Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: One more step to playoffs..

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Moderator
    redmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    7,506

    One more step to playoffs..

    ..and making college football even better!!

    From the HM front page: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...osals-for-2014
    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
    “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)

  2. #2
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    4,158
    Here is the official press release:

    Bowl Championship Series
    Every Game Counts
    Bill Hancock, Executive Director

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    April 26, 2012
    CONTACT: Tracie Dittemore 913-341-8151


    Statement by the Eleven Conference Commissioners and the Notre Dame Athletics Director
    “As part of our deliberations, we have carefully considered a number of concepts concerning the post-season structure for the BCS. From the start, we set out to protect college football’s unique regular season which we see as the best regular season in sports. We are also mindful of the bowl tradition and seek to create a structure that continues to reward student-athletes with meaningful bowl appearances.

    “Having carefully reviewed calendars and schedules, we believe that either an 8-team or a 16-team playoff would diminish the regular season and harm the bowls. College football’s regular season is too important to diminish and we do not believe it’s in the best interest of student-athletes, fans, or alumni to harm the regular season.

    “Accordingly, as we proceed to review our options for improving the post-season, we have taken off the table both an 8-team and a 16-team playoff.

    “We will continue to meet and review the exact structure for what a new post-season could look like. We are making substantial progress. We will present to our conferences a very small number of four-team options, each of which could be carried out in a number of ways.

    “We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of in-bowl or out-of-bowl games.
    We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of campus sites or neutral sites. We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to rank or qualify teams.

    “Our process is proceeding as we have planned and we look forward to further conversations.”


    -30-

    About the Bowl Championship Series
    The BCS is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is managed by the 11 Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame. Its purpose is to match the two top-ranked teams in a national championship game and to create competitive match-ups in the four other BCS bowl games. For more information, visit http://www.bcsfootball.org.


    "I'm a firm believer in the theory that people only do their best at things they truly enjoy. It is difficult to excel at something you don't enjoy." – Jack Nicklaus

  3. #3
    Society Crazy Indeed
    Pops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    49,836
    yeah we'll have to wait a year or 2 before they go to 8 or 16 teams ...

    Having carefully reviewed calendars and schedules, we believe that either an 8-team or a 16-team playoff would diminish the regular season and harm the bowls. College football’s regular season is too important to diminish and we do not believe it’s in the best interest of student-athletes, fans, or alumni to harm the regular season.




  4. #4
    Dejected Fan
    redarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    11,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Pops View Post
    yeah we'll have to wait a year or 2 before they go to 8 or 16 teams ...
    sad but true.

    I have said all along that this was such an easy fix and should have been done from the start of the BCS. Taking the top 4 teams that finish in the BCS and playing them in a 4 team playoff is a win, win.

    I know we have a few around here that will argue (to no point) that it isnt but it really is a win win. Look back over last 30 years and take a look at the AP and USA Today polls heading into the bowl season and you will find 3 or 4 really good teams that stick out above the rest. You will always have team 5 trying to make a case, Hell, you had team 65 crying that they didnt make the 64 in basketball.

    The point is is that you will never please everybody but year in and year out you will find 3 or 4 teams that prevailed and stood out above the rest, those 4 teams will play a round and then the winners will play for the title. This is a great thing and will make college football better than it is today.
    That's not what he said you ignorant wretch. Your Spanish is worse than your English! - Johnny Ringo.

  5. #5
    Scout Team
    DuckTownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    4,492
    Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

    For 2011, here's what it would have looked like:


    Only two teams - LSU and Oklahoma State - were both a Top 4 Team AND a Conference Champion. The conference winner scenario gets even further muddied because Boise State was ranked higher (#7) than Wisconsin (#10).

    Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.

    My personal opinion? They need a caveat. Take the Top 4 Conference Winners, as long as those Conference Winners finish within the Top 6 of the BCS. The remaining spots (if any) are filled using remaining BCS-ranked teams. At-Large teams are automatically ranked below all the conference winners.

    With my Top 6 BCS rule, you would see (#1 LSU v. #5 Oregon) and (#3 Oklahoma State v. at-Large Alabama). Personally, I think that those four teams were also the ones playing the best football last year.
    5 National Titles. 9 Undefeated Seasons. 50 Bowl Appearances. 43 Conference Championships. 10 Division Titles.

    3 Heisman Winners. 54 Consensus All-Americans. 28 Major Award Winners. 23 College Football Hall of Famers.

    There is No Place Like Nebraska.


  6. #6
    Guest
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Valencia, CA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

    For 2011, here's what it would have looked like:


    Only two teams - LSU and Oklahoma State - were both a Top 4 Team AND a Conference Champion. The conference winner scenario gets even further muddied because Boise State was ranked higher (#7) than Wisconsin (#10).

    Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.

    My personal opinion? They need a caveat. Take the Top 4 Conference Winners, as long as those Conference Winners finish within the Top 6 of the BCS. The remaining spots (if any) are filled using remaining BCS-ranked teams. At-Large teams are automatically ranked below all the conference winners.

    With my Top 6 BCS rule, you would see (#1 LSU v. #5 Oregon) and (#3 Oklahoma State v. at-Large Alabama). Personally, I think that those four teams were also the ones playing the best football last year.
    DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by B1GRedFootballFan View Post
    DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.
    There wouldn't be anything automatic for any of the power conferences, from what I've been reading. If a MAC champion goes undefeated, they'd have a decent shot at moving into the Top 3/4 just like Boise St and TCU were able to do from the WAC and MWC conferences, respectively

  8. #8
    Junior Varsity
    MyBraska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    behind enemy lines in Boulder County
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by B1GRedFootballFan View Post
    DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.
    I agree with most of this scenario. However, to make ND equivalent to the conferences is not a good thing. Just including the big conferences may force their hand and drop independence.
    (old Gaelic saying) Chan eil h-uile facal sireadh freagairt. Not every question requires an answer.

  9. #9
    Guest

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sitting just quietly under the cork tree, smelling the flowers
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

    Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.
    I do too. But as you pointed out and your great graphic illustrated, that gives different results than the top 4 teams by rankings. The problem resolves (to a large extent but not completely) by doing this with 8 teams and almost entirely with 16 so the conference champions will work then.

    The MNC playoff is likely to evolve further from 4 teams at some point in the future, so doing it "right" now by going with conference champions will set things up for a move to 8 or 16 teams later. Kind of like the current 2-team match-up now: it is a stepping stone.

    If a conference has 2 or even 3 teams in the top 8, the conference champion only goes. Since they would have been chosen by the conference, in many cases as the result of a CCG, then the others failed to reach the MNC play-offs by their own fault. The conference champ was crowned fair and square by the conference. If that didn't work out "fairly", then it is the conference's issue, not the BCS' issue. If the conference champion falls in the MNC playoffs, then the conference teams that didn't make it in have nothing to complain about, since their own conference considered them less likely to win than the conference champion, in effect. If the conference believes their process of choosing a champion is good, then they and their member schools don't get to complain if their best school is beaten. Oh wait, we really should have sent a different school! That doesn't fly.

    It will be interesting to see what effect the conferences adding/changing members across geographic lines will have. It currently seems to be making the rich richer (B1G, SEC) but those were the opening steps in the process so who knows. But if farther down the road the conferences continue realigning and things balance out more, it will make the conference champ play-off even more of a sound approach. If not then it really isn't any different than it is today in terms of end results; the MNC champ will still likely come from the SEC, B1G, Big 12(x), or PACx. So parity between conferences isn't likely going to effect things one way or the other.

  10. #10
    All Legend
    Greatest Fan of All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Multiple (Omaha, Las Vegas)
    Posts
    16,049
    Obviously, conference championships should have NOTHING to do with it, other than you should NOT be allowed to compete for a national championship if you could not win your conference.

  11. #11
    Scout Team
    DuckTownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    4,492
    If the playoffs expand to 8 or 16 teams, you'll have a hard time justifying conference winners. Yes, conference winners "earned it on the field," but can you really claim that the winner of the MAC or SunBelt was a better team than Wisconsin? Than Nebraska? Than Northwestern, even?

    There are two arguments here - and both are valid. You either pick the conference winners, or you try to pick the "best" teams. For kicks, here's what a full blown 16-team playoff would look like using either Conference Winners or Top BCS Teams:

    TOP 16 BCS Conference Winners
    #1 LSU #1 LSU (SEC)
    #2 Alabama
    #3 Oklahoma State (B12)
    #3 Oklahoma State #5 Oregon (PAC)
    #4 Stanford #10 Wisconsin (B10)
    #5 Oregon #15 Clemson (ACC)
    #6 Arkansas #18 TCU (MWC)
    #7 Boise State #19 Houston (CUSA)
    #8 Kansas State #23 West Virginia (East)
    #9 South Carolina #UR Louisiana Tech (WAC)
    #10 Wisconsin #UR Northern Illinois (MAC)
    #11 Virginia Tech #UR Arkansas State (SUN)
    #12 Baylor #UR BYU (IND)
    #13 Michigan #AL Alabama
    #14 Oklahoma #AL Stanford
    #15 Clemson #AL Arkansas
    #16 Georgia #AL Boise State


    The duplicate teams are in bold - they'd make the cut no matter which option you choose. In other words, we can cancel them out. So which list would you rather see round out the bracket?

    Kansas State TCU
    South Carolina Houston
    Virginia Tech West Virginia
    Baylor Louisiana Tech
    Michigan Northern Illinois
    Oklahoma Arkansas State
    Georgia BYU
    5 National Titles. 9 Undefeated Seasons. 50 Bowl Appearances. 43 Conference Championships. 10 Division Titles.

    3 Heisman Winners. 54 Consensus All-Americans. 28 Major Award Winners. 23 College Football Hall of Famers.

    There is No Place Like Nebraska.


  12. #12
    All Legend
    Greatest Fan of All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Multiple (Omaha, Las Vegas)
    Posts
    16,049
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    If the playoffs expand to 8 or 16 teams, you'll have a hard time justifying conference winners. Yes, conference winners "earned it on the field," but can you really claim that the winner of the MAC or SunBelt was a better team than Wisconsin? Than Nebraska? Than Northwestern, even?

    There are two arguments here - and both are valid. You either pick the conference winners, or you try to pick the "best" teams. For kicks, here's what a full blown 16-team playoff would look like using either Conference Winners or Top BCS Teams:

    TOP 16 BCS Conference Winners
    #1 LSU #1 LSU (SEC)
    #2 Alabama
    #3 Oklahoma State (B12)
    #3 Oklahoma State #5 Oregon (PAC)
    #4 Stanford #10 Wisconsin (B10)
    #5 Oregon #15 Clemson (ACC)
    #6 Arkansas #18 TCU (MWC)
    #7 Boise State #19 Houston (CUSA)
    #8 Kansas State #23 West Virginia (East)
    #9 South Carolina #UR Louisiana Tech (WAC)
    #10 Wisconsin #UR Northern Illinois (MAC)
    #11 Virginia Tech #UR Arkansas State (SUN)
    #12 Baylor #UR BYU (IND)
    #13 Michigan #AL Alabama
    #14 Oklahoma #AL Stanford
    #15 Clemson #AL Arkansas
    #16 Georgia #AL Boise State


    The duplicate teams are in bold - they'd make the cut no matter which option you choose. In other words, we can cancel them out. So which list would you rather see round out the bracket?

    Kansas State TCU
    South Carolina Houston
    Virginia Tech West Virginia
    Baylor Louisiana Tech
    Michigan Northern Illinois
    Oklahoma Arkansas State
    Georgia BYU
    Obviously, the top BCS list humiliates the conference winners list. One more reason why considering using conference winners as a selection criteria is syupid.

  13. #13
    Guest

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Siberia or South Dakota
    Posts
    16,054
    Top 8 BcS would do for now

  14. #14
    Scout Team
    DuckTownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    4,492
    I still think what they could have done is take the winners of the four BCS Bowls and put them in a playoff. In essence, the BCS Bowls would then kick off the playoff season. Yeah, it adds a few more games to the season for a couple teams, but who wouldn't want that?

    Under this system, LSU would have gone to the Sugar and probably beaten Michigan and/or Virginia Tech. You'd be looking at LSU, Oregon, West Virginia and Oklahoma State, which is another way to make a Top 4 that I can live with.

    You'd be looking at a potential rematch of LSU/Oregon, and get a great Cinderella story in West Virginia who unexpected dominated Clemson in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma State would be the typical "bridesmaid" story line. Ton of great media write ups in that selection.

    Also, it's a team from the SEC, PAC, Big 12 and Big East which I can deal with. Would like more B1G/ACC representation, but they didn't step up come bowl season.
    5 National Titles. 9 Undefeated Seasons. 50 Bowl Appearances. 43 Conference Championships. 10 Division Titles.

    3 Heisman Winners. 54 Consensus All-Americans. 28 Major Award Winners. 23 College Football Hall of Famers.

    There is No Place Like Nebraska.








Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •