Right. I mean, in basketball the conference champ system is in place and has been for years. Why haven't teams like Louisiana-Lafayette reached Kentucky or Kansas level? Chasing complete parity in college sports in like unicorn hunting. Where do you draw the line to ensure that everyone is on an equal playing field? I mean, Florida is filled with little Billy 4-stars. Montana? Not so much. Should we regulate how many Florida HS kids each college can recruit so Montana is on an equal recruiting playing field?

I get it. Then there should be the 4-5 team super conference scenario.


Unless you think it's right for 15 conferences in the same division playing by different rules.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

My number one concern is to crown the best college football team in the country. The 4-5 team super conference scenario is nice in theory, but it isn't going to happen. Since it's not going to happen, the next best way to crown the best team in college football is the 8 team playoff in my original post.

 

 

Your number one concern seems to be doing away with all unfair advantages. I think Florida and Florida St. have an unfair recruiting advantage over Northern schools. How would you suggest getting rid of that unfair advantage?

---

My number one concern is to crown the best college football team in the country. The 4-5 team super conference scenario is nice in theory, but it isn't going to happen. Since it's not going to happen, the next best way to crown the best team in college football is the 8 team playoff in my original post.

 

 

Your number one concern seems to be doing away with all unfair advantages. I think Florida and Florida St. have an unfair recruiting advantage over Northern schools. How would you suggest getting rid of that unfair advantage?

 

You are making up unrealistic scenarios now.  You cant pick out certain things to make your arguement work.

 

If you have 8 teams, and say teams 7 and 8 have two losses, how is that fair to the teams that are undefeated or have one loss?  You say 8 is fair, but people can pick that apart as well.

 

Again, its an opinion.  You like to pick apart opinions as if yours is the only right one.

---

You are making up unrealistic scenarios now.  You cant pick out certain things to make your arguement work.

 

If you have 8 teams, and say teams 7 and 8 have two losses, how is that fair to the teams that are undefeated or have one loss?  You say 8 is fair, but people can pick that apart as well.

 

Again, its an opinion.  You like to pick apart opinions as if yours is the only right one.

 

I never said 8 is fair. If the cut off is 8, then teams 9-16 are going to say it wasn't fair. If the cut-off is 16, then teams 17-24 are going to think they were unfairly left out. You're never going to have something that is "fair" for everyone. Regardless, what unrealistic scenarios have I made up?

 

Again, my goal is to crown the best team in college football. I think a 2 and 4 team playoffs run the risk of leaving out the best team in college football. The expansion to 8 teams, IMO, isn't to give more teams a shot. It is to make sure that the best team in college football doesn't miss out on the chance to play for the National Championship. 

---

I think 4 is enough for your stated goal assuming you really mean "most deserving" team in college football. Best is trickier because the best team doesn't always win. However, looking at #5 and #6, have they really made a case that they've performed the best all year? Most of the time 1 or 2 teams can make a case. Often a 3rd or rarely a 4th team can make a case if there are no undefeated teams. Beyond that you're looking at undefeated midmajors, 1-loss big teams with weak schedules or 2-loss teams. You can make a case those teams deserve a playoff spot. You have a hard time making a case they deserve to be #1 which is what the criteria was intended to be for both the BCS and the playoff.

---

My number one concern is to crown the best college football team in the country. The 4-5 team super conference scenario is nice in theory, but it isn't going to happen. Since it's not going to happen, the next best way to crown the best team in college football is the 8 team playoff in my original post.

 

 

Your number one concern seems to be doing away with all unfair advantages. I think Florida and Florida St. have an unfair recruiting advantage over Northern schools. How would you suggest getting rid of that unfair advantage?

The recruiting example isn't an advantage created by the NCAA or powers that be, how is that lost on you? That was a terrible attempt at comparing the unfair advantage.

 

Why are we even discussing this. Your way is obviously the best.

 

I am in full agreement, this is the only way to go! All Hail Hail!

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I think 4 is enough for your stated goal assuming you really mean "most deserving" team in college football. Best is trickier because the best team doesn't always win. However, looking at #5 and #6, have they really made a case that they've performed the best all year? Most of the time 1 or 2 teams can make a case. Often a 3rd or rarely a 4th team can make a case if there are no undefeated teams. Beyond that you're looking at undefeated midmajors, 1-loss big teams with weak schedules or 2-loss teams. You can make a case those teams deserve a playoff spot. You have a hard time making a case they deserve to be #1 which is what the criteria was intended to be for both the BCS and the playoff.

Good point on the 4 and most deserving comment. The four who make it would be the most deserving teams in football.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I think 4 is enough for your stated goal assuming you really mean "most deserving" team in college football. Best is trickier because the best team doesn't always win. However, looking at #5 and #6, have they really made a case that they've performed the best all year? Most of the time 1 or 2 teams can make a case. Often a 3rd or rarely a 4th team can make a case if there are no undefeated teams. Beyond that you're looking at undefeated midmajors, 1-loss big teams with weak schedules or 2-loss teams. You can make a case those teams deserve a playoff spot. You have a hard time making a case they deserve to be #1 which is what the criteria was intended to be for both the BCS and the playoff.

 

This I can agree with and was trying to make a point towards this.  If you are going to put in 8, why not put in 16?  Seems like teh same difference.  You'd be hard pressed to say the 5th and 6th teams deserve it if we are using a strict only people that deserve it criteria....when you get to 7 and 8 you are really pushing your luck.

 

A playoff is more fun for everyone.  It gives your team that glimmer of hope that even with a couple losses, you still have that chance.

---

I think 4 is enough for your stated goal assuming you really mean "most deserving" team in college football. Best is trickier because the best team doesn't always win. However, looking at #5 and #6, have they really made a case that they've performed the best all year? Most of the time 1 or 2 teams can make a case. Often a 3rd or rarely a 4th team can make a case if there are no undefeated teams. Beyond that you're looking at undefeated midmajors, 1-loss big teams with weak schedules or 2-loss teams. You can make a case those teams deserve a playoff spot. You have a hard time making a case they deserve to be #1 which is what the criteria was intended to be for both the BCS and the playoff.

 

I don't think 4 spots is quite enough. Look at 2012. Going into the postseason, you had:

 

12-0 Notre Dame

12-0 Ohio St.

12-1 Alabama. Loss at home to Texas A&M

11-1 Oregon. OT loss at home to Stanford.

11-1 Florida. Loss at home to Georgia.

11-1 Kansas St. Loss @Baylor.

11-2 Stanford. Losses @Notre Dame and @Washington. Beat Oregon on the road, won Pac 12.

 

 

Going into the postseason, I think that all of those teams had legitimate best-team-in-the-country arguments. Luckily, there was no undefeated mid-majors because that would have made a 4 team playoff even more sticky.

---

I don't think 4 spots is quite enough. Look at 2012. Going into the postseason, you had:

 

12-0 Notre Dame

12-0 Ohio St.

12-1 Alabama. Loss at home to Texas A&M

11-1 Oregon. OT loss at home to Stanford.

11-1 Florida. Loss at home to Georgia.

11-1 Kansas St. Loss @Baylor.

11-2 Stanford. Losses @Notre Dame and @Washington. Beat Oregon on the road, won Pac 12.

 

 

Going into the postseason, I think that all of those teams had legitimate best-team-in-the-country arguments. Luckily, there was no undefeated mid-majors because that would have made a 4 team playoff even more sticky.

 

Even there I think you could have pulled a top 4 relatively easy.  Ohio St/Notre Dame based on them being undefeated.

 

Alabama was the clear cut best team in the SEC and Oregon was the best team out west, so give them that shot.

 

You wouldnt give it to Florida because they lost to the team that Bama just beat for the SEC title and the Big 12 is similar to this year.

 

You couldnt even consider a 2 loss Stanford at that point.  This actually goes against your 8 team argument in that how can a team with 2 losses even be considered having a shot at the national title?

 

I'm just playing devil advocate.  There is no right answer here and no matter how this plays out a lot of people wont be happy.

---

This I can agree with and was trying to make a point towards this.  If you are going to put in 8, why not put in 16?  Seems like teh same difference.  You'd be hard pressed to say the 5th and 6th teams deserve it if we are using a strict only people that deserve it criteria....when you get to 7 and 8 you are really pushing your luck.

 

A playoff is more fun for everyone.  It gives your team that glimmer of hope that even with a couple losses, you still have that chance.

 

Not really. Expanding to 8 teams is to avoid being forced to exclude a 1 loss Alabama or an undefeated Utah. When you expand to 16, you start letting in some 2 and 3 loss teams that have no business competing for a National Championship.

---

Not really. Expanding to 8 teams is to avoid being forced to exclude a 1 loss Alabama or an undefeated Utah. When you expand to 16, you start letting in some 2 and 3 loss teams that have no business competing for a National Championship.

 

Right, but you're still at risk of letting teams 5/6/7/8 that may not be deserving have a shot.  

---

In 2012 there's definite confusion between #4 and #6. I think Alabama is a step above all the other 1-loss teams because of the strength of their schedule. Florida is the only other 1-loss team with a comparable schedule and they didn't win their conference. According to Sagarin they were the only teams with one loss or fewer with a top 35 SOS. And they were both in the top 20 for SOS.

 

You'd have a hard time convincing me that any of the other teams listed deserved to be #1. You can make a case for Alabama depending on how you weigh strength of schedule. I can't think of a year 5 teams had a legitimate argument that they deserved the top ranking at the end of the year.

---

Even there I think you could have pulled a top 4 relatively easy.  Ohio St/Notre Dame based on them being undefeated.

 

Alabama was the clear cut best team in the SEC and Oregon was the best team out west, so give them that shot.

 

You wouldnt give it to Florida because they lost to the team that Bama just beat for the SEC title and the Big 12 is similar to this year.

 

You couldnt even consider a 2 loss Stanford at that point.  This actually goes against your 8 team argument in that how can a team with 2 losses even be considered having a shot at the national title?

 

I'm just playing devil advocate.  There is no right answer here and no matter how this plays out a lot of people wont be happy.

 

Stanford won the Pac-12 by beating Oregon, at Oregon. One of their losses came on the road, in Overtime, to 12-0 Notre Dame. I think they had a very legitimate claim to best team in the country. I certainly don't see how you snub them for Oregon.

 

Another good example is 2008.

1. Florida 12-1

2. Oklahoma 12-1

3. Texas 11-1

4. Alabama 12-1

5. USC 11-1

6. Penn St. 11-1

7. Utah 12-0

8. Texas Tech 11-1

9. Boise St. 12-0

 

 

Pick 4 from that without knowing how their bowl games ended up and be sure that you aren't excluding anyone with a legitimate case for best team in the country. Good luck.

---

Right, but you're still at risk of letting teams 5/6/7/8 that may not be deserving have a shot.  

 

There won't always be 8 teams with legitimate cases, no. It's better than potentially leaving out a deserving team, though. 

---

In 2012 there's definite confusion between #4 and #6. I think Alabama is a step above all the other 1-loss teams because of the strength of their schedule. Florida is the only other 1-loss team with a comparable schedule and they didn't win their conference. According to Sagarin they were the only teams with one loss or fewer with a top 35 SOS. And they were both in the top 20 for SOS.

 

You'd have a hard time convincing me that any of the other teams listed deserved to be #1. You can make a case for Alabama depending on how you weigh strength of schedule. I can't think of a year 5 teams had a legitimate argument that they deserved the top ranking at the end of the year.

 

Just to be clear, you support a 4 team playoff?

 

 

I'm not talking about #1 ranking. I'm talking about legitimate arguments for best team in the country. 2008 there was more than 4 teams who had cases. In 2009 you had FIVE teams that were undefeated going into the post-season. Who do you leave out of a 4 team playoff that year?

---

nvm

---

I do support a 4 team playoff. Actually I think 6 is about the perfect number, give the top teams byes like the NFL. I feel there should be a big advantage for teams that have incredible regular seasons like FSU last year or Notre Dame in 2012. That also allows room for a top midmajor contender which the 4 team really doesn't. They never play a hard enough schedule to compete resume-wise with the top teams from the power conferences. I really think the midmajors should split off from the power conferences, but that's another thread.

 

For 2008, UF beat Alabama in the conference championship. So Alabama is out. The Big 12 South was pretty bizarre with OU, Texas, and Texas Tech all beating each other and OU somehow earning the birth to the championship game which they won. I wonder what the tiebreaker was. In that instance, it sucks for the other teams, but you've got to go with the conference champion. Don't like it, take it up with the Big 12. OU earned the conference championship by whatever rules the Big 12 set out and that makes them more deserving than the others to my mind. They're all competing under the same strictures.

 

Utah has a decent schedule while Boise State's had one quality game against Oregon and that was it.

 

So UF, OU, USC, and Penn State are the most deserving.

 

My point is that if you want to be given a shot to win the championship, show you're the MOST deserving team in the regular season. If you make a good case for #1, it takes something bizarre to be left out of a 4 team playoff. If you just do enough to be in the conversation for #4 it's your own fault if you're left off.

 

As an FSU basketball fan I understand the pain of the bubble, but you don't have to go to 16, 32, or 64 teams to get everyone who deserves the title. The conversation just gets watered down the further you go talking about who deserves a shot at the playoffs. That statement leaves someone in the cold no matter how big you go.

---

We agree that the more watered down it gets, the worse it becomes. This is why I think 16 teams is too many.


I think 6 would be good as it accomplishes the same thing as 8 does IMO. I think I'd rather see 2 additional teams than see two teams get byes, though. I'd have to think about that.


Going to 6 or 8 teams doesn't water it down as much as you think it does, though. I think Boise St. and TCU going undefeated, IMO, should put them in the playoffs. I agree that de-valuing the regular season is a bad thing, but those teams had elite regular seasons and earned the chance to play for a National Championship.

---

I do support a 4 team playoff. Actually I think 6 is about the perfect number, give the top teams byes like the NFL. I feel there should be a big advantage for teams that have incredible regular seasons like FSU last year or Notre Dame in 2012. That also allows room for a top midmajor contender which the 4 team really doesn't. They never play a hard enough schedule to compete resume-wise with the top teams from the power conferences. I really think the midmajors should split off from the power conferences, but that's another thread.

 

For 2008, UF beat Alabama in the conference championship. So Alabama is out. The Big 12 South was pretty bizarre with OU, Texas, and Texas Tech all beating each other and OU somehow earning the birth to the championship game which they won. I wonder what the tiebreaker was. In that instance, it sucks for the other teams, but you've got to go with the conference champion. Don't like it, take it up with the Big 12. OU earned the conference championship by whatever rules the Big 12 set out and that makes them more deserving than the others to my mind. They're all competing under the same strictures.

 

Utah has a decent schedule while Boise State's had one quality game against Oregon and that was it.

 

So UF, OU, USC, and Penn State are the most deserving.

 

My point is that if you want to be given a shot to win the championship, show you're the MOST deserving team in the regular season. If you make a good case for #1, it takes something bizarre to be left out of a 4 team playoff. If you just do enough to be in the conversation for #4 it's your own fault if you're left off.

 

As an FSU basketball fan I understand the pain of the bubble, but you don't have to go to 16, 32, or 64 teams to get everyone who deserves the title. The conversation just gets watered down the further you go talking about who deserves a shot at the playoffs. That statement leaves someone in the cold no matter how big you go.

 

I posted this scenario earlier.  6 teams would be better than 8.  Teams 7 and 8 are "undeserving" (and in most cases 5 and 6) as much as any team from 9-16.

---