BCS Playoffs?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. All I have to say is, holy smokes I can't believe its even being considered. So far, its just a formal recommendation that has to be approved, but my vote is YES. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-06-20 8:13 PM CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. All I have to say is, holy smokes I can't believe its even being considered. So far, its just a formal recommendation that has to be approved, but my vote is YES. Meh, 4 team playoff still decided by a ridiculous rating system that is 1/3 graduate assistants assigned to vote for coaches in the coaches poll, 1/3 Harris Poll voters, some of whom have no business even watching football, and 1/3 secretive computer formulas that we can't even double check. |
![]() ![]() |
Resident Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() uclamatt2007 - 2012-06-21 12:39 AM tuwood - 2012-06-20 8:13 PM CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. All I have to say is, holy smokes I can't believe its even being considered. So far, its just a formal recommendation that has to be approved, but my vote is YES. Meh, 4 team playoff still decided by a ridiculous rating system that is 1/3 graduate assistants assigned to vote for coaches in the coaches poll, 1/3 Harris Poll voters, some of whom have no business even watching football, and 1/3 secretive computer formulas that we can't even double check. So how is this not better than what we have now? |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I think it should be the top 4 rated conference champs. The SEC and ND are drying about that so it won't happen that way, but you shouldn't be playing for the NC if you aren't your own conference champ in my opinion. Why bother with conferences if those conference games don't really mean anything? The proposed solution is a much better way to go than the current system though. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() As I said in the other thread about this, there are two options here and I'm not sure which is less screwed up: Numbers 1, 4, 14, and 22 go to the playoffs. This is just grabbing at some conference champion standings Or the SEC sends two or three teams to the playoffs more or less regularly. Dunno that either is better than what's going on now. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I don't think ND should be allowed to have a say in this until they can prove they can play football. Of course I'd love to see a 4 SEC team playoff Edited by TriRSquared 2012-06-21 7:59 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() DanielG - 2012-06-21 8:53 AM As I said in the other thread about this, there are two options here and I'm not sure which is less screwed up: Numbers 1, 4, 14, and 22 go to the playoffs. This is just grabbing at some conference champion standings Or the SEC sends two or three teams to the playoffs more or less regularly. Dunno that either is better than what's going on now. I don't see where you are getting those rankings. I the week 15 polls, 5 different conferences are represented in the top 10, of those there are 4 champions. I see 1, 3, 6 and 9 going to the playoffs if using the AP, 1, 3, 5 and 8 is using coaches. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Seems I'm not the only one with a whole lot of questions about how this won't end up with a jug-(screw) http://www.carolinamarch.com/2012/6/21/3104700/bcs-conference-commi... |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Its Only Money - 2012-06-21 7:24 AM The proposed solution is a much better way to go than the current system though. My thoughts exactly |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Its Only Money - 2012-06-21 6:24 AM I think it should be the top 4 rated conference champs. The SEC and ND are drying about that so it won't happen that way, but you shouldn't be playing for the NC if you aren't your own conference champ in my opinion. Why bother with conferences if those conference games don't really mean anything? The proposed solution is a much better way to go than the current system though.
Not to mention the schedule inequity. Some conferences play 9 conference games, others play 8. Some teams cough* Florida *cough haven't left the state of Florida for a non-conference game in over a decade. I like the conference champions because it would help promote better non-conference games. LSU/Oregon was a great non-conference game but Oregon was penalized for it and fell quite a bit in the polls. I think the best solution I've seen is the top 3 conference champs and 1 at large. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bad idea. You are just going to have more teams pi$$ed off that they didn't get in. This solves zip. Leave it as it is. The best team in the country has been crowned champ in the past 12 years. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jacasa - 2012-06-21 8:07 AM Bad idea. You are just going to have more teams pi$$ed off that they didn't get in. This solves zip. Leave it as it is. The best team in the country has been crowned champ in the past 12 years. Says you. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() the bear - 2012-06-21 4:06 AM Congratulations, you've just upgraded from a Huffy to a Walmart Mongoose and you can't afford to buy a new bike for 5 years. Enjoy your "upgrade."uclamatt2007 - 2012-06-21 12:39 AM tuwood - 2012-06-20 8:13 PM CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. All I have to say is, holy smokes I can't believe its even being considered. So far, its just a formal recommendation that has to be approved, but my vote is YES. Meh, 4 team playoff still decided by a ridiculous rating system that is 1/3 graduate assistants assigned to vote for coaches in the coaches poll, 1/3 Harris Poll voters, some of whom have no business even watching football, and 1/3 secretive computer formulas that we can't even double check. So how is this not better than what we have now? |
![]() ![]() |
Resident Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() False analogy much? |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jacasa - 2012-06-21 9:07 AM Bad idea. You are just going to have more teams pi$$ed off that they didn't get in. This solves zip. Leave it as it is. The best team in the country has been crowned champ in the past 12 years. I would say USC fans would argue that the BCS got it wrong in the '03-'04 season. As well as the AP who voted the Trojans champions and the 3 coaches who broke their contractual obligation to vote for the winner of the BCS title game. And the following year when the undefeated SEC champs were not given a chance to play for the title. The BCS is a horrible system, and even a 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 2008 is a good example. I would assume Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama and Texas would be the final four. But what about Utah and Boise who both finished undefeated? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() And the closing statement of the article... "Everyone agrees that financially this is going to be good for everyone in the room." It's all about the coins... ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() uclamatt2007 - 2012-06-21 12:39 AM tuwood - 2012-06-20 8:13 PM CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football that would begin for the 2014 season. All I have to say is, holy smokes I can't believe its even being considered. So far, its just a formal recommendation that has to be approved, but my vote is YES. Meh, 4 team playoff still decided by a ridiculous rating system that is 1/3 graduate assistants assigned to vote for coaches in the coaches poll, 1/3 Harris Poll voters, some of whom have no business even watching football, and 1/3 secretive computer formulas that we can't even double check. It looks like they are putting the BCS formula aside and starting to look at an appointed committee which sounds an awful lot like the NCAA basketball tourney. I like it too. maybe a computer thrown in for some added objectivity. What I like about this is that it's an OBVIOUS step toward a larger playoff system. kind of the whole slippery slope issue. once you start, where does it stop? 4 teams, 8 teams, 16 teams, 64 teams??????? Obviously you stop somewhere, but I doubt that 4 teams is going to be in place much longer than the BCS itself has been in place, so to me while it isn't perfect, it is a positive step in the right direction. As far as conference champs goes, if you're going to do it playoff style, then you have to have the 4 best regardless of conference affiliation. Look at the playoffs in the NFL. 2007 the giants lost to the patriots in the regular season, but they earned a playoff birth as a wild card and beat them where it counted most. They beat their division champ who they lost to twice in the regular season enroute to the superbowl. Is it perfect? Well you can make an argument against playoffs decided by a single game, but it is the most widely accepted decision maker for a champion. They play the game. You can't argue with the final score in the game that has been declared and generally agreed upon by all to be the deciding game. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I agree that this is at least better than the current system. Sure, there are problems and loopholes, but it's a step in the right direction. They'll get an expanded format eventually. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jacasa - 2012-06-21 12:49 PM 2008 is a good example. I would assume Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama and Texas would be the final four. But what about Utah and Boise who both finished undefeated? It is a good example. In 2008, at the end of the regular season, how many of those six teams had a legitimate shot at the National Championship? Heck, Boise was ranked 9th. Sure, anybody at 5 or below will have a gripe, but teams will always have a gripe. If Utah and Boise got screwed then, they'd still get screwed, but Texas who was ranked #1 just a few weeks earlier would still have had a shot. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() geauxtri - 2012-06-21 8:58 PM And the closing statement of the article... "Everyone agrees that financially this is going to be good for everyone in the room." It's all about the coins... ![]() I agree with this, but it is part of the reason I like it. I'll admit that I am a philistine when it comes to college football. I don't follow a team, I don't really follow well at all. I watch the NFL because I am good for nothing on Sunday afternoon anyway and I have a team to follow. Too busy on Saturday to watch games. So I don't usually care who is going to what bowl other than I like to watch BSU lose. But if there was a playoff system of some sort, that is something I could get into. Then I don't have to follow closely enough to know which games are important and which games aren't. I can just watch the playoffs and see some good football. I think the powers that be figured out a way to get someone like me involved. So good for them and good for me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Somehow a 6-6 Notre Dame will be one of the 4 every year. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Looks like we will see for sure if this is progress or not. It's been approved. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() hrliles - 2012-06-23 10:15 PM Somehow a 6-6 Notre Dame will be one of the 4 every year. Had better not be. ND needs to either join a decent conference or shut the heck up. |