(11-19-2009 07:27 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Nobody wants to see Florida vs. Troy or Texas vs. CMU.

I'd watch Texas vs. CMU. Does your theory carry over to NCAA basketball tournament to? Nobody want to watch the first round #1 and #2 seed games? Seems to me everyone wants to watch those lookiing for the upset.

(11-19-2009 07:55 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(11-18-2009 10:38 PM)claytonbigsby Wrote:  I would rather put a Big ten champ instead of LSU.

Mike did have Ohio State in his bracket. But, you're right. I don't agree with placing three teams from the same conference in the same 16 team tournament. I always look at it like, if a team can't win its own division, how can it win the NC?

I went straight off the BCS standings, except I changed one spot here or there to keep same conferences from potential 2nd round games.

(11-19-2009 05:10 PM)army56mike Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 07:27 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Nobody wants to see Florida vs. Troy or Texas vs. CMU.

I'd watch Texas vs. CMU. Does your theory carry over to NCAA basketball tournament to? Nobody want to watch the first round #1 and #2 seed games? Seems to me everyone wants to watch those lookiing for the upset.

If Central Michigan's offensive line gives LeFevour time to throw the ball, Texas could very well lose this game. I think it would be an excellent matchup, and it's one that Texas wants no part of...

(11-19-2009 05:12 PM)army56mike Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 07:55 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(11-18-2009 10:38 PM)claytonbigsby Wrote:  I would rather put a Big ten champ instead of LSU.

Mike did have Ohio State in his bracket. But, you're right. I don't agree with placing three teams from the same conference in the same 16 team tournament. I always look at it like, if a team can't win its own division, how can it win the NC?

I went straight off the BCS standings, except I changed one spot here or there to keep same conferences from potential 2nd round games.

send this to barak hussein obama and see if he can convince the ncaa to make it happen, the good ole boys who reak millions from the bcs and major bowl execs will fight it big time.........

Central Michigan was blown out by freaking Boston College. Texas would murder them. MAC & Sun Belt teams have no business being part of any playoff discussion. Nobody wants to watch mid majors in hoops other than the opening weekend of the tournament. See the 2006 Final Four with their dreadful ratings featuring George Mason.

(11-19-2009 05:10 PM)army56mike Wrote:  I'd watch Texas vs. CMU. Does your theory carry over to NCAA basketball tournament to? Nobody want to watch the first round #1 and #2 seed games? Seems to me everyone wants to watch those lookiing for the upset.

No, no, no! I absolutely loathe this argument. The NCAA Tournament and the game of basketball is inherently different than football. Having a #1 seed in basketball play an extra game against a #16 team is no big deal. EVERY extra football game, though, is a big deal when it comes to timing, scheduling, impact and chances of injuries, etc. You can't be throwing football teams out to play multiple games and risk injuries in dog matchups (especially after a 12-game regular season) and slap a playoff label on it. If you want an 8-team playoff where every game features 2 teams that are legit national title contenders with great matchups across-the-board, then I'd be ecstatic to see that happen. (Realistically, I don't think that will ever happen, so an unseeded plus-one is likely the most viable option.) 16 teams, though, is completely too much for a playoff and I vehemently disagree with the notion that all conferences are supposed to get automatic bids. To me, it's way way way way more unfair to exclude top 10 teams from a playoff in order to advance a false "everybody's equal" utopia of including conferences that are clearly not up to task. If certain teams from those conferences are good enough to grab at-large spots, then that's great, but it shouldn't be automatic.

I like the playoffs options and I agree that every conference needs an auto bid, plus the best non-champs for at-large. But I can see the argument against the SBCs and MACs of the world. Thats why I would like to see a D1 modernization. aka, enforce, and increase, the attendance minimum, among other things.

That would hopefully delete the MAC, SBC and WAC. The best teams in those conferences (if there are any) would go to the MWC and CUSA. Everyone else would go to FCS.

That would leave the six + MWC + CUSA. Take the 8 conference champs plus the top four at-large for 12. Let the top four bye a week and rock out. After the 12 are picked, reorder them.

Is this plan better?

(11-20-2009 11:37 AM)PGPirate Wrote:  I like the playoffs options and I agree that every conference needs an auto bid, plus the best non-champs for at-large. But I can see the argument against the SBCs and MACs of the world. Thats why I would like to see a D1 modernization. aka, enforce, and increase, the attendance minimum, among other things.

That would hopefully delete the MAC, SBC and WAC. The best teams in those conferences (if there are any) would go to the MWC and CUSA. Everyone else would go to FCS.

That would leave the six + MWC + CUSA. Take the 8 conference champs plus the top four at-large for 12. Let the top four bye a week and rock out. After the 12 are picked, reorder them.

Is this plan better?

Makes more sense to me to do it this way. But if you're going to do that you also have to enforce a minimum 10 school rule. Which means the Big East will pickup Temple and East Carolina. CUSA would probably boot out Rice and SMU and pickup 3 schools. MWC would pickup 3 schools. Notre Dame would have to join the Big Ten. The rest would go bye bye.

(11-20-2009 11:37 AM)PGPirate Wrote:  I like the playoffs options and I agree that every conference needs an auto bid, plus the best non-champs for at-large. But I can see the argument against the SBCs and MACs of the world. Thats why I would like to see a D1 modernization. aka, enforce, and increase, the attendance minimum, among other things.

That would hopefully delete the MAC, SBC and WAC. The best teams in those conferences (if there are any) would go to the MWC and CUSA. Everyone else would go to FCS.

That would leave the six + MWC + CUSA. Take the 8 conference champs plus the top four at-large for 12. Let the top four bye a week and rock out. After the 12 are picked, reorder them.

Is this plan better?

Here's the issue: the NCAA doesn't control the FBS postseason and it never ever will. This isn't a "maybe it could change" situation - the NCAA won't ever have any say in how the FBS postseason works anymore than the State of Illinois government can start running the State of Indiana. That's why I keep pointing out that University of Oklahoma v. NCAA Supreme Court case because people keep either forgetting about or ignoring, well, the law of the land SPECIFICALLY about college football. It basically states that the NCAA would violate antitrust laws if it imposes restrictions on conferences the freedom to enter into its own contracts to maximize their market returns. That's why when that ruling went down, the major conferences and teams like Notre Dame started entering into their own direct TV contracts with networks as opposed to going through the old CFA (which distributed TV money and appearances equitably among conferences). The exact same legal reasoning is applied to the bowl system and the BCS. Contrary to public opinion that the BCS system somehow violates antitrust laws, the NCAA would actually be in violation of antitrust laws for imposing a playoff. The only reason why the BCS conferences don't sue or walk away from the NCAA Tournament and other NCAA championships on antitrust grounds is that the NCAA leaves the issue of the FBS postseason alone. That's why the NCAA doesn't touch the bowl/playoff issue with a million foot pole and hasn't even bothered putting out minor press statements about it - they know that the BCS conferences have the law on their side and those conferences could (and I believe would) leave the NCAA and form their own separate entity. I don't know how many times I have to explain the law in this instance. What's supposedly "fair" is completely irrelevant when it comes to the law.

So, what the NCAA does in terms of classifying of who is in Division 1-A doesn't mean anything in terms of a college football playoff. Any changes to the current system would have to be done BY the BCS conferences as opposed to being imposed on them. You have to think about what the BCS conferences would reasonably agree to when considering financial implications and access. The BCS conferences have to maintain or expand the financial advantages as they have now over the non-BCS conferences in order for there to be any changes. (Emphasis is on "advantages" because increased money for everyone like an NCAA Tournament-style revenue split doesn't mean squat - you have to make sure that the BCS conferences still have much MORE postseason money compared to the non-BCS conferences just like today.) Any viable playoff or plus-one proposal MUST apply that as a basic assumption - otherwise, we're just talking about how the Earth ought to revolve around the Sun or something else that's physically impossible.

Anyone can throw out a hypothetical playoff proposal. I want to know a playoff proposal that the BCS conferences would actually agree to when acting in their reasonable best interests. That's the real issue that way too many playoff proponents completely ignore. If we can do that, then we might actually get somewhere on this issue.