Louisville-Rutgers call it!

[Dinsdale]

It's not like NU has eeked their peeter into a BCS game, let alone a national championship game via a conference championship game before or anything.

So, in the unlikely event that Nebraska beats Texas(from here on out'I'll refer to future events as if they play out the way most of us expect...but as always, lots of stuff can happen between now and then, that's why they play the games...well, that and so we have a reason to call each other "idiots" and whatnot on the internet), but if they beat Texas in the B12CG, correct me if I'm wrong, but a look at the bowl schedule makes it look like they play in the Fiesta, which isn't the Championship Game, last I checked.

Not sure how far Michigan will fall if they lose to tOSU.

I also am not exactly sure of the precise guidelines to select the at-larges...if someone has a link, hook a brother up...but my brain won't let me believe that they'd put a #3 or #4(??) BCS team up against...Nebraska. It ain't 1997 no more. I suppose they've got to put Nebraska in there somewhere, but doesn't Boise State get an at-large if they win out? Nebraska would be a good opponent. Or Notre Dame, if they douchetwaddle their way in.

I just think a lot of people might want to see Michigan play Texas or the SEC runner-up, assuming tOSU wins out.

I dunno...I just can't see Michigan and Nebraska. Not saying it can't happen, I suppose, but I just can't see it, unless there's some greater selection process for the at-larges I'm not familiar with. If so, that's a laugher waiting to happen.

Geez, I was just trying to wield a pointy stick...figured an Oregon State comparison might do it...lighten up, poopyhead.

[Ken]

but my brain won't let me believe that they'd put a #3 or #4(??) BCS team up against...Nebraska. It ain't 1997 no more.

No, that could never happen. That is unless, the #3 BCS team is slotted against a 4 loss FSU team in the Orange Bowl.

I just think a lot of people might want to see Michigan play Texas or the SEC runner-up, assuming tOSU wins out.

Since when did it have to do with the matchups that people want to see. Missed that memo.

[PSUFAN]

Rutgers is nothing like Kal - now, or with 1 loss.

[bradhusker]

It's not like NU has eeked their peeter into a BCS game, let alone a national championship game via a conference championship game before or anything.

So, in the unlikely event that Nebraska beats Texas(from here on out'I'll refer to future events as if they play out the way most of us expect...but as always, lots of stuff can happen between now and then, that's why they play the games...well, that and so we have a reason to call each other "idiots" and whatnot on the internet), but if they beat Texas in the B12CG, correct me if I'm wrong, but a look at the bowl schedule makes it look like they play in the Fiesta, which isn't the Championship Game, last I checked.

Not sure how far Michigan will fall if they lose to tOSU.

I also am not exactly sure of the precise guidelines to select the at-larges...if someone has a link, hook a brother up...but my brain won't let me believe that they'd put a #3 or #4(??) BCS team up against...Nebraska. It ain't 1997 no more. I suppose they've got to put Nebraska in there somewhere, but doesn't Boise State get an at-large if they win out? Nebraska would be a good opponent. Or Notre Dame, if they douchetwaddle their way in.

I just think a lot of people might want to see Michigan play Texas or the SEC runner-up, assuming tOSU wins out.

I dunno...I just can't see Michigan and Nebraska. Not saying it can't happen, I suppose, but I just can't see it, unless there's som

e greater selection process for the at-larges I'm not familiar with. so, that's a laugher waiting to happenIf .

Geez, I was just trying to wield a pointy stick...figured an Oregon State comparison might do it...lighten up, poopyhead.

REALLY? is that so dinsdale? a laugher? waiting to happen? you mean kinda like the laugher between michigan and ball st? you know, the game where ball st basically pushed the meeeechigan fags around like rag dolls, so, when did ball st become div 1?
see, your a fool, if you think that ball st can play michigan close, but nebraska cant,
a stupid fag.

[FLW Buckeye]

I also am not exactly sure of the precise guidelines to select the at-larges...if someone has a link, hook a brother up...

Here you go...

BCS Selection Policies and Procedures

[web]http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility[/web]

[bradhusker]

It's not like NU has eeked their peeter into a BCS game, let alone a national championship game via a conference championship game before or anything.

So, in the unlikely event that Nebraska beats Texas(from here on out'I'll refer to future events as if they play out the way most of us expect...but as always, lots of stuff can happen between now and then, that's why they play the games...well, that and so we have a reason to call each other "idiots" and whatnot on the internet), but if they beat Texas in the B12CG, correct me if I'm wrong, but a look at the bowl schedule makes it look like they play in the Fiesta, which isn't the Championship Game, last I checked.

Not sure how far Michigan will fall if they lose to tOSU.

I also am not exactly sure of the precise guidelines to select the at-larges...if someone has a link, hook a brother up...but my brain won't let me believe that they'd put a #3 or #4(??) BCS team up against...Nebraska. It ain't 1997 no more. I suppose they've got to put Nebraska in there somewhere, but doesn't Boise State get an at-large if they win out? Nebraska would be a good opponent. Or Notre Dame, if they douchetwaddle their way in.

I just think a lot of people might want to see Michigan play Texas or the SEC runner-up, assuming tOSU wins out.

I dunno...I just can't see Michigan and Nebraska. Not saying it can't happen, I suppose, but I just can't see it, unless there's som

e greater selection process for the at-larges I'm not familiar with. so, that's a laugher waiting to happenIf .

Geez, I was just trying to wield a pointy stick...figured an Oregon State comparison might do it...lighten up, poopyhead.

REALLY? is that so dinsdale? a laugher? waiting to happen? you mean kinda like the laugher between michigan and ball st? you know, the game where ball st basically pushed the meeeechigan fags around like rag dolls, so, when did ball st become div 1?
see, your a fool, if you think that ball st can play michigan close, but nebraska cant,
a stupid fag.

like I said,
if ball st. can basically push around michigan, then why cant nebraska?
you do realize that ball st. is a pussy program?
in fact, the entire big ten is a pussy conf.
if you look at the sched. for ohio st. its pathetic, they play pussssies each and every week.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Or Notre Dame, if they douchetwaddle their way in.

Just for the record, here's the remaining list of 1-A teams with 1 loss or 0 losses (it's not all that long, at this point . . .)

• Ohio State
• Michigan
• Rutgers
• Boise State
• Florida
• USC
• Notre Dame
• Louisville
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wake Forest

And of the seven one-loss teams on this list, only three (ND, Louisville and West Virginia) lost to another team on this list. Not to mention the fact that ND still has a head-to-head matchup remaining with another team (USC) on the list.

And while a minimum of two teams on this list will not qualify for the BCS, only Wisconsin is not entering into serious BCS discussions at this point, and that has more to do with BCS rules than anything else. Wisconsin has been all but completely eliminated from the BCS, due to the fact that the BCS only permits one at-large bid to be awarded to any given conference, and it's all but guaranteed that both tOSU and Michigan will be in the BCS no matter what.

Yet against all of this background, someone still refers to ND "douchetwaddling" their way into the BCS? Ponderous, fugging ponderous.

[FLW Buckeye]

Or Notre Dame, if they douchetwaddle their way in.

Just for the record, here's the remaining list of 1-A teams with 1 loss or 0 losses (it's not all that long, at this point . . .)

• Ohio State
• Michigan
• Rutgers
• Boise State
• Florida
• USC
• Notre Dame
• Louisville
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wake Forest

And of the seven one-loss teams on this list, only three (ND, Louisville and West Virginia) lost to another team on this list. Not to mention the fact that ND still has a head-to-head matchup remaining with another team (USC) on the list.

And while a minimum of two teams on this list will not qualify for the BCS, only Wisconsin is not entering into serious BCS discussions at this point, and that has more to do with BCS rules than anything else. Wisconsin has been all but completely eliminated from the BCS, due to the fact that the BCS only permits one at-large bid to be awarded to any given conference, and it's all but guaranteed that both tOSU and Michigan will be in the BCS no matter what.

Yet against all of this background, someone still refers to ND "douchetwaddling" their way into the BCS? Ponderous, fugging ponderous.

You need to add Arkansas to the list.

Whith the upcoming games scheduled, there are a minimum of at least two more 1-loss teams to fall off the this list. These are the losers of the ND/SC and Ark/Florida games.
Of course, the potential for others to fall by the wayside is still very high. Next week, we are looking at the Cal/SC, Va Tech/WF, and to a lesser extent, the WVa/Pitt and USF/Louisville games.
Thanksgiving weekend gives us the ND/SC game that Terry mentioned. another key game is LSU/Arkansas.
With the major powers getting kicked to the curb, the matchups in the MNC that have been discussed involving a Big East team, Boise State, or another tOSU/Mich matchup are becoming much more of a possibility than I would like.

[MuchoBulls]

The one thing that yesterday's results did was open the door for the Big East to get 2 BCS bids again. The chances are very slim, but there was no chance before yesterdays games began. Boise State still needs to lose. That would help greatly.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The one thing that yesterday's results did was open the door for the Big East to get 2 BCS bids again. The chances are very slim, but there was no chance before yesterdays games began. Boise State still needs to lose. That would help greatly.

In a vacuum, a one-loss Big East team ought to be at least as attractive to the BCS as a two-loss team from either the SEC, Big 12 or Pac-10. The problem for the Big East, however, is that it has no tie-in with any of the BCS bowls. Thus, while a one-loss Louisville team might, or at least should, ordinarily be more attractive to the BCS than a two-loss Arkansas, Auburn or LSU team, the reality is that if Florida winds up playing in the BCS championship game, the #2 SEC team will probably be more attractive to the Sugar Bowl than any other team, which could result in the last remaining at-large bid being taken.

Two best-case scenarios for the Big East getting an at-large bid:

1. Boise State loses.
2. USC beats Cal, ND beats USC (and also Army), and Florida loses. Also, possibly, Michigan beats Ohio State. That combination could put ND, who also has no tie-in with any of the BCS bowls, into the BCS championship game, which would benefit the Big East.

[Terry in Crapchester]

...even a 16-team field would mean a much lower percentage of college football teams playing for the national championship than in other sports. I don't know why so many are so afraid of a field that large.

It's been said a thousand times, but I'll say it again. A 16-team CFB postseason completely diminishes the importance of the regular season.

I disagree. Even with a 16-team field, it's not as though we'd exactly be turning college football into the NBA. The major rivalries alone would guarantee that the regular season continues to be as important as ever.

You can increase the margin for error in college football above zero without diminishing the importance of the regular season, at least imho.

[L45B]

Even with a 16-team field, it's not as though we'd exactly be turning college football into the NBA. The major rivalries alone would guarantee that the regular season continues to be as important as ever.

Not exactly. If the sixteen teams were literally the top 16 (per the AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS, whatever), annual rivalries could suffer. So could the mystique of some non-traditional matchups (thus a playoff turning them into more traditional matchups).

In above mentioned format, Texas & Oklahoma could potentially meet somewhere in the playoff thus tarnishing the tradition of the regular season game in Dallas. Sure you could make a point in this year's BCS if two rivals like tOSU & Michigan rematch in Glendale. But this situation would be more prevalent in a 16+ team playoff format year in and year out.

And what about the non-traditional matchups and rivalries? Ohio State & Southern Cal, for example, have played some memorable games out in Pasadena through the 60s, 70s, & 80s. But they don't exactly play each other every year. Sometimes, they go years and even decades without playing. I think that's one of the things that makes CFB better than other sports. The discussion & aura of that matchup is what makes it great. Less is more, IMO. When you throw in a playoff format with too many teams, chances of repeating that same non-conference matchup every year (or every other year) becomes more common. And suddenly, our sport smells too much like college basketball.

I've said it before, I'd probably go as far as 12 teams but only on the following basis. You take the 11 winners of the 11 D-1 conferences plus one at-large bid (probably would be Notre Dame about every year). Weight the conferences on a BCS-type system, and seed the teams accordingly. All games until the championship game are played at the higher seeded teams' stadiums. That way, the top teams are rewarded and the regular season isn't downplayed too much. JMHO.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Not exactly. If the sixteen teams were literally the top 16 (per the AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS, whatever), annual rivalries could suffer. So could the mystique of some non-traditional matchups (thus a playoff turning them into more traditional matchups).

It's the opposite, I feel. With a playoff, the rivalry games could mean even more. Not only would you be playing to beat your rival, but you could also be playing for a berth into the playoff.

Just adds even more drama to what's already a huge game. Best of both worlds, my friend.

In above mentioned format, Texas & Oklahoma could potentially meet somewhere in the playoff thus tarnishing the tradition of the regular season game in Dallas.

If a simple playoff game were to tarnish your rivalry, it probably wasn't much of a rivalry.

Yet the RRS is a huge rivalry, so I feel your take is wrong. Not much at all could tarnish a game of that magnitude.

There are too many rivalry games that are untouchable, and mean way too much for anything to damage their credibility..we're talking traditions and histories that have been cemented for years. I seriously doubt Auburn and Alabama fans will start taking the Iron Bowl any less seriously because of the off chance they might meet up in a playoff.

Ludicrous take.

[MuchoBulls]

In a vacuum, a one-loss Big East team ought to be at least as attractive to the BCS as a two-loss team from either the SEC, Big 12 or Pac-10. The problem for the Big East, however, is that it has no tie-in with any of the BCS bowls. Thus, while a one-loss Louisville team might, or at least should, ordinarily be more attractive to the BCS than a two-loss Arkansas, Auburn or LSU team, the reality is that if Florida winds up playing in the BCS championship game, the #2 SEC team will probably be more attractive to the Sugar Bowl than any other team, which could result in the last remaining at-large bid being taken.

Two best-case scenarios for the Big East getting an at-large bid:

1. Boise State loses.
2. USC beats Cal, ND beats USC (and also Army), and Florida loses. Also, possibly, Michigan beats Ohio State. That combination could put ND, who also has no tie-in with any of the BCS bowls, into the BCS championship game, which would benefit the Big East.

I think #1 is the biggest factor in the mix. If Boise wins out, then there is no chance.

You brought up the fact that the Big East has no tie in to a BCS bowl. I am hopeful that the Orange Bowl will put the tie in to the Big East at some point.

[L45B]

It's the opposite, I feel. With a playoff, the rivalry games could mean even more. Not only would you be playing to beat your rival, but you could also be playing for a berth into the playoff.

Or better yet, by beating your rival, you could be playing for the #5 seed in a playoff. And if you lose, well shit, you only drop to the #11 seed. Damn, almost as exciting as the Big East basketball tournament.

If a simple playoff game were to tarnish your rivalry, it probably wasn't much of a rivalry.

Yet the RRS is a huge rivalry, so I feel your take is wrong. Not much at all could tarnish a game of that magnitude.

Nice play with words there, but you didn't fool me. In that scenario, the regular season game would be the more simple of the two, the playoff matchup would be a game of greater magnitude. And that's the problem. The playoff game totally negates the point of the regular season game. Hell, ask most UM or tOSU fans about a rematch in Glendale this year and I bet most don't like the idea. Again, it would just make the outcome of The Game (in Columbus) more meaningless.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Even with a 16-team field, it's not as though we'd exactly be turning college football into the NBA. The major rivalries alone would guarantee that the regular season continues to be as important as ever.

Not exactly. If the sixteen teams were literally the top 16 (per the AP poll, Coaches poll, BCS, whatever), annual rivalries could suffer. So could the mystique of some non-traditional matchups (thus a playoff turning them into more traditional matchups).

In above mentioned format, Texas & Oklahoma could potentially meet somewhere in the playoff thus tarnishing the tradition of the regular season game in Dallas. Sure you could make a point in this year's BCS if two rivals like tOSU & Michigan rematch in Glendale. But this situation would be more prevalent in a 16+ team playoff format year in and year out.

I've said before that in a 16-team field, if necessary, I would adjust seeding (although no team would be moved more than one slot away from its natural seed) to preclude: (1) regular-season rematches; and (2) matchups between conference rivals, regardless of whether they actually played in that season; from being played in the first round; or from being played in the second round unless at least one of the two teams in the second-round matchup had been the lower seed in the first round (as for the exception, it's there to balance out the common-sense notion that you probably can't completely eliminate this possibility most years with the idea that you're maximizing the chances of ruling out such a matchup.) Thus, if Oklahoma and Texas, or ND and USC, Ohio State and Michigan, etc., were to meet in a 16-team field, chances are that the matchup in question would involve pretty high stakes, i.e., at least a semifinal matchup. The odds against it are pretty strong, and on those rare occasions where it did happen, given the stakes I don't think it would diminish from the regular season matchup.

Btw, if you were to take the current BCS Top 16 (assuming that the highest-ranked team in each conference were to get its automatic bid, and I know these rankings will change before the season ends), you don't have this problem at all . . .

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Wake Forest
#8 West Virginia vs. #9 Wisconsin

#4 Florida vs. #13 Texas
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Boise State

#6 Rutgers vs. #11 LSU
#3 USC vs. #14 Auburn

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 Louisville
#2 Michigan vs. #15 Cal

The only two potentially offending second-round matchups in question (Ohio State-Wisconsin and LSU-Auburn) each involve at least one lower-seeded team advancing into the second round.

If you were to give automatic bids to every conference champ, as both Vito and Shoalzie have suggested, then here are the pairings . . .

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Michigan
#8 West Virginia vs. #9 Wisconsin

#4 Florida vs. #13 Houston
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Wake Forest

#6 Rutgers vs. #11 Texas
#3 USC vs. #14 BYU

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 Boise State
#2 Michigan vs. #15 Middle Tennessee State

Note: I switched Central Michigan with Middle Tennessee State to avoid a Michigan-Central Michigan rematch in the first round. Under this scenario, it becomes easier to avoid regular-season rematches and conference rivalry rematches in the first two rounds -- if you prefer, switch the seeding of Wisconsin and Boise State so that you have no possibility of an Ohio State-Wisconsin matchup in Round Two as well (although, in fairness you'd also have to switch the seeding of Michigan and USC to completely avoid Wisconsin matching up against a conference rival in Round Two, which in turn would require swapping Arkansas with either Rutgers or West Virginia).

And what about the non-traditional matchups and rivalries? Ohio State & Southern Cal, for example, have played some memorable games out in Pasadena through the 60s, 70s, & 80s. But they don't exactly play each other every year. Sometimes, they go years and even decades without playing. I think that's one of the things that makes CFB better than other sports. The discussion & aura of that matchup is what makes it great. Less is more, IMO. When you throw in a playoff format with too many teams, chances of repeating that same non-conference matchup every year (or every other year) becomes more common. And suddenly, our sport smells too much like college basketball.

You're not arguing that March Madness is bad for college basketball, are you? In fact, I think it's self-evident that the opposite is true. March Madness has become one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sporting events of the year, and I think a playoff could do the same for college football.

I've said it before, I'd probably go as far as 12 teams but only on the following basis. You take the 11 winners of the 11 D-1 conferences plus one at-large bid (probably would be Notre Dame about every year). Weight the conferences on a BCS-type system, and seed the teams accordingly. All games until the championship game are played at the higher seeded teams' stadiums. That way, the top teams are rewarded and the regular season isn't downplayed too much. JMHO.

That would never pass. A 12-team format is a realistic scenario, but if you're going to do that, the format would have to be as follows: seven automatic bids (one to each of the current BCS conferences, plus an automatic bid to the conference champion from among the non-BCS conferences with the highest overall ranking), plus five at-large bids. The current BCS has four at-large bids, and you can't unring that bell.

But a 12-team bid might placate some who feel that a playoff diminishes the regular season, in that the top four teams would get first-round byes. Here's what such a format would look like, based on current BCS standings . . .

#8 West Virginia vs. #9 Wisconsin
Winner vs. #1 Ohio State

#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Wake Forest
Winner vs. #4 Florida

#6 Rutgers vs. #11 Texas
Winner vs. #3 USC

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 Boise State
Winner vs. #2 Michigan

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Wake Forest
#8 West Virginia vs. #9 Wisconsin

#4 Florida vs. #13 Texas
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Boise State

#6 Rutgers vs. #11 LSU
#3 USC vs. #14 Auburn

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 Louisville
#2 Michigan vs. #15 Cal

I've got a boner the size of Nunavut just thinking about that possibility.

[MuchoBulls]

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Wake Forest
#8 West Virginia vs. #9 Wisconsin

#4 Florida vs. #13 Texas
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Boise State

#6 Rutgers vs. #11 LSU
#3 USC vs. #14 Auburn

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 Louisville
#2 Michigan vs. #15 Cal

I've got a boner the size of Nunavut just thinking about that possibility.

I'm not sure if I missed this in Terry's post, but would these games be played at Bowl sites?

[L45B]

Sorry, I'm a traditionalist. And it's just my opinion, but I think it's a horrible idea. I love the college basketball postseason, but what's good for one sport isn't exactly good for another.

And don't even waste your time with the whole "playing the games at the bowl sites" idea. I've heard it, it's stupid. Now taking the field, the ______: winners of the 2014 Capital One Bowl, the 2014 Cotton Bowl, and the 2014 Rose Bowl! Ghey!

And back to the comparisons between CFB & CBB. I think March Madness is great. It is, without a doubt, the most exciting postseason of any sport. But do I really give a fuck about the regular season? I mean, Ohio State plays OOC games in Chapel Hill & Gainesville this season. Do those games really matter? If you ask me, I could care less. We can lose both of those and still get a #2 or #3 seed in the big dance. We could win both of those and the difference is very little. To me, those games don't mean shit. Wake me up when the brackets come out! If Ohio State had to go to Gainesville early in the football season, it could mean the end of your title hopes right then and there. Sign me up for a ticket! I'm fucking there!

I love CFB. It is the greatest sport in the world. It has, without a doubt, the most exciting regular season of any sport. If there comes a day when a 10-2 or 9-3 team (that doesn't even win its own conference-- as illustrated in Terry's scenario above) gets to play for a national championship, I think it will be a very bad thing for the sport. Again, JMHO.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Sorry, I'm a traditionalist. And it's just my opinion, but I think it's a horrible idea. I love the college basketball postseason, but what's good for one sport isn't exactly good for another.

I too am a traditionalist, which is why I don't want the school I root for to join a conference, either voluntarily or by coercion. But perhaps I'm a traditionalist in a different vein. I constantly evaluate the traditions, and I continue to support those which, imho, benefit the institutions they serve. Hence, my support of continued independence for ND. OTOH, if they don't adequately serve the institution in question, I have no problem with letting them go.

The current bowl system provides one meaningful postseason game and thirty-odd glorified consolation games. That, imho, does not adequately serve the institution of college football. I realize that most of us in this forum prefer the college game to the NFL, for one reason or another, but in this country we're in the vast minority. If you want to bring more fans into the forum, the best way to do that is to improve the postseason.

And don't even waste your time with the whole "playing the games at the bowl sites" idea. I've heard it, it's stupid. Now taking the field, the ______: winners of the 2014 Capital One Bowl, the 2014 Cotton Bowl, and the 2014 Rose Bowl! Ghey!

Of course, that's not the reason why it's been proposed (although I have no doubt that Brent et al. would use those annoying catchphrases to hype the action on the field.) Rather, there are three reasons for doing it that way.

First, as I envision a playoff, the bulk of the games would be played while most schools were out on Christmas break. The campuses would be deserted, for the most part, at that time, which would diminish the import and impact of playing the games on campus. Second, weather conditions in much of the country could give decided home-field advantages to certain teams during a playoff. Playing in bowl sites, which are mostly warm-weather areas, would level the playing field somewhat. Third, the bowl games are never going away completely anyway. Rather than play them as they're played now, wouldn't it be more exciting to play the Cotton Bowl and the Capital One Bowl, for example, as having at least some impact on the national championship?

And back to the comparisons between CFB & CBB. I think March Madness is great. It is, without a doubt, the most exciting postseason of any sport. But do I really give a fuck about the regular season? I mean, Ohio State plays OOC games in Chapel Hill & Gainesville this season. Do those games really matter? If you ask me, I could care less. We can lose both of those and still get a #2 or #3 seed in the big dance. We could win both of those and the difference is very little. To me, those games don't mean shit. Wake me up when the brackets come out! If Ohio State had to go to Gainesville early in the football season, it could mean the end of your title hopes right then and there. Sign me up for a ticket! I'm fucking there!

Coupla points here. First, nobody is talking about expanding the regular season in college football. By definition you have 2 1/2 -- 3 times as many games per season in college basketball that you do in college football, so of course, each college football game has a greater impact. In college basketball, if you play in a major conference and win 20 games, you're going to the dance, doesn't matter who those wins came against, nor does it matter how many losses you had or who they were against.

As to your point in your earlier post about a playoff diluting traditional rivalries, sorry, but I just don't see it that way. Just since I know ND's traditional rivalries best of all, here are ND's projected opponents in any of the scenarios I previously posted:

1st round: Wake Forest or Boise State. ND has never played either of these teams before.
2nd round: Florida, Houston or Texas. ND has played Florida and Houston both exactly once; both were in bowl game matchups (1991 Sugar Bowl and 1978 Cotton Bowl, respectively.) ND has played Texas more often than that, but only twice since the 1977 Cotton Bowl and not since 1996.
3rd round: Ohio State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wake Forest or Central Michigan. Given their relatively close proximity and the fact that both are traditional powers, you might think that ND and Ohio State are traditional rivals, but they've only met five times. West Virginia and ND have only met four times, although three of those four meetings have come in the last ten years. Wisconsin has played ND 16 times, easily the most of any team on ND's side of the bracket, but hasn't met ND since 1964. As aforestated, Wake Forest has never played ND, nor has Central Michigan.

I love CFB. It is the greatest sport in the world. It has, without a doubt, the most exciting regular season of any sport.

Agreed, and a 16-team playoff wouldn't change that.

If there comes a day when a 10-2 or 9-3 team (that doesn't even win its own conference-- as illustrated in Terry's scenario above) gets to play for a national championship, I think it will be a very bad thing for the sport. Again, JMHO.

I'll concede there's a possibility of a few teams in the current Top 16 winding up with three losses, but those teams are near the bottom of the Top 16, and any could be forced out with one more loss. Even if you saw a three-loss team in a 16-team playoff, that team would be either an automatic bid out of one of the weaker conferences (if you're going to give automatic bids to each conference), or a team near the bottom of the Top 16 who would have to win three games against tough opponents, each of whom had a better regular season than they did, just to get to the championship game. If a team can accomplish that, I don't have a problem with them playing for the national championship.

As for a team not winning its conference and playing for the national championship, we've already seen that (Nebraska in '01) and we could see it again this year (tOSU-Michigan rematch in BCS championship game). If tOSU and Michigan meet in the national championship game, wouldn't that render this weekend's matchup a mulligan?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

[marcus]I'd love to see a playoff just to see those matchups us CF fanatics always yearn for, but rarely get.[/marcus] This recent home and home with OSU/Texas was one of the most exciting things to happen to CF in recent years, because A) it was the type of matchup we rarely get to see before the month of January and B) it actually MEANT something. Best of both worlds. See how that works, playoff haters? The lack of big time, meaningful OOC games in CF are really hurting the sport.

You can't take anything away from the conference rivalries. These games are untouchables, and a huge part of the sport we love...but they're assured basically every year, and the histories and traditions behind them are embedded so deeply, nothing could alter their significance. Not even a playoff. Plus, as TiC pointed out, the playoff-hater is banking his demise on something that isn't going to happen very often -- that being two major rivals facing each other in a playoff. A lot of things would have to happen in order for that to play out. Plus, if this possibility exists with the current system, why is a playoff so much more "damaging?"

But getting back to the OOC matchups...problem is, the BCS system is catered to the elite programs in CF, and since preseason poll positioning is typically favorable for them, they have no incentive to schedule these heavy hitter OOC foes, since, well, they won't have huge mountains to climb in the polls. They just have to win. The "one and done" mentality to the powerhouse program, simply means, beat up on as many OOC patsies as possible, and hope you get through conference play unscathed. This system isn't about, "who can beat the best, and continue to survive," much like, say, March Madness. No, this system is about simply managing not to slip up against teams you're supposed to beat.

So since we can't force ADs to schedule better teams, let's MAKE them play better teams in the post season. Who doesn't want to see Ohio St play SC, or Michigan play Florida, or ND play Arkansas, etc...and best of all, actually have it MEAN something, other than future poll positioning.

And yeah, this is why the "playoffs start in September" argument is a total joke. I could take a poll, but I seriously doubt anybody's ideal playoff format would go like this:

Idaho
Eastern Washington
Baylor
North Carolina (here's your big time OOC showdown!)
conference patsy
conference patsy
middle of the road conference team
conference powerhouse
conference patsy
middle of the road conference team
conference patsy
conference powerhouse

Nice playoff you got there. Good thing your playoff is designed to pit the conference's best of the best, and not the COUNTRY'S best of the best. Yeah, why would we want that? Yeah, that "playoff" sure as hell beats all those ranked matchups we could get to see, which happen about once every 20 years or so.

Yeah, that would really be horrible for the game. Yeah, we wouldn't want to risk seeing all those tremendously talented teams going at one another with everything on the line, because it might water down the significance of that epic Cal-Stanford game regular season game, where the winner is vying for a spot in the Jergen's Handlotion Bowl. What a shame that would be.

[RadioFan]

RACK Mgo and Terry.

[Terry in Crapchester]

So since we can't force ADs to schedule better teams, let's MAKE them play better teams in the post season. Who doesn't want to see Ohio St play SC, or Michigan play Florida, or ND play Arkansas, etc...

In fairness, the status quo can provide some of these matchups. In fact, Fox Sports is projecting ND vs. Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl as things stand now. Problem is, under the status quo, at least all but one of those matchups doesn't matter.

Another thing, as you alluded to earlier, is that a 16-team playoff could actually help the regular season. As we've all lamented, OOC matchups such as tOSU vs. Texas rarely happen. Most ADs prefer to schedule cupcakes OOC due to the fact that they know that under the status quo, a single loss hurts their team far more that SOS possibly can. So most ADs will schedule a bunch of cupcakes OOC, then take their chances with the conference schedule and the BCS.

A 16-team playoff means that one, or perhaps even two, losses won't eliminate you from the field, so you might see more attractive OOC matchups in season.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

In fairness, the status quo can provide some of these matchups. In fact, Fox Sports is projecting ND vs. Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl as things stand now.

Well, yeah, obviously. My take was about wanting to see these games in a more relevant situation.

Most ADs prefer to schedule cupcakes OOC due to the fact that they know that under the status quo, a single loss hurts their team far more that SOS possibly can. So most ADs will schedule a bunch of cupcakes OOC, then take their chances with the conference schedule and the BCS.

Yep.

Sin,

my last post