BCS going away in favor of 4 team playoff

[tampajag]

First, please "define meaningful, relevant postseason games". I would define these as any of the 6 New Years Eve/New Years Day bowl games beginning in 2014 whether they are playoff games or not. If that's a fair definition, you're saying that a 12-0 Boise that beat the 12-1 SEC champ isn't good enough for one of those games?

Second, since you're talking about a 4 team playoff in this instance - I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 SEC champ doesn't have to worry about getting the 4th seed. The more likely scenario based on recent history is where the first three seeds go to the SEC, Big12 and PAC12 champs and the 4th seed is up for grabs between a 2+ loss team from the B1G0, SEC or PAC12. Am I correct in saying that in your opinion, a 12-0 Boise that beat the SEC champ doesn't even belong in the conversation for consideration for the 4th seed in such a situation?

I want to stress that college football did not have "woes" until this playoff started. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the NFL either. Thank god for that.

You have to consider who Boise State and Georgia play in an average year. Boise's MWC/WAC opponents are not that impressive. Yes, Fresno State, Utah State, Air Force, Wyoming, Colorado State, Hawaii, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Idaho, and TCU have had good teams from time to time. Obviously TCU was the big hog in that list. And Boise beat them all badly.
The problem is that for Georgia to go 12-1 and lose to Boise they would still have beaten a combination of Alabama, LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Every single one of those programs are better than any of the programs on Boise's list except for the SEC's bottom feeders.

So which is more impressive- beating a collection that includes annually strong teams with one hideous/forgivable (depending on interpretation) loss or an undefeated schedule that beats almost every team west of the Great Plains that doesn't play in the Pac-12 and isn't BYU?

Moving to the Big East and playing Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, USF, Pittsburgh, etc. is an improvement for Boise. It's still not enough for me at this point. The Big East sadly looks like the Mountain West conference now. It's hard to look at teams like Pitt that were once much more respected being non-AQ teams, but them's the breaks. What does the Pac-12 adding Colorado over Boise State tell you? To me it says that Boise isn't the cash cow darling the media wants you to think they are. They might be well-coached-overachieving-pain-in-the-asses to people like me, but to the big wigs of college football they look like a gimmick or something that suggests reduced profit. I'd don't know what word I was looking for there.

The only problem is on average Georgia will miss LSU/Bama more often then they will play them. Only played LSU 5 times in regular season since 2000 and Bama only 4 times in that span (they missed Bama in both of the Tide's title season). And TCU has won the only regular season matchup between the two. Boise won two bowl games by a combined 10 points. Although I do agree that Georgia does have a tougher road. I'm not really arguing for or against your point, just pointing a couple things out. I honestly think Boise's rise would have been similar to Miami/FSU (not saying they'd be those teams) during the poll years. Teams were more willing to schedule tougher. Too bad they were I-AA at that time.

[tampajag]

Miami/Notre Dame played every year from 65 to 90 including the first 5 in Miami. Besides Miami didn't exactly join a football powerhouse league but by that time they were their own brand that nobody could ignore.

But with RKW's solution to college football's woes there would be a single national championship game and only teams from the big boy conferences plus Notre Dame would be eligible. If this had been applied in the past, Miami despite playing ND every year would have had a much more difficult time grabbing the spotlight and making something out of themselves. The 83 Canes wouldn't have been invited to the Orange Bowl, the championship game back then would have been reserved for the winningest teams in the Big10, PAC10, Big8, Southwest and SEC conferences.

Miami only beat two ranked teams that year. They went into the Orange Bowl at #6. An undefeated #2 Texas had no shot.

[tampajag]

Also it remains to be seen how Boise will fare in the post-Kellen Moore era, we'll see if they missed their opportunity.

[UNI88]

A 12-1 SEC champ team is automatically better than any undefeated mid-major, even if they lost to them. Just like the Packers were better than the Giants last year. Just because you win does not mean you are the all-around better or more worthy team. One win does not a season define any more than one loss. Any one-loss SEC team should be selected for a playoff over any non-BCS, non-Notre Dame team if they're the last 2 teams for that #4 spot.

First, please "define meaningful, relevant postseason games". I would define these as any of the 6 New Years Eve/New Years Day bowl games beginning in 2014 whether they are playoff games or not. If that's a fair definition, you're saying that a 12-0 Boise that beat the 12-1 SEC champ isn't good enough for one of those games?

Second, since you're talking about a 4 team playoff in this instance - I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 SEC champ doesn't have to worry about getting the 4th seed. The more likely scenario based on recent history is where the first three seeds go to the SEC, Big12 and PAC12 champs and the 4th seed is up for grabs between a 2+ loss team from the B1G0, SEC or PAC12. Am I correct in saying that in your opinion, a 12-0 Boise that beat the SEC champ doesn't even belong in the conversation for consideration for the 4th seed in such a situation?

You're not answering my questions:

1) please define what a "meaningful, relevant postseason games" is?

2) I'm not asking you to choose between a 12-0 Boise and a 12-1 SEC Champ that they beat. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the 12-1 SEC Champ is in along with the best team in both the Big12 and PAC12. There is one spot left in a 4 team playoff and the top contenders are Boise and the 11-2 B1G0 champ or the 11-2 2nd place teams from the Big12 or PAC12. Would you argue that Boise shouldn't be considered even though they finished 12-0 and beat the SEC Champ?

3) If your approach had been put in place 40 years ago, Miami and Virginia Tech would very likely not have done what they did and wouldn't be playing with the big boys. FSU was down on its luck but had some winning tradition and Bowden was able to turn things around (with quicker results than expected because Mudra didn't leave the cupboard bare). Boise, TCU & Utah are the current versions of Florida State, Miami and Va Tech. TCU & Utah have used their success to find homes in major conferences while Boise is still on the outside looking in; if they can continue to succeed after losing Moore (TJ makes a good point here) they'll likely find a home as well. But with your approach they never would have gotten the chance. So the question is whether you're ok with maintaining the status quo of college football and inhibiting the cyclical nature of sports where programs rise and fall for various reasons?

[rkwittem]

First, please "define meaningful, relevant postseason games". I would define these as any of the 6 New Years Eve/New Years Day bowl games beginning in 2014 whether they are playoff games or not. If that's a fair definition, you're saying that a 12-0 Boise that beat the 12-1 SEC champ isn't good enough for one of those games?

Second, since you're talking about a 4 team playoff in this instance - I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 SEC champ doesn't have to worry about getting the 4th seed. The more likely scenario based on recent history is where the first three seeds go to the SEC, Big12 and PAC12 champs and the 4th seed is up for grabs between a 2+ loss team from the B1G0, SEC or PAC12. Am I correct in saying that in your opinion, a 12-0 Boise that beat the SEC champ doesn't even belong in the conversation for consideration for the 4th seed in such a situation?

You're not answering my questions:

1) please define what a "meaningful, relevant postseason games" is?

2) I'm not asking you to choose between a 12-0 Boise and a 12-1 SEC Champ that they beat. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the 12-1 SEC Champ is in along with the best team in both the Big12 and PAC12. There is one spot left in a 4 team playoff and the top contenders are Boise and the 11-2 B1G0 champ or the 11-2 2nd place teams from the Big12 or PAC12. Would you argue that Boise shouldn't be considered even though they finished 12-0 and beat the SEC Champ?

3) If your approach had been put in place 40 years ago, Miami and Virginia Tech would very likely not have done what they did and wouldn't be playing with the big boys. FSU was down on its luck but had some winning tradition and Bowden was able to turn things around (with quicker results than expected because Mudra didn't leave the cupboard bare). Boise, TCU & Utah are the current versions of Florida State, Miami and Va Tech. TCU & Utah have used their success to find homes in major conferences while Boise is still on the outside looking in; if they can continue to succeed after losing Moore (TJ makes a good point here) they'll likely find a home as well. But with your approach they never would have gotten the chance. So the question is whether you're ok with maintaining the status quo of college football and inhibiting the cyclical nature of sports where programs rise and fall for various reasons?

1. I was fine with your definition, which I why I declined to answer.
2. They would be considered- I just wouldn't give them the time of day. Their 11 wins after the SEC championship win simply wouldn't be as impressive as winning 11 games in the Big XII. It all depends on who the 2 losses and wins came against. 11-2 with wins over teams like Texas and OK State but a couple of brutal losses opens the door for Boise. 11-2 with fewer good wins but more acceptable losses (like to OU and West Virginia) would still keep Boise out so long as they finished top 2-3 in the league (allowing for a 2nd place tie in the league).
3. I like the status quo. In case you haven't noticed, the teams I like to see in big bowls have been good pretty much for the majority of their existence- USC, Ohio State, Texas, OU, Alabama. I like the old money I guess. Adding chapters to a legacy is more interesting to me than building one. (If what Boise is doing could be considered a "legacy." One miracle win against OU and suddenly they belong in the title game. What a joke.)

[89Hen]

3. I like the status quo.... What a joke.

Many people feel your comment is a joke, that's why things are changing.

[rkwittem]

3. I like the status quo.... What a joke.

Many people feel your comment is a joke, that's why things are changing.

Nice straw man you got there. We all know why things are changing- there are lots of butthurt college presidents who are sick of watching southern teams parade to the championship game because they are getting outworked, outspent, and out-talented.
I only said that Boise making any claim to belong in a national championship game for the foreseeable future is a joke. And a bad one. Hey, we beat UGA! (we also beat Fresno State, Utah State, Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming). If your SOS sucks, I don't care if you 100-0. Not good enough. Beat 8+ quality opponents like everyone else has to. You want in the big boys' club, you better start playing by their rules.

[89Hen]

Many people feel your comment is a joke, that's why things are changing.

Nice straw man you got there. We all know why things are changing- there are lots of butthurt college presidents who are sick of watching southern teams parade to the championship game because they are getting outworked, outspent, and out-talented.
I only said that Boise making any claim to belong in a national championship game for the foreseeable future is a joke. And a bad one. Hey, we beat UGA! (we also beat Fresno State, Utah State, Hawaii, Idaho, and Wyoming). If your SOS sucks, I don't care if you 100-0. Not good enough. Beat 8+ quality opponents like everyone else has to. You want in the big boys' club, you better start playing by their rules.

Apparently you don't know why things are changing, so you might want to amend that "we".

As for "Boise making any claim to belong in a national championship game for the foreseeable future is a joke"... Them making any claim to belong in a NC game based on previous years would be a joke, just like any other team. However, unless you are limiting the "foreseeable future" to 2012, there's no way you can say that with any credibility. Who knows what their SOS will be in 2014.

BTW, at least you don't hide that you enjoy the "big boys club". People in the club tend to enjoy it. But there are more people outside the club that don't.

[UNI88]

I want to stress that college football did not have "woes" until this playoff started. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the NFL either. Thank god for that.

College football has always had "woes". People have been b!tching about this or that from the beginning. Some didn't like the conference oriented bowls with a mythical national champion. Some don't like the BCS. Just because you're in the minority who liked the status quo doesn't mean that other people's dissatisfaction wasn't relevant and that the "woes" didn't start until the playoffs were conceived.

Beat 8+ quality opponents like everyone else has to. You want in the big boys' club, you better start playing by their rules.

How many "big boy" national champions (or major bowl participants) have beaten 8+ quality opponents in the last 10 years? Ole Miss was not a "quality" opponent in 2011 and I'm not sure you could qualify Tennessee or Vanderbilt as "quality" opponents in 2011 either. And don't tell me they're "quality" simply because they're in the SEC. So Alabama had 5 quality wins before the NC in 2011 (Penn State, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi State and Auburn). Even with Tennessee & Vanderbilt, they still only had 7.

[tampajag]

I want to stress that college football did not have "woes" until this playoff started. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the NFL either. Thank god for that.

College football has always had "woes". People have been b!tching about this or that from the beginning. Some didn't like the conference oriented bowls with a mythical national champion. Some don't like the BCS. Just because you're in the minority who liked the status quo doesn't mean that other people's dissatisfaction wasn't relevant and that the "woes" didn't start until the playoffs were conceived.

Beat 8+ quality opponents like everyone else has to. You want in the big boys' club, you better start playing by their rules.

How many "big boy" national champions (or major bowl participants) have beaten 8+ quality opponents in the last 10 years? Ole Miss was not a "quality" opponent in 2011 and I'm not sure you could qualify Tennessee or Vanderbilt as "quality" opponents in 2011 either. And don't tell me they're "quality" simply because they're in the SEC. So Alabama had 5 quality wins before the NC in 2011 (Penn State, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi State and Auburn). Even with Tennessee & Vanderbilt, they still only had 7.

I agree with this. Who wants to not only lose a bowl game to your rival (who you beat once already) only to have to watch them win the championship because Jake Plummer couldn't lead his team to a victory.



yes I'm still bitter.....................

[89Hen]

Just because you're in the minority who liked the status quo doesn't mean that other people's dissatisfaction wasn't relevant and that the "woes" didn't start until the playoffs were conceived.

[rkwittem]

I want to stress that college football did not have "woes" until this playoff started. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the NFL either. Thank god for that.

College football has always had "woes". People have been b!tching about this or that from the beginning. Some didn't like the conference oriented bowls with a mythical national champion. Some don't like the BCS. Just because you're in the minority who liked the status quo doesn't mean that other people's dissatisfaction wasn't relevant and that the "woes" didn't start until the playoffs were conceived.

Beat 8+ quality opponents like everyone else has to. You want in the big boys' club, you better start playing by their rules.

How many "big boy" national champions (or major bowl participants) have beaten 8+ quality opponents in the last 10 years? Ole Miss was not a "quality" opponent in 2011 and I'm not sure you could qualify Tennessee or Vanderbilt as "quality" opponents in 2011 either. And don't tell me they're "quality" simply because they're in the SEC. So Alabama had 5 quality wins before the NC in 2011 (Penn State, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi State and Auburn). Even with Tennessee & Vanderbilt, they still only had 7.

Last 10 National Champions:
2002 Ohio State: Beat 9-win Texas Tech, #10 Washington State, won at Wisconsin, beat #17 Penn State, #19 Minnesota, 7-win Purdue (a much better team than 7 wins would indicate), and #12 Michigan.

2003 LSU: Beat Arizona in Tucson, #7 UGA, #17 Auburn, at #15 Ole Miss, 9-win Arkansas, and #5 UGA (in Atlanta) again. 6 quality wins.
2003 USC: Beat #6 Auburn in Auburn, 9-win Hawaii, #6 Washington State, and 8-win Oregon State. I guess we all remember why USC didn't get to go to New Orleans now.

2004 USC: Beat Va Tech at Landover, Md., #7 Cal, #15 Arizona State, at 7-win Oregon State. The Pac-12's mediocrity really bites USC here. But to their credit, they obliterated most of these teams.

2005 Texas: Won at #4 Ohio State, at Missouri, vs. Oklahoma, #24 Colorado, #10 Texas Tech, at Texas A&M, and beat Colorado again in the Big XII title game. 7 solid wins and they obliterated their opponents.

2006 Florida: Beat #13 Tennessee in Knoxville, #9 LSU, #25 UGA, Florida State, and #8 Arkansas. 5 great wins and a forgivable loss at Auburn.

2007 LSU: Beat #9 Va Tech, #14 South Carolina, #7 Florida, #19 Auburn, #18 Alabama, and #15 Tennessee, plus their only 2 losses were in triple OT.

2008 Florida: beat 7-win Miami, #4 LSU, #8 UGA, #24 South Carolina, #23 FSU, and #1 Alabama.

2009 Alabama: #7 Va Tech, at #20 Ole Miss, #22 South Carolina, 7-win Tennessee, #9 LSU, and #1 Florida.

2010 Auburn: #12 South Carolina, #12 Arkansas, #6 LSU, at #9 Alabama, #18 South Carolina

2011 Alabama: at #23 Penn State, #14 Arkansas, at #12 Florida. That's basically it. (I think you undersell Vandy- they were underrated last year in my opinion. They caught a number of bad breaks if memory serves.)

Maybe 8 wins is bit too much to ask. Even if we lowered the standard to 6 wins, Boise State still cannot sniff 2011 Bama, 2004 USC, or 2003 USC. That, and winning road games in BCS conferences where the talent level is generally higher across the board than it is in the might Mountain West/WAC makes the "Boise State's SOS is good enough" argument a moot point. The top-tier BCS teams are duking it out with better, more talented teams on a much more regular basis than Boise State was. Even Notre Dame's schedules with Navy and some bad Purdue teams on it in recent years blow Boise State's out of the water. Boise should not get the same credit for 1 win that LSU does. LSU beats a higher caliber of opponent on a much more regular basis than Boise ever has.

[eagleskins]

It still boggles my mind that rubes are all about the anti trust that is the BCS. The ONLY sport in America with no playoff. This still isn't a playoff, don't front. Boise would have beat the brakes off a few of the past 5 "national champions." The only people that like this system are rednecks who think football is a religion in the south.

[tampajag]

It still boggles my mind that rubes are all about the anti trust that is the BCS. The ONLY sport in America with no playoff. This still isn't a playoff, don't front. Boise would have beat the brakes off a few of the past 5 "national champions." The only people that like this system are rednecks who think football is a religion in the south.

[UNI88]

Maybe 8 wins is bit too much to ask. Even if we lowered the standard to 6 wins, Boise State still cannot sniff 2011 Bama, 2004 USC, or 2003 USC. That, and winning road games in BCS conferences where the talent level is generally higher across the board than it is in the might Mountain West/WAC makes the "Boise State's SOS is good enough" argument a moot point. The top-tier BCS teams are duking it out with better, more talented teams on a much more regular basis than Boise State was. Even Notre Dame's schedules with Navy and some bad Purdue teams on it in recent years blow Boise State's out of the water. Boise should not get the same credit for 1 win that LSU does. LSU beats a higher caliber of opponent on a much more regular basis than Boise ever has.

Thank you, you analysis clearly demonstrated that 8 wins is a bit too much to ask. The average is probably 6 with a typical range of 5-7.

I don't give Boise, TCU or Utah the same credit for each of their wins that I would give to an SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 team. I do believe that an undefeated Boise, TCU or Utah deserve EQUAL consideration with a 2-loss team from any of those conferences.

The non-PAC12 western teams are 4-2 in BCS bowls and the only team that didn't belong was Hawaii. Take them away and they're 4-1 with the only loss being TCU to Boise. And before you use Hawaii as proof that you're right there have been plenty of SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 teams that made BCS bowls they didn't belong in and got blown out as well.

[rkwittem]

Maybe 8 wins is bit too much to ask. Even if we lowered the standard to 6 wins, Boise State still cannot sniff 2011 Bama, 2004 USC, or 2003 USC. That, and winning road games in BCS conferences where the talent level is generally higher across the board than it is in the might Mountain West/WAC makes the "Boise State's SOS is good enough" argument a moot point. The top-tier BCS teams are duking it out with better, more talented teams on a much more regular basis than Boise State was. Even Notre Dame's schedules with Navy and some bad Purdue teams on it in recent years blow Boise State's out of the water. Boise should not get the same credit for 1 win that LSU does. LSU beats a higher caliber of opponent on a much more regular basis than Boise ever has.

Thank you, you analysis clearly demonstrated that 8 wins is a bit too much to ask. The average is probably 6 with a typical range of 5-7.

I don't give Boise, TCU or Utah the same credit for each of their wins that I would give to an SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 team. I do believe that an undefeated Boise, TCU or Utah deserve EQUAL consideration with a 2-loss team from any of those conferences.

The non-PAC12 western teams are 4-2 in BCS bowls and the only team that didn't belong was Hawaii. Take them away and they're 4-1 with the only loss being TCU to Boise. And before you use Hawaii as proof that you're right there have been plenty of SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 teams that made BCS bowls they didn't belong in and got blown out as well.

...blown out by other BCS teams usually.

[UNI88]

Thank you, you analysis clearly demonstrated that 8 wins is a bit too much to ask. The average is probably 6 with a typical range of 5-7.

I don't give Boise, TCU or Utah the same credit for each of their wins that I would give to an SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 team. I do believe that an undefeated Boise, TCU or Utah deserve EQUAL consideration with a 2-loss team from any of those conferences.

The non-PAC12 western teams are 4-2 in BCS bowls and the only team that didn't belong was Hawaii. Take them away and they're 4-1 with the only loss being TCU to Boise. And before you use Hawaii as proof that you're right there have been plenty of SEC, B1G0, Big12 or PAC12 teams that made BCS bowls they didn't belong in and got blown out as well.

...blown out by other BCS teams usually.

So what?

[rkwittem]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... _s_EBdSQsc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bobby Bowden's on board. I wondered who the first person to hate on the playoffs would be.

[clenz]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... _s_EBdSQsc

Bobby Bowden's on board. I wondered who the first person to hate on the playoffs would be.

Bobby's not looking so good these days.

[rkwittem]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... _s_EBdSQsc

Bobby Bowden's on board. I wondered who the first person to hate on the playoffs would be.

Bobby's not looking so good these days.

He looks like an old man. What did you expect?

[UNI88]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... _s_EBdSQsc

Bobby Bowden's on board. I wondered who the first person to hate on the playoffs would be.

Bobby's not looking so good these days.

[clenz]

Bobby's not looking so good these days.

He looks like an old man. What did you expect?

It's possible to be old but not look like a melting pile of dog shit.

[tampajag]

Bobby's not looking so good these days.

wrong coach:

[tampajag]

He looks like an old man. What did you expect?

It's possible to be old but not look like a melting pile of dog ****.

that's what happens when they take your life from you. I'm surprised he's still alive. But I still love him







































































no homo

[Grizalltheway]

wrong coach:

The one true Droopy Dog:



btw, who is that in your avatar? Looks a lot like one of my uncles.