RollDamnTide

February 8th, 2012 at 9:39 AM ^

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.

 

 

Gameboy

February 8th, 2012 at 10:23 AM ^

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.

triangle_M

February 8th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

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.

Blue since birth

February 8th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^

"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.

French West Indian

February 8th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^

...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.

MGoAero

February 8th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^

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.

ijohnb

February 8th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^

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.

indi_blue

February 8th, 2012 at 10:10 AM ^

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702041364045772073414714980…

"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.

Colt McBaby Jesus

February 8th, 2012 at 10:20 AM ^

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.

polometer

February 8th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^

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)

Two Hearted Ale

February 8th, 2012 at 10:23 AM ^

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.

Papochronopolis

February 8th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^

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."

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/york-giants-teach-colle…

indi_blue

February 8th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^

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. 

Papochronopolis

February 8th, 2012 at 10:53 AM ^

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.

indi_blue

February 8th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^

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.

indi_blue

February 8th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^

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.

ijohnb

February 8th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

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.