Why don't we have a playoff ?

[Joe]

Then how does the BCS do it while leaving out some of the 119 teams ?

They don't. Every conference receives a cut from the BCS now and they allowed the non-autobid to be easier reached for non auto BCS teams. Thus every team now has access to a BCS bid.

This was the result of the antitrust lawsuit that Tulane was going to bring against the BCS. In stead of going to court the BCS included the little conferemce.

Last year Boise would not have been in a BCS game because they finished 9th in the BCS standings not in the top 6 which was formerly required.

[E.T.]

Okay, thought it was something like that.

Appreciate the education.

[Bull94]

Then how does the BCS do it while leaving out some of the 119 teams ?

They don't. Every conference receives a cut from the BCS now and they allowed the non-autobid to be easier reached for non auto BCS teams. Thus every team now has access to a BCS bid.

This was the result of the antitrust lawsuit that Tulane was going to bring against the BCS. In stead of going to court the BCS included the little conferemce.

Last year Boise would not have been in a BCS game because they finished 9th in the BCS standings not in the top 6 which was formerly required.

they could do the same thing with an 8 team playoff. 6 BCS conference winners + 2  at large from any of the top 119 as long as they are in the top 9. wouldn't be difficult to get around.

[Rabbi Bull]

Then how does the BCS do it while leaving out some of the 119 teams ?

They don't. Every conference receives a cut from the BCS now and they allowed the non-autobid to be easier reached for non auto BCS teams. Thus every team now has access to a BCS bid.

This was the result of the antitrust lawsuit that Tulane was going to bring against the BCS. In stead of going to court the BCS included the little conferemce.

Last year Boise would not have been in a BCS game because they finished 9th in the BCS standings not in the top 6 which was formerly required.

they could do the same thing with an 8 team playoff. 6 BCS conference winners + 2  at large from any of the top 119 as long as they are in the top 9. wouldn't be difficult to get around.

i was thinking the samething Bull94, have the BCS Conference Champs and 2 teams that are ranked in the top 8.  give each team a seed depending on their ranking and pit the teams against each other with the top 2 seeds getting first round byes, and maybe give the #1 seed a two round bye.  you would then have #3 vs #8, #4 vs #7, #5 vs #6 in the first round.

[Joe]

Ya, but imagine you had a Wake Forest or a 2005 FSU in there. Then a 15 or 23rd ranked team would be in the playoff negating the opportunity for a team like Wisconsin or LSU both would have legitmate claims to be in the national championship playoffs.

Further Boise, going 13-0 would be out thus another antitrust claim.

[HarveyGlass]

I don't understand how that would be any more "antitrust" than the 65 team basketball tournament.  Some get selected, some don't.

As far as that playoff scenario, I think the conference champion element would (should) shut up a lot of teams.  If you don't win your conference, you don't have that much to be upset about.

[Guest r_to_the_izzo]

I don't understand how that would be any more "antitrust" than the 65 team basketball tournament.  Some get selected, some don't.

As far as that playoff scenario, I think the conference champion element would (should) shut up a lot of teams.  If you don't win your conference, you don't have that much to be upset about.

Thats the SEC's gripe. They claim their conference is soooo tough that they should get auto-bids just for surviving the gauntlet...

I'l point out that over the last two years they are now an amazing 10-9 in bowl games... with UF/OSU game still to go.

[80mins]

I don't understand how that would be any more "antitrust" than the 65 team basketball tournament.  Some get selected, some don't.

As far as that playoff scenario, I think the conference champion element would (should) shut up a lot of teams.  If you don't win your conference, you don't have that much to be upset about.

If that's the case, you'd have to take conference champs from all of the Bowl Subdivision conferences, not just the 6 BCS conferences.

And if I may throw in a caveat: Consider that we only do conference champs. Had Wisconsin won one more game (the Michigan game, their only loss), They, at 12-0 go to the playoffs over The Ohio State at 12-0, as per the Big 'Leven's tiebreaker policy. That just doesn't seem right.

1) The Conference champion shall be the representative team. The championship shall be determined on the percentage basis of Conference games (tie game counts 1/2 win and 1/2 loss).

2) An ineligible team shall not be considered in the standings for determination of the Conference representative.

3) If there is a tie for the championship, the winner of the game between these two teams shall represent the Conference.

4) If there is still a tie, or if the tied teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on the percentage basis of all games played in the traditional 11-game schedule, or in certain years (2002 and 2003) 12-game schedule.

5) If there is still a tie, the most recent team earning BCS automatic selection shall be eliminated.

[HarveyGlass]

I think, since there are so few games on a football schedule, that there ought to be a whole lot less Div I...er..Bowl Subdivision teams.  

Ideally, I think they should redraw up 8 conferences with 9 teams each.  That leaves 72 schools in the mix and everyone else plays DII or whatever.  And with nine-member conferences, every school plays every other in the conference leaving two or three games against non-conference teams.  You also shorten the season to 10 or 11 games.  Leaving plenty of room for an 8 team, all conference champs playoff.

[Bull94]

Ya, but imagine you had a Wake Forest or a 2005 FSU in there. Then a 15 or 23rd ranked team would be in the playoff negating the opportunity for a team like Wisconsin or LSU both would have legitmate claims to be in the national championship playoffs.

Further Boise, going 13-0 would be out thus another antitrust claim.

it's the same way they determine BCS teams now. 6 conference champs and 4 atlarge. instead of 4 at large there would be 2. if they are any anti-trust issues with a playoff then there are the same issues with the current BCS.

LSU or BSU may have a complaint but now instead of teams 3-8 having a complaint it would be teams 9 and higher. not realistic for them to expect a shot at NC if they couldn't win their conference. same arguement team #66 has for basketball/.

I believe it was all the Uf fans that said UM didn't deserve a shot because they didn't win their conference.

If there is a case where 2 Big 10 teams were tied with 12-0 records I think one would easily qualify for the at large while the other goes because of conference title.