What's Gonna Happen If This Happens???

[Tennesseeirish]

What happens if LSU, Cal, Ohio State, Boston College, and South Florida all go undefeated?? These teams are all in BCS conferences!! Who would play in the National Championship Game?

 

[BestBIrish47]

LSU vs Cal, done deal----- the media has made that choice already....College football is equally about wins as it is about media exposure and hype.... I hate to say it, but ESPN has a large say in who gets the shots.... if they all are undefeated, which I don't think will happen.... their will be a playoff in 2010

 

[Newc]

BC won't go undefeated.

 

[Win4Gipper]

What no love for UC???

 

[Tennesseeirish]

LSU vs Cal, done deal----- the media has made that choice already....College football is equally about wins as it is about media exposure and hype.... I hate to say it, but ESPN has a large say in who gets the shots.... if they all are undefeated, which I don't think will happen.... their will be a playoff in 2010

I REALLY hope this does happen!!! I hope all 5 go undefeated and win their conference. College Football is THE ONLY sport in America where there is not a Playoff.. WE NEED a playoff... 16 teams!!

 

[SouthieND04]

I REALLY hope this does happen!!! I hope all 5 go undefeated and win their conference. College Football is THE ONLY sport in America where there is not a Playoff.. WE NEED a playoff... 16 teams!!

Absolutely agreed. I'd like to see a 4 or 8 team playoff, myself.

 

[notredomer23]

USF isnt going to go undefeated because of Cincy
UM will finally beat OSU
BC gets throttled on Saturday.
Cal loses to USC
ND wins out and makes NC

NC will be Cincy vs LSU

 

[WaveDomer]

if they all are undefeated, which I don't think will happen.... their will be a playoff in 2010

I don't think this will happen either. The season is still young. I also don't think you will see a playoff any time soon. Every year there is a valid reason for a playoff system and it doesn't happen. The mega-conference owns college football and would never allow a WAC team to win it all. Personally, I think teams like Boise St. last year and Tulane in '98 would not have run a playoff table, but who would have thought George Mason would get so close in hoops? Financially for the NCAA it makes no sense not to have a playoff. Imagine the money raked in on a month of playoff college football? However, it takes money away from the mega- conference. So, mega-conference owns NCAA = no playoff = same old debate every year with one small conference team beating on a big boy.

 

[NDSMC78]

Point 1--the person who started this thread left off Missouri.

Point 2-- We don't need a playoff system at all. We already have a playoff. It is a 12 week playoff where teams are eliminated every week.
IMO, teams with two, three, and four losses should not be playing for the NC. You want mediocre teams playing for the NC? Go watch the NFL.

 

[SouthieND04]

Point 2-- We don't need a playoff system at all. We already have a playoff. It is a 12 week playoff where teams are eliminated every week.

Wrong. A playoff determines a unanimous winner because the winners of matchups play each other progressively until there is one team standing. That is anything but the case now, when the majority of teams haven't EVER played each other. Thus, when there are multiple no-loss (or one-loss) teams, there is no way to declare a clear-cut winner. Thus, yearly chaos.

 

[Newc]

Point 1--the person who started this thread left off Missouri.

Point 2-- We don't need a playoff system at all. We already have a playoff. It is a 12 week playoff where teams are eliminated every week.
IMO, teams with two, three, and four losses should not be playing for the NC. You want mediocre teams playing for the NC? Go watch the NFL.

I agree. I love watching college football because its win or die, unlike the NFL. That aspect brings so much more excitement to the game and keeps me tuned in week after week. With a playoff system, fluke wins can occur and yea some people say that kind of stuff happens throughout the regular season anyway (Stanford over USC), but its that kind of game that makes college football so exciting. You have to take every opponent seriously and come to play ever week. With a playoff system, USC could easily win a NC this year, however now, it will be a much harder route for them to get there.

I think the fact that college football is the only major sport not to have a playoff is the best reason not to. It gives college ball its own allure.

 

[IHateMarkMay]

I think the only problem with a playoff is that with the BCS system now, its all about the top two teams who get in, in case of a 4 team playoff, most of the time the fifth and sixth ranked team will complain they didnt get in. No matter how many teams you have, somebody will always complain. The BCS isnt the best system in my opinion, i think a playoff would be better, but the complaining wont stop just because of a playoff system.

 

[NDSMC78]

Wrong. A playoff determines a unanimous winner because the winners of matchups play each other progressively until there is one team standing. That is anything but the case now, when the majority of teams haven't EVER played each other. Thus, when there are multiple no-loss (or one-loss) teams, there is no way to declare a clear-cut winner. Thus, yearly chaos.

You are overstating it to call it yearly chaos. More often than not, the NC is not disputed. But even if it were, yearly chaos is preferable to a system where a multiple loss team is playing for the NC. If we want 3 and 4 loss teams playing for the NC, why have a regular season at all?
The regular season is the one thing that distinguishes CFB from every other major sport. The regular season actually means something. There are no wild card (read: mediocre) teams playing for the champoinship. There are no teams which lost 25% of their games playing for the NC. Those are all good things, IMO.

 

[NDSMC78]

I think the only problem with a playoff is that with the BCS system now, its all about the top two teams who get in, in case of a 4 team playoff, most of the time the fifth and sixth ranked team will complain they didnt get in. No matter how many teams you have, somebody will always complain. The BCS isnt the best system in my opinion, i think a playoff would be better, but the complaining wont stop just because of a playoff system.

The practical problems of a playoff are numerous.

1. We have 6 BCS conferences which are composed of the heavy hitters in the NCAA. Their prime interest is themselves, not the good of the game. There would be no way that any of them would agree to a playoff without their champs getting automatic bids. If you think they would not require this, you are dreaming. But as soon as these 6 conferences get their champs automatic bids, we are talking 3 and 4 loss teams playing for the NC. UGH!

2. Where will the games be played? If higher seeded teams are going to host multiple games, how are they going to get large numbers of people to travel three or four weekends in a row to different cities? For example, if ND were to play in Austin, in Tallahassee, and in Eugene three weeks in a row, how many folks would be able to swing that? And don't tell me that they do it for the NCAA basketball tournament. Not only are the first and second round sites for basketball typically smaller, they don't sell out most of those games.

3. If you are talking about neutral sites, are we just going to do away with the bowl games? The bowls have done a lot of good for the game. But if we were to go the neutral site deal, that makes the problem described in point #2 above even worse--there will be no home crowd to even start with.
So if we are talking, say, Dallas, Nashville, and Pasadena, how are you going to get 80,000-100,000 to travel to three cities like that three weekends in a row?

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

What happens if LSU, Cal, Ohio State, Boston College, and South Florida all go undefeated?? These teams are all in BCS conferences!! Who would play in the National Championship Game?

Or if UC beats USF, WV, and Leweyville and goes undefeated???

 

[Guest]

Well, do it like they do it in the pros. In football, basketball, hockey, and baseball. The team with the best record (or tie breakers) gets to play at home. That gives tremendous financial incentive for teams to go undefeated. (And for pride of playing in front of their fans). The only difference may be revenue sharing, all of the gate and TV monies should go into a pool and pay out (but with each home team taking home a slightly larger slice to keep the financial incentive). Work?

Also, you would have to remove the current conferences and realign stuff to give every team a shot. I dunno how you would do that with so many teams, though.

The practical problems of a playoff are numerous.

1. We have 6 BCS conferences which are composed of the heavy hitters in the NCAA. Their prime interest is themselves, not the good of the game. There would be no way that any of them would agree to a playoff without their champs getting automatic bids. If you think they would not require this, you are dreaming. But as soon as these 6 conferences get their champs automatic bids, we are talking 3 and 4 loss teams playing for the NC. UGH!

2. Where will the games be played? If higher seeded teams are going to host multiple games, how are they going to get large numbers of people to travel three or four weekends in a row to different cities? For example, if ND were to play in Austin, in Tallahassee, and in Eugene three weeks in a row, how many folks would be able to swing that? And don't tell me that they do it for the NCAA basketball tournament. Not only are the first and second round sites for basketball typically smaller, they don't sell out most of those games.

3. If you are talking about neutral sites, are we just going to do away with the bowl games? The bowls have done a lot of good for the game. But if we were to go the neutral site deal, that makes the problem described in point #2 above even worse--there will be no home crowd to even start with.
So if we are talking, say, Dallas, Nashville, and Pasadena, how are you going to get 80,000-100,000 to travel to three cities like that three weekends in a row?

 

[NDSMC78]

Well, do it like they do it in the pros. In football, basketball, hockey, and baseball. The team with the best record (or tie breakers) gets to play at home. That gives tremendous financial incentive for teams to go undefeated. (And for pride of playing in front of their fans). The only difference may be revenue sharing, all of the gate and TV monies should go into a pool and pay out (but with each home team taking home a slightly larger slice to keep the financial incentive). Work?

Also, you would have to remove the current conferences and realign stuff to give every team a shot. I dunno how you would do that with so many teams, though.

Why in the hell would CFB ever want to emulate the pros, be it football, baseball, basketball or hockey? The St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series after going 82-79 during the regular season. With apologies to any St. Louis Cardinal fans who might inhabit this board, the Cards did not belong in the World Series last year.

 

[piyachi]

Why in the hell would CFB ever want to emulate the pros, be it football, baseball, basketball or hockey? The St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series after going 82-79 during the regular season. With apologies to any St. Louis Cardinal fans who might inhabit this board, the Cards did not belong in the World Series last year.

Guess you're a cubs fan...

That's exactly why the postseason is great! Fight, kick, claw your way to the postseason and who knows what will happen. It makes for great watching, and eliminates the notion of leaving an undefeated team out in the cold because of media bias. It's great to see someone who made mistakes during the regular season get to show they are legit, or to allow a team that started un-ranked develop until they are a real contender. As for baseball, the only reason you could ever argue the Cards didn't deserve to win was because Detroit pretty much handed them that series. If you win and you didn't cheat than you deserved it, period.

I'd love to see an 8-team playoff. Good for competition, good for tv/money, and it would make the end of the season so much more interesting.

 

[Sureal]

I want to see the NC determined on the field and the best way to accomplish that is to have a 4 team playoff. Polls wouldn't be released until the first week of October. Thus the regular season still matters. You lose games your out of the conversation. I remember in '01 or '02 a two loss Colorado team was arguably the best team in the nation behind Miami.
Miami ended up stomping Nebraska and one can only wonder what would have happened if Colorado (the team that beat Nebraska by more than 30) would have played Miami. Yeah Oregon beat them badly in the Fiesta Bowl but who knows where the Buffs minds were at.
That is just one example. Bottom line I prefer NC's to be handled on the field.

 

[NDSMC78]

That's exactly why the postseason is great! Fight, kick, claw your way to the postseason and who knows what will happen. It makes for great watching, and eliminates the notion of leaving an undefeated team out in the cold because of media bias. It's great to see someone who made mistakes during the regular season get to show they are legit, or to allow a team that started un-ranked develop until they are a real contender. As for baseball, the only reason you could ever argue the Cards didn't deserve to win was because Detroit pretty much handed them that series. If you win and you didn't cheat than you deserved it, period.

I'd love to see an 8-team playoff. Good for competition, good for tv/money, and it would make the end of the season so much more interesting.

You must love the NFL wild card, where one 9-7 team plays another team which is 8-8. If that is not the very definition of mediocrity, I don't know what is.
As for teams winning it on the field, did not Texas beat southern cal on the field in January of 2006? Did not Florida beat Ohio St. on the field last January? Please tell me how allowing ACC champ Wake Forest, Oklahoma, etc., to play for the NC would have improved upon the Florida/OSU game.

 

[notredomer23]

Why in the hell would CFB ever want to emulate the pros, be it football, baseball, basketball or hockey? The St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series after going 82-79 during the regular season. With apologies to any St. Louis Cardinal fans who might inhabit this board, the Cards did not belong in the World Series last year.

and a little something has to due with the fact that albert pujos(spelling) was injured for two months after an electrifying start. then he came back and they started winning again. Thats why their should be a playoff. Look at UCLA last week. We have more talent, but they were clearly the better team. We won because their QB got hurt. So what im saying is if one key player is out like your QB, that will change your games. CFB needs a playoff. Boise state may have been the best team last year, but they didnt get to prove themself. every team has their off days.

 

[NDSMC78]

Injuries are part of the game. Bad calls by the refs are part of the game. Playing in bad weather is part of the game. Good teams sometimes fall by the wayside as a result of these things. Championship teams do not.
College football already has a playoff. It happens every week, mostly on Saturday, from September through November. A playoff would only cheapen the regular season.

 

[piyachi]

78 - I'll admit that no one is really exploding with excitement when an 8-8 team is in the playoffs in the nfl. Thing is, there would be no 8-8 teams in a CFB playoff, it would be all undefeated, 1-loss to a good opponent, and maaaaaybe a 2 loss in there (if both teams were very high caliber). Nobody at the end of the year in the top 8 is an average team. It's feasible that someone with a super-cupcake schedule sneaks in but then they would get crushed anyway if they weren't a true contender. The NFL has teams like that in the playoffs because there is so much parity, and that frankly doesn't exist in college ball.

Who said anything about the ACC champ? If they would be outside the top8 (in an 8-team playoff) then they would play in some random bowl game. I don't think that the ACC had anyone in the top 8, so they simply wouldn't be represented. Yes UT beat USuCk in 2006.... but where was Boise State? Personally I think either team would have beaten them like the worlds biggest drum, but no one really knows considering they ended the season undefeated. A playoff ends that problem. I can't think of another sport that has such an asinine ending to the season as CFB. Maybe it's the skewed domer perspective since all I personally care about is the NC, so conference championships are meaningless in my mind.

Fact is a lot of the time the two best teams do indeed meet at the BCS championship. But it should be EVERY time, and the best way to determine that is a playoff.

 

[SouthieND04]

You are overstating it to call it yearly chaos. More often than not, the NC is not disputed. But even if it were, yearly chaos is preferable to a system where a multiple loss team is playing for the NC. If we want 3 and 4 loss teams playing for the NC, why have a regular season at all?
The regular season is the one thing that distinguishes CFB from every other major sport. The regular season actually means something. There are no wild card (read: mediocre) teams playing for the champoinship. There are no teams which lost 25% of their games playing for the NC. Those are all good things, IMO.

No, I understand what you're saying. By no means do I want to admit the entire league into the postseason, though. I was invisioning a much smaller group--4-6 (maybe 8) teams who have a legitimate claim at the NC; no more than one loss apiece. This way, there can be a decisive result that creates one team everyone can acknowledge as the best. Just my thoughts, though.

 

[SouthieND04]

78 - I'll admit that no one is really exploding with excitement when an 8-8 team is in the playoffs in the nfl. Thing is, there would be no 8-8 teams in a CFB playoff, it would be all undefeated, 1-loss to a good opponent, and maaaaaybe a 2 loss in there (if both teams were very high caliber). Nobody at the end of the year in the top 8 is an average team. It's feasible that someone with a super-cupcake schedule sneaks in but then they would get crushed anyway if they weren't a true contender. The NFL has teams like that in the playoffs because there is so much parity, and that frankly doesn't exist in college ball.

Who said anything about the ACC champ? If they would be outside the top8 (in an 8-team playoff) then they would play in some random bowl game. I don't think that the ACC had anyone in the top 8, so they simply wouldn't be represented. Yes UT beat USuCk in 2006.... but where was Boise State? Personally I think either team would have beaten them like the worlds biggest drum, but no one really knows considering they ended the season undefeated. A playoff ends that problem. I can't think of another sport that has such an asinine ending to the season as CFB. Maybe it's the skewed domer perspective since all I personally care about is the NC, so conference championships are meaningless in my mind.

Fact is a lot of the time the two best teams do indeed meet at the BCS championship. But it should be EVERY time, and the best way to determine that is a playoff.

I agree with almost everything you say here, P.

 

[MeanGreen]

Great points NDSMC78. One thing everyone is missing with this playoff talk is scheduling. I know Michigan lost to App. St., but in the future do you want a team that is 12-0 or 11-1 playing for an NC with APp. St., East. Michigan and such teams on their schedule. They could get in and an 11-1 or 10-2 team, such as us, who play a very tough schedule without div. II teams or teams from smaller or weaker conferences could be left out. Until something is done about regulating the schedule I am against any playoff that the conference and ESPN would come up with.

 

[kmoose]

What happens if LSU, Cal, Ohio State, Boston College, and South Florida all go undefeated?? These teams are all in BCS conferences!! Who would play in the National Championship Game?

In a nutshell? The PAC-10 will whine and moan about the "East Coast Bias", and make some claim that USC should not have been "penalized" for losing ONE game in the toughest conference in the country. In the next breath, they will talk about how ND sucks. When I point out that ND went 2-1 against "the toughest conference in the country", they will say, "Big deal. You beat 5th place UCLA and last place Stanford." When I point out that USC LOST to "last place Stanford", they will counter with, "It was a conference game. They play each other every year, so it is tougher for USC." I'll point out that ND has played Stanford 18 of the last 20 years, so it's just as tough for them. Then I will hear "Well, USC crushed ND." About that point, with my head ready to explode, I will just shake my head sadly, walk away, and look for the nearest bottle of whiskey.

 

[Tennesseeirish]

I want to see the NC determined on the field and the best way to accomplish that is to have a 4 team playoff. Polls wouldn't be released until the first week of October. Thus the regular season still matters. You lose games your out of the conversation. I remember in '01 or '02 a two loss Colorado team was arguably the best team in the nation behind Miami.
Miami ended up stomping Nebraska and one can only wonder what would have happened if Colorado (the team that beat Nebraska by more than 30) would have played Miami. Yeah Oregon beat them badly in the Fiesta Bowl but who knows where the Buffs minds were at.
That is just one example. Bottom line I prefer NC's to be handled on the field.

I agree