Interesting comments re CFB playoff friom B1G.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport
s/college/chi-big-ten-idea-a-colleg
e-football-playoff-with-home-games-
20120206,0,4747499.story?page=1


Sorry if someone posted this before.   


I like the the premise of this with an exception.   I would expand field to 8, but still apply the higher seed gets home game.    Maybe pick a place like KC to host the semi and NC game every year.   That way, it would be a permanent, semi-central location.   

I'm sure there will be dissenting comments/opinions, however the plus is the seeming willingness from the B1G to move towards a playoff.      

Evening Chief, great link and some interesting thoughts. I agree with your 8 team idea. Of course I would have to give a plug to Omaha  but Kansas City would be a great place to hold the championship. Not only a cenral location but a pretty cool town.

Of course I would have to give a plug to Omaha

I second that.  Let it be somplace where there's little fear of future home field advantage if they are going to choose somplace permanent.

Lol Iowa fan, Huskers play in Lincoln, 5'd ya anyway

I like the the premise of this with an exception.   I would expand field to 8, but still apply the higher seed gets home game

I like it because it is the only playoff proposal that could possibly survive Jim Delaney's stubbornness. Assuming the semi finals are played early, maybe the week after the conference championships, this would be the only way the Big 10 will approve of a playoff. That way the bowls stay in place, and the losers of the semi finals still play in a bowl game. Essentially, if the Big 10 or Pac 12 have a team lose in the semi finals, that team can still play in the Rose Bowl, and the Rose Bowl isn't changed at all from what it is today.

I wouldn't hold out hope for an 8 team playoff though.

Maybe pick a place like KC to host the semi and NC game every year.   That way, it would be a permanent, semi-central location.  

I doubt they would look for a central location every year. I would expect it to be exactly like the super bowl's location, a warm vacation destination with a large stadium. Kansas City has never hosted a Super Bowl, although Indianapolis just hosted one, and New York is hosting one in a few years, so I guess it is possible, just not likely.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

I doubt they would look for a central location every year.

I agree, however it goes against some of the arguments we've seen.   Namely fan travel.  In every playoff discussion, one of the reasons against is fan travel.  Or, inability to or last minute cost of traveling to a destination to watch your team with a week (give or take) notice.    At least with a permanent location fans can make arrangements to at least attend the Championship game.  If their school gets knocked out, guarantee they will be able to sell their game tickets (probably at a profit) to fans of the schools that made it.


   







          

@Chief: I just want to ask 1 question why is everything about keeping the ROSE Bowl as it is, I'm not trying to start anything just dont get it the ROSE Bowl has been crap for years and only 2 Conf. even care about it and of the 2 the BIG 10 is the lest weak at best, I dont think we will get anything more than a plus 1 (4 team playoff) for no other reason if you open it up to 8 or 16 you will end up with more SEC teams and we know nobody wants that except SEC fans. they last thing they want is another all SEC NC game.

I like the 4 teams, there is no way the #8 should have any shot at the NC. 

@Chief: I just want to ask 1 question why is everything about keeping the ROSE Bowl as it is, I'm not trying to start anything just dont get it the ROSE Bowl has been crap for years and only 2 Conf. even care about it and of the 2 the BIG 10 is the lest weak at best,

$ and Tradition.   For years the Rose Bowl was the largest payout.   Wasn't really close.  So in that context, it's easy to see why the Big Ten would want to keep it.  If the Rose wasn't in the BCS, it would still have a very nice payout.   if the BCS dissolved, do you think any other bowl game would pay out like the Rose?  (i'm not counting a bowl game with a #1 and #2 in it).  


We already know the Rose was big money before the BCS.  No reason to think it wouldn't be without the BCS.








             

4 teams is a start I have no doubt in 15 or 20 more years it will be expanded to 8 but like anything in college football it takes decades for change to set in and that is ok.

I like the location bidding idea could bring in a quite a bit of revenue and it would cut down on the complaining if you want the game pay up or shut up.  Other cities besides Pasadena, Miami, Glendale and New Orleans should be considered for the game.

I agree, however it goes against some of the arguments we've seen.   Namely fan travel.  In every playoff discussion, one of the reasons against is fan travel.  Or, inability to or last minute cost of traveling to a destination to watch your team with a week (give or take) notice.    At least with a permanent location fans can make arrangements to at least attend the Championship game.  If their school gets knocked out, guarantee they will be able to sell their game tickets (probably at a profit) to fans of the schools that made it.

I think if you do the semi-finals at the home stadium of the higher seeded team the week after the conference championshp games, this wouldn't be a problem. The higher seeded team won't have any trouble selling tickets with only a weeks notice because it is a home game, and the lower seeded team will have substantially fewer tickets to have to sell, and it is likely that the lower demand caused by the late notice would equal the lower supply of an away game.

If the games were that early, it gives fans plenty of time to book their trips for either the championship game, if their team wins the semis, or whatever bowl game they are in if they lose the semis.

Obviously this changes with an 8-team playoff because of the addition of quarter-finals, but realistically if college ever has an 8 team playoff, there will be an intermediate 4-team playoff before it.

With the championship game tickets, it would esentially be the exact same as it is now, except instead of 37 days notice, people will only have 30.

I like it. However, I find it ironic that it came from the Big-10. About a couple of years ago, they were completely against a Plus One format, citing that it would ruin the Rose Bowl.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Why punish the 1st seed with a neutral site? They probably went undefeated or at least had the most difficult schedule to chew on. What is the point of having 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, if they're playing on neutral grounds? What this idea does is make it easier for fans to attend the game, and sell out stadiums. 

I would expand field to 8, but still apply the higher seed gets home game.

Here's what you could do:

- Play your minor bowl games first.
- Conference champs ranked in the top 12 gets an automatic playoff spot. If there's more than 8 for some chance, then take your top 8 teams.
- The remaining spots or at-large bids go to the highest ranked teams. However, if a non-conference champ wants to make it, then their conference champ must be in too.
- Conference champs gets ranked higher than the at-large bids.
- The higher seeds gets to play at home, except for the National Championship game.

2011
Kansas State @ LSU
Arkansas @ Oklahoma State
Stanford @ Oregon
Alabama @ Wisconsin

2010
Arkansas @ Auburn
Ohio State @ Oregon
Stanford @ TCU
Boise State @ Wisconsin

2009
Florida @ Alabama
Georgia Tech @ Texas
Oklahoma @ Cincinnati
Boise State @ TCU

2008
Texas @ Oklahoma
Cincinnati @ Florida
Boise State @ USC
Penn State @ Utah

I like the 4 teams, there is no way the #8 should have any shot at the NC.

I disagree.  look at the final regular season rankings for most years in the BCS era.   it's already been established that W-L record really doesnt' mean as much as one would think.  Having said that, when looking at the top 6-8, you can make a very strong case for most of those teams in most years.   Sure, there may be exceptions, but generally speaking those exceptions are based mostly on speculation/assumption.   

2007 should be the case study for expanding the field beyond 4.   LSU got to play because teams ahead of them lost in the last week.  There was nothing there to say LSU was better, they just moved up from #7 to #2 because teams ahead lost.    If just one of them won, LSU is sitting out.   

How many other LSU's have we had?   We don't know because no one gets a chance.        

I disagree.  look at the final regular season rankings for most years in the BCS era.   it's already been established that W-L record really doesnt' mean as much as one would think.  Having said that, when looking at the top 6-8, you can make a very strong case for most of those teams in most years.

Chief, what do you think of my 8 team playoff idea? Top 8 only works if you allow in conference champs in the top 12. Otherwise, you would put in 2011's Boise State, but not TCU.

Look at the debate this way: do top 4, and you limit yourself to 0 to 1 loss teams most of the time. Top 8 limits yourself to 0 to 2 losses. You would generally see mostly 0 to 1 loss teams, but a couple of two loss teams. Expand it even more, then you get into the 3 loss range.

Chief, what do you think of my 8 team playoff idea?

I'm not a proponent of only allowing conference champs in the playoff.   What happens if a three loss SEC East team knocks off an undefeated SEC West team in the CCG?  Unless i misunderstood your post.


If the playoffs occur prior to the bowl games, then I'm all for 8 teams.  Top 8 based on whatever system they use to rank them.   I caveat that with, the ranking body has to be independant from the organization running the playoff's/championship.  

If the playoffs occur post bowl season, then the top 4 would be fine.  Again though, the body determing rankings has to be independent from the organization running the show.


   
            

I'm not a proponent of only allowing conference champs in the playoff.   What happens if a three loss SEC East team knocks off an undefeated SEC West team in the CCG?  Unless i misunderstood your post.

Nope, I am not for conference champs only, unless you have 8 conference champs in the top 12.

For 2011, we would have seen LSU (SEC champ) , Okie State (Big-12 Champ), Oregon (Pac-12), and Wisconsin (Big-10) getting in, and Alabama, Stanford, Arkansas, and KSU as the wildcards.

For 2010, we would have seen Auburn (SEC), Oregon (Pac-12), TCU (Non-AQ conference Champ), Wisconsin (Big-10), Oklahoma (Big-12), and Boise State (Non-AQ conference champ) gettin in, and Stanford and Ohio State as the wildcards.

If the playoffs occur post bowl season, then the top 4 would be fine.  Again though, the body determing rankings has to be independent from the organization running the show.

I would rather we see an RPI formula, taking into consideration strength of schedule, best win, worst loss, and overall record.

I would rather we see an RPI formula, taking into consideration strength of schedule, best win, worst loss, and overall record.

Disagree with SoS.  SoS never won a game, nor does it definitively determine which team(s) are best.  All it does is "identify" which teams played a more difficult schedule.    It makes a decision (or influences those making the decision) based on an assumption.  

I've said this a few times before (in other threads).  Take the 2011 LSU or Bama teams and have them play Boise's schedule.   Guess what?   The assumption would be, because they didn't play a harder schedule, they aren't deserving/as good as the LSU or Bama teams that played a more difficult schedule.    Some schools are going to have a more difficult SoS just because of conference affiliation.  To continue to use that as a discriminator is wrong or cowardly.  The reality of it is, the BCS is money driven.    The thought of an top tier AQ team vs a top tier AQ team is more lucrative than a top tier AQ team vs a non-AQ team.   Using SoS is a convenient way to prevent this from happening while protecting the most lucrative match-up disguised as a NC game.

This is why I am so for a playoff.  It eliminates the assumption (to a point).      If a Boise, etc get in to a playoff as a number 8 and win out...