Official 2012-2013 NCAA Football Thread

[cabiness42]

I don't mind having a committee, but I'd impose some restrictions on them.

 

Keep the BCS rankings, or some modification of them.

 

1) If there are more than three conference champions (CC) ranked in the top six, then the committee must select at least three of those CC. Furthermore, if there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and less than three of those CC are undefeated, all undefeated CC must be selected. If there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and more than two of those CC are undefeated, at least two of the undefeated CC must be selected. If there are less than four CC ranked in the top six, then all CC must be selected.

 

2) If Notre Dame ranked in the top two, or undefeated and ranked in the top six, they must be selected.

 

3) The selection committee may fill any remaining slots from any team ranked in the top six, with the exception that no conference may have more than two selections.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I have always said I dont have an issue with the BCS if it was used to pick teams for a playoff. So, I see no need for a committee. and, I'd prefer 8 teams. But I know that is unlikely.

[LittleHurt05]

A playoff system is on it's way... and I already dont like it. Sorry, 4 teams decided by a committee doesnt sit right with me.

 

BCS Presidential Oversight Committee approves four-team playoff

 

I'm sure within the first year or two, there will be a huge outcry that the #5 team got screwed, and the calls for an 8-team playoff will begin.

[Soxbadger]

This is going to blow up as soon as the SEC gets 2 teams at the expense of another power conference getting 1.

 

 

[Brian]

This is going to blow up as soon as the SEC gets 2 teams at the expense of another power conference getting 1.

 

That better not happen. They should just take the winner of the SEC title game. Anything else should be outlawed.

[SexiAlexei]

I don't mind having a committee, but I'd impose some restrictions on them.

 

Keep the BCS rankings, or some modification of them.

 

1) If there are more than three conference champions (CC) ranked in the top six, then the committee must select at least three of those CC. Furthermore, if there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and less than three of those CC are undefeated, all undefeated CC must be selected. If there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and more than two of those CC are undefeated, at least two of the undefeated CC must be selected. If there are less than four CC ranked in the top six, then all CC must be selected.

 

2) If Notre Dame ranked in the top two, or undefeated and ranked in the top six, they must be selected.

 

3) The selection committee may fill any remaining slots from any team ranked in the top six, with the exception that no conference may have more than two selections.

 

I can understand most of this except for #2. Why should Notre Dame ever be required to be selected? They choose not to be in a conference, that's on them. And they have won 2 bowl gamessince 1995, against Hawai'i and U Miami. They have NEVER won a BCS game. They are no longer the "power house" they once were, and should not be given any special privileges.

[southsider2k5]

I don't mind having a committee, but I'd impose some restrictions on them.

 

Keep the BCS rankings, or some modification of them.

 

1) If there are more than three conference champions (CC) ranked in the top six, then the committee must select at least three of those CC. Furthermore, if there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and less than three of those CC are undefeated, all undefeated CC must be selected. If there are more than three CC ranked in the top six and more than two of those CC are undefeated, at least two of the undefeated CC must be selected. If there are less than four CC ranked in the top six, then all CC must be selected.

 

2) If Notre Dame ranked in the top two, or undefeated and ranked in the top six, they must be selected.

 

3) The selection committee may fill any remaining slots from any team ranked in the top six, with the exception that no conference may have more than two selections.

 

Screw ND. Join a conference.

[Brian]

It's only natural that fans of teams just missing out will complai. But if you have the top 4, more often than not, you'll have the rightful champion. IMO

[cabiness42]

It's only natural that fans of teams just missing out will complai. But if you have the top 4, more often than not, you'll have the rightful champion. IMO

 

I agree, but there seems to be nothing forcing the selection committee to actually take the top 4. I'm looking at the final 2010 BCS standings and envisioning #5 Wisconsin, #6 Ohio State, or #7 Oklahoma getting selected over #3 TCU due to TV ratings.

[Soxbadger]

That better not happen. They should just take the winner of the SEC title game. Anything else should be outlawed.

 

It will likely happen. This year the SEC had 1 and 2, in this system how would they have kept out one of them?

 

Basically its a mess if you have a bunch of teams with similar records going into the conference championship. If you have upsets and 5-6 teams have the same record there is no guarantee that the conference champions will get in. The Big 10 tried to make the conference champion mandatory, but the SEC fought it.

 

 

[IlliniKrush]

3) The selection committee may fill any remaining slots from any team ranked in the top six, with the exception that no conference may have more than two selections.

 

 

That better not happen. They should just take the winner of the SEC title game. Anything else should be outlawed.

If 2 of the best teams in the country are from the SEC (or any other conference), they should both get in. We're trying to get the 4 BEST teams into the playoff. However it falls, it falls. Why would you put things in there to prevent it?

[Balta1701]

Let's face it, the NCAA does have experience with "Selection committees". And even though every year some teams have their bubbles burst, it works out ok, and what people wind up remembering are the games. I can't imagine they'd pick a 1 loss team that lost its conference champion over an undefeated.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Let's face it, the NCAA does have experience with "Selection committees". And even though every year some teams have their bubbles burst, it works out ok, and what people wind up remembering are the games. I can't imagine they'd pick a 1 loss team that lost its conference champion over an undefeated.

In my opinion. having a committee that "snubs" team number #70 in the RPI is very different from a group picking ONLY 4 teams to play for the title. I say we reduce the NCCA basketball tournament to just the top 4 teams.

[Balta1701]

In my opinion. having a committee that "snubs" team number #70 in the RPI is very different from a group picking ONLY 4 teams to play for the title. I say we reduce the NCCA basketball tournament to just the top 4 teams.

In most seasons, its going to be really easy for me to say, when someone starts complaining about the #5 team being snubbed...that they should have won the extra game. If you're picking between three 1-loss teams for the final 2 spots, and a team doesn't make it that did win their conference, the simple answer is going to be "you shouldn't have had that other real bad loss".

[Heads22]

Let's face it, the NCAA does have experience with "Selection committees". And even though every year some teams have their bubbles burst, it works out ok, and what people wind up remembering are the games. I can't imagine they'd pick a 1 loss team that lost its conference champion over an undefeated.

 

The BCS/Division I-A postseason has NOTHING to do with the NCAA

[Soxbadger]

Isnt that the real elephant in the room, who will be the committee.

[SexiAlexei]

Can someone who wants to see the playoff expanded past 4 teams provide reasons? I've seen that people want it to, but i haven't heard good reasons behind it.

 

The big problem a lot of people had was that #3 got left out. I think it was a few years ago that Auburn was undefeated at #3, but didn't get to play, and last year's rematch people felt was not fair for #3.

 

I think a 4 team playoff will eliminate this issue. I don't care who #5 is, because overall, they didn't earn the right to play.

 

The big thing I see happening is 3-4 years from now people will be upset that #5 got left out. Then they'll expand it to 8 to make sure #5 gets in.

 

Then 3-4 years after that, people will be upset #9 got left out, so they'll expand it to 16.

 

Rinse and repeat until you have the NCAA Basketball tournament for football.

 

And I think a 4 team playoff still keeps the regular season meaningful, but once you go beyond that, it really starts to water down the regular season.

 

LSU vs Bama in the regular season was huge because the loser's season was suppose to be over. Same with Oregon vs LSU.

 

When you start letting 8, 16, etc. teams into the post season, these games mean nothing. (Especially when there is no home field, and they're being played at bowl games).

 

So when I hear people on TV saying they need to expand beyond 4 teams, I don't understand it. I think 4 eliminates the argument that the BCS leaves out the best teams.

Edited June 28, 2012 by SexiAlexei

[IlliniKrush]

I agree with you, 4 is enough.

[Soxbadger]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/ncf/story/_/id/...look-every-team

 

"We want the sort of sophisticated analysis that says you know this team lost their first game, but their quarterback didn't play the last three quarters. The rest of their season they were undefeated, so if you factor that in, maybe they're a top-four team in the country. We want to have that level of sophistication."

 

And so it begins. The one thing I liked about the BCS, was it was objective. You either win or you lose.

 

I knew there was a reason I didnt want this. It should have been some sort of deal where it was 4 spots, 4 guaranteed bids to conference champions. You cant give access to everyone in a 4 team tournament, its going to be nonsense hearing arguments why 2 sec teams should be in because the other team "only lost to the sec team!?". You win your conference, you move on.

 

Maybe they need to add a new division to football, where only the big conferences are. That way everyone can have access to a championship, but as a fan Id rather just see the SEC/PAC/BIG and whoever the 4th is, fight it out each year.

[Heads22]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/ncf/story/_/id/...look-every-team

 

 

 

And so it begins. The one thing I liked about the BCS, was it was objective. You either win or you lose.

 

I knew there was a reason I didnt want this. It should have been some sort of deal where it was 4 spots, 4 guaranteed bids to conference champions. You cant give access to everyone in a 4 team tournament, its going to be nonsense hearing arguments why 2 sec teams should be in because the other team "only lost to the sec team!?". You win your conference, you move on.

 

Maybe they need to add a new division to football, where only the big conferences are. That way everyone can have access to a championship, but as a fan Id rather just see the SEC/PAC/BIG and whoever the 4th is, fight it out each year.

 

Ha, is there a reason the Big 12 wasn't included in your little grouping?

[Soxbadger]

Big 12 barely survived the last few years, they prove over the next 4 that they are better than ACC, Big East, they would get it. Its just hard to put a ton of faith in them when they lost 2 teams to the SEC.

[Heads22]

Big 12 barely survived the last few years, they prove over the next 4 that they are better than ACC, Big East, they would get it. Its just hard to put a ton of faith in them when they lost 2 teams to the SEC.

 

Meh, during the BCS era, the four teams that left were responsible for only four BCS berths and none since 2002. I don't think the conference has to prove itself as a football power.

 

You can't be serious by even including the Big East in your reply.

[dasox24]

That better not happen. They should just take the winner of the SEC title game. Anything else should be outlawed.

Why? The best 4 teams should be in regardless of conference. If that means the SEC gets 2 teams, so be it. Same with the B1G, Pac 12, etc.

[Soxbadger]

Its not about being a football power, its about what conferences have the most money and stability.

 

You arent just going to hand the Big 12 a place at the table after 2 years of will Texas leave, will the Big 12 fall apart. I understand that you are a Big 12 fan, but you have to recognize that it isnt about how good the teams are, its about the conferences.

 

And the reason I mentioned the Big East is because back when Miami was on top, they were just as relevant as the Big 12. Losing AM, Nebraska and Missouri are pretty big hits to prestige, no matter how you try and explain it away.

[Soxbadger]

Why? The best 4 teams should be in regardless of conference. If that means the SEC gets 2 teams, so be it. Same with the B1G, Pac 12, etc.

 

I think this is where many Big and SEC fans disagree, many BIG fans are usually okay with the idea that winning your conference, especially with a championship, should mean something.

 

It would be pretty silly for a team that doesnt even get in the conference championship game, to then get a shot at a National title.

 

"Wisconsin won the National title, but was 2nd to OSU in their division in the Big 10, so they didnt even have to play in the CCG."

 

Id love it, but seems cheap.