Congrats, LSU

[JackAstro]

I'm a Longhorn, but being that I was born in Baton Rouge and most of my family went to LSU, it's always good to see the Tigers kicking ass. Congratulations to the team and all of the alumni and fans on this board, that was an impressive win tonight.

[Jacksonian]

I'm a Longhorn, but being that I was born in Baton Rouge and most of my family went to LSU, it's always good to see the Tigers kicking ass. Congratulations to the team and all of the alumni and fans on this board, that was an impressive win tonight.

Alum.  That was pretty close to the team that obliterated Virginia Tech in September.  I'm happy my school won, but what a playoff it would have been this year if the top 8 or 16 teams had the chance to participate.

[Frobie]

Due to poor planning on my part, last night I was on a plane from central Ohio back to Houston and missed all but the last 5 minutes of the game.   But this OSU grad says congratulations to the Tigers!

Now, let the countdown to spring training commence.

[drew corleone]

I would have loved to see a "plus-one" model with USC, LSU, Ohio State and UGa.

[Jacksonian]

I would have loved to see a "plus-one" model with USC, LSU, Ohio State and UGa.

That's picking and choosing who you want.  If they had used the BCS as the determinant it would have been 1OSU vs 4Okla and 2LSU vs 3Va Tech.  Which, IMO, would have ended up with LSU winning it all.

If they only do a plus one or final 4 kinda thing they'd have to decide if conference non-winners like Georgia can be included over a team with an equal record like Oklahoma and a conference winner.

I saw that the Georgia president is now for a top 8 playoff system.

[MusicMan]

I like the 8 team playoff - but only if either all conferences have a championship game, or none.

[HudsonHawk]

I like the 8 team playoff - but only if either all conferences have a championship game, or none.

I don't care how each conference decides it champion, that's immaterial in my book.  But there needs to be a playoff, and not just for 8 conference champions, or you'll still have what you have now, a "BCS Championship" instead of a "National Championship".  It should be open to every team in Div 1A, not just teams from BCS conferences.

[chandler44]

The 8 team playoff isn't perfect, but it should be an upgrade over what we have now.  Plus, it's a step in the right direction.  Maybe down the road they realize 'hey, this does work with 8, let's add a round and make it 16'...

[HudsonHawk]

The 8 team playoff isn't perfect, but it should be an upgrade over what we have now.  Plus, it's a step in the right direction.  Maybe down the road they realize 'hey, this does work with 8, let's add a round and make it 16'...

I guess I just have a beef with excluding teams outside of BCS-affiliated conferences.  I like the basketball format where you keep playing until you lose.  If Prairie View goes undefeated and then beats Texas in a regional then LSU in a semi-final then USC in the finals, they deserve to be National Champions.  Every school deserves that opportunity.

[Jacksonian]

I guess I just have a beef with excluding teams outside of BCS-affiliated conferences.  I like the basketball format where you keep playing until you lose.  If Prairie View goes undefeated and then beats Texas in a regional then LSU in a semi-final then USC in the finals, they deserve to be National Champions.  Every school deserves that opportunity.

I'd prefer a top 16 based playoff that includes all conference champions (there are 11 conferences in the FBS), which would guarantee teams in mid-major conferences access, then you're left with just 5 at-large berths.  This year that would have included conference non-winners Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, and Florida (just going by the last BCS rankings) and left out Illinois, Boston College, Clemson...  In my book that's just fine.  If you go with just 8 teams you're going to end up with BCS conference teams nearly exclusively.  Hawaii this year wasn't in the top 8 of the rankings.

[astrox]

I'd prefer a top 16 based playoff that includes all conference champions (there are 11 conferences in the FBS), which would guarantee teams in mid-major conferences access, then you're left with just 5 at-large berths.  This year that would have included conference non-winners Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, and Florida (just going by the last BCS rankings) and left out Illinois, Boston College, Clemson...  In my book that's just fine.  If you go with just 8 teams you're going to end up with BCS conference teams nearly exclusively.  Hawaii this year wasn't in the top 8 of the rankings.

16 game playoff will never happen because the bowl games, especially the Rose Bowl are so lucrative.  I think the +1 is the closest to a "playoff" that college will get and that's only if the Rose Bowl agrees.

[Mike S]

A playoff format and the bowl system are not mutually exclusive things. 

[Jacksonian]

16 game playoff will never happen because the bowl games, especially the Rose Bowl are so lucrative.  I think the +1 is the closest to a "playoff" that college will get and that's only if the Rose Bowl agrees.

As I've begun to read more and more, "Fuck the Rose Bowl".  They exist at the leisure of the Big 10 and the Pac 10.  More and more the other conferences and school presidents are looking positively at a playoff system.  The weight of the SEC is about equal to the Big 10 nowadays and add the Big 12, ACC, and Big East and there's a lot power to force a playoff system.  I really like the idea of threatening the Big 10 and Pac 10 with exclusion from a playoff system.

[DVauthrin]

I'd prefer a top 16 based playoff that includes all conference champions (there are 11 conferences in the FBS), which would guarantee teams in mid-major conferences access, then you're left with just 5 at-large berths.  This year that would have included conference non-winners Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, and Florida (just going by the last BCS rankings) and left out Illinois, Boston College, Clemson...  In my book that's just fine.  If you go with just 8 teams you're going to end up with BCS conference teams nearly exclusively.  Hawaii this year wasn't in the top 8 of the rankings.

This is the model I support.   I agree with Hudson that champs in all 11 D1 conferences deserve a shot plus 5 at large spots.   And leave the snobs at the Rose Bowl behind if they can't get with progress.

[VirtualBob]

This is the model I support.   I agree with Hudson that champs in all 11 D1 conferences deserve a shot plus 5 at large spots.   And leave the snobs at the Rose Bowl behind if they can't get with progress.

Agreed ... and as the original quote implied, no restriction on which conferences the at-large teams come from.  I woild be happy with something like the current BCS ranking system beiong used for both at-large selection and overall seeding.

[Jacksonian]

Agreed ... and as the original quote implied, no restriction on which conferences the at-large teams come from.  I woild be happy with something like the current BCS ranking system beiong used for both at-large selection and overall seeding.

As long as the BCS ranking or whatever system used was long to cover all 100+ teams which shouldn't be a problem.

Looking at a calendar, if you require all conferences to have a champion by the Thanksgiving weekend (essentially requiring an 11 game schedule + a conference championship game depending on the conference), you could complete a 16 team tournament, with a week off before the tournament and a week off before the final game and have the tournament end at the same time the BCS championship game is played.  Which negates the arguement that the tournament would last longer than the current season.

[austro]

As long as the BCS ranking or whatever system used was long to cover all 100+ teams which shouldn't be a problem.

Looking at a calendar, if you require all conferences to have a champion by the Thanksgiving weekend (essentially requiring an 11 game schedule + a conference championship game depending on the conference), you could complete a 16 team tournament, with a week off before the tournament and a week off before the final game and have the tournament end at the same time the BCS championship game is played.  Which negates the arguement that the tournament would last longer than the current season.

The sticking point will be that each year N-16 teams will lose their 12th game (i.e., money), where N is however many teams there are in the Division That Shall Not Be Named. Perhaps there's a way to kick back enough of the revenues from the 15 tournament games that the non-participants will go for it.  But there are probably N-30 teams that will never get a whiff of the tournament, and you're asking them to give up 1/12 of their revenues (maybe more, if the game they lose is one of their sacrificial slaughters to a powerhouse, e.g., Rice loses their game with Texas) from here on out.

[jbm]

As I've begun to read more and more, "Fuck the Rose Bowl".  They exist at the leisure of the Big 10 and the Pac 10.  More and more the other conferences and school presidents are looking positively at a playoff system.  The weight of the SEC is about equal to the Big 10 nowadays and add the Big 12, ACC, and Big East and there's a lot power to force a playoff system.  I really like the idea of threatening the Big 10 and Pac 10 with exclusion from a playoff system.

 

People should boycott the Rose Bowl.  Unless your team is playing, or it happens to be the Title Game (maybe even then), just stop watching.  This is the first year I did it and I will continue until the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance starts to act as equals rather than superiors.

If the other conferences actually had the balls to go it alone, the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance would eventually come back, but in a weakened position.  They must realize this and will start to become more receptive to a playoff, imo.  Their intransigence is risky.   

[Jacksonian]

 

People should boycott the Rose Bowl.  Unless your team is playing, or it happens to be the Title Game (maybe even then), just stop watching.  This is the first year I did it and I will continue until the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance starts to act as equals rather than superiors.

If the other conferences actually had the balls to go it alone, the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance would eventually come back, but in a weakened position.  They must realize this and will start to become more receptive to a playoff, imo.  Their intransigence is risky.   

This may have already begun with the Big 10 commish's swipe at the intelligence of SEC student-athletes.

[jbm]

This may have already begun with the Big 10 commish's swipe at the intelligence of SEC student-athletes.

Delany said that?  was this in relation to the postseason structure, or just an excuse for his buckeyes?

[Frobie]

This may have already begun with the Big 10 commish's swipe at the intelligence of SEC student-athletes.

I missed that.  Ugh.

Just one guy's perspective, but I don't know how much of this it is Big-1eleven0/Pac-10 arrogance versus just being slow to adjust to the times.  I come from an OSU family and eventually went there myself.  Growing up in the 70s and 80s, way way way before the BCS obviously, the goal was always--ALWAYS--to beat Michigan and go to the Rose Bowl.  National championship?  Sure, that's nice if it happens, but it's not the goal.

Things are different now.  Personally, I kind of liked it when going to and winning the Rose Bowl was considered a successful season.  Now it seems like if they don't win the BCS title game, it was a disappointing year.  Not what college sports should be about IMHO.

[Jacksonian]

Delany said that?  was this in relation to the postseason structure, or just an excuse for his buckeyes?

It was during last football offseason.  Here's the link to the article from the day before the championship game referencing the article.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-bigtensec010608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I haven't found the article on the Big 10 site yet.

[jbm]

thanks for the link.  I lost a lot of respect for Delany reading that.  From what I had read about Delany before, I had him pegged as a super competant negotiator who played his hand better than everyone else.  I never thought he actually believed the Big 10 was special, it was just his job to cut them the best deal and he did it well.  I must have overlooked the arrogant, country club mentality. 

I also recall the article focusing on his power, and how many Presidents, ADs, and coaches were afraid to confront him.  Seeing some of the public insurrection lately, his power in that regard must be waning.  Hopefully, his comeuppance is near.

[kevwun]

I agree that the conference championships needs to be standardized.  I'd be in favor of getting rid of the championship games all together.  I like the Pac 10 model where each school plays all the other conference members and there's no money grubbing championship game.  Then bring on a playoff.

[Jacksonian]

I agree that the conference championships needs to be standardized.  I'd be in favor of getting rid of the championship games all together.  I like the Pac 10 model where each school plays all the other conference members and there's no money grubbing championship game.  Then bring on a playoff.

I'm with HH.  How conferences determine their champion is irrelevent.  Just name one by whatever means you want and move on to the tournament.  You're not going to run the risk of getting a losing team in the tournament the way they do in college basketball, even with a conference championship game.

[kevwun]

Teams can squeak by in conference in years when they have a favorable schedule.  This is really a big problem in the Big Ten because their members don't play the same conference schedule and they don't have a championship game.  If it became mandatory for conferences to have their teams play every other school, the championship game isn't necessary and  it removes a game from the schedule of top teams that would be in a playoff.

[Mike S]

The sticking point will be that each year N-16 teams will lose their 12th game (i.e., money), where N is however many teams there are in the Division That Shall Not Be Named. Perhaps there's a way to kick back enough of the revenues from the 15 tournament games that the non-participants will go for it.  But there are probably N-30 teams that will never get a whiff of the tournament, and you're asking them to give up 1/12 of their revenues (maybe more, if the game they lose is one of their sacrificial slaughters to a powerhouse, e.g., Rice loses their game with Texas) from here on out.

You can also keep the lower tier bowl games from the current system for the non-playoff teams, while using the higher profile bowls (i.e. BCS, New Year's Day games, Holiday, etc.) for the sixteen teams in the national championship playoff.  At the same time, it makes a lot of sense to maintain the existing revenue sharing each conference uses in divvying up bowl game money.  Just my two cents.

[Froback]

I'm with HH.  How conferences determine their champion is irrelevent.  Just name one by whatever means you want and move on to the tournament.  You're not going to run the risk of getting a losing team in the tournament the way they do in college basketball, even with a conference championship game.

Why have a tournament for football?

I think that is the question that needs to be answered.  My guess is those that push for it want there to be a clear champion, right?  Do you think that is what the NCAA wants?  The answer to that is no, but it is not something they want to avoid.  What the NCAA wants is money, pure and simple.  The more the better.

Now if you understand this, the response that is typically lobbed back is "There is more money to be had in a tournament."  Which is then compared to the March Madness method used for College Basketball.

The reality is that there are many fundamental differences between basketball and football that has this comparison break down.  The first and obvious difference is that there IS a clear distinction between programs.  Most of this has to do with the fact that you only have 5 people playing at a time and something around 15-20 players on the team for a basketball team vs 100+ on a football team.  Therefore your needs are less per school, thus more talent is dispersed to more schools, thus creating situations where a small school like Xavier (for example) can put together a team that can compete and beat a typical power like Kansas (for example).  Because of this there is more reason to give the smaller schools a shot, and thus it will draw more interest.  If you have games like Georgia vs Hawaii every year, you will likely see similar results to what we saw in the Sugar bowl this year.  The talent level is just different.

Also IF there truly was more money to be made in having a playoff, I assure you the NCAA would be all over it.  They don't really have any special allegiances to the bowls other than the fact that they are already in place, thus nothing new has to be tried (or created) to put them together.  AND they (the bowls) make a ton of money for the NCAA.

I also think in some pockets of the NCAA governing body they like the controversy the lack of a definitive champion brings.  That means more media coverage.  And as has been noted many times before, any publicity is good publicity.  Therefore they get stuff written about college football long after the season is over and huge debates rage beyond that up until the games start up again.  Do you hear anything like that kind of 365 day coverage about college basketball?  Maybe in some pockets of the country, but not to the scale nationally that the football programs get.  And I don't think it because "football is America's #1 sport", but more because there is no real answer to these debates in the current system, so people can argue all the time over the same topic.

So I don't think the Bowls are going away for a playoff system until a time when it truly is deemed more money for the NCAA to do it.  And THAT is the bottom line.

[Froback]

You can also keep the lower tier bowl games from the current system for the non-playoff teams, while using the higher profile bowls (i.e. BCS, New Year's Day games, Holiday, etc.) for the sixteen teams in the national championship playoff.  At the same time, it makes a lot of sense to maintain the existing revenue sharing each conference uses in divvying up bowl game money.  Just my two cents.

Good GRIEF, you want a 4 week playoff to start on Jan 1?  I hope that is not what you mean.

[strosrays]

Let's don't go fucking with the Mieneke Muffler Bowl or the Tostito's Bowl, that's all I can say.

[Jacksonian]

Teams can squeak by in conference in years when they have a favorable schedule.  This is really a big problem in the Big Ten because their members don't play the same conference schedule and they don't have a championship game.  If it became mandatory for conferences to have their teams play every other school, the championship game isn't necessary and  it removes a game from the schedule of top teams that would be in a playoff.

Again irrelevent.  They send who they want by whatever means they want.  If a lesser team goes that team will get embarrassed and then so will the conference.  But, a 12 team conference isn't going to have all teams play each other because then there would be no non-conference games.

[Jacksonian]

Why have a tournament for football?

I think that is the question that needs to be answered.  My guess is those that push for it want there to be a clear champion, right?  Do you think that is what the NCAA wants?  The answer to that is no, but it is not something they want to avoid.  What the NCAA wants is money, pure and simple.  The more the better.

Now if you understand this, the response that is typically lobbed back is "There is more money to be had in a tournament."  Which is then compared to the March Madness method used for College Basketball.

The reality is that there are many fundamental differences between basketball and football that has this comparison break down.  The first and obvious difference is that there IS a clear distinction between programs.  Most of this has to do with the fact that you only have 5 people playing at a time and something around 15-20 players on the team for a basketball team vs 100+ on a football team.  Therefore your needs are less per school, thus more talent is dispersed to more schools, thus creating situations where a small school like Xavier (for example) can put together a team that can compete and beat a typical power like Kansas (for example).  Because of this there is more reason to give the smaller schools a shot, and thus it will draw more interest.  If you have games like Georgia vs Hawaii every year, you will likely see similar results to what we saw in the Sugar bowl this year.  The talent level is just different.

Also IF there truly was more money to be made in having a playoff, I assure you the NCAA would be all over it.  They don't really have any special allegiances to the bowls other than the fact that they are already in place, thus nothing new has to be tried (or created) to put them together.  AND they (the bowls) make a ton of money for the NCAA.

I also think in some pockets of the NCAA governing body they like the controversy the lack of a definitive champion brings.  That means more media coverage.  And as has been noted many times before, any publicity is good publicity.  Therefore they get stuff written about college football long after the season is over and huge debates rage beyond that up until the games start up again.  Do you hear anything like that kind of 365 day coverage about college basketball?  Maybe in some pockets of the country, but not to the scale nationally that the football programs get.  And I don't think it because "football is America's #1 sport", but more because there is no real answer to these debates in the current system, so people can argue all the time over the same topic.

So I don't think the Bowls are going away for a playoff system until a time when it truly is deemed more money for the NCAA to do it.  And THAT is the bottom line.

It's about politics and the money they have vs the money they might get.  The moment enough top conference university presidents ask for a playoff is the moment it will happen.

[Mike S]

Good GRIEF, you want a 4 week playoff to start on Jan 1?  I hope that is not what you mean.

Where did I ever say January 1??

[kevwun]

As far as non-con games, some things will have to change if a playoff system in implemented.  Maybe not for the plus one model, but if it's an 8 or 16 team field things are going to be different.

[Froback]

It's about politics and the money they have vs the money they might get.  The moment enough top conference university presidents ask for a playoff is the moment it will happen.

In the end it always boils down to money to them.  If they think more can be had doing it a different way, they will do it a different way.  Now there is more money in leaving the status quo alone.

Politics is just something for sound-bites.

[Froback]

Where did I ever say January 1??

Here:

while using the higher profile bowls (i.e. BCS, New Year's Day games, Holiday, etc.) for the sixteen teams in the national championship playoff.

[drew corleone]

You can also keep the lower tier bowl games from the current system for the non-playoff teams, while using the higher profile bowls (i.e. BCS, New Year's Day games, Holiday, etc.) for the sixteen teams in the national championship playoff.  At the same time, it makes a lot of sense to maintain the existing revenue sharing each conference uses in divvying up bowl game money.  Just my two cents.

Sure, if you want to play a bunch of neutral-site games in half-empty stadiums.

[Jacksonian]

As far as non-con games, some things will have to change if a playoff system in implemented.  Maybe not for the plus one model, but if it's an 8 or 16 team field things are going to be different.

Do not underestimate the power of Notre Dame.

[Jacksonian]

In the end it always boils down to money to them.  If they think more can be had doing it a different way, they will do it a different way.  Now there is more money in leaving the status quo alone.

There would be more money from a playoff, but that's not money in their pocket.  Bowl series money is in their pocket.  They're going with the money that's currently flowing to them not what could.

Politics is just something for sound-bites.

Do not piss off the university presidents.  Ultimately they control everything.  Politics is very real.

[Jacksonian]

Sure, if you want to play a bunch of neutral-site games in half-empty stadiums.

Sarchasm?

[jbm]

Also IF there truly was more money to be made in having a playoff, I assure you the NCAA would be all over it.  They don't really have any special allegiances to the bowls other than the fact that they are already in place, thus nothing new has to be tried (or created) to put them together.  AND they (the bowls) make a ton of money for the NCAA.

I also think in some pockets of the NCAA governing body they like the controversy the lack of a definitive champion brings.  That means more media coverage.  And as has been noted many times before, any publicity is good publicity.  Therefore they get stuff written about college football long after the season is over and huge debates rage beyond that up until the games start up again.  Do you hear anything like that kind of 365 day coverage about college basketball?  Maybe in some pockets of the country, but not to the scale nationally that the football programs get.  And I don't think it because "football is America's #1 sport", but more because there is no real answer to these debates in the current system, so people can argue all the time over the same topic.

So I don't think the Bowls are going away for a playoff system until a time when it truly is deemed more money for the NCAA to do it.  And THAT is the bottom line.

It is my understanding that the NCAA is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as the BCS is some negotiated deal between BCS conferences and has nothing to do with the NCAA.  The holdup is that is that the Big10/Pac 10 feel that they are presently better off now than they would be under any playoff proposed to them.   That is the impediment that must be overcome.

[Jacksonian]

It is my understanding that the NCAA is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as the BCS is some negotiated deal between BCS conferences and has nothing to do with the NCAA.  The holdup is that is that the Big10/Pac 10 feel that they are presently better off now than they would be under any playoff proposed to them.   That is the impediment that must be overcome.

Threatening to leave them out of a national tournament would kill that impediment.

[Mike S]

Here:

Right, use the game the New Year's Day bowl games in the playoff format.  Nothing ever stated the playoff would start on January 1.

[Mike S]

Sure, if you want to play a bunch of neutral-site games in half-empty stadiums.

Uh, no.

[drew corleone]

If you're implying the tired "16-team tournament using the bowls," then yes, you're going to have a lot of half-empty stadiums.

Anything more than a "plus-one" or a four-team playoff is going to require playing on home (or "home-neutral") fields.

[jbm]

Threatening to leave them out of a national tournament would kill that impediment.

 

I agree, I'm just saying it is a decision made by the other conferences, not the NCAA.

[DVauthrin]

If you're implying the tired "16-team tournament using the bowls," then yes, you're going to have a lot of half-empty stadiums.

Anything more than a "plus-one" or a four-team playoff is going to require playing on home (or "home-neutral") fields.

I'm fine with playing true road games.   It works in every other sport.   Or you could do it exactly like March Madness does, just play multiple games on the same field.   One early in the day, one in the evening or on the next day at 4 different bowl sites for the round of 16(like HS does), then same thing at 2 other sites for the round of 8, then you can do the final 4 at one bowl, just use two different days.

Give the teams with the higher seeds a bowl site closer to campus.   Fans wouldn't care about the travel just like it doesn't affect march madness.   

[drew corleone]

I'm fine with playing true road games.   It works in every other sport.   Or you could do it exactly like March Madness does, just play multiple games on the same field.   One early in the day, one in the evening or on the next day at 4 different bowl sites for the round of 16(like HS does), then same thing at 2 other sites for the round of 8, then you can do the final 4 at one bowl, just use two different days.

Give the teams with the higher seeds a bowl site closer to campus.   Fans wouldn't care about the travel just like it doesn't affect march madness.   

The difference is most b-ball arenas hold 15-20K, not 70K+. You're not going to see the West Viginia fanbase travel to Orlando, Dallas and Pasadena on successive weekends. And it's not at all uncommon to see traditional powers play de facto home games in the first weekend (ala Duke/UNC).

Maybe you pick four "regional sites" for week one, two more for week two, and use a traditional BCS Bowl site for the title game, but you're still looking at a lot of potential travel -- long distances, even -- for teams with smaller fanbases.

Every year people litter message boards with their poorly conceived proposals for a playoff system, but they rarely seem to address things like logistics. I don't think the dilemma is impossible to solve, but it's not as the "simple solution" that so many make it out to be.

[DVauthrin]

The difference is most b-ball arenas hold 15-20K, not 70K+. You're not going to see the West Viginia fanbase travel to Orlando, Dallas and Pasadena on successive weekends. And it's not at all uncommon to see traditional powers play de facto home games in the first weekend (ala Duke/UNC).

Maybe you pick four "regional sites" for week one, two more for week two, and use a traditional BCS Bowl site for the title game, but you're still looking at a lot of potential travel -- long distances, even -- for teams with smaller fanbases.

Every year people litter message boards with their poorly conceived proposals for a playoff system, but they rarely seem to address things like logistics. I don't think the dilemma is impossible to solve, but it's not as the "simple solution" that so many make it out to be.

I'm more of the opinion that if you build it, they will come.    But again, I have no issue with making it a true road game.