Official 2012-2013 NCAA Football Thread

[Heads22]

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.

 

The Big 12 is one of the big four - easily - in terms of money. And the conference is stable through the grant of rights for the next thirteen years.

 

Although, as a Big Ten fan, I can see why you'd want guaranteed access as opposed to actually having the best four teams included.

 

I still don't know what the hell you're talking about with the Big East. They are barely relevant at all.

[Soxbadger]

The Big 12 is one of the big four - easily - in terms of money. And the conference is stable through the grant of rights for the next thirteen years.

 

Although, as a Big Ten fan, I can see why you'd want guaranteed access as opposed to actually having the best four teams included.

 

I still don't know what the hell you're talking about with the Big East. They are barely relevant at all.

 

As I said the Big 12 almost fell apart multiple times in the last 2 years. If you want to believe that is very stable, you can, but I see a conference that lost teams to the BIG, SEC and PAC. Its undeniable, Big 12 teams left the conference to go to those 3. So its really hard to say the Big 12 is on the same level. If they are on the same level, why would those teams leave? Does that make any sense?

 

As for the Big East and the ACC, if this system would ever get off the ground you would need to at least offer them access, hence why the bid is split with them and the Big 12. If the Big 12 is so much better, theyll win it every time.

[Heads22]

As I said the Big 12 almost fell apart multiple times in the last 2 years. If you want to believe that is very stable, you can, but I see a conference that lost teams to the BIG, SEC and PAC. Its undeniable, Big 12 teams left the conference to go to those 3. So its really hard to say the Big 12 is on the same level. If they are on the same level, why would those teams leave? Does that make any sense?

 

As for the Big East and the ACC, if this system would ever get off the ground you would need to at least offer them access, hence why the bid is split with them and the Big 12. If the Big 12 is so much better, theyll win it every time.

 

I believe that the Big 12 would/will regularly gain access to the top 4.

 

Although you're arguing for a system that didn't happen. So I guess it's moot.

 

I won't even delve into the teams leaving the Big 12, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find people that don't think the Big 12 is one of the "Big 4" right now.

[Soxbadger]

The Big 12 needs to have a conference championship game, otherwise the argument is always going to be against them unless they run the table.

[Heads22]

The Big 12 needs to have a conference championship game, otherwise the argument is always going to be against them unless they run the table.

 

Why?

[Soxbadger]

Well when you have Big, Pac and SEC all having a game with a champion, they are going to argue that is the equivalent of a mini-playoff for their league and thus the champion should always be in.

 

Then you will have them argue that one of the other teams would have been one of the top 4, but for having to play in the toughest conference in the land.

 

Add in the chance of a random other team like FSU, Miami, etc running the table and taking the 4th spot, its just not a great spot to be in.

 

Do you really want to be arguing for a 10-1 team, when pac, big and sec have 10-1 teams that all won conference championship games?

 

Thats 1 spot for everyone else, I think that is how it will go most years.

[Heads22]

Well when you have Big, Pac and SEC all having a game with a champion, they are going to argue that is the equivalent of a mini-playoff for their league and thus the champion should always be in.

 

Then you will have them argue that one of the other teams would have been one of the top 4, but for having to play in the toughest conference in the land.

 

Add in the chance of a random other team like FSU, Miami, etc running the table and taking the 4th spot, its just not a great spot to be in.

 

Do you really want to be arguing for a 10-1 team, when pac, big and sec have 10-1 teams that all won conference championship games?

 

Thats 1 spot for everyone else, I think that is how it will go most years.

 

I hate that the Big 12 is 10 teams, but that's only because I think that two more teams would help the appearance of stability (though I think we're stable now) and because it makes it easier for Iowa State to theoretically reach a conference championship.

 

In the Big 12 right now, however, everyone plays everyone else, so it's not like the conference champion is untested or anything. It's also been something that's hurt the Big 12 in the past more than it has helped.

 

Also, let's not act like the Big Ten has proven that it is in any way so much better than the Big 12. IMO, there's a much better chance that the Big 12 will have a team in the top 4 than the Big Ten.

[Soxbadger]

The Big 10 wont be in the 4 only years where they are at least 1 loss behind the rest of the pack (ie 5 teams have 1 loss, Big 10 teams have 2 losses).

 

The Big 10 is just to powerful in terms of clout and money. Its not about proving your better, its about money. The Big 10 has the most BCS appearances 25 and the most at large bids.

 

Is that because the Big 10 has been the best conference over the last X years? No.

 

So why do I think the Big 10 will get a spot? History, no one wants a 1 loss Ohio State sitting out in favor of the little sisters of the poor. No one wants Michigan out.

[Heads22]

The Big 10 wont be in the 4 only years where they are at least 1 loss behind the rest of the pack (ie 5 teams have 1 loss, Big 10 teams have 2 losses).

 

The Big 10 is just to powerful in terms of clout and money. Its not about proving your better, its about money. The Big 10 has the most BCS appearances 25 and the most at large bids.

 

Is that because the Big 10 has been the best conference over the last X years? No.

 

So why do I think the Big 10 will get a spot? History, no one wants a 1 loss Ohio State sitting out in favor of the little sisters of the poor. No one wants Michigan out.

 

We'll wait to see. Hopefully a (for example) 11-1 Kansas State team wouldn't be passed over by a comparable 12-1 Ohio State team despite going though a harder schedule. Otherwise we're back where we started.

[Soxbadger]

I have a feeling you are going to be disappointed.

[Heads22]

I have a feeling you are going to be disappointed.

 

And that'd be a shame. The conference has been one of the top conference in terms of football the last ten years and should continue to be into the future.

[Soxbadger]

There just is no good answer. Only having 4 teams and there being more than 4 conferences ultimately means someone is getting left out. I think Big 12 will get plenty of bids, I just more mean that its going to be about name teams, not necessarily the best teams.

 

1 loss Texas or OU, is different than KSU, etc. Just feel its going to be really restricted access.

 

(Edit)

 

And that is why I also think the agreement should have been 1 team per conference.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Soxbadger

[IlliniKrush]

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.

Your plan is silly. First of all, the BCS still had a human element in it.

 

4 spots and 4 guaranteed bids would create more problems, as you've already discovered. Which conferences get those? No one from outside those 4 can get in? What if one of those conference winners, quite frankly, is barely a top 10 team?

 

You need this to be subjective. Figure out the most important criteria, and go with it.

 

Again, if a conference has 2 of the top 4 teams in the country, please explain why they shouldn't be in the playoff? You'd rather have some other "conference winner" in there because they won a conference when NO ONE thinks they should be in there? Does a 3 loss team that wins a conference championship game now deserve to be in the playoff?

 

I have never seen so much stock put on "did they get into the CG or did they win the conference." I just view that game at the end as another game on the resume.

 

I'd love to hear a logical argument on why LSU and Alabama wouldn't have been in a playoff last year. Saying "OMG THEY DIDN'T WIN THE CONFERENCE" is just stupid. Clearly 2 of the best 4, that's the bottom line.

Edited June 28, 2012 by IlliniKrush

[Soxbadger]

Why should it not have been LSU/Alabama?

 

Simply put, they already had their chance. Wins and losses should matter, the playoffs shouldnt be about second chances, there should be consequences to the fact one of them lost. Otherwise you have a split, Alabama wins one, LSU wins one, how does that prove anything?

 

It would be one thing if they played other conferences, but most SEC teams dont play Big 10, who dont play PAC 12, etc. This isnt the NCAA Basketball where you have volumes of ooc games between top conferences to judge which was objectively stronger before the playoff.

 

What if the SEC had only 2 loss teams, and the PAC, Big and Big 12 had unbeatens or 1 loss teams, do you think the SEC should be out, just because they are not likely to have a top 4 team? Or maybe was the SEC just that good, that if their champion gets a shot at the title, they will actually win.

 

Its redundant to replay games in a playoff and there is no way to definitely prove who the top 4 teams are. You may think the SEC has the top 4 teams, maybe someone else thinks the PAC has the top 2 teams, until they actually play each other no one knows. Its merely speculation, the best hope is to be able to compare how badly they beat a common opponent, which isnt exactly the greatest place to start.

 

So instead of trying to worry about who really is the best, lets just only consider teams who earn a banner from their conference. That way the representative is picked by each conference, based on their own criteria for champion.

 

I think its stupid for the Big 10 to have 2 teams, just the same as the SEC. The only way you really get 2 teams is if 1 of them didnt even play in the CCG, so they are getting the same chance as another team in their conference who had to play an extra game. Seems kind of backwards to give that reward.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

Again, if a conference has 2 of the top 4 teams in the country, please explain why they shouldn't be in the playoff? You'd rather have some other "conference winner" in there because they won a conference when NO ONE thinks they should be in there? Does a 3 loss team that wins a conference championship game now deserve to be in the playoff?

 

How do you quantify the "best" teams in the country when, after September, almost all games are played within their own conference? Bias comes into the equation when there is a perception that a conference (currently the SEC) is superior to everyone else.

[cabiness42]

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.

 

That sentence sums up in a nutshell why Notre Dame will get some kind of blatantly unfair financial and TV deal to join either the Big 12 or ACC, because that is what would guarantee those conferences of being the 4th "Big time" conference after the SEC/PAC12/BIG10.

[cabiness42]

The only way you really get 2 teams is if 1 of them didnt even play in the CCG, so they are getting the same chance as another team in their conference who had to play an extra game. Seems kind of backwards to give that reward.

 

This is the biggest problem with the current system. If LSU and Alabama had been in separate divisions of the SEC, they would have had to play their second game in the SEC championship, and the loser of that game probably doesn't finish in the Top 2. The playoff alleviates that some, because it's harder for the #5 team to say they deserve a spot over Alabama than it is for the #3 team.

[IlliniKrush]

Badger,

 

The point of a playoff is to get the best 4 teams in, it does not matter what conference they are in. Last year, are you telling me that LSU and Alabama weren't 2 of the best 4 teams, and you should hold Alabama out because they lost a game? The regular season is not the playoffs. So had that loss been against someone else, you're OK with putting them in? You just want to see different games and conferences, I want the best 4 teams, and that's the point.

 

Illinilaw,

 

Of course there's bias. Herbstreit talks about the eye test. There are a lot of numbers and things you can look at, but eye test should factor in. Last year, eye test says LSU/Alabama were 2 of the 4 best teams in the country. Bias is how they create the top 25 in the first place.

[Balta1701]

Badger,

 

The point of a playoff is to get the best 4 teams in, it does not matter what conference they are in. Last year, are you telling me that LSU and Alabama weren't 2 of the best 4 teams, and you should hold Alabama out because they lost a game? The regular season is not the playoffs. So had that loss been against someone else, you're OK with putting them in? You just want to see different games and conferences, I want the best 4 teams, and that's the point.

 

Illinilaw,

 

Of course there's bias. Herbstreit talks about the eye test. There are a lot of numbers and things you can look at, but eye test should factor in. Last year, eye test says LSU/Alabama were 2 of the 4 best teams in the country. Bias is how they create the top 25 in the first place.

If Alabama had 1 loss to LSU and there were 4 other undefeated teams, then Alabama would not deserve to be in. However, that wasn't the case. Alabama had that one loss and there were a bunch of other 1+ loss teams. In that case, pick the best team out of that group, with some weight attached to winning your conference and some weight attached to the quality of the team that they lost to.

[Soxbadger]

Illini,

 

I want the best 4 teams, and that's the point.

 

And what I am saying is its hard to argue you are one of the 4 best, when you didnt even win a division in your conference. The only way they are not playing in the conference championship game is if another team in their own division has a better record, and that almost always means that they lost to that team.

 

I think it is far harder to win a conference + CCG, than to just be second in your division with 1 loss, especially if your division only has 1 other good team. So you beat a bunch of nobodies, have 1 loss, and you get rewarded because other teams who won conference championship games had 1 more loss? What about the fact they had 1 more win.

 

There is no way to objectively determine who the top 4 are. Its merely guessing. So I would prefer a system with less guessing. How do we get that system, bar anyone that is not the conference championship game winner.

 

That is fair and equal to all. If OSU f***s up in the CCG they are out. If Wisconsin f***s up, they are out. There are consequences, it makes sense.

 

Otherwise every conference would be smart to get rid of the CCG. You might as well have undefeated Michigan and Wisconsin not playing each other, because that way they are both likely to make the top 4. Dont we want to encourage Wisconsin/Michigan to settle it before the playoff? Doesnt that actually increase the number of teams involved if you consider the CCG to be the first round of the playoffs?

 

Now instead of 4 teams, we have at minimum 8 teams in the playoffs.

[LittleHurt05]

Illini,

 

 

 

And what I am saying is its hard to argue you are one of the 4 best, when you didnt even win a division in your conference. The only way they are not playing in the conference championship game is if another team in their own division has a better record, and that almost always means that they lost to that team.

 

I think it is far harder to win a conference + CCG, than to just be second in your division with 1 loss, especially if your division only has 1 other good team. So you beat a bunch of nobodies, have 1 loss, and you get rewarded because other teams who won conference championship games had 1 more loss? What about the fact they had 1 more win.

 

There is no way to objectively determine who the top 4 are. Its merely guessing. So I would prefer a system with less guessing. How do we get that system, bar anyone that is not the conference championship game winner.

 

That is fair and equal to all. If OSU f***s up in the CCG they are out. If Wisconsin f***s up, they are out. There are consequences, it makes sense.

 

Otherwise every conference would be smart to get rid of the CCG. You might as well have undefeated Michigan and Wisconsin not playing each other, because that way they are both likely to make the top 4. Dont we want to encourage Wisconsin/Michigan to settle it before the playoff? Doesnt that actually increase the number of teams involved if you consider the CCG to be the first round of the playoffs?

 

Now instead of 4 teams, we have at minimum 8 teams in the playoffs.

 

Then you are rewarding teams that win a s***tier conference and penalizing teams who are forced to play in a tougher conference. It's why baseball started using the wild card.

[Soxbadger]

Life isnt fair.

 

The system rewards certain conferences more than others. How do we know BSU wouldnt have won every BCS if only they had a chance?

 

Plus baseball is 162 game schedule, every team plays every team. Its not a good comparison.

 

A better comparison is NFL where the division champ gets an automatic playoff spot, regardless of how bad their conference is.

 

See the difference, in this system a division champ wont even potentially have a shot. So the Giants wouldnt have been super bowl champs, because they werent 1 or 2 in the NFC. And last year GB wouldnt have even been in the conversation, because they were #2 in the NFC Central which was considered a weak division.

 

Football is not baseball, its not basketball. And regardless any system you bring up, the conference champ always gets an automatic in. Baseball, football, basketball.

[LittleHurt05]

Life isnt fair.

 

The system rewards certain conferences more than others. How do we know BSU wouldnt have won every BCS if only they had a chance?

 

Plus baseball is 162 game schedule, every team plays every team. Its not a good comparison.

 

A better comparison is NFL where the division champ gets an automatic playoff spot, regardless of how bad their conference is.

See the difference, in this system a division champ wont even potentially have a shot. So the Giants wouldnt have been super bowl champs, because they werent 1 or 2 in the NFC. And last year GB wouldnt have even been in the conversation, because they were #2 in the NFC Central which was considered a weak division.

 

Football is not baseball, its not basketball. And regardless any system you bring up, the conference champ always gets an automatic in. Baseball, football, basketball.

 

1. the NFL has wild card spots, which you don't think the NCAA should have.

 

2. It's an awful comparison anyway:

NFL: 6 playoff spots for 4 divisions.

NCAAF: 4 playoff spots for 11 conferences.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Where did I say the NCAA shouldnt have wild card spots?

 

I havent said that at all, I personally think if you are going to call it a "Playoff" it needs to have more than 4 teams. I am trying to come up with ideas to get more teams in the playoff, and a good place to start is to have a conference championship game in every conference, that way you eliminate teams to start.

 

Also I think the WC in baseball would be irrelevant if the AL East had a AL EAST Championship Series, where 1 and 2 played for the right to move on.

 

2. You brought up baseball, I said football was a BETTER comparison. There is no actual comparison, the other football division in the NCAA has an entirely different playoff, and I believe conference champs get a bid in the other division.

 

 

[LittleHurt05]

Where did I say the NCAA shouldnt have wild card spots?

 

I havent said that at all, I personally think if you are going to call it a "Playoff" it needs to have more than 4 teams. I am trying to come up with ideas to get more teams in the playoff, and a good place to start is to have a conference championship game in every conference, that way you eliminate teams to start.

 

Also I think the WC in baseball would be irrelevant if the AL East had a AL EAST Championship Series, where 1 and 2 played for the right to move on.

 

2. You brought up baseball, I said football was a BETTER comparison. There is no actual comparison, the other football division in the NCAA has an entirely different playoff, and I believe conference champs get a bid in the other division.

 

The problem is that there are 4 teams, not 8, and that won't change anytime soon. And if you just choose conference champions, then you are still subjectively deciding which conferences are better, same thing as selecting 4 teams.