Alderian, that's not entirely true though... OSU at LEAST regularly has undefeated seasons against quality opponents. Are you saying they shouldn't go to a playoff if they do well?

How many conferences are there, anyways?

Why not put a slot aside for each conference, and then let BCS ranking determine a few wildcards? Then nobody gets screwed.

Regularly? They've had one undefeated season since Clinton was president.

dang, really? I really haven't been paying attention.

Still, a playoff system similar to the NFL's is the only fair way. If the big 10 and other conferences suck as bad as everybody claims, then it won't hurt anything to give let the other conferences use 'em as a warmup.

@Putin33, not sure where you get that impression, other than all the SEC chanting that goes on perhaps. I care more for my team than my team's conference. But I do care about how my team's conference does against other conferences as it is a reflection on my team.

@YJ, teams from the major conferences going undefeated is rare, from 0-3 a year. In any case, I'm not understanding your question. I'm saying the upcoming playoff will include 4 teams chosen by a committee. If Ohio State goes undefeated, it is safe to say they would be one of those 4 teams. Well, once they are off their bowl-ban of course.

There are 11 conferences in Division I-A (FBS). The major 6: ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC. The minor 5: MAC, WAC, MWC, SunBelt, and CUSA. Last I heard the WAC is dying though.

My personal preference would be a playoff with the top 8 conference champs, no wildcards. This would encourage better OOC games because the risk of getting a loss in an OOC game wouldn't matter so much to the big conferences who know their champ is easily making it into the playoff. Instead right now we have so many teams that schedule so many OOC cupcakes.

The only reason I'd like to see such a playoff is to see good teams battling it out. I don't care about crowning a champion. In a single elimination tournament, all that is feasible for the sport of football (American), the odds of the best team not winning it all is fairly high. I just want to see more good games.

Handy links if anyone is interested:
cfbtrivia.com
cfbdatawarehouse.com
cfbstats.com

Also, a good set of college football discussion boards where you can have intelligent discussions rather than being barraged by haters and homers, can be found at cfn.scout.com.

The problem with top eight conferences is that conferences aren't equal. I would put forth that LSU, even with a loss to an undefeated Alabama, is almost certainly a better team than the Sun Belt champion, the CUSA champion, the WAC champion or the MAC champion. Yet an 8-conference-champion playoff would require one of those four to go over LSU. If all conferences were equal then sure, this would work, but they most certainly are not.

A team from the Big Least just went into the house of a team the SEC establishment ranked as 8th in the country a few weeks ago and beat them full strength. The big conferences are overrated.

Oh but Arkansas sucks this year he says.

Do they?

They will suck until they beat another SEC team then it will be all about a miraculous comeback! They sucked when they got beat in every aspect of the game by Rutgers, but now they are back! The SEC spin machine will find a way.

yes no haters or homers here from the guy who used the term "Big Least"

"The problem with top eight conferences is that conferences aren't equal. I would put forth that LSU, even with a loss to an undefeated Alabama, is almost certainly a better team than the Sun Belt champion"

Then how about you play the games to prove it, what a fucking concept.

"The old timers would be rolling in their graves if they knew what the game has become."

You mean the ones who aren't half vegetables and demanding reform.

When I was growing up there was a thing called rivalries and we wanted our rivals to lose every damn game. Nowadays I see Ohio State fans here in Columbus wanting Michigan to beat non-conference opponents. And of course it's even worse in SEC land where they even chant the conference name. But now that conferences don't even make sense anymore with San Diego St joining the Big East and Texas A&M joining the SEC and WVU joining the Big 12, why does anybody bloody care about them?

I will admit that the current conference system/lack of a playoff system has made college football a Level Five clusterfuck, but at least the games are entertaining and players are still allowed to hit hard.

The NFL is way too predictable and the players are overpaid crybaby celebrities for the most part. College players play for the team, not themselves. And there's nothing more awesome than an underdog beating a mega-ultra-super favorite, which never seems to happen in the NFL.

Case in point: The Air Force Academy Falcons

Against Michigan, they played hard and only lost by six at the Big House. They would have won by a lot if not for Michigan's damned scrambling quarterback. It was awesome because the undersized (due to fitness requirements) Air Force line went toe to toe with the B1G fatasses from Michigan and often won, not to mention running back Cody Getz, despite being 5'8" 170 lbs, put his shoulder down and was a first down machine, stiff arming and trucking the Michigan defense all day.

And they were running a triple option offense from a no-huddle, which is crazy enough to make most average teams pass out from exhaustion.

"Then how about you play the games to prove it, what a fucking concept."

His system doesn't actually provide a way to do that, if you bothered to read. Rather incredible that you act like that's my fault and not that of the system he provided.

I only have one thing to say:

"ROLL TIDE!!"

"His system doesn't actually provide a way to do that, if you bothered to read. Rather incredible that you act like that's my fault and not that of the system he provided. "

When exactly do I act like its your fault? I bothered to read. You will know if LSU is better when Bama steamrolls the Sunbelt conference or at least gets a better idea. How about the fact that when they innevitably put 3 teams from the SEC in the playoff, three teams whos reps are built off of playing each other and the high initial rankings given to SEC teams (Arkansas at #10 in the country, are you serious) and leave out a high achieving team from a non-SEC conference, you don't let them show their ability either.

You want a case in point close to home? Auburn was supposedly exposed by Clemson and Miss St. Miss State suddenly gets a big bump in the polls and is now sitting at 21 and 19 solely on that win even though they almost lost to TROY. Meanwhile Auburn goes on and is taken to overtime by La. Monroe, showing they are seriously nothing special. Then after all their talking, LSU fans are shocked when Auburn almost beats them.

Now you can view this 2 ways.

1. AUBURN BROUGHT THEIR SEC GAME TO THE LSU GAME SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC
2. These teams just aren't that good...

And when you are so adept at scheduling cream puffs as the SEC is no one ever can no for sure if that is the case. Usually you just have to take the ESPN pundits word for it as their network makes boatloads of money off the SEC.

Now we take that thinking to seeding a college football playoff. Should end up completely fair...

And then, to make it all an even better joke. LSU is lined up to play 4 "ranked" teams. These teams are...

#11 Florida- Whose only quality wins are against Texas A&M and Tennessee, both SEC opponents

SC- Who is sitting at #6 for beating unranked Vanderbilt (barely) and Mizzou

#1 Bama- Who have a rep for beating Michigan, who is overrated, but i'll give them that one. They alo steamrolled a bunch of cupcakes and injured teams

#21 And Miss St. who as we said beat a lackluster Auburn and thats about it


So if LSU theoretically wins out, they will be #1 in the nation based almost completely off of running through an SEC schedule that gains its entire rep for Alabama beating Michigan. That is the only true measuring stick we have showing the SEC allegedly superior standing

What they should do is abolish preseason rankings which are the cause for all this mess. Force all div 1 schools to sacrifice 2 or 3 schedule days to the NCAA, and create a computer program to schedule the first 2-3 games based on the previous season's finishes. After those 3 games, the first set of rankings come out as every team has actually shown what they can do against teams from around NCAA. But that of course will never happen.

@SC, on the cfn board I would not refer to them as the Big Least. Here I get to let my hair down a bit and be biased.

@PE, each conference determines their champion however they see fit. That champion is the best in their conference. Why would the second best team in a conference get to try and prove themselves the best team overall? They already failed to do so, why get a second shot?

"My personal preference would be a playoff with the top 8 conference champs, no wildcards. This would encourage better OOC games because the risk of getting a loss in an OOC game wouldn't matter so much to the big conferences who know their champ is easily making it into the playoff. Instead right now we have so many teams that schedule so many OOC cupcakes."

I like that, but for the reason that PE has already stated. 2nd place teams from strong conferences are probably better than the champion of an inferior conference. Why not 16 slots, 11 conference and 5 wildcards?

Sure they are very likely better, but they have already been proven to not be the best in their own conference. So why would they get a second chance?

The reason I don't like wildcards is it increases the odds of good teams scheduling crappy cupcake OOC games because a W against a crappy team is valued more than a close lose to a good team. Which I disagree with of course, but it is the way it is. I want to see more games like Texas/Ohio State, USC/Auburn, LSU/Oregon, and such. Not more games against directional schools like Northern Arizona and Easter Washington.

Interesting point, Alderian. I'm not sure that's universally applicable though.... teams don't play every team in their conference, so it's quite possible that two teams from the same conference both had a great season and never played eachother. What we want is a system that promotes conference rivalry as well as overall performance.

I agree that steps should be taken to minimize cupcake games. Perhaps only allowing 1 victor from each conference based on wins and strength of schedule is in order - this would promote more competetive games throughout. Still, I don't think its fair to eliminate a strong #2 conference seed in favor of a "trash conference" winner just because it had a slightly less difficult schedule.

Jesus, SC, do you enjoy being the master of polemicism and arrogance on this site? You just have this incredibly rude tone with everyone about everything regardless of what they actually do or say. I very explicitly said that I don't think anyone can say who the best conference or team is right now. I'm *on your side there* since your whole point is that we can't say the SEC is the best conference or meritorious of its praise in sports media yet. But you keep posting as though I'm some kind of blind fanatic moron just because I was born in Louisiana and went to the state school and like its football team. I honestly should have known better than even to post in your threads because I can't remember the last time you had a single conversation on here that didn't involve you insulting someone or talking down to them somewhere. You're a more informed krellin that substitutes aggression for condescension. Please stop.

@Alderian: I see your point, but I don't think it's completely followed through. Take the two main Florida schools right now, for example. Florida plays Florida State to close out the year. Suppose they're both undefeated and FSU beats Florida. Both go on to win their conferences. Your logic of eliminating non-conference champions stems from the notion that if a team has already lost to another team in the playoffs, it shouldn't get a second chance. (See last year - who was better, Alabama or LSU? They're 1-1 against each other and removing those two games, the only unbeatens in college football. Your logic would remove this problem, which is good. But...) Florida State already beat Florida. Why should Florida get a second chance?

It also seems like there's some improper application of the transitive property. The implication behind your logic is that Conference Champ A is the best in Conference A, and so if Conference Champ B beats Conference Champ A, that Conference Champ B must also be better than everyone in conference A. This doesn't hold. Remember back in 2008 when Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Texas were all tied at 11-1 at season's end, with their only losses being to one another? Transitive property doesn't work in college football, so the implication that if X > Y then X > all teams that Y beat won't work here.

"You're a more informed krellin that substitutes aggression for condescension."

Dude, I laid claim to that title LONG ago.

Also, transitive property? Nobody is trying to make that stick.

The very nature of a playoff system rejects that, and accepts the very premise you dismissed... you'd need a complete round robin if you were to hold teams to that standard. I'm not saying that wouldn't be better in a perfect situation with unlimited time (if you REALLY want to see who's best), but it isn't practical in real life.

"Jesus, SC, do you enjoy being the master of polemicism and arrogance on this site? "

In what way am I a master of polemecism and arrogance? I disagreed with you? I did not make one personal attack on you, nor did I condescend. Is it your MO to subject anyone who disagrees with you to a finger pointing shame session or am I the only one lucky enough to get that every fucking time. I disagreed, I put together a case that is at odds with yours. How does this make me a krellin, more or less informed?

"ou just have this incredibly rude tone with everyone about everything regardless of what they actually do or say."

And you have a "my shit don't stink" tone. Or perhaps you don't and I'm just reading that into your posts. Maybe I don't have it and you are reading it into my posts. Maybe its my style of argument. Whatever it is what the fuck does it matter its an internet forum. I find the things you write about Israelis incredibly rude, condescending, and unfair yet I don't go out of my way to point it out each and every time.

"honestly should have known better than even to post in your threads because I can't remember the last time you had a single conversation on here that didn't involve you insulting someone or talking down to them somewhere."

How about this one? I don't even know what you are losing your shit over.

The problem with a single elimination playoff is as YJ points out. You have to assume the transitive property is valid when you know it is not. A round robin would be best, but is impracticable of course.

That is why I consider a playoff in the following light: 1. I don't care who is the best. 2. I want to see good games between good teams.

My reason for wanting better regular season OOC is be able to watch more good games in general. So if the playoff can be structured such that it encourages good OOC, or at least doesn't encourage really bad OOC, then that works for me.

Whatever, SC. I could sit here for a half hour trying to spell out what I'm saying too clearly to deny, but I don't realistically expect anything to change. Suffice to say that I'm not rude about Israelis at all (not even sure how Israel is relevant to this - you're pretty much pulling this out of thin air), that yes, you do actually have a huge tendency to read all kinds of grievances and offenses into what other people say, you also tend to talk down to people, and the combination is really hard to deal with in a civil manner.

re: practical playoff/playoff structure, this is a big deal:

"That is why I consider a playoff in the following light: 1. I don't care who is the best."

Not highlighting (2) because I should think everyone seeks that, and that a good playoff system definitionally achieves this. But (1), at least to me, strikes right at the core of the purpose of the playoff. If you're just looking for (1) and (2) to be satisfied, why change anything? Both criteria are being achieved. I think that a playoff should be trying to decide what teams are the best. If it can't, if the nature of the game is such that a simple single elimination playoff can't pick a winner, then one shouldn't use a single elimination playoff. If a multiple-elimination playoff is also insufficient, then some other system will have to do.

I'm actually thinking the BCS, *on paper*, is better than playoff-style solutions for the question. The BCS is essentially a 2-team playoff, so in years where the best two teams can easily be selected (2005 comes to mind) it's perfect. How unsatisfactory would it have been if the 6-6 Arkansas State team that won the Sun Belt that year had gotten crowned the national champion because it fluked into three upsets in a row? Post-playoff that's a win% of 60 against mostly the dregs of college football.

Now, of course some years (2007, 2004) the BCS is not going to be satisfactory no matter how it ends. I'm happy that LSU won in 2007, and I don't think there was a problem with them being selected instead of one of the other possible teams, but one could have still made a convincing argument for several other teams to face Ohio State.

Honestly, I don't think football lends itself to a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. It's too physically demanding to get enough games played to differentiate between >100 teams. I wouldn't feel confident ranking anybody before the start of November, and even at the end of the season there's not enough.

hmm really PE you know I think you're one of the cleverest and brightest on this sight, but I didn't see anything gripe-worthy with what SC said here. Just sounds like dudes arguing about football :P

Did he kick your cat or something IRL>

He's just so freaking rude. Everywhere, to everyone. It's mildly humorous sometimes but generally just irritating. Honestly claiming that a comment like "Then how about you play the games to prove it, what a fucking concept" adds anything to the discussion and isn't just pointless antagonism is silly, but that's precisely what he did. It's possible to argue about football without being an arrogant, condescending prick.

But, as I recognized in my comment about how I should have known better - it's his thread, he can talk how he likes. Really, he can talk how he likes wherever, but specifically in his thread it's kinda dumb to correct him on it. You get the point - I'm backing off and would prefer to have the vast majority of what I actually said on-subject discussed instead of the tangent I've repeatedly been trying to get away from.

Someone call the wambulance, we have a code boohoo.

seriously though, you can think what you want, but I did nothing here to provoke this.

"Whatever, SC. I could sit here for a half hour trying to spell out what I'm saying too clearly to deny, but I don't realistically expect anything to change. Suffice to say that I'm not rude about Israelis at all (not even sure how Israel is relevant to this - you're pretty much pulling this out of thin air), that yes, you do actually have a huge tendency to read all kinds of grievances and offenses into what other people say, you also tend to talk down to people, and the combination is really hard to deal with in a civil manner."

It has the same exact relevance to you bringing in my behavior in other threads. I'm commenting on my perception of your comments in other threads as well. I object to your constant characterization of Israelis as mindless aggressors and oppressors, you object to me calling posters idiots in certain cases, they are one and the same. Do you hold a monopoly on this privilege? And from Yellow's comment it seems like someone else reads grievances into what others write. But I'm glad a white gentile from Louisiana can tell me what and what should not offend me as a Jew.

""Then how about you play the games to prove it, what a fucking concept" adds anything to the discussion and isn't just pointless antagonism is silly, but that's precisely what he did."

I disagreed with a comment, quite vehemently, but I just disagreed with it. I didn't attack you or ridicule you. I argue how I argue I'll apologize if it offended you but I'm not going to change the way i argue on an internet board.

Don't know what your problem is overall. Just glad someone supported me this time so I don't think I am going crazy.

If you hate me so much block me, I could do without the constant finger wagging and the shallow insights into foreign policy and US politics

And yes, I just semi-insulted you for the first time this thread. I feel I have the right to throw something back at some point. Feel free to wag the finger.