2014 NCAA Football

[MS256]

Come on, you have to recognize that each of these little changes is not perfect, but at least a step in the right direction??

Look at your second sentence:

"Nobody in their right mind would have a pool of 5 major conferences, some "minor" conferences, and independents that don't even play each other all that much and think that there's any chance in Hell of selecting the "best" 4 teams out of that mess."

Now, if this was last year we got in a time machine and went back to the beginning of the BCS era, then you could say the exact same thing with one minor difference:

"Nobody in their right mind would have a pool of SIX major conferences, some "minor" conferences, and independents that don't even play each other all that much and think that there's any chance in Hell of selecting the "best" TWO teams out of that mess."

Then if we got back in the time machine and went back to the regular bowl era, again, you could say the same thing:

"Nobody in their right mind would have a pool of SIX  major conferences, some "minor" conferences, and independents that don't even play each other all that much and think that there's any chance in Hell of selecting the "best" ONE teams out of that mess."

Bottom line:  You can't compare the system to what you believe to be the perfect system and then say "Since this new proposal isn't perfect then we should not try to improve at all."  The logical thing to do is to make whatever changes you can make in the increments you can make them to try your best to improve, is it not?

When you're trying to select the best, 8 might be better than 4, but 4 is at least better than 2, which was certainly better than 1.

That said:  Your other proposals are pretty cool.  I'd be on board with all of those.

What I'm saying is that if I see a problem (which the BCS had), and I'm looking for a solution to that problem, I'm not going to solve it by going halfway to a solution and hope it's at least better than what I had before.

That's not only true of this but true of everything I can think of in life. That's where my "dumber" conclusion comes from.

[Golfingdad]

What I'm saying is that if I see a problem (which the BCS had), and I'm looking for a solution to that problem, I'm not going to solve it by going halfway to a solution and hope it's at least better than what I had before.

That's not only true of this but true of everything I can think of in life. That's where my "dumber" conclusion comes from.

Wow.  That's really short-sighted of you.  So you don't believe in incremental improvements?

Further, can you not see that each time they've tweaked the system, it's been for the better?

Therefore, can you not see that in the future, it's entirely likely that the next incremental improvement would be to go from 4 teams to 8 teams?

[MS256]

Wow.  That's really short-sighted of you.  So you don't believe in incremental improvements?

Further, can you not see that each time they've tweaked the system, it's been for the better?

Therefore, can you not see that in the future, it's entirely likely that the next incremental improvement would be to go from 4 teams to 8 teams?

Not if I can fix a problem all at once just as easily. What you see as short-sighted I see as smart. That's cool. Different strokes for different folks.

With 5 major conferences it would never even occur to me in my wildest dreams to have 4 playoff spots. Since 5 doesn't come out even for a playoff the first solution that would enter my mind would be to go to 8 with 3 available wild card spots.

[Golfingdad]

Not if I can fix a problem all at once just as easily. What you see as short-sighted I see as smart. That's cool. Different strokes for different folks.

But they obviously couldn't fix it all in one fell swoop or it would have been done a long time ago.

So your "smart" tells me you'd rather just do nothing instead of recognizing that something is better.

Do you agree that the BCS was somewhat better than random bowls?  And do you also agree that a 4 team playoff is somewhat better than the a two team playoff?

If you do, then what the hell are you arguing for?  And if you don't then ...

[MS256]

But they obviously couldn't fix it all in one fell swoop or it would have been done a long time ago.

So your "smart" tells me you'd rather just do nothing instead of recognizing that something is better.

Do you agree that the BCS was somewhat better than random bowls?  And do you also agree that a 4 team playoff is somewhat better than the a two team playoff?

If you do, then what the hell are you arguing for?  And if you don't then ...

Well once again it's pretty obvious that you and I are not going to agree. Ever.

[Golfingdad]

Well once again it's pretty obvious that you and I are not going to agree. Ever.

Probably not, but just to amuse me ... could you answer my two questions:

Do you agree that the BCS was somewhat better than random bowls?

And do you also agree that a 4 team playoff is somewhat better than the a two team playoff?

[teamroper60]

But they obviously couldn't fix it all in one fell swoop or it would have been done a long time ago.

They haven't and won't fix it because doing so means eliminating the bowl system.   All of those toiletbowl.com games mean one thing.  MONEY.   Money for the host cities, money for the teams and money for the conferences.   As long as the money remains good, the bowl games are gonna exist and the conferences/NCAA are not going to give up that sacred cash cow.   So, even though they could, they won't really fix it.   It isn't in their financial interest to do so.

[saevel25]

They haven't and won't fix it because doing so means eliminating the bowl system.   All of those toiletbowl.com games mean one thing.  MONEY.   Money for the host cities, money for the teams and money for the conferences.   As long as the money remains good, the bowl games are gonna exist and the conferences/NCAA are not going to give up that sacred cash cow.   So, even though they could, they won't really fix it.   It isn't in their financial interest to do so.

8 team play off, each of the 4 major bowls gets the entry game. Then two bowls sites the next round, alternating every year. Same with the National Championship game.

All other teams get to go to bowl games as consolation games.

It isn't that hard to fit a really good system into what is currently in place. You also keep the integrity of the 4 major bowl games as well. Though they loose contract significance with the winners of the conference champions though. I would think an 8 team play off would be exciting enough to keep the draw.

[Golfingdad]

8 team play off, each of the 4 major bowls gets the entry game. Then two bowls sites the next round, alternating every year. Same with the National Championship game.

All other teams get to go to bowl games as consolation games.

It isn't that hard to fit a really good system into what is currently in place. You also keep the integrity of the 4 major bowl games as well. Though they loose contract significance with the winners of the conference champions though. I would think an 8 team play off would be exciting enough to keep the draw.

Agree mostly.  And see no reason to think that after a few years of "controversy" between which one or two loss team or teams got screwed that it won't start leaning that way.

I'd want to keep the existing major bowls as the most important games, so I'd alternate every year between two of them being the semifinals and the other two being the quarterfinals, along with two more ... Cotton and Outback or Holiday or whatever.  The NC is still its own thing, site could alternate similarly to the Super Bowl.  Cowboys Stadium, Indianapolis, Detroit, Santa Clara, etc, etc.

I'd also lean towards giving all 5 major conference champions an automatic berth in the playoff, to go along with 3 at large teams.  No need for any special rules for teams like Notre Dame or BYU or the "mid-majors" like Fresno State or Boise State.  Those guys get in if they manage to make it into the top 8.

[teamroper60]

Prior to the BCS, the call was to have #1 play #2 (two teams).   Everybody thought that was a good idea, so the BCS was created.    Then, when we had multiple undefeateds, the call became to have 4 teams and a playoff.   Now here we are and without even having had ONE playoff game, much less crown a champion, the call is already to expand it to 8 teams.   You know the NCAA tournament started with 8 teams, right?    At least that tournament gives EVERY conference champ a birth.    I think you need to include all conference champs if you are going to expand beyond four.    And don't give me the BS about how a team outside the "power 5" can get in if they crack the top 4/8/whatever.   That is a farce.   Ever since Boise beat OU, the pollsters have done a good job of keeping Jim Delaney's "little sisters of the poor" from getting a chance.  They will do the same now unless it is mandated by automatic berths and settled on the field.

[MS256]

Daniel Rodriguez. Good story for Veteran's Day.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11839813

I just saw him in an interview and he's an impressive young man.

[Golfingdad]

Prior to the BCS, the call was to have #1 play #2 (two teams).

Yeah, but that was only a short while.  The "Bowl Coalition" I believe it was called?  It started in 1992.  Prior to that, teams all pretty much had bowl tie-ins so it often times came down to just a poll vote between two teams who never played each other.  (Including 1990 and 1991, years that both had co-national champions, hence the urgency to form the coalition.)

Ever since Boise beat OU, the pollsters have done a good job of keeping Jim Delaney's "little sisters of the poor" from getting a chance.

This is false.  Boise beat OK in 2007.  In the 7 years since, there have been 7 (SEVEN!!!) non-AQ's in the BCS bowls.

[saevel25]

And don't give me the BS about how a team outside the "power 5" can get in if they crack the top 4/8/whatever.   That is a farce.   Ever since Boise beat OU, the pollsters have done a good job of keeping Jim Delaney's "little sisters of the poor" from getting a chance.  They will do the same now unless it is mandated by automatic berths and settled on the field.

Not really, and since then what teams have been good enough to crack the top 25 in the BCS rankings? 8 Non-AQ schools have played in 7 BCS bowl games. You have multiple repeaters as well.

Utah: 2

Boise St.: 2

TCU: 2

Really there hasn't be a big push from a lot of non-AQ schools to really compete. A few schools actually spent resources and developed some pretty good teams. Even then, TCU joined the Big-12 and Utah joined the Pac-12.

Actually that was Gordon "The Bow-Tie" Gee, Ohio State President who called TCU "Little Sisters of the Poor".

[saevel25]

My picks for the big games this weekend

Miss. State 27 Alabama 17

Miss. St is a -8.5 underdog at Alabama. Alabama just came off an emotional overtime win at LSU. Given the basic Bye Week warm up that Miss. St had this week, and that they are getting no respect as the number 1 being the underdog. I think Miss. St goes into Alabama and lays into them.

Miami: 33 Florida State: 28

I got a bad feeling about this one. Though Miami is 6-3 they are a very good 6-3 team. Their only losses against a good Louisville team, Nebraska and Georgia Tech. I like Miami for the upset. FSU has been skirting along all season. Hasn't show much growth in becoming a dominant team. I like Miami

Auburn 35 Georgia 28

Wisconsin 28, Nebraska 24

Ohio State: 45, Minnesota 21

For @Golfingdad

Cal 33 USC 45, sorry CAL

[Golfingdad]

New playoff rankings:

1. Mississippi State
2. Oregon
3. Florida State
4. TCU
5. Alabama
6. Arizona State
7. Baylor
8. Ohio State
9. Auburn
10. Ole Miss
11. UCLA

I stop there because I feel like UCLA's playoff chances are razor thin, and anything beyond that is essentially nil.  Auburn and Ole Miss also need a lot of luck and help.  Everybody above that, though, including Ohio State, @saevel25 , is in the mix!

Kind of agreeing with @MS256 that it's a bit unfair to the Pac-12 and SEC that the Big-12 gets to skate by without a title game.  It's a virtual 100% guarantee that because of the championship game, no matter what happens with everybody else, only one of the Pac-10 schools is making the playoffs.  But Baylor is basically only a Florida State loss and Alabama loss from joining TCU in the playoffs without having to deal with a title game.

I guess if that type of scenario wins out, I hope they lean towards parity and inclusion and jump Baylor with OSU.

Way too early to worry that much about anything though. ;)

[MS256]

Predictions:

Mississippi State 28    Alabama 17 (Too much Prescott and I can't envision stopping the quarterback scrambles). Edit: To my dismay.

Georgia 42    Auburn 35 (Todd Gurley runs wild).

FSU 30    Miami 20 (Too much heat on the point shaving to give Miami a head start).

[saevel25]

Man you do not want to be on a bye week when the selection committee makes their rankings. Nebraska fell 3 spots and didn't play anyone, and they have 1 loss, and their only loss is to Michigan State.

Oooh, Oregon jumped Florida State. The committee is willing to bump teams depending on how they play weekly, and even move a no-loss FSU bellow a 1-loss Oregon. Major props for doing that.

Seriously, TCU jumped Alabama, WOW . I am really shocked. Does the playoff committee not give credit to the SEC like the sports media. Maybe lining the committee with people who actually played football or have coached before has tempered their mindset on the SEC. Oh well, either way, it will help the other divisions out. When in doubt, WIN YOUR GAMES!

I am very happy that Ohio State jumped a 2-loss SEC Team. That makes me more confident that if things go a bit more crazy in the next 3 weeks they have a shot. Just basing my opinion on the committee being consistent with their methodology.

Look at this, 5 teams from the Big Ten in the top 25! I'm so proud of them!

SEC: 7 teams

Pac 12: 5

Big 12: 3

ACC: 4

Big 10: 5

I am totally shocked about that.

[MS256]

Seriously, TCU jumped Alabama, WOW . I am really shocked. Does the playoff committee not give credit to the SEC like the sports media. Maybe lining the committee with people who actually played football or have coached before has tempered their mindset on the SEC. Oh well, either way, it will help the other divisions out.

Or maybe it's because there is only one person on the committee with an SEC connection and has any idea how hard it is to win in Death Valley.

Or maybe they are playing a little chess knowing that it doesn't matter that Alabama is outside of the top 4 but it might matter for a team that doesn't play one of the teams above them (like TCU).