If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox Sports)   Get ready for January Madness   (msn.foxsports.com) divider line 66
    More: Followup, college football playoff, Fox Sports, Cotton Bowl, Mike Slive, playoffs, strength of schedule, telephone interviews, semis  
•       •       •

1117 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Jun 2012 at 10:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 08:34:09 AM  
TFA: ''I think it's tremendous progress,'' Washington State coach Mike Leach, a playoff proponent, said in a telephone interview. ''Five years ago there wasn't even dialogue about a playoff. Instead of diving in the water, they dipped their toes in. I think it's' going to be ridiculously exciting and it's going to generate a bunch of money. I wish they dived in.''

Because that's what higher education's about.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-06-27 08:56:32 AM  
Among the factors the committee will consider are won-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion.

And what TV ratings the team will draw.

Imagine if TV networks could award pennants to make sure the World Series had a major market team.
 
2012-06-27 09:27:16 AM  
So let it be written

So let it be done
 
2012-06-27 09:45:03 AM  
Good deal!
 
2012-06-27 09:53:20 AM  
We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.
 
2012-06-27 10:12:57 AM  

doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.


I don't think that's particularly noteworthy. Most professional leagues have a playoff.
 
2012-06-27 10:16:20 AM  

exick: doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.

I don't think that's particularly noteworthy. Most professional leagues have a playoff.


Bravo, sir.
 
2012-06-27 10:57:16 AM  
This will last right up to the point that the SEC puts four teams in the playoffs.
 
2012-06-27 10:57:31 AM  

doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.


Now they get to play it twice. Because there is no chance in hell a Boise St gets selected as part of the four teams in the playoff, even if they go undefeated, unless they are in a major conference.
 
2012-06-27 11:01:13 AM  
Yawn. Undefeated teams will still be left out for 1-2 loss teams, and half of I-A still won't have an opportunity at a national championship.

/it's a start
 
2012-06-27 11:02:10 AM  
I was told that a playoff solves everything. I will not stand here and let aspersions be cast.
 
2012-06-27 11:02:10 AM  

SlothB77: doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.

Now they get to play it twice. Because there is no chance in hell a Boise St gets selected as part of the four teams in the playoff, even if they go undefeated, unless they are in a major conference.


yes the playoff movement is a conspiracy to get Boise State to play for the title
 
2012-06-27 11:02:47 AM  
Notre Dame is automatically one of the teams in the playoff, every year for eternity. Just part of the new rules.
 
2012-06-27 11:07:04 AM  
Ha! This will do nothing to stop the endless complaining about college football. Your team will still be robbed from its rightful place in the playoffs. This just means we don't get to see an SEC/SEC matchup in the final ever again. It will guarantee we get to see Ohio State or Oregon get beaten up by LSU or Bama every year.

The problem is we want it to be like a professional sport, but we have wildly uneven programs subjected to polls. You'll eventually hate this too.

/nothing changed for my team.. they suck
 
2012-06-27 11:08:46 AM  

exick: doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.

I don't think that's particularly noteworthy. Most professional leagues have a playoff.


i386.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-27 11:09:53 AM  
sure hope they don't fk this up
/my headline was better..
//ok, probably not.
 
2012-06-27 11:26:03 AM  

SlothB77: doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.

Now they get to play it twice. Because there is no chance in hell a Boise St gets selected as part of the four teams in the playoff, even if they go undefeated, unless they are in a major conference.


This.

The choice really doesn't solve any problem; there will still be biatching about who should or shouldn't make the cut in a 4-game series.

My Proposal:

-Expand the playoff field to 16 teams, giving a 4 round tournament. The best teams from each of the 15 'major' conferences plus the non-conference group. Each round is one weekend, with an exception at the start to accomodate the major bowl games where advancement is going to happen. Possible 'demotion/promotion' system similar to European soccer/football leagues for under-performing conferences.
-First round, all the Bowl games. Eight of these games will be matchups to advance (i.e. Rose Bowl is Pac-12 champ vs. Big 10 champ)
-Second round, elite eight. Advancement games held at the Rose Bowl and the sites of the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and one other Bowl to be determined (possibly another legacy Bowl like the Cotton or Fiesta).
-Third round, Final Four. Advancement games held at a yearly rotating schedule of the listed Bowl sites from Round two (i.e. first year, Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, second year Sugar Bowl and the fourth bowl...)
-Final round, Championship. held either in a rotating schedule of the Final Four Bowls or, if timed correctly, held at the site of that year's Super Bowl, played on Saturday

Imagine it. The possibility of the NCAA championship and NFL championship being played back to back. Turning Super Bowl Sunday into a full-fledged weekend of football. The media outlets should have their o-faces on right now.
 
2012-06-27 11:28:00 AM  
So how much money will each player receive? $250,000 each would be a good starting point.
 
2012-06-27 11:46:26 AM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: ''I think it's tremendous progress,'' Washington State coach Mike Leach, a playoff proponent, said in a telephone interview. ''Five years ago there wasn't even dialogue about a playoff. Instead of diving in the water, they dipped their toes in. I think it's' going to be ridiculously exciting and it's going to generate a bunch of money. I wish they dived in.''

Because that's what higher education's about.


Since when did college sports ever have to do with higher education?
 
2012-06-27 12:03:21 PM  
4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea
 
2012-06-27 12:05:01 PM  
A 4 team playoff is barely any different than the old bowl system. And...

Mentat: This will last right up to the point that the SEC puts four teams in the playoffs.



THAT
 
2012-06-27 12:19:38 PM  
So they're essentially increasing the number of playoff teams from 2 to 4. And this is somehow earth-shattering?
 
2012-06-27 12:25:56 PM  
Will they have the losers of the semifinal games play each other in a "Bowl" game? Even that game would bring in quite a lot of money, I'm sure.
 
2012-06-27 12:31:09 PM  
I like 4 teams. We'll get two SEC teams, a Pac team, and then either a Big 12 or Big 10 team.

We could've had this years ago, but the rest of the conferences were scared of being destroyed by the SEC every year...so they designed a system where they figured the computers would never rank two SEC teams at the top. Whoops.
 
2012-06-27 12:32:19 PM  
NCAA Division 1AA = Answers.

I get sick of seeing people talk about how its impossible.
 
2012-06-27 12:33:38 PM  

Brett Favre: NCAA Division 1AA = Answers.

I get sick of seeing people talk about how its impossible.


B-b-b-but academics!
 
2012-06-27 12:41:48 PM  

Supes: Brett Favre: NCAA Division 1AA = Answers.

I get sick of seeing people talk about how its impossible.

B-b-b-but academics!


When someone says the bowl system is good for academics, just point to Tim Tebow.
 
2012-06-27 12:48:08 PM  

A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea


What's wrong with a not #1 team winning?
 
2012-06-27 12:49:06 PM  
I just hope penn state gets in, you know, so the healing can begin.
 
2012-06-27 12:54:14 PM  
What's been missing out of these talks the last few days is the impact this will have on conference re-alignment. With the four team playoff being a 12 year deal, wouldn't they eventually have to go the 4 team super-conference type route so less people feel cheated?

ACC
Big 10
Big 12
Pac 12
Big East
SEC

Every year, at least two of those conferences are going to feel cheated that their champion didn't get in the playoffs. And that doesn't even include the second tier conferences that seems to have at least one title contender every year. Seems there's a lot to be worked out, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
 
2012-06-27 12:56:11 PM  
But will we still have the other 65 bowl games?

Can wait for this years Edna's Maid Service Bowl.
 
2012-06-27 12:57:05 PM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: ''I think it's tremendous progress,'' Washington State coach Mike Leach, a playoff proponent, said in a telephone interview. ''Five years ago there wasn't even dialogue about a playoff. Instead of diving in the water, they dipped their toes in. I think it's' going to be ridiculously exciting and it's going to generate a bunch of money. I wish they dived in.''

Because that's what higher education's about.


But remember, tuition has to be raised every year for those poor universities just to barely break even.
 
2012-06-27 01:04:03 PM  

A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea


Well, the 15-1 team shouldn't lose in the playoffs. How is this any different from a NFL team with a worse record winning the Super Bowl?
 
2012-06-27 01:13:08 PM  

doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.


That's interesting you say that since the "Champion" from this past season didn't even play in that game, and they are from the SEC.
 
2012-06-27 01:13:50 PM  

wildstarr: A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea

Well, the 15-1 team shouldn't lose in the playoffs. How is this any different from a NFL team with a worse record winning the Super Bowl?


Besides, don't we usually cheer for the small underdogs in playoffs?
 
2012-06-27 01:20:38 PM  

wildstarr: A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea

Well, the 15-1 team shouldn't lose in the playoffs. How is this any different from a NFL team with a worse record winning the Super Bowl?


It's a little bit different in that in college, the teams that make the "Playoffs" are picked by people. In the NFL, the standings select who gets in.

In the college realm you shouldn't get a redo like Alabama did last year. They lost at home to LSU. I don't even care if they were the better team. They had their chance and they lost. They should have never been allowed a second shot. There are too many teams to let teams that blow their regular season by playing shiatty game at home or on the road be rewarded with a 2nd chance.

Last year was tough though because OSUs loss was far worse than Alabama's loss...Far worse than Stanford's loss too. OSU would have been my third pick in to the championship game last year. Under the current system I would have put Bama in the game but that doesn't mean I liked that they were eligible, having not even played in their conference title game.

You don't think that other teams in pasts years that may have lost one game to the eventual champion would have liked a 2nd chance to play that game.

I think if you don't win your conference championship, you should not be eligible for this "playoff".

That's just my opinion though.
 
2012-06-27 01:29:37 PM  

coolio mack:
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
Pac 12
Big East
SEC

And that doesn't even include the second tier conferences that seems to have at least one title contender every year.


The Big East is included in your list
 
2012-06-27 01:36:34 PM  

wildstarr: A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea

Well, the 15-1 team shouldn't lose in the playoffs. How is this any different from a NFL team with a worse record winning the Super Bowl?


it's not different. just because the nfl system is farking stupid and flawed doesn't mean college football has to follow their lead. the 15-5 being declared the world champs over the 18-1 pats while the season series was tied 1-1, the aggregate score was even, and hell the pats hadn't even hosted a game. why does winning the last game count more than winning the first? because we say so? great farking reasoning there. and worse a playoff destroys the historical meaning of the regular season. from yesterday's bcs thread:

if you have a playoff, particularly a large one, the regular season doesn't matter, or worse you're mocked for remember a good regular season without winning a tournament. for example, in the nhl because the canucks lost in the first round the fact that they had the most points in the regular season has been essentially lost, or worse used to "prove" they were a disappointment. over a long regular season they proved they were the best in hockey this season, but history will remember the kings. once you have a playoff only the results of that playoff matter. hell fans that want to celebrate a great regular season are routinely mock. that hollowness to the regular season, especially as seasons become history bugs me on a fundamental level. that's why the 18-1 pats example bugs me. they were the best team in the nfl, but history will say that the giants were the world champs. what the fark people? that satisfies you? you believe that? or lsu last year. they tied bama 1-1, beat the pac champs oregon, beat the big least co-champ west virginia, and curb stomped the rest of the sec. and yet most people probably view them as a disappointment. but they're only view in that light because we have a mini playoff already and it made the other 13 weeks meaningless. only if okie state had been selected...
 
2012-06-27 01:40:02 PM  
Hey Subby, did the "fail" tag call a time out?

This half measure is going to cause more shiat than it solves.
 
2012-06-27 01:52:36 PM  

AKTurkey: coolio mack:
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
Pac 12
Big East
SEC

And that doesn't even include the second tier conferences that seems to have at least one title contender every year.

The Big East is included in your list


He said to have at least one title contender every year. That eliminates The Big East from his statement.
 
2012-06-27 02:07:43 PM  

jpo2269: Hey Subby, did the "fail" tag call a time out?

This half measure is going to cause more shiat than it solves.


At least it's a half measure instead of a whole big cup of empty. First they're going to see how this half measure works monetarily, and then they're going to look into increasing that monetary supply.

This is a step in the right direction, and the only way to get everyone involved. The next step will be eight teams over three weekends (my guess: 2018), then sixteen somewhere way off. Somewhere along the way they'll start realigning the bowl dates to prep for that. It's going to have to evolve into the right system, but it will get there.
 
2012-06-27 02:15:23 PM  

A Fark Handle: 4 teams is fine. unfortunately, just like march maddness this will expand and expand and expand because playoffs make money, money, money. and then it will suck. and then a 12-4 team will be crowned "champs" over a 15-1 team. and that will be horseshiat. at least it's stuck at 4 for 12 years.

/playoffs are not a panacea


Everyone has their own personal "X playoff rounds are too many" for whatever various reasons.

For some, even one playoff round is too many. For some, five playoff rounds won't be enough. To each his own.

That said, I do agree with you that anything more than three playoff rounds would be too many, simply because, in the entire history of college football, at the end of the season, has the #5 ranked team ever been included in the "should they be national champs" talk? Any playoff system that would allow a #5 team to be included would suddenly involve the #5 team in the "national champs" talk, and that just seems watered-down to me.

However, I would be willing to begrudginly live with a three round system, simply because I predict that the butthurt from teams/conferences that get left out of the two round system will be astronomical.
 
2012-06-27 02:18:22 PM  

Mentat: This will last right up to the point that the SEC puts four teams in the playoffs.


And have the chance of perhaps the #1 team in the country being KOed *before* the SEC championship? Doubt it.
 
2012-06-27 02:27:01 PM  
1. Eight sixteen team super conferences (i.e., 128 teams).
2. Each conference championship determines a playoff berth.
3. Option to add up to four at large teams, giving the top conference champions a first round bye.
4. Eliminate the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowls of the world that feature 6-6 versus 6-7 teams, each complete with interim coaches because the actual coaches got fired.
5. Profit.
 
2012-06-27 02:28:25 PM  

Slow To Return: That said, I do agree with you that anything more than three playoff rounds would be too many, simply because, in the entire history of college football, at the end of the season, has the #5 ranked team ever been included in the "should they be national champs" talk?


well if you mean five undefeated teams it's happened. at least at the conclusion of the regular season.

2009: alabama, texas, cincinnati, tcu, and boise state were all undefeated at the end of the regular season, of they didn't say that way during the bowl season.

2004: usc, oklahoma, auburn, utah, and boise state were all undefeated. this is probably the season that a 4-team playoff was most needed as both utah and auburn won their bowl games as well. note to sec haters who think the bcs was rigged for the sec: less than a decade ago the bcs excluded them.

before that i think 5 undefeated last happened in the 70s. of course we've added a lot more shiat teams to 1a football since the 70s so there's more chance for it to occur.
 
2012-06-27 02:29:38 PM  

Slow To Return: Everyone has their own personal "X playoff rounds are too many" for whatever various reasons.

For some, even one playoff round is too many. For some, five playoff rounds won't be enough. To each his own.

That said, I do agree with you that anything more than three playoff rounds would be too many, simply because, in the entire history of college football, at the end of the season, has the #5 ranked team ever been included in the "should they be national champs" talk? Any playoff system that would allow a #5 team to be included would suddenly involve the #5 team in the "national champs" talk, and that just seems watered-down to me.

However, I would be willing to begrudginly live with a three round system, simply because I predict that the butthurt from teams/conferences that get left out of the two round system will be astronomical.


An 8-team playoff would've been best IMHO. So four bowl games would get the QFs, two would get the Semis and the NC would be played at whoever pays the most money for it.

But you say: then the 9 and 10th best team would be biatching about being left out. I say: Let 'em biatch about it. They're the 9th and 10th best team in the nation; depending on their record and SOS, they'd be lucky to be 9th and 10th.

Also: There's going to be a lot of jostling for who'll get the prime spots in the final four between the bowls. Especially when the Cotton Bowl committee can say to TPTB "Our game is held at Cowboys Stadium, capacity 100,000"

If I were the Fiesta or Rose Bowl committees I'd be very afraid of the Cotton Bowl committee getting a chance to explain why they're the best host for one of the Semifinal games or the Nat'i. Championship.
 
2012-06-27 02:33:29 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: SlothB77: doyner: We already have a playoff of sorts. It's called the SEC Championship game.

Now they get to play it twice. Because there is no chance in hell a Boise St gets selected as part of the four teams in the playoff, even if they go undefeated, unless they are in a major conference.

This.

The choice really doesn't solve any problem; there will still be biatching about who should or shouldn't make the cut in a 4-game series.

My Proposal:

-Expand the playoff field to 16 teams, giving a 4 round tournament. The best teams from each of the 15 'major' conferences plus the non-conference group. Each round is one weekend, with an exception at the start to accomodate the major bowl games where advancement is going to happen. Possible 'demotion/promotion' system similar to European soccer/football leagues for under-performing conferences.
-First round, all the Bowl games. Eight of these games will be matchups to advance (i.e. Rose Bowl is Pac-12 champ vs. Big 10 champ)
-Second round, elite eight. Advancement games held at the Rose Bowl and the sites of the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and one other Bowl to be determined (possibly another legacy Bowl like the Cotton or Fiesta).
-Third round, Final Four. Advancement games held at a yearly rotating schedule of the listed Bowl sites from Round two (i.e. first year, Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, second year Sugar Bowl and the fourth bowl...)
-Final round, Championship. held either in a rotating schedule of the Final Four Bowls or, if timed correctly, held at the site of that year's Super Bowl, played on Saturday

Imagine it. The possibility of the NCAA championship and NFL championship being played back to back. Turning Super Bowl Sunday into a full-fledged weekend of football. The media outlets should have their o-faces on right now.


Doubt it; maybe the media will eat up the potential of a NC/Super Bowl weekend. Neither the NFL nor the NCAA will want to step on each other's toes however.
 
2012-06-27 02:36:17 PM  

Rwa2play: So four bowl games would get the QFs, two would get the Semis and the NC would be played at whoever pays the most money for it.


if you're going to go to a money maker for the sake of making money, make some farking money. the bowls are corrupt pieces of shiat designed solely to enrich a few old men at the expense of the schools. playoffs are about money, so why not make some money, and cut those useless parasites out completely. fark the bowls.
 
2012-06-27 02:40:45 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: 1. Eight sixteen team super conferences (i.e., 128 teams).
2. Each conference championship determines a playoff berth.
3. Option to add up to four at large teams, giving the top conference champions a first round bye.
4. Eliminate the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowls of the world that feature 6-6 versus 6-7 teams, each complete with interim coaches because the actual coaches got fired.
5. Profit.


I'm not against the idea of super conferences, but I think it's more likely to be four 16 team superconferences for a total of 64 teams. It's hard to see any of the 5 major bcs conferences breaking up, but I guess I could see the ACC disbanding and eight of teams joining the Big 10/SEC. Although I don't see this happening, I think that's more likely than 8 superconferences that all have a shot at the championship.
 
2012-06-27 02:44:05 PM  

A Fark Handle: 2009: alabama, texas, cincinnati, tcu, and boise state were all undefeated at the end of the regular season, of they didn't say that way during the bowl season.

2004: usc, oklahoma, auburn, utah, and boise state were all undefeated. this is probably the season that a 4-team playoff was most needed as both utah and auburn won their bowl games as well. note to sec haters who think the bcs was rigged for the sec: less than a decade ago the bcs excluded them.


When real teams go undefeated, Boise's out of the conversation.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report