Corey many times you let your mouth over load your you know what. What I said was that an online poll is a classic example of a biased poll. In other words a poll that is not constructed in a way to eliminate bias. If you don't understand what I mean look it up in a Statistics textbook, but kindly don't make smart ass remark when you don't understand what I am saying. I do dismiss the poll not for the result but because the way it is taken makes it worthless as any real meaning.
Dave, If you use the 11 and 5 format, it isn't a beauty contest.. all of the teams who won their conference got in this way. Seriously, if these other teams suck so badly why are you guys so afraid to play them? Bill, You know what the difference between those online polls are and the polls that determine the National Title game....?? The people voting in the online poll have actually seen Utah play before the Sugar Bowl.
As I posted elsewhere .... and there was no repsonse .... IC's proposed 11+5 format may have some rather significant deficincies in its tourney pairings:
How would they be deficient pairings? No one is saying that a conference champion gets automatic higher seeding than a wildcard... Their title gets them into the dance. That is it. You guys get to keep your polls and formulas and whatever other Liberace-esque ice dancing type ratings system you want to rank the teams for the playoffs... I think that some of you backers from the 'haves' conferences would enjoy a playoff. While you'd be admitting the conference champions to the dance (something you refuse to do now) the at-large spots would almost certainly be filled by the big dogs... Your 5 wildcard spots would be contested this year by: -Texas -Alabama -Texas Tech -Ohio State -TCU -Ball State -Oregon -Tulsa -BC You'd be way more likely to have a Florida vs Buffalo matchup than you are a Florida-Bama matchup in the 1st round.
IC You ask how your format could yield deficient pairings ..... if the conference championship games are used as 1st round tournament games. Well, read what I wrote. Again .... in 2008, under your format .... a #1 Alabama would have faced a #4 UF in the first round .... while a #1 Oklahoma faced #20 Missouri (how did they get into the final 16??) ... while a # 25 VaTech faced a #17 BC (how did either of these two teams get into a final 16) .... a #13 Cinncinati against a #9 Boise St .... and so on. Beyond the above problems ... your rules would also eliminate from eligibility the following top-16 BCS teams: #3 Texas or # 14 OkSU - too many Big-12 with Okla and Missouri in Probably #15 GaTech because ACC woould already have two teams ranked outside of the top 16 in the tournament .... In looking at what I believe is the final regular season BCS poll (before conference championship games) I think the equitable pairings would be: #1 Alabama - #16 UGa #2 OU - #15 GaTech #3 Texas - #14 OklaState #4 UF - #13 Cincinnati #5 USCw - #12 Ball State #6 Utah - #11 TCU #7 TTU - #10 tOSU #8 PennSU - #9 Boise State In your porposal, three of the above teams would be bumped for Missouri, VaTech, and BC ..... and one more would be ineligible because the Big-12 would have too many in the tourney with OU, Texas, TTU, Missouri BTW .... I like the matchup drawn by USCw!! :wink:
How does Georgia get in? Conference championship games are not first rounds, they are simply conference championship games. That's on you and your league to decide a champion.. Where are the conference champions? Did you just use the BCS poll? the 11 and 5 uses the 11 conference champs (VTech, Cinci, Penn St, OU, East Carolina, Buffalo, Utah, USC, Florida, Troy and Boise State) How you got all the way down to Georgia is beyond me. You have a serious flaw in your logic in that you are including the conference title game. That isn't part of the playoff, that is how you choose to select your champ. Missouri isn't in. Looking at how the season unfolded this year (post-conference title games)... You'd have 5 wildcard spots to be filled by the teams I mentioned.. Georgia would never even enter the conversation. You are intentionally making this difficult.
Only 5 of the top BCS 16 who are "not" conference champions would get in. Unless all 11 conference champions filled in the other 11 BCS top spots then there are likely to be teams from the top 16 ranked in BCS poll that will not make the playoffs because they are not conference champs. If those teams were #14 or #15 then no big deal but if they were top 10 ranked and didn't make it then there is a problem. I personally think 4 extra games at the end of a 12 or 13 game regular college season is too many. I think it needs to get down to the final 8 BCS ranked teams at most. It would be a rare circumstance that the #9 ranked team....left out of the playoffs....could sit and bitch about how they should be #1....yada...yada...yada. With 8 teams total there is still 3 games to be played....and I would have it start Dec 15th....with a second game two weeks later and the title game in mid-Jan with only the first round at teams home stadiums.
Gee golly.. How oh how does DIaa-DII, DIII and NAIA ever do it? You're pushing this off-base BCS logic. The 11 conference champs are in... period. If that principle of 'winning your conference' is so important than it is important for all.. You're choosing 5 wildcards from the teams who didn't win their conference.
My bad, I picked up Bill's proposal as being from you. My apologies. IMO the conference title games cannot be part of the playoff .... and really cannot exist if there is a playoff, as those teams competing in conference title games will be playing one more game (in December) than other teams in the playoffs. So ... before a Div-1 tournament can be implemented, the Big-12, SEC, ACC, Big-East, CUSA, and MAC will be required to end their title games. What are the chances that will happen? I'm for a playoff but I just don't see it happening ... as there are just too many obstacles presented by the CCGs and existing bowl games. Also .... WRT using existing bowls for the playoff system, I seem to recall a proposal where the round of eight would be played at the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, and Orange. Then there'd be two semi-finals .... somehwere .... then a final at another location. In such a scenario .... will the Rose Bowl agree to any such plan as chances are ..... it won't get either the title game or a Pac-10 vs Big-10 champ match up. As I understand the situation, the Rose Bowl is a major impediment to a playoff system.
I just think you can't compare. Div 1 major league football is resplendent with Ray Lewis type LBs etc. and the speed and ferocity approximates the NFL caliber players and physicality on the highest levels. I just think 4 weeks in succession after the regular season might yield a champion but it won't guarantee a deserving champion. No sense in having playoffs if the whole exercise does nothing to ensure that truly the best team was left standing at the end of the year.
WRT the lower divisions implementing a playoff ................. I don't believe they were required to unwind an "existing bowl system" that included 54% of the division's teams. That is a substantial task that was not faced by Div-1aa, 2, 3, etc.
1. Division One anything is has plenty of NFL level talent, but not to the level you suggest. I believe of all divisions of college football, roughly 2 to 3 % make it to the NFL. I have seen reports as high as 5%. I run into a lot of this hyperbole in baseball in regards to kids who can jump up and play (insert level of baseball here)... On the very best teams, you have a handful of guys who will even be drafted by the NFL.. Of those guys, only a few of them will stick or play more than special teams roles or practice squads... On an NFL team, EVERY player is NFL caliber. 2. Gaterz-Leave the bowls to the teams not in the playoffs. The playoffs would take 16 teams... I believe 60+ teams went to bowl games this year. ps I posted a nifty article about the bowls exploiting college football, you should check it out.
Come on! The pros do it, the other divisions of college do it. Div I is the only football league in the country that doesn't do it.
The pros have way more depth than do college teams in general...( except for Florida on defense next year... 8) ) .....and the pros know each in other pretty well by past experiences and film study. A week to prepare or rather refresh may be all the pros need. In some cases the first time college teams may know anything at all about their next playoff opponent could be on the Monday before the game on Saturday. I just do not like a system that makes the outcome more prone to injury luck and "gut feeling" gameplan guesses than the current system we have now.
So .... how would one convince the Rose Bowl to forego the "Pac-10 and Big-10 champion matchup" each year it doesn't get the MNC Title game? kp What's the plan to unwind and compensate the bowl system? How would conferences with championship games be compensated for the loss of those games .... and the costs to unwind the commitments they have re same? Eliminating the bowl system for the FBS is not as simple as waving the "magic playoff wand" .... and it simply goes away. Again ... I favor a playoff but just don't see it happening in the near future.
They should use the Gator Bowl AJ. In fact I think the when they get to the final 8 the games should be in the Gator Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, the Orange Bowl and the Outback Bowl. With the semi's and finals being rotated between those 4 bowls. After all we need that warm weather environment. :twisted: :twisted:
MCG, First you say we can't do it because DIV 1 has too many pro type players of NFL caliber, then you say the reason the pros can have playoff is because they have a lot of pro type player????
Gaterzfan, All of the major bowls could be covered with the playoff system. I think that the revenue created by the playoff would far exceed the revenue and interest that the lesser bowls generate now.
You are using the bowls again to dictate to the NCAA what its member institutions will do. This is the problem. The bowls are running the system. This needs to change and change yesterday. The bowls only have as much power as the conferences give them. At present time, the conference give it all to them. if the question is: How do you convince the Pac10 and Big10 to forego their Rose Bowl commitment? Then the answer is... You do what the BCS did... Tell them that they are out of the NC picture entirely.