FBS Playoffs......Sort of..

[Bison03]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8099205

[Bison"FANatic"]

Finally, It may not be perfect but its a start.

[reformedUNDfan]

I like this setup. Not a big fan of excessively large playoff systems like the fcs, where roughly 1/4 of the participating programs make the playoffs in a given year.

[EndZoneQB]

I like this setup. Not a big fan of excessively large playoff systems like the fcs, where roughly 1/4 of the participating programs make the playoffs in a given year.

16 was a good number, but I do like the seeding aspect of the 20 team playoff(I think that's new, no?). 24 just feels like too many...

[Strommer10]

Finally, It may not be perfect but its a start.
I think 8 is about the perfect number for the BCS. No more than that. For right now, this is where it needed to go though. Baby steps... I'm glad they realized that some sort of playoff system needed to be set in place. Only problem I have with just 4 teams, is that it will still be tough for a team like Boise State to get into in the "tournament" if they run the table. If you're not in a power conference, you'll still most likely be left out.

[EndZoneQB]

20 is not even close to 1/4 of 122.

24 is about 1/5th of 122...thats not that far off lol

[HandoEX]

Disregard my previous post.

[ndsubison1]

4 teams is perfect. normally it comes down to that anyways. it protects most of the bowls and the regular season. there will always be a debate with teams left out. it should help improve teams trying to improve their schedules to have a good resume. one thing they still need to discuss is revenue distribution.

[Herd]

So in FBS football, 5 conferences should have a shot at a title, and 5 conferences should be locked out even when they are undefeated? And you guys think that's right? Will a MWC, Big E, or CUSA team that is undeated get in? No, they never will. I can't imagine any MWC coach or administrator who would say good things about this "playoff".

This is the equivalent of the FCS doing a 4 team playoff and choosing from the CAA, Big Sky, Southern, and MVFC only, excluding the rest of the FCS.

[TransAmBison]

Disregard my previous post.I generally disregard most of your posts anyway. :)

[NorthernBison]

So in FBS football, 5 conferences should have a shot at a title, and 5 conferences should be locked out even when they are undefeated? And you guys think that's right? Will a MWC, Big E, or CUSA team that is undeated get in? No, they never will. I can't imagine any MWC coach or administrator who would say good things about this "playoff".

This is the equivalent of the FCS doing a 4 team playoff and choosing from the CAA, Big Sky, Southern, and MVFC only, excluding the rest of the FCS.

That's about right. I'd say only about 4 conferences should be considered for having teams in the "playoff" (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12). Some years even the PAC 12 has little to argue about. Finding the best 4 teams in the nation is seldom much of an argument.

The ideal structure (from a competition viewpoint) for Division 1 college football would be an upper level with four conferences holding anywhere from 48-64 teams total. The middle level should be most of the rest of the current FBS and about the top 1/3 of FCS. The lower subdivision should be the bottom 2/3 of the current FCS and the really horrible FBS programs (ones that shouldn't be there now).

[bisonaudit]

That's about right. I'd say only about 4 conferences should be considered for having teams in the "playoff" (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12). Some years even the PAC 12 has little to argue about. Finding the best 4 teams in the nation is seldom much of an argument.

The ideal structure (from a competition viewpoint) for Division 1 college football would be an upper level with four conferences holding anywhere from 48-64 teams total. The middle level should be most of the rest of the current FBS and about the top 1/3 of FCS. The lower subdivision should be the bottom 2/3 of the current FCS and the really horrible FBS programs (ones that shouldn't be there now).

I think you're absolutely correct about this. This is exactly where the power conferences are trying to take the system. This new structure is a 12 year deal. They're looking to lock in their money and lock out the smaller conferences.

NDSU needs to stay on their toes and keep themselves positioned to remain in the 2nd tier of collegiate football as this evolves instead of getting relegated to the third tier as happened the last time around. Timing will be critical and the moment won't necessarily be obvious except in hindsight. Right now I don't think the economic model for the directional Michigan's and the like makes any sense and NDSU is better off in 1-AA for the time being but that's likely to change over the course of this new agreement.

[HerdBot]

I like this setup. Not a big fan of excessively large playoff systems like the fcs, where roughly 1/4 of the participating programs make the playoffs in a given year.

This isnt hockey where there are 58 total team and only 10 good ones. Football had so many good teams they are all worthy

[HerdBot]

Improvement but still lame. The good news is its a step in the right direction and the odds of a full playoff in about 10 years just got better.

[HerdBot]

I think you're absolutely correct about this. This is exactly where the power conferences are trying to take the system. This new structure is a 12 year deal. They're looking to lock in their money and lock out the smaller conferences.

NDSU needs to stay on their toes and keep themselves positioned to remain in the 2nd tier of collegiate football as this evolves instead of getting relegated to the third tier as happened the last time around. Timing will be critical and the moment won't necessarily be obvious except in hindsight. Right now I don't think the economic model for the directional Michigan's and the like makes any sense and NDSU is better off in 1-AA for the time being but that's likely to change over the course of this new agreement.

I agree. In 12 years we will be in a much better situation. Get ready. Make FBS plans but enjoy the next 12 years.

[SDbison]

So in FBS football, 5 conferences should have a shot at a title, and 5 conferences should be locked out even when they are undefeated? And you guys think that's right? Will a MWC, Big E, or CUSA team that is undeated get in? No, they never will. I can't imagine any MWC coach or administrator who would say good things about this "playoff".

This is the equivalent of the FCS doing a 4 team playoff and choosing from the CAA, Big Sky, Southern, and MVFC only, excluding the rest of the FCS. Nice post. I like to ignore the elitists here or elsewhere that think just because you come from the 4 biggest FBS conferences they always should be the only teams represented in the biggest bowl games or this stupid 4 team playoff. With 120 teams a 4 team playoff is not a playoff........just a popularity contest with 3 total games. Again, its all about the money. If they ever get a 8 or 16 team playoff for the FBS level with most conferences representeds then we are talking playoffs.

[NorthernBison]

Nice post. I like to ignore the elitists here or elsewhere that think just because you come from the 4 biggest FBS conferences they always should be the only teams represented in the biggest bowl games or this stupid 4 team playoff. With 120 teams a 4 team playoff is not a playoff........just a popularity contest with 3 total games. Again, its all about the money. If they ever get a 8 or 16 team playoff for the FBS level with most conferences representeds then we are talking playoffs.

They won't. It took 100 years to get to this.

[Bison03]

Seeing all the news about this, you would have thought this is the biggest thing in sports history. Calling this system "playoffs" is in insult to FCS, Division II, Division III, and NAIA football. They have been having real playoffs for years. They know what is right. The fact that they made it a 12 year deal is so crazy. The BCS feels like they caved and have given the people who were wanting a playoff what they wanted. Well, they haven't. They said they wanted to keep the bowls intact because of tradition. Everyone knows schools like bowl games because of money. What would be the problem with having a 16 team playoff? There are 11 conferences in FBS. Every conference winner gets a bid either by regular season or by conference championship game, depending on conference. Then there would be 5 at large teams that would make it. It would only take 2 more weeks of games in December. NDSU played 3 games in December before a title game, I think the big boys in FBS could handle it too. Nobody gives a crap about the frys.com bowl or the insight bowl. If you are a 6-5 team, you do not deserve to play more games after the regular season. The BCS does not care about who is the best team in the nation to call themselves national champions. They care about money. When interviewing the BCS commissioner about the new "playoffs", he said that the priorities was to get tv deals set, then the bid process for the title game set. Nothing about how this will be good for student athletes. How much money is the BCS going to get from host cities bidding for that game like the Super Bowl. I can almost gaurantee that Jerry Jones will fork over the most to get the game in his palace down in Big D. While most out there, especially in national sports media, are giddy over the new "playoff" system; I think it is just a sad attempt at a real playoff structure.

[The_Sicatoka]

Playoff-playoff-playoff! And then it's just four teams.

Mr. T looks at those who came up with this and says ...

http://www.bodymod.org/smilies/mrt.gif --< "I pity you."

[ndsubison1]

So in FBS football, 5 conferences should have a shot at a title, and 5 conferences should be locked out even when they are undefeated? And you guys think that's right? Will a MWC, Big E, or CUSA team that is undeated get in? No, they never will. I can't imagine any MWC coach or administrator who would say good things about this "playoff".

This is the equivalent of the FCS doing a 4 team playoff and choosing from the CAA, Big Sky, Southern, and MVFC only, excluding the rest of the FCS.

yet the last time a team that didnt win from one of those conferences was 1987

[56BISON73]

Nice post. I like to ignore the elitists here or elsewhere that think just because you come from the 4 biggest FBS conferences they always should be the only teams represented in the biggest bowl games or this stupid 4 team playoff. With 120 teams a 4 team playoff is not a playoff........just a popularity contest with 3 total games. Again, its all about the money. If they ever get a 8 or 16 team playoff for the FBS level with most conferences representeds then we are talking playoffs.

They really didnt want a playoff. This was done to appease the ground swell for one. There solution gave them what they wanted and the big schools still control the money. Notice how they didnt even give themselves the option to tweak the # of teams in the future by having a 12 year deal. Once the big dogs figured they would still be able to get the lions share of the money with this format then they were ok with a (snicker snicker) playoff.

[Herd]

This playoff is a Pig with lipstick. It is the equivalent of DI basketball moving to a 16 team tournament and telling 25 of the 33 conferences that you are no longer invited. If my team was in the MWC, I'd be pissed.

They need:

12 team tourney, 8 conf champs*, 4 at large. Top 4 seeds get a bye. Bring balance to FBS football instead of greed and elitism.

* lowest 4 champs play in for 2 Spots in the 8.

This would also stop all the jumping around. All conferences would have a shot at the championship. This is just sad for FBS football.

[NorthernBison]

When was the last time there was a team ranked #4 in the BCS that people thought should be in the Title game? I'm guessing never. We've had three, I'don't remember ever having four, and I guaranty there has never been 5. Four is enough for me. I have no desire to watch the Champ of the Big East get curbstomped by the third team from the SEC.

[reformedUNDfan]

When was the last time there was a team ranked #4 in the BCS that people thought should be in the Title game? I'm guessing never. We've had three, I'don't remember ever having four, and I guaranty there has never been 5. Four is enough for me. I have no desire to watch the Champ of the Big East get curbstomped by the third team from the SEC. see 2008 and 2009

In 2008 as many as 8 teams could make a legit case they were title worthy, 2 12-0 non-aqs and 6 one loss teams, 3 of which were conference champions. most years though there are only two or three, or like last year only one (LSU)

[NorthernBison]

see 2008 and 2009

In 2008 as many as 8 teams could make a legit case they were title worthy, 2 12-0 non-aqs and 6 one loss teams, 3 of which were conference champions. most years though there are only two or three, or like last year only one (LSU)

I know that and 2008 was different.

I remember back in the DII days when Wayne State almost went unbeaten and would have taken a playoff spot from the Bison. Luckily they lost their final game so it didn't happen. NOBODY thought Wayne State was worthy and they were right.

Could there be more than 4 worthy teams? Yeah, probably. I'm not going to worry about it because this system is in place until 2025 and I don't see them changing it.

[heffray]

When was the last time there was a team ranked #4 in the BCS that people thought should be in the Title game? I'm guessing never. We've had three, I'don't remember ever having four, and I guaranty there has never been 5. Four is enough for me. I have no desire to watch the Champ of the Big East get curbstomped by the third team from the SEC.

Northern, you are very knowledgable on all this stuff and your point is well taken, and probably true. But I can't stand this argument for this reason:

Everyone loves a cinderella story.

It's the single best thing about sports and especially about playoffs. A playoff in any sport shouldn't be about who DESERVES to win, it should be about who DOES win. I get that all we are doing here is moving the line forward or back on who "deserves a chance" to prove themselves, and you're always going to disappoint someone. But I would all but guarantee you that if there were an 8 team, heck maybe even a 12 team playoff as Herd suggested, a 12th seed would contend eventually, and maybe even win. It would be legendary, and holy crap, fun to watch.

This is why that argument, although logically sound and probably correct, just plain sucks.

[NorthernBison]

I understand the Cinderella thing. I believe a one or two Cinderella's are great stories EARLY in the men's BB tourney. Too many of them ruin things though because they almost always get destroyed the second weekend (Butler might be the lone exception)

I've already said that 8 teams for football would be preferable but that doesn't look to be possible until 2026. Consequently, I can live with 4 as a significant upgrade from the previous setup.

[KC Bison]

When was the last time there was a team ranked #4 in the BCS that people thought should be in the Title game? I'm guessing never. We've had three, I'don't remember ever having four, and I guaranty there has never been 5. Four is enough for me. I have no desire to watch the Champ of the Big East get curbstomped by the third team from the SEC.

Luckily, in basketball, you actually have to perform to win championships as in all other levels of college football. In the world of FBS football, you win most or all of your regular season games and then win the bowl game deemed worth by polls. After the game, we conduct another poll and you get declared national champion. It was a given this year that everyone thought LSU was the champion and I have no idea why they ruined that thought with an actual game. A lot of people thought that Sam Houston should be national champion because they were undefeated. It's sure too bad that the Bison ruined that thought by winning the championship game.

Unless you are a dedicated pollister, everyone else wants to see championships won by actually playing the games. A four-team championship is a start. It's the camel's nose under the tent and should lead to bigger and bigger tournaments in the future as the money becomes apparent to all in charge.

[NorthernBison]

Luckily, in basketball, you actually have to perform to win championships as in all other levels of college football. In the world of FBS football, you win most or all of your regular season games and then win the bowl game deemed worth by polls. After the game, we conduct another poll and you get declared national champion. It was a given this year that everyone thought LSU was the champion and I have no idea why they ruined that thought with an actual game. A lot of people thought that Sam Houston should be national champion because they were undefeated. It's sure too bad that the Bison ruined that thought by winning the championship game.

Unless you are a dedicated pollister, everyone else wants to see championships won by actually playing the games. A four-team championship is a start. It's the camel's nose under the tent and should lead to bigger and bigger tournaments in the future as the money becomes apparent to all in charge.

I already said 8 makes sense. After that it probably doesn't at that level because there isn't enough parity. Basketball has a big Tournament because you can play games with a day rest between.

I think your last point is flat out wrong. Here's why: Expanding the field too much will eliminate the Bowls as we know it along with the money. You might argue that there will be lots of money in the Tournament. That's true but you know darn well that the "little guys" will all want a bigger cut than the big guys want to give them. Next thing they will be clamoring for Autobids. I can assure yuo that will not happen. The Big conferences will go off on their own before they give in on that. Mark it down: The big boys will never let the MAC's of this world into their playpen. It's a dream that won't ever happen. They will take their ball and set up their own rules. They already have a Court Ruling on their side. That's what started the BCS anyway.

End result: The big 4 conferences will likely set up their own playoff system with maybe 4 or 8 teams and tell everybody else to have their own tournament run by the NCAA. BTW, that will be a tournement that NOBODY WILL WATCH. Kind of like FCS. I think they are just waiting for the right time to jump and it certainly could happen before the current 12 year deal ends if there is enough chatter from the little guys. Big dogs eventually bite when the chihuahua's get too nippy.

[NorthernBison]

I thought I should expand a little bit on my point about why I think the big BCS conferences don't want a larger field. (It's all about money and perception)

There is one thing in this whole process that cannot be hidden and is measurable. That's the numbers on the check each conference gets from post-season play. In basketball it is a big deal and every D1 conference gets paid. I believe the same is true for football. The large slate of Bowl games is littered with teams from every conference. That means everybody shares and nobody gets shut out.

If you select a significantly larger "playoff" field, people have argued the money would be huge. If so, that will be at the expense of the Bowls and they will disappear as the money flows to what everybody wants to see.

Sounds good right? Well, if you select 8 or 16 teams based on merit, conferences like the MAC will FRICKEN NEVER get selected and the conference will never get a check. Anybody care to guess how long it will take to get Congressmen involved and pressure put on to give out autobids?

[Hammerhead]

There have been 5 undefeated teams as recently as 2009 -- Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Texas Christian University, and Boise State. It sucks that 3 of those teams beat everyone on their schedule and had zero chance to prove they were the best in the country.


When was the last time there was a team ranked #4 in the BCS that people thought should be in the Title game? I'm guessing never. We've had three, I'don't remember ever having four, and I guaranty there has never been 5. Four is enough for me. I have no desire to watch the Champ of the Big East get curbstomped by the third team from the SEC.

[NorthernBison]

There have been 5 undefeated teams as recently as 2009 -- Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Texas Christian University, and Boise State. It sucks that 3 of those teams beat everyone on their schedule and had zero chance to prove they were the best in the country.

Cincinnati played in a relatively weak Big East. TCU and Boise got the message and moved to leagues that MIGHT get them some respect. I'm comfortable that Alabama was the best team that year.

I'd love to see a playoff with more teams but the FBS weaklings need to drop down to FCS. That means the WAC, MAC, MWC, etc. They don't belong.

[ndsubison1]

cincy then got piss pounded by florida

[DePereBisonFan]

cincy then got piss pounded by florida

Didn't Cincy's coach leave the team before that game, though?

[344Johnson]

Didn't Cincy's coach leave the team before that game, though?


Currently coaching Notre Dame.

[heffray]

I thought I should expand a little bit on my point about why I think the big BCS conferences don't want a larger field. (It's all about money and perception)

There is one thing in this whole process that cannot be hidden and is measurable. That's the numbers on the check each conference gets from post-season play. In basketball it is a big deal and every D1 conference gets paid. I believe the same is true for football. The large slate of Bowl games is littered with teams from every conference. That means everybody shares and nobody gets shut out.

If you select a significantly larger "playoff" field, people have argued the money would be huge. If so, that will be at the expense of the Bowls and they will disappear as the money flows to what everybody wants to see.

Sounds good right? Well, if you select 8 or 16 teams based on merit, conferences like the MAC will FRICKEN NEVER get selected and the conference will never get a check. Anybody care to guess how long it will take to get Congressmen involved and pressure put on to give out autobids?

I get that an autobid right NOW would be pretty ridiculous, but wouldn't that eventually strengthen the field?

The good players now who get offered at those schools probably would rather go to a traditionally losing school from a bigger conference, just for the chance that they can put a team together that can compete in that conference and get some notoriety. If they go to a MAC or WAC now, even if they run the table, they would get no love from a selection commitee, perhaps even with 16 teams in the selection field. If you go to auto-bids, that completely changes it, in my opinion. Then the players KNOW they have chance if they can win their conference. And if there's a chance, there are more recruits, and eventually the field could even out.

Not saying that WILL happen. But autobids, if it pacifies the money-grubbers, would not for sure be a horrible thing, and could in fact be exactly what college football needs.