The only way it works is if everyone plays the same number of games. I’d be unfair for the Pac-10 to just install a team into the Rose Bowl when the Big Ten has a title game play in the week prior. As it stands it’s silly that the Pac-10 and Big Ten finish their season like 2 weeks before the SEC and Big 12. If you don’t level the playing field for all participants then there’s no way it could be considered a “tournament”.
I hear this all the time from SEC fans, and just don’t get it. Ten years ago, every conference ended their season before Thanksgiving. The fact that some conferences got oversized and added a championship game just so they could rake in a few extra million doesn’t mean it’s “unfair” or “silly” that other conferences thought they were fine the way they are.
No, that could be any conferences problem. Not just the conferences with divisions and conference championship. It is very possible for the Big 10 and the Pac-10 to have 2 way and 3-way ties for first place.
It’s the SEC/BigXII choice to do it that way and they have typically compensated by playing an extra 1AA game against Troy or Grandma’s Arts and Crafts store. Just throw away that extra worthless game and everyone plays the same number of games.
Note: I like the Champ games because they are fun/exciting and would be happy if my conference had one, but they are actually a worse way of determining conf champ compared to round-robin.
If the Big Ten expands again, they would go to 2 divisions. That would result in a natural playoff game. If they were smart, they would wait 2 or 3 weeks before they played it.
In the Pac10 we play every team, there is already a head to head tie breaker.
A playoff system would not solve a thing. !6 teams would result in two teams playing 4 more games. That is almost a half a season. 8 takes it down to 3. Still too many.
If you get to 4 teams, you have no. 5 and 6 feeling screwed over. I believe there were 6 undefeated teams this year. How would a 4 team playoff satisfy them.?Then one team losers, who lost in a close game to a real power would be on the outside looking in.
Sorry ,but no changes will do the job. This way there are 34 money making games and a lot of conferences at least a little happier .
With 8 teams, just make round 1 be a normal bowl game. Round 2 is 1 week later for 4 teams and the final 1 week after that, just 1 extra week from current ncg.
I am less interested in getting them over than having players play so many games. It is a violent sport and more games is equal to more injuries.
How many more? Could you quantify it? Maybe use the FCS as an example, as they play a 16 team playoff.
Unfair is the sense that it’s not equal. Whether the team playing a conference title game is benefiting or if the team with extra rest is isn’t really the point. If you’re going to “level the playing field” by adding a playoff system then some restrictions must be made in order to ensure that entry into the “tournament” is equitable. If everyone wants into the tournament then everyone needs to agree to the same terms.
There’s 3-way ties in the NFL all the time. There’s ties in every sport. There’s ties in the SEC and Big 12 for access to their title games. It’s a nonstarter. Tie breakers are a fact of life in football with a short schedule. If you lose the tie breaker then you lose your shot at getting into the tournament, those are the breaks. Why should BCS conference teams that lose their tie breakers get preferential treatment over those who won their conferences outright?
Playing the same number of games on the whole isn’t really that important. Teams can schedule cupcakes or real games or whatever they want. The only burden is that they all face the same barrier for winning their conference and therefore getting into the tourney. That’s why everyone would need to play a title game/first round game. A side benefit to this is that if you use the At Large bid system to fill those other two first round games then there’s a motive for BCS schools to not schedule cupcakes since they’ll have to impress pollsters.
Why replace a round robin system that is a better determinant of conference champ with a less valid method? It sounds more like you just want all conferences to have the same format more for consistency than actual merit.
I like what you said (I think it was you) better before which is let the conferences figure out how to determine a champ.
I just read the top part of your post so ignore my post, I’m not opposed to it, merely pointing out that round robin is technically a better determinant (although not as exciting).
I would prefer a playoff, but even just eliminating the BCS and not having to pretend that a (non-recognized by the NCAA) BCS title meant anything would be an improvement. We can keep the one improvement of the BCS, which is the new possibilities for matchups.
Alabama would still have gotten the votes for “national champion” this year, and it would have actually been more meaningful because it wouldn’t have been forced.
Last year Utah would have gotten (deservedly) a lot of votes, maybe even being declared national champion by some. Nothing wrong with that.
As for the conference championship game nonsense… no. Just no. Unbalanced schedules within a conference are ridiculous. Conferences with too many teams to play fair schedules should be broken up.
Funny that no one in the NCAA made this argument when they expanded from an 11-game to 12-game season in 2006.
And if injury is the real concern for adding games, the NCAA could adopt NFL timing rules. In 2009, each NFL team averaged 62.9 plays from scrimmage per game, while FBS NCAA football was at 67.7. 13 games played under NCAA timing rules have about the same number of plays as 14 played under NFL timing, so adding a game for a playoff would put the players at no greater in-game risk.
Adding games is more of a risk than not adding games. Then ,we still pretend that they are student athletes. So removing them from school for another month would be hard to justify by the faculty . The BCS is flawed . But the schools scheduling teams from lower divisions to insure an easy victory has diminished college football.
Boise has done well outside their level. But, they have a hard time getting a decent team to schedule them. Michigan, Notre Dame, and many other teams used to pride themselves on how tough their schedule was. Nobody cares anymore.
The BCS could make difficulty of opponents a stronger factor .
head-to-head tie breaker is ok for a two way tie, but it doesn’t work for a three way tie at one loss apiece. That is basically what happened in the Big XII South last year, and it could happen in the PAC-10 or Big 10 or the divisions of the SEC or ACC.
In fact, I outlined a scenario in the November CFB thread where there would have been 6 teams in the PAC-10 tied for 1st with a 6-3 conference record. it was possible, very late in the season.
No. If the Big 12 and SEC want to hurt their team’s chances to suck on the $$$$$$ tit, that’s not the fault of other conferences. You make your bed, you sleep in it. Why should the PAC be FORCED into having a conference game if everyone’s already PLAYED everyone once? You think Oregon slaughtering USC then USC nipping Oregon in the PAC-10 Championship Game is going to be a popular system. You could have a situation where a BCS Top 5, doesn’t even make your 8 team playoff over some 7-4 team. Let the conferences decide their champions like they want.
However in such a situation one’s beef is with their CONFERENCE, and not the fault of the playoff system. If the conference doesn’t like the way their champion is determined the conference is free to change it.
Our high schools play 14 games on their way to state championships. NFL players play 16 before they even make the playoffs, the Super Bowl teams play as many as 19.
The national champion in a 8 team playoff would play 16, 15 if they dropped a regular season game to compensate. This seems extremely reasonable.
Actually, if NFL offenses weren’t so damn good, I’d like to see it go the other direction. NCAA timing is great for final heroic drives since the clock stops to move the chains. NCAA timing would make a mockery in the NFL though. The “Two-Minute Drill” would be a leisurely stroll for the likes of Manning or Brady by those rules.
There is a series of tie-breaking rules, ending with “the team who hasn’t been to the Rose Bowl for the longest amount of time” which is how Cal can get in! C’mon, people! Work with me.
So the players are “removed” from school? Were they “removed from school” from September until November? No, of course they weren’t. Your argument is absurd, and your made-up facts are transparent.
I’ve always thought that the best, most common-sense solution would be this:
Have all the current bowl games (except the national title game) as normal. Then take the four top-ranked teams to have won their bowl games – doesn’t matter how those teams are determined, as long as the rankings take into account the bowl results – and seed them against each other the next week, 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. The winners of those games go head-to-head the week after that for the national championship.
Simple. The bowls get to keep their revenue, the networks (and fans) get three additional games, it doesn’t shut deserving teams out of the thrill of being in the post-season, it provides more closure than we currently have and diminishes the pesky what-if scenarios, and it rewards slightly less heralded teams who are able to prove their mettle by kicking ass at bowl time.
We should get right on it.