2009 NCAA football thread!!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So if someone comes up with a viable playoff system for D-1 college football you're on board?

That's what you're telling me?

Yep, if there's a viable system I'm all for it. The reason I'm against a playoff is every structure I've ever seen proposed causes more problems than it fixes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Funny...there seems to be a whole lot of money from Basketball too...yet they figure it out somehow.

Huh? Care to tell me who is an associate Pac-10 member for basketball?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? Care to tell me who is an associate Pac-10 member for basketball?

Ummm...where did i say there was exactly?


im talking about sharing revenue with all the little teams that seems to be such a stumbling block for a playoff system.

its a strawman argument as they can manage in basketball, not to mention they do it for the FBS division of football now.

I do like the fact that congress is finally going to get involved in this stuff a little deeper though. It will take time, but eventually they will either be forced to do the right thing or just agree to it.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Funny...there seems to be a whole lot of money from Basketball too...yet they figure it out somehow.

And yet no one gives a crap about college basketball until March Madness.

But the playoff system wouldn't devalue the regular season at all, right?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There are a dozen different suggestions out there....do i really need to type them all out for you?

I have no idea what the best one is, or which one will work. I do know for a fact though that the current system DOESNT WORK, HAS NEVER WORKED , AND WILL NEVER WORK. It cant. It has a bloody machine deciding 33% of who plays....and another 2 polls of humans who have to base their order largely based on where teams were ranked before they ever play a freaking game.

You do realize that the same computers and voters will be deciding the participants in the playoffs, right?

Yeah...its so unique that the NCAA itself...already has a playoff system for football. So no, that argument isnt ridiculous...its a fact.

Give me a break.

I hate this argument. 1-AA football might still be NCAA, but lots of the major issues with a playoff system in 1-A football don't exist in 1-AA.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

this got me thinking.

Since 2003, the BCS final standings, if you take the top 16 as a cut off....thats 96 teams.

there have been 15 3 loss teams, and one 4 loss team (tennessee).

So in that whole time, there wasnt even 20% of the theoretical playoff teams that would have 3 losses or more.

I think anyone could live with that.

And asa for the cupcakes argument....they do that NOW. Look at Floridas OOC schedule this year, or Ohio St. Or Texas for that matter. Its a joke.

As a last note...Mack Brown was on ESPN tonight when the computer rankings were released and was adamant that the current system doesnt work and something has to be done about it.

I can't live with 3 or 4 loss teams as the National Champion. That's the whole appeal of college football. The regular season is so much more important.

And as for the cupcakes argument - Va Tech/Bama, USC/Ohio State, Oklahoma/Miami , etc. all don't exist with a 16-team playoff system. What incentive is there for major programs to schedule any quality non-con games when they can have a pretty mediocre 5-3 conference record and beat 4 cupcakes and make the playoffs?

Of course Mack Brown is whining about the computer rankings - his team was 6th in them and 3rd in both human polls. I'd like to see what Kirk Ferenz and the Hawkeyes say about the computers being 3rd in those, but 7th and 8th in the human polls.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yep, if there's a viable system I'm all for it. The reason I'm against a playoff is every structure I've ever seen proposed causes more problems than it fixes.

Exactly. It's easy to scream PLAYOFFS!, but every system I've seen has huge issues. So why change from a bad system to another bad system and destroy years and years of tradition in the process?

[flip]

Originally Posted by JayP

Exactly. It's easy to scream PLAYOFFS!, but every system I've seen has huge issues. So why change from a bad system to another bad system and destroy years and years of tradition in the process?

Tradition?

That is like saying they should keep steroids in baseball because it is tradition.

[transplant99]

You do realize that the same computers and voters will be deciding the participants in the playoffs, right?

Right...exactly..."in the playoffs"...you know, where the teams on the field decide who is better and not a stick of memory in a computer. I dont see the downside.

I hate this argument. 1-AA football might still be NCAA, but lots of the major issues with a playoff system in 1-A football don't exist in 1-AA

I have no doubt you hate this argument because it flies in the face of the NCAA's own stance on it.

I want to know what "major issues" aren't able to be overcome. I am fully aware that there would be hurdles to be cleared...so what? Just do it and get it where the vast majority of coaches, players, fans, students (those that actually drive college FB) want it, and quit listening to the presidents of conferences whose ONLY interest is how much money they can bring to their group of teams.

I can't live with 3 or 4 loss teams as the National Champion. That's the whole appeal of college football. The regular season is so much more important.

How often do you think these 3 loss teams would be even in a NC game? But if they are, they have earned that spot by beating these supposed better teams ahead of them. See , if a football team loses a single game or even two during the regular season, I dont automaticaaly write them off as unworthy for being branded the best. USC is a pretty good example of that this year, they lost one game to a conference opponent and all the while without there #1 QB. So because they lose that game, in your view, they now are not worthy of being labelled best (or have a chance to prove it) because for one week in September they had an injury. Its such a rediculous argument IMO.

What incentive is there for major programs to schedule any quality non-con games when they can have a pretty mediocre 5-3 conference record and beat 4 cupcakes and make the playoffs?

Ummm...getting ranked in the top 16 is what there incentive is...as a higher ranking means an easier opponent in the first rounds. You know, just like every other sport. And for the umpteenth time, major schools ALREADY schedule cupcakes to make sure they stay unbeaten. Look again at Florida and Texas (as of right now likely this years NC game) as the biggest examples.

Of course Mack Brown is whining about the computer rankings

What? He is is the birds seat right now...he wins out his team is in...no questions asked.

Exactly. It's easy to scream PLAYOFFS!, but every system I've seen has huge issues. So why change from a bad system to another bad system and destroy years and years of tradition in the process?

Who says its "another bad system"? You, that's who. I cants ee how anyone can complain about a system that settles the issue on the field, over in the banks of some supercomputer.

And you are right, if something worked 100 years ago, it shouldnt be messed with because it cant be improved on.

Sure thing.

[valo403]

Well then let's hear the plan Transplant, like you said there are tons of them so let's hear the one you back.

I'm so sick of the detachment from reality in this thread. You might think that the conferences are purely based on athletics, but they're not. You might think that splitting the pot with all the smaller programs is a simple thing, but it's not. You keep throwing out all this crap that is all fine and good in a vacuum but when you factor in the realities of the situation the majority of it doesn't work.

And as for Congress, they can't force anything. They can say that the current BCS system is an anti-trust violation, but they can't force a playoff. Unless of course they find a way to get around indentured servitude.

[Gugstanley]

To keep the season meaning a lot you only take conference champions into the playoff and have computer rankings determine the at large teams (With Oklahoma still ranked we see that humans can't rank teams objectively). A 16 team playoff starting the first weekend of December with winners playing every two weeks until a champion is crowned in Mid January.

Aren't their eleven conferences? So that leave five at large teams. Make every conference bulk up to at minimum twelve members with a conference championship game so the road the the championship is even.

All other bowl eligible teams can still play the low paying bowl games scattered throughout the month. We all watch college football all the time so they still would be watched. Sure someone will always be left out but if you didn't win your conference then you don't have much to complain about. The schedule will allow teams to play rivals and a strong out of conference schedule without penalty.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

To keep the season meaning a lot you only take conference champions into the playoff and have computer rankings determine the at large teams (With Oklahoma still ranked we see that humans can't rank teams objectively).

The computer rankings are a lot worse than the human rankings.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

To keep the season meaning a lot you only take conference champions into the playoff and have computer rankings determine the at large teams (With Oklahoma still ranked we see that humans can't rank teams objectively). A 16 team playoff starting the first weekend of December with winners playing every two weeks until a champion is crowned in Mid January.

Aren't their eleven conferences? So that leave five at large teams. Make every conference bulk up to at minimum twelve members with a conference championship game so the road the the championship is even.

All other bowl eligible teams can still play the low paying bowl games scattered throughout the month. We all watch college football all the time so they still would be watched. Sure someone will always be left out but if you didn't win your conference then you don't have much to complain about. The schedule will allow teams to play rivals and a strong out of conference schedule without penalty.

This is what I mean, it seems all well and good but if you start going through the consequences of each aspect there are some major issues, and I'm not willing to trade current issues for new ones.

Taking all 11 conference champs is a non-starter. You're telling me that Troy, Buffalo and East Carolina (to take last seasons champions) should get into the mix for a national title while a team that finishes third in the Big 12 shouldn't? It's all well and good to incorporate the WAC or MWC at the moment seeing as they include a team or two that aren't out of place, but that's not the case with C-USA or the Sun Belt, and the MAC is hit and miss. Add in the proposed forcing of conferences to expand (I'm not even going to get into the myriad of issues surrounding something like forced expansion) and the calibre of teams rolling out of those mid-majors takes another blow. Why would a commissioner at the Pac 10 or SEC sign on to a system that hands the Sun Belt champ a massive check while their third place team stays home?

As for those remaining bowls, is anyone who doesn't have some interest in the game actually going to watch? I highly doubt it. The lesser bowls have been struggling for ratings and sponsorships for the last few years, something like this would all but kill them.

Eliminate the whole 'every conference winner gets in' thing and it's a solid starting point. Maybe something like pay-in games among mid-major teams would work. The forced expansion is pretty much a no-go, as I've said elsewhere these aren't just football leagues, but I don't think a lack of conference expansion is a deal killer. There would have to be something worked out in regards to Notre Dame, I'd love to see them simply frozen out until they join a conference but that's not realistic. My point is that the list of things to deal with and the consequences of instituting a playoff is massive and I don't see a way to make the switch without swapping one problem for another.

I still stand by the plus one system, I think it preserves the integrity of the regular season, maintains the majority of the existing bowl structure, and still places the two best teams in the title game. Let's be honest, how many years have their been more than 4 teams that were legit claimants to a title shot at the end of the regular season?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

The computer rankings are a lot worse than the human rankings.

The computer rankings are based on formulas, at this point in the season there's insufficient information to make most of those computer polls function properly. The more games that are played the better they get, although I agree they aren't perfect.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

The computer rankings are based on formulas, at this point in the season there's insufficient information to make most of those computer polls function properly. The more games that are played the better they get, although I agree they aren't perfect.

I know that they are going to be skewed now but even at the end of the year I find they often miss stuff that just doesn't fit into the formula's.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

I know that they are going to be skewed now but even at the end of the year I find they often miss stuff that just doesn't fit into the formula's.

Ya, they tweak them every year but sometimes I admit they make me shake my head too.

[JayP]

How often do you think these 3 loss teams would be even in a NC game? But if they are, they have earned that spot by beating these supposed better teams ahead of them. See , if a football team loses a single game or even two during the regular season, I dont automaticaaly write them off as unworthy for being branded the best. USC is a pretty good example of that this year, they lost one game to a conference opponent and all the while without there #1 QB. So because they lose that game, in your view, they now are not worthy of being labelled best (or have a chance to prove it) because for one week in September they had an injury. Its such a rediculous argument IMO.

Too often. A 3-loss team should never be National Champions. I find it funny that a Trojan fan is whining about a true freshman QB missing one week being the sole reason they aren't in the mix for the National Championship. Good teams battle through injuries. Even then, injuries had nothing to do with that loss and under-estimating a conference opponent had everything to do with it. Who was injured against Oregon State? Or against Stanford? Or against UCLA?

Ummm...getting ranked in the top 16 is what there incentive is...as a higher ranking means an easier opponent in the first rounds. You know, just like every other sport. And for the umpteenth time, major schools ALREADY schedule cupcakes to make sure they stay unbeaten. Look again at Florida and Texas (as of right now likely this years NC game) as the biggest examples.

I may be wrong, but I think that playing for your season every week provides a little more drama to college football than playing for seeding. Like I said, no one gives a crap about college basketball until March.

For the umpteenth time, you conveniently forget the USC/Ohio St, Bama/Va Tech, OU/Miami, etc. games. You know why USC is the top ranked 1-loss team and still has NC hopes? Because they beat a top program like the Buckeyes on the road. The incentive to play anyone decent non-conference is completely eliminated with a playoff system and September football becomes a complete joke.

Who says its "another bad system"? You, that's who. I cants ee how anyone can complain about a system that settles the issue on the field, over in the banks of some supercomputer.

And you are right, if something worked 100 years ago, it shouldnt be messed with because it cant be improved on.

Sure thing.

I don't recall the BCS being around 100 years ago...

[JayP]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm so sick of the detachment from reality in this thread. You might think that the conferences are purely based on athletics, but they're not. You might think that splitting the pot with all the smaller programs is a simple thing, but it's not. You keep throwing out all this crap that is all fine and good in a vacuum but when you factor in the realities of the situation the majority of it doesn't work.

That's all it is. Anytime someone says "just throw Boise St. and Utah in the Pac-10, throw TCU in the Big 12 and get rid of Baylor, etc." simply doesn't understand that there's more to conferences than just results on the field.

First of all, why Boise St and Utah? They've both won BCS bowls, sure, but I'd argue that TCU and BYU are the best mid-major football programs out there. why not them?

If you all want to talk about jumbling the conferences to accommodate a playoff then why doesn't 1-A football just split into 2 separate leagues and have the best 50 programs in one and then lesser programs in the other. Then all the best teams play each other all the time and there's no debate who the best teams are? It's just as likely conferences adding/losing teams based on one sport and forgetting there's more to college sports than football and there's more to conferences than just on-field performance.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by flip

Ok, so I'm not the biggest CFB fan in the world and I'm sure I'll get laughed out of the thread for suggesting this but here goes.


How about instead of a true playoff formant, the NCAA begins to (somewhat) mandate what the schedules look like?

Sure they have to keep their conference play and still have a few easy games at the beginning of the year to get warmed up (well at least 1 game against a joke of a team to get warmed up).

Also, the NCAA could require teams have a fairly open ended schedule towards the latter part of the season. Obviously this would cause problems for people who want to book travel arrangements to games that are far away (USC vs pretty much anyone in the east for example)

Basically teams would be held accountable for their strength of schedule WAY more than they do now.

You want to make it to the NC game? Then you MUST play at least 2-3 teams in the top 20 and obviously win more than you lose.

Now people might point that this makes lower end schools not have much hope. Quite the opposite IMO. If you are clearly playing above your school's reputation, so to speak, then your schedule gets harder and you play the best of the best. If you can beat them then you are in contention.

Force teams ranked really high to play each other more often. Make it so that a team like Utah (from last year) can't bitch that they weren't given a shot. If they are ranked high and want a BCS bid then you MUST play someone (or multiple teams) in the top 10. If teams in the top 10 refuse to play other difficult teams then by default they cannot be NC caliber teams. This is where the NCAA involvement would come in, because they would have to make sure that teams wouldn't gang up and all agree not to play an opponent like Utah just to keep them out of contention. Then teams could actually get rewarded for playing (and even losing) to high ranked schools.

Say team A plays only ok teams and has a strength of schedule that is mediocre, they only play one top 10 team and win convincingly, but they go 12-0. Team B plays opponents ranked 2, 5, 10 but loses 2 of the three games and go 10-2. In all three games they clearly establish that they aren't out of place and belong at the top of the heap (ie lose by less than 4 points). I'd give team B the BCS shot and let Team A sit at home.

As it is too much emphasis is placed on going undefeated, not who is the best team.

Obviously there are numerous intricacies to be worked out but I think it is the only way. Use the first part of the season to set up rankings, then use the last 6-8 weeks to really determine who is the best of the best by having them play each other.

Sure it would cause some wrinkles in current conference play but I'm sure teams could work around it.

Then you wouldn't have teams like Boise this year who have no more difficult teams on their schedule. If you don't make a hard schedule, then you are automatically ineligible for BSC contention.


I know it'll never happen, but that is what I'd do. Then the last half of the regular season act as a playoff system in essence and you can still have a one off NC without (IMO) as much of a sh**storm as there is now.

Right now CFB is the biggest joke in ALL of pro sports world wide in determining a champion. that includes sports in sketchy ass countries where the outcome is likely fixed or baseball where half the players used to dope.

It would be more fitting to just flip a coin based on the current system. At least that would be fair.

Pretty easy response from the NCAA: non-conference schedules are arranged 5+ years in advance. How does a team know what ranking their opponent will have years in advance (even if they are playing a Texas or an OU)? Hell, even if they made them in the off-season before there's no way of knowing.

And, again, the reality of the situation is that non-conference opponent scheduling has very little to do with National Title aspirations. From SI's Stewart Mandel:

"there are only a handful of schools that realistically feel they have a shot at the national title on a regular basis. Many factors play into a school's schedule -- budgetary concerns, filling seats, television, which dates are available. Impressing BCS voters is generally not one of them."

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

I may be wrong, but I think that playing for your season every week provides a little more drama to college football than playing for seeding. Like I said, no one gives a crap about college basketball until March.

But teams aren't playing for their season every week.

If Florida lost to Arkansas it wouldn't matter because if they beat Alabama in the Championship game they are in.

If Iowa wins every game this year it doesn't matter because their are too many teams in front of them to get in anyways.

If USC beats Washington and Texas/Florida wins out then who cares they aren't playing for their season any more than they are now.

The fallacy that the games mean so much now really needs to stop.