PDA

View Full Version : Football NCAA Rejects Playoff System for Football


Gonzo
04-30-2008, 03:21 PM
I'm not surprised. :shake:




Mark Schlabach
ESPN.com
Updated: April 30, 2008, 4:28 PM ET

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- Saying the BCS was in an "unprecedented state of health," ACC commissioner John Swofford announced Wednesday that college football will not change the way it determines its national champion as it prepares to begin negotiations for future television contracts that will probably run through the 2014 season.

"We will move forward in the next cycle with the current format," said Swofford, who serves as BCS chairman. "I believe the BCS has never been healthier in its first decade."
The decision, made during a five-hour meeting of 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White at an ocean-front hotel here, wasn't unexpected. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said earlier this week that he remained opposed to the plus-one format, which would have seeded the top four teams in the final BCS standings and match them in two semifinal games and the winners playing in a national title game.
SEC commissioner Mike Slive made the plus-one proposal Wednesday morning but said there was little support among the commissioners. In fact, Slive said only he and Swofford showed much desire in seriously pushing forward the proposal.
"There isn't support among the commissioners at this point to move forward with this proposal as we move into the next cycle," Slive said. "There's no doubt in my mind that the discussions had value and it's important that we know exactly what we're going to do with the next cycle."
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said his league's member schools voted in March not to support any changes to college football's postseason.
"There's a strong feeling in the Big 12 that what we have is working well," Beebe said. "There's great satisfaction with the regular season and the postseason."
The concern about a playoff among college football's leaders is that it would make football a two-semester sport and would lessen the importance of a regular season that now has a do-or-die feel to it from week to week.
Also complicating matters for the BCS is the Rose Bowl's separate TV deal with ABC, which runs through the 2014 bowls.
The BCS' TV deal for the rights to the Sugar, Orange and Fiesta bowls runs through the 2010 bowls. Negotiations with Fox on the next deal will begin in the fall.
The Bowl Championship Series was implemented in 1998 after the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl agreed to join with the other five major conferences and three marquee bowls to create an annual national title game involving the top two teams in the country after the regular season.
While the BCS has created championship games that never would have happened under the old bowl system, it's been far from perfect. For the many college football fans desperate to see a playoff that would crown a more definitive champion, the BCS has been a target for their angst.
Almost every season, there's been some dispute leading into the championship game about whether the BCS selected the two most deserving teams.
Last year, Georgia fans were the loudest to complain when the Bulldogs were left out of the BCS title game in favor of LSU and Ohio State.
In past years, undefeated Auburn was left out of the national title game after the 2004 season in favor of Southern California and Oklahoma; Nebraska reached the championship game after the 2002 season, despite getting blown out in its final regular-season game.
The idea behind the plus-one is to alleviate some of the controversy by sending four teams into the postseason with a chance to win the national championship.

Spott
04-30-2008, 03:23 PM
Can't spell BCS without B.S.

Basileus777
04-30-2008, 03:25 PM
$$$$

Calcountry
04-30-2008, 03:25 PM
Just quit watching the shit, that will teach them.

Frazod
04-30-2008, 03:35 PM
I guess Perkins sucked off that Swofford guy, too.

cmh6476
04-30-2008, 03:38 PM
$$$$

yeah but there'd be more money to gain from a playoff

POND_OF_RED
04-30-2008, 03:50 PM
Did they discuss eliminating the BCS standings since they hold no real value in the selection?

JBucc
04-30-2008, 03:55 PM
They just needs to take the top eight teams and put them in the top seven bowls, probably Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and whatever other 2 and rotate them in a playoff. But their too ****ing stupid to realize that would make them even more money and I think could rival the NFL's popularity. As for the "too many games" BS argument have each team drop a reg. season game. We're up to 12 now I think. Every big school has some pointless gimme game with a DII school that could be dropped. Get rid of the conference championship games as well, or make every conference have one. All the teams not in the top 8 can play their usual crappy bowls that no one cares about anyway unless their team is in.

I can't believe they didn't even agree on a plus 1. God damn ****ing morons. The NCAA needs to step in tell the conference leaders to STFD and STFU and lay down the law.

dirk digler
04-30-2008, 03:56 PM
The NCAA and the universities are freaking stupid. They would make a ton more money with a playoff system

Guru
04-30-2008, 03:59 PM
:shake::shake::shake::cuss::cuss:

Frazod
04-30-2008, 04:04 PM
The NCAA and the universities are freaking stupid. They would make a ton more money with a playoff system

The problem is the system is held hostage by the pricks who control the BCS Bowls, who want their Bowl to have an air of importance and finality to it, instead of being a stepping stone to a bigger bowl game. The current system is great for them - it just f#cks everybody else.

Skip Towne
04-30-2008, 04:04 PM
They need only look to basketball to see how popular a tournament would be.

bowener
04-30-2008, 04:07 PM
Am I the only one that thinks its ****ing stupid that we have 32 ****ing bowl games? That means 53.78% the teams play in a bowl now. 64/119... ghey.

Mr. Arrowhead
04-30-2008, 04:35 PM
yea i quit watching the bull shit for about 2 years. I mean the only way i catch a game is if im bored as hell. I wont get into it until they get a playoff system. Why in the world would i wanna watch 2 sub .500 teams in the butt hole bowl, i mean who really gives a rats ass about who wins. Now if they placed 4 or 8 teams in a tourney, then yea that would be interesting.

Reaper16
04-30-2008, 04:47 PM
As any fan of 1-AA, DII or DIII could tell you, college football playoffs are AMAZING.

Pestilence
04-30-2008, 04:58 PM
Ahhhh what does it matter? My Fighting Irish would still get their ass kicked every year.

Ari Chi3fs
04-30-2008, 06:25 PM
I only started paying attention to college football last September.




heh


I must suck at the intreweb, as I can't find the "Kansas Football Tradition since Sept" sign image. Damn.

Molitoth
05-01-2008, 09:21 AM
BowlShit.

What a bunch of morons.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 09:54 AM
They just needs to take the top eight teams and put them in the top seven bowls, probably Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and whatever other 2 and rotate them in a playoff. But their too ****ing stupid to realize that would make them even more money and I think could rival the NFL's popularity. As for the "too many games" BS argument have each team drop a reg. season game. We're up to 12 now I think. Every big school has some pointless gimme game with a DII school that could be dropped. Get rid of the conference championship games as well, or make every conference have one. All the teams not in the top 8 can play their usual crappy bowls that no one cares about anyway unless their team is in.

I can't believe they didn't even agree on a plus 1. God damn ****ing morons. The NCAA needs to step in tell the conference leaders to STFD and STFU and lay down the law.

Last year was obviously an exception, but most years the top 8 teams don't deserve a national title shot. Generally there are 2 teams separated from the rest and, at most, four. I support a plus-1 system, but not an all-out playoff. Every game every week should be treated as a playoff game.

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 10:08 AM
I only started paying attention to college football last September.




heh


I must suck at the intreweb, as I can't find the "Kansas Football Tradition since Sept" sign image. Damn.
This one?
http://www.travisbarber.com/2007-11/kansas_trad.jpg

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 10:09 AM
Last year was obviously an exception, but most years the top 8 teams don't deserve a national title shot. Generally there are 2 teams separated from the rest and, at most, four. I support a plus-1 system, but not an all-out playoff. Every game every week should be treated as a playoff game.
I have to agree with you that plus one is definatly the way to go but a 12 team playoff would be awesome.

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 10:31 AM
Isn't congress looking into this BS?

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 10:34 AM
I have to agree with you that plus one is definatly the way to go but a 12 team playoff would be awesome.

Exciting and entertaining? Yes. However, it would be unnecessary, IMO. Most years the #1 or #2 team shouldn't have to play the #12 or #11 teams to get to the BCS Championship game. For example, in 2006 at the end of the college football season, OSU was #1, Florida was #2. Notre Dame was #11 and Arkansas was #12.

In a 12-team playoff scenario Florida would have played #12 Arkansas who they had just defeated in the SEC Championship game. OSU would have played ND who got destroyed by LSU in the Sugar Bowl. Completely unnecessary. There was a clear #1 and #2 and they played 12-13 games to earn their spot in the Champ game.

Same deal in 2005. Does anyone feel that at the end of the season any team other than USC or Texas deserved a shot at the NC game? Anyone who does is an idiot. USC/Texas was one of the best games ever.

In 2004 the only team screwed was Auburn. A plus-1 format would have corrected this.

In 2003 there was a split title between USC and LSU. There weren't any teams deserving of a title shot beyond USC, Oklahoma and LSU. Again, a plus-1 would have settled the issue.

In 2002 again only 2 teams belonged - Miami and OSU and it was a hell of a game.

People get up in arms about last season without realizing what an aberration it was. The vast majority of the time the debate doesn't extend past 2-4 teams.

StcChief
05-01-2008, 10:42 AM
how about athletes graduating with something other than 'sports management' or basket weaving

tk13
05-01-2008, 10:45 AM
Exciting and entertaining? Yes. However, it would be unnecessary, IMO. Most years the #1 or #2 team shouldn't have to play the #12 or #11 teams to get to the BCS Championship game. For example, in 2006 at the end of the college football season, OSU was #1, Florida was #2. Notre Dame was #11 and Arkansas was #12.

In a 12-team playoff scenario Florida would have played #12 Arkansas who they had just defeated in the SEC Championship game. OSU would have played ND who got destroyed by LSU in the Sugar Bowl. Completely unnecessary. There was a clear #1 and #2 and they played 12-13 games to earn their spot in the Champ game.

Same deal in 2005. Does anyone feel that at the end of the season any team other than USC or Texas deserved a shot at the NC game? Anyone who does is an idiot. USC/Texas was one of the best games ever.

In 2004 the only team screwed was Auburn. A plus-1 format would have corrected this.

In 2003 there was a split title between USC and LSU. There weren't any teams deserving of a title shot beyond USC, Oklahoma and LSU. Again, a plus-1 would have settled the issue.

In 2002 again only 2 teams belonged - Miami and OSU and it was a hell of a game.

People get up in arms about last season without realizing what an aberration it was. The vast majority of the time the debate doesn't extend past 2-4 teams.
That's like saying Florida didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship in basketball 3 years ago because they were a 3 seed.

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 10:48 AM
That's like saying Florida didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship in basketball 3 years ago because they were a 3 seed.
:clap: Great Point! :clap:

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 10:56 AM
That's like saying Florida didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship in basketball 3 years ago because they were a 3 seed.

I don't buy the NCAA Tourney/BCS comparisons. Apples and oranges, IMO. Different sports, systems, games, etc. I guess college football should change the format to a 30-game season with teams playing multiple games per week too, right?

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 10:57 AM
I don't buy the NCAA Tourney/BCS comparisons. Apples and oranges, IMO. Different sports, systems, games, etc. I guess college football should change the format to a 30-game season with teams playing multiple games per week too, right?
So what you are saying is that the Steelers and Giants had no right winning those two Superbowls?

tk13
05-01-2008, 11:05 AM
I don't buy the NCAA Tourney/BCS comparisons. Apples and oranges, IMO. Different sports, systems, games, etc. I guess college football should change the format to a 30-game season with teams playing multiple games per week too, right?
No, that is not the point at all. The point is the excitement of the NCAA tournament comes from giving several teams the opportunity to win a national championship. If all those great teams you mentioned truly deserved the national championship, they should have no problem beating those lesser 11 and 12 seeded teams. What's there to be afraid of? The only thing that would be gained under your scenario is more exciting 1st and 2nd round playoff games. Yeah the National Championship usually comes down to 2-3 teams, but if you had a playoff system, it wouldn't be that way.... teams wouldn't be punished for just one loss. I think it would take more excitement out of the regular season than the postseason.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 11:06 AM
So what you are saying is that the Steelers and Giants had no right winning those two Superbowls?

I wasn't aware that the NFL had a poll system to determine its championship game or the seeds in a proposed playoff. The NFL only has 2 conferences and those conference champions meet for the championship. In college football you have multiple conferences and those conferences meet in bowl games, the top 2 meeting for the championship game. If you went to a playoff system you could have 2 teams from the same conference meeting for the championship game, when in fact they've either already played each other in the regular season or in a conference championship game. You'd be ok with the NFL switching to a format where two AFC teams or two NFC teams could meet in the Super Bowl?

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 11:10 AM
So what you are saying is that the Steelers and Giants had no right winning those two Superbowls?

College football will never be what the pro game is until more of the country gets their fair share of hope. With the current system, you have a bad game late in the year, and your season is flushed. The playoffs is where the excitement LIVES. Not in the "Bill's Tire Barn Bowl".

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 11:11 AM
No, that is not the point at all. The point is the excitement of the NCAA tournament comes from giving several teams the opportunity to win a national championship. If all those great teams you mentioned truly deserved the national championship, they should have no problem beating those lesser 11 and 12 seeded teams. What's there to be afraid of? The only thing that would be gained under your scenario is more exciting 1st and 2nd round playoff games. Yeah the National Championship usually comes down to 2-3 teams, but if you had a playoff system, it wouldn't be that way.... teams wouldn't be punished for just one loss. I think it would take more excitement out of the regular season than the postseason.

Exactly. A playoff would remove some of the importance of regular season games. I love how every single game means so much in college football. In college football I'm more concerned with getting the right teams in the championship game than an overall 'excitement' factor. In college basketball there is much more parity and it's more difficult to compare/contrast team strengths.

"The point is the excitement of the NCAA tournament comes from giving several teams the opportunity to win a national championship."

My feeling is that the entirety of a season gives several teams the opportunity, and, in most cases, at the end of the season only 2-4 teams really deserve that opportunity.

Swanman
05-01-2008, 11:14 AM
It's sick that D-1 college football is the only sport where the championship game is decided by a freaking poll. While I agree that the best schools should be rewarded for great regular seasons, they should still have to earn that spot in the title game by winning a game or two in the postseason. Also, there are too many seasons where 1-loss teams are treated completely differently just due to which point in the season they got their loss (teams are unduly penalized for losses late in the season vs. teams that had their one loss early in the season). A 4 or 8 team tournament would be great football and would push college football way up in popularity.

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 11:16 AM
Exactly. A playoff would remove some of the importance of regular season games. I love how every single game means so much in college football. In college football I'm more concerned with getting the right teams in the championship game than an overall 'excitement' factor. In college basketball there is much more parity and it's more difficult to compare/contrast team strengths.

"The point is the excitement of the NCAA tournament comes from giving several teams the opportunity to win a national championship."

My feeling is that the entirety of a season gives several teams the opportunity, and, in most cases, at the end of the season only 2-4 teams really deserve that opportunity.

Every game in the NfL is important too. It also takes some teams a few games to get it together. With the BCS If you lose a couple games early You're ****ed. I see where you're coming from, but there will never be seriously strong argument against a playoff besides $$$$$$.

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 11:28 AM
Every game in the NfL is important too. It also takes some teams a few games to get it together. With the BCS If you lose a couple games early You're ****ed. I see where you're coming from, but there will never be seriously strong argument against a playoff besides $$$$$$.
I don't think that money is a strong argument either. If they handle it right a tournament would bring way more money in Television rights.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 11:34 AM
It's sick that D-1 college football is the only sport where the championship game is decided by a freaking poll. While I agree that the best schools should be rewarded for great regular seasons, they should still have to earn that spot in the title game by winning a game or two in the postseason. Also, there are too many seasons where 1-loss teams are treated completely differently just due to which point in the season they got their loss (teams are unduly penalized for losses late in the season vs. teams that had their one loss early in the season). A 4 or 8 team tournament would be great football and would push college football way up in popularity.

Some major conferences (ACC, SEC, Big XII) already have a post season called the conference championship game.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 11:34 AM
Every game in the NfL is important too. It also takes some teams a few games to get it together. With the BCS If you lose a couple games early You're ****ed. I see where you're coming from, but there will never be seriously strong argument against a playoff besides $$$$$$.

If EVERY game in the NFL was important you wouldn't have teams resting players while their playoff seeds were locked up.

Deberg_1990
05-01-2008, 11:36 AM
IM with DaKCman on this....

Id be fine with a +1 system. Most years there are only 2-3 definative top teams.

Another thing is, with too many teams, that would just be too many games.

Your going to ask your students, alumni, players, band members, etc to travel for 3 weeks straight in Jan?

The NCAA is probably scared of half empty stadiums if there is too many games.

Uncle_Ted
05-01-2008, 11:36 AM
They just needs to take the top eight teams and put them in the top seven bowls, probably Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and whatever other 2 and rotate them in a playoff. But their too ****ing stupid to realize that would make them even more money and I think could rival the NFL's popularity. As for the "too many games" BS argument have each team drop a reg. season game. We're up to 12 now I think. Every big school has some pointless gimme game with a DII school that could be dropped. Get rid of the conference championship games as well, or make every conference have one. All the teams not in the top 8 can play their usual crappy bowls that no one cares about anyway unless their team is in.

I can't believe they didn't even agree on a plus 1. God damn ****ing morons. The NCAA needs to step in tell the conference leaders to STFD and STFU and lay down the law.

That all makes too much sense ... and will therefore never happen. :cuss:

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 11:41 AM
If EVERY game in the NFL was important you wouldn't have teams resting players while their playoff seeds were locked up.

That doesn't happen till about week 15. I see your point, but those teams have earned that right.
You are honestly the first person who has ever made a case for the BCS to me. The system is broken, and there's only one way to fix it.

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 11:45 AM
JOINT NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. That is an oxymoron, and should NEVER be allowed to happen.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 11:47 AM
That doesn't happen till about week 15. I see your point, but those teams have earned that right.
You are honestly the first person who has ever made a case for the BCS to me. The system is broken, and there's only one way to fix it.

I don't envision a playoff system as a perfect system. I'm in favor of a plus-1 game, but that's it.

Mr. Kotter
05-01-2008, 12:35 PM
Too bad.

It's nothing but sheer arrogance and greed driving this.... :shake:

ct
05-01-2008, 01:23 PM
boycott the bowl games

BCD
05-01-2008, 01:46 PM
Shocking.

DaKCMan AP
05-01-2008, 01:47 PM
boycott the bowl games

good luck with that

BCD
05-01-2008, 01:51 PM
How big of a ****ing tool does one have to be, to think the BCS is a good system? Stupid.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-01-2008, 01:55 PM
Quit bitching about it. You guys aren't going to stop watching it, so they don't have to change a thing.

beach tribe
05-01-2008, 01:58 PM
Actually, I hardly watch it for that very reason.

Spott
05-01-2008, 04:08 PM
Some major conferences (ACC, SEC, Big XII) already have a post season called the conference championship game.


Yeah, but when teams like Nebraska and OU get blown out in those games and still get to get into the BCS championship game, those are meaningless too.

Spicy McHaggis
05-01-2008, 04:15 PM
2 more bowl games are added to the slate. Guaranteed service academies and Conference USA participation!!! AWESOME!!!! :shake:

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/599854.html

ArrowheadHawk
05-01-2008, 04:23 PM
2 more bowl games are added to the slate. Guaranteed service academies and Conference USA participation!!! AWESOME!!!! :shake:

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/599854.html:clap: I love it!


NOT! :banghead:

Guru
05-01-2008, 04:43 PM
Just do the bowl games the normal way. Keep the BCS ranking system and then do a plus 1 for the top 4 teams.

Bearcat
05-01-2008, 04:53 PM
Last year was obviously an exception, but most years the top 8 teams don't deserve a national title shot. Generally there are 2 teams separated from the rest and, at most, four. I support a plus-1 system, but not an all-out playoff. Every game every week should be treated as a playoff game.

I could see it pushed to 8 as well.

Number 8 this year prior to the bowls had 1 loss (Kansas). In 2006 there were 4 1-loss teams outside of OSU/Florida, and BSU was undefeated. In 2004 there were 8 zero or 1-loss teams.

Exactly. A playoff would remove some of the importance of regular season games. I love how every single game means so much in college football. In college football I'm more concerned with getting the right teams in the championship game than an overall 'excitement' factor. In college basketball there is much more parity and it's more difficult to compare/contrast team strengths.

"The point is the excitement of the NCAA tournament comes from giving several teams the opportunity to win a national championship."

My feeling is that the entirety of a season gives several teams the opportunity, and, in most cases, at the end of the season only 2-4 teams really deserve that opportunity.

I think the only time it would take away from the excitement of the regular season would be a situation like OSU/Michigan a couple of years ago. Had there been a playoff, both teams could have rested players knowing they would both still have a chance at a NC. But, how often does that happen? With a plus-one, or a 4-8 team playoff, teams still have to win all but one of their games to have a good chance at making the playoffs.

Texas/USC, "the year the BCS got it right", was a fluke. Of course, people will always argue about the last one in, if it's 2 vs 3 or 12 vs 13 or 64 vs 65... but there's too much parity and too many good teams to reward teams that start the season on top and teams named thatOhio State.