So now that FBS has a Championship Bracket......

[Bison-Knuckle]

will the FCS be re-named to D1-AA again?

[CalBison97]

Just remove the 'F' in 'FBS'. Albeit slightly better than the BCS, this 4-team 'playoff' will simply be comprised of the SEC East Champ, the SEC West Champ, the Big 10 champ, and the Big 12 Champ. ACC champ or Pac 12 MAY replace one of those once in awhile. Don't be fooled. It's the +1 format reworded as a 'playoff' in an attempt to quiet the masses (and Congress).

[OrygunBison]

Just remove the 'F' in 'FBS'. Albeit slightly better than the BCS, this 4-team 'playoff' will simply be comprised of the SEC East Champ, the SEC West Champ, the Big 10 champ, and the Big 12 Champ. ACC champ or Pac 12 MAY replace one of those once in awhile. Don't be fooled. It's the +1 format reworded as a 'playoff' in an attempt to quiet the masses (and Congress).

Easy there, Hos. The #1 and #2 just might be in the Pac12 this year.

I think this will be a ton better than the BCS has been previously. 8 teams would be better. Personally, I don't think you need more than that at that level.

[Bison-Knuckle]

Easy there, Hos. The #1 and #2 just might be in the Pac12 this year.

I think this will be a ton better than the BCS has been previously. 8 teams would be better. Personally, I don't think you need more than that at that level.

I think they will extend it to 8 teams by 2016. How can the NCAA look at the FCS championship bracket and not want to create a similar atmosphere at the FBS level? Seems like a no-brainer.

[KSBisonFan]

I think they will extend it to 8 teams by 2016. How can the NCAA look at the FCS championship bracket and not want to create a similar atmosphere at the FBS level? Seems like a no-brainer.

The decision to expand to 8 teams will have little to do with the FCS bracket and everything to do with the money it will generate. With the NCAA, it's always about money.

[NorthernBison]

I think they will extend it to 8 teams by 2016. How can the NCAA look at the FCS championship bracket and not want to create a similar atmosphere at the FBS level? Seems like a no-brainer.

FYI, the NCAA has ZERO to say about this. The BCS is in control. Their only concern is dollars. That is driven heavily by the BOWL MONEY and they aren't about to do anything that might detract from the Bowls. That's why there was resistance to going to a four team format. Resistance to expanding to 8 teams would be about a ZILLION times worse than it was here.

[Bisonwinagn]

when they realize an 8 team playoff would generate more money than all the bowls combined they will do it. College football will soon be the second largest sport as far as Revenue only behind the NFL.

[NorthernBison]

when they realize an 8 team playoff would generate more money than all the bowls combined they will do it. College football will soon be the second largest sport as far as Revenue only behind the NFL.

Got a link to prove your assessment of an 8 team playoff and the dollars? Answer: Nope. There isn't one and the 12 year deal just announced is proof that the BCS isn't interested in 8 teams anytime soon. BTW, if what you say was true, it would already be done. The people making the decision are the ones benefitting from the money.

[Bison03]

It will be this format for 12 years thanks to this stupid long term agreement.

[NorthernBison]

The BCS Big 4 conferences would LOVE IT if the NCAA said they wanted a Tournament. Those 4 conferences would simply decline to participate as is their right and have their own Championship and 99.9% of the money would follow them and they wouldn't have to share with anybody. (not really all that different from now).

[reformedUNDfan]

I think they will extend it to 8 teams by 2016. How can the NCAA look at the FCS championship bracket and not want to create a similar atmosphere at the FBS level? Seems like a no-brainer.

its locked in at 4 for the next 12 years. :) Hopefully it stays at 4.


when they realize an 8 team playoff would generate more money than all the bowls combined they will do it. College football will soon be the second largest sport as far as Revenue only behind the NFL.

last i checked, ncaa football already was number 2, and by a pretty large margin.

[stevdock]

Step in the right direction but in my opinion not good enough. Instead of cheering for 3 undefeateds, it time to start cheering for 5 of them or at least 5+ with the same record and roughly same SOS.

[Herd]

This "playoff" would be like the CAA, Southern, Valley, and Sky conferences telling the other 9 conferences, "you can't participate in this championship". How do they get away with that? Don't the MWC, Cusa, MAC, and SunB have a voice at all in FBS football. They do realize that going undefeated gets A bowl game vs a 5 loss SEC team with nothing at stake, right? Pretty sad for overall college football.

[EndZoneQB]

This "playoff" would be like the CAA, Southern, Valley, and Sky conferences telling the other 9 conferences, "you can't participate in this championship". How do they get away with that? Don't the MWC, Cusa, MAC, and SunB have a voice at all in FBS football. They do realize that going undefeated gets A bowl game vs a 5 loss SEC team with nothing at stake, right? Pretty sad for overall college football.

No offense or anything, but 99.9% of the time, the other conferences *really* don't matter.

[NorthernBison]

This "playoff" would be like the CAA, Southern, Valley, and Sky conferences telling the other 9 conferences, "you can't participate in this championship". How do they get away with that? Don't the MWC, Cusa, MAC, and SunB have a voice at all in FBS football. They do realize that going undefeated gets A bowl game vs a 5 loss SEC team with nothing at stake, right? Pretty sad for overall college football.

Every team in those conferences is clearly inferior. They don't play a schedule that shows they are good enough to warrant consideration. Anybody that truly watches college football at that level and evaluates the quality of play agrees. The programs that have ever been close to good enough wised up and left (Boise, TCU, etc).

The best MAC team in most every year is not capable of beating a middle of the pack Big 10 team. Let alone a quality SEC team. History has proven it over and over. Sunbelt is garbage. CUSA meh. MWC has had some respectable teams but lost them.

[OrygunBison]

The best MAC team in most every year is not capable of beating a middle of the pack Big 10 team.

Heck, as near as I can tell, the best MAC team isn't capable of beating the Bison.

[CaBisonFan]

...get us into the real HD.

[reformedUNDfan]

This "playoff" would be like the CAA, Southern, Valley, and Sky conferences telling the other 9 conferences, "you can't participate in this championship". How do they get away with that? Don't the MWC, Cusa, MAC, and SunB have a voice at all in FBS football. They do realize that going undefeated gets A bowl game vs a 5 loss SEC team with nothing at stake, right? Pretty sad for overall college football.

ye almost everyone accepts that TCU would have made two playoff appearances, and Utah probably one or two more playoff appearances, under this system. In fact, over the past 6 yeas, the MWC would have had as many representatives as the pac10.

[NorthernBison]

ye almost everyone accepts that TCU would have made two playoff appearances, and Utah probably one or two more playoff appearances, under this system. In fact, over the past 6 yeas, the MWC would have had as many representatives as the pac10.

Not true. There was talk during the season but they didn't end up there four times. I'd say Maybe once each and that is generous. That's with weak schedules. Comparison to PAC is not valid. We have seen how deep they are. Good records at top but overrated. See Oregon vs LSU.

Everybody wants the little guy but they never hang with the best of the big conferences

The MWC has had some decent teams with good records. BUT, playing a couple tough games is radically different that 7 or 8. How many good teams in the MWC typically? A few. Please.

[NorthernBison]

I looked up the final BCS standings and TCU would have made it in 2009 and 2010. Utah finished no better than 6th ever. The PAC 12 had 3 in the last 6 years and the MWC 2.

Actually, it is a really dumb argument. I believe the selection of the four teams will follow some of the same procedures from the past. There will still be polls and I believe the BCS computer rankings will still be out there. A committee will make final decisions. They will take into account scheduling so padding records and ducking tough games will likely get you dropped if you are on the bubble.

I still belive four is enough because I can't remember ever having people argue that a #5 or lower team was the best team in the country. Just doesn't happen.

[reformedUNDfan]

I looked up the final BCS standings and TCU would have made it in 2009 and 2010. Utah finished no better than 6th ever. The PAC 12 had 3 in the last 6 years and the MWC 2.

Actually, it is a really dumb argument. I believe the selection of the four teams will follow some of the same procedures from the past. There will still be polls and I believe the BCS computer rankings will still be out there. A committee will make final decisions. They will take into account scheduling so padding records and ducking tough games will likely get you dropped if you are on the bubble.

the polls and bcs have no bearing on the selection of teams at all. Using the criteria for the selection committee, either utah, USC, or both would have been selected over Texas and/or Alabama in 2008. No way in hell would the committee have selected an all sec/big12 affair with two worthy conference champions in the wings.

[onbison09]

I looked up the final BCS standings and TCU would have made it in 2009 and 2010. Utah finished no better than 6th ever. The PAC 12 had 3 in the last 6 years and the MWC 2.

Actually, it is a really dumb argument. I believe the selection of the four teams will follow some of the same procedures from the past. There will still be polls and I believe the BCS computer rankings will still be out there. A committee will make final decisions. They will take into account scheduling so padding records and ducking tough games will likely get you dropped if you are on the bubble.

I still belive four is enough because I can't remember ever having people argue that a #5 or lower team was the best team in the country. Just doesn't happen.

So our team 2 years ago should've never made it to the quarters and gotten screwed out of the semis? I think 8 teams is a good number, 16 would be better IMO. Who gives a shit about the low bowl games? (NOTE: I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE BISON COULD COMPETE WITH THE TOP DOGS. I'M JUST SAYING THAT A TEAM CAN GET ON A RUN)

[reformedUNDfan]

So our team 2 years ago should've never made it to the quarters and gotten screwed out of the semis? I think 8 teams is a good number, 16 would be better IMO. Who gives a shit about the low bowl games? (NOTE: I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE BISON COULD COMPETE WITH THE TOP DOGS. I'M JUST SAYING THAT A TEAM CAN GET ON A RUN)

the 2010 bison had no business being in the playoffs. Playing for a title is something you earn, and you don't earn it by going 7-4.

[CalBison97]

7-4 teams don't have any business in the playoffs? How about the World Champion 9-7 NY Giants? Thank God the NFL (or any other sport) does not model college football. Oh that's right, no one watches the NFL regular season because the regular season games are not important.


the 2010 bison had no business being in the playoffs. Playing for a title is something you earn, and you don't earn it by going 7-4.

[CaBisonFan]

the 2010 bison had no business being in the playoffs. Playing for a title is something you earn, and you don't earn it by going 7-4.

Seems that the Sioux Hockey team has gone to the playoffs with some pretty average records.

[Rockbear99]

Each conference should have a champion and they should be in the playoffs along with a couple of wild card (at large) teams. Make each game a 'Bowl" game. Other teams that didnt make the playoffs can still play in Bowl games also.

[onbison09]

Each conference should have a champion and they should be in the playoffs along with a couple of wild card (at large) teams. Make each game a 'Bowl" game. Other teams that didnt make the playoffs can still play in Bowl games also.

11 auto bids, 5 at large. Have the lowest ranked auto bids play the at large in a play-in round or something. I don't care what you call it just get rid of the meaningless bowls.

[Strommer10]

11 auto bids, 5 at large. Have the lowest ranked auto bids play the at large in a play-in round or something. I don't care what you call it just get rid of the meaningless bowls.
This will never happen. Teams get too much exposure and conferences make too much money for them to get rid of them. I still believe that 8 is a good number for the FBS "playoffs". 4 is a VERY positive start however.

[onbison09]

This will never happen. Teams get too much exposure and conferences make too much money for them to get rid of them. I still believe that 8 is a good number for the FBS "playoffs". 4 is a VERY positive start however.

I know. I could just give two shits about the bowls outside of the B"C"S bowls. But I guess I watch some of them because it's football and there's not much else going besides NHL and the World Junior Championship (which I know pulls huge ratings on Bisonville) so maybe I'm part of the problem. And this is coming from someone who goes to a school where that's all we play for.

[SlickVic]

last year i only whatched the grand daddy aka the rose bowl and my oh my what a game...other than that i didnt tune into any of them i refused to whatch that title game

[NorthernBison]

the polls and bcs have no bearing on the selection of teams at all. Using the criteria for the selection committee, either utah, USC, or both would have been selected over Texas and/or Alabama in 2008. No way in hell would the committee have selected an all sec/big12 affair with two worthy conference champions in the wings.

Says you. Maybe you heard it from an analyst. Well, I also heard analysts who said the committee would not shy away from a four SEC selection if that's the way things turned out. That's never going to happen but the point is the committee will select FOUR teams. You're dreaming about Utah. They ranked #6. They absolutely didn't deserve consideration regardless of what their Senator thought and the entire football world knew it.

[NorthernBison]

This will never happen. Teams get too much exposure and conferences make too much money for them to get rid of them. I still believe that 8 is a good number for the FBS "playoffs". 4 is a VERY positive start however.

You are correct. I agree that eight would make people feel better. I've read some really dumb comments about this topic. The worst are the ones who want autobids for conferences. Probably from the same type of people who don't think keeping score is a good idea in Little League. I'm absolutely opposed to autobids just to give "participation awards" to some team that won their conference. For football, that makes no sense whatsoever.

No matter how many teams are included, there will be somebody arguing they should be in. It happens with a 68 team basketball tournament. There, the argument isn't that somebody got left out who could have won the Title. They didn't get on the bracket so they could lose the first weekend.

[moosbah]

I think this "playoff" system will really help clarify the process and make it completely clear how easily an SEC team can kick the crap out of a BIG 10 (11, 12.....) team, without all the ambiguity of computers. :)

[stevdock]

Every team in those conferences is clearly inferior. They don't play a schedule that shows they are good enough to warrant consideration. Anybody that truly watches college football at that level and evaluates the quality of play agrees. The programs that have ever been close to good enough wised up and left (Boise, TCU, etc).

The best MAC team in most every year is not capable of beating a middle of the pack Big 10 team. Let alone a quality SEC team. History has proven it over and over. Sunbelt is garbage. CUSA meh. MWC has had some respectable teams but lost them.

But yet there are people on this board that want NDSU to move into one of these conferences. If you are not in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences you are not playing for a chance at a championship. Over the next x number of years I think it will be interesting to see what the NCAA or the schools themselves who are not in these conferences decide to do.

[NorthernBison]

There are never enough teams in to satisfy everybody.

Expanding the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 wasn't enough so they added more and some still think they should expand it.

FCS football was 16 a couple years ago and it was expanded to 20 and now they are going to 24. Where does it end.

Big Time College Football was just fine for a half Century without any real Championship game. Sometimes the Polls agreed and sometimes the Title was split.

Everybody screamed for something that would match up #1 vs #2. So, they invented the BCS. Then everybody screamed about the #3 or #4 teams who "might" be just as good as one of the top 2. People, as usual, proved their stupidity by blaming the BCS. EVEN THOUGH IT DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

Now, when the Presidents approve a 4 team "quasi playoff" it's not enough. "It needs to be at least 8 teams" Really? Why the heck stop at 8? If everybody wants to feel validated why not make it 64 like the basketball tournament? Then very few get left out and we can be just like Little League (except we will have to keep score). I guess a few hurt feelings can't be avoided.

[stevdock]

Has the BCS always worked though putting #1 vs. #2? I think you could find enough evidence that would prove that has not always happened.

2004 is the first one that comes to mind. 5 undefeated teams and 3 from power conferences. USC, OK, Auburn, Utah, and Boise. Auburn had a right to play in that game going through the schedule they did but didn't get a chance.

I believe 2009 also had 5 teams go undefeated throughout the regular season.

I think it was 2001 where even though Miami was #2 in both polls got jumped by Fl. St. to play in the championship game. Both identical records with Miami beating Fl. St.

There are 3 cases that we truly don't know who should have been in that championship game. In 09 Boise beat Oregon and may have been #1 if the polls come out after 4 weeks or so since they had the biggest marquee win at that time. But instead we have these stupid pre-season polls and pollsters don't want to change their mind that early in the season unless a team loses.

[NorthernBison]

Has the BCS always worked though putting #1 vs. #2? I think you could find enough evidence that would prove that has not always happened.

2004 is the first one that comes to mind. 5 undefeated teams and 3 from power conferences. USC, OK, Auburn, Utah, and Boise. Auburn had a right to play in that game going through the schedule they did but didn't get a chance.

I believe 2009 also had 5 teams go undefeated throughout the regular season.

I think it was 2001 where even though Miami was #2 in both polls got jumped by Fl. St. to play in the championship game. Both identical records with Miami beating Fl. St.

There are 3 cases that we truly don't know who should have been in that championship game. In 09 Boise beat Oregon and may have been #1 if the polls come out after 4 weeks or so since they had the biggest marquee win at that time. But instead we have these stupid pre-season polls and pollsters don't want to change their mind that early in the season unless a team loses.

The BCS only did what it could. Nobody sold it as a perfect way to rank all teams in the top 10. It was, and is, simply a way to put some sort of numerical ranking out there. It has been tweaked over the years in terms of how much to weight polls, etc.

I like the current plan to have a committee make the decisions. Let them look at quality of wins and decide who should be the four teams.

One thing the current system does that really bothers me is placing way too much emphasis on WHEN a team loses. If you lose early, you can make up for it. If you lose late, you are finished. Done. Toast.

[bisonaudit]

The argument for expanding the basketball tournament is at base the same argument for not expanding football beyond 4 teams. Maximizing the money flowing to the largest conferences.

[NorthernBison]

The argument for expanding the basketball tournament is at base the same argument for not expanding football beyond 4 teams. Maximizing the money flowing to the largest conferences.

Agreed. That would appear to be the case.

A thought I have had about football that might or might not be correct is that the current system with the Bowls works very well to pacify conferences like the MAC, CUSA, etc. They get enough of a cut to keep them from squealing and that keeps Washington out of the whole mess. If you went to an expanded system where spots had to be "earned" it could possibly cut some of these conferences out completely. As indicated, the MAC Champ typically wouldn't win the FCS. I can't think of anybody that would want to waste the time having teams like that in a playoff. Not for football. Basketball is a different story.

[DePereBisonFan]

the 2010 bison had no business being in the playoffs. Playing for a title is something you earn, and you don't earn it by going 7-4.

6-3.

Not many other FCS teams went to a BCS conference opponent's house and won, regardless of record. KU beat then-ranked Georgia Tech the next week. Maybe we had no business being in the playoffs. Maybe we did. Maybe that's why we were considered the last team in.

[tony]

Four teams isn't a bracket... it's a brackette.

[Tatanka]

Four teams isn't a bracket... it's a brackette.

the judges would also have accepted "briquette", as long as it was made clear that the base material is 100% certified horseshit.

[56BISON73]

You are correct. I agree that eight would make people feel better. I've read some really dumb comments about this topic. The worst are the ones who want autobids for conferences. Probably from the same type of people who don't think keeping score is a good idea in Little League. I'm absolutely opposed to autobids just to give "participation awards" to some team that won their conference. For football, that makes no sense whatsoever.

No matter how many teams are included, there will be somebody arguing they should be in. It happens with a 68 team basketball tournament. There, the argument isn't that somebody got left out who could have won the Title. They didn't get on the bracket so they could lose the first weekend.

Reps!!!!!!

[SDbison]

Picking 4 teams by whatever means out of about 120 for a so called playoff is a joke. Instead, taking winners from all of the conferences that play at the same level at least shows some form of competition was involved in determining who is in the playoffs. If there were 16 or 20 teams in a playoff some conferences could get 2, 3 or even 4 teams qualified for the playoffs. Nothing wrong with that. A 4 team playoff is really not much better than in the past where 2 selected teams play for the title. FBS stands for Full of Bull Shit.

[Herd]

FBS needs 12 team playoff
10 conf champs (8 after play-in) - with 4 lowest ranked play-in for 2 spots
Play-in would usually be SunB, Mac, MWC, Cusa, or B East
4 at Large team
Bye in round 1 for top 4 ranked teams (top 4 can be at-large or champs)
If champ comes from the top 4, only 3 games played by the champs

[NorthernBison]

FBS needs 12 team playoff
10 conf champs (8 after play-in) - with 4 lowest ranked play-in for 2 spots
Play-in would usually be SunB, Mac, MWC, Cusa, or B East
4 at Large team
Bye in round 1 for top 4 ranked teams (top 4 can be at-large or champs)
If champ comes from the top 4, only 3 games played by the champs

These conferences shold not be allowed to POLLUTE any bracket. They simply do not belong in the top level of college football.

Their conferences are so weak that records are meaningless. I didn't see a single decent OOC win on any of their Champion's records last season. (Didn't look at MWC but the best are gone from there anyway.)

[stevdock]

These conferences shold not be allowed to POLLUTE any bracket. They simply do not belong in the top level of college football.

Their conferences are so weak that records are meaningless. I didn't see a single decent OOC win on any of their Champion's records last season. (Didn't look at MWC but the best are gone from there anyway.)

Agreed. All four of those conferences should be in FCS OR take those 4 conferences and the top so many FCS conferences and make a new division.

[NorthernBison]

Agreed. All four of those conferences should be in FCS OR take those 4 conferences and the top so many FCS conferences and make a new division.

Just for giggles, I looked up the record and schedule for the 2011 MAC Champion (Northern Illinois). Their OOC wins were Army and Cal Poly (in a squeeker). They lost to a 2-10 Kansas team (Wow) and they lost to a pretty decent Michigan team by a 49-7 score.

On that basis alone, no MAC team should EVER EVER EVER EVER be mentioned in the same discussion with the best FBS teams in the Country. I know forever is a long time but I'm sticking with it.

If the MAC is ever eligible for a FBS playoff, the ENTIRE SEC must be selected before any suggestion of a MAC representative.

I don't think CUSA is much different and the SunBelt is arguably even worse. Their Champion (Arkansas State) lost their Bowl game last season 33-15 to Northern Illinois. Not sure they would even be good FCS competition.

That's how fricken much difference there is in FBS college football at the top of the best conferences to everybody else.

[CalBison97]

Just for giggles, I looked up the record and schedule for the 2011 MAC Champion (Northern Illinois). Their OOC wins were Army and Cal Poly (in a squeeker). They lost to a 2-10 Kansas team (Wow) and they lost to a pretty decent Michigan team by a 49-7 score.

On that basis alone, no MAC team should EVER EVER EVER EVER be mentioned in the same discussion with the best FBS teams in the Country. I know forever is a long time but I'm sticking with it.

If the MAC is ever eligible for a FBS playoff, the ENTIRE SEC must be selected before any suggestion of a MAC representative.

I don't think CUSA is much different and the SunBelt is arguably even worse. Their Champion (Arkansas State) lost their Bowl game last season 33-15 to Northern Illinois. Not sure they would even be good FCS competition.

That's how fricken much difference there is in FBS college football at the top of the best conferences to everybody else.

How dare those lil' schools think they can compete with us?

Sincerely,
Oklahoma (vs. Boise St.)
Michigan (vs. App. St.)
Alabama (vs. *sigh GSU)

p.s. There is great disparity in every single sport, every single conference. I understand the numbers you are alluding to. However, my opinion is every team in every league should have an opportunity to win a championship at the level they compete in. The FBS eliminates 2/3 of the contenders before they even step onto the field. The 'big boys' are not invincible. Talent alone doesn't win championships (see NY Giants).

[NorthernBison]

How dare those lil' schools think they can compete with us?

Sincerely,
Oklahoma (vs. Boise St.)
Michigan (vs. App. St.)
Alabama (vs. *sigh GSU)

p.s. There is great disparity in every single sport, every single conference. I understand the numbers you are alluding to. However, my opinion is every team in every league should have an opportunity to win a championship at the level they compete in. The FBS eliminates 2/3 of the contenders before they even step onto the field. The 'big boys' are not invincible. Talent alone doesn't win championships (see NY Giants).

Your examples make zero sense. We're talking about selecting for a playoff field. Not random "upsets" that prove absolutely nothing.

Are you really talking about a an overrated Michigan team playing their opener against an FCS team and lost? That Michigan team didn't finish in the top 25 and wouldn't have been selected for any post season playoff even if it was a 24 team tournament. Not what we're talking about.

Boise State vs. Oklahoma? You mean #8 vs #9? Both top 10 ranked teams and an upset only because of Vegas odds. In a playoff scenario, it is possible that both or neither would have been selected. So, the real debate would have been about the ultimate size of the playoff field. I would contend that simply winning the MWC does NOT qualify anybody for a playoff. The good programs are gone from there now anyway. That makes the point moot.

Not sure if you're aware but, GSU didn't beat Alabama in 2011. Did they beat them some other time that mattered? The 2011 game really wasn't that close to an upset no matter what sort of garbage you read on the GSU website. And I really hope you don't think the Bison would have had a prayer against Alabama last season. I can't find green and gold glasses strong enough to make me think that.

There really should be a 8 or even a 16 team playoff in BCS. The field they pick the teams from should come from 4 conferences and should consist of no more than 48-64 teams. Get it sorted out and lump everybody else in with the top of FCS which is where the bottom feeders of FBS really belong (MAC,CUSA,WAC,SunBelt, etc). We MIGHT see 8 teams in our lifetime. The odds of any of us ever seeing a 16 team field are pretty long.

[NorthernBison]

I would fully support an 8 team playoff with ZERO autobids. Have a committee select the 8 top teams. Maybe even with their deliberations on record. Use all available means to rank teams including polls, BCS formula, SOS calculations, etc.

[CalBison97]

Your examples make zero sense. We're talking about selecting for a playoff field. Not random "upsets" that prove absolutely nothing.

Are you really talking about a an overrated Michigan team playing their opener against an FCS team and lost? That Michigan team didn't finish in the top 25 and wouldn't have been selected for any post season playoff even if it was a 24 team tournament. Not what we're talking about.

Boise State vs. Oklahoma? You mean #8 vs #9? Both top 10 ranked teams and an upset only because of Vegas odds. In a playoff scenario, it is possible that both or neither would have been selected. So, the real debate would have been about the ultimate size of the playoff field. I would contend that simply winning the MWC does NOT qualify anybody for a playoff. The good programs are gone from there now anyway. That makes the point moot.

Not sure if you're aware but, GSU didn't beat Alabama in 2011. Did they beat them some other time that mattered? The 2011 game really wasn't that close to an upset no matter what sort of garbage you read on the GSU website. And I really hope you don't think the Bison would have had a prayer against Alabama last season. I can't find green and gold glasses strong enough to make me think that.

There really should be a 8 or even a 16 team playoff in BCS. The field they pick the teams from should come from 4 conferences and should consist of no more than 48-64 teams. Get it sorted out and lump everybody else in with the top of FCS which is where the bottom feeders of FBS really belong (MAC,CUSA,WAC,SunBelt, etc). We MIGHT see 8 teams in our lifetime. The odds of any of us ever seeing a 16 team field are pretty long.

It really wasn't that difficult to understand. I cited instances in which the big boys should have EASILY won, yet didn't, something you would like to believe could/should NEVER happen in a playoff field (guess who gets left out when USC, LSU, FSU, OSU, and Boise St. go undefeated?). A 4-loss SEC has no business being in a playoff over an undefeated Utah team. You sound eerily similar to those SoCon/CAA/east coast bias types we recently dealt with...'auto-bid' on conference affiliation alone.

p.s. I watched the entire Alabama/GSU game and no matter how much anti-GSU smack/downplaying I talked on the espn boards, it was very competitive and much closer than the final score, which is apparently all you saw.

[CalBison97]

I would fully support an 8 team playoff with ZERO autobids. Have a committee select the 8 top teams. Maybe even with their deliberations on record. Use all available means to rank teams including polls, BCS formula, SOS calculations, etc.

This sounds much more logical as opposed to simply eliminating conferences you previously suggested.

[NorthernBison]

It really wasn't that difficult to understand. I cited instances in which the big boys should have EASILY won, yet didn't, something you would like to believe could/should NEVER happen in a playoff field (guess who gets left out when USC, LSU, FSU, OSU, and Boise St. go undefeated?). A 4-loss SEC has no business being in a playoff over an undefeated Utah team. You sound eerily similar to those SoCon/CAA/east coast bias types we recently dealt with...'auto-bid' on conference affiliation alone.

p.s. I watched the entire Alabama/GSU game and no matter how much anti-GSU smack/downplaying I talked on the espn boards, it was very competitive and much closer than the final score, which is apparently all you saw.

I understood it well. Are you really saying a MAC Champion, for example, has EARNED a spot in a limited playoff field? If you think so, then you have no clue how crappy the MAC is. Was Northern Illinois a TOP 50 team last season? They shouldn't have been. They got DESTROYED by a Michigan team that didn't finish in the top 25. That's how incredibly weak the MAC is year in and year out. Several other conferences are basically the same.

Teams should be selected based on their entire body of work. Who did you beat and how good are they is key to the decision. So, beating a bunch of MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA, etc teams means nothing compared to the programs that play in loaded conferences. That's why I say NO AUTOBIDS and just select the best teams.

Your Boise State example is no longer valid. They saw the light and moved to a conference where they will get some respect. I really have no respect for unbeatens who haven't played anybody. I'm not in favor of "everybody gets a shot" because they "deserve" to play for a title if they win their conference. If the conference sucks, then winning it is no accomplishment.

[bisonaudit]

I think you're both right and the argument is just over timing. Northern Bison wants all the weak conferences to leave the FBS and get folding in with the top of the FCS and CalBison97 wants all the conference winners to have a birth in the playoff for their level of play. I agree with both of you and I think that's where we're headed. In the meanwhile the small FBS conferences will continue to participate in the slowly atrophying post-season Bowl fiasco until that arrangement becomes economically untenable.

The BCS conferences want to keep the money to themselves and left on there own I think this is where we're headed. There is a risk that certain congressmen representing state institutions which may find themselves on the outside looking in at the BCS conference's money vault could intercede to prevent the consolidation of the top tier of college football down to 4, 5, or 6 BCS conferences from the dozen or so FBS conferences that exist today. After all the biggest 64 college football teams can reside in at most 15% of the congressional districts.

[NorthernBison]

I think you're both right and the argument is just over timing. Northern Bison wants all the weak conferences to leave the FBS and get folding in with the top of the FCS and CalBison97 wants all the conference winners to have a birth in the playoff for their level of play. I agree with both of you and I think that's where we're headed. In the meanwhile the small FBS conferences will continue to participate in the slowly atrophying post-season Bowl fiasco until that arrangement becomes economically untenable.

The BCS conferences want to keep the money to themselves and left on there own I think this is where we're headed. There is a risk that certain congressmen representing state institutions which may find themselves on the outside looking in at the BCS conference's money vault could intercede to prevent the consolidation of the top tier of college football down to 4, 5, or 6 BCS conferences from the dozen or so FBS conferences that exist today. After all the biggest 64 college football teams can reside in at most 15% of the congressional districts.

Correct. And the point where the Bowl fiasco implodes is the second a 8 or 16 team playoff is announced. At that point, NOBODY will care about the bowls and the money will dry up.

[CalBison97]

I understood it well. Are you really saying a MAC Champion, for example, has EARNED a spot in a limited playoff field? If you think so, then you have no clue how crappy the MAC is. Was Northern Illinois a TOP 50 team last season? They shouldn't have been. They got DESTROYED by a Michigan team that didn't finish in the top 25. That's how incredibly weak the MAC is year in and year out. Several other conferences are basically the same.

Teams should be selected based on their entire body of work. Who did you beat and how good are they is key to the decision. So, beating a bunch of MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA, etc teams means nothing compared to the programs that play in loaded conferences. That's why I say NO AUTOBIDS and just select the best teams.

Your Boise State example is no longer valid. They saw the light and moved to a conference where they will get some respect. I really have no respect for unbeatens who haven't played anybody. I'm not in favor of "everybody gets a shot" because they "deserve" to play for a title if they win their conference. If the conference sucks, then winning it is no accomplishment.

I believe that if a MAC champion has 2 strong OOC wins, blows away the conference opponents and finishes undefeated, they should be considered over a 3 or 4-loss team from a power conference in an 8 to 16 team playoff. You believe they should not even be considered. Yes, we disagree.

Makes alot of geographical sense for Boise State to be in the Big East doesn't it? Strange they were forced to do so just to be considered to compete for a title in the division they are in. Just wait until a 4 or 5-loss SOCON/CAA/Southern team gets in ahead of a 2 or 3 loss NDSU/MVFC team.

[NorthernBison]

The first part is fine because it will never happen. MAC teams always lose to good big conference teams.

I don't know why you insist on comparing CAA and SOCON to the FBS situation. NDSU is the first MVFC program to prove that the Conference can actually finish. I get the Eastern bias argument. Up until last season, those programs had a history of winning it all while our programs tended to come up short. Maybe success will lead to more respect. Gotta earn it.

[ndsubison1]

Just for giggles, I looked up the record and schedule for the 2011 MAC Champion (Northern Illinois). Their OOC wins were Army and Cal Poly (in a squeeker). They lost to a 2-10 Kansas team (Wow) and they lost to a pretty decent Michigan team by a 49-7 score.

On that basis alone, no MAC team should EVER EVER EVER EVER be mentioned in the same discussion with the best FBS teams in the Country. I know forever is a long time but I'm sticking with it.

If the MAC is ever eligible for a FBS playoff, the ENTIRE SEC must be selected before any suggestion of a MAC representative.

I don't think CUSA is much different and the SunBelt is arguably even worse. Their Champion (Arkansas State) lost their Bowl game last season 33-15 to Northern Illinois. Not sure they would even be good FCS competition.

That's how fricken much difference there is in FBS college football at the top of the best conferences to everybody else.

and temple who was a top MAC team last season will probably finish towards the bottom of the Big East this upcoming season in their new conference

[Herd]

If . . . If every conference had a legitimate path the national championship playoff field, then college football at the FBS level would turn into a model similar to the NFL (parity) vs. MLB (have vs have nots). You would see players actually signing to play at MAC, MWC or Big E, becuase they have a shot at a national championship through that conference.

Play-In Round: (prior to 12 Team National Tournament) Example
MAC champ vs. MWC Champ = 12 seed (loser is out of the playoff and is bowl eligible, consolation for that conference not being in the playoff)
SunB champ vs. CUSA Champ = 11 seed (loser is out of the playoff and is bowl eligible, consolation for that conference not being in the playoff)


Round 1: ON Campus, Seeds 1-4 Bye
12 vs 5
11 vs 6
10 vs 7
9 vs 8

Round 2: Round 1 Winners vs 1-4
Round 3: Final 4
Round 4: NC

Payout Money to conferences by number of teams per conference that make the playoff, and by the success in the playoffs. Every conference would have the same shot at the NC, but the strong conferences would make more money, similar to today. I think this would be huge for college football and drive major overall sucess and stability.

Playoff Field would be:
8 Conf Champs (10 conferences, reduced to 8 teams via play-in games)
4 At Large Teams
Seed all 12 teams

The road to the NC for an independent (ND/BYU, etc) would be landing one of the 4 at large berths, not that high of a hurdle, probably just requiring top 10 ranking. Being an Indy would be a little bit of a penality, as it should be. Is BYU every going to make the playoff as a indy, landing one of 4 spots after all other conf champs? Not likely, better find a conf you arrogant pricks. Will ND? Ya probably.

[bisonaudit]

Yep, just like NDSU gets kids who would play basketball at Kentucky if we didn't have a path to the title. :)

[CalBison97]

The first part is fine because it will never happen. MAC teams always lose to good big conference teams.

I don't know why you insist on comparing CAA and SOCON to the FBS situation. NDSU is the first MVFC program to prove that the Conference can actually finish. I get the Eastern bias argument. Up until last season, those programs had a history of winning it all while our programs tended to come up short. Maybe success will lead to more respect. Gotta earn it.

I insist, because it's your same logic: power conferences deserve more opportunities. I find it amusing that 8 of the 16 2011 playoff teams were the almighty powerful CAA/Southern teams, yet only 2 made it out of the 1st rd. Perhaps more deserving teams (Illinois St., etc) should have had the opportunity. The 2011 playoffs and results proved a bias exists. Conference powers can and do shift from year to year. Big Sky will not be as strong as in years past.

The hidden +1 format is a joke. The FBS needs a minimum 8-team playoff in order for teams like the BSUs, TCUs, and Utahs to at least have an opportunity to run the table and be considered. Would have been fun to see the results had a playoff previously existed.

[Hambone]

I understood it well. Are you really saying a MAC Champion, for example, has EARNED a spot in a limited playoff field? If you think so, then you have no clue how crappy the MAC is. Was Northern Illinois a TOP 50 team last season? They shouldn't have been. They got DESTROYED by a Michigan team that didn't finish in the top 25. That's how incredibly weak the MAC is year in and year out. Several other conferences are basically the same.

Teams should be selected based on their entire body of work. Who did you beat and how good are they is key to the decision. So, beating a bunch of MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA, etc teams means nothing compared to the programs that play in loaded conferences. That's why I say NO AUTOBIDS and just select the best teams.

Your Boise State example is no longer valid. They saw the light and moved to a conference where they will get some respect. I really have no respect for unbeatens who haven't played anybody. I'm not in favor of "everybody gets a shot" because they "deserve" to play for a title if they win their conference. If the conference sucks, then winning it is no accomplishment.

Just a quick correction on Michigan - they did win a BCS game and finished 12 in the AP and 9 in the coaches. So they were a top 25. But I understand your point.

[CalBison97]

Just a quick correction on Michigan - they did win a BCS game and finished 12 in the AP and 9 in the coaches. So they were a top 25. But I understand your point.

So, a top 10 power conference team lost to not only an inferior conference, but inferior division? Didn't think it was remotely possible!

[NorthernBison]

I insist, because it's your same logic: power conferences deserve more opportunities. I find it amusing that 8 of the 16 2011 playoff teams were the almighty powerful CAA/Southern teams, yet only 2 made it out of the 1st rd. Perhaps more deserving teams (Illinois St., etc) should have had the opportunity. The 2011 playoffs and results proved a bias exists. Conference powers can and do shift from year to year. Big Sky will not be as strong as in years past.

The hidden +1 format is a joke. The FBS needs a minimum 8-team playoff in order for teams like the BSUs, TCUs, and Utahs to at least have an opportunity to run the table and be considered. Would have been fun to see the results had a playoff previously existed.

I never said a "bias" doesn't exist in FCS. On the other hand, you don't have too many of your facts straight.

1. The playoff field was 20 teams.
2. I'm thinking you meant to say the SECOND round.
3. There were at least 2 second round games where CAA and SOCON Teams played each other (Maine/App st and ODU/GSU) so somebody HAD to lose.
4. Illinois State was a worthy playoff team. The reason they didn't get selected had more to do with choking their last game than eastern bias.

Are you actually saying the field was poorly chosen or incorrectly seeded? That would be a dumb argument since the top 4 seeds made the semi-finals and I believe 6 separate conferences made up the quarterfinal field.

Like I said earlier, there is a history of the CAA and SOCON teams winning the title while most other conferences haven't been able to close (Montana did a couple times and EWU helped out in 2010). That's one of the reasons they tend to get more consideration when there are multiple 7-4 teams to pick from. Our Title might help reverse things but conferences like the MVFC, BSC, and Southland need to finish to build credibility. UNI's stumbles haven't helped. I'm not sure if you paid close attention last year or not but UNI didn't deserve to even get to Montana to take their beatdown. They've been a real hindrance to our conference when the post-season rolls around. These things tend to get remembered from year to year.

[NorthernBison]

Just a quick correction on Michigan - they did win a BCS game and finished 12 in the AP and 9 in the coaches. So they were a top 25. But I understand your point.

I was referencing the BCS rankings. I didn't see them in the final one in 2008. (They lost to App State on Sept 1, 2007)

I don't know where you got your information but the final polls released January 8, 2008 showed Michigan at #18 in the AP poll and #19 in the coaches poll. They were unranked before they won their Bowl game. (I think they beat Va. Tech)

[Hambone]

I was referencing the BCS rankings. I didn't see them in the final one in 2008. (They lost to App State on Sept 1, 2007)

I don't know where you got your information but the final polls released January 8, 2008 showed Michigan at #18 in the AP poll and #19 in the coaches poll. They were unranked before they won their Bowl game. (I think they beat Va. Tech)

Your post inferred you were talking about Michigan last year. My apologies for misunderstanding.

[NorthernBison]

Your post inferred you were talking about Michigan last year. My apologies for misunderstanding.

No problem. This thread is all over the place and I'm part of the reason.

Cal has been bringing up the CAA and all sorts of FCS stuff. That's OK because I think it SUPPORTS my belief in a COMMITTEE to decide playoff spots with no preconceived deciding factors. The FCS selection committee in 2010 selected a 7-4 Bison squad which was .500 in the conference and tied with about 5 other teams for third place. In 2011, the committee absolutely nailed the selection and the seeding.

A selection committee for FBS would do just fine as long as they refuse to accept conference titles for lower conferences as meaning anything. I'd also say they should not consider an unbeaten record as an automatic selection is the record includes few or no wins against quality competition.

The BCS move to 4 teams will probably result in an eventual move to 8. I'd be shocked if it ever went farther than that.

[CalBison97]

No problem. This thread is all over the place and I'm part of the reason.

Cal has been bringing up the CAA and all sorts of FCS stuff. That's OK because I think it SUPPORTS my belief in a COMMITTEE to decide playoff spots with no preconceived deciding factors. The FCS selection committee in 2010 selected a 7-4 Bison squad which was .500 in the conference and tied with about 5 other teams for third place. In 2011, the committee absolutely nailed the selection and the seeding.

A selection committee for FBS would do just fine as long as they refuse to accept conference titles for lower conferences as meaning anything. I'd also say they should not consider an unbeaten record as an automatic selection is the record includes few or no wins against quality competition.

The BCS move to 4 teams will probably result in an eventual move to 8. I'd be shocked if it ever went farther than that.

Part of my deal is I like to play devil's advocate with someone who continually rants. The majority of people wanted a playoff. The majority of people are tired of the occasional BSUs, Utahs, TCUs not getting a fair shot. The majoriy of people will not be satisfied with a 4-team "playoff". As I've said all along, if Utah defeats say an Alabama and a Florida along with running the conference, a selection committee should put them in the playoffs over a 3rd place SEC finisher. You have made it clear that 'smaller' conferences should in no way be considered for a playoff.

The 2011 FCS committee 'nailed' the top 4 teams they seeded, yes, but you can say they failed on all those CAA/Southern teams they let in. Guess there's your argument for a 4-team playoff! :facepalm2:

[NorthernBison]

Part of my deal is I like to play devil's advocate with someone who continually rants. The majority of people wanted a playoff. The majority of people are tired of the occasional BSUs, Utahs, TCUs not getting a fair shot. The majoriy of people will not be satisfied with a 4-team "playoff". As I've said all along, if Utah defeats say an Alabama and a Florida along with running the conference, a selection committee should put them in the playoffs over a 3rd place SEC finisher. You have made it clear that 'smaller' conferences should in no way be considered for a playoff.

The 2011 FCS committee 'nailed' the top 4 teams they seeded, yes, but you can say they failed on all those CAA/Southern teams they let in. Guess there's your argument for a 4-team playoff! :facepalm2:

Try to make a little bit of sense.

GSU is a SOCON team. They were in the semi-final. Should they NOT have been in the field?

From memory, the two biggest 2011 FCS failures were Towson which was the CAA Champion and lost right away and UNI which won a game they didn't deserve to win and then got absolutely pasted at Montana. Thank heaven the Bison represented because the rest of the conference has been pretty good at failure.

You intentionally misunderstand my point (the alternative is not being smart enough to get it). I have no problem with a SELECTION COMMITTEE taking a Utah if they think they deserve it. I have a big problem with a team from a shitty conference getting an AUTOBID just because they won their conference. Think MAC, WAC, CUSA, Sunbelt,etc. BTW, the BCS has no requirement to have autobids. That's an NCAA rule and the NCAA cannot tell the BCS what to do about how it runs its Championship.

In FBS, I've said many times that I'd support 8 teams but it might take a while before they go there. I think by then, the big conferences will have figured out how they can cut the small time conferences out of the deal. The money to be made is huge and they will find a way to keep it.

They could do it right now and nobody could really stop them. Just set up their playoff with teams from the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, and PAC 12. Invite the worthy Big East and ACC teams to play football in their conferences or stay where they are and tell everybody else to pound sand. Go set up your own playoffs and let the NCAA run it.

If they did that, do you have any idea what playoff college football fans would watch and where the TV money would flow? Yeah, the big boys would get the TV deals and nobody but the individual school's fans would give a flying flip about the NCAA playoffs.

I should add, Utah is now in the PAC 12. The message has been clearly sent. Play a solid schedule in a strong conference or get comfortable sitting at home. There really aren't any top level programs left in the weak conferences. (that I can think of)

[56BISON73]

Part of my deal is I like to play devil's advocate with someone who continually rants. The majority of people wanted a playoff. The majority of people are tired of the occasional BSUs, Utahs, TCUs not getting a fair shot. The majoriy of people will not be satisfied with a 4-team "playoff". As I've said all along, if Utah defeats say an Alabama and a Florida along with running the conference, a selection committee should put them in the playoffs over a 3rd place SEC finisher. You have made it clear that 'smaller' conferences should in no way be considered for a playoff.

The 2011 FCS committee 'nailed' the top 4 teams they seeded, yes, but you can say they failed on all those CAA/Southern teams they let in. Guess there's your argument for a 4-team playoff! :facepalm2:

Heres my arguement for a 4 team playoff. ITS BETTER THAN THE BCS THAT EVERYONE HAS BEEN BITCHING ABOUT!!!!! The new format has got the ball rolling. IMO it will be expanded in the future.