Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

4 Team Playoff Consensus shaping up (ACC Commish)

Highlander

Highlander

There can be only one
Club Member
http://espn.go.com/college-football...eves-colleagues-reach-four-team-playoff-model

The 11 FBS conference commissioners and Swarbrick agreed to move forward with a four-team playoff at an April meeting in Hollywood, Fla. They've spent much of the past two months negotiating the details of a playoff, which would replace the existing BCS structure in 2014. Under the current postseason format, the top two teams in the final BCS standings play in the BCS National Championship Game.

Among the details left to be determined: when and where two semifinals and a national championship game will be played; how the four teams will be selected; what will become of the existing BCS bowl games; and how the conferences will divide as much as $400 million to $500 million in annual TV revenue.

According to people familiar with the BCS discussions, the commissioners are leaning toward incorporating the semifinals into the existing BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar). At this point, according to sources, the commissioners are leaning toward having predetermined semifinal sites -- which would be designated before a particular season begins -- and rotating them among the BCS bowls.
Click to expand...

I would be delighted if they would use the 4 major bowls as the round of 8, then semi-finals, then the championship game. As much as I want to read what he is saying that way, I don't think that is what he means, unfortunately.
 
As long as they put a high priority on conference champion it might work. I'm seeing SEC demanding 2-3 teams every year because they are the SEC.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Screw conference champions, it should be the top 4 teams.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and how do you know who the top 4 teams are? The top 4 teams will be SELECTED by HUMANS, making it a contentious issue just like the current BCS format. I love the top 4 conference champions as long as they finish in the top 6, otherwise the next highest ranked team is selected. Still biased though...
 
buffedup said:
Yeah, and how do you know who the top 4 teams are? The top 4 teams will be SELECTED by HUMANS, making it a contentious issue just like the current BCS format. I love the top 4 conference champions as long as they finish in the top 6, otherwise the next highest ranked team is selected. Still biased though...
Click to expand...

OK, so instead let's take the ACC champ who has 4 losses, for example. Or a 6-6 UCLA team who happens to upset a 1-loss Oregon in the conference championship game. :rolling_eyes:

It'll end up being some sort of compromise, either what you said above, the top 4 conference champs as long as they're in the top 6. Or the more likely scenario, which will be the top 3 conference champs and 1 at-large team.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
OK, so instead let's take the ACC champ who has 4 losses, for example. Or a 6-6 UCLA team who happens to upset a 1-loss Oregon in the conference championship game. :rolling_eyes:

It'll end up being some sort of compromise, either what you said above, the top 4 conference champs as long as they're in the top 6. Or the more likely scenario, which will be the top 3 conference champs and 1 at-large team.
Click to expand...

I should clarify that I only agree with the conference championship model as long as it is the top 6 criteria. Think 2001.
 
I'm sure all these points, and other contentious issues are being discussed. Will they come up with reasonable solutions? I have no idea.

I do like where this is heading, tho. If a champion can truly be determined on the field, and the bowl games can remain viable and important, then this is a win all around.
 
Since when the does the Notre Dumb AD carry the same clout as a conference commissioner? Gawd, I hate ****ing Notre Dumb. Barely a .500 record in the last decade and their AD has as much leverage as a conference commissioner? ****ing Bull****...
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Or the more likely scenario, which will be the top 3 conference champs and 1 at-large team.
Click to expand...

If we end up with anything much different from this on an annual basis, the system will be no less flawed than what we have today. I was really hoping they were to go with a four team playoff after the bowls, effectively setting up the top 4 bowls today as a round of 8. Oh well, baby steps...
 
GoBuffs08 said:
As long as they put a high priority on conference champion it might work. I'm seeing SEC demanding 2-3 teams every year because they are the SEC.
Click to expand...



So is this Larry Scott's first defeat in college football politics?

1. No special consideration is given to the Big 4 conferences.
2. No requirement for conference champions.
3. No games on college campuses.

Disappointing from the Pac12/Big10 perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top