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
yeah, but i think that is
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.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Right
Right, because that's always been a primary consideration of these conferences.
"Nowhere is there a better university, in any way, than this Michigan of ours."
The new(ish) Pac-12
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!
The future is NOW!
Michigan: 903–315–36 (Best in NCAA)
vs Ohio State: 58-44-6
vs Notre Dame: 23-16-1
vs MSU: 68-32-5
vs B1G: 522-197-24
vs SEC: 20-8-1
vs PAC 12: 48-24-1
vs Big 12: 10-5-1<
Irrelevant in the larger scheme of things IMO.
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.
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
Sucks to the supposede
Sucks to the supposede consistyuency!
I would love to see a playoff
I would love to see a playoff of every conference champion. Then either have some at large qualifiers or bye rounds to make it an even play off. The bcs is a joke. College basketball has it right (although for football that is way to many teams)
HAIL!
i agree
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
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.
It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.
Conference champs take the polls outta the equation
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
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
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?
"The trouble with quotes on the internet, is that it is often difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine" --Abraham Lincoln
technically
Those teams are champs of their conference. If regular season and tourney champs give out banners then yes they would qualify as conference champs.
while I like the conference champion requirement
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?
Go Blue!
Independents
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).
"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion
Put indies in a pool
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.
I think the Pac12
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.
as much as it hurt
M had their chance in 06 to put themselves in the title game by handling their own business and winning. It hurts whenever I think of it, but the bottom line is they didn't win the game and osu did.
true enough, BUT
the same thing happened this year, and Alabama still got a chance to play LSU again for the title. A little consistency here, please.
wolverine 73
agreed
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.
I will fucking cunt punt the next person I hear about doing something like that, and I don't give a fuck if you SOR me, I WILL FUCKING ASSAULT YOU.
It was Crable
It was a legit call. It could have gone either way, but I don't fault the ref. Just a tough situation.
"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion
Eh - back then it was a legit call
Today, with all the spread QBs, not so much.
Seems like the real fight
Seems like the real fight will be over the home sites issue, and on that one, the Pac-12 has more in common w/the SEC than w/us. Not sure I buy the 'only conference champs' rule, especially in a 4 or 8 team playoff. It's one thing to say that OK St. should've gotten in over Bama (sorry, RDT), quite another to say that, e.g. the Big East champ should've. Plus, ND issues if they're ever good enough, etc.
It would still be the best of
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
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?
this is the slippery slope
that all the presidents are afraid of. but i agree it would be a most dope format.
I will fucking cunt punt the next person I hear about doing something like that, and I don't give a fuck if you SOR me, I WILL FUCKING ASSAULT YOU.
Small schools
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.
"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion
ummm isn't the B1G starting to change there tone and supporting atleast a 4 team playoff?