2012/2013 NCAA Football Thread

[bodie54]

MY final top 10 for this season:

1- Alabama
2- Oregon
3- Texas AM
4- Stanford
5- Georgia
6- Ohio State
7- Florida (despite the atrocious bowl performance)
8- Kansas State
9- Florida State
10 - Clemson

I'd put Notre Dame somewhere around the middle of the second ten.

 

[Marlo Manson]

My idea has been to keep the BCS polls, and use the bowls in a playoff.

At the end of the year, take the top 8 teams, seed them and play:

1 vs 8
2 vs 7
3 vs 6
4 vs 5

If you can't finish in the top 8, you have no reason to be in the playoffs. In the past, teams like TCU, Boise State, etc. could have made it and there would have been no bitching.

The only problem with that is there are so many teams that finish the season with very impressive records, how would / do you get too the top 8 teams without any teams that are more deserving for one of those 8 playoff berths to be shunned, that's the only reason I think they have a bigger playoff system where the top 20 or so teams from each side of the country start playing each other and the surviving 2 teams that win there way to the National Championship game are the 2 most deserving teams to be playing for the championship.

otherwise there are gonna be atleast 10 - 15 teams that had excellent records will somehow not even be considered for a playoff spot. that's why I think your idea wouldn't be fair, if you have a legitimate way to seed out the best 8 deserving teams then maybe that would work, but otherwise its too selective and only the top power schools would get playoff berths. :2 cents:

Marlo I think just about all of us on this thread thought they were over-rated.
And the biggest experts of all, the line makers, obviously thought they were over-rated.
But a lot of casual fans and pollsters will automatically rank an undefeated big name team on top without bothering to carefully examine their resume.

I'm just saying it was obvious that ND shouldn't have been playing Bama for the NC but look @ the :baconsalt: game that we got as a result of the ignorance, head turning, and ignoring the obvious, to say ND or even put ND in the position they were in was an utter embarrassment to the NCAA and too ND. I know ND was selected because of favoritism and $$$ profit reasons, but look how bad it looked. Oregon, K-State, the Agies, The Bulldogs, all would have given Bama a stiffer challenge I think everybody in the NCAA, the line makers, and the fans know it.

I just think that there were at-least a half dozen other teams that would have possibly had a chance of actually beating Bama or atleast been somewhat competitive for a championship game. I know the experts etc.. are not naive, dumb etc... it just made the system look like a complete farce that a more deserving team didn't get a chance to play Bama for the Championship. :2 cents:

 

[Connor Macleod]

The only problem with that is there are so many teams that finish the season with very impressive records, how would / do you get too the top 8 teams without any teams that are more deserving for one of those 8 playoff berths to be shunned, that's the only reason I think they have a bigger playoff system where the top 20 or so teams from each side of the country start playing each other and the surviving 2 teams that win there way to the National Championship game are the 2 most deserving teams to be playing for the championship.

otherwise there are gonna be atleast 10 - 15 teams that had excellent records will somehow not even be considered for a playoff spot. that's why I think your idea wouldn't be fair, if you have a legitimate way to seed out the best 8 deserving teams then maybe that would work, but otherwise its too selective and only the top power schools would get playoff berths. :2 cents:

The absolute most teams in a playoff should be no more than 16 and personally, I would never want that many. What you need to keep in mind is this; the more teams in a playoff, the more games that need to be played. Once upon a time, teams played 9, maybe 10 games and then a bowl. Now, with expanded schedules, conference championships and bowl games, teams are playing 14, and in a few rare cases, 15 games.

Right now, we only have the top 2 teams that play for the crown. People have whined and griped about this for years. After next year, we finally have a playoff of 4 teams. Many say this isn't enough, but it is a start.

I believe 8 is the optimum number. My opinion is this, if you can't make the top 8, your team doesn't deserve jack shit. Over the past 12 years, a lot of your big name schools would have made an 8 team playoff, and a few of the smaller schools would have gotten in at some point. Here's a few:

Louisville
TCU
Utah
Boise State
Iowa
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Washington
Oregon State

After seeing that list, how can you possibly argue that an 8 team playoff is unfair?

 

[Marlo Manson]

The absolute most teams in a playoff should be no more than 16 and personally, I would never want that many. What you need to keep in mind is this; the more teams in a playoff, the more games that need to be played. Once upon a time, teams played 9, maybe 10 games and then a bowl. Now, with expanded schedules, conference championships and bowl games, teams are playing 14, and in a few rare cases, 15 games.

Right now, we only have the top 2 teams that play for the crown. People have whined and griped about this for years. After next year, we finally have a playoff of 4 teams. Many say this isn't enough, but it is a start.

I believe 8 is the optimum number. My opinion is this, if you can't make the top 8, your team doesn't deserve jack shit. Over the past 12 years, a lot of your big name schools would have made an 8 team playoff, and a few of the smaller schools would have gotten in at some point. Here's a few:

Louisville
TCU
Utah
Boise State
Iowa
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Washington
Oregon State

After seeing that list, how can you possibly argue that an 8 team playoff is unfair?

Ok I see where you are going with this, if the top 8 teams are all most of the powerhouse schools with the best records I take it the strength of schedule is also taken into consideration? Most of the teams with no losses or 1 or 2 play in semi weak conferences and they all pretty much play cupcake teams before there conference games even start. I am just using my Michigan Wolverines for an example, I don't remember each score by memory nor am I taking the time to look it up, but before the Wolverines conference started conference play, they played Alabama the 1st game of the season and didn't get blown out, that's 1 loss, then they played ND pretty tough as well, thats 2 pretty good teams before they even began there conference games. they lost to OSU in a close game, then they had 2 more losses in conference play mainly because of injuries, but nonetheless they played a better schedule then allot of the teams that finished with 1 or 2 losses.

I don't know all the other schools non-conference strength but Michigan if they won a couple more games and say had 2 losses too Bama, OSU, & ND and other schools played all patsies and had a better record the team with the better record would ge the nod ahead of Michigan despite playing a soft schedule. that's my concern. all the teams with the best records don't necessarily play the toughest schedules / competition, and that's why I think the system your calling for would punish a team with a couple of losses to top 10 teams and that wouldn't be fair would it?

 

[CptHa]

Marlo, Michigan got completely destroyed by Alabama that first week.

 

[Connor Macleod]

Ok I see where you are going with this, if the top 8 teams are all most of the powerhouse schools with the best records I take it the strength of schedule is also taken into consideration? Most of the teams with no losses or 1 or 2 play in semi weak conferences and they all pretty much play cupcake teams before there conference games even start. I am just using my Michigan Wolverines for an example, I don't remember each score by memory nor am I taking the time to look it up, but before the Wolverines conference started conference play, they played Alabama the 1st game of the season and didn't get blown out, that's 1 loss, then they played ND pretty tough as well, thats 2 pretty good teams before they even began there conference games. they lost to OSU in a close game, then they had 2 more losses in conference play mainly because of injuries, but nonetheless they played a better schedule then allot of the teams that finished with 1 or 2 losses.

I don't know all the other schools non-conference strength but Michigan if they won a couple more games and say had 2 losses too Bama, OSU, & ND and other schools played all patsies and had a better record the team with the better record would ge the nod ahead of Michigan despite playing a soft schedule. that's my concern. all the teams with the best records don't necessarily play the toughest schedules / competition, and that's why I think the system your calling for would punish a team with a couple of losses to top 10 teams and that wouldn't be fair would it?

Look at my post again. I listed several schools that would have made a playoff at some point over the past decade or so if an 8 team playoff were in place. Schools that no one ever considers as a contender for a title.

As for your Michigan team, it is your opinion that they played a tougher schedule than teams with 1 or 2 losses. Even if that is true, I just chalk that up to whoever makes up their schedules as just being fucking stupid. Even if everyone agreed that they played the toughest schedule in the nation, do you really think an 8-4 team should make it into 8 team playoff? A 16 team playoff? This is why I stated that the BCS poll, not the bowl system, just the poll, should be kept. The poll combines a lot of different factors and after the final BCS poll comes out, take the top 8, and like I said, if you can't make the top 8, that's just tough fucking luck.

It seems that you want a playoff with 32 teams or more. This would be horribly stupid because it means more games, a longer season. This is exactly why the college basketball playoffs have become a ridiculous joke. Having teams in a playoff that fail to win even half their games.

As for your last comment:

that's why I think the system your calling for would punish a team with a couple of losses to top 10 teams and that wouldn't be fair would it?​

Has there ever been any year in college football that everyone thought was fair? Of course not! My Auburn team got shafted out of playing for a title in 83, 93 and 04. In 1984, a pathetic BYU team got the title because they went undefeated against bullshit teams and then played their bowl game against a 5 loss Michigan team that wasn't even ranked! Georgia Tech got a title in 1990 after winning their bowl game against a team that was ranked 19th!

My point is, there will never be a system that everyone considers fair. The best you can do is have a short playoff format, and not punish the players by forcing them to play 30 games in a season.

 

[Red001]

if you want to see a real play-off system the bowls would have to die. Division 2 and Division 3 plus what used to be 1-AA all have a play-off system that works. that will never happen at division 1 as long as the Bowls and TV control the postseason

 

[aesopRock]

In my opinion, it's not just the bowls and TV controlling the post-season. I believe the pageantry and the tradition of bowls (not talking about every bowl here.. like the Go Daddy Heineken Water Buffalo Bowl of Shreveport) is something that is truly loved about Div-I CFB. I would be pretty pissed if they took away a majority of the bowls.

 

[Connor Macleod]

if you want to see a real play-off system the bowls would have to die. Division 2 and Division 3 plus what used to be 1-AA all have a play-off system that works. that will never happen at division 1 as long as the Bowls and TV control the postseason

You don't hve to get rid of the bowls. There are 2 options:

1) Incorporate the bowls into the playoff format
2) Make the bowls a second tier system like the NAIA basketball playoffs

 

[Marlo Manson]

Marlo, Michigan got completely destroyed by Alabama that first week.

My bad, I was going by my drug fried brain memory. it was the ND game I was thinking about.

 

[D-rock]

The only problem with that is there are so many teams that finish the season with very impressive records, how would / do you get too the top 8 teams without any teams that are more deserving for one of those 8 playoff berths to be shunned, that's the only reason I think they have a bigger playoff system where the top 20 or so teams from each side of the country start playing each other and the surviving 2 teams that win there way to the National Championship game are the 2 most deserving teams to be playing for the championship.

True, but even just having the 16 teams being chosen by the ranking they are given now would, while not perfect, be about a million times better that what they do now. Having somebody that's maybe the 15th best team in the country but somehow not get a shot because they just fell short in some ranking or judging system is a lot different than somebody that might be somewhere in the top four and be undefeated and still be denied a chance based on circumstances out of their control.