PDA

View Full Version : B1G proposes great playoff plan


JoeJoeBrown
02-06-2012, 05:58 PM
PLAN (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-idea-a-college-football-playoff-with-home-games-20120206,0,4747499.story)

Four teams.

Home games based on seed.

Championship game bid out like the Super Bowl.

I love.

JoeJoeBrown
02-07-2012, 08:00 PM
Great analysis. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_big_ten_jim_delany_football_playoff_bcs_020 712)

Surprise no one is interested in this. Great chance of having a playoff soon.

JRTPlaya21
02-07-2012, 08:17 PM
Let's get it popping. The thoughts of a final 4 would make for some primetime television BUT travel could prove to be a pain if you're asking a team to play a conference title game then turn around and head west or come east a week later.

Smooth Criminal
02-07-2012, 09:05 PM
B1G and fans would love this. I can't wait to hear some of these fans talk about having teams come play in Columbus in January.

I'd love a playoff and a final four would be pretty good. There's rarely been a time when we had more than 4 teams that could seriously make a case for being in the NC at the end of the season.

JRTPlaya21
02-07-2012, 09:12 PM
Let's just hope it just stays between the top 4 BCS teams and nobody complains if we get another Bama/LSU scenario or OSU/UM. If two teams from the same conference deserve it then let it be.

Complex
02-07-2012, 10:50 PM
I was hoping a playoff tournament like Division II or w/e they are called now. At least a 12 team playoff tournament like the NFL would be fine. But it a least it's a start. Too bad it will start in 2014.

JRTPlaya21
02-08-2012, 12:12 AM
Honestly 8 max is all we need. If you can't keep it at 3 losses tops chances are you aren't championship material

MassNole
02-08-2012, 08:11 AM
Only reason B1G teams want home games is to try and have a weather advantage over the other schools.

iowatreat54
02-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Only reason B1G teams want home games is to try and have a weather advantage over the other schools.

And the only reason SEC and southern schools don't want seeding to determine where games are played is so that they can be assurred of never having to travel that far or into the northern states where it's cold.

I know I'm a fan of a Big Ten team, but at least this idea is attempting to make things fair. Let's be honest, more often than not a team like Florida or Alabama will be the higher seed over Michigan or OSU, so the game will be played in Florida or Alabama. But in the off chance that Michigan is 2nd and Florida is 3rd, how fair is it to have that game played in Atlanta or Miami instead of Ann Arbor?

I actually wouldn't mind if they kept neutral sites for the games, as long as it's assured that the sites are actually neutral and some stadiums north of the Mason-Dixon line actually get to host. Make it so that locations aren't pre-determined going into the season, so that it isn't said that Pasadena gets the 1v4 game, and then have USC make the 4th seed. Have 3 locations determined (say, Atlanta, Pasadena, Lambeau) and then if the final 4 are 1. Florida 2. Wisconsin 3. USC 4. Texas, put Florida-Texas in Pasadena or Lambeau, then put Wisconsin-USC in Atlanta. But I know, no one is going to want to play in the cold except Big Ten teams.

iowatreat54
02-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Also just wanted to add that with a playoff, the whole excuse of "they shouldn't have to play the post season games in the cold" that goes along with bowl games will be gone. It wouldn't be a reward like bowl games are.

JoeJoeBrown
02-08-2012, 10:40 AM
Only reason B1G teams want home games is to try and have a weather advantage over the other schools.

You mean like the neutral site NC game for LSU the last 3 times in NOLA?

The homefield means you earned it during the season, which destroys the bowl fan's argument about the importance of the regular season being lessened with a playoff.

It makes sense to me. It works for the NFL and every other college division, why not for CFB?

I also like the idea of having the NC game be bid on like the Super Bowl. I think the playoff and championship game would make CFB even bigger and better.

Put the NC game on a Saturday and you have the makings of another SB like party day regardless of whom is playing.

brat316
02-08-2012, 10:59 AM
Its better than what we have now, but still bad and unfair. I don't understand the point of having 120 D-I teams yet only like 80 of them can compete for this championship.

Spartan4224
02-08-2012, 11:00 AM
They haven't been relavent in a decade and don't say they made a BCS game this year because the game was anything but a BCS game!

Let's be honest, more often than not a team like Florida or Alabama will be the higher seed over Michigan or OSU, so the game will be played in Florida or Alabama. But in the off chance that Michigan is 2nd and Florida is 3rd, how fair is it to have that game played in Atlanta or Miami instead of Ann Arbor?

JoeJoeBrown
02-08-2012, 11:06 AM
Its better than what we have now, but still bad and unfair. I don't understand the point of having 120 D-I teams yet only like 80 of them can compete for this championship.

What is bad and unfair?

You can't have a 64 team tournament in football. The game is too brutal.

There are simply too many FBS division teams. Lots of 2nd tier teams that have no business being in the same division.

brat316
02-08-2012, 11:13 AM
What is bad and unfair?

You can't have a 64 team tournament in football. The game is too brutal.

There are simply too many FBS division teams. Lots of 2nd tier teams that have no business being in the same division.

He said the teams would be picked from the current pool of BCS teams to play in the playoff.

Basketball has way more teams competing than football does, for a championship. I never mentioned having a 64 team tournament.

Why can't the conference winners compete in a playoff? Before are all teams were at least allowed to compete for the NCAA Championship, until a third party came and decided who is allowed and who is not.

Shane P. Hallam
02-08-2012, 11:18 AM
I'd definitely take it. As some have pointed out, may be better systems, but 4 teams wouldn't dilute much and some arguments would be answered at the very least. You can argue venues and the timeline, but just getting to 4 teams for 2014 would be incredible!

JoeJoeBrown
02-08-2012, 11:24 AM
I'd definitely take it. As some have pointed out, may be better systems, but 4 teams wouldn't dilute much and some arguments would be answered at the very least. You can argue venues and the timeline, but just getting to 4 teams for 2014 would be incredible!

Exactly. And as Wetzel said, it's a radical shift away from the ridiculous and ancient bowl system. Why give the bowls the money the schools be taking in?

Also, it would only start at 4, and probably grow to 8, 12 tops.

WRT BCS only schools, I doubt if that sticks.

brat316
02-08-2012, 11:28 AM
If the schools were smart enough they would eliminate the third party/middle man and make their own official NCAA champ with playoff and all. They would make way more money then they are now.

iowatreat54
02-08-2012, 11:30 AM
They haven't been relavent in a decade and don't say they made a BCS game this year because the game was anything but a BCS game!

Let's be honest, more often than not a team like Florida or Alabama will be the higher seed over Michigan or OSU, so the game will be played in Florida or Alabama. But in the off chance that Michigan is 2nd and Florida is 3rd, how fair is it to have that game played in Atlanta or Miami instead of Ann Arbor?

Jesus, it was just an example. Should I have used Michigan St., who has been even less relevant than Michigan in the last decade? I like Michigan St., but seriously hate their bandwagon fans that think because of the last 2 years they are some elite program.

And just because for no reason you've decided to act like a twunt, a decade is 10 years. 6 years ago Michigan was as high as #2 in the polls, played OSU for a spot in the NC game, went to the Rose Bowl (a BCS bowl, in case you are too ignorant to realize), and finished the season ranked 8th.

For the record, in the past decade (again, that would be 10 years), Michigan has 2 big ten championships, tied for 2nd most in the past decade with Wisconsin, and ahead of Michigan St.'s 1. Also, if I decided to make you look like even more foolish, I could probably look up and determine that in the last 10 years, Michigan probably has significantly more wins than Michigan St., even included the RichRod abortion.


But back on topic, I actually wouldn't mind having the conference champs play in a playoff, but then you get teams like the Big East winner making it over teams that are obviously better. I guess you have that in pro sports anyway, but there's is always going to be someone left to complain. At least it would be a step in the right direction. I think if you go 8 teams, then seeding to determine home field would be a must.

JHL6719
02-08-2012, 08:05 PM
He said the teams would be picked from the current pool of BCS teams to play in the playoff.

Basketball has way more teams competing than football does, for a championship. I never mentioned having a 64 team tournament.

Why can't the conference winners compete in a playoff? Before are all teams were at least allowed to compete for the NCAA Championship, until a third party came and decided who is allowed and who is not.


For the billionth time, no system (playoff scenario or no playoff scenario) will ever require only conference winners to be able to participate. It eliminates Notre Dame.

Secondly, just because you win your conference doesn't even mean you're really a top 10-15 team. All conferences are not equal. The SEC typically has at least 3 teams that would win every other conference out there undefeated. Furthermore, until all conferences are playing a conference championship game, it's a bogus discussion to have.


On the bright side, at least Ohio St. doesn't have to lose again to an SEC team in a bowl game next year.

How are ya today Joe Joe? :^)

VikesWookie
02-09-2012, 09:41 AM
I'd like to see an 8-team playoff. The top 8 BCS rated teams, regardless of conference. For an eight team tourney you'd need to have seven total games played. Use the existing bowls as quarterfinal/semi-final games so you keep the sponsorship in place. Since there are only five current bcs games, two others would be needed for this system... maybe the cotton and capital one bowls.

MassNole
02-09-2012, 10:12 AM
For the billionth time, no system (playoff scenario or no playoff scenario) will ever require only conference winners to be able to participate. It eliminates Notre Dame.

Secondly, just because you win your conference doesn't even mean you're really a top 10-15 team. All conferences are not equal. The SEC typically has at least 3 teams that would win every other conference out there undefeated. Furthermore, until all conferences are playing a conference championship game, it's a bogus discussion to have.


On the bright side, at least Ohio St. doesn't have to lose again to an SEC team in a bowl game next year.

How are ya today Joe Joe? :^)
Or it forces Notre Dame to join a conference, if 119 teams can agree on something and Notre Dame can't, that really is their problem not the rest of College Football's problem.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 10:37 AM
Or it forces Notre Dame to join a conference, if 119 teams can agree on something and Notre Dame can't, that really is their problem not the rest of College Football's problem.

To the contrary, if Notre Dame has a problem, it IS the rest of college football's problem. Are you new to college football? Nobody is "forcing" Notre Dame to do a damn thing. Otherwise it would've been done a long time ago.

Notre Dame's belligerence has been a pain in the a** for college football going on several decades now.

I have news for you... Notre Dame is more important and holds more clout than about 100 of those 119 teams combined. Notre Dame doesn't care what the San Jose St.'s, Maryland's, and Western Kentucky's agree to. Neither does anybody else in college football.

Furthermore, you're not going to get everybody in college football to agree to a conference winner only setup. Especially not the SEC. A conference winner only setup is only implemented with the intent of limiting the SEC... that's it.

There's no way that anybody with half a brain agrees to a system that lets an 8-4 Big-East Champ get into a playoff for the national title while a 1 loss SEC team would get left out.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 10:45 AM
The best thing about this playoff scenario that Jim Delaney and the Big-TenEleven have proposed here is the home stadiums hosting the playoff games in a +1 format. Which is what I said is the problem with a playoff scenario all along. People can't afford to travel all over the country to attend playoff games for their school.

However, the issue you run into with this is if a team like Boise St. ends up hosting a playoff game in their little 30,000 seat stadium against a team like Bama or Nebraska where there's going to be more fans from the visiting team than there are seats in their tiny stadium with that hideous blue turf.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 10:57 AM
Or it forces Notre Dame to join a conference, if 119 teams can agree on something and Notre Dame can't, that really is their problem not the rest of College Football's problem.



And another thing, it's not like the Big-TenEleven can even agree on what they've proposed here. They just threw it out there in an attempt to poke their chest out and give the impression they're actually ready to compete with the SEC.

They threw the idea out there without even figuring out what they want to do with the Rose Bowl scenario that THEY created in cahoots with the Pac-10. The only reason all that was done in the first place was to keep Alabama out of the Rose Bowl to begin with since Bama kept going out there and winning it.

I say let the Big-TenEleven and the Pac-10 keep their "precious" Rose Bowl in tact between their two conference *champs* (lolz) and let the rest of the country play for the national title.

Let the Cotton Bowl take the Rose Bowl's place and make it like it used to be to begin with.

MassNole
02-09-2012, 11:25 AM
To the contrary, if Notre Dame has a problem, it IS the rest of college football's problem. Are you new to college football? Nobody is "forcing" Notre Dame to do a damn thing. Otherwise it would've been done a long time ago.

Notre Dame's belligerence has been a pain in the a** for college football going on several decades now.

I have news for you... Notre Dame is more important and holds more clout than about 100 of those 119 teams combined. Notre Dame doesn't care what the San Jose St.'s, Maryland's, and Western Kentucky's agree to. Neither does anybody else in college football.

Furthermore, you're not going to get everybody in college football to agree to a conference winner only setup. Especially not the SEC. A conference winner only setup is only implemented with the intent of limiting the SEC... that's it.

There's no way that anybody with half a brain agrees to a system that lets an 8-4 Big-East Champ get into a playoff for the national title while a 1 loss SEC team would get left out.
I get Notre Dame was once highly relevant, but that time has long, long since passed. If the BCS conferences wanted to split away from the NCAA (at this point it seems like it is a matter of time) and Notre Dame didn't want to join, none of the other schools would care.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 11:51 AM
I get Notre Dame was once highly relevant, but that time has long, long since passed. If the BCS conferences wanted to split away from the NCAA (at this point it seems like it is a matter of time) and Notre Dame didn't want to join, none of the other schools would care.


The thing you have to understand is that Notre Dame IS still relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they're competing for championships.... the brand Notre Dame is relevant. They're a blue-blood in college football, and there's very few to begin with.

It's never mattered what system was in place (BCS, Bowl Alliance, Coalition, etc., etc.) Notre Dame always has a different set of rules applied to them so they're included, because you're not forcing them to join a conference.

Notre Dame isn't going to agree with a "conference winner only" playoff scenario, and a conference like the SEC is going to see it the exact same way. Notre Dame isn't going to be on island as far as that's concerned.

As a matter of fact, nobody should agree to that unless they're just a weak conference who wants their "champ" to have a shot at a national title.

We already have a distinct line between conference champions that had to win it by playing in a conference championship game, and conference champions who don't even have enough teams to host a conference championship.

The Big-12 or Big-East Champion can go 9-3 without even playing in a conference championship game and be crowned "conference champion". Giving them the right to play for a national title under the proposed scenario.

Meanwhile, a team from the SEC East or West can go undefeated in the SEC, and lose in the SEC Championship Game, having only 1 loss. Yet they'd be eliminated from competing for the national title. The same applies to the Big-10, Pac-10, ACC, and any conference that currently hosts a conference championship game.

It just doesn't make any sense. Jim Delany and the Big-10 should know better. Mike Slive has already put the breaks on this.


http://www.mrsec.com/2012/02/slive-tries-to-slow-the-bcs-to-playoff-speculation/

iowatreat54
02-09-2012, 11:52 AM
And another thing, it's not like the Big-TenEleven can even agree on what they've proposed here. They just threw it out there in an attempt to poke their chest out and give the impression they're actually ready to compete with the SEC.

They threw the idea out there without even figuring out what they want to do with the Rose Bowl scenario that THEY created in cahoots with the Pac-10. The only reason all that was done in the first place was to keep Alabama out of the Rose Bowl to begin with since Bama kept going out there and winning it.


lol

Alabama won the Rose Bowl 4 times in 30 years. The Rose Bowl went Big Ten-Pac 10 starting in 1947, the year after Alabama won it. Prior to that, Alabama was last in the Rose Bowl in 1938, and last won it before that in 1935. Heck, they had been there a total of 6 times in 30 years. Pittsburgh went there 4 times, are you sure they weren't trying to keep Pitt away?

I'll admit that I'm not even close to the most knowledgable on Rose Bowl history, but to say the "only" reason they made the agreement is because Alabama won the Bowl once every 8 years and had won it twice in the previous decade before the agreement is laughable.

But to your other point, that of the Big Ten giving up the Rose Bowl, it will definitely take a "sacrifice" by the conference. But I think the Big Ten ego thinks higher of the perception of competing for a NC, specifically against the SEC, than of the Rose Bowl. The perception of the Rose Bowl has diminished, so I think the Big Ten will be willing to make a move on anything that could potentially make them seem bigger and better than they currently are.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 12:41 PM
lol

Alabama won the Rose Bowl 4 times in 30 years. The Rose Bowl went Big Ten-Pac 10 starting in 1947, the year after Alabama won it. Prior to that, Alabama was last in the Rose Bowl in 1938, and last won it before that in 1935. Heck, they had been there a total of 6 times in 30 years. Pittsburgh went there 4 times, are you sure they weren't trying to keep Pitt away?

I'll admit that I'm not even close to the most knowledgable on Rose Bowl history, but to say the "only" reason they made the agreement is because Alabama won the Bowl once every 8 years and had won it twice in the previous decade before the agreement is laughable.

But to your other point, that of the Big Ten giving up the Rose Bowl, it will definitely take a "sacrifice" by the conference. But I think the Big Ten ego thinks higher of the perception of competing for a NC, specifically against the SEC, than of the Rose Bowl. The perception of the Rose Bowl has diminished, so I think the Big Ten will be willing to make a move on anything that could potentially make them seem bigger and better than they currently are.


You don't say? They want to exclude the SEC from playing in the Rose Bowl the year after Bama won it for the 4th time. But it was obviously done to keep Pittsburgh out of it... who had a 1-3 record in the Rose Bowl.

Bama has a 4-1-1 record in the Rose Bowl, and the most wins in the Rose Bowl outside of any non-Pac-10/Big-10 program.

Bama wins another national title in 2011, and here's the Big-10 again ready to propose some more "changes".

So Delany and the Big-10 wanted nothing to do with the SEC's proposal of a +1 playoff in '08, but now they expect everybody to just jump on whatever nonsense they throw out there now that THEY are suddenly ready for it?

Somebody slap Jim Delany and get him back into reality.

iowatreat54
02-09-2012, 01:06 PM
You don't say? They want to exclude the SEC from playing in the Rose Bowl the year after Bama won it for the 4th time. But it was obviously done to keep Pittsburgh out of it... who had a 1-3 record in the Rose Bowl.

Bama has a 4-1-1 record in the Rose Bowl, and the most wins in the Rose Bowl outside of any non-Pac-10/Big-10 program.

Bama wins another national title in 2011, and here's the Big-10 again ready to propose some more "changes".

So Delany and the Big-10 wanted nothing to do with the SEC's proposal of a +1 playoff in '08, but now they expect everybody to just jump on whatever nonsense they throw out there now that THEY are suddenly ready for it?

Somebody slap Jim Delany and get him back into reality.


Ok, well you could have said "to keep the SEC out" which would have been more accurate. But going down that road, I looked at the 32 years prior to 1947, and a southern (not even SEC only) team was in the Rose Bowl 11 times out of 32, which consisted of Alabama (6), Tennessee (2), Georgia (1), GTech (1), and SMU (1).

I'm not arguing that the Big Ten/Delaney aren't arrogant or just doing this to boost their own egos. It's just that your argument is incredibly weak to believe that in 1947 the Big Ten and Pac Ten reached their decision only because Alabama won the Rose Bowl every 8 years, and that a southern school competed in the Rose Bowl less than half the time.

As to this proposal, yes, it's basically because Delaney wants the Big Ten to be perceived as relevant. But do you really care if that's the reason, if it ends up getting us a college playoff? Or would you prefer we stay with the bowl system and a joke of a NC determination? I don't care who proposes it or why, all the conferences need to stop being so petty and get a damn playoff created already.

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Ok, well you could have said "to keep the SEC out" which would have been more accurate. But going down that road, I looked at the 32 years prior to 1947, and a southern (not even SEC only) team was in the Rose Bowl 11 times out of 32, which consisted of Alabama (6), Tennessee (2), Georgia (1), GTech (1), and SMU (1).

I'm not arguing that the Big Ten/Delaney aren't arrogant or just doing this to boost their own egos. It's just that your argument is incredibly weak to believe that in 1947 the Big Ten and Pac Ten reached their decision only because Alabama won the Rose Bowl every 8 years, and that a southern school competed in the Rose Bowl less than half the time.

As to this proposal, yes, it's basically because Delaney wants the Big Ten to be perceived as relevant. But do you really care if that's the reason, if it ends up getting us a college playoff? Or would you prefer we stay with the bowl system and a joke of a NC determination? I don't care who proposes it or why, all the conferences need to stop being so petty and get a damn playoff created already.


None of these proposals scare me. We'll play anybody anywhere anytime. The point is, we need something that actually makes a little bit of sense.

I'm fine with a +1 scenario (4 team "playoff" if you want to call it that) but no more than that. I don't want any 8, 12 or 16 team playoffs. Being a conference champion must remain completely irrelevant to the situation.

Secondly, I want the regular season to still mean something. I don't want everybody starting over with a new season once the regular season ends by putting a bunch of teams in a playoff.

I think the best team is the one that proves it all season long from start to finish, which is what the BCS does. The playoff word is a slippery slope that will only lead to the playoffs being expanded, and more and more teams complaining about being left out. It's what happens when you go down that road.

College football is different from other sports and I'd prefer it stay that way. It doesn't have to be like the NFL, NBA, MLB, D-II, and D-III levels of college football.

JoeJoeBrown
02-09-2012, 01:31 PM
None of these proposals scare me. We'll play anybody anywhere anytime.

Like Penn State, but only when Bama is good, right? (http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/062703aaa.html)

JHL6719
02-09-2012, 02:01 PM
Like Penn State, but only when Bama is good, right? (http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/062703aaa.html)


Well we went 10-2 in '05 and shut down Mike Leach's high powered Texas Tech team in the Cotton Bowl.

Went .500 in '04 and made a bowl game. Meanwhile, Penn St. was going 4-7.

Alabama and Penn St. have a very respectful psuedo-rivalry and both programs want the other at full strength for a series.

Spartan4224
02-09-2012, 02:24 PM
You want a playoff because the polls aren't fair but you talk about Michigan being as high as # 2 by some ignorant pollsters in your argument, and it was more than 6 years ago, but nice try. MSU has a 24-8 record the last 5 years in the Big Ten, tied for best with OSU while SCum is 12-20. SO WHO IS IRRELEVANT!!! And a bandwagon fan? Sorry but I have a degree and season tickets from MSU. What do you have a trailer in a corn field?
My point is stop using a team that has been god awful lately. We hear enough of the Michigan hype from the ignoant media out there because they were good before Christ WAS BORN!!! At least use a team like Wisconsin or hell even Iowa.

Jesus, it was just an example. Should I have used Michigan St., who has been even less relevant than Michigan in the last decade? I like Michigan St., but seriously hate their bandwagon fans that think because of the last 2 years they are some elite program.

And just because for no reason you've decided to act like a twunt, a decade is 10 years. 6 years ago Michigan was as high as #2 in the polls, played OSU for a spot in the NC game, went to the Rose Bowl (a BCS bowl, in case you are too ignorant to realize), and finished the season ranked 8th.

For the record, in the past decade (again, that would be 10 years), Michigan has 2 big ten championships, tied for 2nd most in the past decade with Wisconsin, and ahead of Michigan St.'s 1. Also, if I decided to make you look like even more foolish, I could probably look up and determine that in the last 10 years, Michigan probably has significantly more wins than Michigan St., even included the RichRod abortion.


But back on topic, I actually wouldn't mind having the conference champs play in a playoff, but then you get teams like the Big East winner making it over teams that are obviously better. I guess you have that in pro sports anyway, but there's is always going to be someone left to complain. At least it would be a step in the right direction. I think if you go 8 teams, then seeding to determine home field would be a must.

Spartan4224
02-09-2012, 02:26 PM
delete message

iowatreat54
02-09-2012, 03:34 PM
You want a playoff because the polls aren't fair but you talk about Michigan being as high as # 2 by some ignorant pollsters in your argument, and it was more than 6 years ago, but nice try. MSU has a 24-8 record the last 5 years in the Big Ten, tied for best with OSU while SCum is 12-20. SO WHO IS IRRELEVANT!!! And a bandwagon fan? Sorry but I have a degree and season tickets from MSU. What do you have a trailer in a corn field?
My point is stop using a team that has been god awful lately. We hear enough of the Michigan hype from the ignoant media out there because they were good before Christ WAS BORN!!! At least use a team like Wisconsin or hell even Iowa.

First, 2012 - 2006 = 6 years ago. I really hope you didn't major in math at MSU.

Second, you said in the last decade, not the last 5 years.

Third, in the last 5 years MSU has 27 wins in the Big Ten, tied for 2nd most with PSU and 3 behind OSU.

Fourth, I said Michigan has been more relevant than MSU in the last decade, not recently or the last 5 years. I never said MSU is irrelevant.

Fifth, MSU has a ton of bandwagon football fans in the last couple years. Hey, Iowa does too usually. It's annoying when they think they are some elite team when they aren't even close.

Finally, I have a degree from Iowa. I only spent 4 years in that god foresaken state. I live and work in Chicago.

I've been to Michigan St. a number of times and love the campus. But you and other MSU fans need stop acting like god damn little brother and bitching about the name Michigan being used in an irrelevant example. It just furthers the notion that MSU fans are obsessed with all things Michigan.

P-L
02-11-2012, 09:56 PM
A four team playoff would be awesome and needs to happen. I wouldn't go more than four. My only concern with a playoff is that they will eventually want to expand. To me, a championship should go to the best team. In football, where each game is winner-take-all, a playoff shouldn't be watered down with a bunch of teams.

Shane P. Hallam
02-11-2012, 10:01 PM
A four team playoff would be awesome and needs to happen. I wouldn't go more than four. My only concern with a playoff is that they will eventually want to expand. To me, a championship should go to the best team. In football, where each game is winner-take-all, a playoff shouldn't be watered down with a bunch of teams.

I'd be willing to go to 6, but 4 is fine with me.

descendency
02-11-2012, 11:13 PM
I was hoping a playoff tournament like Division II or w/e they are called now. At least a 12 team playoff tournament like the NFL would be fine. But it a least it's a start. Too bad it will start in 2014.

The problem is that college football is 120 teams and pro football is 32. When you condense 32 teams into 12, it makes sense. When you take 120 teams and condense it to 12, it doesn't.

People think they want to get rid of the BCS, but the alternative is what we have in college basketball: 10 people in a backroom picking 68 teams to play in 67 games (granted, they take over 300 and turn it into 68).

Until we see a restructuring (and dumping) of teams and conferences, we'll continue to have the same stupid arguments.

To me, a championship should go to the best team.

A playoff is just another (different) way to settle the championship. It isn't necesarily the best team winning either. Nor will it be in a 4 team playoff. There will always be an argument that the team only won because they got hot or because they didn't let some 5th team in.

P-L
02-18-2012, 05:23 PM
A playoff is just another (different) way to settle the championship. It isn't necesarily the best team winning either. Nor will it be in a 4 team playoff. There will always be an argument that the team only won because they got hot or because they didn't let some 5th team in.
While a 4-team playoff wouldn't guarantee that the best team would always win, it would greatly increase the odds over a larger format. I'd have no problem with the #4 team getting hot at the end of the season and winning the championship. I would have a problem with the #12 or #16 getting hot and doing damage, when they don't deserve to be there in the first place.

JHL6719
03-01-2012, 09:32 AM
Here's a nice piece by Stewart Mandel that addresses many of the concerns about a "conference champion only" style playoff, the issue of Notre Dame, and many of the concerns people have....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/28/conference-champion-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

jrdrylie
03-01-2012, 12:05 PM
Here's a nice piece by Stewart Mandel that addresses many of the concerns about a "conference champion only" style playoff, the issue of Notre Dame, and many of the concerns people have....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/28/conference-champion-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

I don't think anybody has called for a conference champion only playoff. I have probably come the closest, saying a 16 team playoff with 11 conference champions plus five at larger teams would be great. But Conference Champions only? I haven't heard a single person propose that.

arigatou
03-19-2012, 08:50 PM
More often than not Florida or Alabama, the team will be a higher seed than Michigan or Oregon State University, this game will play in Florida, Alabama. But in Michigan is the second and Florida is the third opportunity.

MassNole
03-21-2012, 09:28 AM
Here's a nice piece by Stewart Mandel that addresses many of the concerns about a "conference champion only" style playoff, the issue of Notre Dame, and many of the concerns people have....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/28/conference-champion-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

At some point the other NCAA/BCS schools need to just tell Notre Dame to [expletive] off and join a conference or not be invited to the reindeer games.

iowatreat54
03-21-2012, 10:23 AM
At some point the other NCAA/BCS schools need to just tell Notre Dame to [expletive] off and join a conference or not be invited to the reindeer games.

Agreed. Any changes/new system should have 0% catered to Notre Dame or any other independent. If they want to be included, they can join up with 99% of the other teams in America. If not, have fun never competing for a championship.

Seriously, the Notre Dame-independent thing might be the most odd/absurd scenario in all of sports.

bearsfan_51
03-21-2012, 11:31 AM
Notre Dame will never be good enough for it to matter anyway.

iowatreat54
03-21-2012, 11:50 AM
Notre Dame will never be good enough for it to matter anyway.

No, but the NCAA still acts like they are a heavy weight with enough power to swing major decisions. That's the main problem. I couldn't care less if ND joins a conference or not, but as long as the NCAA and media continue to gravel at their feet, they can do whatever they please and **** up things majorly.

StickSkills
03-22-2012, 02:46 AM
Well we went 10-2 in '05 and shut down Mike Leach's high powered Texas Tech team in the Cotton Bowl.

Went .500 in '04 and made a bowl game. Meanwhile, Penn St. was going 4-7.

Alabama and Penn St. have a very respectful psuedo-rivalry and both programs want the other at full strength for a series.

That article was released in June 2003, right after PSU came off a 9-3 season, meanwhile Bama finished 9-3 also. However, I believe it was that same time that Alabama was getting hit with sanctions.

During the 2000 season, an assistant football coach in Memphis, Tennessee claimed that an Alabama booster had paid him $50,000 to encourage one of his players to sign with the Crimson Tide.[124] Following the NCAA investigation, Alabama received a probation from 2002 to 2006, a two-year post-season ban (2002 and 2003), and the loss of 21 scholarships over 3 years.[125] A secret witness was later revealed to be Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer.[126][127]