T1B

I dont have a problem with a team with 2 losses playing for the national title providing that they didnt play 65% of their gams at home and had an OOC schedule of home games vs teams like the Citadel, Louisiana Monroe and Florida Atlantic.

Id be happy if D1 was made up of about half as many teams as it is now and those teams only played amongst eachother, then had a playoff to decide who was the champ

I'm on record as being in agreement with Shoalzie.

The "tradition" of the Verizon/Quest/Masingil/Gieco/Jackoff.com Bowl is real meaningful. Everyone knows it will generate countless memories for a lifetime. :roll:

I hope 5 teams from major conferences go undefeated this year and there's a split national champion this and every single year until these idiots can get their shit together and come up with a playoff proposal.

Let's face it, whenever a college president or NCAA administrator starts throwing around the "tradition" bullshit, what they really mean is money. THAT is what this lack initiative is all about, combined with a lack of creativity. Nobody wants to risk losing out on a cut of the current pie.

Mr T wrote:Fuck give the little guy a break.

That may be part of the reluctance, from the big boys' point of view.

I favor eight teams minimum ... 16 teams preferably.

And do me a favor college president, NCAA administrator and yapping TV cheerleader, errrr, announcer: Take all of your "tradition" bullshit and BCS honking and stick it up your ass.

WAR chaos and the rolling wheels of the playoff bandwagon crushing sniveling, douchebag apologists every single year.

what is truly comical is anyone who ever pretended the BCS added a scrap of legitamacy to D1 football championships. the BCS was never intended to do anything more than line the greedy pockets of the Disney corp and their puppets at ABC and ESPN. The only weight the BCS title had it took from the Coaches Poll. Then in an act of complete stupidity they contractually obligated the voters of this poll to vote the team who won the "BCS Title" Bowl #1 even if the voters felt that another team was deserving of the title (2003) and that completely undermined any shred of legitamacy that the BCS ever had.
The only national champion that isnt crowned by back room handshakes and contractually obligated voters is the AP title and though the AP champion isnt the same as a team who went through a playoffand won iton the field, its as close as were are going to get. Until NBC/Turner/Fox buys the AP and then forces the voters to vote for who they say

Left Seater wrote:Now, having said all of that I could get behind a system in which the 4 highest conference champs are included in the playoff. The only way this system works is if each conference has a true champ. I definately think you should have to be your conference champ in order to be National Champ.

I agree with you that a true conference champion should be represented in the playoff. The big question becomes how would you rate the 4 highest conference champs. I would presume you would have to factor in OOC games as part of this equation, as well as, the strength of the conference.

Mucho,

If we go with the conference champs playoff format then I wouldn't include individual OCC in the mix. I would look at the conference as a whole against the other conferences involved in the playoff.

Mr T wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: By that standard, you would have had Utah in the playoffs last year at the expense of Texas and Cal, both of whom had one loss against a tougher schedule. Not entirely sure that's fair.

Cal was a definite contender last year with a tough sked....

:roll:

Did you just out your m2 troll?

Uhhh, no, I'm not m2. And I didn't say Cal had a tough schedule. I said they had a tougher schedule than Utah. Care to dispute that?

Who is to say Utah didnt deserve a shot? Fuck give the little guy a break. I know your team has never been the little guy so you have no idea what I am talking about but 85 Villanova didnt deserve to be there either.

Dude, you're talking to the wrong guy. If it was up to me, there'd be a 16-team playoff. No controversy re: Texas, Cal or Utah in that scenario, if it existed last year.

I was addressing the problems of a 4-team playoff, and used last year as an example.

Left Seater wrote:Now, having said all of that I could get behind a system in which the 4 highest conference champs are included in the playoff. The only way this system works is if each conference has a true champ. I definately think you should have to be your conference champ in order to be National Champ.

Two questions on that:

1. What about ND? Under that scenario, ND could never qualify for the playoff.

2. Another example to bust your scenario: USC '02. Didn't win its conference, but finished the regular season ranked #4, and in the eyes of many, was playing better football than any team in the country at season's end.

We would have to work something out for ND. Maybe if they finish 1 or 2 in the polls then they are included.

And USC in '02 wouldn't be included. They lost a couple of games early and shouldn't have played for the title. I don't give a rat's ass who is playing the best at the end of the season if they couldn't win to start the season.

Again college football shouldn't be like the basketball tourney where it comes down to what you do at the end of the seaon. We need to look at the whole season to decide who gets to play for the title.

Left Seater wrote:We would have to work something out for ND. Maybe if they finish 1 or 2 in the polls then they are included.

You can't be serious about this. ND has to finish #2 to be included, but other schools are included if they win their conference?

Just for a reference point, here's how a similar playoff would have looked the last three years, based on final regular season BCS standings:

2004: #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #8 Virginia Tech (note: if you're going to take the top four conference champs regardless of conference affiliation, #6 Utah replaces Virginia Tech).

2003: #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 Michigan, #7 Florida State (#1 Oklahoma did not win their conference in 2003).

2002: #1 Miami, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #6 Oklahoma

That means that, if you're going to restrict your playoff to conference champions, then in each of the past three years, the playoff would have included one team ranked #6 or lower. Against that backdrop, limiting ND to a #2 finish is unfair to ND, imho.

Mind you, I have no problem with a playoff awarding an automatic bid to the conference champion in each of the top five or six conferences. But if you do that, you have to have enough at-large bids in your playoff to make it some semblance of fair. I think 12 teams then becomes the minimum number.

And USC in '02 wouldn't be included. They lost a couple of games early and shouldn't have played for the title. I don't give a rat's ass who is playing the best at the end of the season if they couldn't win to start the season.

See above. But if you don't like USC in '02, what about Oklahoma in '03? As I said, they didn't win their conference championship that year.

Again college football shouldn't be like the basketball tourney where it comes down to what you do at the end of the seaon. We need to look at the whole season to decide who gets to play for the title.

I think your analysis is flawed. In addition to the automatic bids, the NCAA tourney also has 34 at-large bids.

Granted, for most conferences, the basketball regular season is played to establish conference tournament seeding. But if you play in one of the power conferences, or even in one of the top, oh, 8-14 conferences in the country, you play the regular season for the purpose of making your conference tournament irrelevant, i.e., your regular season performance is so strong that the Tournament Selection Committee has to take you even if you come up with a one-and-done in your conference tournament.

Terry, remember this is just my opinion and as such making ND finish 1 or 2 to be included would push them towards joining the Big 11.

Remember I also said I could get behind a conference champ type playoff, since that would make the regular season more meaningful.

But the bottom line best answer for me remains a 4 team playoff. I will not get behind any system that includes more than 4 teams. I will use my connections as a former player, current official, and fan to bring down any system with more than 4 teams. Not that anyone would listen. ;)

Left Seater wrote:Terry, remember this is just my opinion and as such making ND finish 1 or 2 to be included would push them towards joining the Big 11.

Ahh, so now the truth comes out. :wink:

Seriously, though, I can't for the life of me figure out why ND is so roundly criticized for doing the same thing every other 1-A team does with perfect impunity -- acting in their own best interests. Don't think for a second that any other 1-A member wouldn't drop their conference affiliation for independent status in a New York minute if they thought it was in their program's best interests to do so. And most of those schools, unlike ND, don't have a tradition of independence in football.

I would like to see us maintain our independent status, but if we do join a conference, I hope it isn't the Big Ten. ND in the Big Ten might have an appeal if you look at the picture on a very superficial basis. But for those who have a rooting interest in and understanding of ND's program, we know it wouldn't be a good fit for ND. Some of the reasons:

• Too much adverse history between ND and the Big Ten. In the past, ND was denied membership in the Big Ten because of its status as a Catholic university. At the time, that was pretty much Notre Dame's entire raison d'etre, as it had not yet attained elite academic status.
• Color me cynical on this one, but the Big Ten comes across as an organization in which Ohio State and Michigan are senior partners, and everyone else is a junior partner. And that's the way it's expected to remain. Notre Dame isn't thrilled (at least I hope they aren't) about joining an organization in which they would be expected to accept status as a junior partner, nor should they be.
• The divisional alignment favored by Ohio State and Michigan is, from ND's standpoint, an unmitigated disaster. This divisional alignment would place ND in the same division with Wisconsin (last played in 1964) and Minnesota (last played in 1938), while placing them in the opposite division from Purdue (continuous series since 1946) and Penn State (continuous series from 1981-92, most of that time prior to Penn State joining the Big Ten; also, Penn State is the only northeastern school in the Big Ten, see below).
• The largest segment of ND's fanbase actually resides in the Northeast, not the Midwest, and for that reason, ND likes to play at least one road game per year in the Northeast. Assuming an 8- or 9-game conference schedule, and traditional rivals Navy and USC will remain on the schedule regardless, it would be next to impossible for ND to guarantee an annual road game in the northeast if they join the Big Ten, as things currently stand.
• ND would have to give up its TV contract.
• As Big Ten fans have posted on this board, it seems to be the mindset of the majority of Big Ten fans that winning a Big Ten championship is more important than winning a national championship. That would appear to be borne out by the fact that the only undisputed national champion to emerge from the Big Ten during my lifetime has been tOSU '02, despite the fact that the Big Ten has been one of the stronger conferences in college football during that period. ND obviously doesn't share that mindset, and I doubt that ND's fanbase will ever buy into that mindset.

I'm not advocating that ND join a conference, mind you, but if we ever do, joining the Big East, or the proposal set forth at http://www.projectplayoffs.com would make more sense from our perspective than would the Big Ten.

Remember I also said I could get behind a conference champ type playoff, since that would make the regular season more meaningful.

I'm not sure how it would. In fact, it would eliminate a number of teams right off the bat, before a single game were ever played.

I'm not necessarily opposed to giving out 5-6 automatic bids in a playoff scenario, but if you do that, you have to have enough at-large bids to make the whole system relatively fair. Imho, that would require, at a minimum, a 12-team playoff.

But the bottom line best answer for me remains a 4 team playoff. I will not get behind any system that includes more than 4 teams. I will use my connections as a former player, current official, and fan to bring down any system with more than 4 teams. Not that anyone would listen. ;)

I know you've said this before, but given your background, I'm surprised you take this position. Who knows, maybe someday fairly soon Rice will put together its own magical season. But your proposal would eliminate them from contention for a national championship no matter what.

For my part, I will oppose any plan which seeks to punish Notre Dame for maintaining its independent status, or to steer Notre Dame into a conference, particularly the Big Ten. I will use my connections as a Notre Dame alumnus and lifelong fan to bring it down. Not that anyone will listen to me, but I'm pretty sure Notre Dame will listen to the big-money boosters who are saying pretty much the same thing as I am.

Terry,

A few years ago we did put together a fairly magical season. We went 8-4 and were never considered for a bowl. Yeah, it sucked, but such is life. We have our place in this college football landscape, but competing for a NC every year isn't it. That's not to mean that I don't hope we can win every game, but I don't want other things relaxed to see that happen.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Seriously, though, I can't for the life of me figure out why ND is so roundly criticized for doing the same thing every other 1-A team does with perfect impunity -- acting in their own best interests. Don't think for a second that any other 1-A member wouldn't drop their conference affiliation for independent status in a New York minute if they thought it was in their program's best interests to do so. And most of those schools, unlike ND, don't have a tradition of independence in football..

Oklahoma was offered the Notre Dame deal before Notre Dame was by NBC.

Oklahoma turned it down, because it would require being an independent.

Notice, I didn't say that any program would go independent if they got ND's deal. I said any program would go indpendent if they thought it was in their own best interests to do so. Obviously, more than the TV deal factors into that decision, and Oklahoma decided it was not in their best interests to be independent.

Also, Oklahoma did not have a tradition of independence associated with their program, unlike ND.