College Football Fans

[Guest Rabbi_wilson13]

I hate the entire concept of BCS deciding who the champion is, or even who gets to play for it. This season, with all the undefeateds, it's going to be very messy at the end.

 

What do you all think of a college football postseason? Eight teams. Take the top four from the AP, the top four from ESPN/USA, then alternate back and forth until you fill up the eight slots, alternating every year which poll gets their fifth pick first. This year, it would look something like:

 

1. Miami

8. NC State

 

2. Oklahoma

7. Texas

 

3. Va Tech

6. Notre Dame

 

4. OSU

5. Georgia

 

What sports fan isn't up for seeing that little tournament take place over the month of December into January? Odds are, you'd get an Iowa or Colorado or a PAC-10 team creeping in there, which is fine as well. This would be a great way to see who the best team really is, along with seeing a ton of absolutely bitchin' football games.

 

Hate it? Like it? Just wanted to know what the general consensus on a college football postseason is.

[Guest razazteca]

there will not be a playoff system ever in college football. The current contract with the BCS will long term, and there is too much money at stake with all of the sponsored bowl games.

 

NC State, Georgia, Va Tech need miracles to even get considered for the big BCS bowl game, since they are traditionally not big market football teams and have no draw as the main event. So I hope you will enjoy the Miami vs Notre Dame and Okahoma vs Va Tech bowl games.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I hate US college football for this reason. It would be much better if they ran a tournament similar to NCAA Basketball.

[Guest El Satanico]

A playoff system is the best thing NCAA football could ever do.

 

However if it ever happens it won't be anytime soon.

[Guest razazteca]

Division 1-A is the only league in college football without a playoff system.

[Guest Blackston]

I think there are two years left on the BCS system, and then all of the conference heads are going to meet to discuss what they want to do. Whether that means adopting a playoff system, a renewal of the current system, or going back to the Bowl Alliance (without the Big Ten and Pac-10) I don't know... But I would look for some serious changes in just about every facet of the college football game in a couple years (Conference allignments and everything).

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The Big 10 and Pac 10 wouldn't be involved in the Bowl Alliance? That's good news the one tradition in college football that should never be touched is Big 10 vs Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl.

 

A playoff makes the regular season games less important. I like the fact that Miami has to win the rest of their games to play for the championship, if there was a playoff they could afford to lose but they would still have a chance to win the National championship.

 

I know I'm in the small minority but I've never wanted a playoff and never will. Changes need to be made. One possibilty would be if two teams have 1 loss. They would play to see who faces the #1. team for the championship.

[Guest Will Scarlet]

I think the BCS is one of those really good ideas in theory just not in practice. The problem is that there is really no way to objectively tell which team is the best team in college football. I deally, to have success in the BCS, you would have to be a great team in a weak division who traditionally plays two or three tough opponents. Miami and Florida St. are good examples of this. FSU could always feast on a weak ACC with only decent teams to NC State and Georgia Tech to worry about in the division, then all they had to reasonably do is beat Florida and Miami, and they have an undefeated season. Miami has Virginia Tech to deal with in conference and Florida St., but that is usually it. It is like earlier in the year where they had a big win over Florida, then scheduled, I believe, Temple as their next opponent. That's just excellent scheduling. Had Florida not did so terrible this season, that could have worked out perfectly for Miami. Gain a huge win over a top team, then have a letdown game against a team with no conceivable chance of getting pulling an upset.

 

The Pac 10 seems to be the opposite. A team like, say, Oregon gains a big win over somebody, then has to play a dangerous Arizona State squad the next week. Hardly ideal scheduling and could cost a great team a chance at the National championship. To put it simply, if you stuck a Miami in a tough conference like the Pac 10, would they still be undefeated? Of course, some years, you just have a really dominant team in a really good conference. Tennessee of a few years back comes to mine.

 

I would not mind going back to the old system, personally. Perhaps even making it so if two teams are dominant enough that they go undefeated that they HAVE to meet each other in a bowl. The BCS works well in situations where a split national championship is possible, but most years it seems like you will have an undefeated team and a bunch of one loss teams. The only difference is the one loss team who gets to lose to the undefeated team. Unfortunately, the BCS manages to do things wrong when picking the one loss team, like the Nebraska debacle. How can a team that failed to win its division be considered to 2nd best team in college football? No one would have stopped Miami that year anyway, but is putting Oregon, a team that actually WON its division, in the title game such a hardship for the BCS?

 

A playoff system would have its flaws as well. It is like the World Series this year where two wild cards played for the title. Did they just get hot at the right time? Were they legimately better than everyone else? Who knows?

 

I just feel that college football is too obsessed with trying to find this perfect system to find the number one team. I much preferred the old way. I liked the spirited debate over who was better as opposed to "The BCS sucks. It was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening instead we end up with a subpar championship game!" Part of me really cannot wait until the first BCS year where every team has one loss and then the BCS has sort through which two one loss team deserve to get into the Championship game. That should be an entertaining time.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

It is like earlier in the year where they had a big win over Florida, then scheduled, I believe, Temple as their next opponent. That's just excellent scheduling

Temple is a conference game.

 

I like the fact that Miami has to win the rest of their games to play for the championship

Even that isn't a guaranteed scenario, with the way a lot of the computer polls have Notre Dame listed as #1.

[Guest Choken One]

I always liked the Idea of Having the 8 conference winners playing in a tournament...but that won't happen...BCS just might be the only logical choice for the moment...

[Agent_Bond34 0]

Temple is a conference game.

I thought Temple got kicked out of the Big East?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Even that isn't a guaranteed scenario, with the way a lot of the computer polls have Notre Dame listed as #1.

What I meant to say is Miami's only chance to play to play for the National Championship is if they go undefeated.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Temple is a conference game.

I thought Temple got kicked out of the Big East?

Nope (or at least not yet). ESPN.com still has them listed in the Big East.

[Guest DrTom]

I like the idea of a playoff, but I think you need sixteen teams instead of eight.

 

Take the top 16 from the Coaches' Poll and put them in the playoffs after a ten-game regular season. Anyone not in the Top 16 can still get invited to things like the Poulan Weed-Eater Woodchuck Bowl, play a conference championship, etc. Pair them up 1v16, 2v15, and so on. You'd need fifteen games total, which should be easy to pull off in this era of 300 Bowl games. Each year, the Championship game can rotate among the major Bowls so each one gets it every few years.

 

I'm sure the system would still need some kinks worked out, especially in scheduling, but there's the basics of how I'd do the much-needed college football playoff.

[Guest Leena]

I'd make it 12 teams, so the top teams have a week off, and idiots don't whine that the kids don't take classes.

[Guest phoenixrising]

A website I go to, www.collegefootballnews.com, proposed a 16-team playoff. You would have the winners of all 11 conferences (the BCS conferences plus the other conferences) and five at-large teams. I wouldn't mind seeing that but I doubt it will happen, most people don't buy the non-BCS conferences being able to produce teams that could be on a par with a good team from a BCS conference. Still it would be cool to watch one of the mid-major teams get in and wreak havoc with an upset of a BCS conference team.

 

Taking the top 16 would work...but what happens if a team that wins their conference is out of the Top 16? In 1999, Stanford went 8-4 and was ranked #24, but made the Rose Bowl cause they won the Pac-10. In 1998 Syracuse was only 8-4 but made a BCS game because they won the Big East. That's the only flaw I see in that system, otherwise it's pretty good.

[Guest DrTom]

Yeah, the conference champions idea is better than just the top 16. The only problem would be with how the five at-large teams are selected, but you could always the five highest-ranked teams in the coches' poll that didn't win their conference and don't already have a spot.

 

The problem becomes what to do with an independent team like Notre Dame. If they're 11-0, how can you rank them #12 in the playoffs because they didn't have a conference championship game to win?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

A 16 team playoff would guarantee teams with 2 loses. I don't like the idea of a team with 2 loses having a chance at the National Championship.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

I hate the entire concept of BCS deciding who the champion is, or even who gets to play for it. This season, with all the undefeateds, it's going to be very messy at the end.

 

What do you all think of a college football postseason? Eight teams. Take the top four from the AP, the top four from ESPN/USA, then alternate back and forth until you fill up the eight slots, alternating every year which poll gets their fifth pick first. This year, it would look something like:

 

1. Miami

8. NC State

 

2. Oklahoma

7. Texas

 

3. Va Tech

6. Notre Dame

 

4. OSU

5. Georgia

 

What sports fan isn't up for seeing that little tournament take place over the month of December into January? Odds are, you'd get an Iowa or Colorado or a PAC-10 team creeping in there, which is fine as well. This would be a great way to see who the best team really is, along with seeing a ton of absolutely bitchin' football games.

 

Hate it? Like it? Just wanted to know what the general consensus on a college football postseason is.

The problem with this is that it STILL factors in the polls, which are almost entirely subjective. That was one of the goals of the BCS in the first place was to take out so much clout the poll voters had.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

I hate US college football for this reason. It would be much better if they ran a tournament similar to NCAA Basketball.

You can't have a tournament similar to college basketball because there are a lot more Division 1 teams in basketball than there are in football, and more conferences in basketball.

 

Also, the postseason isn't the be-all-end-all of a sport. Look at the NBA and NHL; half the teams get into playoffs, thus making the regular season meaningless. I don't want that for my sport.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

The Big 10 and Pac 10 wouldn't be involved in the Bowl Alliance? That's good news the one tradition in college football that should never be touched is Big 10 vs Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl.

 

A playoff makes the regular season games less important. I like the fact that Miami has to win the rest of their games to play for the championship, if there was a playoff they could afford to lose but they would still have a chance to win the National championship.

 

I know I'm in the small minority but I've never wanted a playoff and never will. Changes need to be made. One possibilty would be if two teams have 1 loss. They would play to see who faces the #1. team for the championship.

No, you're not in the minority. I wouldn't mind a playoff system that would WORK. So far, all of the proposals I've seen and heard would not work.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

I always liked the Idea of Having the 8 conference winners playing in a tournament...but that won't happen...BCS just might be the only logical choice for the moment...

That's good in theory, but what eight conferences? There are more than eight conferences in Division 1-A.

 

Are you going to leave out Conference USA? Or the WAC? Where do the Independents fit in?

 

The conference commissioners would never agree to this, whether you and I think they should.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

I like the idea of a playoff, but I think you need sixteen teams instead of eight.

 

Take the top 16 from the Coaches' Poll and put them in the playoffs after a ten-game regular season. Anyone not in the Top 16 can still get invited to things like the Poulan Weed-Eater Woodchuck Bowl, play a conference championship, etc. Pair them up 1v16, 2v15, and so on. You'd need fifteen games total, which should be easy to pull off in this era of 300 Bowl games. Each year, the Championship game can rotate among the major Bowls so each one gets it every few years.

 

I'm sure the system would still need some kinks worked out, especially in scheduling, but there's the basics of how I'd do the much-needed college football playoff.

Why 16?

 

Do you NEED 16 teams to play off to find out who's the best college football team in the nation? No way. Think about it; you're talking about

an undefeated team playing a team with possibly three losses in the first round. It's pointless. Why not have four teams who are undefeated playing each other in a two round tournament if you have to have a playoff.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

The problem becomes what to do with an independent team like Notre Dame. If they're 11-0, how can you rank them #12 in the playoffs because they didn't have a conference championship game to win?

That'll force them to join a conference. I like that.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

A website I go to, www.collegefootballnews.com, proposed a 16-team playoff. You would have the winners of all 11 conferences (the BCS conferences plus the other conferences) and five at-large teams. I wouldn't mind seeing that but I doubt it will happen, most people don't buy the non-BCS conferences being able to produce teams that could be on a par with a good team from a BCS conference. Still it would be cool to watch one of the mid-major teams get in and wreak havoc with an upset of a BCS conference team.

 

I'm against a 16 team playoff, for a couple reasons. Number one, the national champion could conceivably play 12 regular-season games and 6 playoff games, including conference championships. That's more than a third of the total games - and that's a lot. Also, that's a total of 18 possible games, which is way too many for a college kid. And I'm not talking about in terms of schoolwork, because of these players are taking classes like "Rocks for Jocks" and "Clapping for Credit". But the NFL supposedly doesn't want to take anybody in the draft that isn't two years removed from high school, and that's because players that young aren't able to handle a 16-game season. Are you telling me that they can handle a 16 game college season? I doubt it. Personally, I think conferences like the SEC and Big 12 make a mistake when they let four teams into their playoffs. Oklahoma could play 15 games this year. To me, eight teams is plenty, conference playoffs shouldn't have more than two teams involved, and don't let a team play more than 15 games a season, INCLUDING national championship games.

 

The problem becomes what to do with an independent team like Notre Dame. If they're 11-0, how can you rank them #12 in the playoffs because they didn't have a conference championship game to win?

 

Fuck 'em. Honestly, if they don't want to share their money, then don't include them at all. Frankly, if I were an AD of another prgoram in a conference, and I saw them wanting to be excluded from everything until it suits them, I'd let 'em twist in the wind. They wanna negotiate their own TV deals and schedule their own games? Fine. Just don't come crying to me when my conference excludes you from a national championship. Besides, I'd assume you'd use something like the BCS to decide seedings in the system you guys are talking about.

 

A 16 team playoff would guarantee teams with 2 loses. I don't like the idea of a team with 2 loses having a chance at the National Championship.

 

Actually, 16 teams would probably guarantee teams with three losses. Of the top 15 in the BCS right now, numbers 11-15 already have two losses, and two of those teams (K-State and Colorado) come from the Big Twelve, so one of them's getting another loss.

 

The problem with this is that it STILL factors in the polls, which are almost entirely subjective. That was one of the goals of the BCS in the first place was to take out so much clout the poll voters had.

 

Oh, Lord. The purpose of the BCS is not to decide who the two best teams in the nation are, but which two should play for the national championship. Trust me, the BCS will figure out a way to make the national championship Miami & Notre Dame, just like last year, when it put Nebraska and Colorado ahead of Oregon. BECAUSE THAT WILL BRING RATINGS. You think college football cares about a true national championship, even with the BCS? Hardly. They've just replaced some of the clout the voters had with clout for the computer nerds. That's all.

 

No, you're not in the minority. I wouldn't mind a playoff system that would WORK. So far, all of the proposals I've seen and heard would not work.

 

What's in place now doesn't work either. There is no perfect system, but at least with some kind of a playoff, it's ACTUALLY settled on the field, and every team that has an argument to play in a #1 vs. #2 game gets their shot.

 

Why not have four teams who are undefeated playing each other in a two round tournament if you have to have a playoff.

 

Because you've still got the same probelm you do with the BCS. Let's say, for example, that Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Miami all run the table. Then who gets spot #4? Is it Virginia Tech, who would've gone unbeaten if it weren't for Miami? Is it a team like Georgia, who ran through their conference like a buzzsaw except for a late-season hiccup? Maybe a team like Washington St., who had their hiccup early? Or maybe Oklahoma, who probably loses in the Big 12 championship to a team it's already proven it can beat? With eight teams, you'd let all those teams in. Personally, I'd rather have to choose a #8 from Iowa and NC State than have to choose a #4 from any of the teams listed above.

 

LUNATIC

- When I'm too drunk to walk, I rock a party on crutches.

[Guest DrTom]

I fail to see why 16 teams out of a hundredandsome making the playoffs is a big deal. in the NBA and NHL, the numerator is still 16, but the denominator is a LOT smaller. I'd be amenable to 8 (maybe even 12, though I don't like the scheduling quirks it brings with it), but I still think 16 is better.

 

To avoid schools playing upwards of 16 games, the regular season should be trimmed to 10 games, with the conference playoffs taking a max of 2 more (thus, the top 4 in each conference slug it out). That's 12 games, with an 8-team playoff making it a max of 15, and a 12 or 16-team playoff a max of 16. To save wear and tear on the kids, and 8-team playoff probably is better.

 

The problem, especially with 8, is how do you determine which teams go? There are more than 8 conferences in 1-A, and while they're not all created equal, a team that's 11-1 and the winners of their conference would have a legit gripe if they were left out of the playoffs. I think undefeated schools are automatically in (duh), with the order among them determined by strength of schedule. After that, a coaches' poll of the non-undefeated teams could seed the rest. Having 8 teams is restrictive in a lot of ways, and that's just one way around it.

 

Oh, and I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to join a conference. 10-0 is 10-0, especially when you play one of the toughest schedules in the country every year.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The season is way to short to have 16 team playoff. If they played the same number of games has the NFL than it would be different.

[Guest Smark Hammill]

16 teams is a nice round number, but it's also pointless for the reasons I stated above. You don't need that many teams. In a first round game, hypothetically, you could have an undefeated team playing a team with three losses.