unverified voracity
bcs
playoffs
free press jihad
richard billingsley

Unverified Voracity Makes Brackets Again Comment Count

Brian

Annual exercise. This site, like all other sites, has a favored playoff proposal that it spent way too much time justifying a couple years ago and wouldn't like to revisit in depth but would like to remind you how much better it would be than the current broken system.

In short, it's a six-team playoff with home games in the first two rounds and the final at the Rose Bowl. There are no autobids. First round would be the weekend after the Championship games (ie, this weekend), the second round would be January 1st, and the final would be the 8th or whatever in the Rose Bowl. This year's edition:

1. Alabama vs. 4. TCU / 5. Boise State
2. Texas     vs. 3. Cincinnati / 6. Florida

That is weirdly like two of the existing BCS games, but this time they actually, you know, get a shot at the big boys should they win.

A brief recap of why this is good:

  • Byes and home games keep huge tension in the regular season. The SEC championship game didn't eliminate Florida but instead of a bye and a second-round home game, Florida gets to go to Cincinnati in a quarter-final.
  • Slanting the playoff towards regular season results also makes it likely that the national title winner would always have the best resume at the end of the season. Even a two-loss team slipping in at the back end would probably get voted #1 independent of any crystal footballs after three straight wins against elite competition, two of them on the road.
  • It doesn't require anyone to travel excessively.
  • It doesn't affect the bowl system much. Only four teams are sucked out of the bowls.
  • It's not the dumbest thing in the history of the world.

Yea, truly this is the way.

The most evil corporation in the history of world. …probably isn't this one I'm about to talk about. But they are irritating.

No one else probably remembers this, but when I saw the letters in this Sporting Blog post I was reminded of a previous fiasco:

Back in late October, SI broke the story of a fight for film going on between the NFL and XOS Technologies. As a quick refresher, XOS is in charge of digitizing film for eight conferences, including the SEC, Pac-10, Big 12, Mid-American, WAC and Sun Belt. Now XOS wants what is reportedly $20-$30 million for film the NFL used to receive for nothing.

You may remember XOS from such ill-fated public relations disasters as "The SEC Controls Your Mind"; they signed on to do all the digital stuff for the SEC this year and immediately issued a draconian policy that was RIAA-esque in its blinkered belief that you can control the internet. Now this same corporation is trying to extract money from the NFL for tapes of prospects, and the NFL is in a fight. I bet coaches who want to tout the NFL-readiness of their players just love this corporation.

You'll note the Big Ten is not afflicted; they've cast their lot with Fox and the Big Ten Network and should have no problems getting seniors and—more importantly for folks hoping Donovan Warren reconsiders—juniors scouted in a timely fashion.

Aigh. Formerly Anonymous ran across this interview with Richard Billingsley, which gives me another opportunity to rail against his hodge-podge of dreck that purports to be a computer rating system. It's not a surprise that a guy who's described his system like this…

Believe it or not, the system is designed after our own United States Constitution. But don't hold that against it! Although at times I feel this system is just about as complicated as our Federal Government, there is one huge difference..... this one works!

…"doesn't even have a degree," according to the article, and won't divulge his formulas for ranking teams. Because they're insane. Things Billingsley does in his rankings:

  • Weight Billingsley's own arbitrary preseason human rankings.
  • Partially consider a team's (arbitrary, information-free) rank at the time of a game, thus hugely overvaluing wins like Notre Dame's victory over #3 but soon to go 7-5 Michigan in '05.
  • Heavily weight the most recent week.
  • Add in arbitrary bonuses.

This is an organization that thought a propaganda website, widely-mocked twitter account, and Ari Fleischer were good ideas, so it's not a huge surprise that they've cast their lot with a guy who sounds like he owns a bunch of stuff from the Franklin Mint. It is further confirmation that the people in charge of college football are sort of clueless: they've cast their lot with an aging nut's secret blend of herbs and spices that hasn't been updated since 1970.

PREWB! This was discussed extensively on the radio but has gone uncommented on here: the latest Free Press bit on the Michigan State "fight" is further evidence that the paper is in the tank for the Spartans. It interviews two parents of suspended players but doesn't bother to talk to the very talkative victim, mention that the president of the fraternity in question would like to see the football players gone for good, or mention anything in Glenn Winston's past. It is strictly from the POV of State players' parents. Jon Chait has a fuller takedown of an organization that's descended into self-parody.

This quote from the "grand polaris" of Iota Phi Theta—what a title—is from the News…

"From what I understand, almost all of those guys, if not all of them that came in there, (threw) a punch," Price said of the eight who received suspensions. "They came in, (based) on their behavior, with the sole purpose of beating up or physically abusing an Iota."

…and is followed up by the term "assault," not "fight." The News also reports on Dantonio's response to the thing. Like the context left out of the Free Press Katrina story and provided by AnnArbor.com, you don't have to take a crazy biased blogger's word for it. You can observe the other news organizations covering the story and contrast them with the Free Press.

Etc.: Chengelis on the AD search. Harbaugh is not talking to Notre Dame. Bill Taylor discusses his company, which deals with substance abuse. Red is 70, and it's been suggested that Happy Birthday should be sung on Friday at Yost.

Comments

GoBlueScott

December 8th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^

... so it's not a huge surprise that they've cast their lot with a guy who sounds like he owns a bunch of stuff from the Franklin Mint.
It's OK, though, I HAVE A SPECIAL OFFER FOR YOU:

Joined: 11/18/2008

MGoPoints: 75

aawolve

December 8th, 2009 at 7:04 PM ^

would allow for both Florida and Bama to both be in the playoffs this year. Someone will probably be screwed somewhere, but better between a non-conference champ than a trio of undefeated teams. The at larges would be the highest ranked non-conference champs. I think UM and OSU would have both got in in '06, but I can't remember how far UM fell. The conference auto bids maintain the integrity of conference play.

Joined: 08/06/2008

MGoPoints: -1649

champswest

December 8th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^

like you, I came up with an 8 team format about 5 years ago. No serious contender would be left out, no home games (due to climate), play would start this week and conclude by early January (not much missed classes), only 4 teams would be playing an extra game (because they all would have been in a bowl game anyway) and the championship gets decided on the field. Some of the key bowls could opt to host the semis and final on a rotating basis, or keep what they have now. In any case, a playoff is needed and there are no acceptable excuses for not having one. All of the other sports manage to have them (including the other football divisions).

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25927

zlionsfan

December 9th, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^

or shouldn't be. Doesn't matter if both teams are 12-0, both teams are 6-6, qualified for bowls, qualified for BCS, whatever. UM-OSU is important no matter what happens afterward. If we have the chance to knock them down or out of a postseason system, so much the better, but still ... the game will always be important unless you are one of those fans or players that needs something to get you fired up for that game, and in that case, I don't know what to tell you.

Joined: 10/31/2008

MGoPoints: 670

SpartanDan

December 8th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^

Unless you think that 9-4 Virginia Tech belonged in the playoff ahead of three of 12-0 Utah, 12-0 Boise State, 12-1 Alabama, 11-1 Texas, and 11-1 Texas Tech last year, that's an idea that sounds great but doesn't actually work. No auto-bids for conference champions unless you do a 16-team bracket with all 11 champs. If you insist on rewarding conference championships (which is reasonable), make a stipulation that at most two teams who did not win their conferences can be put in - but do NOT restrict which conferences those other six won.

Joined: 08/20/2008

MGoPoints: 594

SpartanDan

December 8th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^

Going by the BCS standings as a proxy for the selection committee, here are the instances in which a non-BCS team would have qualified: This year: #4 TCU and #6 Boise State ahead of #8 Ohio State (who qualifies as an at-large anyway) and #9 Georgia Tech (who does not) Last year: #6 Utah and #9 Boise State ahead of #12 Cincinnati (11-2) and #19 Virginia Tech (9-4) '07: Nobody (Hawaii was behind all six BCS conference champions plus Georgia and Missouri) '06: #8 Boise State (and the fifth-highest conference champ ahead of Oklahoma) ahead of #14 Wake Forest (11-2) '05: Nobody (although #6 Notre Dame would be out due to not being in a conference to get a championship; if you consider them "champion of the independents" it bumps West Virginia out) '04: Utah as #6 (and the fourth-highest conference champion!) and Boise State (ranked #9) go ahead of #13 Michigan (9-2) and #21 Pitt (8-3). (#10 Louisville, in CUSA at the time, also gets passed over.) '03: Nobody (Fake Miami is the seventh-highest conference champ) '02: Nobody (the last spot comes down to #9 Notre Dame or #14 Florida State, depending on the same interpretation as '05) '01: Nobody (none even in the BCS top 15) '00: Either Notre Dame (at #11) or TCU (at #14) gets the last spot ahead of three-loss Purdue. '99: Marshall (at #12) takes the last spot over the Pac-10 champion, three-loss Stanford. '98: Tulane gets the nod ahead of three-loss Syracuse.

Joined: 08/20/2008

MGoPoints: 594

Lutha

December 8th, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^

The only issue with Brian's proposal is that it would de-value the two BCS bowls that are essentially left out of the playoff each year. Personally, I think it would be a small price to pay for an equitable playoff format, but I don't think the two bowls would agree. Maybe if they all agree to rev share from all the playoff games, including the two home games. BTW I'd love making one of the southern schools come up and play us at the Big House in December.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 8238

Don

December 8th, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^

The second sign is boasting at a sub-literate level about phantom sexual conquests at Skeeps. The third sign is POSTING IN ALL CAPS. YES. The fourth, and fatal sign, is concluding that Michael Rosenberg is awesome.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148571

dahblue

December 8th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^

I agree 100% that the Freep is tilting the Potluck Massacre story toward daylight for MSU. It was no more a "fight" than date rape is "consensual sex". The Freep also used the term "fracas" (defined as a "noisy quarrel"). That being said, I don't buy that they're out to get UofM and are pro-MSU, but the end result in the paper sure feels that way. My best guess is that the Newspaper industry lost its best talent...so journalistic integrity falls prey to laziness.

Joined: 11/09/2009

MGoPoints: 5253

BrianinGR

December 8th, 2009 at 3:02 PM ^

I hardly ever comment on Brian's post because what am I going to say? Wow...I agree with you. Like always. But this one seems relevant. I have been writing my Advanced composition final, a research paper about a playoff and found out I was allowed to cite MGoBlog. I found Brian's playoff idea from 2006 and used it for my paper. While being distracted I checked up on mgoblog like usual throughout the day and found this post. Crazy how things work out I guess.

Joined: 04/14/2009

MGoPoints: 51

ming

December 8th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^

Once again Brian fails to acknowledge that the initial story itself (ie. Everyone was fighting, players wore ski masks, there were serious injuries, women were assaulted, etc) was based solely on comments from the fraternity and it's members with the vast majority of the info coming from ONE fraternity member and his lawyer. So I would contend that the Free Press did "bother to talk with the victim" because the entire narrative of the initial story was formed from this source. The victim's side of the story has somehow managed to influence Brian's thoughts on the matter despite the bias and collusion of the Free Press. :rolleyes:

Joined: 12/04/2009

MGoPoints: 13

ming

December 8th, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^

I agree. For 10 days the only side being reported was from the fraternity, nearly all from 1 particular fraternity member who had already retained legal council and was threatening a lawsuit. Take from that what you will. After 10 days one sided reporting (mainly because no one on the MSU side was permitted to talk), information from the players' perspective was leaked through side channels (their parents). This was presented as evidence of biased reporting. I find that claim extraordinarily bizarre without a hefty dose of bias on Brian's (and Chait's) part. The investigation is still ongoing and there is a lot we still don't know yet. The truth could very well be similar to the initial story. A gang of football players wearing ski masks assaulted multiple people seriously including several women. Or, it may be revealed that only one player hit anyone, the injuries were not serious, there were no ski masks, no women were harmed and the incident was sparked by the victim assaulting a football player the night before as the players' parents suggest. I'm assuming the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Isn't that a more reasonable position than what has been promoted on this blog? Both in regard to the MSU story and allegations of bias on the part of the Free Press?

Joined: 12/04/2009

MGoPoints: 13

Engin77

December 8th, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^

of MGoBlog (and the Wolverine) on one side and The Detroit Free Press on the other is the exact point of Brian's argument. The Freep leaves no stone unturned in its on-going investigations of the Michigan football program; it behaves differently when dealing with Michigan State football program.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 5791

ming

December 8th, 2009 at 6:39 PM ^

That is not my positioning at all. The Free Press reported one side of the story (negative MSU) for 10 days before reporting the other side. By then the widely accepted narrative of a ski mask wearing posse of women beaters was already established as evidenced by this blog and the comments contained therein. That is pro-MSU bias?

Joined: 12/04/2009

MGoPoints: 13

Kilgore Trout

December 8th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^

Since everyone else is doing it, here's my take. 11 teams. If you're going to recognize a conference as an FBS conference, their champion gets in. Each champion gets in, and no one else does. That will go a long way towards keeping a serious value on the regular season. First two rounds are at home field of the higher seeded team, semis and finals are at current BCS bowl sites. Obviously one gets left out a year, that will have to be figured out. And Notre Dame would just be hosed I guess. Time to join up. Here's how it would look this year. Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

QuickPost EDIT: I am not good at programming the internets, just click on it to make it bigger.

Joined: 02/20/2009

MGoPoints: 13261

wolverine1987

December 8th, 2009 at 4:07 PM ^

Very simple. Return to the four traditional bowl matchups, making sure a spot is reserved for a non-BCS school. This leaves 6 conference champs, one at large team (this year Florida would be it) and another at large non-BCS school (TCU, sorry Boise). The four winners play the next week, and the championship game is played the weekend before the Superbowl. Problem solved.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18167

SpartanDan

December 8th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^

1) Travel. You really think you're going to get fans to fill the stadiums three weeks in a row on short notice? (Basketball manages it, but they have four or eight teams to fill a 20,000 seat arena, not two teams to fill a 90,000 seat one. And even then the first-weekend games are sparsely attended.) 2) Same issue as I mentioned to someone else who proposed an eight-team playoff with six auto-bids: In no way does a 9-4 ACC champion (or Nebraska this year, had they beaten Texas) belong ahead of a 12-0 MWC or WAC team. If you cap the number of automatic bids at something less than 11, you cannot specify which conferences get them. Take the six highest-ranked conference champions; if that happens to be Big 10, CUSA, MWC, WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt (don't ask me how that would happen), so be it. 3) Sticking to the "traditional" matchups is too likely to create a 1v2 quarterfinal. Take a hypothetical year where Michigan and OSU are both highly ranked to the point where the loser is probably the at-large team, and USC is ranked #1. The loser of Michigan-OSU gets an easier road through the tournament than the winner.

Joined: 08/20/2008

MGoPoints: 594

M-Wolverine

December 8th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^

And the reason 90% of most playoff systems fail. No one who's not a fan of the team is going to want to see ONE game of someone else's team play an early round game. It's not like B-Ball where you can stage 5 games at a site (or is used to playing in front of 3/4 empty stadiums). And no one is going to book to trips just to GET to the championship game...they're going to wait to see if their team gets in. That's why when I heard it, I really like his system. I'm old school pro bowl, but the BCS is worse than when the Champs all went to separate bowls and the polls just did it. So this takes care of how to get people to the games. It keeps the bowls valuable, only really taking out the four (2 of which are already yanked). It doesn't take too many teams, so the best regular season still has value. It doesn't take so few that you're not opening yourself up to complaining - the #7 team doesn't have a lot of likelihood of being the best team...far less than #5 or #3...and yes, lower teams have won in the NFL playoff, but that's their flaw...that the best team doesn't always win. They're the Champs but you'll never convince me that the 18-1 Patriots were worse than the Giants as a team just because when they split their season series 1-1, they lost the 2nd game.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

wolverine1987

December 9th, 2009 at 7:53 AM ^

On your #1, I think College Football is so popular at this point that you can fill the stadiums three times in a row, even if it's not the same group of people. On your #2, (and this is highly controversial but it's my view) I don't care if some of the minor conferences get disadvantaged. I don't think the conferences you mentioned play equivalent football. My bigger problem with your proposal is that there is just no way that there are more than 1-3 teams from non BCS conferences that can compete in any year, with the BCS conference runner-ups, let alone champions. If you put 11 teams in, you instantly promote say the MAC champion over a 2nd place team from a BCS conference that would DESTROY the MAC champion in any game. That's why IMO you have to keep it to the BCS conference champs and reserve a spot for the inevitable minor conference champs that does have a chance to win.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18167

M-Wolverine

December 9th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^

"I think College Football is so popular at this point that you can fill the stadiums three times in a row, even if it's not the same group of people." You might be able to if the games are at home, but you can't get the bowls to sell out with just one game and two fan bases when you have to travel too.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

zlionsfan

December 9th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^

On the one hand, basketball is a bad example, because sites are determined in advance, so you have about a year to purchase tickets. The assumption is that a lot of fans buy tickets regardless of the teams playing; this should be true to varying but lesser extents in football. (Kind of like how some bowl games sell out and others, no.) First-weekend games may be sparsely attended, but they do sell very well. In the 20 years prior to 2009 (the NCAA hasn't posted the 2010 record book yet, so no figures on 2009's tournament easily available), as a whole, first-session games sold to no less than 80% of capacity, and in 16 of 20 years, they sold to no less than 85%. (The regionals, surprisingly, seem to sell about the same percentage, except in 2008 when they sold over 100% of capacity.) I think it would work like basketball does: some stadiums would sell as many tickets as they could in a week and others wouldn't sell out a year in advance. That's one reason I suspect that whatever season is eventually implemented will retain some bowls as playoff sites ... for example, 16 teams, first round at campus sites, remaining games at predetermined sites. Another thing about attendance: some/a lot/most tickets are marketed to companies, not "real fans", and companies buy that stuff in advance no matter who's playing. (I put real fans in quotes because a) there are some real fans at companies and b) I got tickets to the Midwest Regionals last year, so at least someone was using the tickets wisely, even if it meant I was kind of rooting for Sparty - no offense meant. I mean, Louisville?) Excellent point about selection (which is why I believe a 16-team playoff will be the eventual winner). One of the ideas is to include enough teams that anyone with a legitimate claim is in. A 4-loss Big Ten champ ahead of a 1-loss SEC runner-up ... okay, that would be funny, but really isn't what we want to see.

Joined: 10/31/2008

MGoPoints: 670

M-Wolverine

December 9th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^

Basketball fills stadiums of 1/2 to 1/4 capacity, not trying to fill 80-100,000 seat stadiums. And they're not held in the same place every year, so when it happens, it becomes a regional event. Events in the same place year after year (like bowls) rarely sell out. Rose Bowls regularly play under capacity (especially if the teams have been there recently), and lesser bowls have wide spaces of empty seats. And there will be even more if the fans of the two teams aren't traveling because they're waiting to play in the BIG game. And your basketball stats being recent reflect only the newer pod system that tries to get teams to okay closer to home to sell more tickets. Back when onlybthe top seeds got any consideration and everyone else was placed willy-nilly across the country would have been a better comparison, for what it's worth.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

UMaD

December 8th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^

"Byes and home games keep huge tension in the regular season. The SEC championship game didn't eliminate Florida but instead of a bye and a second-round home game, Florida gets to go to Cincinnati in a quarter-final." Playing for a bye is not NEARLY the same as an elimination game. You can argue it won't KILL the regular season to NBA/NHL/NFL levels, but it will certainly take a great deal away from these kind of matchups. Any system that compromises games like this (e.g. '06 UM vs OSU game) should at least acknowledge it as a flaw in the proposal. Personally, I'd like to see a playoff only if there are auto-bids from each of the 6 BCS conferences. Add in two selection-committee style for non-BCS teams. Puts the focus back on the traditional win-the-conference oriented goals that existed during the Bo-Woody.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 4960

Sgt. Wolverine

December 8th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

"win-the-conference oriented goals" Yes pls. I hate this obnoxious national championship foofaraw. Conference champions are now and will always be the least disputable champions in college football, and I wish that goal would be recognized as the most important. Until the NCAA overtakes the conferences and puts together an NFL-style centrally-organized football league with a more balanced, less regionally compartmentalized, a playoff system won't actually make D-1A college football better. It'll make it different, but not better. It'll just have different problems.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 3742

BJNavarre

December 8th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^

The Big Ten, ACC and Pac 10 would have serious issues with a 6-team playoff that includes Cincy, TCU and Boise, but none of their schools. I think the baseline for a playoff would be to give automatic bids to each BCS conference champ. You'd probably have to have a couple open spots to give the non-BCS schools a chance to make the playoff, so a 8-team playoff is more realistic.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 4440

Jim Harbaugh S…

December 8th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^

Too much money in the bowl games. Our best hope is a "plus one" game. That way the bowls would be the same except two bcs bowls (maybe a yearly rotation) would be 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 and then another rotating bowl would host winners of the previous matchup. This method could keep the amount of bowl games the same, it is the only "playoff" system I could imagine feasibly happening.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 577

Enjoy Life

December 8th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

What about a college football playoff that: Keeps All Current Bowl Games In Place Keeps Most Traditional Rivalries in Place for Bowl Games Includes 16 Teams Limits Additional Games Reduces the Need/Desire for Teams to Schedule “Non-Competitive” Games Impossible? Not really, here it is: All 6 BCS conferences will have two divisions (ACC, Big 12, and SEC already have this in place). Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 will have the option to add teams and split into 2 divisions. If Big East, Big 10, and/or Pac 10 do not want to split into divisions, there would be more “at large” teams. All conferences may add teams if they want up to a maximum of 10 teams per division. Schedule will consist of 12 regular season games. Teams may NOT play more than 3 non-conference games. Playoff will consist of 16 teams The 12 Division winners automatically qualify. There will be an additional 4 “at-large” bids determined by BCS ranking. First round of the playoffs (16 teams) will be the same as the current Conference championships (played the week after the regular season ends) plus playoffs between the 4 “at-large” teams. BCS ranking will determine the home team. Second round of the playoffs (8 teams) will be the following week. Home team determined the same as for the first round. Third round of the playoffs (4 teams) will be on New Year’s Day at two of the existing bowl games. Championship game will be the next week at an existing bowl game (like it is now). All teams that do not make the final 4 are eligible to play in any of the other bowl games (just like now). All bowl games can keep traditional rivalries except for the 2 bowls hosting the final 4.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2658

michgoblue

December 8th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

Of all of the proposals out there, I like the following: 1. We use the format as it currently exists, with elimination of the Championship Game. Autobids remain as they currently do, as to criteria and selection process or at large. 2. Winners of the Rose, Orange Suger and Little Caesar's Bowls (ok, I guess we could use Fiesta instead of the Pizza - either way, whatever) advance to a "semi-final", with winner of Rose playing winner of Orange and winner of Suger playing winner of Fiesta. The locations of these two games could rotate between these four locations. 3. Winners of the semi-final games advance and meet in an actual National Championship game, to be held in one of the four locations mentioned above. This would extend the season by 1 extra game for only four teams, and it would extend the season by 2 games for only 2 teams. If the 4 Bowls were played on New Years Day (as they should be), with the two playoff games being played 1 week later (can be 8 or 9 days, depending on what day new years falls), this would amount to the NC game being played approximately 1 week later than it currently is (this year it is on the 7th). This would also preserve the importance of the regular season, maintain the integrity and tradition of the bowls, not diminish the importance of winning the conference and would result in additional TV. Also, even in a year such as this, where there are 5-6 teams that each have a legitimate claim to play for the NC, all would have their chance. So simple, yet so perfect.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: 32205

UMaD

December 8th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^

is it hurts the existing bowls to much. Fans aren't going to travel to a bowl game when they'll be in even bigger bowls in the semi final and final. If you want an 8 team or bigger playoff you might as well do away with the big bowls.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 4960