Photo

It's Official! College Football Playoff to begin in 2014


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
113 replies to this topic

#81 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:10 PM

No matter how many teams you let in the tournament, they're will always be issues just like there is for the NCAA Tournament and there's 68 teams. The MAC Champ doesn't need to be represented IMO. The more exclusive the better IMO. College football has the most relevant regular season in sports. You can't afford to lose a game right now. Only sport where a loss in early September is lethal, although won't be as much next year. 16 teams is too much IMO (and yes I know they do it at the lower levels, doesn't mean I agree). I don't want to see 4-loss teams in this tournament. I like the fact, teams can't take games off like you can at the end of the NFL regular season. And in terms of seeding, there isn't as much incentive when there's no home games. That's what I would've differently, I get the reason they didn't.

 

They have an 11 year contract IIRC? That doesn't mean they can't rip it up, like has happened in the past, but I'd just like to see how this four team tournament works. I do agree that there's a good chance it gets increased to 8 eventually, maybe 6 with byes?


@levineps

#82 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:44 PM

The MAC Champ doesn't need to be represented IMO.

If they're in the same division as the champion of the SEC or Big Ten, sure they do.

 

If the NCAA wants to realign their football divisions again, either dropping a bunch of I-A teams down to I-AA or creating a third division in the middle for the mid-majors and higher-quality I-AA teams, that's fine. I can get behind that. But as long as those teams are at the same level as Alabama and Ohio State any system that doesn't allow the same opportunity, while better than previous systems, isn't good enough.


@DJ_McCann

#83 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:56 PM

If they're in the same division as the champion of the SEC or Big Ten, sure they do.

 

If the NCAA wants to realign their football divisions again, either dropping a bunch of I-A teams down to I-AA or creating a third division in the middle for the mid-majors and higher-quality I-AA teams, that's fine. I can get behind that. But as long as those teams are at the same level as Alabama and Ohio State any system that doesn't allow the same opportunity, while better than previous systems, isn't good enough.

I'm more than fine leaving these teams out, they can qualify as AT-L teams like what is currently in place. They don't deserve the same opportunity as Alabama and Ohio State. There's a reason those teams are in the SEC and Big 10 and a team like Northern Illinois is in the MAC. They don't need further realignment. The BCS or College Football Playoff has already essentially done this. The NCAA plays little role and will likely continue to do so. They've shown they'll be more exclusive than inclusive with eliminating the Big East recently.


@levineps

#84 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:10 PM

I'm more than fine leaving these teams out, they can qualify as AT-L teams like what is currently in place. They don't deserve the same opportunity as Alabama and Ohio State. There's a reason those teams are in the SEC and Big 10 and a team like Northern Illinois is in the MAC. They don't need further realignment. The BCS or College Football Playoff has already essentially done this. The NCAA plays little role and will likely continue to do so. They've shown they'll be more exclusive than inclusive with eliminating the Big East recently.

The elimination of the Big East from the have-conferences doesn't necessarily mean the system has become more exclusive overall. The reason the Big East (AAC) is being tossed back among the rest is because its membership will soon be almost exclusively schools that were already on the outside when the BCS started....while the Big East's original football membership will all soon be among the Big 5 conferences, save UConn and Temple (if you even want to count them, since they were expelled then brought back last year).

 

And I do agree with your other point. I don't believe a football playoff needs to automatically include every conference champion. Opening round matchups of Alabama vs. Toledo or Oregon vs. Troy are not going to enhance the postseason....and would probably have just the opposite effect.



#85 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:12 PM

The elimination of the Big East from the have-conferences doesn't necessarily mean the system has become more exclusive overall. The reason the Big East (AAC) is being tossed back among the rest is because its membership will soon be almost exclusively schools that were already on the outside when the BCS started....while the Big East's original football membership will all soon be among the Big 5 conferences, save UConn and Temple (if you even want to count them, since they were expelled then brought back last year).

 

And I do agree with your other point. I don't believe a football playoff needs to automatically include every conference champion. Opening round matchups of Alabama vs. Toledo or Oregon vs. Troy are not going to enhance the postseason....and would probably have just the opposite effect.

That's what I'm getting at re: Big East & AAC.

 

It's not basketball, where you got 68 teams and it makes sense to include every conference champion(or in that case except the Ivy League, every conference tournament winner).


@levineps

#86 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 01 June 2013 - 04:59 PM

The elimination of the Big East from the have-conferences doesn't necessarily mean the system has become more exclusive overall. The reason the Big East (AAC) is being tossed back among the rest is because its membership will soon be almost exclusively schools that were already on the outside when the BCS started....while the Big East's original football membership will all soon be among the Big 5 conferences, save UConn and Temple (if you even want to count them, since they were expelled then brought back last year).

 

And I do agree with your other point. I don't believe a football playoff needs to automatically include every conference champion. Opening round matchups of Alabama vs. Toledo or Oregon vs. Troy are not going to enhance the postseason....and would probably have just the opposite effect.

They might not be great games. The first round of the basketball tournament (the real first round, not the bastardized Tuesday-Wednesday version in place now) contains a lot of bad games and blowout wins and big programs beating up on little ones. But people don't care because pretty much every year there are multiple games where the lesser team plays over their head, or the better one goes ice-cold, and turn into major upsets.

 

A theoretical 16-team football playoff would have 1/4 the teams involved, including a lower percentage of cupcake teams. It is also more difficult for a lesser football team to get all of the pieces in place to defeat a better one since in football it is almost impossible for a single player to take over a game in the same fashion as basketball, or for a team to be in sync all at once.

 

However, the first time Troy goes into Bryant-Denny and catches 'Bama on a bad day, people aren't going to care about all of the times New Mexico State lost to Wisconsin by 40. The first time Marshall goes on a miracle run through the playoffs and beats Stanford in the championship game no one will give a damn that the low seeds almost always lose. That is what people will remember.


  • Adam Wolff likes this
@DJ_McCann

#87 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:20 PM

ESPN: More bids on future title game sites

 

http://espn.go.com/c...e-games-sources


@levineps

#88 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:20 AM

ESPN: Bill Hancock details committee plan

 

http://espn.go.com/c...end-2013-season


@levineps

#89 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:49 PM

ESPN: Cities make pitch for title games

 

http://espn.go.com/c...mpionship-games


@levineps

#90 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:45 AM

ESPN: 12-18 members to be on committee

 

http://espn.go.com/c...ction-committee

 

Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese along with athletic directors Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin), Pat Haden (USC), Jeff Long (Arkansas), Oliver Luck (West Virginia) and Dan Radakovich (Clemson) have been chosen to be on the College Football Playoff selection committee, sources told ESPN.


@levineps

#91 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:25 PM

ESPN: Source: Condoleezza Rice to join

 

http://espn.go.com/c...ction-committee

 

The College Football Playoff selection committee will have some star power as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will join former NFL quarterback Archie Manning

How many people can say they were a Stanford University Provost, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Augusta National member, and now, a CFB Playoff selection Committee member? Interesting and out-of-the-box choice, I hope we'll see some other non-traditional choices.


@levineps

#92 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,406 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

ESPN: Source: Condoleezza Rice to join

 

http://espn.go.com/c...ction-committee

 

How many people can say they were a Stanford University Provost, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Augusta National member, and now, a CFB Playoff selection Committee member? Interesting and out-of-the-box choice, I hope we'll see some other non-traditional choices.

 

I don't. Give me a Committee full of College Football lifers. Don't even like having active AD's. Would rather see all media.



#93 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:39 PM

I don't. Give me a Committee full of College Football lifers. Don't even like having active AD's. Would rather see all media.

For college basketball, you don't have all lifers, just current ADs/commissioners -- some of which you have little connection to cbb.


@levineps

#94 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:27 PM

I don't. Give me a Committee full of College Football lifers. Don't even like having active AD's. Would rather see all media.

 

Amen. Between the panelists with obvious biases and those who have no practical football-related experience, this is looking like a farce. Unfortunately I can't say I'm shocked or even a bit surprised....I always suspected the choices would be political (not literally, but in Rice's instance apparently even that is now the case). I loved Stewart Mandel's idea of having a committee of Vegas oddsmakers, but I'm sure that was and always will be a non-starter. Beyond that, your endorsement of national media is probably the next-best thing.



#95 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:05 AM

Amen. Between the panelists with obvious biases and those who have no practical football-related experience, this is looking like a farce. Unfortunately I can't say I'm shocked or even a bit surprised....I always suspected the choices would be political (not literally, but in Rice's instance apparently even that is now the case). I loved Stewart Mandel's idea of having a committee of Vegas oddsmakers, but I'm sure that was and always will be a non-starter. Beyond that, your endorsement of national media is probably the next-best thing.

The media idea isn't bad, like a lot of things, there isn't a great solution. I think many companies would object to their employees being part of such a panel. Even with media members only, you'll get allegations of bias especially against west coast teams. For those who want computers to decide it, you get the problem with them not "watching" the games. I think some sort of hybrid system is just what has to be done, I've seen the scouts idea mentioned but yeah I can't see any NFL teams wanting their employees to be part of such.

 

I think someone like Archie Manning is a good choice on the surface, but is he going to be too biased to the SEC? I like the idea of lifers like Chris mentioned and ideally ones not currently affiliated with any programs. Getting rid of biases will be close to impossible, no matter how much you try.


@levineps

#96 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:32 AM

The media idea isn't bad, like a lot of things, there isn't a great solution. I think many companies would object to their employees being part of such a panel. Even with media members only, you'll get allegations of bias especially against west coast teams. For those who want computers to decide it, you get the problem with them not "watching" the games. I think some sort of hybrid system is just what has to be done, I've seen the scouts idea mentioned but yeah I can't see any NFL teams wanting their employees to be part of such.

 

I think someone like Archie Manning is a good choice on the surface, but is he going to be too biased to the SEC? I like the idea of lifers like Chris mentioned and ideally ones not currently affiliated with any programs. Getting rid of biases will be close to impossible, no matter how much you try.

 

Which is one reason I really loved the Vegas idea. That's about as close as I think you'll get to unbiased in a human being. Yeah, you might as well hang an "SEC Homer" sign on Manning. And I guarantee no one up here is pleased with the choice of Condoleezza Rice. And as for AD's on the committee, that's about as bad as having coaches vote on the poll that determines the BCS standings. You know these guys aren't paying any attention to teams that aren't on their schedule, they just don't have the time. That said, Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin) and Jeff Long (Arkansas) both on the committee? That could be an interesting discussion.



#97 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:36 AM

Which is one reason I really loved the Vegas idea. That's about as close as I think you'll get to unbiased in a human being. Yeah, you might as well hang an "SEC Homer" sign on Manning. And I guarantee no one up here is pleased with the choice of Condoleezza Rice. And as for AD's on the committee, that's about as bad as having coaches vote on the poll that determines the BCS standings. You know these guys aren't paying any attention to teams that aren't on their schedule, they just don't have the time. That said, Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin) and Jeff Long (Arkansas) both on the committee? That could be an interesting discussion.

Anyone have a good idea of 10-14 *realistic* choices for this selection committee?... I don't but I'm just throwing it out there since every choice so far appears to be lacking.


@levineps

#98 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:42 AM

Anyone have a good idea of 10-14 *realistic* choices for this selection committee?... I don't but I'm just throwing it out there since every choice so far appears to be lacking.

 

Well, ideally you want someone with a solid football background, but no ties (current or past) to an FBS school. I'm sure there are 10-14 people out there somewhere, but you'd probably have to search far and wide to find them. Maybe some retired NFL players/coaches/execs?



#99 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:46 AM

Well, ideally you want someone with a solid football background, but no ties (current or past) to an FBS school. I'm sure there are 10-14 people out there somewhere, but you'd probably have to search far and wide to find them. Maybe some retired NFL players/coaches/execs?

Who are still intuned with the college game and not just with their alma matters. It's a tough balance to find on one-hand people with no biases, but at the same time, those whp would take this responsibility seriously enough. Are they getting paid?

 

I agree there are definitely some people out there who could do this, but it won't be easy finding them and having them agree to serve.


@levineps

#100 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:55 AM

Who are still intuned with the college game and not just with their alma matters. It's a tough balance to find on one-hand people with no biases, but at the same time, those whp would take this responsibility seriously enough. Are they getting paid?

 

I agree there are definitely some people out there who could do this, but it won't be easy finding them and having them agree to serve.

 

And then there's that. Hell, I wouldn't even do it if asked unless I was guaranteed complete anonymity. I would not want to be a committee member driving through the Deep South the year after only one SEC team was selected for the playoff.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=