Directly affecting FCS: the new FBS playoff format determined

[MplsBison]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/sports/ncaafootball/four-team-college-football-playoff-approved.html


The current, much-derided method for producing a champion, the Bowl Championship Series, will be replaced by a four-team playoff, the B.C.S. Presidential Oversight Committee announced Tuesday.

The four national semifinalists will be selected by a committee, much as the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament is set. No conference will automatically qualify one of its teams.

The two semifinal games will be rotated among six bowl sites over a 12-year period, and will be played Dec. 31 or Jan. 1. Those bowls have not been selected yet.

The championship game will be held at a neutral site, and cities will have the opportunity to bid on the event. The game will be played on the first Monday in January, unless it falls on Jan. 1.


The playoff selection committee’s makeup has not been determined. Its criteria for evaluating teams will include record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and whether it is its conference champion.

Swofford said he preferred that the committee consist of at least 12 members, leaving leeway in case members must step aside while teams they are associated with are discussed. (The N.C.A.A. basketball tournament’s selection committee has 10 members.) Delany said he expected the committee to include more than 10 but less than 20 members, including administrators and possibly current or former coaches.

No more formula. No more bowl game national championship.

It's the same thing as men's basketball and the FCS: selection committee and a playoff.


So I know this probably will get moved to another forum, though it deserves attention here in the FCS forum.

This move will directly affect FCS as it means more teams moving up as more shifting around in FBS is bound to happen.


My feeling is that the Big XII is not going to stand pat and hope that their champion being the only champion of the major conferences to NOT play and win a championship game won't matter with the committee.

It will.

And that means they'll need to bring in two more teams to get to 12 and hold the game. Florida St and Clemson have already said they'd pack their bags and move over, joining West Virginia.

Then the dominoes start falling: ACC takes Big East teams, Big East takes CUSA or maybe MAC teams, then Delaware, James Madison, App St and Georgia Southern, for starters, are possibilities to receive invites from FBS conferences.

[MplsBison]

I guess this means FBS and FCS are now defunct, as well. Back to I-A and I-AA?

[Seawolf97]

I susepct the domino's will be falling for quite sometime. This isnt over yet -stay tuned.

[NHwildEcat]

I guess this means FBS and FCS are now defunct, as well. Back to I-A and I-AA?

Not really...they still play bowls...the playoffs will be within their bowls.

[frozennorth]

My feeling is that the Big XII is not going to stand pat and hope that their champion being the only champion of the major conferences to NOT play and win a championship game won't matter with the committee.

It will.

Florida St and Clemson have already said they'd pack their bags and move over, joining West Virginia.


the big12 plays a 9 game schedule, which makes up for the lack of a championship game. Florida state and clemson have made it pretty clear that they are not moving.

[Grizalltheway]

the big12 plays a 9 game schedule, which makes up for the lack of a championship game. Florida state and clemson have made it pretty clear that they are not moving.

NO NO NO MLPS WAS IN SUPER SECRET MEETINGS AND HE KNOWS THEY'RE MOVING 100% GUARANTEED!!!1

[MSUDuo]

the big12 plays a 9 game schedule, which makes up for the lack of a championship game. Florida state and clemson have made it pretty clear that they are not moving.

So? It's still only a chance for 12 wins, while the others have a chance for 13 before the Bowls. That will make a difference

[MSUBobcat]

I think the plan of a 4 team playoff has been around for a while so this isn't much of a surprise. I also don't see it as causing a rush to move up. The teams you list likely could have found homes under the old bowl system if they had decided to make the jump, especially with all the moving that happened even prior to this tourney system. They still have to decide what is best for them - big fish in a small pond or small, maybe even mediocre fish in the MAC or equivalently awesome FBS conference. Do fans want to see them compete for an FCS championship or would they rather see them potentially play in the Tokyo Sauna Happy Ending Bowl?

Also, maybe a bit semantic but the title of this thread is incorrect; what the FBS does has an indirect affect on FCS.

[TheValleyRaider]

So? It's still only a chance for 12 wins, while the others have a chance for 13 before the Bowls. That will make a difference

With a selection committee, it doesn't really matter. If a Big XII team gets to 12-0, they'll almost certainly be in the playoff (especially if it's OU or Texas). The conference title game would make more of a difference in the old BCS (especially if that unbeaten team lost), but with the committee it won't matter as much

[crossfire07]

My feeling is that the Big XII is not going to stand pat and hope that their champion being the only champion of the major conferences to NOT play and win a championship game won't matter with the committee.

It will.

And that means they'll need to bring in two more teams to get to 12 and hold the game. Florida St and Clemson have already said they'd pack their bags and move over, joining West Virginia.

Football coaches in the Big12 do not want a championship game.Why would they? So they can lose and not make the final four? I don't think so.

[MTfan4life]

Also, maybe a bit semantic but the title of this thread is incorrect; what the FBS does has an indirect affect on FCS.

Almost. Your semantic attempt is focusing on the wrong problem. To be fully correct, you should have said, "the starter of this thread is incorrect." Luckily that fact is clearly understood by all of AGS, so you're off the hook for this one! xthumbsupx

[EKU-n-GSU]

Football coaches in the Big12 do not want a championship game.Why would they? So they can lose and not make the final four? I don't think so.

I would'nt be so sure of that. There's big money involved in the FBS (major) conference championship games, and under any other circumstance 'Bama would have been in the FBS title game last year regardless of LSU having a better record...they were just that good. What will be interesting is how much the computer rankings are going to weigh in on the selection committee's deliberations.

Also - I'd place a bet today that in 3 years the FBS playoff will double to 8 teams.

[NHwildEcat]

I would'nt be so sure of that. There's big money involved in the FBS (major) conference championship games, and under any other circumstance 'Bama would have been in the FBS title game last year regardless of LSU having a better record...they were just that good. What will be interesting is how much the computer rankings are going to weigh in on the selection committee's deliberations.

Also - I'd place a bet today that in 3 years the FBS playoff will double to 8 teams.

I agree with the expansion in a few years. Once these Presidents & AD's get a taste of the playoffs and the money that will come with it, they will want more and likely expand to 8 teams. Let's just hope that they have limits and that in the long run it doesn't become more then 16 teams. We don't need college football lasting until after the Super Bowl. Plus, you would have to think that with each additional round of playoffs there would be the chance of a regular season game being dropped. I would venture to guess that eventually they will have a model similar to us in the FCS.

[Milktruck74]

I thought Obama was going to fix all this and we would have a true BCS Playoff system.....MAybe it's W's fault?

[TheRevSFA]

wow...congrats to the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA and what's left of the WAC.

You've effectively lost any shot at playing for a national championship

[crossfire07]

I would'nt be so sure of that. There's big money involved in the FBS (major) conference championship games, and under any other circumstance 'Bama would have been in the FBS title game last year regardless of LSU having a better record...they were just that good. What will be interesting is how much the computer rankings are going to weigh in on the selection committee's deliberations.

Also - I'd place a bet today that in 3 years the FBS playoff will double to 8 teams.
Any money made from a championship game is chump change to schools like Texas and OU. There is more to be made in the final 4 so again, why risk all of that money in a conference championship game. The computers like the BCS uses will have no part in the selection. It will be done by humans. They might use them to figure out the SOS but that's it. The contract is for 12 years on the 4 team playoff for the sole purpose of not being able to add games so it will be a longggg time before there is any expansion.

[crossfire07]

Why R we even writing about this here? It has not a damn thing to do with FCS. Lol

[NHwildEcat]

wow...congrats to the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA and what's left of the WAC.

You've effectively lost any shot at playing for a national championship

Nothing has changed in that regard...they never had a shot before either.

[NHwildEcat]

Any money made from a championship game is chump change to schools like Texas and OU. There is more to be made in the final 4 so again, why risk all of that money in a conference championship game. The computers like the BCS uses will have no part in the selection. It will be done by humans. They might use them to figure out the SOS but that's it. The contract is for 12 years on the 4 team playoff for the sole purpose of not being able to add games so it will be a longggg time before there is any expansion.

You're right about the 12 year contract when they lock it in...it will be 12 years...then the AD's & President's that are currently in control will be dead and the new breed will decide that it's time for 16 teams. Unless they have an opt out clause for this or that reason, then it could change within that 12 year window.

[Saint3333]

wow...congrats to the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA and what's left of the WAC.

You've effectively lost any shot at playing for a national championship

If anything their chances have increased. Granted the chances have gone from 0.01% to 0.02%.

[MplsBison]

Not really...they still play bowls...the playoffs will be within their bowls.

Wrong.

National championship will not be a bowl game and will be played at whatever site bids highest for the game.

[crossfire07]

You're right about the 12 year contract when they lock it in...it will be 12 years...then the AD's & President's that are currently in control will be dead and the new breed will decide that it's time for 16 teams. Unless they have an opt out clause for this or that reason, then it could change within that 12 year window.
It is them that want the 12 year contract to begin with.

[MplsBison]

the big12 plays a 9 game schedule, which makes up for the lack of a championship game. Florida state and clemson have made it pretty clear that they are not moving.

No it doesn't. Pac 12 also plays a 9 game regular season schedule and just started playing their own championship game last season.

Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and now the ACC is back in the picture with this format - all of them play championship games. Big XII isn't going to survive without one. They need two more teams to get to the required 12 teams needed to hold a championship game (per NCAA rules).

[MplsBison]

With a selection committee, it doesn't really matter. If a Big XII team gets to 12-0, they'll almost certainly be in the playoff (especially if it's OU or Texas). The conference title game would make more of a difference in the old BCS (especially if that unbeaten team lost), but with the committee it won't matter as much

The selection committee has been given guideline criteria. One of which was specifically stated as being conference champions.

If you've got the SEC, PAC 12, Big Ten and ACC champions all 13-0 and Big XII champions is 12-0, guess who's getting left out?

[bluehenbillk]

I guess this means FBS and FCS are now defunct, as well. Back to I-A and I-AA?

Agreed - I'm officially dropping the FBS labels as of today - I'm back to calling it 1-A and 1-AA.

[MplsBison]

Football coaches in the Big12 do not want a championship game.Why would they? So they can lose and not make the final four? I don't think so.

No coaches in any conference want to play a conference championship games, for just the reason you stated. Why risk losing the championship game after going 12-0 in the regular season and screwing yourself out of the playoff?

For that matter, why play 12 regular season games? Why not just play one game? May the winner take all.



And that's why coaches have limited input.

[MplsBison]

Agreed - I'm officially dropping the FBS labels as of today - I'm back to calling it 1-A and 1-AA.

Yep. Me too.

[MplsBison]

I would'nt be so sure of that. There's big money involved in the FBS (major) conference championship games, and under any other circumstance 'Bama would have been in the FBS title game last year regardless of LSU having a better record...they were just that good. What will be interesting is how much the computer rankings are going to weigh in on the selection committee's deliberations.

Also - I'd place a bet today that in 3 years the FBS playoff will double to 8 teams.

Unfortunately no.

They're going to lock themselves into a 12 year freeze on expansion. No doubt fans and media will want playoff expansion as fast as possible, but the people who pull the levers won't allow it. Too scared of ruining the regular season TV ratings.

[MplsBison]

wow...congrats to the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA and what's left of the WAC.

You've effectively lost any shot at playing for a national championship

They have a better chance now than they've ever had in the BCS.

[MplsBison]

Why R we even writing about this here? It has not a damn thing to do with FCS. Lol

Direct impact on FCS: teams moving up once FBS conferences shift teams around more.

As I correctly explained.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Wrong.

National championship will not be a bowl game and will be played at whatever site bids highest for the game.

The semifinals will be bowl games on a rotating basis. All the other bowls will still exist as they are all independent of the championship system.

The reason people tend not to like you is that you make declarative statements without qualification telling people they are wrong all the time when they aren't.

People don't mind stupid people, or loudmouths, but stupid loudmouths tend to get the most **** thrown at them. You make me miss Lakes.

[MplsBison]

He was wrong. I corrected him.

Yes the semi-finals will be rotated among 6 bowl games. That's not what he said. Oh weird, you just wanted to make up another excuse to bash me because you don't like me personally.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Not really...they still play bowls...the playoffs will be within their bowls.


He was wrong. I corrected him.

Yes the semi-finals will be rotated among 6 bowl games. That's not what he said. Oh weird, you just wanted to make up another excuse to bash me because you don't like me personally.

What he said was factually correct. Maybe not in your alternate asshole reality, but factually correct. The playoffs will be within the bowls, bowls will still exist, hence a bowl system.

I know I'm gobbling up the troll bait right now but I'm feeling a little pissy this morning.

[MplsBison]

The playoffs includes semifinals and a championship game.

The championship game is not a bowl and is bid out to whatever venue bids highest for it.


Therefore he is absolutely wrong and I corrected him. You're just being a dumb ____ and trying to pick a fight where there is none to be had. Piss off.

[BisonBacker]

Wrong.

National championship will not be a bowl game and will be played at whatever site bids highest for the game.

Once again you spout off and are WRONG..

No. 1 will play No. 4, and No. 2 will play No. 3 on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1. The sites of those games will rotate among the four current BCS bowls — Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar — and two more to be determined.

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/jun/26/presidents-approve-fbs-football-playoff/

[TheRevSFA]

They have a better chance now than they've ever had in the BCS.

No, they don't

a committee is not going to take a 12-0 Sun Belt team over a 10-2 Pac 12 team, an 11-1 Big 12 team, a 10-2 SEC team, and a 10-2 Big 12 team.

Strength of schedule still matters up at that level.

[NHwildEcat]

Wrong.

National championship will not be a bowl game and will be played at whatever site bids highest for the game.

So you don't view the semi-finals as bowl games? How dumb are you?

[NHwildEcat]

It is them that want the 12 year contract to begin with.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there won't be some language in the contract with an opt out if they deem they want to change the structure.

[MplsBison]

Oh bull____ you guys. Just piling on. Piss off.

You know damn well I'm correct: the championship game is not a bowl game. You're all just taking the piss.

[MplsBison]

No, they don't

a committee is not going to take a 12-0 Sun Belt team over a 10-2 Pac 12 team, an 11-1 Big 12 team, a 10-2 SEC team, and a 10-2 Big 12 team.

Strength of schedule still matters up at that level.

They have a better chance of being selected by a committee than they do of being ranked #1 or #2 by the BCS formula!

Hello, McFly - anyone home?

[NHwildEcat]

He was wrong. I corrected him.

Yes the semi-finals will be rotated among 6 bowl games. That's not what he said. Oh weird, you just wanted to make up another excuse to bash me because you don't like me personally.

I am the furthest thing from wrong...you sir might be the most foolish person on this board. Last time I checked, there will be bowl games, and just the same amount as we have had...all they are doing is adding 1 extra game for a National Championship which they are going to let cities bid on. This is to get more people involved. Do you think that any of these bid cities are going to be outside of the current Bowl System? I doubt it...this get Jerry Jones and his Cowboys stadium into the National Title game picture along with all the other newer facilities around the NFL landscape.

Now if those semi-finals games were held on campus then you would be right.

Therefore, FBS is still FBS and FCS is still FCS.

[MplsBison]

So what are the other two bowl games going to be?

One has to be the Cotton Bowl. That puts games in California, Phoenix, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami.

Then depending on the site of the new Champions Bowl (between SEC and Big XII), that could be the sixth (perhaps in Atlanta?).



A dream would be to have it at a place like Indianapolis or Detroit, so that Big Ten fans at least had a chance to stay in the midwest and watch their team play in a semifinal game. But probably won't happen.

[MplsBison]

I am the furthest thing from wrong...you sir might be the most foolish person on this board. Last time I checked, there will be bowl games, and just the same amount as we have had...all they are doing is adding 1 extra game for a National Championship which they are going to let cities bid on. This is to get more people involved. Do you think that any of these bid cities are going to be outside of the current Bowl System? I doubt it...this get Jerry Jones and his Cowboys stadium into the National Title game picture along with all the other newer facilities around the NFL landscape.

Now if those semi-finals games were held on campus then you would be right.

Therefore, FBS is still FBS and FCS is still FCS.

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The championship game is NOT a bowl game. The semi-final games are being played at bowl sites and branded as bowl games, but they're part of a playoff that culminates in a non-bowl game.

The bowl games themselves have nothing to do with selecting the teams that will play at the bowl sites.


It's utterly a non-bowl championship.



Stop taking the piss.

[kingkat99]

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The championship game is NOT a bowl game. The semi-final games are being played at bowl sites and branded as bowl games, but they're part of a playoff that culminates in a non-bowl game.

The bowl games themselves have nothing to do with selecting the teams that will play at the bowl sites.


It's utterly a non-bowl championship.



Stop taking the piss.

Technically the champion isnt crowned by winning a Bowl game now. Only difference is the Nat Championship game will not be limited to the BCS Bowl Locations.

[MplsBison]

Technically the champion isnt crowned by winning a Bowl game now. Only difference is the Nat Championship game will not be limited to the BCS Bowl Locations.

Actually that's not true. The BCS championship game is a bowl game.

This is because the #1 and #2 ranked teams must meet in a bowl game in the BCS system. They just created a fifth bowl game instead of rotating the championship among the four bowls, as was originally done.


The BCS is dead, in every aspect. No more forumla - no more BCS rankings. No more BCS bowls. No more BCS conferences. No more auto-bids.

[MSUBobcat]

The playoffs includes semifinals and a championship game.

The championship game is not a bowl and is bid out to whatever venue bids highest for it.


Therefore he is absolutely wrong and I corrected him. You're just being a dumb ____ and trying to pick a fight where there is none to be had. Piss off.


He was wrong. I corrected him.

Yes the semi-finals will be rotated among 6 bowl games. That's not what he said. Oh weird, you just wanted to make up another excuse to bash me because you don't like me personally.

NHwildEcat stated the playoff will still be bowl games. You concede that the semifinals(2 games) will be bowls. That makes him 2x more correct than you.

[TheRevSFA]

They have a better chance of being selected by a committee than they do of being ranked #1 or #2 by the BCS formula!

Hello, McFly - anyone home?

Yeah, because NCAA committes are top notch when it comes to picking schools for post season events. ISU anyone? How about the NCAA basketball tourney.

The committee isn't going to go "Hey Arkansas State deserves a chance, they went 12-0 with wins over the entire sunbelt, Tennessee Tech, NMSU and Colorado State"

They will go "well Bama lost to LSU and UGA..let's put them in anyway as they play in the SEC"

Get your head out of your *** and realize that it's not black and white.

[Professor Chaos]

The selection committee has been given guideline criteria. One of which was specifically stated as being conference champions.

If you've got the SEC, PAC 12, Big Ten and ACC champions all 13-0 and Big XII champions is 12-0, guess who's getting left out?
No such criteria has been established as of yet. In fact I'm fairly certain that there won't be requirement to be a conference champion because the SEC and Big Ten rule college football and they want the possibility of having more than one of their teams in the Final Four.

[bluehenbillk]

You're going to see the other bowls suffer.

First, about half a dozen bowl games are going away as they're making teams go 7-5 to goto a bowl. There were barely enough 6-6 teams.

Second, all the money is going to be funneled to the semi's & the NC. The schools (read: the big 4 conferences) will see a windfall there - almost tripling their yearly intake from the postseason. However, the games outside of the semi's will struggle to even equal the current payouts to teams in those games. I believe ESPN funded & kept alive a number of minor bowl games - I don't know if that practice will continue if they have to lay out large to televise the Final Four & the NC.

I agree that the Cotton Bowl will probably be one of the 6 bowls they look at - but don't think that this NC game won't get spread around the country - they'll pimp it out to the highest bidder. I'd love to see Soldier Field or Lambeau host the college NC game - now that's football!

[813Jag]

It's amazing how one guy can spin people in circles xreadx

[NHwildEcat]

You're going to see the other bowls suffer.

First, about half a dozen bowl games are going away as they're making teams go 7-5 to goto a bowl. There were barely enough 6-6 teams.

Second, all the money is going to be funneled to the semi's & the NC. The schools (read: the big 4 conferences) will see a windfall there - almost tripling their yearly intake from the postseason. However, the games outside of the semi's will struggle to even equal the current payouts to teams in those games. I believe ESPN funded & kept alive a number of minor bowl games - I don't know if that practice will continue if they have to lay out large to televise the Final Four & the NC.

I agree that the Cotton Bowl will probably be one of the 6 bowls they look at - but don't think that this NC game won't get spread around the country - they'll pimp it out to the highest bidder. I'd love to see Soldier Field or Lambeau host the college NC game - now that's football!

While I agree with Solider Field and Lambeau being great locations, we all know that won't happen. I think that while they will want the highest bidder they are going to have some regulations that must be met to bid to begin with. And I think one of those is that either the stadium is in a warm southern market or it's played indoors away from the climates.

[NHwildEcat]

It's amazing how one guy can spin people in circles xreadx

It is amazing how wrong one guy can be all the time.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

All this means is:

* Whatever the new Bowl Alliance says, the Bowl games will all be exhibition games, as will the plus-one championship game.

* Teams not in the four Bowl Alliance conferences will basically have no shot at playing in these six bowl exhibitions, which effectively dries up Boise State's and Virginia Tech's revenue models from now for the forseeable future.

* FCS teams will continue to delude themselves that, somehow, being in the MAC is just the same as the Pac 12, and spending all that extra money to be Michigan State cannon fodder will pay itself off with a bowl bid. Only now the new Bowl Alliance controls more of the money, meaning the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl will have less money to give to the Georgia States of the world, and even the 12-0 teams will be relegated to crap bowls.

* The bowls not a part of the new Bowl Alliance will suffer immensely. Fewer people attend these games, and TV ratings will crater.

* The NCAA will not sanction any of these bowl games as official championships - so they will remain exhibitions.

* ESPN will continue to pretend that it is a real championship.

[813Jag]

It is amazing how wrong one guy can be all the time.

that's why it's funny. dude has been wrong consistently since he's been here and people still try to correct him. yet he keeps charging on.

[bluehenbillk]

All this means is:

* Whatever the new Bowl Alliance says, the Bowl games will all be exhibition games, as will the plus-one championship game.

* Teams not in the four Bowl Alliance conferences will basically have no shot at playing in these six bowl exhibitions, which effectively dries up Boise State's and Virginia Tech's revenue models from now for the forseeable future.

* FCS teams will continue to delude themselves that, somehow, being in the MAC is just the same as the Pac 12, and spending all that extra money to be Michigan State cannon fodder will pay itself off with a bowl bid. Only now the new Bowl Alliance controls more of the money, meaning the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl will have less money to give to the Georgia States of the world, and even the 12-0 teams will be relegated to crap bowls.

* The bowls not a part of the new Bowl Alliance will suffer immensely. Fewer people attend these games, and TV ratings will crater.

* The NCAA will not sanction any of these bowl games as official championships - so they will remain exhibitions.

* ESPN will continue to pretend that it is a real championship.

3 points:

1 - Haters gonna hate can sum up that post. Why people on 1-AA sites don't enjoy the highest level of college football still puzzles me.

2- The "minor bowl" games have always been "exhibition games" anyway - really when the 6th place Big Ten team plays the 7th place SEC team the only people that give a crap are A: alums, B: junkies, C: gamblers

3- No one with a shred of intelligence puts CUSA or the MAC on the same level as the 4 power leagues, heck the Big East is no longer on that plain & the ACC you can argue isn't either. There will be slightly more $ floating to these leagues now with the increased postseason pot (which is why the lesser conferences signed off on the deal) but percentage wise - the rich get richer is accurate.

[813Jag]

3 points:

1 - Haters gonna hate can sum up that post. Why people on 1-AA sites don't enjoy the highest level of college football still puzzles me.

2- The "minor bowl" games have always been "exhibition games" anyway - really when the 6th place Big Ten team plays the 7th place SEC team the only people that give a crap are A: alums, B: junkies, C: gamblers

3- No one with a shred of intelligence puts CUSA or the MAC on the same level as the 4 power leagues, heck the Big East is no longer on that plain & the ACC you can argue isn't either. There will be slightly more $ floating to these leagues now with the increased postseason pot (which is why the lesser conferences signed off on the deal) but percentage wise - the rich get richer is accurate.

I agree with all points. I can understand it but point #1 will always confuse me. Especially when some of those people look down on D-II teams.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

3 points:

1 - Haters gonna hate can sum up that post. Why people on 1-AA sites don't enjoy the highest level of college football still puzzles me.

2- The "minor bowl" games have always been "exhibition games" anyway - really when the 6th place Big Ten team plays the 7th place SEC team the only people that give a crap are A: alums, B: junkies, C: gamblers

3- No one with a shred of intelligence puts CUSA or the MAC on the same level as the 4 power leagues, heck the Big East is no longer on that plain & the ACC you can argue isn't either. There will be slightly more $ floating to these leagues now with the increased postseason pot (which is why the lesser conferences signed off on the deal) but percentage wise - the rich get richer is accurate.

It may not seem like it, but I enjoy an occasional big-time FBS game every now and again. What I don't like is the pigs-at-the-trough aspect of football at the FBS level.

[crossfire07]

So what are the other two bowl games going to be?

One has to be the Cotton Bowl. That puts games in California, Phoenix, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami.

Then depending on the site of the new Champions Bowl (between SEC and Big XII), that could be the sixth (perhaps in Atlanta?).



A dream would be to have it at a place like Indianapolis or Detroit, so that Big Ten fans at least had a chance to stay in the midwest and watch their team play in a semifinal game. But probably won't happen.

When it comes down to big games such as the final 4 and the championship game, they don't give fans no consideration what so ever when it comes to placing those games. They don't care if no fans from either school show up because the seats will sell regardless. At that level it is not about the schools and their fans, it is about the corporate world and their money :)

[NHwildEcat]

that's why it's funny. dude has been wrong consistently since he's been here and people still try to correct him. yet he keeps charging on.

It's fun sometimes...

[NHwildEcat]

When it comes down to big games such as the final 4 and the championship game, they don't give fans no consideration what so ever when it comes to placing those games. They don't care if no fans from either school show up because the seats will sell regardless. At that level it is not about the schools and their fans, it is about the corporate world and their money :)

+1

[DFW HOYA]

A few items:

1. The days of I-AA big money guarantee games with SEC and Big 10 schools will soon be a thing of the past. RPI-like strength of schedule will force more of these games within the Bowl Alliance and less from the SoCon or CAA. The only I-A teams that will be looking for games in I-AA will be those in the Sun Belt and Confernece USA. Nothing wrong with a gamew between Delaware and Old Dominion, for example, but don't expect Pitt or Penn State to call for either of them.

2. Three conferneces (Big 10, SEC, Big 12) stand the best with this formula, with the Pac-12 4th and the ACC and Big East on the fringe if someone can run the table there. MWC, C-USA and Sun Belt have become Division I-B and will de facto never compete in the alliance again.

3. Minor bowls will exist as long as ESPN deigns them ratings draws. 32 of 34 bowls are broadcast by the Worldwide Leader.

4. Quietly last week, a non-profit company was jointly formed by the Dallas Cowboys, Cowboys Stadium and the Cotton Bowl Athletic Association...care to guess what that's all about? Jerry Jones absolutely wants to be in a four city rotation for the championship game, roughly LA, Dallas, Indianapolis, and a southern city TBA, either Atlanta or New Orleans.

5. Last fall, Villanova was within 24 hours on a vote to join Big East football when Pitt requested a delay, followed by Pitt jumping ship. The decision was tabled. Pitt's delay tactic will haunt Villanova's football future for a generation or more.

6. None of this will serve the long-term interests of I-AA football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A few items:

1. The days of I-AA big money guarantee games with SEC and Big 10 schools will soon be a thing of the past. RPI-like strength of schedule will force more of these games within the Bowl Alliance and less from the SoCon or CAA. The only I-A teams that will be looking for games in I-AA will be those in the Sun Belt and Confernece USA. Nothing wrong with a gamew between Delaware and Old Dominion, for example, but don't expect Pitt or Penn State to call for either of them.

I disagree on this point. Since so much is riding on going undefeated in the playoff conferences, and FCS schools still count against "eligibility", they will still schedule whom they feel are cupcakes for cheap home games. The only way this changes is if the Bowl Alliance changes the rules for "bowl eligibility" or make an BCS formula-like RPI to determine the playoff participants, neither of which have been announced.

[DFW HOYA]

An RPI is coming in this formula, with weighting by subdivision, where Ohio State will gain more from a game with Temple than Bowling Green.

[MplsBison]

NHwildEcat stated the playoff will still be bowl games. You concede that the semifinals(2 games) will be bowls. That makes him 2x more correct than you.

As I already said (and you quoted), the playoffs includes semifinals and a championship game.

His statement can only be correct if both the semifinals and the championship game are bowl games.

The championship is not a bowl game.

He is wrong.

[MplsBison]

Yeah, because NCAA committes are top notch when it comes to picking schools for post season events. ISU anyone? How about the NCAA basketball tourney.

The committee isn't going to go "Hey Arkansas State deserves a chance, they went 12-0 with wins over the entire sunbelt, Tennessee Tech, NMSU and Colorado State"

They will go "well Bama lost to LSU and UGA..let's put them in anyway as they play in the SEC"

Get your head out of your *** and realize that it's not black and white.

I already correctly explained the scenario that works, in another thread. Don't care if you read it or not, it's correct.

The right scenario will yield a mid-major in the I-A playoffs. End.

It generates too much interest by casual and non-sports fans. The TV execs would be pushing children down to get at the chance.

[MplsBison]

No such criteria has been established as of yet. In fact I'm fairly certain that there won't be requirement to be a conference champion because the SEC and Big Ten rule college football and they want the possibility of having more than one of their teams in the Final Four.

No it has been established and published. Conference champions is one of the criteria that will be considered by the committee.

It by no means that not being a conference champion excludes you from the playoffs. Not at all.

[MplsBison]

You're going to see the other bowls suffer.

First, about half a dozen bowl games are going away as they're making teams go 7-5 to goto a bowl. There were barely enough 6-6 teams.

Second, all the money is going to be funneled to the semi's & the NC. The schools (read: the big 4 conferences) will see a windfall there - almost tripling their yearly intake from the postseason. However, the games outside of the semi's will struggle to even equal the current payouts to teams in those games. I believe ESPN funded & kept alive a number of minor bowl games - I don't know if that practice will continue if they have to lay out large to televise the Final Four & the NC.

I agree that the Cotton Bowl will probably be one of the 6 bowls they look at - but don't think that this NC game won't get spread around the country - they'll pimp it out to the highest bidder. I'd love to see Soldier Field or Lambeau host the college NC game - now that's football!

I'd love to see that too - but everyone except the Big Ten would be crying foul (can't deal with the cold weather, not fair, etc.)

I can however see the game someday played in any big midwest city that has a roofed stadium. So that's Detroit, Indy and hopefully Minneapolis when the Vikes stadium is done.

[TheRevSFA]

I already correctly explained the scenario that works, in another thread. Don't care if you read it or not, it's correct.

The right scenario will yield a mid-major in the I-A playoffs. End.

It generates too much interest by casual and non-sports fans. The TV execs would be pushing children down to get at the chance.

I'll bet you 500 bucks that neither a Sun Belt, CUSA, WAC, or MAC team makes the playoff in the first 5 years.

If you are so sure...then it's easy money for you

[MplsBison]

All this means is:

* Whatever the new Bowl Alliance says, the Bowl games will all be exhibition games, as will the plus-one championship game.

* Teams not in the four Bowl Alliance conferences will basically have no shot at playing in these six bowl exhibitions, which effectively dries up Boise State's and Virginia Tech's revenue models from now for the forseeable future.

* FCS teams will continue to delude themselves that, somehow, being in the MAC is just the same as the Pac 12, and spending all that extra money to be Michigan State cannon fodder will pay itself off with a bowl bid. Only now the new Bowl Alliance controls more of the money, meaning the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl will have less money to give to the Georgia States of the world, and even the 12-0 teams will be relegated to crap bowls.

* The bowls not a part of the new Bowl Alliance will suffer immensely. Fewer people attend these games, and TV ratings will crater.

* The NCAA will not sanction any of these bowl games as official championships - so they will remain exhibitions.

* ESPN will continue to pretend that it is a real championship.

This is the I-A playoff. Exactly the same as the I-AA playoffs, except 4 teams instead of 87, or whatever ridiculous number the I-AA playoffs are at now.

The semi-finals are played at bowl sites and will be branded as bowl games, for the sake of tradition only. They are playoff semi-final games.

Any team in division I-A can be selected to the I-A playoffs.

Bowl games don't get money from the BCS. They've always been on their own in terms of the money they distribute to the participating team conferences. That won't change either.


The NCAA has no part in I-A college football's postseason because that's tradition. No one ever cared about minor league college football, so the NCAA controls that. Rest assured, the champion of the I-A playoff is the real champion of that sub-division in every single way that the champion of the I-AA playoff is the champion of that subdivision.

[MplsBison]

I'll bet you 500 bucks that neither a Sun Belt, CUSA, WAC, or MAC team makes the playoff in the first 5 years.

If you are so sure...then it's easy money for you

I'm not sure that it will happen in the first 5 years. Or the first 12 years.

I'm sure that IF the scenario presents itself, it will happen.

[MplsBison]

3 points:

1 - Haters gonna hate can sum up that post. Why people on 1-AA sites don't enjoy the highest level of college football still puzzles me.

2- The "minor bowl" games have always been "exhibition games" anyway - really when the 6th place Big Ten team plays the 7th place SEC team the only people that give a crap are A: alums, B: junkies, C: gamblers

3- No one with a shred of intelligence puts CUSA or the MAC on the same level as the 4 power leagues, heck the Big East is no longer on that plain & the ACC you can argue isn't either. There will be slightly more $ floating to these leagues now with the increased postseason pot (which is why the lesser conferences signed off on the deal) but percentage wise - the rich get richer is accurate.

Great post, especially point 1.

Lot of people on this board hate, hate, hate I-A football and the fact that it's bigger and better than I-AA. They'll do anything to bash it or denounce any improvement to that subdivision.

[TheRevSFA]

I'm not sure that it will happen in the first 5 years. Or the first 12 years.

I'm sure that IF the scenario presents itself, it will happen.

It's not going to happen. The rich (BCS) will get richer and the semi-rich (SBC, CUSA, MAC, WAC) will get poorer.

[MplsBison]

A few items:

1. The days of I-AA big money guarantee games with SEC and Big 10 schools will soon be a thing of the past. RPI-like strength of schedule will force more of these games within the Bowl Alliance and less from the SoCon or CAA. The only I-A teams that will be looking for games in I-AA will be those in the Sun Belt and Confernece USA. Nothing wrong with a gamew between Delaware and Old Dominion, for example, but don't expect Pitt or Penn State to call for either of them.

2. Three conferneces (Big 10, SEC, Big 12) stand the best with this formula, with the Pac-12 4th and the ACC and Big East on the fringe if someone can run the table there. MWC, C-USA and Sun Belt have become Division I-B and will de facto never compete in the alliance again.

3. Minor bowls will exist as long as ESPN deigns them ratings draws. 32 of 34 bowls are broadcast by the Worldwide Leader.

4. Quietly last week, a non-profit company was jointly formed by the Dallas Cowboys, Cowboys Stadium and the Cotton Bowl Athletic Association...care to guess what that's all about? Jerry Jones absolutely wants to be in a four city rotation for the championship game, roughly LA, Dallas, Indianapolis, and a southern city TBA, either Atlanta or New Orleans.

5. Last fall, Villanova was within 24 hours on a vote to join Big East football when Pitt requested a delay, followed by Pitt jumping ship. The decision was tabled. Pitt's delay tactic will haunt Villanova's football future for a generation or more.

6. None of this will serve the long-term interests of I-AA football.

1 - maybe. It all depends on if a team thinks it has a legit chance at the playoffs or not. If it's only trying to get into a bowl game, a win over an I-AA team stills gets you closer to the 6 (or will it be 7 now) wins needed to be eligible.

2 - Big XII is at a severe disadvantage IMO because their champion won't be able to say it won a conference championship game. So the PAC-12 leap frogs them in that regard. The ACC is also up there equal with them, for now. If FSU and Clemson hop over then they're down again with the Big East and Mountain West

3 - agree

4 - I really hope that Indy, Detroit and Mpls get the NC game in the next 20 years or so. That would be fantastic for Big Ten fans who always have to travel south for the post-season.

5 - if Villanova had somewhere good to play, it would've been done. That's been the roadblock and continues to be it.

6 - duh? Why was there any expectation that it would? The impact to I-AA is that more teams could be leaving as a direct result of this.

[MplsBison]

By the way, I checked google news and no one is calling the playoff the "Bowl Alliance". That was the old name of the BCS, before the Rose Bowl was added in.

Simple "I-A Playoff" will do guys, thanks.

[MplsBison]

It's not going to happen. The rich (BCS) will get richer and the semi-rich (SBC, CUSA, MAC, WAC) will get poorer.

Haters gonna hate, I guess. Keep on

[Lehigh Football Nation]

By the way, I checked google news and no one is calling the playoff the "Bowl Alliance". That was the old name of the BCS, before the Rose Bowl was added in.

Simple "I-A Playoff" will do guys, thanks.

The Bowl Alliance is very much what it is. Conferences with exclusive access to certain bowls, hoarding all the money for themselves.

Maybe it's time for a column about it.

http://www.college-sports-journal.com

[MplsBison]

No conference has exclusive access. No conference has automatic access.

You live in a fantasy world and see what you want to see. Must be nice.

[TheRevSFA]

You live in a fantasy world and see what you want to see. Must be nice.

New signature quote for anyone?

[NHwildEcat]

By the way, I checked google news and no one is calling the playoff the "Bowl Alliance". That was the old name of the BCS, before the Rose Bowl was added in.

Simple "I-A Playoff" will do guys, thanks.

It is still the FBS...I mean at least according to the NCAA classification.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

New signature quote for anyone?

Done! xlolx

[Professor Chaos]

that's why it's funny. dude has been wrong consistently since he's been here and people still try to correct him. yet he keeps charging on.

It's fun sometimes...
Exactly, it's not like anyone who knows what their doing is legitimately trying to change Mpls' mind. That's an impossibility. Offseasons would be even more boring even we didn't have $h!t to argue about. Mpls does an excellent job stirring the pot and lobbing us figurative softballs in these arguments. Once the season rolls around and actual legitimate football discussion can be had I'll go back to ignoring him.

[frozennorth]

No it doesn't. Pac 12 also plays a 9 game regular season schedule and just started playing their own championship game last season.

Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and now the ACC is back in the picture with this format - all of them play championship games. Big XII isn't going to survive without one. They need two more teams to get to the required 12 teams needed to hold a championship game (per NCAA rules).

so when USC is playing washington in conference instead of troy state out of conference, thats not going to help? SOS is going to be important, and playing a conference opponent rather than a scrub is going to be big deal.

[frozennorth]

The Bowl Alliance is very much what it is. Conferences with exclusive access to certain bowls, hoarding all the money for themselves.

Maybe it's time for a column about it.

http://www.college-sports-journal.com

STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH MPLS.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

so when USC is playing washington in conference instead of troy state out of conference, thats not going to help? SOS is going to be important, and playing a conference opponent rather than a scrub is going to be big deal.

Nope. Someday the final four will be a Boise State, Akron, Troy, and NDSU - who will by then be in the Big 20

[EKU-n-GSU]

Any money made from a championship game is chump change to schools like Texas and OU. There is more to be made in the final 4 so again, why risk all of that money in a conference championship game. The computers like the BCS uses will have no part in the selection. It will be done by humans. They might use them to figure out the SOS but that's it. The contract is for 12 years on the 4 team playoff for the sole purpose of not being able to add games so it will be a longggg time before there is any expansion.

Even with the 12-year contract, there's going to be a lot of pissing and moaning with SEC/Big 12/Big 10 absolutely dominating the four spots year after year. Again, too much money to be made, and contracts attract lawyers, who like admendments very, very much.

[813Jag]

Exactly, it's not like anyone who knows what their doing is legitimately trying to change Mpls' mind. That's an impossibility. Offseasons would be even more boring even we didn't have $h!t to argue about. Mpls does an excellent job stirring the pot and lobbing us figurative softballs in these arguments. Once the season rolls around and actual legitimate football discussion can be had
I'll go back to ignoring him.
I don't disagree with you, but I still get a laugh because I know that there are some people who routinely fall for his antics.

But on to the topic, hopefully this will help move away from teams playing two FCS games in one season.

[Squealofthepig]

OK, just to see how this would've looked in the past, here's what this would've looked like over the last couple of years using the BCS as a stand-in to decide top-4 (NC in bold):

2011
1) LSU vs. 4) Stanford
2) Alabama vs. 3) Oklahoma State

2010
1) Auburn vs. 4) Stanford
2) Oregon vs. 3) TCU

2009
1) Alabama vs. 4) TCU
2) Texas vs. 3) Cincinnati

2008
1) Oklahoma vs. 4) Alabama
2) Florida vs. 3) Texas

2007
1) Ohio State vs. 4) Oklahoma
2) LSU vs. 3) Virginia Tech

Obviously politics would've made some of those nowhere close to what would've happened, but still interesting to think about.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

2010
1) Auburn vs. 4) Stanford
2) Oregon vs. 3) TCU

2009
1) Alabama vs. 4) TCU
2) Texas vs. 3) Cincinnati

Funny you should mention these seasons.

2009 season:
No. 3 TCU 12-0
No. 4 Cincy 12-0
No. 5 Florida 13-1 (only loss in SEC championship to No. 1 Alabama)
No. 6 Boise State 13-0
No. 7 Oregon 10-2 (Pac 10 Champs)

2010 season:
No. 4 TCU 12-0
No. 5 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big 10 Champs)
No. 6 Stanford 11-1 (only loss to No. 2 Oregon)

The only reason TCU was in there instead of those teams was the BCS formula. Without the BCS formula, you think they still would have been considered over these teams for the playoffs (except Boise State)? IMO, there is no way under the sun they would have been.

[frozennorth]

OK, just to see how this would've looked in the past, here's what this would've looked like over the last couple of years using the BCS as a stand-in to decide top-4 (NC in bold):

2011
1) LSU vs. 5) oregon
2) Alabama vs. 3) Oklahoma State

2010
1) Auburn vs. 5) wisconsin
2) Oregon vs. 3) TCU

2009
1) Alabama vs. 4) TCU
2) Texas vs. 3) Cincinnati

2008
1) Oklahoma vs. 5) USC or 6) Utah
2) Florida vs. 3) Texas

2007
1) Ohio State vs. 4) Oklahoma
2) LSU vs. 3) Virginia Tech

Obviously politics would've made some of those nowhere close to what would've happened, but still interesting to think about.

fixed-ish for some more likely selections. The fourth selection is very unlikely to be at large(alabama 2008, stanford 2009). No team that failed to win its conference is going to be chosen over a team that won its conference with a head to head victory, as in the stanford/oregon situation in 2011.

2008 could have left out *both* texas and alabama in favor of Utah and USC, and alabama almost certainly would not have made the field. Taking one conference runner up is plausible, particularly at #3. Two is very unlikely, especially with USC, who many still think was the best team that year, and undefeated Utah, right behind. The standard for an at large bid is going to end up being very high. A second at large bid is almost impossible.

Going back to 2006:

OSU v louisville
michigan v florida (without the anti-rematch sentiment, its tough to know who gets the #2 seed)

dual representatives:
2006 (big10), 2011 (sec), 2008 (possible big12)

representatives by conference:
SEC 7
big12 5 (4 w/o texas in 2008)
big10 4
pac10 3 (only 2 if USC is left out in 2008)
MWC 3 (2 if Utah is left out in 2008)
big east 1
acc 1

[Squealofthepig]

Without the BCS formula, you think they still would have been considered over these teams for the playoffs (except Boise State)? IMO, there is no way under the sun they would have been.

Ya totally ignored the part where I said:


Obviously politics would've made some of those nowhere close to what would've happened, but still interesting to think about.

Frozennorth's post looks much more likely to what would've happened.

[frozennorth]

Funny you should mention these seasons.

2009 season:
No. 3 TCU 12-0
No. 4 Cincy 12-0
No. 5 Florida 13-1 (only loss in SEC championship to No. 1 Alabama)
No. 6 Boise State 13-0
No. 7 Oregon 10-2 (Pac 10 Champs)

2010 season:
No. 4 TCU 12-0
No. 5 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big 10 Champs)
No. 6 Stanford 11-1 (only loss to No. 2 Oregon)

The only reason TCU was in there instead of those teams was the BCS formula. Without the BCS formula, you think they still would have been considered over these teams for the playoffs (except Boise State)? IMO, there is no way under the sun they would have been.
absolutely, TCU in 2009 and 2010 would have been in the playoff, as well as likely utah in 2008. As conferences jockey for position, it's going to be very hard to get a second at large team in, unless that case is rock solid, as in 2006 or 2011. Even Texas in 2008 is probably left out in favor of Utah.

[SpiritCymbal]

OK, just to see how this would've looked in the past, here's what this would've looked like over the last couple of years using the BCS as a stand-in to decide top-4 (NC in bold):

2011
1) LSU vs. 4) Stanford
2) Alabama vs. 3) Oklahoma State

2010
1) Auburn vs. 4) Stanford
2) Oregon vs. 3) TCU

2009
1) Alabama vs. 4) TCU
2) Texas vs. 3) Cincinnati

2008
1) Oklahoma vs. 4) Alabama
2) Florida vs. 3) Texas

2007
1) Ohio State vs. 4) Oklahoma
2) LSU vs. 3) Virginia Tech

Obviously politics would've made some of those nowhere close to what would've happened, but still interesting to think about.

Funny that you posted this. Tony Barnhart posted an article a couple of hours ago on CBS about this very thing and predicts what would have been the Selection Committee's choices for the 4-team playoff going back to 2007.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19431546/playing-selection-committee-bcs-history-proves-picking-four-isnt-easy

[BlueHenSinfonian]

This is very good for the non-BCS conferences. In fact, after this, is there such a thing as a BCS conference anymore? True, the Sun-Belt, C-USA, MAC, etc champions likely won't make it in during a 4 game playoff, but they do have the chance if they can make it through undefeated with a strong OOC schedule and knock off someone big (for example, WKU is playing Alabama and Kentucky this coming year, if they beat two SEC teams on the way to an undefeated season I'd say they'd have a fair shot at making it in).

The real benefit for the other conferences will be when these playoffs inevitably expand. When it goes to 16 teams in time there is no way that the entire field will be from the big six conferences.

[PAllen]

"The two semifinal games will be rotated among six bowl sites over a 12-year period, and will be played Dec. 31 or Jan. 1. Those bowls have not been selected yet.

The championship game will be held at a neutral site, and cities will have the opportunity to bid on the event. The game will be played on the first Monday in January, unless it falls on Jan. 1."

So if the first Monday in January is January 2nd, the semis will be on Saturday Dec 31, followed by the Championship Game Monday night? That can't be right.

Edit:

From the AP:

"The winners of the semis will advance to the championship on the first Monday in January that is six or more days after the last semifinal. "

That makes more sense. So I guess that's a big nevermind.

[NHwildEcat]

This is very good for the non-BCS conferences. In fact, after this, is there such a thing as a BCS conference anymore? True, the Sun-Belt, C-USA, MAC, etc champions likely won't make it in during a 4 game playoff, but they do have the chance if they can make it through undefeated with a strong OOC schedule and knock off someone big (for example, WKU is playing Alabama and Kentucky this coming year, if they beat two SEC teams on the way to an undefeated season I'd say they'd have a fair shot at making it in).

The real benefit for the other conferences will be when these playoffs inevitably expand. When it goes to 16 teams in time there is no way that the entire field will be from the big six conferences.

Absolutely correct! I think that as far as labeling of the levels of football it will remain FBS until they officially dump all the bowls...and have just a playoff. Now, with that said I'd like for them to keep the Rose Bowl, that should be incorporated somehow as that is the best of them all, and I am sure the schools will figure it out...maybe the top teams that don't make the Final 4 (this is after the expansion etc...)

There is no doubt eventually this thing will expand, first to 8 teams then most likely in 15 years to 16 teams. Auto bids will come into play--although I think it will be or hope it would be auto-bids for conferences that acheive a minimal cumulative RPI...no point in having non-competitive first round matchups in my opinion.

[MplsBison]

New signature quote for anyone?

Now taking my quotes out of context?

Might as well just make stuff up, next.

[MplsBison]

It is still the FBS...I mean at least according to the NCAA classification.

Football Bowl Subdivision no longer is correct, as the champion will be determined by a playoff.

I-A and I-AA were always perfectly sufficient.

[MplsBison]

Done! xlolx

Taking someone out of context must be the first journalistic thing you've ever done.

[MplsBison]

so when USC is playing washington in conference instead of troy state out of conference, thats not going to help? SOS is going to be important, and playing a conference opponent rather than a scrub is going to be big deal.

I never said the Big XII playing 9 conference games would hurt them.

I said that their champion not having to win a conference championship game will hurt them.

[MplsBison]

Nope. Someday the final four will be a Boise State, Akron, Troy, and NDSU - who will by then be in the Big 20

Troll post by an anti-I-A troll.

[MplsBison]

Even with the 12-year contract, there's going to be a lot of pissing and moaning with SEC/Big 12/Big 10 absolutely dominating the four spots year after year. Again, too much money to be made, and contracts attract lawyers, who like admendments very, very much.

No idea where you guys are getting that the Big XII is even close to the same level as the Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12. Those are the three biggest dogs, with the ACC and Big XII not too far behind.

To the point you were discussing: there will be 6 semi-final bowls to rotate the 2 semi-final games. So I would think they'll let this thing go for at least one 6 year cycle before even considering any type of changes. But I just see a hard, hard sell to the presidents to get this thing expanded.

Any number of teams past 4 in the playoff and you risk taking money away from the regular season games. That's big money too.

[MplsBison]

I don't disagree with you, but I still get a laugh because I know that there are some people who routinely fall for his antics.

But on to the topic, hopefully this will help move away from teams playing two FCS games in one season.

So long as there are 70-80 teams trying to fill up spots in 30+ bowls a year and so long as one win vs. an I-AA team can count toward bowl eligibility per year, I don't see anything changing in the relationship between I-A and I-AA teams.

[MplsBison]

This is very good for the non-BCS conferences. In fact, after this, is there such a thing as a BCS conference anymore? True, the Sun-Belt, C-USA, MAC, etc champions likely won't make it in during a 4 game playoff, but they do have the chance if they can make it through undefeated with a strong OOC schedule and knock off someone big (for example, WKU is playing Alabama and Kentucky this coming year, if they beat two SEC teams on the way to an undefeated season I'd say they'd have a fair shot at making it in).

The real benefit for the other conferences will be when these playoffs inevitably expand. When it goes to 16 teams in time there is no way that the entire field will be from the big six conferences.

BCS conferences only even have a context because their champions were automatically required to participate in the BCS bowls.

The BCS is dead. No auto bids. So therefore, BCS conferences has no context. It's I-A conferences, that's it.


Your example is perfect. If Western Kentucky beat Alabama and Kentucky and went undefeated this year, they'd be in the 4 team playoff. Guaranteed fact. The TV ratings case alone would be compelling enough to force the committee's hand.

As for playoff expansion, while fans want to see it - I just don't see presidents signing up without a massive guarantee to protect TV revenue from the regular season. That's really what they care about, not the sanctity of the regular season games themselves. You start talking even 8 teams....casual fans start losing interest in regular season games.

[813Jag]

Absolutely correct! I think that as far as labeling of the levels of football it will remain FBS until they officially dump all the bowls...and have just a playoff. Now, with that said I'd like for them to keep the Rose Bowl, that should be incorporated somehow as that is the best of them all, and I am sure the schools will figure it out...maybe the top teams that don't make the Final 4 (this is after the expansion etc...)

There is no doubt eventually this thing will expand, first to 8 teams then most likely in 15 years to 16 teams. Auto bids will come into play--although I think it will be or hope it would be auto-bids for conferences that acheive a minimal cumulative RPI...no point in having non-competitive first round matchups in my opinion.
I don't see a problem with that. IMO that's a reward for having a great season, getting a tuneup before the next round. If the system expanded and my Noles got their heads out their rears, I'd rather a first round matchup with UML,ULL,WKU, or whoever. But that's probably just me.

[NHwildEcat]

Troll post by an anti-I-A troll.

Coming fron an anti-FCS troll.

[MplsBison]

Coming fron an anti-FCS troll.

Not at all. I think I-AA football is competitive and fun to watch, with a lot of talent in the subdivision.

I-A is better. I-A is the major leagues.


No reason in the slightest that a person can't hold those two opinions at the same time. The "get on the 'love I-AA & hate I-A ship' or ___ off" mentality of this website is bull____.

[NHwildEcat]

I don't see a problem with that. IMO that's a reward for having a great season, getting a tuneup before the next round. If the system expanded and my Noles got their heads out their rears, I'd rather a first round matchup with UML,ULL,WKU, or whoever. But that's probably just me.

I understand your point, but for someone like me who has no horse in the race either way, I'd rather see a #1 seeded Alabama have to play the 16th BEST team in the natio in the first round...that is amazing TV.

[NHwildEcat]

Not at all. I think I-AA football is competitive and fun to watch, with a lot of talent in the subdivision.

I-A is better. I-A is the major leagues.


No reason in the slightest that a person can't hold those two opinions at the same time. The "get on the 'love I-AA & hate I-A ship' or ___ off" mentality of this website is bull____.

I have no issues with the FBS schools, I certainly enjoy the FCS schools and I try to support the FCS schools so that we have more games and coverage on the networks. I can't find myself getting pumped up to watch two schools from the west coast play a game in October when I can instead watch UNH and Maine battle it out...two schools with players I don't know or follow doesn't draw me in. But I have no issues with them, they are certainly more skilled athletes...I figure I will just see the best sooner or later in the NFL. And I also don't believe that the top FBS schools care about these players education...they are just pimping out the kids to make more revenue that these kids will never see.

[813Jag]

I understand your point, but for someone like me who has no horse in the race either way, I'd rather see a #1 seeded Alabama have to play the 16th BEST team in the natio in the first round...that is amazing TV.
I get your point. xthumbsupx

Using the final 2011 BCS standings #16 would be Georgia. Of course transitive property is kinda worthless but LSU blew them out. I feel like the result would be similar. Of course I could be wrong and that's why they play the games. You could also use Clemson (15) or Michigan St (17). I think you wouldn't get a good game until the later rounds with last year's Bama team. Of course this is just my opinion.

[NHwildEcat]

I get your point. xthumbsupx

Using the final 2011 BCS standings #16 would be Georgia. Of course transitive property is kinda worthless but LSU blew them out. I feel like the result would be similar. Of course I could be wrong and that's why they play the games. You could also use Clemson (15) or Michigan St (17). I think you wouldn't get a good game until the later rounds with last year's Bama team. Of course this is just my opinion.

Absolutely, that could happen. Or the pressure of a true playoff could leage to the "better" team not being able to play their style and give the underdog the chance...I think when we see these current "National Championship" teams that they are just so much better then those in the 10-16 range anyways that more often then not it won't be close. I guess if the tournament were up to 16 teams it would make sense to have the auto-bids for most leagues, but that also depends on how many leagues are around then.

[Professor Chaos]

Any number of teams past 4 in the playoff and you risk taking money away from the regular season games. That's big money too.
This is the argument that has always peeved me the most by the BCS backers and now by the folks who want no playoff expansion. How does having more teams in the playoffs take money away from the regular season? It's not going to be at the ticket gate. All the schools we're talking about here will sell out regardless of their status as national title contendors in a 4 team playoff or an 8 team playoff. It's not going to hurt regular season TV contracts, if anything it'll help them because it makes more games meaningful to the national title picture if you go from having the top 2-4 teams only being in contention to the top 8 or 16 teams being in contention thereby increasing the value of those regular season contracts. And 1 vs 2 regular season matchups like LSU/Bama last year would still be a collossal game regardless of the fact that both teams will probably leave the game in position to be in the playoffs.

[NHwildEcat]

This is the argument that has always peeved me the most by the BCS backers and now by the folks who want no playoff expansion. How does having more teams in the playoffs take money away from the regular season? It's not going to be at the ticket gate. All the schools we're talking about here will sell out regardless of their status as national title contendors in a 4 team playoff or an 8 team playoff. It's not going to hurt regular season TV contracts, if anything it'll help them because it makes more games meaningful to the national title picture if you go from having the top 2-4 teams only being in contention to the top 8 or 16 teams being in contention thereby increasing the value of those regular season contracts. And 1 vs 2 regular season matchups like LSU/Bama last year would still be a collossal matchup regardless of the fact that both teams will probably leave the game in position to be in the playoffs.

Amen....that is true. And a moronic excuse from the anti-playoff crowd.

[crossfire07]

I understand your point, but for someone like me who has no horse in the race either way, I'd rather see a #1 seeded Alabama have to play the 16th BEST team in the natio in the first round...that is amazing TV.
I would not want to watch a #1 bama or LSU and Clemson game. That would be a disaster. If another not top 10 team can put 70 on Clemson, I don't even want to think about what the big boys would do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Everyone is living in fantasy land if this hand-picked set of experts are going to pick undefeated TCU out of the Mountain West at 12-0 when 11-1 Stanford is out there and their only loss is to 12-0 Oregon. The equation is simple: the Pac 12 is paying most of the salary of the hand-picked experts. Who do you think they're going to take?

I'm no great fan of the BCS formula, but even its detractors will have to admit that it left the bowl people no choice when a team from a non-power conference went 12-0 or 13-0. Folks have an awful lot of faith that these hand-picked experts will be neutral with these decisions, when if anything it's been proven countless times through history that money will corrupt the human beings involved in the process of selection.

They'll even have a ready-made excuse to exclude TCU: "strength of schedule".

[MplsBison]

I have no issues with the FBS schools, I certainly enjoy the FCS schools and I try to support the FCS schools so that we have more games and coverage on the networks. I can't find myself getting pumped up to watch two schools from the west coast play a game in October when I can instead watch UNH and Maine battle it out...two schools with players I don't know or follow doesn't draw me in. But I have no issues with them, they are certainly more skilled athletes...I figure I will just see the best sooner or later in the NFL. And I also don't believe that the top FBS schools care about these players education...they are just pimping out the kids to make more revenue that these kids will never see.

I don't know about every I-A school, but I know at the U of Minn coach Kill requires players to enroll in summer semester. It could selfishly just be to make sure every player has enough passing credits to be eligible each fall, but on the other hand it keeps players focused on education year round and provides them free housing, meals and a place to be with responsibilities during the summer.

This is more than I've heard of from any I-AA school, including NDSU. As far as I know, any athlete who chooses to stay in Fargo over the summer to workout with the team is basically on his own to find a job so he can pay rent and pay for food. It'd be nice if NDSU would pick up the tab for players who are staying the whole summer for "voluntary" (WINK WINK WINK) workouts.

[MplsBison]

This is the argument that has always peeved me the most by the BCS backers and now by the folks who want no playoff expansion. How does having more teams in the playoffs take money away from the regular season? It's not going to be at the ticket gate. All the schools we're talking about here will sell out regardless of their status as national title contendors in a 4 team playoff or an 8 team playoff. It's not going to hurt regular season TV contracts, if anything it'll help them because it makes more games meaningful to the national title picture if you go from having the top 2-4 teams only being in contention to the top 8 or 16 teams being in contention thereby increasing the value of those regular season contracts. And 1 vs 2 regular season matchups like LSU/Bama last year would still be a collossal game regardless of the fact that both teams will probably leave the game in position to be in the playoffs.

That's the debate.

You say more playoff games enhances the regular season. The Presidents say people will lose interest in regular season games with a bigger, grander playoffs and therefore TV ratings go down for regular season games, making those games worth less in TV contracts.

Who's right?

[MplsBison]

Everyone is living in fantasy land if this hand-picked set of experts are going to pick undefeated TCU out of the Mountain West at 12-0 when 11-1 Stanford is out there and their only loss is to 12-0 Oregon. The equation is simple: the Pac 12 is paying most of the salary of the hand-picked experts. Who do you think they're going to take?

I'm no great fan of the BCS formula, but even its detractors will have to admit that it left the bowl people no choice when a team from a non-power conference went 12-0 or 13-0. Folks have an awful lot of faith that these hand-picked experts will be neutral with these decisions, when if anything it's been proven countless times through history that money will corrupt the human beings involved in the process of selection.

They'll even have a ready-made excuse to exclude TCU: "strength of schedule".

The reason you fail is because you think the committee is simply going to pick the four best teams on the field.

Not true. They're going to make considerations for compelling, interesting TV games. End


By the way, where do you get off saying that the Pac 12 is paying the salary of the selection committee? It may be entirely comprised of retired administrators, media, etc.


You lose. Good day sir.

[NHwildEcat]

I don't know about every I-A school, but I know at the U of Minn coach Kill requires players to enroll in summer semester. It could selfishly just be to make sure every player has enough passing credits to be eligible each fall, but on the other hand it keeps players focused on education year round and provides them free housing, meals and a place to be with responsibilities during the summer.

This is more than I've heard of from any I-AA school, including NDSU. As far as I know, any athlete who chooses to stay in Fargo over the summer to workout with the team is basically on his own to find a job so he can pay rent and pay for food. It'd be nice if NDSU would pick up the tab for players who are staying the whole summer for "voluntary" (WINK WINK WINK) workouts.

That won't do Minnesota any good in September when UNH rolls in there and beats them.

[crossfire07]

The reason you fail is because you think the committee is simply going to pick the four best teams on the field.

Not true. They're going to make considerations for compelling, interesting TV games. End


By the way, where do you get off saying that the Pac 12 is paying the salary of the selection committee? It may be entirely comprised of retired administrators, media, etc.


You lose. Good day sir.
Since they have already said who the selection group will be made up of, go read the story so you don't have to use "may be" any more.you obviously aren't keeping up with the story.

[NHwildEcat]

That's the debate.

You say more playoff games enhances the regular season. The Presidents say people will lose interest in regular season games with a bigger, grander playoffs and therefore TV ratings go down for regular season games, making those games worth less in TV contracts.

Who's right?


I am sure if the Presidents let the playoffs expand they would find those TV ratings go up during the season...I know from personal experience I will not watch two teams battling it out if they have 2 or 3 losses when there are 2 or 3 other teams still undefeated...what was the point of it? They had no shot. Now those teams DO have a shot and therefore I am more likely to watch it. IMO they will see higher ratings then ever before...and more money then ever before.

[bluehenbillk]

Everyone is living in fantasy land if this hand-picked set of experts are going to pick undefeated TCU out of the Mountain West at 12-0 when 11-1 Stanford is out there and their only loss is to 12-0 Oregon. The equation is simple: the Pac 12 is paying most of the salary of the hand-picked experts. Who do you think they're going to take?

I'm no great fan of the BCS formula, but even its detractors will have to admit that it left the bowl people no choice when a team from a non-power conference went 12-0 or 13-0. Folks have an awful lot of faith that these hand-picked experts will be neutral with these decisions, when if anything it's been proven countless times through history that money will corrupt the human beings involved in the process of selection.

They'll even have a ready-made excuse to exclude TCU: "strength of schedule".

Well since TCU is in the Big 12 now why are we even having this debate????

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Well since TCU is in the Big 12 now why are we even having this debate????

So sub in "Colorado State" or "Virginia Tech" or "Cincinnati" or "Rutgers". It's still the same argument.

[813Jag]

So sub in "Colorado State" or "Virginia Tech" or "Cincinnati" or "Rutgers". It's still the same argument.
An undefeated VaTech has a much better shot than any of those other teams. Putting them in the same boat as CSU is an insult.

[TheRevSFA]

The reason you fail is because you think the committee is simply going to pick the four best teams on the field.

Not true. They're going to make considerations for compelling, interesting TV games. End


By the way, where do you get off saying that the Pac 12 is paying the salary of the selection committee? It may be entirely comprised of retired administrators, media, etc.


You lose. Good day sir.

The Sun Belt champion vs the SEC champ isn't going to be compelling.

The MAC champ vs LSU isn't going to be interesting.

The CUSA champ vs Oregon isn't going to be interesting.

[813Jag]

The Sun Belt champion vs the SEC champ isn't going to be compelling.

The MAC champ vs LSU isn't going to be interesting.

The CUSA champ vs Oregon isn't going to be interesting.
I know Southern Miss won CUSA, but a Houston/Oregon game could have been a shootout, plus there's the chance of another mascot fight xlolx

[MplsBison]

That won't do Minnesota any good in September when UNH rolls in there and beats them.

Ha! I guess we'll see.

I'll be rooting for Minnesota. I like coach Kill a lot and want him to succeed. Just was tough for him to win last year with the players they had. Not sure if much improvement can be expected this year.

[MplsBison]

Since they have already said who the selection group will be made up of, go read the story so you don't have to use "may be" any more.you obviously aren't keeping up with the story.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-06-27/bcs-playoff-selection-committee/55856714/1


The selection committee will rank the four teams in the playoff by considering factors such as win-loss record and strength of schedule. Not much else has been decided in regard to the composition and operation of the committee.
"I think, generally, each conference will be represented (on the committee)," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said. "Strength of schedule is going to be a very important part of this. Who did you play? Where did you play them? How did you do? I think you are going to have to play a good schedule in order to make it into a playoff. … It won't be easy, and it won't be free of contention."
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said he thought the committee would have more than 10 but fewer than 20 members. He said he doesn't expect that the sport will have any trouble finding people interested in servingon the committee.
"This is a big country," Delany said. "There are a lot of people who like college football, have integrity, have thick skin and probably want to make a contribution."
He added that he thinks the committee could select more teams than just the four in the semifinal games.
"At the 1-through-4 level, champions, strength of schedule and head-to-head matter as tiebreakers," Delany said. "Likewise, at 9, 10, 11 and 12, those same principles will be used to separate teams from each other."
Three of the commissioners involved in formulating the new playoff plan have served as chairmen of the men's basketball selection committee: Delany, the Southeastern Conference's Mike Slive and the Big 12's Bob Bowlsby.
"We're familiar with it," Delany said. "We know it's had some controversy with it, but it's far more rational (than the BCS system). You can have a face at the end of the day to at least explain why what happened happened."

xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

I am sure if the Presidents let the playoffs expand they would find those TV ratings go up during the season...I know from personal experience I will not watch two teams battling it out if they have 2 or 3 losses when there are 2 or 3 other teams still undefeated...what was the point of it? They had no shot. Now those teams DO have a shot and therefore I am more likely to watch it. IMO they will see higher ratings then ever before...and more money then ever before.

Not saying you're wrong and not saying that I'm for keeping the playoffs at 4 teams.

Just saying the presidents are going to be a very hard sell on playoff expansion without some sort of hard guarantee on TV revenue from the regular season games.

[MplsBison]

So sub in "Colorado State" or "Virginia Tech" or "Cincinnati" or "Rutgers". It's still the same argument.

The ACC, with its current membership, is at the same level as the Big XII. Both of those are behind the three biggest dogs, Pac 12, Big Ten and SEC.

You don't even have a clue what you're talking about. Why should anyone read you?

[MplsBison]

The Sun Belt champion vs the SEC champ isn't going to be compelling.

The MAC champ vs LSU isn't going to be interesting.

The CUSA champ vs Oregon isn't going to be interesting.

Those are the most compelling and interesting games for casual fans and non-sports fans. The "underdog" games.

You know it. Your grandma knows it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The ACC, with its current membership, is at the same level as the Big XII. Both of those are behind the three biggest dogs, Pac 12, Big Ten and SEC.

You don't even have a clue what you're talking about. Why should anyone read you?

Says Captain Clueless. So, Captain, who's the near-equivalent of Texas in the ACC? Who's the Oklahoma? Miami? Virginia?

The Big XII have established themselves as the No. 4, well over the ACC or (LOL) the Big East. A clear indication that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[MplsBison]

Says Captain Clueless. So, Captain, who's the near-equivalent of Texas in the ACC? Who's the Oklahoma? Miami? Virginia?

The Big XII have established themselves as the No. 4, well over the ACC or (LOL) the Big East. A clear indication that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And.........FAIL:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19431484/implications-of-the-new-football-four-irish-become-commoners-and-a-wilted-rose


All you need to know is there is every indication the ACC is going to get an equal revenue share to the Big Four (Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten). Access to an (estimated) annual $500 million treasure chest for a league that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the national championship chase is huge.


How many teams in the SEC come close to Texas? None. No one comes close to Texas. They out spend everyone. That's actually a fact.

Take out Texas, the ACC can match Oklahoma with Florida St and likewise for the rest of the teams.


That is, assuming that Notre Dame doesn't join the Big XII or teams from the ACC don't leave for the Big XII. If either of those happen, then yes I agree the ACC is not up there with the other four.

[NHwildEcat]

Not saying you're wrong and not saying that I'm for keeping the playoffs at 4 teams.

Just saying the presidents are going to be a very hard sell on playoff expansion without some sort of hard guarantee on TV revenue from the regular season games.

I agree, but wouldn't the additional $$$ from a post season contract bring in considerably more regardless of the regular season deal?

[NHwildEcat]

Those are the most compelling and interesting games for casual fans and non-sports fans. The "underdog" games.

You know it. Your grandma knows it.

Yes and no...nobody is tuning in for a Toledo game...no body.

[frozennorth]

This is the argument that has always peeved me the most by the BCS backers and now by the folks who want no playoff expansion. How does having more teams in the playoffs take money away from the regular season? It's not going to be at the ticket gate. All the schools we're talking about here will sell out regardless of their status as national title contendors in a 4 team playoff or an 8 team playoff. It's not going to hurt regular season TV contracts, if anything it'll help them because it makes more games meaningful to the national title picture if you go from having the top 2-4 teams only being in contention to the top 8 or 16 teams being in contention thereby increasing the value of those regular season contracts. And 1 vs 2 regular season matchups like LSU/Bama last year would still be a collossal game regardless of the fact that both teams will probably leave the game in position to be in the playoffs.

With a small number of eligible teams, a boise state fan is going to have a much stonger rooting interest in auburn/alabama than they would otherwise. If you are in the title hunt, every game played matters, and you have a strong rooting interest every game. This is obviously not the case if 24 teams are making the playoffs.

[bluehenbillk]

The more I hear about the details being leaked out the more I don't like it.

The "Big Six" bowl game participants will all be determined by the selection committee. Granted there are some automatic bowl tie-ins, but that part doesn't sound so different than what existed previously, except the AQ part is dropped out.

[TheValleyRaider]

How many teams in the SEC come close to Texas? None. No one comes close to Texas. They out spend everyone. That's actually a fact.

Take out Texas, the ACC can match Oklahoma with Florida St and likewise for the rest of the teams.

And what does Texas get the Big XII vis a vis the Pac-12? The Big 10? And Florida State matching OU? After the Sooners won by 10 in Tallahassee (after winning by 30 in Norman the year before)? Please

Sagarin rated the Big XII as the best conference in the country last year, ahead of the SEC and well ahead of the Pac-12 and Big 10. 5 of this year's Big XII ranked in his top 20, with newcomers TCU at 20 and WV at 22

I'll take Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma St, West Virginia and Kansas St against any conference in the nation right now. Certainly not behind the Big 10 and Pac 12

[chattownmocs]

8 teams would be perfect for the FBS level. Some years 2 is enough. But in general 8 is perfect. Last year, for instance it was obvious to anyone with a trained football eye that Alabama and LSU were at least 3 TDs better than anyone else. Some years however there are 5 or more teams that could be considered the 2nd best team. 8 would be great. Oh, and get rid of this bowl system.

[NHwildEcat]

With a small number of eligible teams, a boise state fan is going to have a much stonger rooting interest in auburn/alabama than they would otherwise. If you are in the title hunt, every game played matters, and you have a strong rooting interest every game. This is obviously not the case if 24 teams are making the playoffs.

You're right that it not the case...24 teams is too many...16 teams is better to work with. If 16 teams are going to make the tournament then doesn't that mean as many as 30+ teams may be in the hunt for playoff sports at the beginning of November? I see what you're saying, but I think you are looking at it too narrowly.

[Professor Chaos]

With a small number of eligible teams, a boise state fan is going to have a much stonger rooting interest in auburn/alabama than they would otherwise. If you are in the title hunt, every game played matters, and you have a strong rooting interest every game. This is obviously not the case if 24 teams are making the playoffs.
That argument doesn't hold water for me. I agree that fans of the teams solidly in the top 5 but out of the top 2 will care more about another top 5 matchup with this format than they would with an expanded playoff format. But they'll still have a vested interested in watching those games anyway because they're jockeying for seeding. I was checking my phone constantly last October 29th looking at the Georgia Southern/App St score because I knew the winner of the NDSU/UNI game would have the inside track to the top seed should GSU lose. I knew NDSU was in the playoffs regardless but nonetheless I was very interested in what the other top teams around the country were doing, just probably not the point I would be if only the top 2 had a title shot.

Having said that there will be more teams on the "bubble" if a championship playoff is expanded to 8 or 16 teams. Therefore more fan bases will have that Boise St mentality watching numerous other games around the country involving other bubble teams. College football fans will be glued to other games around the country featuring title contendors as long as their team is still in title contention. So to give 8 or 16 teams that opportunity rather than 2 or 4 can only help regular season TV ratings in my opinion.

24 is too many though. It's too many in FCS and it would be too many in FBS. 16 would be my preferred number for both subdivisions.

[NHwildEcat]

8 teams would be perfect for the FBS level. Some years 2 is enough. But in general 8 is perfect. Last year, for instance it was obvious to anyone with a trained football eye that Alabama and LSU were at least 3 TDs better than anyone else. Some years however there are 5 or more teams that could be considered the 2nd best team. 8 would be great. Oh, and get rid of this bowl system.

I like 16, but otherwise I like what you are saying!

[NHwildEcat]

That argument doesn't hold water for me. I agree that fans of the teams solidly in the top 5 but out of the top 2 will care more about another top 5 matchup with this format than they would with an expanded playoff format. But they'll still have a vested interested in watching those games anyway because they're jockeying for seeding. I was checking my phone constantly last October 29th looking at the Georgia Southern/App St score because I knew the winner of the NDSU/UNI game would have the inside track to the top seed should GSU lose. I knew NDSU was in the playoffs regardless but nonetheless I was very interested in what the other top teams around the country were doing, just probably not the point I would be if only the top 2 had a title chance.

Having said that there will be more teams on the "bubble" if a championship playoff is expanded to 8 or 16 teams. Therefore more fan bases will have that Boise St mentality watching numerous other games around the country involving other bubble teams. College football fans will be blued to other games around the country as long as their team is in title contention. So to give 8 or 16 teams that opportunity rather than 2 or 4 can only help regular season TV ratings in my opinion.

24 is too many though. It's too many in FCS and it would be too many in FBS. 16 would be my preferred number for both subdivisions.


+1

I love what you are saying!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The more I hear about the details being leaked out the more I don't like it.

The "Big Six" bowl game participants will all be determined by the selection committee. Granted there are some automatic bowl tie-ins, but that part doesn't sound so different than what existed previously, except the AQ part is dropped out.

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fbs-football/228-fbs-four-team-playoff-won-t-stop-controversy

[MplsBison]

I agree, but wouldn't the additional $$$ from a post season contract bring in considerably more regardless of the regular season deal?

That's part of the equation, I'm sure.

The presidents are looking at the total dollars. They'll take additional revenue from the post-season only so long as the revenue from the regular season doesn't start being reduced.

Even if it would be a net increase, the resistance to large changes is so great I imagine they'd default to keeping things the same.

[MplsBison]

Yes and no...nobody is tuning in for a Toledo game...no body.

I don't know why it's hard for you to accept the reality that, frankly, it doesn't matter specifically who it is.

It would have to be a significantly vetted mid-major team to even make the playoffs in the first place. So the hype that would be generated for a super-charged mid-major team, getting a chance to take out the #1 team on the national stage? Incredible.



Now let me cut you off at the pass, because I already know the fallacy that's brewing in your mind: "then why isn't there a bunch of excitement when the mid-majors play the big guys during the regular season lol!!!11"

Because duh, no one knows if they have a chance to win that early in the season.

That's the difference. Any mid-major that actually makes it into the playoffs has a chance to beat any other team that was selected.

[MplsBison]

The more I hear about the details being leaked out the more I don't like it.

The "Big Six" bowl game participants will all be determined by the selection committee. Granted there are some automatic bowl tie-ins, but that part doesn't sound so different than what existed previously, except the AQ part is dropped out.

Huh? It's an entirely different system. Entirely. No automatic access for any conference to the playoffs. No automatic access for any conference to the the top 12 ranking. No formula to determine the top 12.

That's a 100% wholesale change.

How are you getting that it's the same thing?


Previous: a formula picks a top 14 who are eligible. #1 plays #2 in a championship bowl game. The big four bowls games then choose teams to play in their bowls from the teams ranked 3-14 after giving slots to conference champions from six "BCS conferences" that are automatically guaranteed spots in the bowls. Historical tie-ins try to be honored if possible as well as special considerations (like #3 can't be left out).

New system: a selection committee made of actual people who can employ the best of both worlds (human common sense and computer logic) determine the top 12. #1 plays #4 in a semi-final bowl game, #2 plays #3 in a semi-final bowl game, winners play in a bid-out championship game. The other four bowls then choose teams to play in their bowls from the teams ranked 4-12, with special considerations to historical tie-ins. No automatic access for any conference.


Wholesale change.

[MplsBison]

And what does Texas get the Big XII vis a vis the Pac-12? The Big 10? And Florida State matching OU? After the Sooners won by 10 in Tallahassee (after winning by 30 in Norman the year before)? Please

Sagarin rated the Big XII as the best conference in the country last year, ahead of the SEC and well ahead of the Pac-12 and Big 10. 5 of this year's Big XII ranked in his top 20, with newcomers TCU at 20 and WV at 22

I'll take Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma St, West Virginia and Kansas St against any conference in the nation right now. Certainly not behind the Big 10 and Pac 12

I wasn't talking about the performance on the field. I'm talking about strength of programs.

[MplsBison]

That argument doesn't hold water for me. I agree that fans of the teams solidly in the top 5 but out of the top 2 will care more about another top 5 matchup with this format than they would with an expanded playoff format. But they'll still have a vested interested in watching those games anyway because they're jockeying for seeding. I was checking my phone constantly last October 29th looking at the Georgia Southern/App St score because I knew the winner of the NDSU/UNI game would have the inside track to the top seed should GSU lose. I knew NDSU was in the playoffs regardless but nonetheless I was very interested in what the other top teams around the country were doing, just probably not the point I would be if only the top 2 had a title shot.

Having said that there will be more teams on the "bubble" if a championship playoff is expanded to 8 or 16 teams. Therefore more fan bases will have that Boise St mentality watching numerous other games around the country involving other bubble teams. College football fans will be glued to other games around the country featuring title contendors as long as their team is still in title contention. So to give 8 or 16 teams that opportunity rather than 2 or 4 can only help regular season TV ratings in my opinion.

24 is too many though. It's too many in FCS and it would be too many in FBS. 16 would be my preferred number for both subdivisions.

Well believe it or not, most people who watch college football on TV do not take an active interest in the "national scene", like you do.

So the fear is that if the regular season is seen as "oh it doesn't matter, the playoff is whats important" then regular season college football games will become regular season college basketball games: no one watches except hardcore fans and alumni.

[crossfire07]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-06-27/bcs-playoff-selection-committee/55856714/1



xrolleyesx

They AD's and presidents were on Sirius talk shows 2 days ago saying that the teams would be picked by AD's and presidents like they do in basketball. 2 days before your post.If USA Today is that late in getting NEWS out then maybe you need a new source.

[AppMan]

IMO, this is the initial step to the top 4-5 conferences separating themselves from the rest of D-I football. A lot of emphasis on strengh of schedule determining the 4 playoff teams may usher in fewer opportunities for big money games. Some in administrative positions within D-I think a new middle division will finally emerge within 5-7 years. The lower FBS conferncs re-classified with 75 grants and a reduced number of coaches, which would allow an AD to save $500K, not to mention the help with Title IX. The thought is FCS would drop to 50 grants.

[MSUBobcat]

IMO, this is the initial step to the top 4-5 conferences separating themselves from the rest of D-I football. A lot of emphasis on strengh of schedule determining the 4 playoff teams may usher in fewer opportunities for big money games. Some in administrative positions within D-I think a new middle division will finally emerge within 5-7 years. The lower FBS conferncs re-classified with 75 grants and a reduced number of coaches, which would allow an AD to save $500K, not to mention the help with Title IX. The thought is FCS would drop to 50 grants.

My immediate reaction was that this may eventually lead to 4, maybe 5, super-leagues of 12 or so teams splitting from FBS to make 3 divisions (FCS, LBIA (Left Behind I-A), and CFSAPS (College Football's Super Awesome Playoff Subdivision).

Signed,

A fan of both FCS and FBS football

[walliver]

My immediate reaction was that this may eventually lead to 4, maybe 5, super-leagues of 12 or so teams splitting from FBS to make 3 divisions (FCS, LBIA (Left Behind I-A), and CFSAPS (College Football's Super Awesome Playoff Subdivision).

Signed,

A fan of both FCS and FBS football


I suspect the SEC, B12, B10, PAC (and possibly ACC) may eventually break away from the NCAA altogether.

In that case, those of us left behind will all be in a single subdivision, although there may be a separate subdivision for non-scholarship football.

[Saint3333]

I certainly see three subdivisions of D1 football within 10 years, the five conferences mentioned (the ACC will be included as will a few of the BE teams). I think we'll see a lot of football only conferences.

[NHwildEcat]

Football only conferences is how it should be when we stop to think about it. It is the most expensive sport and the one that leads to the most troubles with membership as there are a number of schools that simply want nothing to do with it...why not play all sport aside from football seperately then football? Average fans would know no difference.

[AppMan]

Football only conferences is how it should be when we stop to think about it. It is the most expensive sport and the one that leads to the most troubles with membership as there are a number of schools that simply want nothing to do with it...why not play all sport aside from football seperately then football? Average fans would know no difference.

Have been saying the same thing for years. Hard to make a case for Vandy to play in the SEC, WF & Duke the ACC and Northwestern in the Big Ten for football.

[MplsBison]

They AD's and presidents were on Sirius talk shows 2 days ago saying that the teams would be picked by AD's and presidents like they do in basketball. 2 days before your post.If USA Today is that late in getting NEWS out then maybe you need a new source.

Yep, I'm sure USA Today, an infant publication with zero name recognition and nada reputation to protect from false information, is wrong and some talk show on Sirius radio is correct.

xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

IMO, this is the initial step to the top 4-5 conferences separating themselves from the rest of D-I football. A lot of emphasis on strengh of schedule determining the 4 playoff teams may usher in fewer opportunities for big money games. Some in administrative positions within D-I think a new middle division will finally emerge within 5-7 years. The lower FBS conferncs re-classified with 75 grants and a reduced number of coaches, which would allow an AD to save $500K, not to mention the help with Title IX. The thought is FCS would drop to 50 grants.

As I said before, the scheduling will all depend on if the team is genuinely trying to shoot for the playoff or just trying to make a bowl game.

If the team is just trying to get to a bowl game, then one win a year vs. an I-AA team counts and every win vs. a mid-major I-A team counts towards being bowl eligible.

[DFW HOYA]

In that case, those of us left behind will all be in a single subdivision, although there may be a separate subdivision for non-scholarship football.

A subdivision for 21 teams and two conferences, one of which won't participate in the playoffs?

[MplsBison]

I certainly see three subdivisions of D1 football within 10 years, the five conferences mentioned (the ACC will be included as will a few of the BE teams). I think we'll see a lot of football only conferences.

Depends on how much revenue from the playoff will need to be shared among all the I-A conferences. That would be the only benefit to the big schools asking for a new sub-divsion to be created.

But on the other hand, I don't see why that would stop the smaller schools for suing anyway. They could just say the new association or sub-division was being used to prevent their fair share of money from flowing down. Then the government gets involved as public schools from the other I-A conferences would be calling senators, etc.

They'd eventually settle on something anyway, so why not just make it work in I-A as is?

[MplsBison]

A subdivision for 21 teams and two conferences, one of which won't participate in the playoffs?

Or get rid of the rule saying that DI bball schools sponsoring varsity football must play DI football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fbs-football/228-fbs-four-team-playoff-won-t-stop-controversy


At first, it was polls, and then it was bowls. But in 2014, for the Football Bowl Subdivision, there will finally be a playoff.

Of sorts.

A host of coaches, fans and media members, predicatably, formed a throng of cheering supporters of the word "playoffs" in terms of the most expensive level of Division I football competition, capping a fight for some form of multi-tiered championship played on the field for the first time at this level.

But there is a dark side of this whole decision that nobody is talking about.

[MplsBison]

Is there anyone else in the history of AGS who has referenced their own blog post as if it was a real news article?

TWICE

In the same thread?


PS - congrats LFN, on earning the first neg rep that I've ever given.

[WileECoyote06]

I wasn't talking about the performance on the field. I'm talking about strength of programs.

For the first time ever, I agree with you. FSU is equivalent and perhaps surpasses Oklahoma.

The demise of the ACC is greatly exaggerated. John Swofford is in these meetings throwing his weight around too.

[813Jag]

For the first time ever, I agree with you. FSU is equivalent and perhaps surpasses Oklahoma.

The demise of the ACC is greatly exaggerated. John Swofford is in these meetings throwing his weight around too.
I wouldn't say they're surpassing Oklahoma, the program is back on the rise but the consistency is not there right now. Need a couple more really good seasons.

[MplsBison]

I wouldn't say they're surpassing Oklahoma, the program is back on the rise but the consistency is not there right now. Need a couple more really good seasons.

But again, you're talking about performance on the field.

Take a look at things like coaching staff salaries, budget, facilities, revenue, etc. Pretty comparable between the two programs. Both are at the most elite level of college football, no doubt.

[MplsBison]

For the first time ever, I agree with you. FSU is equivalent and perhaps surpasses Oklahoma.

The demise of the ACC is greatly exaggerated. John Swofford is in these meetings throwing his weight around too.

Absolutely.

A month ago, I was sure that the ACC was dead. It was going to be the four conferences locked in with the Rose bowl and the Champions bowl being the semi-final games every year. At that time Swofford said something to the effect of "all this doom and gloom is just message board rumors and I don't think much is going to change for conference alignment". I scoffed at him then, but he was right.

The ACC is still right in this thing, so long as they hold on to their current membership. And even if they do in fact lose Florida St and Clemson or Virginia Tech, they'll be lower than the other four, but just by a half step. We're not talking about a full step lower like the Big East, CUSA and Mountain West.

[WileECoyote06]

But again, you're talking about performance on the field.

Take a look at things like coaching staff salaries, budget, facilities, revenue, etc. Pretty comparable between the two programs. Both are at the most elite level of college football, no doubt.

Correct, to use a Stewie Mandel phrase . . they both are college football kings!

[WileECoyote06]

Absolutely.

A month ago, I was sure that the ACC was dead. It was going to be the four conferences locked in with the Rose bowl and the Champions bowl being the semi-final games every year. At that time Swofford said something to the effect of "all this doom and gloom is just message board rumors and I don't think much is going to change for conference alignment". I scoffed at him then, but he was right.

The ACC is still right in this thing, so long as they hold on to their current membership. And even if they do in fact lose Florida St and Clemson or Virginia Tech, they'll be lower than the other four, but just by a half step. We're not talking about a full step lower like the Big East, CUSA and Mountain West.

22 of the top 100 television markets are in ACC territory. They aren't going anywhere, any time soon. Plus things are cyclical; as every college cheats to get ahead it won't take long before the whistle-blowers bring their peers back to earth. They got an up-and-coming UNC, just like they got USC, and they will eventually catch LSU and Alabama too. It's a cutthroat business.

[MplsBison]

I reluctantly agree - the very top of the top in college football seems like it's not as "amateur" as the NCAA and college presidents would like for you to believe.

Are schools out and out handing the players bags of cash? No, I doubt it highly. Are players at the top programs getting "things" that players at other schools don't get, probably.

[813Jag]

Correct, to use a Stewie Mandel phrase . . they both are college football kings!
It's still the same point, FSU is working to reach OU level. FWIW, I'm a FSU fan.
mobile.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/16/3023185/fsu-athletics-budget-and-the-usa-today-data-we-maxing-out-credit-cards

[Lehigh Football Nation]

PS - congrats LFN, on earning the first neg rep that I've ever given.

Wow. I'm quaking.

http://www.college-sports-journal.com

[MplsBison]

Wow. I'm quaking.


Gotcha.

You couldn't help yourself from responding. xlolx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Gotcha.

You couldn't help yourself from responding. xlolx

http://www.college-sports-journal.com

[MplsBison]

[no link to an actual publication was given]

I bet you'd love to tell people that you get published somewhere that's actually read.

[darell1976]

PTI on ESPN brought up the FBS playoff and since it sounds like SoS will be a factor in determining playoffs...FBS vs FCS games may be gone. They suggested FBS teams don't schedule FCS teams in order to up their SoS. I can see lower FBS teams like a MAC or a WAC team playing FCS teams but Big 10 or SEC or other major schools will stick with teams that will up their SoS.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

I bet you'd love to tell people that you get published somewhere that's actually read.

He actually has people who give a **** what he writes, for more than comedic purposes of course.

[laxVik]

PTI on ESPN brought up the FBS playoff and since it sounds like SoS will be a factor in determining playoffs...FBS vs FCS games may be gone. They suggested FBS teams don't schedule FCS teams in order to up their SoS. I can see lower FBS teams like a MAC or a WAC team playing FCS teams but Big 10 or SEC or other major schools will stick with teams that will up their SoS.
Except for the SEC. They'll continue to schedule FBS as they've done for years and claim SoS is meaningless as they are a far superior conference top to bottom.

[MplsBison]

PTI on ESPN brought up the FBS playoff and since it sounds like SoS will be a factor in determining playoffs...FBS vs FCS games may be gone. They suggested FBS teams don't schedule FCS teams in order to up their SoS. I can see lower FBS teams like a MAC or a WAC team playing FCS teams but Big 10 or SEC or other major schools will stick with teams that will up their SoS.

I've already given the correct answer.

It's not that hard, guys. FOUR spots, four. 120 FBS teams. Not everyone's gunna make it to the playoff!

There are going to be teams who know darn well that their objective is to make a mid-tier bowl game. To that goal, one FCS win counts per year.

END

[darell1976]

I've already given the correct answer.

It's not that hard, guys. FOUR spots, four. 120 FBS teams. Not everyone's gunna make it to the playoff!

There are going to be teams who know darn well that their objective is to make a mid-tier bowl game. To that goal, one FCS win counts per year.

END

If SOS is a big factor then an undefeated Central Michigan is not going to have a chance in hell at the playoffs when they play teams like Miami (OH), Eastern Michigan, and Toledo. When a 1 loss team like an Alabama could have wins over LSU, Florida, and Tennessee.

[darell1976]

Except for the SEC. They'll continue to schedule FBS as they've done for years and claim SoS is meaningless as they are a far superior conference top to bottom.

PTI used Wisconsin as an example they said they have UNI this year and they had South Dakota last year, so with a playoff these teams may hurt the SoS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I bet you'd love to tell people that you get published somewhere that's actually read.

Unlike yours.

http://www.college-sports-journal.com

[frozennorth]

If SOS is a big factor then an undefeated Central Michigan is not going to have a chance in hell at the playoffs when they play teams like Miami (OH), Eastern Michigan, and Toledo. When a 1 loss team like an Alabama could have wins over LSU, Florida, and Tennessee.

central michigan isn't going to have a chance in hell anyway.

[frozennorth]

PTI on ESPN brought up the FBS playoff and since it sounds like SoS will be a factor in determining playoffs...FBS vs FCS games may be gone. They suggested FBS teams don't schedule FCS teams in order to up their SoS. I can see lower FBS teams like a MAC or a WAC team playing FCS teams but Big 10 or SEC or other major schools will stick with teams that will up their SoS.
sos is going to be important, but if an sec or pac12 or whoever team is 13-0, they are overwhelmingly likely to be headed to the playoffs, regardless of whether they played bulter or not.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

PTI is flat-out wrong. The SEC isn't going to start scheduling Oregon instead of Portland State because the SEC champion will almost certainly be playoff-bound anyway, and if they schedule Oregon and lose early in the year they might not have enough wins for any postseason at all. It's the same high-risk, low-reward play it's always been, and nobody schedules to be the "first at-large", they schedule to be champions. Expect little to no change.

[darell1976]

PTI is flat-out wrong. The SEC isn't going to start scheduling Oregon instead of Portland State because the SEC champion will almost certainly be playoff-bound anyway, and if they schedule Oregon and lose early in the year they might not have enough wins for any postseason at all. It's the same high-risk, low-reward play it's always been, and nobody schedules to be the "first at-large", they schedule to be champions. Expect little to no change.

They said teams like Alabama wasn't going to play high ranking teams on the road, but someone like Wisconsin is and it would help their sos if they play someone like UNI or USD. This playoff thing is still a joke and does nothing for the little guy.

[MplsBison]

PTI used Wisconsin as an example they said they have UNI this year and they had South Dakota last year, so with a playoff these teams may hurt the SoS.

The Big Ten is such a difficult conference, plus its champion must win in Indy in a 13th game.

If the BT champ only has one loss or undefeated, basically guaranteed a spot in the playoff -regardless if it has an FCS or not. The argument is bunk.


The media has always tried to pressure, convince or otherwise bamboozle FBS teams into getting rid of games with FCS teams. They think they can't make as much money broadcasting those games automatically. That's all this is, an agenda.

[MplsBison]

If SOS is a big factor then an undefeated Central Michigan is not going to have a chance in hell at the playoffs when they play teams like Miami (OH), Eastern Michigan, and Toledo. When a 1 loss team like an Alabama could have wins over LSU, Florida, and Tennessee.

Maybe.

It will just be one criteria. I will still maintain that in the right scenario, the underdog story will be too compelling to not include them as the #4. We'll see if it happens in the first 12 year cycle.

What are you going to buy me if it happens in the first year (2014) !? xnodx

[MplsBison]

Unlike yours.


Unlike my what? I don't write pretend articles and then post them on a free-hosted blog, like you do.

[MplsBison]

They said teams like Alabama wasn't going to play high ranking teams on the road, but someone like Wisconsin is and it would help their sos if they play someone like UNI or USD. This playoff thing is still a joke and does nothing for the little guy.

The selection committee alone gives the little guy a better chance than with the formula.

Also 4 spots means it's not impossible. With just 2 spots, it was impossible.

[darell1976]

The selection committee alone gives the little guy a better chance than with the formula.

Also 4 spots means it's not impossible. With just 2 spots, it was impossible.

4 spots..all reserved for those BCS conferences. No way a MAC, Sun Belt, WAC or even MW will be in the 4 team playoff it will be 2 SEC, a Big 10, and a PAC 12 or something like that. Until there is a field of 16-24 like in other divisions then there will be shot for the little guy.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

They said teams like Alabama wasn't going to play high ranking teams on the road, but someone like Wisconsin is and it would help their sos if they play someone like UNI or USD. This playoff thing is still a joke and does nothing for the little guy.

I agree. What everyone is missing is that the BCS formula guaranteed a spot for a mid-major if they were good enough, even if it wasn't enough to get into 1 vs. 2. A four team playoff PLUS the BCS formula might have guaranteed future Boise State's a chip at the table, but the scrapping of the formula now means that these teams will politically be cut out by this committee of mandarins.

Everyone is bashing the BCS formula because it didn't put Boise State or TCU in 1 vs. 2, so as a result, people are saying "scrap it, it doesn't work" - which suits the Suits nicely, as it now takes the whole selection process private, where - magically! - a 10-2 Oregon team will be better than a 13-0 TCU. With the public formula, at least there was transperancy.

[MplsBison]

4 spots..all reserved for those BCS conferences. No way a MAC, Sun Belt, WAC or even MW will be in the 4 team playoff it will be 2 SEC, a Big 10, and a PAC 12 or something like that. Until there is a field of 16-24 like in other divisions then there will be shot for the little guy.

It means that it's not impossible for a mid-major team to get the #4 position.

When it had to simply be the best two teams in the nation, it could never be a mid-major at the #2 position.

I'm right, you're wrong.

[ImAllIn]

A mid major will NEVER be in the #4 position. Keep dreaming Mr. WRONG.

[Sandlapper Spike]

PTI on ESPN brought up the FBS playoff and since it sounds like SoS will be a factor in determining playoffs...FBS vs FCS games may be gone. They suggested FBS teams don't schedule FCS teams in order to up their SoS. I can see lower FBS teams like a MAC or a WAC team playing FCS teams but Big 10 or SEC or other major schools will stick with teams that will up their SoS.

One problem in strength of schedule being a significant factor in determining playoff participating is that it is hard to design an RPI-like system that won't have problems with connectivity -- in other words, the lack of games in college football (as opposed to college basketball) makes things difficult on that front. You can see that in college baseball, which because of its regional nature leads to more "remote" schools generally getting the short end of the RPI stick.

[TheRevSFA]

It means that it's not impossible for a mid-major team to get the #4 position.

When it had to simply be the best two teams in the nation, it could never be a mid-major at the #2 position.

I'm right, you're wrong.

They won't give it to a non-power conference school over a power conference school. It's not going to happen.

[MplsBison]

They won't give it to a non-power conference school over a power conference school. It's not going to happen.

Perhaps you ain't read so good:

I'm right, you're wrong.

[TheRevSFA]

Perhaps you ain't read so good:

I'm right, you're wrong.

Perhaps you should take the bet I offered you then.

You're wrong, I'm right. A Mid-Major will never be in the top 4 playoff. Maybe if it was top 8

[MplsBison]

Perhaps you should take the bet I offered you then.

You're wrong, I'm right. A Mid-Major will never be in the top 4 playoff. Maybe if it was top 8

Well first of all if you're saying never then you can't win the bet. It will never be never (ie, there's always next year).

Second of all, I've given the correct answer:

2 - impossible
4 - possible

I've then gone on to say that I don't know if it will happen in the first 12 year cycle. So basically, I've already won your very ill-formed bet.


That said, an 8 team playoff would include a mid-major every year, guaranteed.