Tuberville Calls for a Playoff

[autigeremt 6,720]

AAGHHHHHHHHHHHH! HEAD ACHE COMING!!!!

All this wasted space on the forum is a killer

There should be a playoff set up just like Div 1-AA! it works for them, why not Div 1

Way to go CTT and SOS! How many others have the guts to follow?

[Weagle98 119]

Head on apply directly to the forehead. Head on apply directly to the forehead. Head on apply directly to the forehead.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

That is not a good excuse to continue with something that is clearly not working. A four or eight team playoff would solve the problem, while only adding one or three games to two or four teams after school is out for the semester. So simple it hurts.

Where do you play the games? How do you determine the top four or eight? What happens to the curent bowl structure that produces an insane amount of money for a lot more schools?

The devil is in the details.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

They can always change it to more of a HS format : less games, but that would cost colleges a lot of money so it won't happen.

I suggest the following:

10 games - 8 Conference Games and 2 Out of Conference games and a Conference Championship game. Each Conference Champion and 2 at-large births make the 8 team playoff format. The out of conference games should contain at least 1 major game that will make up the revenue for the games not played. The at-large birth could be controversial, but the out-of-conference game could play the major factor and I say - if you lose at any point in the season, you have nothing to complain about. If you can't win your conference championship, you probably don't belong in the first place.

You defeated your own argument with your first sentence.

There should be a playoff set up just like Div 1-AA! it works for them, why not Div 1

Because no one knows what to do with the existing bowl structure, which is a huge money maker for the schools and the networks.

I am just as much for a playoff as anyone. But don't get your hopes up before 2012. And probably not until at least 2015.

[autigeremt 6,720]

Because no one knows what to do with the existing bowl structure, which is a huge money maker for the schools and the networks.

Incorporate the current bowl locations in to regional playoff game. Seeding would only get you as a home team and a closer region.

Hell....the money made will be greater than the madness in March.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Why don't you use the current BCS formula to determine the top 4? Play a 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, with winners going to the Championship Game. Then everyone is happy. I'm afraid I'm making too much sense.

Yes but someone could be left out even still, there is no perfect formula.

That is not a good excuse to continue with something that is clearly not working. A four or eight team playoff would solve the problem, while only adding one or three games to two or four teams after school is out for the semester. So simple it hurts.

Didn't say we shouldn't switch, just saying there is no way that someone doesn't get screwed. with a four team playoff the #5 team would likely have a pretty good argument that they should be included every year. It would be a better system no doubt but if Auburn was sitting #5 with the same record as #4 come the end of the year you would be talking about how the system is broken and calling for an expanded playoff.

If you want to take it to an extreme, in a 64 game playoff the 65th could have the same arguement. But, realistically if you are in 5th you have very little to complain about. I am more concerned with what happens when 3 or 4 teams end the season undefeated which is very possible each season. For 5 teams to do so would be rare. Is it possible, maybe, but if it happened then maybe a 4 game playoff could get expanded to 8 someday. Any playoff is better than what we have today.

PS: I never said the plus 1 was the solution. I offered the possibility of a 4 or 8 team playoff. I prefer the idea of the latter.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

That is not a good excuse to continue with something that is clearly not working. A four or eight team playoff would solve the problem, while only adding one or three games to two or four teams after school is out for the semester. So simple it hurts.

Where do you play the games? How do you determine the top four or eight? What happens to the curent bowl structure that produces an insane amount of money for a lot more schools?

The devil is in the details.

Not my choice. But it would produce more money due to the additional one or three games that people actually want to watch. Bowl season is terrible. There is nothing worth watching until Dec30th or 31st and then games are aired simultaneously so you miss half of the 8 or 9 good ones.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Because no one knows what to do with the existing bowl structure, which is a huge money maker for the schools and the networks.

Incorporate the current bowl locations in to regional playoff game. Seeding would only get you as a home team and a closer region.

Hell....the money made will be greater than the madness in March.

No go, you can't expect a fanbase to travel to say, Orlando one week and then Pasdena the next, with very little prep time. That covers three to seven bowls with a four or eight team playoff. What do you do with the other 20 bowls?

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Not my choice. But it would produce more money due to the additional one or three games that people actually want to watch. Bowl season is terrible. There is nothing worth watching until Dec30th or 31st and then games are aired simultaneously so you miss half of the 8 or 9 good ones.

So, the three playoff games would produce more revenue and interest than 28 bowl games? I beg to differ.

So, you have a very general solution with no plan for the logistics and mechanics of the solution. It's not as simple as you make it appear.

[WeagleDMS 0]

Why don't you use the current BCS formula to determine the top 4? Play a 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, with winners going to the Championship Game. Then everyone is happy. I'm afraid I'm making too much sense.

Yes but someone could be left out even still, there is no perfect formula.

That is not a good excuse to continue with something that is clearly not working. A four or eight team playoff would solve the problem, while only adding one or three games to two or four teams after school is out for the semester. So simple it hurts.

Didn't say we shouldn't switch, just saying there is no way that someone doesn't get screwed. with a four team playoff the #5 team would likely have a pretty good argument that they should be included every year. It would be a better system no doubt but if Auburn was sitting #5 with the same record as #4 come the end of the year you would be talking about how the system is broken and calling for an expanded playoff.

If you want to take it to an extreme, in a 64 game playoff the 65th could have the same arguement. But, realistically if you are in 5th you have very little to complain about. I am more concerned with what happens when 3 or 4 teams end the season undefeated which is very possible each season. For 5 teams to do so would be rare. Is it possible, maybe, but if it happened then maybe a 4 game playoff could get expanded to 8 someday. Any playoff is better than what we have today.

PS: I never said the plus 1 was the solution. I offered the possibility of a 4 or 8 team playoff. I prefer the idea of the latter.

It would be unlikely that there would be five undefeateds, but very likely that #4 and #5 could both have one loss or two. I would complain if I was #5. an 8 team playoff would be better, and I think it should change, but you're still gonna have problems. Oh, and in a 64 team playoff the 65th team does complain when it gets left out its just that it is almost a moot point because they would likely lose immediately anyway and certainly not make a run at the title, but in a 4 or even 8 team playoff #5 could easily win the title, and #9 could certainly pull it off in a down year, but they wouldn't be included, nothing to complain about huh?

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

If we're only talking the top 8 (either by the BCS rankings or conference champs, I don't care) then all 8 teams will be guaranteed a spot in the 4 BCS Bowl games on New Years Day. But before that happens, they are seeded 1-8 and matched up 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. in a quarterfinal game played at the home stadiums of the top 4 teams (in mid-Dec, the weekend after all the conference champ games are played.) The 4 winners get matched up in two BCS Bowls in semi-finals games, and the 4 losers get matched up in the other two BCS Bowls. All teams end their season on New Years Day except the two winners of the semi-finals games -- they go on to the NC game a week or two later in the +1 format. None of the other non-BCS bowl games are involved, and they will continue to wallow in their current anonymity in the college football landscape just like they do now, important only to the fans of the teams playing that year. Nothing changes to the exsting "bowl structure."

This simple system was proposed by a S. Carolinian sportswriter in a pre-season Street & Smith's magazine 4 years ago. It could be implemented this year if the political will was there. The interset around the nation would be sky-high, especially for the quarter-finals games. Everyone wins: TV, cfb, schools, fans, etc.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

It would be unlikely that there would be five undefeateds, but very likely that #4 and #5 could both have one loss or two. I would complain if I was #5. an 8 team playoff would be better, and I think it should change, but you're still gonna have problems. Oh, and in a 64 team playoff the 65th team does complain when it gets left out its just that it is almost a moot point because they would likely lose immediately anyway and certainly not make a run at the title, but in a 4 or even 8 team playoff #5 could easily win the title, and #9 could certainly pull it off in a down year, but they wouldn't be included, nothing to complain about huh?

SC, OU, AU, Utah & Boise St all ended their regular season undefeated in 2004. Louisville was one pass play against Miami from being the 6th undefeated team that year. Even after all the bowl games, 3 teams were still undefeated. The current BCS cannot farily resolve a situation where 3 or more teams end up with unblemished records. They've known this from it's inception and have blindly pretended it didn't exist. With 8 teams & 3 rounds, anything can happen. The #9 team may complain about not getting into the championship tournament but they'll never have a claim on the NC title.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

If we're only talking the top 8 (either by the BCS rankings or conference champs, I don't care) then all 8 teams will be guaranteed a spot in the 4 BCS Bowl games on New Years Day. But before that happens, they are seeded 1-8 and matched up 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. in a quarterfinal game played at the home stadiums of the top 4 teams (in mid-Dec, the weekend after all the conference champ games are played.) The 4 winners get matched up in two BCS Bowls in semi-finals games, and the 4 losers get matched up in the other two BCS Bowls. All teams end their season on New Years Day except the two winners of the semi-finals games -- they go on to the NC game a week or two later in the +1 format. None of the other non-BCS bowl games are involved, and they will continue to wallow in their current anonymity in the college football landscape just like they do now, important only to the fans of the teams playing that year. Nothing changes to the exsting "bowl structure."

This simple system was proposed by a S. Carolinian sportswriter in a pre-season Street & Smith's magazine 4 years ago. It could be implemented this year if the political will was there. The interset around the nation would be sky-high, especially for the quarter-finals games. Everyone wins: TV, cfb, schools, fans, etc.

So, Auburn is seeded fifth, for argument's sake. They have to travel to LA for a quarterfinal to take on a 4th seeded USC, turn around and visit New Orleans for a semi-final and then go to some other locale ofor the NCG.

Logistical nightmare.

[autiger518 1]

Its never gonna happen.....This thread is 3 pages long and entails what 20 people arguing about the details. Div 1 football has 119 members, do you think anyone is ever gonna be able to decide on the details.

The reason it wont ever switch is because it gets fans talking, creates controversy, controversy equals ratings, ratings equal $$$$$$$$$. Trust me anything is better than what we have, and what we have is better than what we had before. I just dont ever see it changing, not for a long time anyways.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

So, Auburn is seeded fifth, for argument's sake. They have to travel to LA for a quarterfinal to take on a 4th seeded USC, turn around and visit New Orleans for a semi-final and then go to some other locale ofor the NCG.

Logistical nightmare.

Expenses for a team like AU to travel to the W. Coast are about $1M. Split the TV take with SC out in LA, two weeks later show up in NOLA for an $4M payday, and then (if they win) two weeks later go on to a bigger pay day (i.e. > $4M) for the NC game. What's that you were saying about logistics?

You asked for a playoff that wouldn't disrupt the bowl system. This one fits the bill better than anything else I've seen. I would cut the regular season back to 11 games, though.

[WarEagleFL 0]

If we're only talking the top 8 (either by the BCS rankings or conference champs, I don't care) then all 8 teams will be guaranteed a spot in the 4 BCS Bowl games on New Years Day. But before that happens, they are seeded 1-8 and matched up 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. in a quarterfinal game played at the home stadiums of the top 4 teams (in mid-Dec, the weekend after all the conference champ games are played.) The 4 winners get matched up in two BCS Bowls in semi-finals games, and the 4 losers get matched up in the other two BCS Bowls. All teams end their season on New Years Day except the two winners of the semi-finals games -- they go on to the NC game a week or two later in the +1 format. None of the other non-BCS bowl games are involved, and they will continue to wallow in their current anonymity in the college football landscape just like they do now, important only to the fans of the teams playing that year. Nothing changes to the exsting "bowl structure."

This simple system was proposed by a S. Carolinian sportswriter in a pre-season Street & Smith's magazine 4 years ago. It could be implemented this year if the political will was there. The interset around the nation would be sky-high, especially for the quarter-finals games. Everyone wins: TV, cfb, schools, fans, etc.

That is the best solution I have heard on the National Championship front. I love the idea and I think most people would find little if no problem with it.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

So, Auburn is seeded fifth, for argument's sake. They have to travel to LA for a quarterfinal to take on a 4th seeded USC, turn around and visit New Orleans for a semi-final and then go to some other locale ofor the NCG.

Logistical nightmare.

Expenses for a team like AU to travel to the W. Coast are about $1M. Split the TV take with SC out in LA, two weeks later show up in NOLA for an $4M payday, and then (if they win) two weeks later go on to a bigger pay day (i.e. > $4M) for the NC game. What's that you were saying about logistics?

You asked for a playoff that wouldn't disrupt the bowl system. This one fits the bill better than anything else I've seen. I would cut the regular season back to 11 games, though.

What about fans, brutha?

[KunzelTiger 0]

So, Auburn is seeded fifth, for argument's sake. They have to travel to LA for a quarterfinal to take on a 4th seeded USC, turn around and visit New Orleans for a semi-final and then go to some other locale ofor the NCG.

Logistical nightmare.

Right..thats why playoffs don't work in the NFL or even ::gasp:: Div-1AA and D-2 football...

and who said anything about getting rid of the Bowls

Ok there are 30 bowls..or 60 team (estimate I don't actually know)....have the first round be at home sites...not that logistical of a nightmare considering they can get tickets out to the SECCG reps only a week before the game....so we now have 4 games in mid December that everyone is watching.

Take two bowls (Chick-Fil-A bowl and something west coast) and make those semi-finals (regional winners and stuff)...Winners go onto one of those BCS bowls... If you really want throw the first round losers and semi final losers against each other and make them BCS bowls...

So that means....we have 36 bowls and 60 teams?

doesn't sound too unreasonable to me

[WeagleDMS 0]

It would be unlikely that there would be five undefeateds, but very likely that #4 and #5 could both have one loss or two. I would complain if I was #5. an 8 team playoff would be better, and I think it should change, but you're still gonna have problems. Oh, and in a 64 team playoff the 65th team does complain when it gets left out its just that it is almost a moot point because they would likely lose immediately anyway and certainly not make a run at the title, but in a 4 or even 8 team playoff #5 could easily win the title, and #9 could certainly pull it off in a down year, but they wouldn't be included, nothing to complain about huh?

SC, OU, AU, Utah & Boise St all ended their regular season undefeated in 2004. Louisville was one pass play against Miami from being the 6th undefeated team that year. Even after all the bowl games, 3 teams were still undefeated. The current BCS cannot farily resolve a situation where 3 or more teams end up with unblemished records. They've known this from it's inception and have blindly pretended it didn't exist. With 8 teams & 3 rounds, anything can happen. The #9 team may complain about not getting into the championship tournament but they'll never have a claim on the NC title.

Give me another year in modern college football where 5 legitimate(not Boise State) teams finished undefeated. Anyways thats not the point, I'm not defending the BCS I'm just saying there is no perfect system. I'm not saying the #9 team has a claim on the NC, but if included they could reasonably win it, so why do they get left out, you see my point? I want a playoff, a four team is the most reasonable logistically, an 8 team the most fair, but I'm also tired of people acting like a playoff is infallible or like it is even gonna happen anytime soon(Sorry, its not). How many years of split NCs did it take for the BCS to be implemented in attempt to fix that. change is slow, especially when the options are only lesser, yet more complicated evils.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Not my choice. But it would produce more money due to the additional one or three games that people actually want to watch. Bowl season is terrible. There is nothing worth watching until Dec30th or 31st and then games are aired simultaneously so you miss half of the 8 or 9 good ones.

So, the three playoff games would produce more revenue and interest than 28 bowl games? I beg to differ.

So, you have a very general solution with no plan for the logistics and mechanics of the solution. It's not as simple as you make it appear.

I said one or three ADDITIONAL games. Thus, the meaningless bowl games would remain as they are.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

What about fans, brutha?

The fans will absolutely love this system. ... ... Brah.

I know what you mean but I don't see it as a problem. The fans that can afford it will follow the team anywhere -- and have a damn good time doing it too. The ones that can't will follow the Tiger fortunes on the TV. Think a little more positively: imagine the first round at JHS.

[JohnDeere 0]

Not my choice. But it would produce more money due to the additional one or three games that people actually want to watch. Bowl season is terrible. There is nothing worth watching until Dec30th or 31st and then games are aired simultaneously so you miss half of the 8 or 9 good ones.

So, the three playoff games would produce more revenue and interest than 28 bowl games? I beg to differ.

So, you have a very general solution with no plan for the logistics and mechanics of the solution. It's not as simple as you make it appear.

Yeah, that would be similar to say, Valdosta State having to travel to play Texas A&M Kingsville the first week, turn around and travel to Pittsburg St. in Kansas, then travel to play South Dakota St. If D2 schools (with AD budgets in the red) can move their teams around the country for 4 straight weeks during the playoffs and bring on average 10k of fans with them; then Auburn should be able to do it.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Give me another year in modern college football where 5 legitimate(not Boise State) teams finished undefeated. Anyways thats not the point, I'm not defending the BCS I'm just saying there is no perfect system. I'm not saying the #9 team has a claim on the NC, but if included they could reasonably win it, so why do they get left out, you see my point? I want a playoff, a four team is the most reasonable logistically, an 8 team the most fair, but I'm also tired of people acting like a playoff is infallible or like it is even gonna happen anytime soon(Sorry, its not). How many years of split NCs did it take for the BCS to be implemented in attempt to fix that. change is slow, especially when the options are only lesser, yet more complicated evils.

Give you another year?! Are you saying 2004 wasn't a big enough fiasco for you, and that you require more evidence? It doesn't even have to be 3 undefeateds. The same situation will happen if the top 3 (or more) teams all have 1 loss. The BCS is fatally flawed because it doesn't allow for more than 2 equal teams to play it out on the field. That is the point. It needs to be changed. How to do it? I gave you a workable solution.

[WeagleDMS 0]

Give me another year in modern college football where 5 legitimate(not Boise State) teams finished undefeated. Anyways thats not the point, I'm not defending the BCS I'm just saying there is no perfect system. I'm not saying the #9 team has a claim on the NC, but if included they could reasonably win it, so why do they get left out, you see my point? I want a playoff, a four team is the most reasonable logistically, an 8 team the most fair, but I'm also tired of people acting like a playoff is infallible or like it is even gonna happen anytime soon(Sorry, its not). How many years of split NCs did it take for the BCS to be implemented in attempt to fix that. change is slow, especially when the options are only lesser, yet more complicated evils.

Give you another year?! Are you saying 2004 wasn't a big enough fiasco for you, and that you require more evidence? It doesn't even have to be 3 undefeateds. The same situation will happen if the top 3 (or more) teams all have 1 loss. The BCS is fatally flawed because it doesn't allow for more than 2 equal teams to play it out on the field. That is the point. It needs to be changed. How to do it? I gave you a workable solution.

Again, you're missing the point. I agree the BCS is screwed up, my point is that a playoff will fall victim to the same problems as the BCS, I mean honestly what's the difference in the #3 team getting screwed or the #5 team getting screwed, or the #9 team for that matter, and a playoff will be a logistical nightmare at first. I'm not defending the BCS, it sucks, it screwed us and I got my feelings hurt too but a playoff has its problems as well and there is no perfect way to go about it with the way things are now.