Erik81 0 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 As much as we were screwed this year I would rather have split national champions every year than have an eight team playoff. I believe it would take away one of the thing that makes college football great-the regular season. No other sport has as good a regular season than college football. With a eight team or more playoff the regular season would lose alot of it's impact because a loss would not be as devistating. Rivalries would lose luster and games would not be as intense. But I could handle a +1 game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,107 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 i completely agree. although i think the plus one maintains the intensity of the regular season while including the most dominant teams from that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUJarhead 70 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I would be in favor of an 8 team playoff if it involved conf champs only. Why should a team like OU have gotten in last year, when they didn't win their Conf (or Neb a few years ago?). I'm also sure you could figure out a way to have the winner of CUSA play the winner of MAC, and WAC play Mt West, as "play-in" games, to this playoff. I think Conf Champs ONLY doesn't devalue the regular season. A loss here, and you might not win your division, much less your conf. Sorry, Texas and Cal, you're left out again, should have beat OU and USC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I agree and, need I remind you..MORE COWBELLL ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik81 0 Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 I would be in favor of an 8 team playoff if it involved conf champs only. Why should a team like OU have gotten in last year, when they didn't win their Conf (or Neb a few years ago?). I'm also sure you could figure out a way to have the winner of CUSA play the winner of MAC, and WAC play Mt West, as "play-in" games, to this playoff. I think Conf Champs ONLY doesn't devalue the regular season. A loss here, and you might not win your division, much less your conf. Sorry, Texas and Cal, you're left out again, should have beat OU and USC. 130181[/snapback] I completely disagree. Teams with two or more losses would be thrown in the mix. That would distroy the regular season. Pitt won it's conference championship and it has is 7-4. NO team that has earned it's way into the championship should have to deal with them. Also what if one of the big three this year had lost. There would be no need for a playoff with two unbeaten major conference teams. That is why the +1 would be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerinBham 1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I totally disagree. You take 7 Bowls. The Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Capital One, Cotton, and Peach. Every 6 Years these Bowls will play host to the National Championship. You can still have the other Bowls for the lesser teams. You take the Top 8 teams in the BCS. This year USC vs. Va. Tech in the Fiesta; Oklahoma vs. UGA in the Cotton; Texas vs. Cal in the Capital One; Auburn vs. Utah in the Sugar. 2nd Round: USC/V.T. winner vs. Texas/Cal winner in the Orange and AU/Utah vs. okla/UGA winner in the Peach. Championship Game in the Grandaddy of them all The Rose Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik81 0 Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 go ahead and not pay attention until late in the season like the NFL because the other games you play will have no bearing, mainly big time non conference games like USC-ND, FSU-UF, and GT-Georgia will not matter to the conference standings. That would be a great idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUJarhead 70 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Well, we can all agree to disagree. If the Big East is so weak (and I agree) then it wouldn't be difficult for the Big XII winner to beat them. I think it's the best way to preserve the regular season. We're having a debate about No 2 and No 3 this year. If we take the top 8 teams in the BCS, next year, we'll be having a debate about No 8 vs No 9. If you figure out a way to include the mid-majors, you'll also make those conferences happy. I think this way, it's fair. Seed according to average ranking between the Coaches and AP Poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik81 0 Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 Well, we can all agree to disagree. If the Big East is so weak (and I agree) then it wouldn't be difficult for the Big XII winner to beat them. I think it's the best way to preserve the regular season.We're having a debate about No 2 and No 3 this year. If we take the top 8 teams in the BCS, next year, we'll be having a debate about No 8 vs No 9. If you figure out a way to include the mid-majors, you'll also make those conferences happy. I think this way, it's fair. Seed according to average ranking between the Coaches and AP Poll. 130196[/snapback] The Big XII winner would have already proven that it has no business playing them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I totally disagree. You take 7 Bowls. The Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Capital One, Cotton, and Peach. Every 6 Years these Bowls will play host to the National Championship. You can still have the other Bowls for the lesser teams. You take the Top 8 teams in the BCS. This year USC vs. Va. Tech in the Fiesta; Oklahoma vs. UGA in the Cotton; Texas vs. Cal in the Capital One; Auburn vs. Utah in the Sugar. 2nd Round: USC/V.T. winner vs. Texas/Cal winner in the Orange and AU/Utah vs. okla/UGA winner in the Peach. Championship Game in the Grandaddy of them all The Rose Bowl. 130193[/snapback] No dice. No one watches and no one goes to the games. Auburn fans would go to New Orleans and Atlanta, but would Va Tech fans travel to Tempe and Miami. Logistics rule this out. Playoffs will not include a "bowl" site until the championship round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUesquire 1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I agree to disagree that I agree. Uh,... Anyway, I've heard the argument many times about diminishing the regular season and losing the intensity of rivalry games. Sorry, that just ain't going to happen. Take college basketball for instance. By the end of the season, most of the better teams already know they're in the tourney. Some, like Duke, UConn etc., pretty well know what seed they're going to get. Duke knows they have a #1 seed wrapped up regardless of whether they win the ACC tourney or not. That doesn't stop them from winning about 15 of the last 16. They play every game just as intense as the first. Look at the MAC football championship. They ARE NOT winning anything other than bragging rights and a chance to go to their bowl tie-in. See any drop in intensity there? UGA and GT will always be huge, no matter the record or what they're playing for. So will AU/UA and Army/Navy and Michigan/OSU... These kids play 11 Saturdays and they will give us their all whether we have a playoff, "And one", the current BCS system or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I'd prefer a 4 team playoff. Use a BCS-like formula to determine the top four. #1 plays #4 in at some bowl site, #2 plays #3 at another. The winners play in a separate bowl for the national title. The major bowl that got left out of the playoff that year gets #5 and #6. All the other bowls operate pretty much the same. That keeps the integrity of the regular season intact (meaning you likely cannot lose more than one game) and only adds one more game to the schedule, and that only for the two teams playing for the title. Also, if you do not win your conference, you are automatically passed over for the four team playoff. This is negotiable though since some have conference title games and others do not. Perhaps if your only loss is in the title game, you could still be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyebama 2 Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Whats wrong with say #1 plays #3 and #2 Plays number 4 and the winner of those two games play in the orange bowl... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,341 Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I'd prefer a 4 team playoff. Use a BCS-like formula to determine the top four. #1 plays #4 in at some bowl site, #2 plays #3 at another. The winners play in a separate bowl for the national title. The major bowl that got left out of the playoff that year gets #5 and #6. All the other bowls operate pretty much the same.That keeps the integrity of the regular season intact (meaning you likely cannot lose more than one game) and only adds one more game to the schedule, and that only for the two teams playing for the title. Also, if you do not win your conference, you are automatically passed over for the four team playoff. This is negotiable though since some have conference title games and others do not. Perhaps if your only loss is in the title game, you could still be considered. 130214[/snapback] This would have been the best scenario this year, and most others. The team in #4 can't really complain because they are now left out anyway. What this would do is keep from having three teams so close and one getting screwed (AU). The odds of 4 teams being equal is really ot there. So this would be the best scenario. any more than four and you throw in some lucky but not really good teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.