NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Will New FBS Playoff Change Anything?
October 15, 2013, 03:14 PM
We now know a couple of things about the committee:

1: College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock is spokesman for the committee. He was totally, radically, against a playoff as executive director of the Bowl Championship Series. Now he's totally, radically, for a playoff as executive director of the new BCS... I mean playoff.

Yeah, I trusted the BCS, and therefore now trust the playoff...NOT!

2: Arkansas AD Jeff Long is the committee chair. Hmmm, Arkansas is in the SEC aren't they? It's not that I mistrust Arkansas or the SEC any more than any conference or school, but how can there not be bias when ANY AD or coach or anyone with ties to a conference and school is involved?

3: ????????????????????????? Condoleezza Rice??????????????????????

Don't dare speak against her as not being qualified tho, you'll be roasted alive by writers such as Mike Rosenberg as being a sexist pig; your logic makes no diff, you just entered the no-fly zone of PC.

Maybe I'm just a grouchy old man, in fact I know I am; but it seems to me the playoffs really don't do anything but SLIGHTLY tweak a number. There are no objectivity rules, such as a conference champ rule, built in. Bias IS built in, as is subjectivity. The same BCS that many of us despised still sorta runs the show. And we throw in a talking head politician with NO qualifications to... to... WTH is she s'posed to do?

What I see is a system designed to be the same but try to make JQ Public think it's not. A system designed to keep the elite in power.

I for one ain't buying it, and truthfully I am offended that theyt keep assuming we're all so naive. Those that know my on-line views didn't really expect me to buy it tho, did you?

What do YOU think? Is the ship sinking before it leaves dry dock, or do we give it a chance?
October 15, 2013  03:18 PM ET

What will change?

CFB fans will have 13 people to bellyache about instead of a system which includes computer polls with undisclosed proprietary algorithms and undisclosed coaches proxies submitting rankings which make no sense to expert or average fan alike.

October 15, 2013  03:20 PM ET

4 is better than 2. IMHO 6 would be best (and would have included every worthy team in the BCS era each year), but at least with 4 no one can stack the deck the way it has been done a few times in the last 10 years.

October 15, 2013  03:37 PM ET

If the goal is a play-off, then let the higher ranked team host the semi-finals.

October 15, 2013  03:43 PM ET

To quote The Who: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

All we've really done is expand the existing BCS NCG from two teams to four. Dollars to doughnuts the four selected teams will be nearly identical to the top four teams atop whatever polls (AP, USA Today, Sagarin, etc.) still exist next year.

I don't have a problem with Condi Rice any more than anyone else on the committee. NO ONE on the committee is going to dim the lights and give a film breakdown of why Oregon is (or isn't ) a better choice than TAMU. If that is the desired makeup of the selection committee, it would be composed of current NFL scouts and coaches.

October 15, 2013  03:53 PM ET

I for one ain't buying it, and truthfully I am offended that theyt keep assuming we're all so naive. Those that know my on-line views didn't really expect me to buy it tho, did you?



The only one you would "buy" would be if you were sole judge. LOL

October 15, 2013  05:32 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

4 is better than 2. IMHO 6 would be best (and would have included every worthy team in the BCS era each year), but at least with 4 no one can stack the deck the way it has been done a few times in the last 10 years.

Agree.

October 15, 2013  05:32 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

To quote The Who: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.All we've really done is expand the existing BCS NCG from two teams to four. Dollars to doughnuts the four selected teams will be nearly identical to the top four teams atop whatever polls (AP, USA Today, Sagarin, etc.) still exist next year.

Pretty much true, imo.

October 15, 2013  05:56 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Dollars to doughnuts the four selected teams will be nearly identical to the top four teams atop whatever polls (AP, USA Today, Sagarin, etc.) still exist next year.

True, but at least it's not mandated. And I think there will be some divergence when a top-4 team in the polls is not a conference winner.

October 16, 2013  01:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

True, but at least it's not mandated. And I think there will be some divergence when a top-4 team in the polls is not a conference winner.

True enough, but the catfight between #4 and #5 is nowhere near as compelling as the ones that have gone between #2 and #3. IMHO TCU once and USC twice were the clearly the best teams in the country (and Vegas would have agreed with me on the USC teams at least) and yet those teams had to watch teams that would have been underdogs to them hold up a pretty little football. Utah and OkSU have also gotten really screwed over from the #4 spots.

I really can't say that about the #5 teams in the BCS era. I do think you should have to at least win your division though-the Bama "National Title" of a few years ago is a total joke.

October 16, 2013  07:49 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

4 is better than 2. IMHO 6 would be best (and would have included every worthy team in the BCS era each year), but at least with 4 no one can stack the deck the way it has been done a few times in the last 10 years.

Armpit, I agree four is way better than two, but if and when the playoff expands beyond four, if the fcs is an indicator the future expansion will skip a six team playoff and go from four teams straight to eight.

A six team playoff as you're aware requires two teams to get a bye week while the other four teams are beating each other up and this gives a big unfair advantage to the teams with a bye.

October 16, 2013  08:04 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

True enough, but the catfight between #4 and #5 is nowhere near as compelling as the ones that have gone between #2 and #3. IMHO TCU once and USC twice were the clearly the best teams in the country (and Vegas would have agreed with me on the USC teams at least) and yet those teams had to watch teams that would have been underdogs to them hold up a pretty little football. Utah and OkSU have also gotten really screwed over from the #4 spots.I really can't say that about the #5 teams in the BCS era. I do think you should have to at least win your division though-the Bama "National Title" of a few years ago is a total joke.

Agree....I'll go to my grave believing TCU would have beaten both Oregon and Auburn. In fact, they matched up much better with those two on their defensive side than they did Wisconsin. The only reason they didn't get into the championship game was because they weren't a member of a "real" conference.

October 16, 2013  08:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Armpit, I agree four is way better than two, but if and when the playoff expands beyond four, if the fcs is an indicator the future expansion will skip a six team playoff and go from four teams straight to eight.A six team playoff as you're aware requires two teams to get a bye week while the other four teams are beating each other up and this gives a big unfair advantage to the teams with a bye.

Does the FCS system allow multiple teams from the same conference in the playoffs? If it doesn't, I don't think the biggies will ever allow that type system. What are your thought?

October 16, 2013  08:22 AM ET

The fcs has a twenty team field in their playoff and several of their conferences do NOT even participate in the playoff (Ivy League for one) and a some other fcs conf don't seem to qualify for other reasons.

So yes, the fcs has a bunch of auto-qualifiers and teams with bye weeks with some conferences having multiple teams in their expanded playoff but I'm not familiar with all the details.

October 16, 2013  08:29 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

What are your thought?

My main thought is that the fcs playoff is kind of like the NCAA basketball tournament where just making the post season is the goal which takes some emphasis off of the regular season.

My preference is a four team limit in the playoff.

October 16, 2013  08:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

My main thought is that the fcs playoff is kind of like the NCAA basketball tournament where just making the post season is the goal which takes some emphasis off of the regular season.My preference is a four team limit in the playoff.

Me too. I would prefer six but like you mentioned in a previous comment, that is very unlikely to happen.

October 16, 2013  08:37 AM ET

I want eight. Eight is enough.

October 16, 2013  10:34 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Armpit, I agree four is way better than two, but if and when the playoff expands beyond four, if the fcs is an indicator the future expansion will skip a six team playoff and go from four teams straight to eight.A six team playoff as you're aware requires two teams to get a bye week while the other four teams are beating each other up and this gives a big unfair advantage to the teams with a bye.

Yah, but even with a bye those teams would still have to beat 2 teams to get to the finish line. As far as fair or unfair, 6 teams with 4 of them playing potentially 3 games is a lot more fair than the current system. Some chance is always better than no chance.

October 16, 2013  10:40 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

Agree....I'll go to my grave believing TCU would have beaten both Oregon and Auburn. In fact, they matched up much better with those two on their defensive side than they did Wisconsin. The only reason they didn't get into the championship game was because they weren't a member of a "real" conference.

Agree on TCU-they were built to stop spread teams and the WISC power run game was a real issue for them. Given the seasons since then its obvious Auburn was a one-trick pony and I think TCU could have slowed CN down enough to outscore them. Oregon would have been a fun game to watch had they played TCU.

October 16, 2013  10:44 AM ET
QUOTE(#16):

I'm having fond memories of Sesame Street. Eight is Great!

;-)

 
October 16, 2013  11:53 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

My main thought is that the fcs playoff is kind of like the NCAA basketball tournament where just making the post season is the goal which takes some emphasis off of the regular season.My preference is a four team limit in the playoff.

It bothers me that the championship of the one sport that makes all the others possible is not official with the NCAA. I know they list the MNCs in FBS, but the NCAA still doesn't recognize or count them. Cross-country skiing, yes. FBS, no.

If FBS members could ever abide the huge shift in post-season revenues to the NCAA, there would still be a problem with exclusivity. The NCAA would require the post-season tournament to include the champs of every member conference, provided they don't opt out a la Ivy League. Then either the FBS condenses to 8 conferences or there would be a minimum of 12 teams in the playoffs.

The more the merrier seems to be a popular sentiment, but for FBS more teams in the playoffs will certainly diminish the relevance of the regular season, and that I would hate to see. I too hope we stay at 4 teams for awhile, and not rush to 8 because it looks to be financially compelling.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1762
    Comments
    1433
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    893
    Comments
    218
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    3241
    Comments
    168
  4. 4
    Niners table talks with Kaepernick
    Views
    1179
    Comments
    64
  5. 5
    ... So, L.A. will line up for Love and Durant
    Views
    5876
    Comments
    48

SI.com

SI Photos