvement. I think most look at this years LSU-Alabama debacle/games/awesomeness/etc. as the reason why we should also be looking to improve the situation. (the WSJ article didn't mention anything about this)
Under the current system 10-1 OSU was relagated to the Fiesta Bowl because their loss was "worse" than Alabama's loss despite the fact that OSU's wins were better than Alabama's wins.
I didn't watch the MNC game nor the Fiesta Bowl because I didn't care about either; a result of the current system. I would have watched both semi-finals and a championship game if the proposed system would have been in place. This is obviously anecdotal, but I'm guessing there are a lot more people like me out there.
Don't call them "OSU". They were already chumped by being left out of the NC. You are just making it worse.
It does seem rude to confuse them with a not-very-good-at-football Oregon State. However, is there something else? My research indicates they are the only two teams in the country that have the word "State" following a word beginning with O. I know of no others.
Bemidgi State used to be called "O'Bemidgi State," but they had to change it due to a trademark dispute with LucasFilm.
Bet you feel dum...
Are you some sort of bad parody account or something?
Dr. Saturday lays out a solid response to your argument:
"In the first place, it would be impossible for the college football equivalent of a 9-7 NFL team to make the cut in any logistically feasible bracket, even one as large as 16 teams. Compare to the NFL, where more than a third of the league qualifies for the playoffs every year (a much lower number than in the NBA and NHL, which admit a majority), an eight-team playoff in college football would only include 6.5 percent of current FBS programs (8 of 123), the cream of the crop by any standard; a 12-team playoff would include 9.8 percent, still restricting the field to the elite. My pet plan favors a 10-team setup, but the specific number is frankly semantic: A field that included the college football equivalent of a 9-7 NFL team would have to consist of at least 46 teams, a logistical impossibility. And because it would be exceedingly difficult for any college team to make an 8, 10, 12 or 16-team field with more than two losses — or even with only two losses, in an 8 or 10-team field — the gap between the top of the bracket and the bottom would be a) Negligible, and b) Easily closed if the team on the bottom actually won the tournament."
My counterpoint for Dr. Saturday article would be, rankings based on pre-season bias, voter bias, scheduling bias is not very meaningful.
Just look at Michigan pre-season rank next year, they are/will be ranked lower because of strength of schedule. One loss to shitty team, they will be out like Okie state for any championship consideration no matter how tough their schedule will be.
Also NFL play lot interleague games and there is lot more parity.
My only solution would be going back to old days, when Big 10/Pac10 had one clear defined goal, which is making to Rose bowl.
You saying this:
"Just look at Michigan pre-season rank next year, they are/will be ranked lower because of strength of schedule. One loss to shitty team, they will be out like Okie state for any championship consideration no matter how tough their schedule will be."
Gives me all the reason to want to support a playoff. One shitty loss shouldn't prevent M from having a shot at the MNC.
In regards to voter bias, scheduling bias, etc., if you want to give it back to the voters only, prepare to see the SEC teams winning it every year from here to enternity. You know who is going to take at least 2 of the top 5 spots in the preseason polls.
I dont think i said voter bias favors michigan, in fact opposite.
Compare these two teams. Michigan and Georgia
Pre-season rankings: 14 and 6
Non conference schedule: Michigan --- ND, Alabama, Airforce, UMass
Georgia --- Buffalo, Florida Atlantic, Georgia southern, and Georgia Tech. Also they miss Alabama, Arkansas, LSU in conference games. Not exactly murder's row.
They are ranked higher because of easier schedule.
For Michigan to move from 14 to top 4, they have to pretty much win everything. All those one loss ESS EEE SEE teams will be ahead of michigan with one loss.
Best solution will be having play off with conference champions or going back to old system which removes complete voter and scheduling bias.
Are you Bi-polar?
Didn't you just say that you are against a playoff?
There is no conflict what i mentioned. (probably not very clear, since english is not my native language)
I want to go back to old system that existed pre-BCS, where in Big 10 / PAC 10 play for Rose bowl. There would be no bias voter or scheduling at that time.
I understand that, I am in minority, other alternative would be having playoff with only conference champions. This again removes all the voter and scheduling bias.
Scrap the whole damn thing. I really liked the old system better. There are too many variables to try to pick the "best" teams and having them play. In that case the polsters are simply having their way before the bowl games instead of after. So once in a while you are going to have co-champions, it happens. It is hard to argue that Alabama, Oklahoma State, and LSU were not tri-champions this year, it just so happens that one of them got a shiny football.
sorry double post
I disagree with the whole 'the regular season is meaningless' thing.
The point of the regular season in pro sports is NOT to decide who the best team is, it's to decide who gets to the playoffs and a chance to win the championship of the respective sport. The regular season is a weeding process to get the best teams to match up against each other. They have byes and home field advantage to offset the advantage that a team gets when playing in a crappy division.
The biggest problem with college football is too many teams, nobody is playing the same competition so the polls are all objective.
Agreed completely. This is not ncaa bball.
I say everybody should just play one game in September and let the CBS commentators decide the best team in college football. That way every game is a championship game, and people can "just tell" which teams are the best anyway, right?
Actually, to hell with head-to-head matchups. Let's all just send the teams to combines all year and determine the MNC game participants by scout rankings*, average shuttle times and bench presses.
*Scouts must be from Florida, Louisiana, Texas and California since they're the only ones who know anything about football.
Why is Dave Brandon against this plan!?!? Does anyone have any statements by him?
Found this qoute, but doesn't really explain why he is opposed. No system will ever be totally fair so his point is moot.
+1 is not equal to a 4 team playoff. +1 means play the bowls, then take the best two teams from the 4 BCS winners and they play for the title. That's what he's against and it's likely because Alabama would beat someone in the Sugar Bowl and no one would put them behind OSU at that point, even though they beat Stanford.
The 4 team playoff proposal is that sometime in December you would have Stanford @ LSU and OSU @ Bama. The winners of those games play in the NCG and the losers don't play in bowls. If he's against that, it's likely because the winner of the Big Ten and Pac12 confrences won't get to play in the Rose Bowl if they are in the playoff, making the Rose Bowl less meaningful.
Ahhh, that makes more sense. For some reason I didn't put two and two together. He is against the +1 (understandably) and he doesn't like the idea of marginalizing the Rose Bowl. Maybe the RoseBowl become the potential Big10 vs Pac10 playoff game?
Plus one is a four-team playoff, with the distinction that the first round is played in traditional bowl games and then the championship game a week later.
It is definitely set up with semi-finals and a final, rather than just picking two teams after the BCS games have been played. (The article also gives the same definition.)
Plus one and 4-team playoff are not the same, although, they are apparently being confused as the same because of the plus one proposal from the SEC a few years ago which combined the concepts. A plus one is when they select the teams after the bowls have been played. If they were the same thing, then they wouldn't call it a plus one, they would have referred to it as a 4-team playoff originally, instead of the plus one.
The second article you listed gave my definition of "plus-one." I did a Google search of "plus one football" and, except for Wikipedia, all results on the first page refer to a four-team playoff. It's also clear from Brandon's comments that he's referring to a four-team playoff as well when he says "plus one."
Wikipedia is clear that it's the other direction but the closest sources to that explanation don't mention the term at all. You may be right about the origin of the term, but anyone referring to plus-one now is almost certainly referring to a four-team playoff. There's also good reason not to call it a "4-team playoff" if you're in favor of it since that sounds like the playoffs that have been consistently rejected, while "plus-one" sounds like a new idea.
"The term “plus one” is both confusing and confused. It came from the idea that you stage all the traditional bowls, run the BCS formula again, then have one more game – a “plus one” – between 1-2."
"Plus one" literally comes from the idea that you are playing the full season, including bowls...plus one... more game to determine the champion. He goes on to point out that calling it a plus one is a misnomer. Plus one isn't a new concept, the idea just became more popular when it was combined with the idea of a 4-team playoff. Everyone is only now referring to the concept of a 4-team playoff as a "plus one" because the original SEC proposal.
I reread the article and you are correct that this is what Brandon was referring to with "plus one", so I retract my first paragraph from above. However, the plus one format has been brought up pretty much every year that I can remember that had some sort of controversy around a split national championship, specifically in 2004 after USC and LSU split the NC and 2008 after Utah beat Alabama.
You're absolutely right that the second article defined "traditional" plus-one the way you had described; I had misread the following paragraph and thought it did the opposite.
In addition to the four-team playoff becoming the more common meaning of "plus-one," part of my confusion about the origin of the term is that the other idea of plus-one (which I know you're not advocating) would rarely be a better solution, and might well be a worse solution many years, so I assumed it couldn't possibly be what anyone had advocated. I underestimated the number of silly people in college sports administration.
I can't believe that Cowherd had something good to say about Michigan.
I can't believe it took half the first page for someone to bring this up!
I fricking hate Cowherd, not because he hates Michigan (I also hate people who hate commentators and analysts because they don't slurp their favorite team), I just think he's an ass that think he knows everything. He talks down on everyone and is a jerk, no matter who you root for.
However he made some VERY good points. I was #shocked.
One rule I would really love to see? Regardless of seeding, if two teams from the same conference make the top four, they play each other the first week, not in the championship. We would have had a much better championship this year (and in 2006) if that was the case, IMO.
I'd still prefer to see it be conference champs only or conference champs +2 so the ND's of the world would go along with it.
Higest ranked at-large 1
Second highest ranked At large 2
If at larges are not from other confereces or independant, then they play thier conference champ for the right to advance (so we don't have another conference on conference match up). Its simple and makes sense so there is no way it would be implemented.
my question is this.
Lets say a team which was ranked high enough to be in the BCS game loses to a team not in the BCS game. And then this team somehow wins the championship.
Who gets to go to the rose bowl? im sure they go to the rose bowl, but what about the higher ranked team?
VT lost the title game but still managed to get into the sugar bowl. but i think 4 team playoff could get a lil trickier.
8-team playoff - the five BCS conference champions, 3 at-large teams. Winners of the Big Ten and Pac-10 always play in the first round in the Rose Bowl. Boom.
except that it makes the B1G's path to the NC hard because its essentially a home game for the PAC-12.
I hate the BCS but I love the regular season, this playoff can't expand much but the teams in the playoff must win their conference. It's only fair, sorry new Bama poster. I say the highest 4 seeds in the BCS that are conference champs, regardless of conference, and fuck Notre Dame. If they want in, join the Big 10.
I felt a great disturbance
as 20 million ACC/Big East fans cried out as their NC chances disappeared . . . and then, nothing
you're right. You don't win your conference, you didn't have the best season of anybody in the nation and thus should be ineligible to win the MNC. The week after the conference championship games, play the two playoff games. Winners go to the title game, losers go to bowl games. So if M were to win the B1G, they play in the semi-final. If they lose, they go to the Rose Bowl as B1G champs. If they win, they go to the title game. Simple as that.
Brian's NC format and let's get on with it. I STILL don't want to play OSU two times in 2-3 weeks.
College Football was never better than when all the major bowl games (and some minor) were played on New Year's Day.
I'll take a trip to the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day over an antiseptic corporate National Championship playoff game.
not sure if anyone has already posted the link to this article.
if they change how the rankings are done. If you have a crap cake sitting in front of you, the flavor of icing is your least concern.
Though nobody (myself included) was very excited to see an LSU-Alabama rematch in the MNC game this past season, it's pretty difficult to argue that those were not the two best teams. Obviously there is no way to prove this, but I personally believe that LSU would have annihilated Oklahoma State, had they met.
I say this because I wonder, is the goal to set up a playoff that would be the "fairest," in terms of rewarding the teams that have proven themselves most worthy of being crowned champions,or is the goal to set up a playoff that would produce the most exciting matchups (or at least avoid boring rematches)? It seems like a lot of the arguments in this topic are between people concerned about fairness vs. people concerned about better matchups.
But ever since the BCS formed I have always questioned it. There have a been a few years here and there that I was fine with the results "it" produced. By and large, however, I've always yearned for what we had pre-BCS; was it Bowl Alliance yadda yadda?? I'm not going to look it up, but I was perfectly fine with whatever it was. So what if the AP and coaches picked a different champion, are Michigan fans really upset that we shared the title in 1997? I'm not, and I'm fine with Nebraska claiming share to it as well.
For starters, we as fans get too caught up in crowning a mono-Champion; we like college football and it's really not because our team is crown national champion at the end of the season, it's what was done along the way and any Bowl game should be an enjoyment (striving for the Rose of course).
The whole playoff, plus-one, BCS refinement, etc. talk gives me headaches. I simply liked how it used to be! I know I'm in the minority but, IMO it'd be better than talking in circles about the aforementioned day-in and day-out (but I suppose that also gives college football the interest it has because there's aways something to discuss and debate).