(01-09-2014 10:19 AM)jarmzet Wrote:  4) Gets rid of bowl games.

5) 5 distinct and unique time periods for college football. OOC play, conference play, conference championships, ladder games (conference versus conference play during December), and playoffs. Under my plan college football would own Thanksgiving weekend because of conference championship games and January because of the 16 team playoff.

You'll never get rid of bowl games... but the "ladder games" could be bowl games, along with the final 3 playoff games.

I'm on the fence of automatically including conference champs. Definitely don't agree with seeding a conference champ above another team just because they are the a conference champ. I would never place a #15 AAC champ above #3 Alabama.

The NCAA seeds teams so the highest seed plays the lowest except for byes. If you have 12 teams it should look like this:
Round 1/2
Winner of 11v12 plays 1
Winner of 9v10 plays 2
Winner of 7v8 plays 3
Winner of 5v6 plays 4
Round 3
2 plays 3
1 plays 4

If you have 8 or 16 then it is a straight 1v8(16), 2v7(15) leading to round 3 above.

(01-09-2014 12:59 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I'm on the fence of automatically including conference champs. Definitely don't agree with seeding a conference champ above another team just because they are the a conference champ. I would never place a #15 AAC champ above #3 Alabama.

I'm assuming you picked that example because it seemed the most absurd, but it actually illustrates the point.

After the bowl games were played, the final rankings had UCF #10 and Alabama #7. While you can't apply the transitive property to college football. Based on the outcome of the Fiesta, Sugar, and Big12 season you can make as many cases that UCF > Alabama as you can the other way.

Point is, the reason you'd seed Alabama over UCF is because the SEC > AAC (no one would argue that), but that fact doesn't mean Alabama > UCF.

There has to be a limit though, which is why I said you'd need to have some minimal ranking to have your CC gain you a spot in the playoffs (and therefore the preferential seeding).

(01-08-2014 09:17 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Go to 16, include all conference champs. If you don't like it, either move to the Belt where you can win the conference every year or be good enough to get one of the six at-large bids.

I still go with this, but am willing to stop at 12 w/all conference champions included.

If you can't win your conference in college football, you don't deserve a shot at being a national champion. Rank them by whatever means you think necessary, but conference champs won the right to be there.

The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

(01-08-2014 12:13 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 team is where it needs to go. Round one on seeded campus sites the week after conference championships. Include ALL conference champs. Regular season would matter. Better teams would get BYE or tuneup games.

This year would look like this with seeds based on last BCS standings and CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt champs seeded by Sagarin Rank
Round 1 Dec 15
#9 Fresno St at #8 UCF with winner to face #1 FSU
#12 Louisiana Laf at Stanford with winner to face #4 MSU
#10 Bowling Green at #7 Ohio State (at large) with winner to face #2 Auburn
#11 Rice at #6 Baylor with winner to face #3 Alabama
These sites would be determined by seven bowl rotation
Round #2 Dec 22
Semis New Years Day
Final Monday January 13

No way La Laf, Rice and BG belong in the playoffs.

That's what they always say about the #16 seeds in the NCAA BB Tourney too...and one of them always wins. I remember a little school named Appalachian State. How did that work out for Michigan?

Um, the 16 seeds are 0-116 in NCAA history.

(01-09-2014 02:30 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

What are you talking about? Boise had some of the most watched BCS bowls in history. Everyone loves a cindarella, major college football just has never had an outlet to allow entry to a team like that with the bowl system the way it is. Who knows how far UCF could have gotten this year in a playoff system, but if it had worked out where that Baylor game was our first game in it, you'd better believe there'd be lots of eyes and discussion when we took on the next opponent. The same could be said about all of the teams which improbably won their BCS games.

There's no cindarella because there's no process in place to allow for one. The best case? You get to upset a big boy and that's that.

(01-09-2014 06:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:30 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

What are you talking about? Boise had some of the most watched BCS bowls in history. Everyone loves a cindarella, major college football just has never had an outlet to allow entry to a team like that with the bowl system the way it is. Who knows how far UCF could have gotten this year in a playoff system, but if it had worked out where that Baylor game was our first game in it, you'd better believe there'd be lots of eyes and discussion when we took on the next opponent. The same could be said about all of the teams which improbably won their BCS games.

There's no cindarella because there's no process in place to allow for one. The best case? You get to upset a big boy and that's that.

Record ratings for Boise? I doubt their game with Oklahoma is even in the top 50 of BCS bowls.....I know it isn't in the top 32. Football fans don't care about Cinderella and I am saying this as somebody that loves them but the ratings speak for themselves.

The thing is they will never be conditioned for it because the power conferences aren't going to ever have a big dance type tournament.

(01-09-2014 09:24 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 06:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:30 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

What are you talking about? Boise had some of the most watched BCS bowls in history. Everyone loves a cindarella, major college football just has never had an outlet to allow entry to a team like that with the bowl system the way it is. Who knows how far UCF could have gotten this year in a playoff system, but if it had worked out where that Baylor game was our first game in it, you'd better believe there'd be lots of eyes and discussion when we took on the next opponent. The same could be said about all of the teams which improbably won their BCS games.

There's no cindarella because there's no process in place to allow for one. The best case? You get to upset a big boy and that's that.

Record ratings for Boise? I doubt their game with Oklahoma is even in the top 50 of BCS bowls.....I know it isn't in the top 32. Football fans don't care about Cinderella and I am saying this as somebody that loves them but the ratings speak for themselves.

The thing is they will never be conditioned for it because the power conferences aren't going to ever have a big dance type tournament.

You're right, I thought they did better in the rankings but they seem to be middle of the road viewership-wise each BCS game (though the TCU matchup wasn't bad given they were also playing TCU).

But you're completely ignoring my point; the reason there is no cindarella isn't because football fans don't care about them, it's because there is no system in place to allow for a true cindarella to emerge. UCF won their BCS game, and that's that. We have no chance to have that win mean anything besides we won that game. It doesn't mean we knocked out a top-seeded Baylor team and now have the right to continue on to even more competition, it means we beat a highly ranked Baylor team. There aren't ESPN analyists scrambling to figure out who these kids running past this team of track stars are, or how we matchup to Oklahoma. There's a 'welp, who woulda guessed, SEE YA NEXT YEAR!' and nothing more.

Both teams going home after these postseason matchups is why there seems to be no interest in cindarella stories, there's no way for them to exist.

(01-09-2014 02:30 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

Exactly.

Unless, the SEC West Champion, SEC East Champion, ACC Coastal Champion, ACC Atlantic Champion, Big Ten East Champion, Big Ten West Champion, Pac 12 North Champion, Pac 12 South Champion, Big XII Champion- You know, the division champions get a guaranteed shot at the title.

(01-10-2014 06:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 09:24 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 06:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:30 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  The power conferences are never going to agree to a 12 team playoff that includes every conference champ. There is no point in even discussing it.

It also seems that football is opposite of basketball. When it comes to football people crave great match ups and seeing the best teams play.They don't really seem to care much about Cinderellas.

What are you talking about? Boise had some of the most watched BCS bowls in history. Everyone loves a cindarella, major college football just has never had an outlet to allow entry to a team like that with the bowl system the way it is. Who knows how far UCF could have gotten this year in a playoff system, but if it had worked out where that Baylor game was our first game in it, you'd better believe there'd be lots of eyes and discussion when we took on the next opponent. The same could be said about all of the teams which improbably won their BCS games.

There's no cindarella because there's no process in place to allow for one. The best case? You get to upset a big boy and that's that.

Record ratings for Boise? I doubt their game with Oklahoma is even in the top 50 of BCS bowls.....I know it isn't in the top 32. Football fans don't care about Cinderella and I am saying this as somebody that loves them but the ratings speak for themselves.

The thing is they will never be conditioned for it because the power conferences aren't going to ever have a big dance type tournament.

You're right, I thought they did better in the rankings but they seem to be middle of the road viewership-wise each BCS game (though the TCU matchup wasn't bad given they were also playing TCU).

But you're completely ignoring my point; the reason there is no cindarella isn't because football fans don't care about them, it's because there is no system in place to allow for a true cindarella to emerge. UCF won their BCS game, and that's that. We have no chance to have that win mean anything besides we won that game. It doesn't mean we knocked out a top-seeded Baylor team and now have the right to continue on to even more competition, it means we beat a highly ranked Baylor team. There aren't ESPN analyists scrambling to figure out who these kids running past this team of track stars are, or how we matchup to Oklahoma. There's a 'welp, who woulda guessed, SEE YA NEXT YEAR!' and nothing more.

Both teams going home after these postseason matchups is why there seems to be no interest in cindarella stories, there's no way for them to exist.

you are completely ignoring reality here

1. Boise did not get their BCS spot because they were the 8-5 winner of some spare conference they got that chance because they won 11 to 13 games for 2002-2004 then won 9 games in 2005 with losses to Georgia, Oregon State, Fresno State and BC then they were undefeated and 13-0 in 2006 and highly ranked leading up to the BCS bowl

after that they were 10-3 and then 12-1 and then 13-0 leading up to their next BCS bowl

so it is a far cry from them being 7-5 and the poor outcast "winner" of some spare conference that "never gets their fair shot" before they stepped up and "shocked the world" as this big Cinderella story

2. the only reason that UCF got i this year is because they were 12-1 in an AQ conference and there were not any other undefeated and higher ranked non-AQ teams that could bump out the BE/AAC champ and the only loss was to a good South Carolina team so again it is hardly like some 9-3 lowly outcast came up and surprised the world and showed them all that the winner of every non-AQ conference should get a chance every year no matter how bad they clearly are because "look at Boise"