Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: I want teams in the playoff to be Conference Champions.

  1. #16
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    46,741
    Quote Originally Posted by peder View Post
    This proposal basically makes the non-conference games irrelevant, and since most conferences only play 8 of their 12 games in-conference, you make a full 1/3rd of their schedules pointless.
    Wrong.

    However they pick...computers, committee, etc. you are still going to have to be in the top 4 of conference champs. Conceivably you could win your conference but the lack of decent OOC games or losing one or two of them could get you shut out of the playoff.

    How many conferences are we realistically talking about? 7 or 8? That's a pool of let's say 8 teams that already met the big criteria...conference champion. What is going to differentiate them further? Certainly the toughness of their conference. But it's also going to come down to OOC as well. OOC is definitely not rendered meaningless.

    Even if it was lessened in importance I'd rather see that be the case than have the conference season diminished in importance.

  2. #17
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    46,741
    Quote Originally Posted by HuskerFanz View Post
    I don't understand that teams would think twice about patsies? I don't see any incentive to not schedule patsies if these wins will add to their win total. Are you saying patsy wins don't count?

    The current system actually encourages the teams in conferences like the Big 10, Big 12 to scedule weaklings in the OOC. The main objective is to go undefeated. Why risk a loss in the OOC? As long as you go undefeated in one of those conferences you are in the title game about 99.5% of the time.

    SEC is a different animal. THey are pretty much guaranteed a spot in the BCS title game...and possibly two. Under a 4 team playoff they will essentially be assured of 2 teams in the playoffs if there is no requirement for winning your conference.

  3. #18
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    46,741
    Quote Originally Posted by PimpMario View Post
    If you only take the top 4 teams ranked in the BCS than the regular season is meaningless to 100 to 108 teams. In other words after about week 7 only 4-8 teams would have a legitimate shot at making the playoff.
    That's already the way it is now...with 2 less teams that care. Only SEC teams can afford to lose a game in the regular season...once you do you are done for the most part. Season over in week 4! yay!

    A playoff system with a requirement to win your conference actually makes it so you can afford to possibly lose a game early in the conference season and get back in the mix...meaning MORE teams have something to play for for MORE of the season.

  4. #19
    Travel Squad

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by bilsker View Post
    Only SEC teams can afford to lose a game in the regular season...once you do you are done for the most part. Season over in week 4! yay!
    If we were to just let the top 4 BCS teams into the playoff, I think just about every year at least one one-loss team will make it in, which means you are still alive after a single loss. Last year, for example, if the top 4 BCS teams get in, three of the four would have made it in with one loss: Bama, Okie St and Stanford.

    Lots to play for after a single loss with the top four getting in.

    That being said, I also wouldn't mind the four playoff teams to be required to have won their conference. But in that case, you need to be prepared for some seasons where there are clearly worse teams in the playoffs than those left out, because of conference championships being won by lesser teams than second place teams in other conferences. There may even be seasons where there is only one top 10 team that wins its championship. The rest were either conference champs with multiple losses or maybe from weak conferences. That won't make for very interesting playoffs. Having the top four BCS in the playoff, regardless of whether they are conference champs, is going to consistently bring the most interesting playoff games. I would like to see a rule that if two teams from the same conference are in the top 4, then they are required to play each other in the semifinals, avoiding a rematch in the title game, if at all possible.
    "Those mothers would rather see the country go down in flames than let the times change."

    -- Samuel L. Jackson

  5. #20
    All Legend
    Greatest Fan of All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Multiple (Omaha, Las Vegas)
    Posts
    16,056
    Quote Originally Posted by utsker View Post
    If Bama was clearly the best team, then they should have cancelled the games and given them the trophy. Bama got in to the title game because OSU, Boise St and Stanford lost. Either of those teams goes undefeated and Bama doesn't sniff the title game.
    They were only clearly the best team after all of the games were played, not before. A VERY deserving national champ, despite not winning their conference.

  6. #21
    All Legend
    Greatest Fan of All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Multiple (Omaha, Las Vegas)
    Posts
    16,056
    Quote Originally Posted by the fountainhead View Post
    I agree. I think it is odd that Alabama lost to LSU last year in the regular season and was then awarded a rematch without even winning their division...
    That is known as respect. Respect for the team and the conference. That respect is easily justified.

  7. #22
    Red Shirt
    PimpMario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by bilsker View Post
    That's already the way it is now...with 2 less teams that care. Only SEC teams can afford to lose a game in the regular season...once you do you are done for the most part. Season over in week 4! yay!

    A playoff system with a requirement to win your conference actually makes it so you can afford to possibly lose a game early in the conference season and get back in the mix...meaning MORE teams have something to play for for MORE of the season.
    Right. That way it is now sucks. If we are going to make it better why not make it even better.

  8. #23
    All American
    Husker Country Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    27,344
    Personally, I don't think anyone outside of the top 8 can make a real argument they deserve to be national champion. A small number of teams eligible for the "Four Team event" keeps the regular season relevant.

    I think four teams is a good number, 8 is the absolute max.

    I think conference champions should automatically qualify for the event. That in essence doubles the teams that participate in this tournament.

    Win your division. Qualify for CCG (eight teams will do this). Win CCG, and you are in Four Team Event.

    I could see two at-larges being added, at some point.
    I'm skeptical of BP. I think he has plateaued.

    If a change is made:

    Hire a proven HC, OC, and DC. No on the job training.

    My biggest beef with BP: For such a tough-nosed head coach, BP cannot coach it into his players. Starters are not pushed by 2nd and 3rd stringers, because the backups cannot get on the field in a game, unless the starter is injured.

  9. #24
    I disagree with this because it pretty much makes the assumption that the 4 best teams (or 8 or hower many teams are in the playoff) are always going to be conference champions. So with a 4 team playoff last year here is how your system would have worked:
    1 LSU vs 4 Oregon (USC is ineligible)
    2 Oklahoma St vs 3 Stanford

    Notice anyone missing...like the BCS champion Alabama? The regular season still matters it just doesn't mean you have to win your conference. I think what's wrong with your proposal is that it assumes all conferences are equally strong, which clearly isn't true. I'd rather see the 4 best teams than the 4 conference champs.

    There's already controversy even with this example though lol. Oregon should be seeded ahead of Stanford since they beat them in my opinion. The problem is Stanford had one loss and Oregon had two ... but I don't think Oregon should be punished for scheduling LSU and Stanford's best out of conference opponent was Notre Dame. If USC had been eligible to play in the pac 12 championship this mess may have been able to be avoided by Oregon beating USC. Anywho...looks like we should expand to 8 teams to avoid this sort of problem

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Country Doc View Post
    Personally, I don't think anyone outside of the top 8 can make a real argument they deserve to be national champion. A small number of teams eligible for the "Four Team event" keeps the regular season relevant.
    I agree with this if you institute my proposed policy that an undefeated team ranked lower than 8 in the BCS gets in over the lowest ranking BCS team (ie undefeated houston gets in over 8. 12-1 Boise St.
    I think four teams is a good number, 8 is the absolute max.
    Agreed
    I think conference champions should automatically qualify for the event. That in essence doubles the teams that participate in this tournament.
    If this is done then you'll have to expand the field quite a bit...thus making the post season longer ... which will probably necessitate shortening the regular season. There are 12 FBS conferences. I actually kind of like this idea now that I'm writing about it....hmmm....

  11. #26
    How about this? I'll flesh this idea out in full later but conference champs are automatically in (there are 12 FBS conferences) and there are 6 at large bids. So a field of 18. There are a couple play in games. You trim the regular season by a game or two so the kids don't have to play so many games....







Posting Permissions

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