A playoff is coming, fellas, sooner rather than later.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7741721/no-decision-yet-format-change-host-intricate-details-being-discussed

If I had to fly to Vegas and put a bet down on when, I'm guessing in 3 years. Not this upcoming season, or the season after that, but the 2014 season.

I'm just glad that the BCS folks and all the commissioners are finally publicly agreeing that it's time to change the format. Now that them figure out their dollars and cents, and it will be taken care of.

FWIW, I think the games need to remain on campus until the championship. All tourneys require seeding, and the higher seed gets home-field advantage.

I say change back to the old bowl/conference tie-ins.

It's about time we got a playoff for the best sport ever!

So here's my question.

When Louisville wins the NCAA Basketball Championship is everyone going to unanimously confirm that they were the best basketball team in the nation this year?

Nope. They were the best for 3 weeks.

No flaw there.

THEstjoemfan wrote:

So here's my question.

When Louisville wins the NCAA Basketball Championship is everyone going to unanimously confirm that they were the best basketball team in the nation this year?

Nope. They were the best for 3 weeks.

No flaw there.

a'las you know my opinion...

THEstjoemfan wrote:

So here's my question.

When Louisville wins the NCAA Basketball Championship is everyone going to unanimously confirm that they were the best basketball team in the nation this year?

Nope. They were the best for 3 weeks.

No flaw there.

I don't get this. You can apply this same logic to EVERY sport. Were the Giants the best team in the NFL? They sure weren't during the regular season. Were the Cardinals the best team in baseball? Are Olympic Gold Medalists the best or did they just outperform everyone else on that given day or days? and on and on.....

I am willing to accept that the champion:

1. Is a team that qualified for post season play. That means they did enough to be included. They may not have been the best team but they were good enough.
2. Once in postseason play, they beat every other team that qualified.

What is wrong with that????? I could careless that a team was 8-8 (or whatever) and went on to win the super bowl. If you are good enough to beat 3 of the best teams in a row then you have earned the right to be champion IMO.

Got a better way?? I am all ears.

But how many teams get the chance to play for the championship? IMHO 66 is wayyyyyy too many. is all about money, that's why they have such a large tournament.

I'm saying 4, not too many, not too little.

I think that more emphasis should be placed on the regular season.

I do not know if it is all about the money. I do get pissed when they talk about expanding the field. That, I believe, is money driven. That said, basketball is a different animal and can feasibly do that many games. Football I think would need to keep it to 4 max IMO.

Admin...I disagree that the tournament be played on campus until the NC game. When you get to the point of REALLY crowning a champion, then the only way to not penalize any of the teams in the tournament is to hold the games at a neutral site. Put the teams on a level playing field and let the best team win! Just my opinion.

GOBLUEJOE66 wrote:

Admin...I disagree that the tournament be played on campus until the NC game. When you get to the point of REALLY crowning a champion, then the only way to not penalize any of the teams in the tournament is to hold the games at a neutral site. Put the teams on a level playing field and let the best team win! Just my opinion.

Yes and no. In a perfect world it would be a neutral field but I think the problem is getting fans to the games. Let's face it they need to sell tickets to these games. They know fans will not keep bouncing from location to location so therefor they have discussed having the playoffs on campus and the final game at a neutral site.

GOBLUEJOE66 wrote:

Admin...I disagree that the tournament be played on campus until the NC game. When you get to the point of REALLY crowning a champion, then the only way to not penalize any of the teams in the tournament is to hold the games at a neutral site. Put the teams on a level playing field and let the best team win! Just my opinion.

College Hockey is experiencing this issue currently. Attendance at Regional locations is typically very sparse. The consensus at USCHO.COM is that the problem has many different factors. One is, due to the NCAA Selection committee's staunch fixation on bracket integrity the teams in a given region are not located near their fan-base. Let's be honest, college hockey isn't exceedingly popular especially when you compare it to football or bouncey-ball . When fans have to travel many miles that typically requires airline tickets, and since the tournament field is announced 5 days before the tournament begins. Not sure if you've ever bought an air-plane ticket 5 days in advance but they aren't cheap. Same goes for hotel rates.

Many people can't take off from work with such a minor amount of notice doesn't fly unless you are the CEO, and even then sometimes you're not able to.

Tickets to the game! Wow, the NCAA doesn't sell single-game tickets, only packages for all 3 games. This year they ran for $195 a piece, a family of 4 you're looking at $780. And that can possibly be for 1 game that you care about. Sure, some people love college hockey but let's be honest, it isn't the NHL. Unless you have a personal connection to one team, odds are you really won't like it. What happens if your team loses on the first day? $195 a ticket for one game, plus air-line ticket's, plus food, plus lodging, plus entertainment. That's a large chunk of change.

The Frozen Four is packaged every year but that is by college hockey enthusiasts. You can fill that event easily but not exactly the Regional's. A good example would be last years St. Louis Regional. Boston College, Michigan, Colorado College, and Nebraska-Omaha were at that region. St. Louis isn't exactly a hockey hot-bed even though the St. Louis Blues are in first place of the Western Conference this year. BC is a large trip, Michigan is a fairly large hike, CC is a long drive (but it's actually a D-III school even though it competes in D-1 Hockey therefore not many alumni), and Nebraska is only about an 8-hour trip but come on, it's Nebraska-Omaha. Not even Lincoln, Omaha is a D-II school except for in Hockey where it's D-I.

You could shoot a cannon through the rink and not hit a soul. That environment was horrendous but it is what it is.

You might say, "Well, have the region in a more Hockey loving area." but that would provide an unfair advantage to teams from that area. Currently, a school hosts the region like in bouncey-ball but in hockey if you make the tournament you must be placed in that region. That worked out well for Michigan back in the late 90's. However, the other schools that had to play there were at a distinct disadvantage. Michigan walked through those Regional's which consisted of some very good teams, North Dakota, Colorado College, etc. Not exactly fair for the other teams, even though the games were played to packed houses. That particular incident caused the NCAA to out-law on-campus Regional sites.

However, I do think that out-lawing on campus games promotes fairness. For example, Michigan hosting a regional just isn't fair for the other teams. Yost is a great environment for games but come on. It's totally a one-sided affair.

I don't think that you can feasibly have a playoff system in college football although that is most certainly where it is going. 4 teams is the largest scenario that I can see, of course the And 1 idea could work as well but that opens up a whole other can of worms.

OK, I've rambled enough for now.

I have always loved the tradition of the bowl games. And I never thought I would see the day where I would WANT a playoff but after what happened last season, it has to be done.

All the complaints about why Michigan shouldn't be allowed to go to the national title game in 2006 (they didn't win their conference, they already had their chance) conveniently those rules didn't apply to Alabama last year. In both cases for completely opposite reasons, the SEC team was rewarded.

If a playoff system will finally end this special treatment that the SEC continues to get, I'm all for it. 3 times in the BCS era, an SEC team has lost a critical game in November but stayed high enough in the rankings to still go on to the national championship game. An SEC team became the first and only 2 loss national championship team in 07. An SEC team, who didn't win their conference got to go to the title game last year which ended up being the first ever title game between teams of the same conference (SEC vs. SEC).

I'm beyond tired of this. Bring on a playoff if this is the only way to get the opportunity an SEC team would get to win it all.

That's a good point WH. I honestly didn't look at it that way.

WolverineHistorian wrote:

I have always loved the tradition of the bowl games. And I never thought I would see the day where I would WANT a playoff but after what happened last season, it has to be done.

All the complaints about why Michigan shouldn't be allowed to go to the national title game in 2006 (they didn't win their conference, they already had their chance) conveniently those rules didn't apply to Alabama last year. In both cases for completely opposite reasons, the SEC team was rewarded.

If a playoff system will finally end this special treatment that the SEC continues to get, I'm all for it. 3 times in the BCS era, an SEC team has lost a critical game in November but stayed high enough in the rankings to still go on to the national championship game. An SEC team became the first and only 2 loss national championship team in 07. An SEC team, who didn't win their conference got to go to the title game last year which ended up being the first ever title game between teams of the same conference (SEC vs. SEC).

I'm beyond tired of this. Bring on a playoff if this is the only way to get the opportunity an SEC team would get to win it all.

You just summed up my view...

Willie and Historian both, well said!!!

Great points, WH and 2nd and others.

I said campus site games simply because of the fans being able to be there, yes.

Here's my follow up to those in favor of the playoff....

Do we still play bowl games? Or do only those 4 qualifying teams play in the 'postseason'?

I'd still like to see bowls...they're exciting as fans, great rewards for players, and overall I'm a traditionalist. I couldn't imagine Jan 1 without a full slate of top-notch CFB. It's one of the reasons I drink so heavily on NYE, so I can lay around all day on New Year's Day and not feel bad about it!

Ok, I'm kidding, I'd drink heavily on NYE no matter what.

But still...I love the bowls...