King Yao-ing College Football Season Wins

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wish they would go back to the old system and people would care more about winning their own conference and beating rivals. Plus I love that the bowls match up teams of varying levels from different conferences and that teams from smaller schools at least get a chance to play in them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, kind of surprised to see that this sentiment even exists. Probably the #1 reason that I love college football so much (over say college basketball or the NFL) is that there are so many nationally significant matchups on a regional basis. It's that chase of the championship from Week 1 that makes an early-season Tennesee/Florida or Miami/Florida State game such destination television.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. The regular season in college football is so important and so exciting, its what really makes the entire season great.

As a [biased] Miami fan, *not* having an 8/16-team playoff system probably cost us at least 2-3 extra titles: 1988 [1-loss at ND who won title], 1990 [easily woulda crushed CU and GT who couldn't even beat 2-8-1 NC], 2000 [#2 in AP/ESPN polls, beat FSU, stronger SoS, computers gave bid to FSU and then BCS changed the criteria after, OU only scored 1 TD on them] for starters.

But, is there any doubt an 11-1 or 10-2 Miami team that lost at Okla this year and at FSU or VT would make the playoff? Of course they would. Those game are no longer remotely as important. Either we get the 7 seed or the 11 seed, big whoop.

[Austiger]

Najdorf- You forgot 1983. Miami wouldn't have even made a four team playoff that year and they won the title just b/c of the bowl matchups.

[NajdorfDefense]

Fair enough we lose 83, but likely win 88 v ND on a neutral field, 90 [98%+] and 2000 over a very weak OU 'champion.' That 2000 Miami team didn't lose another game until 2003 [whomever that was left that is.]

Like I said, it'd benefit Miami, but it would denigrate the regular season. I love the regular season, not just January.

Picking 4 teams has the same problems as picking 2.
Either you have 1 undefeated team and 10 1-loss teams, or 1 'true' undefeated, and Boise, and 10 1-loss teams. Who would have gotten in last year after Ohio and Fla? Boise? USC? Mich? LSU? LVille? Wisconsin? I bet you can spot the problem now. Are you still going to deny Boise? Who gets the final slot?

Or, like in 1989 and 1993, you have 10-12 1-loss teams. You could have a VT, Miami, Fla, LSU, USC, Cal, Mich, PSU, OSU, LVille, WVa, Okla, Nebraska, ND, Utah, Boise, Arkansas all at 11-1 type situation. You can't pick just 4 teams outta that fairly -- Doesn't work. If it's not fair, it's no better than what we have now and I think worse.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Najdorf,
I think we got to arguing two separate issues earlier. I wasn't taking anything away from Miami or denying that weaker conferences could have great teams. I was saying that the Big East in the 90s wasn't a real conference in the sense of the SEC, Pac-10, and Big11Ten in that a top10 team would be 90% favorite in over 1/2 the games in the Big East at that time when the other conferences had just too many teams that had talent enough to beat a top10 team on any given Saturday.
Anyway, I was one of the few that vigorously supported the BigEast as = to or > than the Big11Ten last year. I do think a weaker conference lends itself to a national title contender. The weakness of the Big11Ten last year led to the tOSU, Michigan, and Wisky dominance like the weak Big11Ten in 2002 led to the worst national champion since the G Tech/ Colorado (who I saw lose that season in person) debacle in the early 90s.
The current ACC is a real conference and a decided step up. In addition, it appears more and more conferences are gaining ground as the talent pool gets deeper and scholarship restrictions get tighter over time.






As far as playoffs, I'm for 6-7 teams. Basically, the big conference champions and an allowance for strong mid-majors (Utah a few years back and Boise St last year) and especially strong independents (cough...Notre Dame... cough). I see that a playoff is inevitable, though I'm against it. I just want the regular season to matter. By taking only conference champs, it still matters. Also, maybe teams will schedule real non-conference games that prepare a team for a conference slate. I know this will exclude some worthy--perhaps top 5 teams, such as LSU and Michigan of last year. Sorry, they had the chance to win their conference.
So, SEC, Pac-10, ACC, Big XII, Big11Ten, & Big East Champs with allowances for a strong midmajor and/or independent. There should also be some rule about the conference champ being a top20 team according to the computers. Byes available to reward the TOP team or whatever. I'd prefer a variable number between 6 and 8, but that might be too tough to work.

[Thremp]

ND so that the playoffs can make monies? Sad sad sad.

Holla!

[MyTurn2Raise]

well...ND is solid often, just not of late--top15 squads, but no contenders for the big shebang

with the recruits they be getting the last few years, I expect them up again much to my chagrin

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
But, is there any doubt an 11-1 or 10-2 Miami team that lost at Okla this year and at FSU or VT would make the playoff? Of course they would. Those game are no longer remotely as important. Either we get the 7 seed or the 11 seed, big whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in an 8-team playoff, there's certainly doubt. Give the top 6 conference champs automatic berths and all it takes is UCLA going 11-1 with their only loss to USC and the Texas/Oklahoma loser going 11-1 and even a one-loss Canes team is probably out in the cold. Add a clause that any independent in the Top 8 gets in and it will be even tougher any year that Notre Dame's good.

That's why I support an 8-team playoff. The number of games that would be made meaningless would be very very few. And in any fair system, you'll run into that occasionally. Even with only two teams getting in, we had that Big XII championship between OU and K-State that ended up meaning nothing. I'll take one meaningless regular season game between elite teams every three years if it means that the entire season's not meaningless for teams like Boise State and Utah.

Also, if the quarterfinals are at campus sites of conference winners, there's still going to be a pretty big incentive to win your conference. How do you think Miami would fare if they had to play at Wisconsin in December with the temperature hovering around freezing?

[TomG]

Will Pinnacle post lines for NCAA Football regular season wins? I am surprised they don't have it up.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
well...ND is solid often, just not of late--top15 squads, but no contenders for the big shebang

with the recruits they be getting the last few years, I expect them up again much to my chagrin

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Last year they were around a top 15 squad. They just consistently play bowl games over their head. They're 0-9 in last 9 bowls and were dogs in all but 1. If you ascribe to more inefficiency in postseason than in regular season. Its really not terribly surprising to see them end up where they did.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, is there any doubt an 11-1 or 10-2 Miami team that lost at Okla this year and at FSU or VT would make the playoff? Of course they would. Those game are no longer remotely as important. Either we get the 7 seed or the 11 seed, big whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in an 8-team playoff, there's certainly doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you ignored my earlier point. Teams in the Big 11, SEC, ACC, Big XII now play unbalanced schedules.
You can have 3 1-loss Pac-10 teams, USC beats Cal beats UCLA beats USC. Ditto in Big 11.
In the ACC, Big 12, SEC you can have a 1-loss team beat the undefeated team in Conf Championship [maybe on their home field!] Is it fair if Miami beats GT at GT, and then has to win again @GT in the title game, but GT only has to win 1 time at home to get the playoff berth? No.

That's 12 1-loss teams plus your Boise, Utah, and ND. Please demonstrate a fair way to choose 8 from those 15 [assume ND 1 loss and Boise and Utah no losses for starters.]

Your fallback is 'computers' or 'polls' just like we got now. P10 and B11 don't have conf title games, and don't try to pretend that Boise and Utah would get the nod over 1-loss ND and USC teams who were in the Top 10. Doesn't work.

Your strategy, while making for perhaps 1-2 more exciting games than we currently have, has the same flaws and devalues the regular season at least moderately, and making it impossible for students and alums to go to all 3 playoff games [costwise and travelwise].