Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

College Football Playoff Format


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#31 cavic7585

cavic7585

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:37 PM

The SEC is the best but it wasnt always the best and it want always be the best. Case in point the ACC is no longer the best BB conference. For 20 years they put a team in the final four.

#32 cavic7585

cavic7585

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:38 PM

what if in 3 years the SEC isnt the best conference. You might change your tune abit.

#33 Johnny Kilroy

Johnny Kilroy

    Kilroy Kicks Butt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:39 PM

Right, so you judge it on a yearly basis. All this is taken into account with polls.

#34 Johnny Kilroy

Johnny Kilroy

    Kilroy Kicks Butt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:40 PM

what if in 3 years the SEC isnt the best conference. You might change your tune abit.


No I really won't. I am one of the few that is "pro-BCS." But if it did go to a playoff system I wouldn't make it an automatic bid system.

#35 Nicbsbll2

Nicbsbll2

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:42 PM

The difference between conferences from year to year is largely due to perception and reputation. There really aren't a whole lot of games between all of the major conferences to say for certain which conference really was better in each individual year. When comparing the top teams from each conference the teams from the historically strong conferences are always going go be judged stronger based off of past performance, and not so much on the season at hand (ex: Alabama vs. Oklahoma State)

#36 cavic7585

cavic7585

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:43 PM

Polls that prerank a team before a snap of football are ever played and polls that are biased by a media (espn) with mega-contracts to certain confernces(SEC).

#37 Johnny Kilroy

Johnny Kilroy

    Kilroy Kicks Butt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:43 PM

I don't like preseason polls either, I'd rather wait til like week 5 or so. But it all plays itself out in the end.

#38 cavic7585

cavic7585

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:45 PM

The difference between conferences from year to year is largely due to perception and reputation. There really aren't a whole lot of games between all of the major conferences to say for certain which conference really was better in each individual year. When comparing the top teams from each conference the teams from the historically strong conferences are always going go be judged stronger based off of past performance, and not so much on the season at hand (ex: Alabama vs. Oklahoma State)


That was the other point I was about to make is that there is not enough games in a college football seaseon to accurately gauge teams.

I gotta crash. Good discusion though.

#39 DirtyMagic97

DirtyMagic97

    YNWA

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,402 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:18 AM

The only way an auto-bid format could possibly be fair is to make the college football season like that of an NFL season. You would have to force teams from the SEC to play against 3-4 teams from the ACC or Pac 12 in a year. This is why the NFL can get away with the auto-bid for winning your division. They have to play the best from at least two divisions at some point in the season.

With 120 FBS teams, this just can't realistically happen. You cannot compare the way a 32-team system is run to the way a 120-team system is run. Though, I do acknowledge that 100 of those teams have no chance any given year.

#40 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:15 AM

But the problem is who decides who the best 8 teams are.


there is not a perfect solution.

But, I would rather use a ranking systems like the one for the BCS that takes into account multiple rankings, computer rankins, SOS calculations, etc... to determine the top teams rather than just have the conference winners in teh "tournament".

There are tons of examples where the team that won a particular conference (Pac10, ACC, and Big East for example) that was barely a top 15-20 team. I would rather see the top 8 teams using a comprehensive ranking system play for the National Championship.

#41 DirtyMagic97

DirtyMagic97

    YNWA

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,402 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:56 AM

BCS considering a neutral site, 4-team playoff.

http://espn.go.com/c...-playoff-format

A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.


"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."



#42 theyhateme45

theyhateme45

    360 GT = Shino45

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:09 AM

BCS considering a neutral site, 4-team playoff.

http://espn.go.com/c...-playoff-format


I'm game.... better than what is present now.

#43 DirtyMagic97

DirtyMagic97

    YNWA

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,402 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

I'm ok with it as well. Though I think it will only appease college football fans for a few years before people start to realize that #5 is just as good as #4. I think if you don't include at least 8, there is too much parity in records/SOS from 4-6.

#44 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:17 PM

I'm ok with it as well. Though I think it will only appease college football fans for a few years before people start to realize that #5 is just as good as #4. I think if you don't include at least 8, there is too much parity in records/SOS from 4-6.


You can make that arguement by cutting of the field at ANY number.

Just as little difference from 8-10 as there is from 4-6.

#45 DirtyMagic97

DirtyMagic97

    YNWA

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,402 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:25 PM

You can make that arguement by cutting of the field at ANY number.

Just as little difference from 8-10 as there is from 4-6.


I think the argument that a team between 8-10 deserves to be considered for a national championship is far less justifiable than that of a team ranked 4-6.

This year, for instance. Stanford was ranked ahead of an Oregon team that beat them. Granted Oregon had an extra loss through a tougher schedule. That's a tough call to make.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com