Skip to content

Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams

Jim Delany AP

Someone pinch me.

It seems Jim Delany, easily the most conservative power broker in college football, has pulled an audible a month or so before the BCS committee is supposed to decide on the details of a four-team playoff.

How so? During a Big Ten conference call this morning, Delany said he supported a playoff field consisting of the four best teams.

Wait, wait, wait. Wait… wait. Didn’t Delany previously support a playoff field that featured, at least in some form or fashion, conference champions?

Yes he did, and it was a good idea too.

But, didn’t Delany say just last month he didn’t “have a lot regard” for non-division teams playing for a championship? You know, the quote that set off Nick Saban to call out “self-absorbed” people who (gasp!) only favor what’s best for their conference?

Yep.

Either Saban’s words got to Delany, or the Big Ten commish had a more natural change of heart. In any case, Delany was on a tear today, adding that the BCS computer rankings were “non-transparent and biased” when it came to selecting teams for a championship. In the process, the Big Ten commissioner may have provoked the biggest question of all:

Who are you and what have you done with Jimmy?

It should be noted that the Big Ten’s stance on the postseason, at least according to Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman, goes in the following order as of today: 1) status quo, 2) plus-one and 3) four-team playoff. A playoff is happening, though. It’s too far along in the process.

Furthermore, Perlman said he “didn’t find many faults” with the current system. This was, of course, just before Delany did a 180 and blasted the BCS computers. So, at least Big Ten inconsistency still appears alive and well.

(Big Ten response: doesn’t matter; we’re $284 million richer) 

However, Delany and Perlman both said they would be okay with a selection committee for a playoff. That’s one of a couple of pieces that are close to being solved. The others?

  • A playoff likely won’t feature a field composed of only conference champions (Cue Notre Dame comments… now!). Whether the field will be the “four best teams” or some compromise — say, three conference champs and an at-large — isn’t known yet.
  • Semifinal games appear bowl bound, while a championship game will head to a neutral site.

The playoff talk can be saturating, but the next few weeks will greatly affect major college football for years to come.

Permalink 55 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
55 Responses to “Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams”
  1. Deb says: Jun 4, 2012 1:33 PM

    Well, I’m with Delany on one thing: If they go with the four best, they need to ditch the BCS ranking system. The ranking system should nix opinion polls and rely heavily on criteria such as strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc. No on the selection committee. That would be a disaster.

  2. deadeye says: Jun 4, 2012 1:35 PM

    Both the BIG12 and BIG10 have switched positions to the “four best”. This indicates that neither conference can get Notre Dame to join them at this time. Thus by swtiching their position they prevent ND from being forced to join any conference, including the ACC. That in turn means the ACC has no hope to keep the conference together. In about 5 weeks FSU, Clemson/GT will jump to the BIG12, and VT will jump to the SEC.

  3. bozosforall says: Jun 4, 2012 1:39 PM

    Flip flopper.

  4. bozosforall says: Jun 4, 2012 1:41 PM

    A four-team playoff, in ANY iteration, is nothing more than a rigged system.

    An eight or sixteen game playoff is the more equitable way to go.

  5. overratedgators says: Jun 4, 2012 1:46 PM

    Conference champs only, “four best”, “three and one” … What does it matter? Every side-by-side analysis so far (including the ones done here by our esteemed CFT overlords) has shown that regardless of which of those models you I with, the actual effects are trivial. We largely would have had the pretty much the same field of four teams under any model. Why are we even arguing about this?

  6. joshuavkidd says: Jun 4, 2012 1:59 PM

    I am ashamed to be a BIGTEN supporter with Delany as the head man. Constantly flip-flopping (or perhaps more accurate “caving in”) and with zero regard for what the fans are interested in seeing. I can only hope somehow he is removed from office before he manages to mess things up more than they already are. B1O network was a great idea, but that doesn’t make up for this nonsense!

  7. drummerhoff says: Jun 4, 2012 2:18 PM

    Look no further than Bowlsby’s comments over the last week to understand this 180 by Delany.
    Bowlsby said strength of schedule must be a component for selecting the best 4 and also said there must be a human committee for selecting.

    Apparently, this was code for the B1G has equal footing to get at least one of the four spots.

    Bowlsby is a close friend of Delany, a former PAC12 AD and has a bowl alliance with the SEC … He is the perfect arbitrator.

  8. bertenheim says: Jun 4, 2012 2:55 PM

    Margin of victory will not be a factor in any future ratings system.

  9. thegamecocker says: Jun 4, 2012 2:57 PM

    Well my friends, it’s all POLITICS and MONEY at about a 50 / 50 split! What some conferences will do to either prevent ND from committing to a conference (ACC) or wanting them to join their conference (Big 12 & 10). Anyway, can someone kindly explain to me why they thing Fla St, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Clemson will split from the ACC? If the Top 4 teams are selected to participate in a NC game, than why would any of those teams split away from the ACC at this point (or in 5 weeks like someone wrote above)?

  10. bertenheim says: Jun 4, 2012 3:01 PM

    Last year the “three + one” would have gotten it right:
    1. LSU (SEC champ)
    2. AL (at-large)
    3. OK St (Big 12 champ)
    5. Ore (Pac 12 champ)

  11. foreverlsu says: Jun 4, 2012 3:10 PM

    Everyone seems so upset with the BCS ranking system. Uh, when did the BCS ranking system ever fail?

    Deb, not bashing you but I may not understand where you stand on this. If I understand you correctly you want no selection committee, no BCS ranking system, no human polls but only a computer type ranking that mainly factors strength of schedule and margin of victory?

    A scenario without any human poll would have placed placed OSU over Alabama in 2011 as they had a better overall computer ranking than Alabama. As much as I hate polls and committees, we may need some form of it to get the best teams in.

  12. bertenheim says: Jun 4, 2012 3:11 PM

    The presidents will not approve a playoff of more than four teams in our lifetimes.

  13. weavergm says: Jun 4, 2012 3:14 PM

    It seems pretty clear that a consensus is forming between the conferences. Slive and the SEC want the top four, period, but they’re willing to negotiate the selection method. Delaney does an about face on the conference champions requirement, but supports a selection committee. So the BCS formula gets scrapped (very good news) and a roomful of humans chooses the top 4, which in practice probably includes on average 3 conference champions. Everyone more or less gets what they need, and we avoid the fallback option of the Plus One.

    Without the selection committee, the compromise falls apart and we’re back to brinksmanship. At this point this may be the best possible outcome.

  14. foreverlsu says: Jun 4, 2012 3:15 PM

    …and I hope the presidents never approve a plaoff more than four teams in my lifetime.

    College Football needs to preserve the greatest regular season in all of sports. Not ready to see a three loss team to win a national title over a one loss team but it could easily happen with an 8 or 16 team playoff tournament.

  15. frug says: Jun 4, 2012 3:21 PM

    In any case, Delany was on a tear today, adding that the BCS computer rankings were “non-transparent and biased” when it came to selecting teams for a championship.

    To be clear Delany was referring to both the computers and the polls.

  16. tecmosuperhawk says: Jun 4, 2012 3:22 PM

    If anyone thinks Jim Delany has flip flopped, you have only been reading headlines in the past month and not what he has actually been saying. He wants the 4 best teams. Best by his definition means to give weight to teams that have won their conference while still allowing an elite team that didn’t win their conference a chance to be a part of the playoff. Nothing has changed here, people just need to read between the lines a little better.

  17. joshuavkidd says: Jun 4, 2012 3:32 PM

    Read between the lines…? He could just as easily said ” I still believe in a 3+1″, but he didn’t! Plain and simply put, he ditched his previous stance until otherwise clarified. There is a world of difference between the two and to ignore it, is being naive.

  18. BrownsTown (the 1st one, not the new guy using my name) says: Jun 4, 2012 3:45 PM

    “Conference champs only, “four best”, “three and one” … What does it matter? Every side-by-side analysis so far (including the ones done here by our esteemed CFT overlords) has shown that regardless of which of those models you I with, the actual effects are trivial.”

    ======================

    While I prefer champs-only, this statement is true, so I’m inclined to drop the issue. However, I’d love to see CFB start rewarding quality wins vs. penalizing losses. Incorporating some elements of college basketball’s RPI could provide a rough starting point:

    RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)

    where WP is Winning Percentage, OWP is Opponents’ Winning Percentage and OOWP is Opponents’ Opponents’ Winning Percentage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index

  19. deadeye says: Jun 4, 2012 4:06 PM

    “Well my friends, it’s all POLITICS and MONEY at about a 50 / 50 split! What some conferences will do to either prevent ND from committing to a conference (ACC) or wanting them to join their conference (Big 12 & 10). Anyway, can someone kindly explain to me why they thing Fla St, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Clemson will split from the ACC? If the Top 4 teams are selected to participate in a NC game, than why would any of those teams split away from the ACC at this point (or in 5 weeks like someone wrote above)?”

    ==========================

    @thegamecocker

    The situation with conference expansion is this: The SEC, PAC-12, and BIG10 are firmly entrenched as three of the top four conferences. The Big East, ACC, and BIG12 are duking it out to become the fourth and final “mega-conference”.

    When the ACC turned down WVU’s bid to join the conference, that is rumored to have caused quite a bit of dissention because the football-first schools (FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, and VT) were strongly in favor of West Virginia. The ACC instead added Pitt and Syracuse which are basketball-first schools. Then the recent ESPN deal with the ACC came in with an extremely low number. The football schools concluded that they could never catch up with their competition in the SEC by staying in the ACC, due to the large revenue disparity. According to rumor, last November both Clemson and FSU began talking to the BIG12. Talks heated up and an agreement in principle was agreed upon within the last couple of months.

    The departure of FSU means a mass exodus of football schools from the ACC because no school wants to be stuck on the outside looking in when the final conference/playoff structure emerges. One of the byproducts of that exodus is the SEC’s attempt to gain a foothold in the Virginia/North Carolina market. Hence their interst in VT.

    In all of this, Notre Dame is wanted by the BIG10, BIG12, and ACC. In the case of the ACC it’s a matter of survival. Their only chance to retain FSU and Clemson is to force a renegotiation of their ESPN contract. That can now only happen if Notre Dame joins the conference. The switching of the BIG10 and BIG12 to a “top four” model means that ND does not need to be in a conference to compete for a national championship. Had all the conferences stuck to their original positions, ND would have been forced to make the choice about what conference to join.

    All of this information is obviously unofficial and if it has any truth it will come to fruition by the end of July. Interestingly, many recent stories seem to indicate that this story actually is unfolding below the surface. FSU blasting the ESPN deal, Clemson indicating that they will listen to offers, Golden defending the ACC contract, Bowden stating that it would be a mistake for FSU to leave the ACC, all of these stories make alot more sense in the context of FSU and Clemson prepping to bolt the ACC for the BIG12.

  20. weavergm says: Jun 4, 2012 4:07 PM

    Of course Delaney flip flopped. In any negotiation you start with your best case scenario, and quietly identify which of your demands are negotiable and which are untouchable. Since Delaney changed his position, that either means: (1) He doesn’t care about conference championships as long as he gets paid, or (2) He really isn’t sacrificing anything, if there would typically be three conference champions in the field anyway. Probably the conference championship requirement was always a bargaining chip to force the SEC to ditch the BCS formula, which has obviously benefited the SEC in recent years.

    The formula is heavily skewed toward a team’s record; that’s why Stanford was ranked fourth over the Oregon team that beat it at home, it didn’t have LSU on its schedule. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 want the selection process to adjust for the extra BCS game that they play, and a selection committee might be the least controversial way to do that.

  21. frug says: Jun 4, 2012 4:10 PM

    @joshuavkidd

    To be clear, Delany never endorsed a 3 and 1 system. His compromise proposal was the 4 highest ranked conference champs in the top 6 with wild card replacements from the top 6 if there were not enough conference champs.

  22. rubbernilly says: Jun 4, 2012 4:25 PM

    Ugh.

    This is an example of the people in charge not really concerned with what the fans want… or what can be rationally defended… just what they can get away with.

    Polls, in any form, are subjective things. Get rid of ‘em.

    Think of Conferences as the “pool play” portion of a tournament, and you can see why you’d take the champion… that’s the team that has advanced out of their pool.

    And the only time to bring in selection committees is when you have more playoff berths than you do conferences.

    Any conference viable by NCAA standards must have their champion included in the playoff ladder. If you want more teams than that, fine. Let’s talk about selection committees or other ideas. But let’s get the baseline fair, first.

  23. thefiesty1 says: Jun 4, 2012 4:27 PM

    Keep it up and they’ll find a way to screw up any reasonable playoff system. Aren’t most of the conference tied up with Nike? Just DO IT.

  24. rubbernilly says: Jun 4, 2012 4:29 PM

    @foreverlsu…

    Everyone seems so upset with the BCS ranking system. Uh, when did the BCS ranking system ever fail?

    Only just about every year.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_controversies

    College Football needs to preserve the greatest regular season in all of sports.

    The “greatest regular season in all of sports” is a meme that needs to be popped. It certainly isn’t the most “meaningful,” as every year there are maybe only 20-25 teams that will EVER enter the conversation for the (so-called, poll-voted) national championship.

    The games of the other 100-ish schools? Not mattering so much.

    In fact, I’d argue that the bowl system *and* the BCS system do damage to the regular season.

  25. joshuavkidd says: Jun 4, 2012 4:39 PM

    @frug – whether he explicitly said 3+1 or not is kind of irrelevant to the point, the point is just come out with a stance and stick to it. Enough with this back and forth, hints, innuendo, etc… He certainly did not support a simple “4 best teams” model as he clearly made it know 2 weeks ago and now he come out, whether he meant it or not, and said he supports the “4 best teams”. As much as i can’t stand the SEC arrogance, at least they are consistent with their message and stick by their guns with what they want.

  26. Deb says: Jun 4, 2012 4:40 PM

    @foreverlsu …

    Sigh … think I should just give up :) I’m trying to be fair but the more posts I read, the more confusing it becomes. If we’d had a playoff last year, I wouldn’t have cared where Alabama ranked as long as they made the cut and would have had the opportunity to prove themselves on the field by running the table. I’m all about defense and honestly believe our only real competition was LSU.

    Going forward, I just want to make sure we don’t wind up with a Big East or some other sub-par conference champ in the mix while a team of Alabama’s caliber last season gets left out because it didn’t when its conference. What I’d really like is to pare down the FBS to a manageable number of teams so we could have a fair and logical playoff system like the NFL’s–with at least eight teams. With 125 teams or so in the mix, there are just too many competitors and the difference in quality is too vast.

  27. joshuavkidd says: Jun 4, 2012 4:41 PM

    and this whole “preserve the regular season” garbage became nonsense the minute the conference decided to go for the money grab that is a conference championship game.

  28. foreverlsu says: Jun 4, 2012 4:46 PM

    Rubber, I’m not talking about controversy. The NCAA basketball selection of 68 teams will never go without controversy and any new selection process for college football will not go without controversy as well.

    I will ask again. When did the BCS ranking system fail to put the top two deserving teams in the title game? Please name the year and team(s) incorrectly excluded. Do you really believe OSU deserved to be in title game over Alabama last year and that OSU was the better team?

  29. foreverlsu says: Jun 4, 2012 5:04 PM

    Hey Josh, conference championships have been going on for 20 years but I see no dip in the excitement of the regular season since they started.

  30. rubbernilly says: Jun 4, 2012 5:09 PM

    @foreverlsu…

    Easiest, low-hanging fruit: Auburn, 2006

    The broader answer is: any time an undefeated team was left out. Yes, that means the Utahs, the Boise States, the TCU’s, the Cincinnatis, etc.

    Because until the teams play each other on the field, any talk about who would/should win is just that: talk.

    And any selection of two teams as the “top 2,” as well as any rankings of teams, is subjective guesswork.

  31. weavergm says: Jun 4, 2012 5:10 PM

    Forever LSU, I think the relevant issue is whether the BCS rankings adequately choose the top four teams. Do you really believe Stanford (#4) was better last year than Oregon (#5)? Stanford had one loss to Oregon’s two, because Oregon was foolish enough to schedule a game against LSU (arguably one of the two best teams). Poll voters may have been aware of the Stanford-Oregon score, but they obviously weren’t impressed by it. That’s not who I want choosing the playoff field.

  32. rubbernilly says: Jun 4, 2012 5:12 PM

    All this said, I am with Deb that the FBS needs to be severed into a top tier and a mid-tier (with the FCS then being the bottom tier).

    She makes a good point that it will help to establish NFL-like parity… which *I* say should allow for NFL-like playoff selection.

  33. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 4, 2012 6:44 PM

    How could anyone believe that a conference should be one of the criteria to play for the NC. A conference champ could be someone with two or three loses. Yes they should get into a big bowl, but no way they should play for the national championship. Some how some way they are going to have to be able to choose the top four teams and they should be the ones to play for all the marbles.
    Like bertenheim said, they got it right last year, why can they not do it again? We did not have the top four choice last year, but hopefully by next year we will.

  34. thegamecocker says: Jun 4, 2012 7:07 PM

    @Deadeye

    Thanks so much for the explanation. Didn’t realize that West Va. was being supported by the football schools of the ACC. But giving it thought, it makes sense to me now. Swofford is a Dean Smith desciple and Roy Williams and Coach K avid supporter. Of course he is going to think “Basketball first” and hence the decision to bring in Syracuse and Pitt, two basketball centric schools. That must really have toasted the cookies of Fla St, Ga Tech, Va Tech, and Clemson! And then the new TV deal and which will not measure up and you have the making of a battle royale! You make great sense! ND is the lynchpin here. They go ACC, than they are at least as attractive (probably more so from TV Dollar standpoint) than Big 12. The Big East is not a factor IMO. Great Basketball conference….little in the way of big time football to bring to the table. There are some attractive pieces to cherry pick out of the remaining Big East Football schools such as Rutgers. Tremendous NY City following and great State School. Big 10 would do well to bring them in along with the Irish. If that happens, then perhaps Va Tech and NC State to the SEC. Time will tell. But to your point (or was it mine?), there is no reason for any further movement until ND plays out their hand. And that depends on how the “Final 4″ sets up.

  35. joshuavkidd says: Jun 4, 2012 8:11 PM

    @ mountaineer50415 – again your missing the details here… that 2 lose team would have to somehow still be ranked inside the top 6 and not have another team that’s a conference champ beat it out. That scenario is a more realistic way to look at things, its not as simple as saying “conf champ”

  36. frug says: Jun 4, 2012 9:06 PM

    I hate to just echo what some others are saying, but nothing Delany said actually contradicts what he said earlier. Delany may just argue that to be the “best” team in the country you have to be the best in your conference (i.e. a champ). The SEC was very specific that they wanted the highest rated teams, Delany didn’t say that.

  37. Deb says: Jun 4, 2012 9:52 PM

    bertenheim says:

    Last year the “three + one” would have gotten it right:
    1. LSU (SEC champ)
    2. AL (at-large)
    3. OK St (Big 12 champ)
    5. Ore (Pac 12 champ)
    ————————————————-
    Forgive my confusion, but with the 3+1 or the conference champs scenario, they’ll still be using the rankings to determine which 3+1 or conference champs participate … correct?

  38. deadeye says: Jun 4, 2012 11:52 PM

    “But to your point (or was it mine?), there is no reason for any further movement until ND plays out their hand. ”

    ======================

    @thegamecocker

    One last point I should have mentioned: the deadline for exiting the ACC conference is August 15th. So things obviously have to get rolling a few weeks before that if FSU is seriously gonna leave. Also, Chuck Neinas will step down and allow his replacement to take office before the BIG12 makes any kind of official moves or invitations. Bob Bowlsby is slated to become the new BIG12 commissioner on June 15th.

    So I would say all the action has to occur between June 15th and August 15th. The resolution of the playoff format will probably allow ND to remain independent for the forseeable future. Once that is official there won’t be anything to stop FSU and/or Clemson.

    Keep in mind that when the SEC was talking to TAMU, we kept hearing how the SEC was pleased with 12. And when negotiations were happening with Mizzou, the SEC was supposedly happy with 13. And after both had left the BIG12 Baylor’s Ken Starr was threatening all kinds of legal action. The bottom line with all of this no one will admit to anything until it’s all official for fear of lawsuits. The ACC could seriously go away as a football conference if all these schools leave. There will be lawsuits as a result.

  39. collegefan360 says: Jun 5, 2012 3:25 AM

    Just jumping in the fray as a college sports fan. The many interesting speculative posts and comments appear to focus on the best interests of a limited few schools. This train of thought is short sighted and can be damaging to the entire college football landscape if this minimalist approach comes to fruition,. To determine which school is worthy or eligible to be in the national championship hunt based on conference affiliation is foul. At any given time, every single so called “power conference” on average has 2 or 3 very good teams – that’s it. I am not for “every kid gets a trophy” but the method needs to be inclusive instead of exclusive. Maybe I am old school or didn’t get the memo, but when did it become conference versus conference instead of school versus school?

    Every football team’s successes have been cyclical and to determine who gets in the “club” based on a snapshot of today is not a good thing. There will be very good teams that will be denied an opportunity because of never ending preconceived perceptions . If this were the case, then the NY Yankees would win the World Series every year, but they don’t because similarly talented yet overlooked teams have the ability to win as well, which it sounds like some people are afraid of. There are some crappy football schools in all of the conferences yet they will be given a shot?…I know, life is not fair, but don’t blow smoke up my rear and tell me its also about academics…its about money.

    There have been references to modeling after NFL style seeding…this is not professional football where there is a level playing field, an organized draft based on prior performance, salary caps, sharing of tv revenue, sharing of merchandising licensing revenue, one commissioner over all teams… where else can a small town called Green Bay compete with New York?… the list goes on. College football is a business, not a professional sports league.

    I am not discounting the relevance of the few storied programs, but unless your school recently won a national championship and was not investigated or placed on probation in the process, then don’t shun the remaining programs from having an opportunity. Until the crappy schools in all conferences are dropped from national championship contention, then there should be no mention of dropping schools that are not in the so called power conferences to a lower level. This is a slippery slope and difficult to determine the gray area.

  40. foreverlsu says: Jun 5, 2012 8:41 AM

    Fair enough, @weavergm. Everyone wants to bash the BCS selection process but nobody offers a solution to select the four best teams. If you’re against polls being an element of the process, do you prefer a committee? RPI? Or a combination as the BCS attempted? What’s it going to be?

  41. orthomarine says: Jun 5, 2012 9:02 AM

    @Deb says:

    Well, I’m with Delany on one thing: If they go with the four best, they need to ditch the BCS ranking system. The ranking system should nix opinion polls and rely heavily on criteria such as strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc. No on the selection committee. That would be a disaster.

    Deb, do me a favor, can you check the weather report in hell? I think there may be snow in the forecast. I actually fully agree with your post….

  42. mountaineer50415 says: Jun 5, 2012 9:14 AM

    joshuavhidd:

    You may be right and I am missing the details, however, I do not think so.
    Delany came up with that idea because he knows how things would work out.
    Lets say that Michigan (Big 10), Clemson (ACC) and Boise State (Big East) are all winners of their conference and all have two loses. Which one do you think is in the top 6? Which two are seven or higher? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Then if ND also has two losses. The ACC and Big East are completly out of luck. They may not even be in the top 20. The pack 12, Big 12 and SEC all have a team with no loses or just one. We then have the Big 10 as an at large. So Delany wins every time. In reality they should be around 10 or 11, but it will never turn out that way. That way of doing things is ok by me, but I am not sure the ACC and the Big East agree. If you really want things to be fair we need to go with the top four.

  43. rubbernilly says: Jun 5, 2012 10:02 AM

    @foreverlsu… if you really believe this:

    Everyone wants to bash the BCS selection process but nobody offers a solution to select the four best teams.

    …then you aren’t reading what other people write (and not just the comments here, but writers and the movers/shakers of college football). There are a *ton* of proposals out there, and everyone has their own little pet model. Me included.

    @collegefan360…
    I think you’re saying that any possible team should have a chance to play for the title, no matter their conference. I agree with that. If you have an undefeated Boise State (for instance), what you have is a team that beat everyone it met on the field. You cannot judge what the result would be if Boise had to face some SEC team… not even by the strength of their respective opponents. The fact is you only know that Boise was stronger than all of those teams they beat during the regular season; but you don’t know *how much* stronger.

    However, I disagree with you that this isn’t a “professional” league, at least as it matters to scheduling and championships. There are just as many FCS schools (122) as there are FBS, and likely just as subject to centralization of power, money, and recruits… but somehow they manage a 20 team playoff just fine.

    If you start with what you said above, that every school has to have a shot, then we have a common starting point. I say that every conference champion should be allowed to compete in the playoff ladder. (If you aren’t ever going to let the SunBelt, MAC, MWC champions compete, then sever those conferences into their own tier of teams where you *will* let them compete for the championship.)

    In that way, college football is very much like a professional sport… just view the conference play as pool-play to see which team advances out of the pool. Yes, the conferences may not be equal, but if only 1 team advances out of the SunBelt, then you’re talking 1 game and you’ve eliminated their champion, and you’re back to the “power” conferences, right?

    Unless, of course, that SunBelt champion wins

    *gasp*

    Once we’ve gotten that much equality, I could allow polls back in (I don’t like subjectivity in the system, and so far we haven’t needed the very subjective polls). You could use polls for two purposes:

    1) Seeding; and/or
    2) Wild Card playoff spots; one you have every conference champion in the playoffs, then each team at least has a clear road to be involved in the playoffs: be the best in your conference. After that, if you’re good enough to beat the best B1G team, you should be good enough to beat the second-best B1G team, right?

  44. foreverlsu says: Jun 5, 2012 10:22 AM

    @rubbernilly. It sounds like you want a playoff of more than 4 teams to include the Boise State’s, TCU’s and Cincinnati’s if they go unbeaten. without regard for strength of schedule.

    The only way to accomplish that would be to create a 16 team playoff and teams would have to play 17 games to win a national title. You can forget about eliminating conference championship games because they simply bring in too much money. The playoff games would start on December 15 and end around January 10.

    Sorry, not happening.

    If you’re so concerned about the Boise State’s of the world, they need to schedule more nonconference games with BCS schools – on the road. Bobby Bowden did it when he built up Florida State and it certainly worked for him. He would play Notre Dame, Oklahoma, LSU on the road in the same season. Boise plays only one decent game a year and cries foul at the end of the season. Very few are sympathetic to that.

  45. dickroy says: Jun 5, 2012 12:56 PM

    I still would like to see an eight team playoff.
    I am glad to see the league voted to keep the 6-1-1 schedule. The Tennessee/Alabama game especially.

  46. foreverlsu says: Jun 5, 2012 1:40 PM

    @dickroy. The 6-1-1 is an absolute joke! Now LSU will only play Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, UK, and Missouri once at home in a 12 year period. Are we a conference?

    The sun will rise if Alabama doesn’t beat the crap out of Tennessee again after the third Saturday in October. If it’s so important that they play, then they should play it as a non-conference game every fourth year and adopt the 6-2 model. Otherwise, Alabama and Auburn simply need to move to the SEC East division.

  47. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Jun 5, 2012 2:09 PM

    @rubbernilly
    … A person using Wikipedia as a source should never be taken seriously.

  48. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Jun 5, 2012 2:43 PM

    And DIDDO!!! To foreverlsu!!
    @rubberneck … You’ve heard it hear from foreverlsu and many others, if you want an invite then ante up, otherwise stop your crying already “the world isn’t fair, boohoohoo nonsense.”
    If you want to be like the NFL then College needs to realigned everything.., put LSU in the BigEast, Alabama with the MAC, UO in Sunbelt, OSU in MWC, … Getting the picture here??
    After all that happens then and only then can an undefeated C-USA can Btch about being left out if they go undefeated.
    Anyway good luck Boise ST hope your continue to go undefeated so the Cinderella story never dies.

  49. rubbernilly says: Jun 5, 2012 3:53 PM

    @thecrazyasian…

    Wow. An unsupported genetic fallacy. Care to try again… actually debunking something (anything?) on the wikipedia page?

    Wikipedia is not authoritative. But I didn’t need authoritative to answer foreverlsu. His question was so broad that any small bit of counter evidence would do. It was almost like he had no idea of the controversy surrounding the BCS, like he’d had his head in the ground for the past decade. Whether or not something on that page might be debatable (or flat out wrong) doesn’t matter, because there is *plenty* there to foil his argument that the BCS always gets it right.

    And it isn’t about “crying.” Nor is it about fanboys who call any call for fairness “crying.”

    It’s about fairness. Period.

    “DIDDO”? Again, wow.

    If you never let the Boise States play for the title, then sever the FBS and let them play in a tier where you *will* let them play for the title. There is no way to definitively judge relative strengths until teams play each other, which is a logistical impossibility given the number of teams. The best you can do is to have every conference produce a champion and then let those teams play.

  50. rubbernilly says: Jun 5, 2012 3:54 PM

    @foreverlsu…

    Yes, more than 4 teams.

    But “strength of schedule” is another meem that must burst once we realize that rankings are a subjective product of peoples’ opinions.

  51. Deb says: Jun 5, 2012 4:01 PM

    @orthomarine …

    Proof positive that anything is possible. ;)

  52. thegamecocker says: Jun 5, 2012 6:11 PM

    @Collegefan360

    If I may inject some humor into your very well written / thought out POV: are you a member of the ACLU? There is no perfect system but the probability of some schools winning a NC is slim and none and so you roll out the best system possible with the understanding it ain’t gonna be perfect. Based on resources (money), the SEC is the wealthiest conference or will soon be once the TV deal with the SEC Network is complete. Then to your NY Yankee analogy, an SEC team should win and continues to win the NC for the last 6 seasons because they have the most resources. A little more humor if I may: the wealthiest conference is the IVY LEAGUE if you add together all the endowment money each school has. Then to make it fair, why don’t we put 3 Ivy League schools in the Top 10 ranking before the season begins and see how it plays out! Like I stated: a little humor is not bad.

  53. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Jun 5, 2012 7:10 PM

    An unsupported genetic fallacy?
    I’m not going to try and determine what you mean by that and just except it as over my head.

  54. rubbernilly says: Jun 5, 2012 8:43 PM

    The Genetic Fallacy is also called “damning the source.” For instance, calling Wikipedia untrustworthy.

    Though there was also a “poisoning the well” element to what you wrote, because you were saying that *I* was therefore untrustworthy.

    And all of that without one attempt to support it.

  55. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Jun 6, 2012 12:39 AM

    I see

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!