BCS source: Playoff 'gets done' as part of new contract Read more: http://aol.sporti

[RailBaronYarr]

I'll take that a step further: This system sucks a LOT less than a system where an 18-1 team isn't considered the champion because they lot ONE GAME to a team that finished 14-6. To anyone that argues that a playoff wouldn't diminish the importance of the regular season, that's the only thing you need to look at. It most definitely would, as it does every single year in every other major team sport in America.

This system is far from perfect, but for my money, it's also hands-down the best one in american team sports.

It's not as if that's a rare occurrence, either. Last year a 10-6 (reg season) Packers team that didn't win it's own division won the Superbowl over a handful of teams that proved, at least during the regular season, were better than them.

I have said it many times that I love that the CFB model uses a combination of human judgment (polls) on quality of teams/play/how they win/strength of schedule and computer ranking of teams based on W/L and schedule strength to determine the top teams. It means that you are rewarded for scheduling strong teams and winning, and also makes a loss SO heartbreaking during the regular season because chances are pretty likely you are eliminated from contention (unless you've won your other games so convincingly and played a difficult enough schedule to warrant making it back). HOWEVER I've also said that picking only 2 teams has and can leave out a team or 2 that has a legitimate claim they're good enough to have played for the title. Can anyone point out a season where more than 4 teams can say they should be crowned national champion based on their body of work? Where more than 4 teams even received a 1st place vote by the media/coaches? 4 is enough and keeps the regular season so important, which is the one thing that separates CFB from any other sport I watch.

 

[station19]

I realize that I have a really unpopular opinion of the system, but I kind of like how it's set up now. I think the entire season is essentially a tournament. I like the idea that you could tune into a OK St. v. Iowa St. football game on a (I believe Friday night, maybe Thur) and it was essentially a playoff game. It was as important as any game in the season and those teams had to play like it was a playoff game.

I liked watching LSU / Oregon, the first week of the season and it being treated like a playoff game. I LOVED watching MSU beat WI and knowing that their Nat'l Championship hopes were gone.

I think that it often pits the two most deserving teams against eachother.

If they change anything, I think the plus 1 is the best case scenario.

They shouldn't add more games before the bowls, that's finals period. They shouldn't go much later than they do right now. I can't think of many years where that wouldn't have totally resolved the issue.

So how does D 1 AA, D2 and D3 do it?

 

[mplsbadger]

I don't get it, how is that any different than it was this year? The Wisconsin-Oregon game this season meant nothing in terms of the National Championship. I guess then, why did anyone outside of Wisconsin and Oregon care about the game?

Other than the BCS NC game, all other bowl games now are essentially exhibitions. I just don't see how that changes things a whole lot.

I think the key difference is that UW and Oregon were not playoff losers when they met in the Rose Bowl. If they were, interest would have been lower.

You are somewhat correct in noting also that the interest is diminished when the teams are out of the championship mix as they were this year I'd argue further however that the interest in the RB when the teams are out of the mix is inversely related to the number of teams in the playoff. Two teams and you still have a pretty good rose bowl, 64 teams and you have a zero interest NIT. To me this is an argument against a separate playoff - unless you are ok with the Rose Bowl becoming the NIT.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I think the key difference is that UW and Oregon were not playoff losers when they met in the Rose Bowl. If they were, interest would have been lower.

Why though? I don't get that. Most say that, under the current system, the regular season is the playoffs. Since neither one of those teams are playing in the NC, they essentially lost in the playoffs.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I realize that I have a really unpopular opinion of the system, but I kind of like how it's set up now. I think the entire season is essentially a tournament.

A tournament to me is when everyone included has a fair chance. That's not the case in the current system. Teams can go undefeated and have no shot.

 

[CrocShots]

A little update on this. It looks like the BCS commissioners, Swarbrick, and representatives from the BCS met in Dallas recently to discuss a "plus one" model.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...referred-route-to-determine-national-champion

As much as anything, the group of 12 wants to protect the sport’s regular season—while moving forward with a concept (the Plus One) that could enhance the game and not damage a sport that is now second only to the NFL in popularity.

“We can’t forget what this sport was built on,” a BCS source said.

Oh, STFU.

 

[spackler]

8-Team playoff pitting teams from the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta using traditional conference match ups from the 6 "power" conferences (e.g., B1G vs. PAC12 in the Rose) plus 2 at large bids which could from within or outside the "power" conferences. This would protect the bowls (at least the relevant ones), make the non- conference schdule irrelevant, and the conference games would be even more meaningful which is the way it should be! Too damn bad if you're ND or a team from one of the lame conferences (e.g., USA, WAC, Mountain West, etc.). These lesser conferences don't have the week in and week out rigor of the "power" conferences (that means you Boise State!). Either you get in one of the "power" conferences or hope for one of the at large bids. Sorry, anything else is nonsense.

THIS IS THE WAY IT S/B DONE.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

8 team playoff with no break after the end of the season. Six major champions 2 best BCS at large. Seed them 1-8 with playoff games at home sites of higher seed until the final which is played at a preordained venue. This would mean this year that quarterfinals would be played the weekend of the 10th, semifinals the 17th and the final would be played as the last BCS game after the New Year. Here's the caveat, with arguably the 8 "most deserving" playoff teams playing the BCS is going to look pretty bare yes? Wrong.

By winning into the playoff you have assured yourself a BCS slot, which means that squads from non-AQ conferences could have greater access, although they would still have to win out. When a team is eliminated from the playoffs they are slotted into an appropriate BCS bowl according to conference. For example, say Wisconsin and Oregon were on opposite sides of the bracket and were beaten in the quarterfinals. Since they have the right tie ins they go straight to the Rose Bowl. Having almost 3 weeks should give bowl organizers plenty of time to hype the matchup and organize everything, and its not as long of a layoff as the current system has for some teams. I think Alabama had a over 40 day layoff between their last game and the BCS title?

Just my 2 cents about ways to preserve the bowl system (cuz its not going to go completely away) while still making the playoff the top prize. It also makes the BCS games what they should be, the next best thing to the national championship, as it stands now its the best chance a lot of teams get.

+1 This would make the non-conference schedule less relevant and the conference schedule extremely relevant since the 6-major conferences have automatic tie-ins (the way it should be). Use the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls to sort them out in the first round on Jan. 1.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

THIS IS THE WAY IT S/B DONE.

+2

 

[Goldmember]

THIS IS THE WAY IT S/B DONE.

That might have been feasible once upon a time. But there are clearly no longer 6 "power conferences".

The BigTen, PacTen and SEC are in a class of their own. Virtually all of the money, power, interest and talent in college football is concentrated in these three conferences.

What becomes of the BCS/FBS postseason will reflect this profound imbalance. It will probably be something like these three conferences will get automatic berths in a 4-team playoff, with the rest of FBS fighting-it-out for the fourth (at-large) spot.

At this point the 3 major football conferences could just tell Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame (and whoever wins the ACC with a .700 record) that they have to rubber-stamp whatever they decide to do ... or be excluded.

 

[mplsbadger]

That might have been feasible once upon a time. But there are clearly no longer 6 "power conferences".

The BigTen, PacTen and SEC are in a class of their own. Virtually all of the money, power, interest and talent in college football is concentrated in these three conferences.

What becomes of the BCS/FBS postseason will reflect this profound imbalance. It will probably be something like these three conferences will get automatic berths in a 4-team playoff, with the rest of FBS fighting-it-out for the fourth (at-large) spot.

At this point the 3 major football conferences could just tell Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame (and whoever wins the ACC with a .700 record) that they have to rubber-stamp whatever they decide to do ... or be excluded.

I think we're done with automatic berths. Whether it is two teams or four they'll be selected based on a BCS like ranking. Automatic berths tied the hands of the BCS sponsoring bowls and exposed them to threats of lawsuits and litigation. No more.

 

[Goldmember]

I think we're done with automatic berths. Whether it is two teams or four they'll be selected based on a BCS like ranking. Automatic berths tied the hands of the BCS sponsoring bowls and exposed them to threats of lawsuits and litigation. No more.

All evidence suggest the opposite. We may very well be done with these fantasy-land "polls" and "rankings" having any bearing on the post-season at all (other than for the at-large berth or even a possible "play-in game").

"Protecting the integrity of our regular season" is code language for such.

It is in the best interest of The SEC, Pac12 and BigTen to make its conference schedule and conference championships (assets it owns outright) to be as meaningful and compelling to the public as possible. And they now hold all the cards.

Why would they agree to make the polls more important (which largely favor teams that have managed high win % through playing more programs with fewer resources... something teams in power-conferences are not able to do)?

 

[Sportsfan24]

Soooooo am I the only person who thinks this might be a tad unfair to the "student" athletes? More working hours...excuse me, I meant games and no additional "pay"...excuse me, I meant scholarship.

Who ever said "pimping ain't easy" obviously never heard of college football/basketball.

Rumor has it the NFL is in the process of reclassifying the players as grad students?

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

No matter how many teams are included in a playoff, some others are left out and crabbing about it. I'm happy with the BCS, which really has had the top two teams most years if not all years. A "plus 1" would be okay, too, with the first round in the bowls. More than four teams makes no sense, as others point out here.

 

[mplsbadger]

All evidence suggest the opposite. We may very well be done with these fantasy-land "polls" and "rankings" having any bearing on the post-season at all (other than for the at-large berth or even a possible "play-in game").

"Protecting the integrity of our regular season" is code language for such.

It is in the best interest of The SEC, Pac12 and BigTen to make its conference schedule and conference championships (assets it owns outright) to be as meaningful and compelling to the public as possible. And they now hold all the cards.

Why would they agree to make the polls more important (which largely favor teams that have managed high win % through playing more programs with fewer resources... something teams in power-conferences are not able to do)?

Because a four team bracket where 36 teams have a 1 in 12 chance and the other 80 teams have a 1 in 80 chance will never ever be introduced. Do you know how many senators would line up against that? Every senator from a state not in those conferences +Florida (Miami, FSU), South Carolina (Clemson), Georgia (Tech), Texas (UT,...). Nobody would stand for it.

 

[matt]

Soooooo am I the only person who thinks this might be a tad unfair to the "student" athletes? More working hours...excuse me, I meant games and no additional "pay"...excuse me, I meant scholarship.

Who ever said "pimping ain't easy" obviously never heard of college football/basketball.

Rumor has it the NFL is in the process of reclassifying the players as grad students?

FCS, Division 2, Division 3, and NAIA football all end their postseason in a tournament and they somehow manage to get by. A lot more of those players aren't on full scholarships or any scholarship at all, so they're not getting any sympathy from me about this pay crap. Is it unfair to those players who choose to play in these tournaments and balance their academics without any financial aid?

 

[Formo]

No matter how many teams are included in a playoff, some others are left out and crabbing about it. I'm happy with the BCS, which really has had the top two teams most years if not all years. A "plus 1" would be okay, too, with the first round in the bowls. More than four teams makes no sense, as others point out here.

+1 Couldn't agree more. Anything more than a 4 team playoff (sorry #5) is too much.

 

[Goldmember]

Because a four team bracket where 36 teams have a 1 in 12 chance and the other 80 teams have a 1 in 80 chance will never ever be introduced. Do you know how many senators would line up against that? Every senator from a state not in those conferences +Florida (Miami, FSU), South Carolina (Clemson), Georgia (Tech), Texas (UT,...). Nobody would stand for it.

Not all FBS programs are created equal. Some are going to learn this the hard way.

The alternative to an extraoxdinarily lopsided agreement favoring the 3 major conferences is to scrap the BCS system entirely and revert back to what we had in 1997. A lot has changed since then. What would result is no championship game and a series of bowl tie-ins that make the system even more lopsided in-favor of the 3 major football conferences. They will end-up with 75%+ of the post-season revenue either way.

 

[RodentRampage]

That is AN alternative, not THE alternative.

 

[mplsbadger]

Not all FBS programs are created equal. Some are going to learn this the hard way.

The alternative to an extraoxdinarily lopsided agreement favoring the 3 major conferences is to scrap the BCS system entirely and revert back to what we had in 1997. A lot has changed since then. What would result is no championship game and a series of bowl tie-ins that make the system even more lopsided in-favor of the 3 major football conferences. They will end-up with 75%+ of the post-season revenue either way.

I can see your point if there is a four team field assembled prior to the bowls (today there is a two team field assembled prior to the bowls).

But if it is a 'plus one' or a 'plus three' pitting two or four teams respectively after the bowls, then all signs point to no automatic bids and no 'bowls as part of a bracket'. I think Delaney has hinted at this. In the case of a 'plus three' I think it is really unlikely that the bowls are part of a bracket. How often would the winner of the Rose Bowl be left out of a four team tournament? You're talking about the champion of a 24 team conference that typically has 8 teams in the top 25 in any given week. To insist that it is part of a bracket is to unnecessarily invite antitrust investigations, congressional meddling, and TCU, Nebraska, Miami in the Rose Bowl.

 

[Goldmember]

That is AN alternative, not THE alternative.

In this case, it is what trained noegotiators would refer to as the BATNA.

And the major conferences are really no worse-off if that's where things land. The rest of college football, not so much.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Soooooo am I the only person who thinks this might be a tad unfair to the "student" athletes? More working hours...excuse me, I meant games and no additional "pay"...excuse me, I meant scholarship.

So if you ask all D1 football athletes if they'd rather keep the system as is, or add some kind of a playoff, the majority of them would want to keep it as is because they don't want to add more games? For the longest time, I thought guys played because they loved doing it.

Who ever said "pimping ain't easy" obviously never heard of college football/basketball.

Rumor has it the NFL is in the process of reclassifying the players as grad students?

As a former college student-athlete myself (D2), if find some of your (and others) views to be almost arrogant. Your son is a great talent, much, much better than I ever was. He's gotten way more advantages and opportunities than I could have ever hoped for. Your statements make it seem like these athletes are treated so badly, which is totally ridiculous.

 

[Deleted_User]

So if you ask all D1 football athletes if they'd rather keep the system as is, or add some kind of a playoff, the majority of them would want to keep it as is because they don't want to add more games? For the longest time, I thought guys played because they loved doing it.



As a former college student-athlete myself (D2), if find some of your (and others) views to be almost arrogant. Your son is a great talent, much, much better than I ever was. He's gotten way more advantages and opportunities than I could have ever hoped for. Your statements make it seem like these athletes are treated so badly, which is totally ridiculous.

Have to agree with 24 on this. Adding games with no commensurate benefit to the player is a ripoff. The school gets more, the player practices more, taking time away from other pursuits, like studies, or social life, or job hunting. The Atlantic had a great article on how the NCAA is the latest plantation experience. Where is the compensation for injuries? These kids should be considered employees and their pay equal to the value of the scholarship, so that they could get compensated for at least their bodily injuries and the lasting results from them.

 

[RodentRampage]

Those players at Alabama must be kicking themselves. If they could only have gone 5-7, they could have avoided the nightmare of playing for the National Championship. I can just imagine all the basketball players crossing their fingers, hoping their team won't be invited to the NCAA tournament.

If it is a plantation, it's the strangest plantation the world has ever known. A plantation where people work so hard to be allowed to work on that plantation?

 

[dpodoll68]

Seriously. Please stop using any type of slavery metaphors in discussing anything related to college athletics. It's insulting. I would think it even more insulting to those among us with African ancestry.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Have to agree with 24 on this. Adding games with no commensurate benefit to the player is a ripoff. The school gets more, the player practices more, taking time away from other pursuits, like studies, or social life, or job hunting. The Atlantic had a great article on how the NCAA is the latest plantation experience. Where is the compensation for injuries? These kids should be considered employees and their pay equal to the value of the scholarship, so that they could get compensated for at least their bodily injuries and the lasting results from them.

I don't mean any disrespect, but this is all laughable to me. No one is forced to play.

Do you feel the same about the players at lower levels who a) sometimes play even more games, b) don't have nearly the resources and facilities as the big D1 guys, c) who many times watch just as much film and work just as hard during the off season as the big guys, and d) have to get jobs during the summer and/or school year because they don't have a full ride scholarship.