Apparently the PAC-12 commissioner is hinting that a 4-team playoff should be limited to conference champions. If that was the case last year we would have had #1 LSU, #3 OK St., #5 Oregon & #10 Wisconsin in the playoffs. That would be horrible and wouldn't come anywhere near solving the controversies. It needs to be the top 4 teams period. If that's 2, or even 3, teams from the same conference so be it.
JUst saw Chris Low's blog and this is complete ********.
- Thread starter patdog
- Start date
Apparently the PAC-12 commissioner is hinting that a 4-team playoff should be limited to conference champions. If that was the case last year we would have had #1 LSU, #3 OK St., #5 Oregon & #10 Wisconsin in the playoffs. That would be horrible and wouldn't come anywhere near solving the controversies. It needs to be the top 4 teams period. If that's 2, or even 3, teams from the same conference so be it.
in the picture? Bama was most likely a one time deal where they didn't win the conference and even their own division. I doubt you see that again anytime soon
conference winners aren't always the best team to come out of that conference. It may not happen that often, but it will happen again I can almost assure you.
It's ridiculous to place restrictions on a 4-team playoff. Take the best four teams, #1-#4 in the final bcs standings. End of story. Remove the AQ status bs that already discriminates against tons of teams and has led to the vast majority of the conference realignments. Leave the traditional bowl structure, beyond these 3 games intact...
If you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the big one. That way it's mostly decided on the field and the regular season and conferencechampionship games just getbigger. You win your league or you are out, no do overs or wild cards. No trophies for everybody or for second place. Yep, I think I like that a lot.
Making a team be the champion eliminates human discretion and puts it all on the results on the field. The way all other championships are decided
there's been plenty of times where people still felt that the losing team was the better team.<div>
</div><div>I get it.. with the way football is, there's really not much of a way for them to determine the real best team since there aren't any series that can be played, but Jesus... at least let the best teams make the playoffs...</div><div>
</div><div>If they're going to restrict a freaking 4 team playoff...that's not doing ****. A team shouldn't have to win their conference to go to the playoff especially if they lost to one of the best teams that happen to be in their conference. That doesn't prove anything.</div>
</div><div>I get it.. with the way football is, there's really not much of a way for them to determine the real best team since there aren't any series that can be played, but Jesus... at least let the best teams make the playoffs...</div><div>
</div><div>If they're going to restrict a freaking 4 team playoff...that's not doing ****. A team shouldn't have to win their conference to go to the playoff especially if they lost to one of the best teams that happen to be in their conference. That doesn't prove anything.</div>
within a conference, which might not be the Conference Champion.
Yeah I know, but there is no perfect world, especially in college football.
In this situation, Murphy's Law prevails.
Yeah I know, but there is no perfect world, especially in college football.
In this situation, Murphy's Law prevails.
I am not saying keep it at 4 teams, I am saying let all conference champions fight it out. If they want to only do "BCS Conference" champions then that is ok with me. What if we beat OM and went undefeated in the conference and someone said that OM was better with their one loss (to us)? I suppose you would be cool with them going to Atlanta over us?
if we were undefeated and were Ole Miss' only loss... how could they go to Atlanta over us? My point is if they're one of the 4 best teams in a 4 team playoff setting then let them compete for it... I don't care who the team is.
Oregon would have been #4 instead of #5 anyway if there was a 4 team system, since voters would have given them credit for the head to head win over Stanford. The only reason Stanford was 4 and Oregon 5 in real life is because it just didn't matter.<div>
</div><div>Also, Wisconsin was 2 Hail Marys from being 13-0, so they were a solid team.</div><div>
</div><div>Also, this was a VERY unusual year in that the #10 team would get in. In almost every year, the top 4 conference champions are all in the top 6 or better. Often the top 4 are conference champions.</div><div>
</div><div>I like the plan, because it reduces lame rematches. I realize Oregon-LSU is a potential rematch, but it doesn't happen often. Why should a team get a second chance?</div>
</div><div>Also, Wisconsin was 2 Hail Marys from being 13-0, so they were a solid team.</div><div>
</div><div>Also, this was a VERY unusual year in that the #10 team would get in. In almost every year, the top 4 conference champions are all in the top 6 or better. Often the top 4 are conference champions.</div><div>
</div><div>I like the plan, because it reduces lame rematches. I realize Oregon-LSU is a potential rematch, but it doesn't happen often. Why should a team get a second chance?</div>
Taking conference champions only basically implies that we should screw the SEC team(s) that fell short of winning every game in a far superior conference, while rewarding mediocre teams that win inferior conferences. #1, #2, #3, #4 makes for a MUCH better overall playoff than #1, #3, #5, and #10. How do you justify giving #10 a chance over #2, #4, #6, #7, #8, and #9? Bad thing is, this year was as drama-free as it could go in the conference championship games, outside of the mild upset in the ACC. What happens if UGA beats LSU, yet is ranked lower than 4 other conference champions? You end up with(apparent heir to) #1 Alabama LEFT OUT of said playoff, while the SEC possibly gets no representative at all, even though they've got 5 teams in the top 12. So, it is easy to see how this could lead to split national championships to a greater extent than even the current setup.
If you go back to the end of the regular season, your talking about these teams playing in conference championship games for a chance to play in the national title playoff:
#13 Michigan St vs #15 Wisconsin
#5 Va Tech vs #20 Clemson
#1 LSU vs #14 Georgia
#9 Oregon vs unranked UCLA
#3 OK St vs #10 Oklahoma
and taking the 4 highest-ranked winners.
In this scenario, by letting in #10 Wisconsin, Bama gets screwed, Stanford gets screwed, Arkansas gets screwed, Boise gets screwed, KState gets screwed, and South Carolina gets screwed. You reward a mediocre regular season in a bad conference over a mediocre regular season in a superior conference IMO...
Only "fair" way to do this is #1-#4...
If you go back to the end of the regular season, your talking about these teams playing in conference championship games for a chance to play in the national title playoff:
#13 Michigan St vs #15 Wisconsin
#5 Va Tech vs #20 Clemson
#1 LSU vs #14 Georgia
#9 Oregon vs unranked UCLA
#3 OK St vs #10 Oklahoma
and taking the 4 highest-ranked winners.
In this scenario, by letting in #10 Wisconsin, Bama gets screwed, Stanford gets screwed, Arkansas gets screwed, Boise gets screwed, KState gets screwed, and South Carolina gets screwed. You reward a mediocre regular season in a bad conference over a mediocre regular season in a superior conference IMO...
Only "fair" way to do this is #1-#4...
Conference championships are limited to division championships and so on.
I support the P12 guy's idea. And I also support that the outrage from you will further the cause to expand a 4-team playoff to an 8-team playoff.
That said, his idea will never work. There's already been holy hell, congressional inquiries, and BCS rule-changing to see that as many conferences as possible are eligible for a shot at the BCS championship. Limiting this to 4 conferences is never going to fly.
I support the P12 guy's idea. And I also support that the outrage from you will further the cause to expand a 4-team playoff to an 8-team playoff.
That said, his idea will never work. There's already been holy hell, congressional inquiries, and BCS rule-changing to see that as many conferences as possible are eligible for a shot at the BCS championship. Limiting this to 4 conferences is never going to fly.
a three way tie for the SEC West. Say LSU, Bama, and Arkansas all beat each other and finish the year 11-1 (Bama beat Ark, Ark beat LSU, LSU beat Bama). The SEC decides who the champion is by their method, let's say Bama. Now 2 of the other conference champions lost 2 games during the season. Why shouldn't LSU be given the chance since we have a playoff and they already beat Bama head-to-head?
This doesn't even take into account the teams like Notre Dame, BYU, or some small school not in a BCS conference. Not only would they be very unlikely to make it to the National Championship game, it would be completely impossible.
This system would almost guarantee drama within the first year or two, worse than the current BCS system.
This doesn't even take into account the teams like Notre Dame, BYU, or some small school not in a BCS conference. Not only would they be very unlikely to make it to the National Championship game, it would be completely impossible.
This system would almost guarantee drama within the first year or two, worse than the current BCS system.
Any playoff should be conference champs only. 4 is reasonable, 8 or 16 is too many. Especially if we go to 16 team superconferences with playoff to get to CCG.
If you allow a non champion into a playoff, you will see what we almost saw this year....SEC champ LSU looking at another bama NC. LSU beat them. LSU won SECW. LSU won SEC.
We should all remember who won the SEC in '41 when bama claims one of their NCs. We beat them. We won SEC. They claim MNC.
If a SEC also ran is #2 in BCS, they get the sugar bowl. Every game counts. Better traditional bowl and better playoff. No do overs. No split decisions in CCG or NC.
If you allow a non champion into a playoff, you will see what we almost saw this year....SEC champ LSU looking at another bama NC. LSU beat them. LSU won SECW. LSU won SEC.
We should all remember who won the SEC in '41 when bama claims one of their NCs. We beat them. We won SEC. They claim MNC.
If a SEC also ran is #2 in BCS, they get the sugar bowl. Every game counts. Better traditional bowl and better playoff. No do overs. No split decisions in CCG or NC.
They won divisional playoffs. Just as the conference champs would win their playoffs.
So the PAC-12's idea is really 3-round playoff consisting of conf championships, semifinals, and a national championship.
You can always argue that a conference (or a division in the NFL) gets screwed because they have teams not in the playoff that are better than another conference (or division) teams that are in the playoffs. Tough. That's how these things work. The NFL doesn't seed the playoffs based on a poll of best teams and neither should college football.
Chief among the reason for conference bids is an equable, predictable distribution of money. So that idea wins.
So the PAC-12's idea is really 3-round playoff consisting of conf championships, semifinals, and a national championship.
You can always argue that a conference (or a division in the NFL) gets screwed because they have teams not in the playoff that are better than another conference (or division) teams that are in the playoffs. Tough. That's how these things work. The NFL doesn't seed the playoffs based on a poll of best teams and neither should college football.
Chief among the reason for conference bids is an equable, predictable distribution of money. So that idea wins.
There's just too many bad possibilities that could happen that would reward less deserving teams in post season play over more deserving teams just because they may have slipped up. I don't see how anyone could legitimately say this is a good idea.engie said:
Teams and TV networks want to make money as do cities, conferences, bowl committees...the list goes on. Some bowls think they're entitled to the BCS status of recent years. So...<div>
- Use existing bowl games
- Let five bowls rotate the national championship game
- Treat the Div 1 bowl games like the NCAA brackets
- Lesser bowls based on $ or attendance get Round 1 games, etc.
- If there were 35 bowls last year, let 64 college teams play in 32 of them. Winners advance.
- Week before the Super Bowl is the College Football Championship.
That is why I used last year as an example. LSU beat bama. Lsu won west. Lsu won SEC.
Bama had rematch in 2 team NC playoff....that should not be. Ever. Even if they are #2 in the universe.
They ALREADY lost. NOT eligible. Let the most worthy conference champ have a shot.
Big playoffs and rematches make the regular season football results on the field less meaningful.
Like NBA...boring regular season.
Bama had rematch in 2 team NC playoff....that should not be. Ever. Even if they are #2 in the universe.
They ALREADY lost. NOT eligible. Let the most worthy conference champ have a shot.
Big playoffs and rematches make the regular season football results on the field less meaningful.
Like NBA...boring regular season.