Now I can say this about Division 1 College Football

[Phil C]

WE NEED A REAL PLAYOFF SYSTEM! :mad:

I am glad UT is in the final one but we still need a playoff system. I can say that now because before someone might have said I was only saying that because UT was not in it like last year. Well guess what - they are in it this year and I still say we need a playoff system at least with the top 8 teams. There would still be pleanty of teams available for bowls. There are 68 teams playing in bowls and they could still have them. In fact between the top 8 teams there would be a few more games that would generate even more money which the college presidents and NCAA want.
This is just common sense and what the fans want and we could have a "real" national champion instead of a mythical one.


:mad:

[GrTigers6]

Originally posted by Phil C
WE NEED A REAL PLAYOFF SYSTEM! :mad:

I am glad UT is in the final one but we still need a playoff system. I can say that now because before someone might have said I was only saying that because UT was not in it like last year. Well guess what - they are in it this year and I still say we need a playoff system at least with the top 8 teams. There would still be pleanty of teams available for bowls. There are 68 teams playing in bowls and they could still have them. In fact between the top 8 teams there would be a few more games that would generate even more money which the college presidents and NCAA want.
This is just common sense and what the fans want and we could have a "real" national champion instead of a mythical one.


:mad: But you still get 8 teams voted in instead of earning the right to make the playoffs. I agree we need a playoff system. But to be completely fair it needs to be a system similar to our high school playoff system.
But with that said, I know that will never happen so I will definetly take your solution over the current system.

[PhiI C]

Originally posted by GrTigers6
But you still get 8 teams voted in instead of earning the right to make the playoffs. I agree we need a playoff system. But to be completely fair it needs to be a system similar to our high school playoff system.
But with that said, I know that will never happen so I will definetly take your solution over the current system.

I agree that it would be better to at least take 16 teams but that may be pushing our luck the first time. Right now we can't even get 8 or even 4 teams.

[slpybear the bullfan]

I agree Phil!

And Show Some Compassion!!!

[GreenMonster]

TCU got gypped. Not only did they get jumped in the final poll by Cincy (who barely managed to best Pitt) but then they get matched up with the only other non-BCS school to get a BCS game. Neither team will prove anything by beating up on each other. Boise State and TCU are being mocked by the BCS selection committee for having great season but not allowed to show the nation that they can compete with the big conference schools. Pathetic. NCAA should be ashamed of themselves.

[SintonPirateFan]

i was pissed last year when Texas didn't get into the NCG, and can feel TCU/Cinci's pain this year. but what Div I-A football does NOT need is a playoff. you put a playoff into the works and you will have teams playing juuuuust hard enough to make the playoffs. EVERY week is important with the system the way it is now. you make a playoff system and it'll be like college basketball--nobody cares until March.

is the BCS flawed? sure. are the computer rankings a crock? you bet. but is it better than a playoff? absolutely.

[PhiI C]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
TCU got gypped. Not only did they get jumped in the final poll by Cincy (who barely managed to best Pitt) but then they get matched up with the only other non-BCS school to get a BCS game. Neither team will prove anything by beating up on each other. Boise State and TCU are being mocked by the BCS selection committee for having great season but not allowed to show the nation that they can compete with the big conference schools. Pathetic. NCAA should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree Green. It would have been better for TCU and Boise State to have played against other tpp teams and if they won it would have have helped their cause. That is a shame.

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by PhiI C
I agree Green. It would have been better for TCU and Boise State to have played against other tpp teams and if they won it would have have helped their cause. That is a shame.


i agree on this part of this thread. TCU/Florida.....Boise/Cinci would have been outstanding games!! i was really hoping that is how it would turn out. i would have loved to see tcu throttle the gators like utah did to bama last year.

[Deuce]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
TCU got gypped. Not only did they get jumped in the final poll by Cincy (who barely managed to best Pitt) but then they get matched up with the only other non-BCS school to get a BCS game. Neither team will prove anything by beating up on each other. Boise State and TCU are being mocked by the BCS selection committee for having great season but not allowed to show the nation that they can compete with the big conference schools. Pathetic. NCAA should be ashamed of themselves.

Ended up just the way the BCS wanted it to. They would have never put tcu against Florida, because if they beat them they would have had the same problem they did with Utah last year. And they don't want that kind of pub again. This way whoever wins the tcu/boise game will not even get mentioned as national champ because they didn't beat a BCS school.

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
i was pissed last year when Texas didn't get into the NCG, and can feel TCU/Cinci's pain this year. but what Div I-A football does NOT need is a playoff. you put a playoff into the works and you will have teams playing juuuuust hard enough to make the playoffs. EVERY week is important with the system the way it is now. you make a playoff system and it'll be like college basketball--nobody cares until March.

is the BCS flawed? sure. are the computer rankings a crock? you bet. but is it better than a playoff? absolutely.


Wrong. Teams would play just as hard for a higher seed and home field advantage.

[Deuce]

Originally posted by Daddy D 11
Wrong. Teams would play just as hard for a higher seed and home field advantage.

Damn, I actually agree with you again.

[Third]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
i was pissed last year when Texas didn't get into the NCG, and can feel TCU/Cinci's pain this year. but what Div I-A football does NOT need is a playoff. you put a playoff into the works and you will have teams playing juuuuust hard enough to make the playoffs. EVERY week is important with the system the way it is now. you make a playoff system and it'll be like college basketball--nobody cares until March.

is the BCS flawed? sure. are the computer rankings a crock? you bet. but is it better than a playoff? absolutely.

But teams could schedule tougher regular season games without the fear of one loss costing them a shot at the title. You would see more big game matchups by schools to prepare for the playoffs.

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by Third
But teams could schedule tougher regular season games without the fear of one loss costing them a shot at the title. You would see more big game matchups by schools to prepare for the playoffs.

Thank you.

Have the system to where there is not pre-season ranking. The rankings come out after 6 or 8 weeks. That way a team that starts out low is not at a disadvantage. At the end of the 12th week 1 through 16 is seed and the bottom 8 seeds hit the road and duke it out. Then again. Then, the final four is hosted in some city with the national championship 2 weeks later in another city. Give the teams an extra week to rest.


Season would still end at the same time. You could even have it to where one final four game is called the tostitos fiesta semi-final and the other the orange bowl whatever semi-final and have the national championship called god knows what.

[NateDawg39]

I like the idea of not having pre-season rankings. Especially when certain teams will get beat 3 times and still be in the top 20.

And lets be honest, it will be a while before teams like UNT, Western Kentucky, Duke, and Baylor make a run for the NC. So really we know that a top 30 ranking system is pretty fair in that regard. Lots of teams wont win 7 or 8 games a year. Its just figuring out what to do when a TCU or Cinci come about every once in a while because it would seem like a reward system would benefit college football. Say TCU is not considered a BCS team, well if they have a stellar year and win 9 or 10 or 11 games, they should be allowed to play in a larger game against a larger opponent. And if they win, hey congrats lets see yall do it again next year and the year after that.

[GrTigers6]

I would be willing to bet that if there was a playoff system to determine a "True" National Champion, allowing a cinderella team the chance to fight for the title, Then you would see the national championship game over time become more popular and viewed more than the superbowl.
The players in college, for the most part, play for the joy and not for the money or to see if they can make it to the endzone so they can show off there new td dance that they worked on all week instead of preparing for the game.
There are several people that dont watch college football because of the BCS system. Look at the Final Four in basketball. I guarantee you its bigger than the nba finals.
Just my opinion:thinking:

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by Third
But teams could schedule tougher regular season games without the fear of one loss costing them a shot at the title. You would see more big game matchups by schools to prepare for the playoffs.

Absolutely... I hate the one-loss and your season is done mentality of the pollsters.

[Daddy D 11]

I've also always screamed at people when they say it's a money issue. And granted I don't think the method I have suggested above gives the Universities "as much" money but I still think they get a ton because think about this.

Say you are a damn good football team and you are seeded #3. Well, under the playoff format you will host the first round game against the #14 seed. That's another home game for your university, more tickets sales, concessions, hotels-business revenues for your city and more media attention on your campus. Then, going with the predictable you win that game. Now you are still the higher seeded team in your next matchup and you do it all over again.

To me that looks like PLENTY of incentives to play hard during the year, schedule tougher teams and out weighs the buzz kill of a 30 day waiting period before playing 5,000 miles away in front of a split crowd.

Then if it is about money have a flat sum that each university gets for reaching the final four and another bonus for advancing to the title game.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
... but what Div I-A football does NOT need is a playoff. you put a playoff into the works and you will have teams playing juuuuust hard enough to make the playoffs. EVERY week is important with the system the way it is now. you make a playoff system and it'll be like college basketball--nobody cares until March.
Tell that to Auburn (04), Cincy, TCU, and Boise. There is no way you can tell them (with a straight face) that we don't need a playoff.

How about this scenario: What if Oregon had gone undefeated? You would have an undefeated member of the Big East, SEC, Big XII, and PAC-10. PLUS an undefeated TCU.

The system is broken beyond repair. What we're telling kids is that if you play on the right team, in the right conference, in the right year, we might let you play for a championship. Buuuuuuuuut if you play for a "minor" conference team you will never get a shot at winning it all. And isn't that what you play for? To win it all?

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What we're telling kids is that if you play on the right team, in the right conference, in the right year, we might let you play for a championship. Buuuuuuuuut if you play for a "minor" conference team you will never get a shot at winning it all.

Well said.

Pertaining to my whole theory, I think it makes good sense and work very well except for one thing. I can't figure out how conference championship games would work?

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by Third
But teams could schedule tougher regular season games without the fear of one loss costing them a shot at the title. You would see more big game matchups by schools to prepare for the playoffs.


sure you'd see tougher schedules, because the games during the regular season would mean LESS. all of the sudden, one or two losses during the regular season doesn't matter. i'm happy having 13 weeks of potential upsets cost a team instead of having 4 weeks of playoffs, after 10 or 11 weeks of games that don't mean as much.

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
sure you'd see tougher schedules, because the games during the regular season would mean LESS. all of the sudden, one or two losses during the regular season doesn't matter. i'm happy having 13 weeks of potential upsets cost a team instead of having 4 weeks of playoffs, after 10 or 11 weeks of games that don't mean as much.

Because of that risk, in week 11 Florida and Alabama played Florida International and Chattanooga.

You mean to tell me those games mean something?

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by Daddy D 11
Because of that risk, in week 11 Florida and Alabama played Florida International and Chattanooga.

You mean to tell me those games mean something?


if fla intl or chat had pulled off an upset, you going to say they wouldn't?

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
if fla intl or chat had pulled off an upset, you going to say they wouldn't?


They could have played 100 more times and neither FIU or Chattanooga would have ever walked away with a win.

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by Daddy D 11
They could have played 100 more times and neither FIU or Chattanooga would have ever walked away with a win.

stranger things have happened....

i can't think of any at the moment, but i'm sure they have...

[Daddy D 11]

This year Texas had Louisiana Monroe and UCF on their schedule. They won both those games by a combined 94-23. Florida beat Charleston Southern and Troy a combined 118-9.

You cannot sit here and tell anyone on here that those games matter or that they ever will.

In 1981, without the BCS, Alabama's 3 non conference games were Texas, Penn State and Rutgers. In 1985 their non conference match-ups were USC, Penn State, Cincinnati and Texas A&M.


Now those games matter. Today you would be hard pressed to find any single team doing this. And that's because the risk is not worth the reward.

[GR FAN]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
I agree Phil!

And Show Some Compassion!!!

Green, i couldnt agree with your more. Did they think that the general public wouldnt catch on. I feel the BCS is more inept now than anytime before. They could have answered alot of questions by letting TCU play Forida.

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by GR FAN
Green, i couldnt agree with your more. Did they think that the general public wouldnt catch on. I feel the BCS is more inept now than anytime before. They could have answered alot of questions by letting TCU play Forida. Id rather watch them play Florida instead of Forida personally :D

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by GrTigers6
Like a Bi-District playoff


That wouldn't work because your Big 12 championship could be between the #2 and #5 seeds for example and then you would be messing with the seedings. I think you would just have to have regular season champions of each division in each conference and you get a small bonus for that as well. That way everyone is still getting all their money.

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by SintonFan
You don't seed until after the Conference Championships...
or eliminate the Conference Championships.:eek:


Yeah that's basically what I was doing. Essentially you just have a south winner and north winner each year. And they get an added bonus for doing so but they never play. Because if they are good enough, eventually they will meet up.

[Daddy D 11]

WOS87 is a commie :eek:

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by Daddy D 11
WOS87 is a commie :eek: Thats what I heard just now

[WOS87]

LOL!

Спасибо, товарищ!

[Third]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
sure you'd see tougher schedules, because the games during the regular season would mean LESS. all of the sudden, one or two losses during the regular season doesn't matter. i'm happy having 13 weeks of potential upsets cost a team instead of having 4 weeks of playoffs, after 10 or 11 weeks of games that don't mean as much.

Tougher opponents mean big money during the regular season. You telling me that Texas didn't pack the house for Ohio State or vice versa? Or that a Florida-Oklahoma or Alabama-USC wouldn't be huge for those universities money-wise? You'd start seeing teams finally start scheduling Boise St. and TCU during the regular season.

Plus, playing better competition makes you a better team. I seriously doubt that any team would schedule four or five of these type of game during the year because you obviously have conference games/rivals etc but two or three a year would probably be a lock.

[SintonPirateFan]

looks like phil may get his wish after all.....




WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress has meatier targets to tackle.


The bill, which faces steep odds, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.

"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.

The BCS selections announced last weekend pit two unbeaten teams, No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas, in the Jan. 7 national title game. Three other undefeated teams -- TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State -- will play in a BCS bowl game, but not for the championship.

"What can we say -- it's December and the BCS is in chaos again," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.

The legislation, which goes to the full committee, would make it illegal to promote a national championship game "or make a similar representation," unless it results from a playoff.

There is no Senate version, although Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has pressed for a Justice Department antitrust investigation into the BCS.

Shortly after his election last year, Barack Obama said there should be a playoff system.

In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

Yet Barrow wasn't alone in criticizing his colleagues' priorities; Reps. Zach Space, D-Ohio, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., made similar arguments. Space said that with people facing tough times, the decision to focus on college football sends the "wrong message."

The bill has a tough road ahead, given the wide geographic representation and political clout of schools in the six conferences -- the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC -- that get automatic BCS bowl bids

The current college bowl system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings. Eight other schools play in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls.

Under the BCS, the champions of those six big conference get automatic bids, while other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive far more money than the other conferences.

[Third]

All I've got to say is, what the hell else have they done exactly?