2012 College Football Thread

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Patrick

This had to happen. People will always complain but it was a step "towards" a better solution.

You'll never get a 24 team tourney, no program or conference will agree to that many extra games or potentially losing a bunch of games that they can't reschedule.

Just you wait: nothing will change. When some #5 team, especially if they're an ESPN darling like Boise State, gets left out, the howling will resume

Originally Posted by cal_junior

The Ballcoach likes the four-team playoff idea. And . . .

https://twitter.com/#!/JoshatTheStat...67339661000705

And still nothing will change.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And still nothing will change.

Fine with me. If this is what the coaches and fans want, it's what should happen.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Fine with me. If this is what the coaches and fans want, it's what should happen.

This is why I can't take the anti-bcs people seriously at all. If you give in because ESPN and pundits whine about it, you have to give in again when they start whining again. There's no way to create a true NFL style championship system until the NCAA takes direct control of the conferences. At least the BCS was honest about their standards. Now, we're going to nebulous standards about getting into the playoff that will be more violated then a bag of fritos at Fred Davis' house

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

This is why I can't take the anti-bcs people seriously at all.

Stupid anti-BCS people, thinking sports should be about the fans, athletes and coaches, when really it should be about . . . I've got nothing here.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Stupid anti-BCS people, thinking sports should be about the fans, athletes and coaches, when really it should be about . . . I've got nothing here.

How is the BCS anti-fan, athlete or coach again? Because they excluded teams like Utah or Boise State when they clearly posted how to score more points in the BCS system with tougher schedules? DAMN YOU BCS AND YOUR CLEARLY STATED STANDARDS!! *shakes fists*

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

How is the BCS anti-fan, athlete or coach again? Because they excluded teams like Utah or Boise State when they clearly posted how to score more points in the BCS system with tougher schedules? DAMN YOU BCS AND YOUR CLEARLY STATED STANDARDS!! *shakes fists*

You're looking at this backwards. The BCS isn't anti-anything. But a tournament is what everybody wants. When fans and athletes are asked what they'd prefer, they answer a playoff system.

This is entertainment, give the customers what they want.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

You're looking at this backwards. The BCS isn't anti-anything. But a tournament is what everybody wants. When fans and athletes are asked what they'd prefer, they answer a playoff system.

This is entertainment, give the customers what they want.

We're going in circles again. The customers want X over Y, but when X turns out to have the same inherit flaws(and they start complaining again), what then? Just tell the customers to shove it? And if the players, asked to play more and longer into the season, turn on the idea after it goes into practice, tell them to shove it also?

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

We're going in circles again. The customers want X over Y, but when X turns out to have the same inherit flaws(and they start complaining again), what then? Just tell the customers to shove it? And if the players, asked to play more and longer into the season, turn on the idea after it goes into practice, tell them to shove it also?

No need to go in circles, I agree with you there.

Fortunately your side of this debate has lost. Here in a few years you and Jim Delany can grumble to yourselves and watch VHS tapes of old Rose Bowls while the rest of us enjoy a pair of national semifinal games.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

No need to go in circles, I agree with you there.

Fortunately your side of this debate has lost. Here in a few years you and Jim Delany can grumble to yourselves and watch VHS tapes of old Rose Bowls while the rest of us enjoy a pair of national semifinal games.

Well..
1-I was in favor of another plan(the old matchups, then a BCS style setup to determine a title game post bowl games), so I wasn't "on the BCS side." I supported the BCS over these 4/8 team playoff ideas because it was far more practical and less hypocritical then Team Playoff. Especially when they come up with the smoked filled room "playoff committee" which will choose the teams in the playoffs and never have to explain why.

2-The bowls are going nowhere. Especially the big ones. The "playoff" will involve the big bowls, and this is extremely popular in the BCS committee discussing the "playoff system." The title game will move around like the Super bowl or will rotate still among the big bowls. In fact, the Big10 and Pac12 are insisting that their champions go to the Rose Bowl still(and then the winner can join the playoff system). Which will be a total mess in practice lol.

[Sean T RIP]

A sec team will win it anyway so just crown the sec champ

[tarheel723]

*just FYI before you read this-- don't be fooled by the username.... i'm a VT fan, too*

I really think it's time for VT to have a conference re-alignment. The ACC is dying besides for UVa kinda being on the rise. Call me crazy, but I see Clemson going to the SEC in a few years (i know, 'where did that idea come from?'). FSU is back and forth on going to the Big 12 (they probably will). Miami, if they can get recruiting back to what it used to be, could go to the SEC eventually ...(maybe in 5-10 years). I think VT should go to the Big 12, it's what makes the most sense to me. I give it 2-3 years, hopefully. Plus, it would renew a rivalry with WVU. Big 12 will go back to being a good conference. Also, I see Notre Dame realizing withing the next year or two that they need to affiliate with a conference if they want to compete in football for BCS... They'll go to the B1G I think.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by tarheel723

. Call me crazy, but I see Clemson going to the SEC in a few years (i know, 'where did that idea come from?').

Unless USC is leaving it, Clemson can't join the SEC, nor would the SEC take them.

[AustinSkin]

I'm in favor of any playoff system that allows an undefeated, ranked team like Boise State or TCU to have a shot at winning a national championship. It seems under the current BCS system, that would never happen.

[tarheel723]

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

I'm in favor of any playoff system that allows an undefeated, ranked team like Boise State or TCU to have a shot at winning a national championship. It seems under the current BCS system, that would never happen.

Personally, the way I'd like to see it set up is this:

-Only allow conference champions into the playoff
-Have a committee to choose WHICH conference champions

I know that this has been argued by the "smaller" big conferences such as the ACC, while confrences such as the Pac10 and the SEC say it should be set up like this (personally I think this would be the most unfair way):

-Top 4 play in a playoff

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

I'm in favor of any playoff system that allows an undefeated, ranked team like Boise State or TCU to have a shot at winning a national championship. It seems under the current BCS system, that would never happen.

It won't happen under the current playoff ideas either. If anything, strength of schedule and conference strength are going to matter more in the hypothetical playoff system.