T1B

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ayoff.html

I rarely have anything nice to say about my other alma mater, but I have to hand it to Crow for being one of the first university presidents to openly endorse a playoff. I don't think his plan is perfect, but it's better than the current model (duh) and with a few tweaks, it could be viable.

It's actually pretty close to the playoff format I've advocated for in the past. The only thing I'd change is to take the six highest ranked conference champs plus two "wild card" teams. If an independent team finished in the top 8, they'd take the place of the lowest ranked conference champ, not one of the wild cards.

I am not in favor of anything more than a 4 team playoff.

No matter how many you add into the playoff someone is always going to have an argument that they think is valid. Why have that discussion with 2 loss teams?

Left Seater wrote:Why have that discussion with 2 loss teams?

Because of unbalanced scheduling. It's quite possible to have 2-loss teams that are better than 1-loss and undefeated teams.

Left Seater wrote:I am not in favor of anything more than a 4 team playoff.

No matter how many you add into the playoff someone is always going to have an argument that they think is valid. Why have that discussion with 2 loss teams?

There have been at least two instances (possibly more) in the past decade or so where more than four teams had a legit argument for playing in the MNC game. I think a 4-team playoff could work if we ever get to the point where the FBS is comprised of four 16-team superconferences, with the CCGs serving as de facto quarterfinals. But the way things are now, with 120 teams spread out over 11 conferences (and a handful of independents), I think you have to include eight teams. That's still less than 10% of eligible teams. Compare that to the NFL, where nearly 40% of the teams make the playoffs and a 9-7 team can go on a hot streak and somehow become "world champions."

I don't think eight is that absurd of a number, nor would it ruin the regular season. One loss might not knock you out of the playoffs, but it could dramatically affect your seeding.

I'm fine with four. Plus One is all we need. Once we get into teams ranked fifth or lower, we're no longer dealing with the cream of the crop.

Not that I'd complain about an eight-team deal. It'd sure as hell beat what we have now.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Because of unbalanced scheduling. It's quite possible to have 2-loss teams that are better than 1-loss and undefeated teams.

Oregon had their chance last year and blew it. Beat LSU and they have a gripe. But anyone with two losses doesn't deserve a shot IMO. Sure anyone could beat anyone at anytime. We all can point to upsets. Granted playing in the SEC or B1G is much harder than playing in the MTN West or the Big East. Given that those teams prolly need to go undefeated.


Mike,

Who and when in the past four years was fifth or higher and deserved a shot?

LSU had two losses and still was allowed to win a title.

They were in the top 4. Looking for teams outside of the top 4 that have a "good" argument.

I agree with you. I was just responding to this..

Lefty wrote:But anyone with two losses doesn't deserve a shot IMO.

...by pointing out that a two-loss team was in fact allowed to win a national title.

Left Seater wrote:Mike,

Who and when in the past four years was fifth or higher and deserved a shot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_controversies

Just to name a few...

04 - Utah, Boise
06 - Louisville, Wisconsin, Boise
08 - USC, Utah, Penn St., Boise
09 - Boise

You could also throw in '07 Hawaii and any other non-AQ that finished the regular season undefeated. Say what you will about strength of schedule (and it's not like that argument is completely meritless), but I will argue until the cows come home that any sport where you can win every game on your schedule and have no chance whatsoever of playing for a championship is inherently flawed.

If the answer is just to reduce the number of BCS/playoff-eligible teams, then so be it, but what's the point of even playing if you have no hope from the get-go?

Left Seater wrote:I am not in favor of anything more than a 4 team playoff.

No matter how many you add into the playoff someone is always going to have an argument that they think is valid. Why have that discussion with 2 loss teams?

Without the NCAA making the schedules, a playoff will not be any better than what there is now.
The top teams should only play each other and all should play balanced schedules. No 8 home games, no OOC cupcakes. Real football week in and week out. All these tweaks to what is at its core a flawed system is like stopping the New Orleans floods with a box of Kotex.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Left Seater wrote:I am not in favor of anything more than a 4 team playoff.

No matter how many you add into the playoff someone is always going to have an argument that they think is valid. Why have that discussion with 2 loss teams?

Without the NCAA making the schedules, a playoff will not be any better than what there is now.
The top teams should only play each other and all should play balanced schedules. No 8 home games, no OOC cupcakes. Real football week in and week out. All these tweaks to what is at its core a flawed system is like stopping the New Orleans floods with a box of Kotex.

I'm surprised you'd advocate for the NCAA being in charge of anything, given the way they butcher-raped you guys for having the gall to stand up to them. The sooner college football separates itself from the corrupt, good ol' boy network that is the NCAA, the better.

You & Mgo are right, of course. Balanced schedules would certainly add an element of fairness that doesn't currently exist. However, I think a playoff without balanced schedules is still preferable to the current 1 vs. 2 format, even if we had balanced schedules. I think they're both integral to the advancement of the game...