Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea
Nick Saban advocates the time-honored plumb-bob method of determining a national champion. (AJC photo by Bob Andres)
Knock me over with a feather. The coaches who work in the league that just filled both slots in the BCS title game have queued up to say they don’t want a new four-team playoff to include only conference champs. From Nick Saban of Alabama, who told reporters: “It’s just like politics and self-interest. Somebody wants to create a circumstance that’s going to help their situation or conference. That’s not in the best interest of college football.”
This from the coach whose team won the national championship without winning its division. (No self-interest there!)
I don’t blame the SEC coaches. Their league plays the best football. There’s a chance a four-team playoff, if seeded according to merit, might include not two but three SEC teams. Which might not be fair to the other conferences, but who said even a four-team playoff will be fair?
The Big Ten, never a shrinking violet when it comes to self-interest, is lobbying for a champs-only playoff. Just for the record, the Big Ten hasn’t dispatched a team to the BCS title game since January 2008. Just for the record, league commissioner Jim Delany has grumbling constituents to placate.
Counterpoint from Florida coach Will Muschamp, speaking at the SEC meetings in Destin, Fla.: “”I don’t think [the impending] playoff needs to be the conference champions because in our league we might have four of the best teams in the country.”
Here we come to the nub of the issue. If college football is to remain the sport where — invoking the official BCS slogan — Every Game Counts, wouldn’t it look odd to have a four-team tournament that includes two or more non-champions? (New slogan: Every Game Counts Except Those That Don’t.) On the other hand, wouldn’t it look even odder if a four-team playoff is rendered the SEC Invitational?
College football has forever been the sport that makes the least sense. The long-sought playoff is an attempt to remedy that, but the drive for a playoff is less a considered course of action than a knee-jerk response to what just happened. What just happened was that the BCS title game became an SEC rematch that pleased no one except SEC loyalists. The playoff is supposed to spread the wealth. It might not spread it beyond Mike Slive’s football fiefdom.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the 2012 season works thusly: Alabama beats LSU 9-6 in overtime; Alabama finishes the regular season 12-0; LSU finishes 11-1 and runs second in the West; Georgia goes 11-1 and wins the SEC East and upsets Alabama in the conference title game.
Let’s also say that Southern Cal finishes unbeaten in the Pac-12 but the champs of the Big 12, the Big Ten and the ACC all have at least one loss. Let’s say you’ve got three once-beaten teams from the SEC ranked Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the human polls. Were there an open-to-non-champs four-team playoff in place — there won’t be by this fall, but we’re pretending — wouldn’t it be difficult not to select Georgia, Alabama and LSU? (Didn’t we learn from the 2011 BCS standings that a once-beaten SEC non-champ trumps a once-beaten Big 12 titlist?)
Understand: I’m not opposed to a playoff. What I fear is that a four-team playoff won’t be much different from the 1-versus-2 BCS “system” we all despised. Somebody (or somebody’s computer) will have to choose four teams, and the outcry from those not selected could be even louder than before.
With a four-team playoff, the expectation from non-SEC leagues is that their champs will be better positioned than in 1-versus-2. They might not be. Such is the cachet of the SEC that it figures to have at least two teams in the discussion every season unless there’s a champs-only stipulation included, but wouldn’t the whole thing lose credibility if there is? (Possible half-baked compromise: No more than two of the four teams can come from a single league.)
The trouble with a four-team playoff is that it isn’t quite a tournament. Eight would be far better. (Steve Spurrier prefers that format, FYI.) With an eight-team field, you could accommodate the five BCS league champs — let’s agree to drop the Big East from the discussion — and still have room for worthy runners-up and the occasional Boise State. An eight-team grid would offer both the appearance and the reality of inclusion. The only reason not to have an eight-team tournament is because it would mess up the bowls, which is no reason at all.
I know, I know. After going so long without a real playoff, we should be grateful for small favors. But college football, as is its wont, is trying to have it both ways: Grafting a playoff patch on to a postseason already bloated by who-cares bowls. Even as I hope for the best, honesty compels me to confess that I expect rather less.
By Mark Bradley
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
190 comments Add your comment
SEC coaches want football playoff to include top 4 – Houma Courier | Danta Report
May 30th, 2012
11:14 am
[...] in the country — and not be tied to conference champions. Their solidarity came as no …Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panaceaAtlanta Journal Constitution [...]
SEC coaches want top 4 in playoff – ESPN (blog) | Danta Report
May 30th, 2012
11:19 am
[...] the country — and not be tied to conference champions. ESPN.com's Edward Aschoff …Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panaceaAtlanta Journal Constitution [...]
harold
May 30th, 2012
11:21 am
I AM IN FAVOR OF A 16 TEAM PLAYOFF.
YOU SIMPLY GO BACK TO A 10 GAME SEASON WITH NO CONFERENCE TITLE GAMES.
YOU CAN PLAY THESE IN THE BOWLS. IN FACT YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE BOWL GAMES FOR TEAMS THAT ARE RATED ABOVE 16.
THE 16 TEAM PLAYOFF BEGINS THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER.
THEN… YOU ARE DOWN TO EIGHT TEAMS…YOU PLAY THOSE GAMES MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.
YOU HAVE THE FOUR TEAM PLAOFF ON NEW YEARS DAY.
THEN YOU HAVE THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AS WE DO NOW.
NO MORE GUESSING WHO THE BEST TEAMS ARE. YOU PROVE IT ON THE FIELD!
IT IS TIME!
mgo
May 30th, 2012
11:24 am
2nd
Frank Lane
May 30th, 2012
11:24 am
You are correct. Only an 8 team playoff begins to make sense.
Frank Lane
May 30th, 2012
11:26 am
I would support Harold’s suggestion above. 16 teams. Based on results of 10 or 11 game season.
Chi Town
May 30th, 2012
11:27 am
Respect, Saban.
Dawgdad (The Original)
May 30th, 2012
11:35 am
I agree MB, just changing the argument, not eliminating it.
DW
May 30th, 2012
11:36 am
Plumb-bob method, now thats funny Mark.
Jaybird
May 30th, 2012
11:37 am
A four game playoff is better than what we currently have as long as it is the four best teams. Hopefully after the four game playoff is establish it can be expanded to an eight game playoff.
follow the money
May 30th, 2012
11:38 am
This is a start. You have to crawl before you can walk. We move to a 4 team playoff, as evidenced by the new Champions bowl, and the bowls lose a little power and influence. When we revisit this discussion in a few years, it becomes much easier to go to 8 teams…
I don’t believe you will ever see the schedule shortened to 10 or 11 games unless the TV revenue is so great as to compensate for all the revenue the extra game generates.
follow the money
May 30th, 2012
11:40 am
in determining a champ, it is much easier to accept the champion if we are arguing over 4/5 or eventually 8/9 rather than who is 1/2/3 prior to the big game.
Eddie
May 30th, 2012
11:47 am
I agree an eight team playoff works better, but I don’t agree with the top part of the article. All games do matter in this system. You describe a scenario with some one loss SEC teams, but the other conferences also have “at least one loss.”. At this point, it isn’t which league gets a shot … It should be who are the four teams in the land? They get the shot at it.
Every game still counts as it helps all consideration filters determine where that team falls in the rankings. If Georgia is 11-1 and lost to LSU and Ohio State is 11-1 and lost to a 6-5 Northwestern team, well, both those games matter in deciding which team is ‘better’ and where they are ranked. If both still rank 1 through 4 then great, both get a shot.
Let’s actually say all games matter and not all conferences matter. I want to see the four best teams in the land playing for the title.
Glenn
May 30th, 2012
11:48 am
I think a good compromise would be say no more than two teams from one conference in a four team playoff . As far as an 8 team playoff , we all know it won’t happen .
UGADawg83
May 30th, 2012
11:50 am
I would like a sixteen team playoff but that’s not going to happen so here goes my second best idea. Lets go eight teams. With the winners of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, ACC, and Big East. This gives room for two at large teams which could include a conference runners up, Independents or a deserving lesser conference champion. Now lets play
jay h
May 30th, 2012
11:53 am
Wow, Mark, even YOU usually wait for something to fail – or at least for the final parameters to be determined – before declaring something a failure.
I suppose as Larry said, “New league record…ANOTHER new league record….”
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
11:55 am
This is a great blog Mark. It really shows how much of a joke the playoff system will be if we allow more then one team from a conference in. In some ways I think it would be worse then the current BCS system.
TomB
May 30th, 2012
11:59 am
Mark, eight teams sounds just about right. Why do I get the feeling this makes too much sense for the powers to be?
Flounder
May 30th, 2012
12:02 pm
If its only going to be a 4-team playoff, then I think only conf champions and MAYBE one at-large invite makes the most sense. WIN YOUR CONFERENCE
coolbreeze
May 30th, 2012
12:05 pm
I don’t think we’ll see the seasons of 100+ “other” teams truncated for the benefit of 4 or 8 ’special’ teams. There is too much money, and too much fun, to be lost. Watch out, or the egos of the 6 or 8 men running college football will ruin it. (DeLoss Dodds, what are you up to today?)
Tide Rising
May 30th, 2012
12:13 pm
“This from the coach whose team won the national championship without winning its division. (No self-interest there!)”
So. You think this will be the first time that the 2 best teams in the nation both happen to play in the same division?
“What I fear is that four-team playoff won’t be much different from the 1-versus-2 BCS “system” we all despised.’
Sorry Mark but go back and look at history. The BCS usually got it right in pairing the top 2 teams. There were a few exceptions where a really strong 3rd party team got left out such as AU in 04. Other years where a 3rd team like Ok. state last year or Georgia in 07 felt like they were left out. And the big 10 can’t complain because years back when OSU-Mich were #1 and #2 and played and they talked about a rematch well Michigan would have been in the top 4 and gotten into a 4 team playoff so this doesn’t just work for the SEC.
If you keep the BCS intact you will always get that 3rd best team or 4th best team in the playoff. The team that finishes ranked 5th will whine and moan but you have to have a cutoff somewhere and after the 3rd and especially the 4th teams you really start to lose a serious claim as to whether or not you deserve a title shot.
If you go to the ridiculous champion only concept than a lot of middling teams like 2 loss and # 8 ranked Oregon would have gotten in and Wisconsin last year which I think was ranked #10 would have gotten in. Who the hell wants to see 2 loss conference champions ranked no. 8 through 10 in a 4 team playoff over a team that finished ranked 2nd whose only loss was in OT to the no. 1 ranked team? That’s just plain dumb.
suwanee dawg
May 30th, 2012
12:13 pm
Keep BSC rankings in tact. Have seven BCS bowls. First four are 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. Have these four over the new years period. Week two the four winners play in bows five and six. Two winners meet in NC game two weeks later (bowl 7). Keep all other conference championships and bowl tie ins outside of the 8 BCS team play in tact. This would allow most if not all games to matter and build an excitement on pairings.
Brave Hokie
May 30th, 2012
12:16 pm
I appreciate how disappointing it might be for SEC fans if the 4 team playoff doesn’t inlcude at least 3/4 SEC teams… but this might be the compromise needed to get all conferences to agree on a playoff. Then, perhaps the playoff grows to include at large teams.
As rolling as the SEC is right now, remember they would have benefited from “conference winners only” just 9/10 years ago…
If you calling for a larger playoff pool {than 4} ~ please save your energy ~ go back to playing PlayStation or whatever. This will not happen out of the box…
Tide Rising
May 30th, 2012
12:18 pm
Who wants to see 2 loss conference champions ranked something like #8 or #10 like Oregon or Wisconsin in a 4 team playoff? Why would that team deserve to be in a playoff over say AU in 04 or UGA in 07 or Michigan which was ranked #3 in 07 after losing to Ohio state in the “game of the century” when they were ranked 1-2.
Stick with the BCS its almost always got it right and in years where it didn’t and a 3rd team got left out that 3rd team would be included in a 4 team playoff. Go with the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the year. The cutoff has to be somewhere and if you can’t get in the top 4 then you probably don’t have much of an argument for being in the playoff anyway.
Tide Rising
May 30th, 2012
12:23 pm
Get it out of your heads. Its not just the SEC. Remember when no. 1 Ohio State and no. 2 Michigan played to a 3 pt game in 06? And afterwards a lot of big 10 fans were clamoring for a rematch for the national title. If you went with just the top 4 ranked teams then Michigan would have gotten in, been promptly destroyed, but at least the top 4 ranked teams including the the perceived top 2 who happened to be from the same conference would have gotten into the playoff. Last year wasn’t the first year where the top 2 or 2 of the top 3-4 teams just happened to reside in the same conference. And it won’t be the last.
Abnerish
May 30th, 2012
12:33 pm
8 team playoff. Teams determined by selection committee and slotted into “Bowls”. No polls allowed. The major bowls are used for the 6 quarterfinal and semifinal games. Championship game can be a non-bowl game like it is today. Start the playoffs 2 weeks after the championship games. That would put the Championship game on or around the 12th of January. Not all that different from the current system. Use the other bowls for the other teams to have their pointless end-of-season scrimmage. Again, not that different from today’s system – the majority of the bowls are already meaningless.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
12:34 pm
Stick with the BCS its almost always got it right
This is completely subjective. I could easily argue that the BCS has never once gotten it right. As long as champions, or playoff teams are picked by old men who don’t watch even one third of the games then we will never know if it is right or not. Let teams decide it on the field like every other sport ever played.
George Stein
May 30th, 2012
12:37 pm
The issue, I think, is that all records are not created equally. Further, the SEC should think a bit more strategically because strength isn’t static. Just because they have been successful recently does not mean they always will.
George Stein
May 30th, 2012
12:39 pm
The other issue the SEC has is that they only get one vote. If other conferences want conference champions only, then the SEC faces the decision to either go along with that or not participate. Good luck.
Sissy Dawg
May 30th, 2012
12:45 pm
Why not just declare the SEC champion the Nation Champion and eliminate all the BS.
I dropped my fried twinkie
May 30th, 2012
12:47 pm
JUST drop the affiliation with colleges and just make it Semi-Pro and sure 16 team playoff makes sense.
These are STUDENTS first and need to get a VALUABLE EDUCATION so when they don’t go PRO or have their careers ended playing 16 or 17 games a year they can at least get a job.
IF you go to a 16 or 17 game season you will hear more CRIES for PAYING the players.
YOU better PAY the Players and provide Health Coverage for LIFE if you want them to play that many games.
ATLBadger
May 30th, 2012
12:52 pm
College football will never make much sense. The lack of a real playoff system is just one of many reasons why I look forward more to Sunday’s in the fall…
Flounder
May 30th, 2012
12:53 pm
“If you go to the ridiculous champion only concept than a lot of middling teams like 2 loss and # 8 ranked Oregon would have gotten in and Wisconsin last year which I think was ranked #10 would have gotten in. Who the hell wants to see 2 loss conference champions ranked no. 8 through 10 in a 4 team playoff over a team that finished ranked 2nd whose only loss was in OT to the no. 1 ranked team? That’s just plain dumb.”
… then let’s get rid of Conferences all-together and just play regular season games based on rankings. As long as we’re all divided up into Conferences, becoming Conference Champion should be a vital step towards a National Title IN ADDITION TO rankings. It should be equivalent to winning your Division before advancing to the League Playoffs. So some conferences are much harder to win because, year after year, they have more ranked teams within them? TOO BAD
paintmeorange21
May 30th, 2012
12:53 pm
the article is 100% right – 4 teams do not make a playoff. 8 or even 16 can be done even today.
1-each of the 5 big conferences (ACC, SEC, PAC, BIG 10, BIG 12) select 3 teams with 1 slot open for a wild card
2-first round games are thanksgiving weekend
3-quarters are the weekend after(current conf champ games)
4-semis are the weekend after that (current army-navy)
5-chanp game is played on new years day. all the bowls are free to do what they still do.
Boise Dawg
May 30th, 2012
12:53 pm
I have very mixed feelings about this as I would not have wanted to see a 4-team playoff last year that included Arkansas, Alabama and LSU…. on the other hand I would still like to see the 4 best teams even if by chance one of those teams did not win their conference. The diffculty is that so few teams play tough out of confernce games, so it is hard to know for sure if a team like Arkansas was really better than an Oklahoma State or an Oregon… I would rather see the top team from the SEC play other top teams from other conferences vs. a rematch with an conference foe they already beat. It would make the regular season more meanginful by limiting to conference champions.
Old Dawg
May 30th, 2012
12:57 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it, the only solution is a 16-team play-off. That way conference champs and Top 10 teams that don’t win a conference title.
Check it out:
D-III has 199 teams and plays a 16-team format
D-III has 148 teams and plays a 16-team format
1-AA has 124 teams and plays a 16-team format
D-I has 120 teams and no play-off
You can argue that the season is too long, but under the current D-I format, they’re playing 13 games, if you include a bowl game. Teams that play in a conference title game are playing 14 game, one less than 1-AA’s 11-game schedule and four games for the teams that make the finals.
Paying football players will never work … thanks to Title IX, if you pay athletes in one sport you have to pay them all, and many school’s athletic budgets are already bleeding red!
Get it done!
I dropped my fried twinkie
May 30th, 2012
12:58 pm
Soon it will be cheaper for an Alcoholic Smoker to health insurance than it will be for a Kid that played 4 or 5 years of College Football.
Hell yes lets add more games and REFUSE to Play the players.
I dropped my fried twinkie
May 30th, 2012
1:02 pm
OLD DAWG not so! It has been said only Students that get FULL SCHOLARSHIPS will get paid………..I am sure the WOMEN will SUE, but Only Full Ride Scholarship Players will be paid.
7576DAWG
May 30th, 2012
1:05 pm
The best solution is to have an eight team playoff with the eight highest ranked teams going. The highest ranked Big -10 team last year was ranked 11 in the nation and would not deserve to be included in any playoff , so to make sure that doesn’t happen, Conference Champions can never be the choice of selecting who go’s to the playoff. If you go to an eight team playoff you have more of a chance of every part of the country getting involved.
As much as I love the SEC I would rather see other parts of the country play in a playoff than to just have an SEC Championship replayed. But if our Conference is so strong that we have 3 teams in the top eight then it wouldn’t be fair if all three teams were not included in a playoff and thus the best format of making as many college fans happy as possible would be to have an eight team playoff.
john
May 30th, 2012
1:07 pm
What about notre dame? They should get special treament like they have in the past, perhaps and automatic bid or just name them champions anyway cause they are so much better than everyone else
Hurt Kurbstreit
May 30th, 2012
1:11 pm
Whichever way you go there are problems with an expanded playoff system. I don’t think a 16 team playoff is going to happen. That’s too many games for college players to play on the way to the championship game. If you decide to eliminate one game from the regular season to cut back on games – that’s not gonna fly either. That’s a big revenue loss for the teams that don’t make it into the playoff rounds. Me, I don’t know what the answer is for a fair and representative system.
Father of 5
May 30th, 2012
1:16 pm
D2 playoffs had 16 with no problems — but it would mean hosting the first round on campus (which makes sense). 8 is possible, but still has problems. 4 won’t last long before it implodes from farcical situations like last year. You cannot rely on polls UNLESS the polls have criteria. Require them to follow head to head, or an objective strength of schedule component. Polls that follow the ice skating method of voting for the prettiest team will always remain a joke.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
1:23 pm
I wonder if Slive understands how a cartel works. You have to get your co-conspirators (Delany, Swofford, Scott and Neinas) to agree with you. I mean – isn’t the goal to keep all of the opportunity and $ to the big conferences and freeze out the rest of NCAA Div 1?
James
May 30th, 2012
1:27 pm
Yeah, great idea. This kids don’t need to take finals anyways. Dude, we don’t even have a playoff yet, and people are already screaming for 8-16 team playoff.
THE KEY
May 30th, 2012
1:29 pm
The key is deciding the national champion on the field. So any scenario that gets put on the table, just ask yourself….would this allow the national champion to be determined on the actual playing field? (like every other team sport in the world) If the answer is NO, well then we need to keep looking until we get there or it will always be politics and money and good looks instead of actual head to head competition.
You can tweak the bowls and the BCS all you want but it will never truly be determined on the field if that’s your starting point. The lower college football divisions have figured this out and the sun still came up the next day….jeez
JoeFan
May 30th, 2012
1:30 pm
A 16 team playoff would be the fairest. Two each from the five conferences or six conferences (conference champion and runner-up) plus the 4 or 6 highest ranked teams not included via conference slection.
flagboy?
May 30th, 2012
1:48 pm
Well, finally the idiot casual sports fan and the weekend warrior fantasy league guru have gotten their way and there will be some sort of stupid playoff. Nevermind that college football has been doing just fine without this crap. Nevermind that over the past few years there hasn’t really been any disagreement (well, at least realistic disagreement) over who should have been named the National Champ at the end of the year. . . .
So let’s have a 4 team playoff! yeah! only problem is, if people have been arguing over who should be #1, there’s going to be a helluva lot more arguing over who should be in the top 4. Think about the number of teams that will have a legitimate chance of being named in the top 4. . . so you just leave #5 out?? Leave out #6? No, let’s have a 16 team tourney. Right. . nevermind that actual number of games you’ve got college kids playing in one season. a 16 team tourney at the end of the season saps college football of the thing that has made it great: The fact that every game in a college football season matters. Every conference game is HUGE. If you subscribe to the 16 game or 8 game set up, you’re doing away with that part of college football.
This 4 team playoff this is a joke. It won’t be perfect. It’s trying to fix some imaginary problem. “I want to see a playoff!” . . . then go watch the NFL. College football has been doing just fine without it.
Abnerish
May 30th, 2012
1:51 pm
Why must we continue to include Polls (BCS or otherwise) in this discussion? Polls are subjective, biased, and basically meaningless. They should do as Basketball does and have a selection committee. That way, someone is responsible for who’s included and who’s not. Seems perfectly fair to me.
lee
May 30th, 2012
1:51 pm
You will end up with 4 super conferences shortly, let each division winner from that conference play the conference title game( essentially a national quarterfinal) then each conference champion is invited to play in the Final Four. People will cry about getting left out in any scenario. If you set the criteria in advance and stick with it no one can complain or moan!!!!!!
Ptc dawg
May 30th, 2012
1:52 pm
Top 8, get it on.
Hillbilly D
May 30th, 2012
1:54 pm
A 4 team playoff just guarantees that number 5 will be whining.
Ted DiBiase
May 30th, 2012
2:00 pm
I think Spurrier favors 8 teams because he feels pretty good about his chances of being that 3rd or 4th SEC team in the top 8.
ckgator
May 30th, 2012
2:01 pm
A playoff of any sort will be bad for the game. The above bickering proves it – it will never be a perfect system regardless of how many teams (4 or
are in the playoff. Someone will always be the 9th team and cry unfair.
Leave it as is… the controversy is half the fun.
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
Matt Hayes is reporting that there are 2 scenarios on the table: a 4 team playoff with conference champions or a 3 & 1 deal (3 conference winners and a wild card.)
I really hope that requiring a team to be a conference winner doesn’t become reality. The thought of teams ranked 1, 3, 7 and 11 defeats the purpose of getting the best 4 teams on the field. That proposal will be like the NCAA basketball tourney in which a low seed makes it to the Final Four (ie UConn in 2011 won it all but only had a .500 conference record). Besides, there will be squawking by conference champions that are left out in a conference winners playoff.
Tide Rising is right. The Big 1G was not complaining in 2006 when there was a chance of a rematch between Ohio St and Michigan in the BCS title game.
The only reason the PAC 12, ACC, Big East and Big 1G want to have a system with conference winners only is to give them a much greater chance at getting in the playoffs.
And every game would count under a playoff taking the 4 best teams. That’s BS to think otherwise.
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
you just had to tweak the cubs/dawg fans, didn't you
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
It’s the summer….as regular as the heat down south, chicago cubs and georgia bulldog fans are dreaming of championships…….
bdawg
May 30th, 2012
2:14 pm
Harold-
WHY ARE YOU YELLING????
Bob
May 30th, 2012
2:17 pm
Take four 16-team conferences, each with two eight-team divisions. Four conference championship winners play for the national championship. The eight worst teams, one from each conference division gets relegated out of the conference (think English soccer) and eight teams (best records/ranking) get put up the four confernces. Ergo, you start with a field of 64, and #s 65-72 move up the next year.
Poboy
May 30th, 2012
2:20 pm
Fear not. Let basketball be our guide. This tournament will expand.
Nick
May 30th, 2012
2:23 pm
Yep, so that Bama can make it without getting to their title game every year. That was garbage last year, and if they don’t make it conference champs or fix their computers college football will continue the downward spiral its already on…
JBD
May 30th, 2012
2:24 pm
I’m tired of the eyeball test determining who gets a shot. Alabama was probably the best team last year but why should they get a shot over oklahoma state just because we perceive their loss to be less bad. Unfortunately the only way to have a set rule in college football instead of introducing rankings is only allowing only conference champions. It takes all opinion out of the formula. There may be a less deserving team in the playoff but every team had the chance to win their confrence. The Giants werent the best team in the NFC during the season last season but played the best at the right time and won the super bowl.
A side effect of only conference winners is that out of conference games will have no bearing on your ability to win the national championship. Teams would no longer have a reason to schedule bad schools and should create better tv matchups between big schools out of conference.
MArk
May 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
12 team playoff. The 4 confrence champs get first round bye. The 4 championship game losers host games with four at large teams. The 4 confrence champs play the winners of these games at HOME. The remaiming three games are bid on by host sites.
AtlantaDude
May 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
There is more at stake than who will get into the playoffs. If they go with the “conference champions” format, it may put the brakes on the recent move toward fewer, larger conferences. If they go with the “Four Best Teams” format, the conference consolidation will likely continue.
WDF
May 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
I guess the NFL would be a better brand of football if we just didn’t count regular season games and go on what people think are the 4 best teams. Give me a break! No doubt that we have eventul division losers in pro and college conferences that are better than eventual winners from the others. But that’s what makes it fun, to see who comes out on top.
Lets see in Baseball it would be
Yankees and Redsox every year
NFL- Patriots and and Steelers
NBA- The Heat and Lakers.
I don’t want to see the SEC play each other for the championship each year. Let them have some guts and slugg it out among themselves and send the winner to the final four.
secfactcheck.com
May 30th, 2012
2:37 pm
Follow the Money. Big Football Money can control polls easier than they can control wins on the field (unless the refs are from your own conference re: UGA vs LSU and FL vs AR).
1eyedJack
May 30th, 2012
2:40 pm
What does ESPN and CBS think?
Marty Graw
May 30th, 2012
2:46 pm
To any knowledgeable, objective follower of college football it’s usually obvious who the two best teams are by the end of the year. Some years there may be three teams that appear to be close at the top, but rarely will there be 4 teams that are clearly head and shoulders above the others. College fooball just isn’t that deep. A four team playoff will be all that’s needed. As for any controversy about a fifth team that got left out? After 75 years of opinion-based systems to name a champion who cares about fifth place? And just like the NFL, the FCS division, and the current BCS system, there should be no requirement that the participants win their conference championship. If this thing goes through, the Alabama-LSU BCS final will be looked upon as the greatest thing that ever happened to college football.
playoff advocate
May 30th, 2012
2:47 pm
The best sixteen teams format used by other divisions is the way to go to determine a national champ. Drop the conference title games and reduce the season to 11 games. However, the likelihood of this happening is slim. Why? Count the $$$ the colleges, leagues and NCAA make on the extra games. Just do not feed us that bogus argument that the long season is bad for academics. Evidence the academic outcomes in the the other divisions.
If not 16 teams, then go to a 4 team format that begins after everyone has played in bowl games. The top 4 teams after the bowls make the playoffs.
Matt from MN
May 30th, 2012
2:48 pm
This “piecemeal” approach is a joke. 16 team playoff and be done with it.
Billy
May 30th, 2012
2:48 pm
A few things that haven’t been mentioned.
1. The 4-team playoff that only includes Conference Champions (backed by the Big10 and a few other conferences) has an additional suggestion..that they MUST be ranked in the top 6. So let’s say the season wraps like this:
#1 LSU (SEC Champ)
#2 USC (PAC12 Champ)
#3 Alabama (SEC runner-up)
#4 Oklahoma (Big12 Champ)
#5 Oregon (PAC12 runner-up)
#6 Arkansas
#7 Michigan (Big10 Champ)
With that formula, you’d have LSU playing Oklahoma and USC playing Alabama…and although Michigan was a Conf Champ, they finished outside of the top 6 and are left out. So there is still the option that a conference can get 2 teams in. Seems pretty fair to me.
The 2nd thing worth pointing out is that if the SEC is going to fight for a second conference team to be allowed to play, then they ought to play 9 conference games like most of the other conferences do. Either that, or the other conferences should drop to an 8-game conference schedule. I know SEC fans will argue that 8 games in the SEC are harder than 9 games in other conferences, but what about Georgia’s schedule this year…avoiding LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas? (I’m not picking on them, just making a point)
Maybe one other suggestion might be to reintroduce strength of schedule into the formula…so regardless of how many conference games or cupcakes you play, the SOS can be a determining factor…none of which is perfect, just a thought.
Old Goober
May 30th, 2012
2:52 pm
You are deluded if you think a playoff of any kind will settle all the controversy about naming a national champion. Even with a 16-team playoff system, there’ll always be hordes of people who will say, “Yeah, but our best player was hurt; we would have won it all if not for that.” If you want to see important football and an extended season, then a playoff system is for you. But don’t assume such a system will settle any arguments about which is the best college football team in the land.
TheTruth
May 30th, 2012
2:54 pm
Why not have the early Bowls host the first round. I bet the Poinsettia, BeefO’Brady’s, Little Caesar’s, Holiday, or Meineke Car Care would hate hosting say…. LSU vs Mich. or UGA vs Texas…
TheTruth
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
If the early bowls host eight games is possible.
Big Time???? Not!
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
none of the scenarios have tech?
Four tickets, four hot dogs, four cokes. Oh.
TheTruth
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
Teams…not games. Sorry.
secfactcheck.com
May 30th, 2012
2:56 pm
Eight conferences of 8 teams or 4 conferences of 16 teams. Each conference sends equal number of teams totaling 16 to the playoff. Preset seeds such that if a conference does have top 4 teams then they all will meet each other in the finals of have complete bragging rights.
7 Conference games 4 Non-Conference games
All non-Conference games MUST be against 64 team league (all games matter)
Round 1 / 16 teams/8 games (Sweet Sixteen) 3rd week in Dec
Round 2 / 8 teams / 4 games (Qtr – Elite Eight) 4th week in Dec
Round 3 / 4 teams / 2 games (Semi’s – Final Four) 1st week in Jan
Round 4 / 2 teams / 1 game (Finals – National Champion) 2nd week in Jan
GT
May 30th, 2012
2:59 pm
If the US Constitution had not been written with a lot of flexibility we wouldn’t have a country today. College football will not always look like this, power in the Southeastern Conference, as it has not always looked like what it was when Army and Notre Dame were powerhouses.
Look at college basketball, the pros have ruin what was a solid product. Things change pretty dramatically. I for one do not think the SEC is stronger outside the four or five teams on top. Georgia losing to Colorado, UCF and the bowl game this year are not signs the league is getting stronger from top to bottom. Tennessee and Florida are very weak which makes Georgia and South Carolina look stronger than either really is. I imagine Arkansas will come back to earth this year or next, leaving really Alabama and LSU as your real teams with a shot at the NC. Other conferences are going to be improving all the time, in ten years we may have another king of college football, if we don’t write them out at the beginning. Ohio State showed us what a pretender can do to a championship game, if political sway is allowed.
secfactcheck.com
May 30th, 2012
3:05 pm
Forgot…
Round 0 / 32 teams / 16 games (Conference Champs for 8/8 Conf or Semis for 4/16 Conf
Round 1 / 16 teams/8 games (Sweet Sixteen) 3rd week in Dec (Conf Champs in 4 16 team Conf
Round 2 / 8 teams / 4 games (Qtr – Elite Eight) 4th week in Dec
Round 3 / 4 teams / 2 games (Semi’s – Final Four) 1st week in Jan
Round 4 / 2 teams / 1 game (Finals – National Champion) 2nd week in Jan
That is 31 games, 32 teams. Sell Corporate Sponsor-ships of each round/game.
GT
May 30th, 2012
3:12 pm
I like what Billy is saying.
I also like the 9 games for the SEC. What Georgia does is totally unfair to even South Carolina who had to play a real team last year in Arkanas. The problem with 9 games is the SEC will only have two good enough teams next year or the next and those two are playing in the same conference.
Old Dawg
May 30th, 2012
3:13 pm
I dropped my fried twinkie: There are numerous female and non-revenue student-athletes who are full-ride scholarship holders. The fact remains, too many college athletic programs are struggling to stay in the black.
Paying athletes will only create problems and lawsuits.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
3:13 pm
The thought of teams ranked 1, 3, 7 and 11 defeats the purpose of getting the best 4 teams on the field.
The point of a playoff is not to get the 4 best teams on the field, its to let the teams on the field determine who is best by playing each other. There is no possible way to objectively determine the 4 best teams, therefore it is useless to try. Let the teams determine who is best by playing football.
GT
May 30th, 2012
3:13 pm
Division not conference.
SecFan
May 30th, 2012
3:16 pm
Mark, let’s be truthful about the Alabama-Oklahoma St decision for a change. Had Bama lost to un-ranked Miss St in it’s next-to-last game and OSU had only lost to the top team in the country earlier, you know OSU would have gotten the nod and deservedly so. It obviously peeved you, but at least you should have the professionalism not to pretend it was some non-sensical head-scratcher that opened the door for Bama.
wrestler
May 30th, 2012
3:20 pm
Who cares about records in the playoff system. You win your conference and go from there. I believe its was the arizona cardinals in pro ball that wasn’t even .500 but had the best record in their division and went to the playoffs. There are plenty of teams in the pros that get winning season but don’t go to the playoffs, its always the division leader and leftovers (which they call wildcard) that go. Touch noogies if 11-1 teams don’t go. They lost somewhere and LIFE AIN”T FAIR ANYWAY…..
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
3:29 pm
But don’t assume such a system will settle any arguments about which is the best college football team in the land.
There is no way possible to satisfy everyone’s definition of the best team in the land. It is a completely subjective term. 99% of all sports feel that letting them all play each other in a playoff is the best way to decide. College football for some reason thinks letting a few old men decide using their magical eyeball test is the best way.
Disco is King
May 30th, 2012
3:42 pm
I’m too youg to remember, but where was all the angst against the bowl system in say the 70’s and 80’s. Has this topic been around that long? Is it my imagination or did this “problem” just appear about a 8 years ago after everyone decided the BCS still isn’t good enough. I swear, we should just go back to bowls and polls and say to heck with the BCS. The reason there are still a million bowls out there is because they make money for everyone involved and the kids love to play in them. If this was politics, we’d all be labeled “unpatriotic” for opposing the distincly American tradition of college football bowls.
Mr. Dawg
May 30th, 2012
3:52 pm
Mark you’re observations here are things I’ve been saying for years. I’ve never been necessarily opposed to a playoff. But there really isn’t anything in a 120 team league that can be completely fair. Hence my belief the current system as it were is fine. My only real complaint about the old system was that he name of the new BCS champion hadn’t even been engraved on the Crystal Trophy before the naysayers began to complain about how it was decided. Yet no one could provide a fool proof resolution. Now here it is.. The long awaited playoff ready to be installed and the debates arguments are more or less the same and have begun before it has even been put to the test. I’m certain those debates will continue. .And if you thing about it, there’s hasn’t been what I would call an unworthy champion since the BCS was created.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
4:05 pm
And if you thing about it, there’s hasn’t been what I would call an unworthy champion since the BCS was created.
Alabama.
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
4:06 pm
The problem with a four team playoff that doesn’t use only conference champs, is that it’s still not subjective. Of course SEC coaches want it to be the four “best” teams, because they expect to always be two or three of the four best teams. I don’t care if the SEC occasionally would have a couple teams in the 4-game format; what I expect is the SEC would always have 2 teams and occasionally 3 teams.
You can keep your four best teams. I’d rather have four teams that earned it.
JM
May 30th, 2012
4:12 pm
The SEC has some great teams, but not all the football in the SEC can be considered top-notch. There are some bad teams in the middle to lower half of the SEC.
RTR22
May 30th, 2012
4:17 pm
LSWho is still sooooo bitter about the woodshed beating in Jan that their leadership is making Fools of themselves in Destin today….Check out some of their quotes from the AD and HC. Too funny…
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
4:23 pm
GTBob:
“The point of a playoff is not to get the 4 best teams on the field, its to let the teams on the field determine who is best by playing each other.”
But most fans want the best 4 to be in the playoffs. You obviously are in the minority, which is your right.
Without fans, college football would not be the sport that it is.
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
Redman
May 30th, 2012
4:25 pm
College football left with Keith Jackson , Ara P,and others.They are sick of hearing about,
Howbout them dawgs, roll tide, and sh ass fans and sportswrighters
. Play Ball!
IL Jacket
May 30th, 2012
4:30 pm
If one is truly interested in what is best for college football, with only a four team playoff you cannot have one of the four be a team that did not win their conference. Otherwise, football will find itself an irrelevancy on the national stage. It will become what men’s college lacrosse is-an interesting sport to a small segment of the country. It is no coincidence that the lowest national TV ratings in the BCS era were this year’s rematch of LSU-Ala. West coast, midwest and Rocky Mountain fans had no interest in a rematch of one of the most boring regular season games, which in itself was a boring game, although for a different reason.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
4:32 pm
But most fans want the best 4 to be in the playoffs. You obviously are in the minority, which is your right.
Please give me an objective way to determine who the 4 best teams in the country are. No, a popular vote is not objective. Also give a factual definition of the word best in relation to college football teams. If you can do that then I am in your corner. If not, then I would rather watch teams prove it on the field. And no, I don’t think I am in the minority.
Easy Button
May 30th, 2012
4:47 pm
FCS model folks….. Works fine, and no drama.
Jack P
May 30th, 2012
4:48 pm
Harold’s playoff suggestion makes no sense. I prefer a 64 team playoff. Six regular season games and 6, at most, playoff games. That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it?
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
4:51 pm
College Presidents will not vote for an 8 or 12 or 16 team playoff because they want the season to be a one semester sport or something real close to one semester. It would take an 8 or 9 game regular season conference schedule and with 3 playoff games to fit the model, maybe 10 games but even then the Presidents of each school want to play as many home games as possible.
We can gripe all we want, but believe it when I say that the issue is in the hands of the Presidents who like the ( CZAR, NAPOLEAN like President Adams) scattered across the country will make it to their own personal benefit.
Any plan that is not about the top 4 teams in the country is not a true playoff and their is no way anyone can argue it any other way. Look at the BIG 10, ACC, and Big East, none of those teams even had an argument for playing in the title game the past 3 years.
WOOOOOOOOO
May 30th, 2012
4:51 pm
“And if you thing about it, there’s hasn’t been what I would call an unworthy champion since the BCS was created.”
USC, Alabama.
WOOOOOOOOO
May 30th, 2012
4:51 pm
Where’s Sonny Clusters?
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
4:55 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
4:32 pm
But most fans want the best 4 to be in the playoffs. You obviously are in the minority, which is your right.
Please give me an objective way to determine who the 4 best teams in the country are. No, a popular vote is not objective. Also give a factual definition of the word best in relation to college football teams. If you can do that then I am in your corner. If not, then I would rather watch teams prove it on the field. And no, I don’t think I am in the minority.
GT Bob, once again your biased opinion is based on your basketball league based conference and the lack of play of any GREAT teams in your league. Your way only guarantees the right for one of your weak( very weak) teams to make it into the playoff while playing a regular season of weak opponents.
And by the way, I DO hold an Engineering degree from Tech and still realize the ACC is very very weak in football and if they lose FSU or Clemson the league becomes even weaker and should lose their BCS Conference status in Football.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:00 pm
The jeolousy on these boards of dominant programs and conferences is laughable and shows the true ignorance of football fans…WE have GT BOB complaining about the selection process in football, while in basketball as long as his 9 or 10 ACC teams make it into the NCAA Tournament he is all happy, but he fails to mention in that process it is still OBJECTIVE and he is fine with that because the ACC gets the advantage due to reputation in roundball.
Having his cake and eating it too.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:01 pm
Any plan that is not about the top 4 teams in the country is not a true playoff and their is no way anyone can argue it any other way.
I can easily argue another way. Choosing 4 random teams that pass the eyeball test is not the definition of a true playoff. Those teams didn’t have to meet any real criteria to get there. I am still waiting on anyone to give me an objective way to determine the 4 best teams. Can someone please explain how last year Stanford was better then Oregon even though Oregon beat them by 23 points?
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:04 pm
Whe the NCAA Basketball Tourney is selected through THEIR process everyon in the ACC is okay with that, because the ACC gets it bye of 9 or 10 teams in the tournament. They went from 32 to 64 to 68 and still have people whining because their team did not make it in. The same thing will happen in football, 4, 8, 16, 32, anything to get a weak team into the big boy show and to make all these cry baby fans feel good even though they should be more worried about their own weak programs to begin with.
285exp
May 30th, 2012
5:06 pm
@JDB
“Alabama was probably the best team last year but why should they get a shot over oklahoma state just because we perceive their loss to be less bad.”
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:07 pm
Your way only guarantees the right for one of your weak( very weak) teams to make it into the playoff while playing a regular season of weak opponents.
My argument has nothing to do with the ACC at all. The ACC would have only had one team make the playoffs in the last 7 years by using the conference champions model.
Jim 70
May 30th, 2012
5:12 pm
If you want to include non conference champs, then get rid of the league championship game, and why even have a league games. Four conference champs is fine, and eight would be okay, but you play a season league schedule for a reason, and then we want a league championship game – if you can’t win that, you aren’t qualified to be a national champion.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:13 pm
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
Alabama beat one ranked team last year in the regular season and then won a sham of a championship game with a month to prepare. They are by far the worst champion in the BCS era. Nobody has any clue how good they are in relation to the other teams in the country.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:18 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:13 pm
Because an overtime loss to an undefeated consensus #1 team in the country is less bad than blowing a 17 pt 3rd quarter lead to a 5-4 unranked doormat.
Alabama beat one ranked team last year in the regular season and then won a sham of a championship game with a month to prepare. They are by far the worst champion in the BCS era. Nobody has any clue how good they are in relation to the other teams in the country.
I guess GT Bob is carrying on the Furman Bisher model of bashing Alabama in every article. I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
OKSU lost to a poor poor team,
Oregon lost to LSU,
Stanford lost to a team that was on probation who lost multiple games.
He has no argument he is just anti SEC and Anti- Alabama is bias is showing like his stinger.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
5:19 pm
“his bias is showing….”
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
5:24 pm
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the SEC isn’t the best conference. My point is that it’s ridiculous to create a playoff model on how good you think teams are rather than if they earned a spot.
I’ll agree that it is often more difficult to be the SEC runner up than to win several of the other conference championships, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to play for the title. I’d even go as for as to say the SEC deserves its champ to always have a spot, but never 2-3 spot in a 4 team playoff.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:28 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
I have no idea who was better then them and neither do you. The only teams that you can fully say weren’t better then them were the teams they beat. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had to actually prove they were the best instead of just relying on ESPN to convince people that they were?
Wet Willie...keep on smiling
May 30th, 2012
5:30 pm
You GT folks are funny as hell speaking about a playoff that you will never ever be apart of in the future. The UGA fans should wish to get into the game any way you can! Just for a minute forget who played in the last 4 BCS games or how they got there! The best 4 teams period and I don’t give a rats azz what conference they came from should be in the game. Most years 2 of those 4 will have one loss. Keep slamming Alabama if it makes you fell better about your team since both GT and UGA suck and it’s documented for those that can read and Lord knows you fools believe your’re topshelf in academics. Reading the sheet you post proves otherwise.
#1bamafan
May 30th, 2012
5:31 pm
I know there is no perfect championship in football. The NFL (Superbowl) does not always crown the best team but sometimes the hottest team the last few weeks. The regular season has to count and if The NCAA can come up with a good system, I would back an eight to sixteen team playoff using the bowls. I look foward to College Football, no matter what the BCS produces…RTR
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
5:33 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
Maybe no one was better. We will never know because they never played a team that was even close to them in talent.
You guys keep using words like better and best. Tell me why the second best team in the SEC was the best team in the country?
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:37 pm
Well, we know this much. The dogs will never be in the top 4 unless the field is chosed in February or March. The dogs might crack a top 8 field but only if they continue to play the BS SEC!SEC! Least schedule they play. On further thought, no they wouldn’t becuse Bama or LSU will kick their butts in the SEC!SEC! championship game and the dogs will scamper off with their tails tucked tight.
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:40 pm
Ohio State/Michigan or Oklahoma/Texas or Bama/LSU or USC/Oregan
That’s who the nation would want to see year in year out. The rest of the SEC!SEC! is delusional but they learned that from the dogs.
285exp
May 30th, 2012
5:42 pm
Ah, the all powerful ESPN is responsible for convincing all the dupes that Alabama is worthy to be in the BCSCG? 42 of the 59 coaches in the coaches poll, including Les Miles and Mark Richt, voted Alabama #2. The AP had Alabama ranked #2 going into the game, but I guess all those sportwriters were mezmerized by ESPN too. People were talking about LSU being one of the greatest teams of all time, having beaten the PAC 12 champion, the Big East champion, and Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia. And Okie State couldn’t beat Iowa State, but they deserve to play for the national championship. Right.
ValidReal
May 30th, 2012
5:49 pm
I say we let the sports writers pick the two teams they think are the best and let them play all season long. The team with the most wins is the national champion. If they end up tied we give it to Notre Dame.
Dawg in AL
May 30th, 2012
5:56 pm
The main reason for a playoff is to let it be decided on the field. The best team does not necessarily always win, but that is what makes sports great. When given your chance you have to perform. Every team should be given their chance and by taking conference champions you would guarantee all were given a chance. Your initial chance was given in that you had the opportunity to win you conference and you next chance would be the opportunity to play in national playoff. All decided on the field, not the polls.
It needs to be decided on the field. That is why you play the game. You cannot let writers and coaches determine who is worthy of being champion. If so why not just use the initial poll and cancel all games, declare a champion in September.
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:04 pm
I think we need conference champions in order to make the regular season remain meaningful. Maybe 6 conference champs along with 2 at large teams decided by a committee or based on a similar ranking system as the BCS. 4 teams is a step in the right direction, but I think we need at least 8 teams to decide a true champion without everyone crying about the SEC dominating the 4 team field.
Big 10 Welfare
May 30th, 2012
6:05 pm
Buckeye
May 30th, 2012
5:40 pm
Ohio State/Michigan or Oklahoma/Texas or Bama/LSU or USC/Oregan
That’s who the nation would want to see year in year out. The rest of the SEC!SEC! is delusional but they learned that from the dogs
So, your Buckeyes were thrashed 41-14 by a delusion??
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:11 pm
Buckeye,
Am I delusional in remembering a 41-14 thrashing of THE Ohio State University by the Mighty Gators in Glendale a few years ago? Am I delusional in remembering a 24-14 beating Oklahoma took by the Mighty Gators a few years ago in Miami?
Look in the mirror for a delusional fan of an overrated program.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
6:18 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
5:28 pm
I just want to know who he really thinks was a better team than LSU or Alabama in 2011?
I have no idea who was better then them and neither do you. The only teams that you can fully say weren’t better then them were the teams they beat. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had to actually prove they were the best instead of just relying on ESPN to convince people that they were?
And how sure are you that ESPN forced and convinced EVERYONE that Alabama and LSU were the two teams THEY wanted in the BCSNCG? You aren’t because you definitely were not in ANY meetings where they all got together to discuss it were you? Did not think so. You and your conspiracy theories.
It was pretty obvious that MOST coaches, sportswriters, beat writers and voters thought those two teams belonged in the game, but Let’s all bow down to know nothing GT Bob who we all know holds a major grudge against anything Saban, Alabama or SEC because he has no brain power to think of anything else.
By the way GT Bob, I made it clear in my last donation and last Athletic Alumni meeting that I was not in full support( partial support) of the CPJ and things had to change or we would see even a greater drop in donations and support.
jarvis
May 30th, 2012
6:23 pm
So it can be any conference champion? So if 1-3 all won their conference and 4-7 didn’t, we would have the 8th ranked team in the country that won the WAC in the playoff?
That’s what the Big-10 is saying?
TidoMonkey
May 30th, 2012
6:28 pm
I couldn’t agree more, Dawg in AL. The main goal of a the playoff should be fairness and if any Div. 1 team cannot win the national championship regardless of how well they play then it’s all for naught.
JBD
May 30th, 2012
6:40 pm
I want to see the polls get thrown out but thinking about it, even if you have only conference winners, you still have to determine which ones are used. The ACC winner most likely will be disregarded but what if FSU goes undefeated and all the big 4 conferences all have a 1 loss team. There would still need to be a ranking or a subjective poll to choose the 4.
I want to see all subjectivity and polling out but there is no good choice so you mine as well take the 4 best perceived teams.
JBD
May 30th, 2012
6:44 pm
The ideal situation in my eyes would be to move to the 4 conference set up into 4 pods each. You play your own “pod” and 1 other so every team in your pod plays the same conference schedule. Each conference adds a semi-final game so the conference semi-final and championship game work as a psuedo playoff. Then the 4 conference winners play. That would base everything on field performance and get rid of polling.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
6:47 pm
I have this to say in response to Muschamp, Slive and the “four best teams” SEC proponents. Why do three of those teams, who have already been eliminated in conference play and/or the SECCG need to keep playing? To prove what? The “four of the best teams in the country” is subjective until it is sorted out by a national playoff. This 4-team playoff, however implemented, is going to be as controversial as the BCS.
My preference in watching the regular season is the SEC, but after the SEC championship is decided on the field, I do not care to see SEC vs. SEC matchups. I have questions remaining from last year’ so-called national championship game. How can a game played more 5 weeks after the season determine anything in context to the previous 12 (or 13) games? The playoff will hopefully not start in January.
As long as the powers that be limit this playoff to 4 teams, it will only be a small improvement over the BCS. I would much rather see schools that desire to compete in football consolidate into 4 conferences as seemingly the only alternative to expanded playoffs (which is nonsense as the FCS just expanded their playoff *again.*. The regular season games within conferences, and certainly the conference championship games, should be considered potential elimination games. The traditional contests such as Georgia vs. Georgia Tech carry their own meaning. Furthermore, try and please the fans by scheduling more quality out of conference opponents. If it’s too hard to play all those though teams, then shorten the regular season.
Big 10 Welfare
May 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
Here’s my question: what is the basis for assuming that no more than 1 of the 4 best college football teams in any given season can reside in a single conference? Is there a law of nature that supports the proposition that these 4 teams will be distributed evenly among the conferences? Unless someone can answer that question satisfactorily, then a playoff based on that assumption will be flawed, controversial and illegitimate from its inception.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
And now that I’ve gon back and read all of Mark’s article, I agree 100%.
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
6:57 pm
Nothing short of a tournament involving every team will satisfy everyone. I think 8 teams is about the best we can hope for, but at least we have a start with the 4 team format.
230gr Full Metal Jacket
May 30th, 2012
6:58 pm
I can’t believe it!! I FINALLY agree with Mark on something!!!!!!!!!!! But in all seriousness — anything less than an 8-team play-off is unacceptable. A 16-team tournament would be much better (with an 11-game regular season).
I do find it a bit irritating though, that folks seem to just automatically assume the SEC will retain it’s current dominant position — which most assuredly is NOT going to happen. It wasn’t that long ago that the SEC wasn’t a particularly good conference — they only looked good against each other. That indeed changed dramatically, but as all things seem to do, it goes in cycles. In the 1990’s Teams like Miami, FSU, and Nebraska were winning everything, but they peaked and then went down quickly while other teams rose. This is already happening in the SEC. They are already down to being a 2-pony show (Face it, no one from the SEC except Bama and LSU is nationally relevant anymore, and they haven’t been for several years already — and you can count on a downturn at both of their premier programs within the next 2 years!). But all of that is a moot point if they woill just do as Mark said and have a 8-team playoff that includes the SEC, ACC, Big-12, Big-10, and PAC-12 champions plus 3 at large teams picked based on record and strength of schedule. They do it in virtually EVERY other level of football, from Pee-Wee league to the NFL, but only DIV-I tries to be different — which results in iDIV-I football being the most ridiculous sport in America!! I think most would agree that rarely does the best team in college football get a chance to even play for the NC. It’s like politics comes before on-the-field performance.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
6:59 pm
If the “top 4 teams” had been picked in 2010 we would have had Auburn, Oregon, Stanford and TCU.
In 2009 it would have been Alabama, Texas, Cincy and TCU.
I’d guess that there would have been a great deal of moaning by fans of certain schools – although nothing to beat the fans of the #5 ranked team (pre-bowls) in 2007
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:00 pm
You aren’t because you definitely were not in ANY meetings where they all got together to discuss it were you? Did not think so. You and your conspiracy theories.
Its not conspiracy theories. Do you really think that the coaches in America have any idea who the best teams are besides the ones they play? They are biased towards their own conference, they don’t even have time to watch the other games and some have admitted to letting assistants fill out their vote. Somebody has to influence these coaches, and ESPN is the main source. Rankings should only ever be used as a display of public perception. They should never be used to decide anything meaningful.
Delbert D.
May 30th, 2012
7:08 pm
Time was when the Associate Press did not include the bowl games in their final poll ranking. There were many fewer bowls in those days, and also at least one conference prohibited their champion from attending a bowl in consecutive years (that was the Big Ten.)
Easy Breezey
May 30th, 2012
7:10 pm
Dont need to change a thing till my bleoved ACC gets its head and rear wired together so FSU or Miami or VT or GT can make some national noise. …..Im the other county heard from…..;-)
Beast from the East
May 30th, 2012
7:11 pm
Paul in NH,
Can you imagine Cincy in the “Final Four” of football? They got exposed by UF, much like Hawaii a few years earlier by UGA.
BCS Mythology
May 30th, 2012
7:12 pm
You mean we get another mythical national champion?
SEC football coaches: Match best four teams, not conference champs, in playoff – Tampabay.com | My Football Search
May 30th, 2012
7:18 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:24 pm
RTR22
“LSWho is still sooooo bitter about the woodshed beating in Jan that their leadership is making Fools of themselves in Destin today….Check out some of their quotes from the AD and HC. Too funny…”
Do you have proof that LSU is bitter over the BCS title game? If anything LSU fans are not happy the way the season ended. I don’t think you would be either if were number 1 since the last week of September and went 12-0.
The only thing I can agree with you on about the comments at the meetings this week is Miles saying only division games should count. He and Spurrier are wrong about that. Nothing else that LSU has stated at the meetings has been out of line or “too funny” as you say.
I admit that Bama outplayed us and outcoached us on January 8. Can you admit that you were outcoached the prior 2 meetings?
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:25 pm
Actually the Tigers were 13-0 during the regular season.
Saban Never Sleeps
May 30th, 2012
7:30 pm
Mark, your implied assumption is that all conferences are created equally and as the SEC has proven again and again…Al Conferences are not Equal. Why even include the ACC in any discussion? As far as I am concerned the PAC 12 and Big 10 have disrespected Southern Football for decades and now are not only eating crow but getting their arse handed to them on a regular basis….all expect uga of course and the embarassment against Mich St.
sting_em
May 30th, 2012
7:35 pm
Sixteen may be too much for college football with conference championships. I wish they would go back to a 11 game schedule. If they went to a 12 game schedule and gave the top 4 teams that have won their conference championship a bye. Then give the remaining two or three spots to the highest ranked teams. Also, no more than two teams per conference.
charles s.
May 30th, 2012
7:48 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:55 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
And the Big 10, Pac 12, also, right? This sounds like another vote for my idea of having the SEC create its own football subdivision, that way they don’t have to worry about all of those other horrible teams that shouldn’t be allowed on the same field as them.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:00 pm
When ANY team in the Big East, ACC, Big 12, PAC 10, Big 10 can lineup and play the SEC schedule week in and week out and /or any of these So called Power Schools can line up and play with the No.2 or No. 3 or even No. 4 team in the SEC we can all use the word “fair’/ Do not dare use the word “FAIR” when it comes to College Football. The SEC was royally screwed for years by the biased Media and Coaches from the North until coaches like Bear Bryant, General Neyland, Shug Jordon, and later with Bobby Bowden, Vince Dooley would line up an offer to go play those teams and lay the spanking on them in their place. In the past 10 years the dominance turned, the SEC went out -hired the best coaches, paid the best coaches, built the best facilities, recruited the best players and now win with that combination and the Television people want to broadcast those games in front of packed houses even when two teams down the pecking order in the SEC are playing each other on a saturday night.
In the SEC Football is a way of life and we revolve our weekends around “what time is kickoff on saturday?” while in many other places it is more about making an appearance at the game. Basketball in the Northeast is like college football is in the south and I have no problem with that, just do not try to tell me the ‘fair” thing to do is put only conference winners in the playoff when we all know that other conferences do not hold their water compared to the SEC and winning the SEC is much tougher to do than playing Washington St. Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon St, or Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, or Virginia, N.C. State, Boston College, Duke, Maryland, etc …In the SEC even our little sisters are good enough to beat you on saturdays.
;
BigCat
May 30th, 2012
8:00 pm
This is real simple. Folks are going to complain who is #9 in an 8 team playoff. If you can’t finish #4 in the polls then you don’t deserve a shot at #1. It’s going to look a lot worse for say, a 15th ranked conference champ team, to get in than two teams from the same league. Either your top four or your not. Pretty simple.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:02 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
7:55 pm
While you’re at it you should drop the ACC and Big 12 from automatic berths, too.
And the Big 10, Pac 12, also, right? This sounds like another vote for my idea of having the SEC create its own football subdivision, that way they don’t have to worry about all of those other horrible teams that shouldn’t be allowed on the same field as them.
The way the last 6 years you would be right on the money. The SEC has owned College Football and I am sure you will try to argue that as well.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:04 pm
Red Stick
May 30th, 2012
7:24 pm
RTR22
“LSWho is still sooooo bitter about the woodshed beating in Jan that their leadership is making Fools of themselves in Destin today….Check out some of their quotes from the AD and HC. Too funny…”
Do you have proof that LSU is bitter over the BCS title game? If anything LSU fans are not happy the way the season ended. I don’t think you would be either if were number 1 since the last week of September and went 12-0.
The only thing I can agree with you on about the comments at the meetings this week is Miles saying only division games should count. He and Spurrier are wrong about that. Nothing else that LSU has stated at the meetings has been out of line or “too funny” as you say.
I admit that Bama outplayed us and outcoached us on January 8. Can you admit that you were outcoached the prior 2 meetings?
Geaux Tigers
Go SEC
I will admit that LSU “outkicked” Alabama the first game in 2011, Alabama took the other 50 yards from LSU in the second game.
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
8:07 pm
The way the last 6 years you would be right on the money. The SEC has owned College Football and I am sure you will try to argue that as well.
Then you agree with me that there is no reason for the SEC to keep playing division 1 football? Lets be honest, there is no chance that any non SEC team would ever beat an SEC team so what is the point in having those games? Creating their own football subdivision would allow them to control all of the money as well. It could become a sport unto itself. Maybe the SEC champion could even play the Super Bowl champion. Of course they would have to spot them some points to make it fair.
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:13 pm
Lets see,
Duke, Maryland, Virginia, N.C State
or
Indian, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa
or
Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon St, Washington St,
or
Cinncinatti, Connecticut, Syracuse, Rutgers
or
Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky,
Any one of those last 4 teams would be a tougher matchup ….
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:17 pm
GTBob
May 30th, 2012
8:07 pm
The way the last 6 years you would be right on the money. The SEC has owned College Football and I am sure you will try to argue that as well.
Then you agree with me that there is no reason for the SEC to keep playing division 1 football? Lets be honest, there is no chance that any non SEC team would ever beat an SEC team so what is the point in having those games? Creating their own football subdivision would allow them to control all of the money as well. It could become a sport unto itself. Maybe the SEC champion could even play the Super Bowl champion. Of course they would have to spot them some points to make it fair.
Bob,
You do realize the next step in this whole mess is to place about 50 teams in its own league and have players get paid, and have an NFL type league while attending school. It is coming, it may be another 10 years before it happens but we will see it happen next.
GT GRAD
May 30th, 2012
8:23 pm
It is really simple.
The BCS rankings (computer & polls) should completely ignore games against any teams outside of the Top 100. The Top 8 teams play using four of the BCS games as the first round. Second round games are played two weeks later and two weeks later (the weekend piror to the Superbowl) we have a true National Championship game!
It is sooooooooooo simple……………….come on guys; the solution is so obvious.
If your team is not in the Top 8……….play a better schedule and win enough games to earn a spot in the Top 8!
TechRon
May 30th, 2012
8:41 pm
I pretty much agree with Harold above, and I have been saying this for years. To make the top 15 bowl games into playoff games would make them twice as big as they are now. For the other 25 or so bowl games, which would have exactly the same significance that they do now, nothing would change. Georgia Tech and the arrogant Paul Johnson can go lose to Iowa State or Fresno State in a small bowl (with an unprepared and uninspired performance) and almost no one would care, as they do now. But in those other games that are part of the playoff system, the whole nation would be riveted on each of them. Commercial appeal would be huge and it would be a big winner for everyone. Do it.
You know, now that they are actually going to have a playoff, all the idiots who said it was impossible and would never happen have to finally shut up. Why exactly was it impossible? Why would it never happen when it is the product that the market has been screaming for ever since Notre Dame Tied Michigan State 10-10 and was voted the championship way back in about 1965? Incidentally, I think Alabama was undefeated that same year but ended up 3rd. Why was it impossible when all other divisions of NCAA football have a playoff? Why was it impossible when all other NCAA sports have a playoff or real championship?
The only reason is the bowls, especially the Rose Bowl. Why would everyone stand by and allow the Rose Bowl to run the show? Especially since with a real playoff system, the Rose Bowl would be even bigger?
It is old boy politics, and I guess enough of them have finally died off and gotten out of the way.
Bill Salokar
May 30th, 2012
8:47 pm
As long as their are humans voting in polls and man-made computer rankings, the system will be imperfect no matter how many games are in a playoff. But that makes college football what it is – something we can argue overt, pontificate about, and always imagine our team could have been there “if only.”
WestOfAthens
May 30th, 2012
9:06 pm
what is done, will be done.
How can you change things, besides being filthy rich with plenty of pull?
I am gracious for the fact the actual ‘discussion” is taking shape. Let it grow and ripen like your backyard garden. Hopefully we will reap the benefits.
HBTD
UGA VI
May 30th, 2012
9:14 pm
College football is not a democracy. It is a monopoly determined by a few old, laughing men smoking cigars in a darkened room. They don’t care what you like or think. It is all about money for the schools not what the athletes or fans would like to see.
There will never be a true college football National Championship.
Alabama had great team and won a pretty crystal football but their ‘championship’ is a myth. Even Tech has one of those things on a shelf.
Athletes should be paid too.
How many former players are dealing with brain trauma from their college days?
WTF
May 30th, 2012
9:24 pm
It should be all the conference champions so the puss conferences like the ACC & Pac 10 can feel some self esteem.
P. Bull Terrier
May 30th, 2012
9:42 pm
The biggest selling point for an 8 or 16 team playoff, aside from including more teams, is that it would reduce the need to pad the non-conference schedules with easy wins.
Look at high school football in Georgia as an example. The best teams load up their early season, non-region schedules with the best competition they can find to get themselves ready for the region schedules. You end up with match-ups like Brookwood-Valdosta, Parkview-Lowndes, Grayson – Colquitt, etc. to start the season because an early season, non-region loss or two doesn’t have any impact on a team’s chances of making the playoffs.
Instead of early season games like UGA vs. West Central North Dakota Technical State University, Alabama vs. George Walton Academy and USC vs. Georgia Tech, you could have more interesting matchups like UGA vs. Ohio St., Alabama vs. Texas and USC vs. LSU (or any other match-up you like) without eliminating half of those teams from BCS contention in the first week or two of the season. That is something that would be good for the fans and profitable for college football at the same time.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
9:50 pm
Playoff whiners don’t know jack about football. Of course there are a majority of fans who want a “fair chance” tournament scheme. That’s because the majority of fans are fans of losers. Everybody can’t be a winner — but you can still give ‘em all trophies, I guess.
Don’t know what’s so interesting about that…
Plumb Bobby
May 30th, 2012
9:59 pm
Top 4 teams, unless bama is there without winning anything. Simple!
MisterT
May 30th, 2012
10:06 pm
Mark, The SEC needs to consider the fact that they are completely hypocritical in their argument that “non-champs” should not be kept out. The SEC did not even put their “two best teams” in their own Championship game. Their own Conference Championship Game requires that the participants WIN their on DIVISION CHAMPIONSHIP for the opportunity to play for the CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP! If you don’t win your division (or conference), you don’t play for the next level.
THWg!
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:07 pm
If you really want to be fair, then every team should be assigned a number and we could just let the Lotto machine randomly seed the tournament. Can’t get more “fair” than that.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:09 pm
“The SEC did not even put their “two best teams” in their own Championship game.”
You’re right. They didn’t. That’s why this travesty shouldn’t be applied to the National Championship.
SiddyBoy
May 30th, 2012
10:46 pm
Let Steve Spurrier decide. He thinks he is the smartest person on earth. Actually he isn’t even the smartest person in SC.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
10:46 pm
Beast,
Cincy were awful in their one big bowl appearance, but didn’t their coach quit on the team and lie to them before leaving for ND?
Hal
May 30th, 2012
10:53 pm
Yep… He’s really settin’ the world on fire at ND.
Paul in NH
May 30th, 2012
10:58 pm
Look In The Mirror
May 30th, 2012
8:17 pm
You do realize the next step in this whole mess is to place about 50 teams in its own league and have players get paid, and have an NFL type league while attending school. It is coming, it may be another 10 years before it happens but we will see it happen next.
——
The IRS will be extremely happy with this.
Hal
May 30th, 2012
11:02 pm
If you wanted to have a truly elite league, there aren’t fifty teams out there who would qualify. Maybe about thirty.
Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Better Bettors
May 30th, 2012
11:19 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
eddie
May 30th, 2012
11:22 pm
I think this is without a doubt an improvement on the previous system yet no system will be perfect and you cant make everyone happy yet i think that the number of teams in the playoff should chosen every year and is determined by which teams are worthy of it but anyways i did an article on this http://ncaaplay.com/2012/05/nick-sabans-thoughts-on-a-college-football-playoff-actually-make-a-lot-of-sense/
Hal
May 30th, 2012
11:54 pm
I foresee pressure from the non-SEC conferences for inclusion of conference champions in the playoff scheme leading to the 4 super-conference model eventually. If it does, the Big East and ACC will be SOL.
Flounder
May 31st, 2012
2:52 am
“It should be all the conference champions so the puss conferences like the ACC & Pac 10 can feel some self esteem”
Get over yourself, tough guy. The SEC needs to accept the fact that, since so many of their teams are good (in football) and ranked highly every year, winning the conference title is just that much harder. But if the playoff system is not based, at least in some part, on conference champion invites … why have conferences in the first place???
College football playoff is a clear case of ‘I told you so’ – Chicago Sun-Times
May 31st, 2012
5:21 am
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Mike
May 31st, 2012
7:24 am
Holy Cow! This is incredibly stupid. We had 64 teams in the NCAA tournament and that wasn’t enough so they expanded that! Now the argument will be about why the 5, 6, 7, 8, etc did not get in. I could care less about the 3,4,5 teams. I only care that the top two teams battle it out for the title. And on the rare occasion when a 3rd team is clearly part of the conversation, then the “plus one” should settle it. This, again, is all about money. The “playoff” will be no better than the current system.
SEC football coaches: Put best four teams, not necessarily conference champs … – Tampabay.com | Global Sports Insiders
May 31st, 2012
7:46 am
[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Voice of Reason
May 31st, 2012
8:26 am
8 teams is the way to go…anything less is not even a tournament and is just a band aide on a broken arm. An 8 team playoff also would NOT kill the bowl system…you still can have all of that. The overwhelming majority of those games mean nothing in the ‘championship’ picture anyway…still play them!
Old School
May 31st, 2012
8:35 am
Wow, the playoff hasn’t even been approved and the media is whining already that four teams isn’t enough. Why don’t we just get this over with and start out with a 64-team playoff? That way we can be like college basketball and just ignore the regular season.
Gordon
May 31st, 2012
9:07 am
Let’s declare the SEC team that looks the strongest on paper as the national champion and not play any of the games. Tailgating is still permitted at SEC schools on days that games would have been played.
Ramblnwrek
May 31st, 2012
10:05 am
While I would really like the 8 or even 16 team playoff models most here go on to describe, there are a couple of points most tend to gloss over:
1.) In December, there are finals. I know most people’s attitude towards this is less than enthusiastic. But remember the same people writing these types of articles are ths same ones that will write the article about how academics are taking a back seat to athletics (even more so than now) in the interest of getting in the playoff they so deperately want right now.
2.) No commissioner is going to give up reagular season games. Ever. Period. When we talke about money and football, the home game is king. Even my arch-rival UGA makes money when they play Alabama State or Citadel. This is the real reason why the SEC wont go to a 9 game conference schedule, they would have to give up a home game either every other year. Too much money lost. This coming from a conference where a significant number of teams make well over $100 million in football, but the lost of a single home game is too much of a loss. Extending the season goes into the other argument that “these are not PROs and thus not paid for all of the injury” argument which I will leave at that.
Thursday’s F. C. King Links « Loser with Socks
May 31st, 2012
10:40 am
[...] midst-of-cross-country-run- for-wounded-veterans.html Les Miles and the geography of tradition Alas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panacea Stay classy, Ohio state 10 Steps to Better College Football Livin’ SEC Notebook: League wants [...]
good grief
May 31st, 2012
11:36 am
no playoffs unless you’re a conf champion. that puts an emphasis on winning your conference and makes the conf champ games that more exciting and essentially another playoff game. Plus, that way we get to see how teams from across the country fair against each other….unlike last year which was awful seeing a rematch between two team not only in the same conf but the same stinkin division too
SEC football coaches: Put best four teams, not necessarily conference champs … – Tampabay.com
May 31st, 2012
12:30 pm
[...] coaches want proposed playoff to include best 4 teams, not …Washington PostUSA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Lexington Herald Leaderall 236 news [...]
College Football: 10 Greatest Defenses in the BCS Era – Bleacher Report | My Football Search
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
[...] playoff to be limited to conference championsPalm Beach PostWashington Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 240 news [...]
Spurrier: Pay players $3500 to $4000 per season – SI.com
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
[...] playoff to be limited to conference championsPalm Beach PostWashington Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 241 news [...]
Column: Grim images rain on football’s fiesta – Fox News
May 31st, 2012
3:18 pm
[...] playoff to include best 4 teams, not …Washington PostPalm Beach Post -USA TODAY -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 241 news [...]
M'ville Braves Fan
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
There are very few scenero’s that make any sense. DivII and DivIII have playoffs why can’t DivI??? They can. In the SEC for example, The East and West have 7 teams each. Play all teams in your division(6 games), 2 games against the other division and two out of conference games for a total of 10 games. Conference Championship Game with winner getting automatic berth. Conferences that do not have a CCG do not get automatic berths. At large berths are based on SOS, SOV, OSOS and OSOV. The polls have very little to do with this since they are just a popularity contests. The computers are programmed to measure criteria that sometimes do not equal the best competition. So they are out. Strength Of Schedule(SOS) is based off overall records of your opponents, Opponents SOS(OSOS) is the records of your opponents opponents. Same with Strength of Victory(SOV) and Opponents SOV(OSOV). Then you have a 16 team playoff. This would mean the Champion would play a max of 15 Games. Currently the SEC Champion plays 12 Season games, CCG and Bowl Game then the Plus 1 which makes……DA DAH 15 Games. Instead of having a month off in Dec have one week off between CCG and start of Playoffs which would mean a month of competitive playoffs and if you still want Bowl games that works like the NIT in NCAA BB. This would work.
College Football: 10 Greatest Defenses in the BCS Era – Bleacher Report | Better Bettors
May 31st, 2012
5:15 pm
[...] ReportEasy part is saying yes to a college football playoff | The RepublicThe RepublicAlas, a four-team college football playoff will be no panaceaAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Naples Daily News -STLtoday.com -The Northwest Florida [...]
Nick L.
June 1st, 2012
12:05 am
If this kind of system is good enough to elect our President every 4 years, I suppose it’s good enough to figure out who the best college football team is, too. Or, not.
matt
June 5th, 2012
1:08 am
I wish this would been done last season because i dont think LSU and Alabama was that good. When you play teams with weak offenses it is easy for a good defense to look great and the bottom line is there was no great offenses in the SEC like there was in the BIG 12. I think OSU or Stanford would of walked all over LSU and Alabama and showed the fact that neither of them was good enough to go up against a great offense and win. I think if LSU played Stanford and Alabama played OSU it would of ended up being OSU and Stanford playing for the national title and we would of had an exciting game to watch instead of a couple teams with no offense and a game where you put the newspaper in front of your face and say boring a bunch of times.