BCS was bad? Wait for the "Committee"

[sburks1906]

The BCS was not as bad as people make it out to be. Keep in mind that the National Champion used to be determined by the AP and coaches' polls.

 

[rmilia1]

My idea is still best

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...sion/55007-playoff-idea-college-football.html

 

[NickVT10]

Do you think you know more about football than those old farts?

Depends on who the committee is composed of but probably. If it is conference directors and ADs and those guys, then yes. They have other big time jobs to do that worry about their school or conference. Do you really think the ACC comish is watching PAC-12 games or BIG12 games? Especially enough of them to say this team from the PAC is better than this team from the B1G? If you do then you should stop kidding yourself. They are watching highlights, getting massive media influence and their colleagues telling them stuff in their ear. I would much rather have them hire 12 former coaches, players, long time writers and media members to be on this committee. People who could devote their entire working time to researching these kind of decisions. ESPN is paying $470 million a year for rights for the playoffs. They can afford to hire 12-20 people to do this.

 

[wingsauce7]

I don't think this new format solves anything, but if it gets the ball rolling to expand the playoffs in the future, then I'm ok with it. Personally, I don't see why if there were an 8 team playoff there would be a need for any byes. With a 12 team playoff you could have the top 4 seeds with a bye.

12 makes the most sense to me.

The rest of the teams seeded higher than 12 would still go play in the lower bowls.

Who loses in this senerio?

 

[wingsauce7]

hey rmilia1, who gave you permission to use my wife's pic as your Avatar?

 

[rmilia1]

hey rmilia1, who gave you permission to use my wife's pic as your Avatar?

Well shit man, when I married her I didnt know she was already hitched.... LOL

 

[WhiteMamba]

Depends on who the committee is composed of but probably. If it is conference directors and ADs and those guys, then yes. They have other big time jobs to do that worry about their school or conference. Do you really think the ACC comish is watching PAC-12 games or BIG12 games? Especially enough of them to say this team from the PAC is better than this team from the B1G? If you do then you should stop kidding yourself. They are watching highlights, getting massive media influence and their colleagues telling them stuff in their ear. I would much rather have them hire 12 former coaches, players, long time writers and media members to be on this committee. People who could devote their entire working time to researching these kind of decisions. ESPN is paying $470 million a year for rights for the playoffs. They can afford to hire 12-20 people to do this.

They need to get guys like Jesse Palmer, Colin Cowherd, Ryen Rusillo, Brock Huard, Eddie George, Joey Harrington, David Pollack, Kirk Herbstreet, Aaron Hernandez to be on the committee.

Hate ESPN and Fox all you want. But IMO this is a young crew of CFB analysts that are in the know and the now.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Do yall think letting 12 in waters down the reg season just a tad? I do. Why ruin the best reg season in all of sports? Nail biting games in November will be reserved for teams with 3 losses lettn 12 teams in. Its better to keep it a bit smaller.

I say 6. Top 2 teams a bye and then the other 4 playoff to determine semis...

 

[Shanemansj13]

My idea is still best

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...sion/55007-playoff-idea-college-football.html

Change that to 8 and it would be more legit.

16 teams seems like a bit much, yeah it give more a chance. But is there really 16 that can truly be good enough to compete for a NC

 

[wingsauce7]

I say 6. Top 2 teams a bye and then the other 4 playoff to determine semis...

I could live with this.

 

[NickVT10]

They need to get guys like Jesse Palmer, Colin Cowherd, Ryen Rusillo, Brock Huard, Eddie George, Joey Harrington, David Pollack, Kirk Herbstreet, Aaron Hernandez to be on the committee.

Hate ESPN and Fox all you want. But IMO this is a young crew of CFB analysts that are in the know and the now.

Palmer is very pro SEC if you listen to the stuff he says. Cowherd is a nincompoop. He is irrational on a lot of his thinking. The rest I could do.

The selected guys should have as little bias as possible but with former players and coaches that is hard to weed out if they are selected.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I could live with this.

thats how the NFL does it by conference and is that not the best playoff format in sports?

Model yourself after the best I say...

 

[Brasky]

There is not a soul on this planet outside of Oregon fans who would have picked Oregon over Stanford to get into the playoff.

Stanford gets in over KSU because KSU had a very ugly late-season loss against Baylor.

It's frankly going to come down to common sense and the fact that if you lose late in the season, you are going to have a lot more trouble making a case to get into the playoffs.

 

[TonyTheGator]

Depends on who the committee is composed of but probably. If it is conference directors and ADs and those guys, then yes. They have other big time jobs to do that worry about their school or conference. Do you really think the ACC comish is watching PAC-12 games or BIG12 games? Especially enough of them to say this team from the PAC is better than this team from the B1G? If you do then you should stop kidding yourself. They are watching highlights, getting massive media influence and their colleagues telling them stuff in their ear. I would much rather have them hire 12 former coaches, players, long time writers and media members to be on this committee. People who could devote their entire working time to researching these kind of decisions. ESPN is paying $470 million a year for rights for the playoffs. They can afford to hire 12-20 people to do this.

I don't think it is their age, or their knowledge of football that you should worry about. The biggest thing to worry about is the fact that these guys will not only be trying to choose the 4 best teams, but will be trying to get a spot for their own conference. The money is the MOST IMPORTANT factor in all of this. Don't fool yourself by thinking otherwise.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Palmer is very pro SEC if you listen to the stuff he says. Cowherd is a nincompoop. He is irrational on a lot of his thinking. The rest I could do.

The selected guys should have as little bias as possible but with former players and coaches that is hard to weed out if they are selected.

As a PAC fan not an ACC fan I will disagree. Palmer has always been very very fair to the PAC. ACC not so sure.

Colin can be a bit overbearing. But every time I hear him talk about CFB playoffs he is spot on...

 

[Brasky]

This is the problem. We beg for a playoff, they give us a 4 team playoff. Now people are begging for a 6 team playoff. Then when the odd man out of the 6 team playoff feels wronged, it will have to be an 8 teamer.

It won't fucking end and before you know it, the regular season doesn't mean jack shit anymore.

 

[rmilia1]

Change that to 8 and it would be more legit.

16 teams seems like a bit much, yeah it give more a chance. But is there really 16 that can truly be good enough to compete for a NC

I could live with 8, I like 16 better because its more games

 

[Brasky]

4 team playoff is perfect. It's better than the plus-one, it doesn't ruin the high tier bowl games, and it doesn't diminish the regular season.

Some of you need to be careful what you wish for.

 

[TonyTheGator]

This is the problem. We beg for a playoff, they give us a 4 team playoff. Now people are begging for a 6 team playoff. Then when the odd man out of the 6 team playoff feels wronged, it will have to be an 8 teamer.

It won't fucking end and before you know it, the regular season doesn't mean jack shit anymore.

Exactly!!

 

[WhiteMamba]

There is not a soul on this planet outside of Oregon fans who would have picked Oregon over Stanford to get into the playoff.

Stanford gets in over KSU because KSU had a very ugly late-season loss against Baylor.

It's frankly going to come down to common sense and the fact that if you lose late in the season, you are going to have a lot more trouble making a case to get into the playoffs.

Disagree with this as well. Stanford I would pick in 2011 with 1 loss to conf champ Oregon. Bcuz Oregon had 2 losses I put Stanford in...

2012 exact opposite of above....

So you are saying in 2011 you put Oregon in over Stanford? Exact same argument you just made...

Or do you think the Ducks just should never be invited bcuz of you're dislike for them?