The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Obama just said it to Chris Berman during a MNF half time interview. Well, he's certainly got my vote now.

Since we're in November, I figured now would be as good a time as any to resurrect the annual "college football playoff" thread. I just have one question:

Does anyone on this board not favor a playoff format of some kind? If so, why?

I hate how they do the ranks.  There defiantly should be a playoff.

I'm all for playoffs?!? PLAYOFFS?!?? PLAYOFFS!!

That's just fun to say...PLAYOFFS?!?! PLAYOFFS??

I've discussed this with Dave and Brian a couple times:  Let the BCS determine the top 8 teams.  Anyone ranked outside of the top 8 at season's end can have their regular post season bowl game. 

For the first round, the higher seeds get home field advantage.  Whoever is ranked #8 will play at #1, #7 at #2, #6 at #3 and #5 at #4.  Then when you're down to four teams, that's when you start using the BCS Bowl Sites.  Two sites can host the semifinals, a third site can host a "Consolation" game for third place, and the fourth site can host the National Championship game with the sites rotating each year. 

I do appreciate all of your support for a playoff system (I agree with Tommy entirely.), but I'm looking for someone who DOES NOT support a playoff system. Is there no one in the entire land of TDMMC who thinks playoffs are a bad idea? There must be someone. Show yourself!

 :)

It won't be any better, because people will still bitch about the determination of the top 8.  People bitch about the teams that do and do not make the basketball tournament and there are a lot more teams in there than 8.  I don't know what would make it better, but an 8 team playoff is not the answer IMO.  The BCS is already slanted towards big division, "football school" teams.  A small playoff pool would worsen that, as they would be looking in part at what teams could bring in the most revenue.

^^^ while that is true the bitching does occur about who makes the 65, have you ever felt that one of the teams that maybe should have gone instead of another actually had a ligit shot at winning the tournament.  Or was it more moaning that their favorite team didn't get the opportunity to lose  107-23 in the first round?

I don't think there are nine teams that can claim to be a ligit contender for the championship, but there are more than 2. 

point taken

The only people who are going to disagree with a playoff system are the people who make money off the current bowl system.

In regards to March Madness, I don't know about teams winning the tournament, but that West Virginia team who won the NIT a couple seasons ago certainly was more qualified for the NCAA tournament than a lot of teams in that field.

My idea is to make the various bowl games the playoff games...For example, the Citrus Bowl could be the game between #1 and #8, etc.

Wow, we agree on something!!!!   :D

I seriously doubt that anyone on this board does not support a playoff system for college football.  Div 1-A football is the only college sport that doesn't have it. 

I know the bowls pay big bucks and the tradition dates back a long long way, but those people that want to keep their bowls need to get with the times.   Using those bowl sites to host playoff games will bring in just as much money if not more.  Especially if you have a two week layover between rounds instead of one. 

I have a separate question:

Are a playoff system and a bowl system mutually exclusive?

I'm fine with having a bowl system, but also having a playoff system for the title working within that system.  That way, you get a legitimate championship game, as well as "Eastern Malibu State Tech A&M at Brussels"  getting to play in their bowl game and get their alumni out and about.

They needn't be mutally exclusive. We already have two systems operating together if you count the conference championship games as quasi-bowls. You could even call the various playoff games bowls and hold them in their traditional locations.

hopefully this will be the first item of the new administration!

Yes, it's way more imprortant than say ... fixing the economy.

Barak Obama on a playoff system for college football:

"The NCAA doesn't get it!!!!  The poll rankings just do not work anymore and it's time for change!!!!  After decades of expensive bowl games, we just can't afford more of the same!!!  A playoff system will result in a ticket price cut, and make Joe The Fan be able to afford to attend these games!!!  My name is Barak Obama, and I approve this message"    

^^^ Tommy that is great.

this was on the front page of yahoo today.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-obamabcs110508&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I bet even the Republicans on the board see this as change they can believe in. 

Not looking good.  He has appointed a treasury transition team, but not a hint of movement on this way more important issue.  Looks like he is doing the economy thingy first.

Maybe this will be the second issue. 

We need real leadership.  I voted for change.  We need change!

 ;D ;D ;D

He is serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTv5emjSNo&feature=channel

go to 2:58

Everyone is trying to get their hand into ruining football. You guys don't get it. Why is college football more exciting than the NFL every week? Because one loss and your team is done. There is a reason why people flock to college football, it is a different experience than the pros.

The regular season in the NFL is a joke compared to the regular season in college football, and I dare someone to argue against that.



Maybe it was because I thought the whole last segment was bullshit and has nothing to do with the president, but was that grin at the very end of the segment, not kind of evil looking?

I will gladly argue that.

Half of the games in college every week might not as well even be played.  The difference between good teams and bad teams in college is absolutely astounding.  The difference between good teams and bad teams in the pros is much, much less.  Even if the Titans played the Lions, you wouldn't expect them to lose by more than 20.  But the Gators beat their opponents by that much damn near every week.

I think that college football games are considered exciting, because, quite frankly, the players aren't all good.  On all teams, you have some really good players, and some that will be insurance adjusters when they graduate in a few months.  So, it allows you do a lot of big plays because of the ways things match up.  It's a much "looser" game.  The NFL is tight, but not as flashy.  If you went out of threw the bombs like you do in college, you'd get intercepted five times a game.

Here's an even better idea.  There are 120 Division 1A college teams.  Make each team join a conference, and then you'll have 12 "Mega Conferences" and 12 conference championship games.  The 12 conference champs at the end of the year get to go to the playoff system for the national championship, regardless of record. 

Now how do you do a playoff system with 12 teams?  Simple.  The BCS can use their current formula to rank them 1-12.  Teams ranked 1-4 get a first round bye.  The team ranked #12 plays at #5, #11 plays at #6 and so forth.  After that round, you'll have 8 teams left. 

Then go back to my original post on doing the playoff system with 8 teams. 

Teams that don't win their conference can have their traditional bowl game.

^^^ Horrible idea. Some of those conferences would have no place in national championship discussions. If we want to talk playoffs, let's talk about options with viable teams rather than just intorducing any team that wins a conference.

Thank you.

And I'm one of the very few that flocks to college football, actually I don't flock at all. Lopsided match-ups damn near every week, blowouts, one loss and you're fucd, and the bands... oh the bands... I'll wait til the good players in college become professionals, playing against other professionals.

i hate when people bring up how "playoffs make the regular season irrelevant" point to try to hold their crappy argument. the regular season is critically important in the nfl in terms of playoff seeding. win more "regular" season games, you get a higher ranking, host more home playoff games, and possibly a week off.

true teams can go through the wildcard to a championship, but waaaay harder than if you host a game or two, or have a week off to prepare.

how people think that the system is great when you have guys that barely watch a few games sitting on their couches, mailing their ballot in to determine who goes where, is beyond me...

What, exactly, do you think happens when you lose one game in a football playoff?

People flock to college football because there are vast swaths of the country that do not have a local professional football team.

Are you seriously proposing that a system in which teams get to pick their own opponents for nearly half the games on the schedule is the legitimate option?

This would be like the Steelers opening their season against the Frankfurt Galaxy, Montreal Alouettes, and Fresno State Bulldogs.  At home.

With all due respect to the president elect, I DISAGREE. I'm not in favor of a playoff. The best thing about college football is that every week is a playoff. Bob Griese stated it perfectly yesterday, were in the playoffs NOW!!!. Alabama/Gators is a playoff game. The big 12 title game is a playoff game. The great part of college football coming down the strecth is to find out which teams can handle the pressure.

Penn St. couldn't handle the pressure, Missouri and West Virgina couldn't handle it last year. If we add a playoff the significance of the regular season is lost. No playoffs!!!

Yeah, a playoff where you win all your games and are rewarded with nothing (Auburn '04, Boise State '06, etc.).  What a great system.

I fail to see how instituting a playoff system reduces the meaning of the regular season.  If you lose in the playoffs, you're done!  Under the current system, it's perfectly OK to lose a game (maybe even two!) as long as the teams above you lose a game.

I think a playoff system would encourage teams to put tougher opponents on their schedules, and more importantly, remove cupcake opponents out of your conference.

"... every week is a playoff..."

what an utterly ridiculous point made by bcs apologists. a playoff tournament implies some level of entry standard for participants, with an increase in difficulty as a team progresses in the tournament. its just silly to suggest that a game against the baylor bears in the last week of the season equates to a playoff game.

college football is the only sport in existence where you have people that literally sit at home on the couch, drinking beer and eating chips, casting a ballot in order to determine who plays where.

I don't think this would happen... Duke, Wake Forest, and North Carolina are doormats in college football, but I don't think the ACC wants to kick their basketball programs out.

Here's the issue, as I see it:  with an 8-team playoff, you would have an opportunity to include the champions of the major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac-10, Big East) as well as two at-large teams; e.g. the Cinderella teams like Utah and Boise State that are just having a great year.  If you aren't even the champion of your conference then you have no legitimate gripe at being left out of the playoffs anyway.

There will always be a cutoff, but I would rather that the 9th best team be excluded from championship contention than the 3rd best team.  If you are the 9th best team in the nation and you did not win all the games on your schedule, you have no claim to the national championship.

That's not what I mean.  What I mean is that you'd still play your easy conference games, but you wouldn't schedule easy games that weren't in your conference.

Ah.  I don't see that as a significant factor; national-championship-caliber teams have plenty of incentive now to put good teams on their schedule.  OU owes their trip to the Big XII title game to their scheduling; their victory in the computer rankings was pretty slim.

If there were to be a playoff with the conference champions invited, I don't think there would be much of a net change in scheduling:

- On one hand, since non-conference losses would not be as significant for teams in the six major conferences (win your conference and you're in anyway), teams might be inclined to schedule more powderpuffs.
- On the other hand, if you don't secure your conference title and you wanted to get one of the two remaining at-large bids, that's where it would pay to have a strong schedule.  Furthermore, for purposes of seeding, obviously a better rank still helps you out.

The most likely change I would see would be more powderpuff scheduling for the mid-major contenders like Boise State; for those teams, even a non-conference loss is a dealbreaker.  However, given the situation this year (with three undefeated mid-major conference champions in Utah, Boise State, and Ball State), I think that would be enough of an incentive for the mid-major contenders to make sure that they have at least a semi-legitimate non-conference schedule.

Good news.  Obama has bipartisan support in the house.

http://www.zoneblitz.com/2008/12/10/congressman-proposes-bill-ending-bcs/

Thank god, they are focusing on what is important and not being sidetracked by silly things like the war and economy. 

Why do people always say this?

It's not like you can't tackle more than one problem at once.  It's not like congress has to put the rest of the issues on hold until the war is over or the economy is fixed.

The economy, the war, etc. --  it isn't a light switch.  You make your decisions and then you move on to something else.

It's like when people get caught for speeding and then complain that the cop isn't out solving murders.

After reading this article in my SI magazine, I can say that the only ones who don't favor a playoff system are the commissioners of the six major conferences.  And the reason?  Money. 

I'm against a NCAA football playoff system.  Tommy is right about the money deal--this is why Notre Dame is still an independent.  They win a bowl game and keep all the cash and half the time I don't think they deserve to be in one.  Everyone in the Big Ten gets a piece of the action if a team makes it to a bowl game.  Also, if you're gonna make a college kid play 18 games he should get paid. 

I like the things in football that separate college from the pros like the one foot in bounds deal and how overtime is played.  I think there were more than enough posts to classify the weaknesses within and amongst the individual conferences.  Two examples: the ACC, and of 120 NCAA bowl-series teams it seems 98 of them cracked the top 25 at one point this season.  I think the BCS computer is bullshit and it's possible to climb back into the top 5 as long as you don't lose early in the season.

Obama has a new ally....AG of Utah....

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-utahlawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns

Utah AG: BCS may violate antitrust laws

By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer 13 hours, 53 minutes ago


SALT LAKE CITY (AP)—Utah’s attorney general is investigating the Bowl Championship Series for a possible violation of federal antitrust laws after an undefeated Utes team was left out of the national title game for the second time in five years.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff contends the BCS unfairly puts schools like Utah, which is a member of a conference without an automatic bid to the lucrative bowl games, at a competitive and financial disadvantage.

“We’ve established that from the very first day, from the very first kickoff in the college season, more than half of the schools are put on an unlevel playing field,” Shurtleff said Tuesday. “They will never be allowed to play for a national championship.”

BCS administrator Bill Hancock said he couldn’t comment on the investigation until he had seen something in writing from the Utah attorney general’s office.

“We just don’t think it’s appropriate to comment until we’ve seen something to comment on,” Hancock said.

The BCS is designed to pit the top two teams against each other in a national championship game each year. It uses a complicated formula based on human polls and computer rankings to determine who plays in that game, which Shurtleff contends is biased.

No. 1 Florida and No. 2 Oklahoma have one loss each but will play for the BCS national championship Thursday night in Miami.

The Associated Press crowns its own national champion based on a poll of sports writers who are not bound to vote for the winner of the BCS title game. Many fans are clamoring for voters to put Utah—the nation’s only undefeated team—in the No. 1 spot in the final poll.

On Friday, Utah became the first team from a non-BCS conference to win two BCS bowls after it upset No. 4 Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. Utah also beat Pittsburgh in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl to complete an undefeated season.

Shurtleff said his office is still in the initial stages of reviewing the Sherman Antitrust Act to see if a lawsuit can be filed. To succeed in a lawsuit, he would have to prove a conspiracy exists that creates a monopoly.

Shurtleff said he prefers that BCS officials and university presidents solve the problem of excluding some schools from a national title game by creating a playoff system, but added he’s committed to doing whatever it takes to produce change.

If a lawsuit is filed against the BCS, though, Shurtleff could end up suing the state he represents. Utah is a member of the Mountain West Conference and Utah State belongs to the Western Athletic Conference; both leagues are members of the BCS.

“We have to determine the answer to those questions,” said Shurtleff, whose planned investigation was reported by the Deseret News on Tuesday. “You determine who it is you’re bringing action against.”

The BCS is comprised of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, the University of Notre Dame and representatives of the bowl organizations.

Under the BCS, about $9.5 million is distributed among Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Western Athletic conferences for making their teams available to play in BCS games.

If a school from any of those conferences receives an at-large invitation to play in a BCS bowl or championship game, those conferences get an additional 9 percent of BCS revenues among them, which come from television rights and the bowls themselves.

If more than one school from those conferences make the BCS bowls or championship game, those conferences get an extra $4.5 million for each additional team.

By comparison, the share to each conference with an automatic berth in the BCS—the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC—is about $18 million each. When a second team from one of those conferences qualifies to play in a BCS game, as the SEC accomplished this year with Alabama and Florida, that conference gets an additional $4.5 million.

“It’s not about bragging rights. It’s a multimillion dollar—hundreds of millions—business where the BCS schools get richer and non-BCS get poorer,” Shurtleff said.

If the playoff system is utilized, all conferences should be included. No "At Large" bullshit. You are just pushing the smaller conferences into the ground instead of encouraging growth.

The president, the congress and the atty gen of utah.  I think the BCS is in for a major fight. 


http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=507300

Congress to hold hearings on BCS

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he will hold hearings and possibly subpoena NCAA officials, college presidents, players, coaches and athletics directors in an effort to force a playoff in Division 1-A football, USA Today reports.

"I think you really do not get a true No. 1 out of (the Bowl Championship Series)," Towns told the newspaper. "Nobody questions the Super Bowl. The team that wins is the best team that year. I think we can do the same thing at the college level where once it's over there is no questions about who is No. 1 and who is No. 2."

Click here to find out more!
Questions were raised again this season about the legitimacy of the widely unpopular BCS format when unbeaten Utah didn't get a chance to play in the national title game. The 13-0 Utes finished second in the final AP top 25 poll and fourth in the final coaches' poll. The 13-1 Florida Gators, who beat Oklahoma in the BCS national championship game, were voted No. 1 in both polls. Oklahoma finished fifth in both polls.

Texas (12-1) and USC (12-1) also had complaints about the BCS system, each believing they should have had a chance to play for the national title.

"I really feel that you can't leave it as is," Towns said. "Right now, if you ask what the No. 1 team is, a lot of people would say USC. Others would say Texas and if you ask anybody in the state of Utah, they would say their team was best. I want to get a system that has credibility."

President-elect Barack Obama has expressed support for a playoff system in college football, and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is moving forward with an inquiry into whether the BCS system violates antitrust laws. The American Football Coaches Association also is reviewing the BCS system, specifically how the coaches' poll plays into the calculations.

"The presidents, bowl administrators, commissioners and others who are involved with postseason college football are pleased to work with Congress, as they have on several occasions in the past, and welcome any questions or ideas for improving the system," Dr. David Frohnmayer, University of Oregon president and chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

Former house Majority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri said he thinks Congress won't have time to deal with this issue with so many issues, particularly the economy, facing lawmakers. "I think this is something that colleges will have to figure out together," Gephardt told USA Today. "I'm not sure this is what the public wants Congress to be spending their time on."

^^^^^

It's about fucking time. 

BCS doesn't violate anti-trust laws any more than the NFL, NBA, and MLB. It's long been recognized that sports leagues cannot operate without collusion on pricing and participation amongst the league members. The Utah AG's investigation isn't going anywhere. I don't even need to read the post. Frankly, were I a resident of Utah I would be annoyed that my public officials are wasting tax dollars on such a frivolous issue.

I want a playoff too, but suing the FBS for violations for the Clayton and Sherman Acts doesn't make sense.

Actually both the NFL and MLB would violate the anti-trust laws (don't know about NBA one way or the other) if the law didn't have specific clauses exempting them from the law in whole (MLB) or in part (NFL). 

Not a lawyer here, but I assumed the same or similar exemptions already applied to the NCAA.

I am guessing they are quite different being one is a business and the other other a partially taxpayer supported entity.  Either way Congress can eliminate any exemptions that exist.

They won't. This issue is a joke.

[half talking out of my ass, here]

I think that the NCAA and NFL are both legal monopolies.  I say this because I think I heard something one time about why college and pro games rarely (if ever) overlap.  ...The NFL only starts having Saturday games when the NCAA games are done, for example.  I think that's a legal decision, not a business one.

Anyway, all this stuff about congress getting involved I don't think will amount to much.

However, it may end up changing the NCAA to a playoff system, just by shining a light on the problem.  If the president and members of congress are discussing it, it causes a stir and things are more likely to get done internally.

I bet that the NCAA finishes its contract with the BCS and then goes in a new direction that involves some kind of playoff.

Call it goodwill.

You could call it goodwill... but you'd be wrong.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004243.asp

My bag.