Let's Fix NCAAF. What's YOUR Solution For A Playoff Scenario?

Can FanIQ Come Up With The Perfect Playoff Solution For College Football?

12/14/09 in NCAAF   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect


Ok, so everyone has their opinion about Bill Hancock and the BCS.  And everyone seems to know what would make it better:  Get rid of it and install a playoff in division I college football.

Well let's do that.  First, we need the perfect system.  We all know that the BCS doesn't want to let go of the money train that they have now if a perfect system isn't ready to take over.  So how about we come up with the best case scenario.  I want to hear everyone's opinion on what they think would work best.

To get things kicked off, here is mine:

For starters, we will have 12 teams in this tournament.  The 11 conference champs and the most qualified Independent team (I know, I don't like it either.  But how to divy up the teams is a topic for another thread.  So let's just massage my fantasy and go with it for now).

The one thing that everyone wants to get away from is relying on the human vote, err, opinion.  But that won't happen.  At some point, a human opinion has to be in the mix.  In this instance, I suggest we continue using the BCS rankings (with a little tweaking, of course) to rate the teams at the end of the regular season.  And we will use that to rank our 12 tournament participants.

With 12 teams getting in, the top 4 teams will get a bye for the first week.  So if we are going off of this season's numbers, the 4 teams getting a bye would be Alabama (#1), Texas (#2), Cincinnati (#3), and TCU (#4).  And here is how my first round field looks:

#9 Central Michigan vs #8 Georgia Tech (Bama plays winner)

#12 Troy vs #5 Boise State (Cincinnati gets winner)

#11 Navy vs #6 Oregon (TCU gets winner)

#10 East Carolina vs #7 Ohio State (Texas gets winner)

Then the teams who come out of the top two "brackets" play each other for the semi-final and likewise for the bottom two.  Then the final two teams play for all of the marbles.

The teams that lose in the first round games will go on to play in other bowl games.  So everyone in the tournament is guaranteed to play 2 post-season games.  All other bowl games will remain the same, so other schools don't have to lose the bowl-game revenues that some are worried about with a tournament.

And to me (in my simple mind), this is a fool-proof setup.  The number of bowl games are still in tact.  Big bowls will still receive revenue and TV deals for having huge games.  And we get a true national champ.  How could this go wrong?

It might not be perfect (yet, I'm still working on it), but you get the gist of it.

So let's see what you've got.  This is my suggestion for a tournament.  What's yours?
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

12/17/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

wrote:
We dont have proof, but whoever thinks LSU, Chokelahoma and the Gators would not take teams like C. Michigan tothe woodshed are out of there mind!!!

No disagreement.  Its just that throughout the season those teams would prove themselves unworthy of the title.  Central Michigan may not be worthy either, but at least they won their conference.  Its an objective way to set up the playoffs, and I think we all want objectivity in this sport.

12/17/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

(Edited by kantwistaye)

First of all, most of your argument is completely irrelevant seeing how it has nothing to do with college football or what I've said.  If every conference has a legitimate champion (and right now, of the major conferences only the Big Ten doesn't), then there is no need to put a second place team in.  They aren't worthy.  The playoffs need to be as objective as possible because otherwise we'll allow our biases to ruin it.  Why put in a team that doesn't deserve an opportunity over a conference champ?

12/17/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
But that's irrelevant.  Under Tom's proposed idea, every single team in the nation knows what they have to do to make the playoffs.  Its objective.  Florida and LSU would have their fair shot to make the playoffs, but they fell short.  Also, while I agree that it is extremely likely Florida or LSU would beat C. Michigan, that's subjective.  We don't have proof of it.

First, ALL respect to ArmyStrong for defending our country.  I thank you with all my heart. 
Second, any system that puts in C. Michigan in and leaves out the number two team in the SEC or PAC-10 is a joke.  Using kant's logic, we also didn't know for sure that the US Military would stomp Saddam's Elite National Guard.  And we aren't sure that Miami's football players are going to get arrested more than the players at Stanford.   Kant can talk, but I'd like to see him bet on C Michigan - to WIN - when they face a 35 point spread. It would be like betting on Saddam.. or the good sense of Miami players.

12/17/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

Boski93 wrote:
Look if we can't get a playoff, can we at least ask for the coaches to fight it out Thunderdome style?

Trashcan lids and baseball bats and let's see who wants it MORE! 

They could start a College in Compton or Oakland and win the National Championship every year with this method!  Fantastic!

12/17/09   |   Boski93   |   375 respect

Look if we can't get a playoff, can we at least ask for the coaches to fight it out Thunderdome style?

Trashcan lids and baseball bats and let's see who wants it MORE! 

12/17/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

wrote:
its there problem? really? C. Michigan would get waxed by the Gators or LSU. We need to put teams in a "playoff" that come from a strong conf. not teams from the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt and other crappy conf.

But that's irrelevant.  Under Tom's proposed idea, every single team in the nation knows what they have to do to make the playoffs.  Its objective.  Florida and LSU would have their fair shot to make the playoffs, but they fell short.  Also, while I agree that it is extremely likely Florida or LSU would beat C. Michigan, that's subjective.  We don't have proof of it.

12/17/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

(Edited by Quack_Attack)

Letting the computers pick teams is the only way to do it. ZERO bias that way. As a fan, a playoff with the 8 conf champs and 8 computer at-large picks would be a HECK of  lot of fun to watch! 
Realistically though, it turns the season into 16 games for two teams, 15 for four teams.  My understanding is that the NCAA will not approve a season that long; they fear injuries, not academic problems. Conversely, they won’t approve a season that limits teams to 11 (or less) games in the regular season because too many teams count on that extra game in their budget. Even a 16 team playoff (15 HUGE games!) would not generate enough money to make up for eliminating about 120 regular season games. (120 teams in D1 dropping from 12 to 11 games).
This would also completely destroy any motivation for teams in automatic conferences to play tough non-conference games. Why risk injury when it does nothing to get your closer to that coveted BIG money playoff spot. No more Ohio State vs USC. No more Florida  vs Miami. No more BSU vs VA Tech…  Unless it happened by pure luck in the playoff. 

How the heck do they make this work in D1AA and D2?

12/17/09   |   LackOfEmotion   |   1 respect

16 teams calculated by computers only.  Logarithms and functions that credit teams for their accomplishments.  Give 8 conference champs automatic bids, and 8 at large offers to teams that dont get 'voted' in. 

Teams that arent a part of the 16 team playoff that can last a month through December/January are more than welcome to be chosen to participate in bowls.  The stadiums/communities that dont host playoff games could have a choosing method, i.e, the Texas Bowl would still exist.  It could be for a consolation purpose.  NIT, if you will. 

People are just scared...but the fact of the matter is, no money will be lost.  When big conferences realize they can still get a legit share, this shouldnt even consider thought.  Playoffs are much more representative of the sport and its values than a "vote".

12/16/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

(Edited by Quack_Attack)

Ahhh.  now it makes sense.  We don't measure "value" the same way. For you, the only value is in winning a championship. Real sports fans want to see great games in a great atmosphere.  The value is in the games - in the journey - not in the destination. 
Ask Coach Peteren; he does not coach at BSU to win championships. He coaches here because he loves it.  (He could easily get a job with a better shot at the championship.).
Ask the players.  All those kids on the bench who bust their butts to be part of the team and never get in the game.  Yeah, the destination is out there - the goal of someday playing, or even starting. But for many that is not possible.  Many work at it all four years and get very little playing time... but still see it as the most valuable experience of their lives.
It is the same for entire football teams. Of the entire 120 or so D1 teams, less than 20 have any real shot at a championship. Those 100 other teams bust ass every week all season. They love it and their fans love it... but they lose half their games and don't go Bowling.   Does that mean their seasons have no value?   The big win over a Bowl bound cross-state rival has  value? (Stanford's win over Oregon has no value because it did not get them the Pac-10 championship?)  The coaches, players, and REAL fans would beg to differ.

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

(Edited by kantwistaye)

No, I did not go to the game 1) because I'm not a BSU fan and 2) I don't live anywhere near Boise.  That said, you still haven't listed a reason why it had any value. Was Boise St given a chance to play for a national title because they proved themselves by defeating the Pac 10 champion? No.  Were they even given another opportunity to beat a elite team from a power conference? No.  The system represses these teams and makes all their conference and non-conference games of no value.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Emotionally, it probably meant a lot.  There was a lot of pride in that game.  That said, did it really matter?  Their reward was a bid to the Separate, But Equal Bowl.  Seems like to me it was ultimately worthless.

Did you GO to the Duck's game? Did you go to any of the others? Simply no comparison whatsoever in terms of fan energy and excitement, and that includes the so-called Idaho rivalry game. BSU dominates a major team in the biggest home game and biggest home win in their history, and you call it "worthless?"  Wow.  Classic BSU fan..

12/15/09   |   brucek863   |   50 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
But are they really relevant right now?  Florida openly admits they won't play anyone in non-conference because there is no benefit to it.  We'd see more match ups like VaTech/Bama, Ohio State/USC, and Oklahoma/Miami if conference play was how playoff spots were determined.  Would they matter? Only in seeding, but do non-conference games really matter right now?

I agree with you 100%. Just didn't think of it like that.

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

Quack_Attack wrote:
Ask BSU fans if the non-conference game against Oregon mattered this year.

Emotionally, it probably meant a lot.  There was a lot of pride in that game.  That said, did it really matter?  Their reward was a bid to the Separate, But Equal Bowl.  Seems like to me it was ultimately worthless.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
But are they really relevant right now?  Florida openly admits they won't play anyone in non-conference because there is no benefit to it.  We'd see more match ups like VaTech/Bama, Ohio State/USC, and Oklahoma/Miami if conference play was how playoff spots were determined.  Would they matter? Only in seeding, but do non-conference games really matter right now?

Ask BSU fans if the non-conference game against Oregon mattered this year.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

(Edited by Quack_Attack)

Hey… don’t get me wrong. The Broncos are a fantastic football team. And that is exactly what makes their regular season such a waste. They are men among mice.
I did NOT say a playoff devalues the regular season, what I said was “anything that devalues the regular season is bad.” A playoff that includes every conference champion would devalue the regular season. 
The Broncos are a PERFECT example. Right now they play a crap schedule. They really want to fix that by joining the MWC. This would be SO great for Boise State and fans. Think of having more games with the atmosphere of the Oregon game instead of just one (I live in Boise and I know how dull the atmosphere was at the other home games compared to Oregon.)
Now THINK about this and be honest with yourself; if Bleymaier knew he could makes the playoffs every year by winning the WAC, you know FOR SURE he would drop the MWC idea like a hot potato. The hell with the fans; playing in a crappy conference would get him the big money deal of the playoffs every year. Unfortunately, only the affluent BSU fans would have the dough to travel see those great opponents. 
Meanwhile, with only the conference games counting, why would BSU (or Oregon or OSU or VA Tech) risk injury in a tough out of conference game? The answer is that they wouldn’t. BSU fans would NEVER see a good major conference opponent in Boise again. Even Shark Boy and Lava Girl would not like that!

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

brucek863 wrote:

I like the idea of only conference champions getting in but if that were to happen it would  make any out of conference game during the season pointless.

So here's my question, if you have the playoff consist of only confrence champions how do you keep the out of conference games relivant?

But are they really relevant right now?  Florida openly admits they won't play anyone in non-conference because there is no benefit to it.  We'd see more match ups like VaTech/Bama, Ohio State/USC, and Oklahoma/Miami if conference play was how playoff spots were determined.  Would they matter? Only in seeding, but do non-conference games really matter right now?

12/15/09   |   brucek863   |   50 respect

tpowell25 wrote:
Mike hit the nail on the head.  The whole point of my setup is to make sure that only conference champs get in the playoffs.

In my opinion, that's the only way to go.  At-large bids should be outlawed, because then we would be right back where we are now:  depending on other people's opinions to determine who gets in.

I like the idea of only conference champions getting in but if that were to happen it would  make any out of conference game during the season pointless.

So here's my question, if you have the playoff consist of only confrence champions how do you keep the out of conference games relivant?

12/15/09   |   MarkTheShark   |   590 respect

(Edited by MarkTheShark)

Someone still has their Ducktail in a snit over that beating the Broncos put on Oregon...I wonder who?

Seriously though, you have a point. Sometimes I wonder why the 55 non-BCS but still in the FBS schools don't just make their OWN division. Think about it, if they (Conf-USA, Mount West, WAC, Sun Belt, MAC, etc.) continue to grow, they can make their own revenue and have their own Championship. It wouldn't really be that hard: convince  Bowls like the Holiday and the Emerald to set up a playoff and then have the "National Championship" of that division. It would be better than what the big conferences have and who knows, someday maybe the BCS would want to include them in a FINAL Championship Game.

Whatta ya'll think?

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

I don't get how a playoff devalues the regular season.  In fact, now it would mean something.  If you win your conference you're in.  Now you can go undefeated in a major conference (as well as a mid-major) and still be left out.  The regular season ultimately mean nothing this year for every team except Alabama and Texas.  While those teams may be the two best, we really have no clue because the current system is fraudulent.  Also, its pretty depressing because it was obvious since about mid-September that the BCS "Title" game would be SEC winner vs Texas.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

If you let in the weak conferences why play in a strong conference? Better off to quit the SEC or the PAC-10 and get into the WAC, Conf USA, or the Sun Belt.  Much better odds of making the playoffs and getting the really big money. ANYTHING that takes away from the regular season is a terrible idea. I want to see the Ducks play every team in the Pac, every year!  Those rivalrys with the Beavs, Huskies, USC, ASU, Cal, Stanford, et al. are worth far more than any "championship..." contrived or otherwise. Who wants to be like Boise St and have to play six bottom dweller (outside the top 75) opponents every year?  OMG those games are bad and boring. They can't even fill their stadium for all of them (and it is SMALL). 

12/15/09   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect

wrote:
First off... your bottom four seeds, thats your first mistake. Teams like Florida, LSU, Iowa, Penn State, BYU, V-Tech, Miami and  Nebraska  should have a chance before there programs. These schools would pound your bottom 4 seeds

Mike hit the nail on the head.  The whole point of my setup is to make sure that only conference champs get in the playoffs.

In my opinion, that's the only way to go.  At-large bids should be outlawed, because then we would be right back where we are now:  depending on other people's opinions to determine who gets in.

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

wrote:
First off... your bottom four seeds, thats your first mistake. Teams like Florida, LSU, Iowa, Penn State, BYU, V-Tech, Miami and  Nebraska  should have a chance before there programs. These schools would pound your bottom 4 seeds

I agree with Tom on this though.  Make it so that before each season each team knows what they have to do to make the playoffs.  This way its cut and dry, no feelings, no bias, every bid is earned (which is what we all complain about).  Those teams may be better, but they fell short of what they would have to do to make the playoffs.  That's their problem.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

(Edited by Quack_Attack)

Great for the strong programs. Now explain the advantages of an 11 game season to all the teams that rearely or never make the playoffs or Bowl games.  Half the WAC teams are barely making it on 12 games.  Take away over 8% of their revenue and what happens?  

12/15/09   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1163 respect

MrNFL wrote:
The 12 is good, I wouldn't mind 16, the 11 conference champions and 5 at large seeded by the computer.  ( I don't want any human polls)  

I think every conference champion, even Sun Belt/Conf USA, etc, needs to be in.

If the regular season was trimmed back to 11 games and no more conference Championship games you could get this done in 14 games.  Their are 4 regions the top team from each region[that's not a conference champ goes to the 2nd tier bowls, Holiday, Sun, Capital One and Chik-Fil-A are in essence play in games the tie-ins would have to be tweaked but the Hoilday would determine the Western Region, The Chik-Fil-A determines the Southeast, The Capital One determines the Northeast, The Sun Bowl determines Southwest and the Humanitarian Bowl- the Mountain Region  winning Team make it to the Finals as do the winners of The Big 4 Bowls and a Plus 1, which ever bowl has the highest ranked winner gets to be the plus one team the plus one team plays the winner of the Big 12 in the Cotton, The Rose is still the winner of the PAC 10 still faces the winner of the Big 10, [tradition preserved!] The Orange Bowl is the Winner of ACC vs. Big East, The Sugar is SEC vs. C-USA championship, the Gator is the Fiesta is WAC Champ, unless they win the Mountain regional if they do then the MWC champ which lost Mountain regional the  vs SunBelt, so the Winners of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC still get 1st round byes, they are still getting bowl cash and have a chance at the brass ring even if they have 1-2 losses, after Jan 2 reseed, now the human and computer polls are consulted #4 plays 1 and 3 plays 2, winner is the true champ.      

12/15/09   |   joshwillis52   |   114 respect

tpowell25 wrote:
Interesting concept Josh.  And you're talking about all bowl games, right?  Not just the BCS bowls?

Well, what I was talking about in my post was just the BCS bowl games. But I also wouldn't mind having all the bowl games in a playoff system because having that many teams play for the championship does make college basketball interesting so why not try it for college football.

12/15/09   |   Quack_Attack   |   7 respect

(Edited by Quack_Attack)

The whole idea of a playoff is pure fantasy.  Lets take the 12 team scenario. In this format, the Ducks play 11 games in the regular season; nine in conference, two out.  They happen to make the playoffs and win. The round of 12, the round of 8, the semis, and then play in the final.  That is a FIFTEEN game season.  Too many. Meanwhile, the Huskies play 11 and don't go to the playoffs or get a bowl.  Playing only 11 games (instead of 12) costs them about EIGHT PERCENT of their revenue.  How many teams can afford an 8% cut from their football budget?   The solution?  Have everyone play a 12 game regular season... except this means playoff teams play from 13 to 16 games.  Which is just nuts, even if only two teams play 16.  As far as a playoff with every conference getting one team... pure hogwash. Why would the SEC or PAC-10 agree to support a system where some complete dufus team (that has their asses dusted in every non-conference game) gets into a playoff?   

What is really going to happen is that the dumbasses from the WAC and MWC are going to cry their way right out of ANY big bowl... just like the old days before the BCS.. Congress passes the law that says you can't call it "The National Championship."  The BCS says "Fine, it is not the national championship, it is the "Bowl Invitational Championship" and since we made that change, we also no longer have to invite WAC or MWC at large picks. Let them hold their own Bowl series and pay themselves out of their HUGE fan bases.  What? They don't have huge fan bases?  Even more reason why they should not eat the cake they never helped bake." 

Ask Coach Petersen from Boise State, and he will tell you the current system is unfair... but IN his favor, not against it. He plays a candy ass schedule and gets the big payoff... with a far better shot at the BCS than any team in a major conference.  Why? Because he does not have to play four or five wicked road games to get there. (Yes, he said he preferred the current system; it was in the press.)

12/15/09   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Well everyone in the Pac 10 faces each other, so there's no real need for them to have a championship game.  If Notre Dame would ever join the Big Ten then they could have a conference title game and every conference would have a "true" champion.

But, Mike, (there's always a but).....what if, in the midst of this realignment that has to be done to do something about the independents, just what if someone like, say, Boise State joined the Pac-10 along with another team?  Giving them 12 teams and making it completely necessary to have a conference championship game.....

It makes the end of the season more exciting with a championship game, IMO.  And it would get rid of the "extra leg up" that the SEC and BIG 12 have on end-of-the-season rankings, which seems to be a pretty big cog in a lot of people's debates about why they are favored so heavily over other conferences.

I was wrong for saying that earlier:  The Pac-10 does prove it on the field since they play everyone.  I just really like the conference championship game.

12/15/09   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect

joshwillis52 wrote:
I do actually think the system mentioned in the article would be a good one. But in my opinion the best system would be to keep the bowl games and have the winners of each Bowl game play another winner of a different Bowl game. For example, the winner of the Rose Bowl plays the winner of the Orange Bowl or whoever is left that matches up with them according to the rankings. So my idea of the best possible playoff system would be almost the same as in the article, just have the Bowl games as the first round.

Interesting concept Josh.  And you're talking about all bowl games, right?  Not just the BCS bowls?

12/15/09   |   joshwillis52   |   114 respect

I do actually think the system mentioned in the article would be a good one. But in my opinion the best system would be to keep the bowl games and have the winners of each Bowl game play another winner of a different Bowl game. For example, the winner of the Rose Bowl plays the winner of the Orange Bowl or whoever is left that matches up with them according to the rankings. So my idea of the best possible playoff system would be almost the same as in the article, just have the Bowl games as the first round.

12/15/09   |   kantwistaye   |   4211 respect

tpowell25 wrote:
In my opinion, that example right there is exactly why there can't be any at-large bids.  Any at-large bid that gets in is nothing more than what we have now:  Leaving it up to opinions or computers to tell us who gets in.  In my "system", it's cut and dry.  Win your conference, and you get in.  Although realistically, something will need to be done about the independents.

And I'm also a huge fan of the conference championship games.  I really hope the Pac 10 and Big 10 adopt that system one day.  If nothing else, it really does make for an exciting finish to the season and gives two teams a chance to prove on the field who is the champ.

Well everyone in the Pac 10 faces each other, so there's no real need for them to have a championship game.  If Notre Dame would ever join the Big Ten then they could have a conference title game and every conference would have a "true" champion.

12/14/09   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect

MrNFL wrote:
It's still MILES ahead of the BCS.   Although I do agree with you.  Unfortunately, Notre Dame would probably NEVER join a conference.  Even if they all join somewhere, that's one at large team.

Even if it were just 11 conferences, that just means that there would be 3 byes instead of 4.

Notre Dame may bring big money to bowl games, but in my fantasy world, if they don't join a conference like everyone else, then they aren't allowed to participate in the tournament.  They can have their NBC contract and  a nice payday in a bowl game, but they won't have the opportunity to win a national title.  They can pretend to be proud all they want, but everyone's goal is to win it all.  There's no way that they would jeopardize that.  (Remember, I'm not dealing with 100% reality yet, I'm still in my own little la-la-land).

12/14/09   |   MrNFL   |   175 respect

tpowell25 wrote:
In my opinion, that example right there is exactly why there can't be any at-large bids.  Any at-large bid that gets in is nothing more than what we have now:  Leaving it up to opinions or computers to tell us who gets in.  In my "system", it's cut and dry.  Win your conference, and you get in.  Although realistically, something will need to be done about the independents.

And I'm also a huge fan of the conference championship games.  I really hope the Pac 10 and Big 10 adopt that system one day.  If nothing else, it really does make for an exciting finish to the season and gives two teams a chance to prove on the field who is the champ.

It's still MILES ahead of the BCS.   Although I do agree with you.  Unfortunately, Notre Dame would probably NEVER join a conference.  Even if they all join somewhere, that's one at large team.

12/14/09   |   tpowell25   |   1627 respect

(Edited by tpowell25)

In my opinion, that example right there is exactly why there can't be any at-large bids.  Any at-large bid that gets in is nothing more than what we have now:  Leaving it up to opinions or computers to tell us who gets in.  In my "system", it's cut and dry.  Win your conference, and you get in.  Although realistically, something will need to be done about the independents.

And I'm also a huge fan of the conference championship games.  I really hope the Pac 10 and Big 10 adopt that system one day.  If nothing else, it really does make for an exciting finish to the season and gives two teams a chance to prove on the field who is the champ.

12/14/09   |   MrNFL   |   175 respect

The 12 is good, I wouldn't mind 16, the 11 conference champions and 5 at large seeded by the computer.  ( I don't want any human polls)  

I think every conference champion, even Sun Belt/Conf USA, etc, needs to be in.

12/14/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4803 respect

Nice job. The 12th team should be the conference runner up, in the regular season only, of the highest ranking team. The SEC, Big 12, or any other conference championships should not count, except to place the conference champion in the playoff. IF YOU LOSE YOUR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, THEN YOU DON'T GET A DO-OVER, PERIOD. One loss teams from the SEC, or the Big 12 don't get to cry wolf because they're 12-1, but because they're in the "SEC", the "hardest" conference, they don't get favor over another deserving team that went 11-2 in the Pac-10, the Big Ten, or the Big East.

12/14/09   |   Dream_Machine   |   13216 respect

In This Time Of My Life, Anything Would Work, As Long As We Have A Playoff System In the End And That Is All That Matters. "Greater Good People, Greater Good."