Oh, I see, the "4 of 34" figure doesn't count the revoked USC.

I'd actually rather leave the superconference world out of this for the time being. I'm more interested in the existing world and how CFB is going to try to shoehorn itself into this 4 team playoff next year.

Conference Champs only or treating the CCG as a first round is terribad.


Not only does it (as previously stated) make OOC schedules irrelevant (except for as a tiebreaker), but it rewards teams in weak conferences. Why the hell should the ACC or BigEast (or, for that matter, the SEC) get a free pass into the semis or quarters every year regardless of how weak their teams are. You can do it in basketball because the field is huge, but in football we'd need at least a 16 team playoff before any conference should get a free shot.


If last year LSU had lost its CCG, it still would have been more deserving of a playoff spot than any other team in the country (and Georgia still wouldn't have been in the top 8).

This argument is actually backwards- it makes MORE meaningful non-conference games. There is little risk in scheduling a big game. There is a huge reward in winning a big game- you are more likely to get a better seed. I want MORE big time interconference games, not fewer.

Conference tiebreakers can be ******ed. Fix *that* problem before dealing with something unrelated.

Agree- I hate the committee idea.

I'm fine with this too, but would prefer to have a pecking order for teams.

For example:
Top priority:
Top 4 conference champions within top 6.
Any non-champions within top 2.
Any conference champions from 6-8.
Any non-champions from 3-8.
etc...
Max 2 per conference.

You can exclude a #3-4 team only if there are 4 champions within the top 8, in which case it would mean its very close, and you are way more likely to exclude marginal non-champions, and include a team that's close
Fill out with at-large teams. You exclude #1 or #2 only if they are non-champions and there are 4 champions in the top 6, which is going to be rare, and any team in the top 6 will be very deserving in the system.

They don't get a free pass, there would only be 4 spots, and they would have to be the top 4 conf champions.

I agree that there are plenty of non-deserving conference champions. I would rather err on the side of including a somewhat deserving conference champion in (4th best conf champ) over keeping a deserving conf champion out based on subjective judgement and letting a non-champ in.

So with only 4 teams, what do you do last year if Georgia squeaks by LSU?


Leave out the top two teams in every poll (LSU & Bama) so Wisconsin and Georgia (or maybe even lolClemson) can go?


What do you do with a round-robin cluster**** like the Big12 South in '08?
Leave out a 1-loss Texas?

Depends on the standings. It may involve leaving out LSU and Bama, but probably not.

Assume the following standings:
1) Alabama
2) LSU
3) Oklahoma St. *
4) Stanford
5) Oregon *
6) Boise
7) Arkansas
8) Wisconsin *

Champs in top 6 get in, so that's Pokes + Oregon.
Then top 2 teams get in. So that's Pokes + Oregon + Alabama + LSU.

If you say top 8 champs get in first, then its Pokes + Oregon + Wisconsin. Then Alabama gets the at-large.

2008 -
1) Florida *
2) Oklahoma *
3) Texas
4) Alabama
5) USC *
6) PSU *
7) Utah *
8) Texas Tech

Florida, Oklahoma, USC, PSU get in. Every team has one loss, not really any strong arguments here for why Texas deserved another shot.

What really sucks is Utah was undefeated but left out. But as you can see, playing a weak conference doesn't really help you that much.

I already figured out the best system

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=45

What happens if the director picks ND's name, are they auto champs or do they play a Spring Football-like game and split into 2 teams and only half the players get RANGZ.

Well, it's official.

And I still want to strangle Harvey Perlman. What an out of touch, senile old douche.

Format is great. I would have preferred the 1/2 teams hosting the semifinals games as a reward for finishing higher, but I can live with them being in neutral bowl sites.

The only thing that has me a little nervous is the selection committee thing. I would have just preferred they keep the existing BCS forumula and used that to generate the top 4. I just like the idea of specific, concrete rules in place, rather than 8 or so guys locking themselves up in a room and just announcing it. There is an element of subjectivity to the BCS ratings in the polls, however that's a least a cross section of a few hundred people, rather than a handful of dudes, which could lead to some shenanigan.

I don't think they'll ever leave out a truly deserving team, but they might do something funky, like leave out 4/5 in favor of a #6 conference champ or something.

Regardless this will eliminate any and all LEGITIMATE controversy IMO. #5 and #6 will of course bitch and moan like crazy every year, but you're playing to see who #1 is and if you are having a debate about why you weren't considered #4 and should have been, you clearly aren't #1.

The major problem with the old format is that you could have >2 undefeated teams, particularly from major conferences. You also frequently have a handful of 1 loss teams (usually 2 or 3) veying for the last spot.

The odds of having >4 undefeated teams is almost 0, and usually you only have 2-3 one loss teams and most of them will now make it.

I don't wanna hear some 2 loss #5 team bitching they are better than a 2 loss #4 team, stfu and stop losing so damn much. It'll be just as ******ed as basketball bubble teams who finished 20-17 bitching about getting left out. Yeah, you lost half your games, clearly you should be in the tournament to see who the national champion is!

Just out of curiosity who would have gone last year?

LSU, 1 obviously
OSU, 3 and a conference champ obviously
Alabama, 2, passes the eye test, ony loss was in OT to LSU

But who else?

Stanford finished #4 solidly ahead of #5 Oregon, but Oregon beat them soundly head to head and won the conference and their "extra" loss was to LSU.

Oregon almost certainly goes over Standford last year IMO.

seems like the best format possible, only took about 120 years of college football

I think it's the best format possible given the history and tradition and money and politics involved with college football in general.

What the NCAA needs to do now is official endorse the playoff and give out an official NCAA championship trophy to the winner.

It's completely ******ed that every single sport the NCAA sponsers they crown an official champion every year EXCEPT Division 1-A Football, you know, the most popular and important one.

I assume this now ends the whole automatic qualifier crap too right?

I think that was the biggest death blow to the BCS to be honest, not the title game controversy.

Bowls being forced to give spots to god awful teams thanks to the qualifying rules led to some really, really ****ty games nobody was interested in.

I assume bowls are now free to invite whoever the hell they want to if they aren't hosting the semifinals or finals.

I assume bowls will still have conference tie-ins, just as they did before the BCS.

Alls this proves is that NCAAF likes the free advertising they get from people arguing. the BCs was created to reduce the amount of subjectivity and they just did away with it.

Selection committee, gmafb

I, personally, would like to see the entire bowl system (with all its associated grift) kicked to the curb. It's crazy that those bloodsuckers siphon off so much cash and have so much control.


On second thought, **** that, anyone want to start the Shamwow Bowl with me?

lack of home games on campus in the semifinals is a massive fail

Yeah. Can you imagine how absurd the atmosphere would be if a semifinal was held in ______(insert any reasonable home stadium here)________?

Yeah, I agree with this for a few reasons.

1. It creates fan bases having to travel to TWO games in a very short period of time, that really sucks for the fans, that's a lot of money and time you gotta take off work, etc.

2. They keep talking about how they want the regular season to stay relevant and that college football has the best regular season in all of sports. I completely agree with both points and having 1 and 2 host semifinal games adds to it. Right now if you are #1 at the end of the year and lose a game and drop to 4, it's really like nothing happened in terms of the playoff. Falling from 1 or 2 downt o 3 or 4 should really suck and right now it only sucks a little.

I'm sure one day it will be revised again in the future. If fans complain loudly enough about having to plan two bowl game trips in back to back weeks maybe.

Neutral sites might not even sell out (like last year's Big10 CG). Will have a lot of fans who can't afford multiple trips to neutral sites, so will wait for the NC game.

Gonna be interesting to see the Semifinals played in half empty stadiums.

A lot of towns can't host a playoff game if the point is to bring the other teams fans.

If the big shots (Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, etc.) make the games they'll sell, they have big enough fan bases with enough devotion to produce 50K people willing to go to two games.

When the B listers make it (Oklahoma State, West Virginia, etc.) you'll see empty seats, particularly if the distance to the game is hudge.

Well I think the point of a home-field game would definitely not be to host the opposing fan's teams, DUCY?

That being said, it's a dumb argument anyway. If the game is in Lincoln, get a hotel in Omaha. If it's in Manhattan, KS, get a hotel in KC. If it's in Stillwater, get a hotel in OKC. A playoff game would be great for those towns and universities. It would bring in a ****-ton of money, and people would be so excited that it isn't even funny. Embrace the college atmosphere, don't push it away.