[71Bear]

Absolutely disagree that UO should be selected ahead of OK.

1.  UO did not sell their allotment of tix to the a Fiesta Bowl last year.
2.  OK has a long, glorious history.  They will easily sell their allotment.
3.  UO played very poorly at the end of the season.
4.  OK played well in their last game, upsetting their rival on the road.
5.  UO's "sell-by" date is rapidly approaching.  They had their 15 minutes and did not take advantage.
6.  OK is a better team and attraction to TV viewers.

[71Bear]

Absolutely disagree that UO should be selected ahead of OK.

1.  UO did not sell their allotment of tix to the a Fiesta Bowl last year.
2.  OK has a long, glorious history.  They will easily sell their allotment.
3.  UO played very poorly at the end of the season.
4.  OK played well in their last game, upsetting their rival on the road.
5.  UO's "sell-by" date is rapidly approaching.  They had their 15 minutes and did not take advantage.
6.  OK is a better team and attraction to TV viewers.

[Spiny_Norman]

1/3 of the current makeup of the BCS is the Coaches Poll.  Their criteria seems to be 1 loss teams > 2 loss teams.  Just look at the final standings.  All of the 1 loss teams from power conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, ACC) are ranked above the 2 loss teams which are ranked above the 3 loss teams.

At least the writers gave Stanford some credit for their season results.  Any system that removes the Coaches Poll from the decision calculus is an improvement.

I admit that I am also at a loss to understand OF's indignation that the Sugar Bowl will apparently select Oklahoma over Oregon as an opponent for Alabama.  It's a business decision, not a football decision.  Larry Scott cannot do anything about geography.  Even the "large" Stanford contingent at the Orange Bowl was only about 8000 people, well short of the 17,500 tickets that the school was required to purchase (I think the Pac 12 conference bought the rest and ate the loss).

If the Fiesta Bowl had the 2nd choice instead of last choice to select at-large teams, we would almost certainly enjoy a Baylor vs. Oregon matchup in the Fiesta and the Sugar Bowl would be left with Alabama vs. UCF.  But that's not how the process works this year.

[Spiny_Norman]

1/3 of the current makeup of the BCS is the Coaches Poll.  Their criteria seems to be 1 loss teams > 2 loss teams.  Just look at the final standings.  All of the 1 loss teams from power conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, ACC) are ranked above the 2 loss teams which are ranked above the 3 loss teams.

At least the writers gave Stanford some credit for their season results.  Any system that removes the Coaches Poll from the decision calculus is an improvement.

I admit that I am also at a loss to understand OF's indignation that the Sugar Bowl will apparently select Oklahoma over Oregon as an opponent for Alabama.  It's a business decision, not a football decision.  Larry Scott cannot do anything about geography.  Even the "large" Stanford contingent at the Orange Bowl was only about 8000 people, well short of the 17,500 tickets that the school was required to purchase (I think the Pac 12 conference bought the rest and ate the loss).

If the Fiesta Bowl had the 2nd choice instead of last choice to select at-large teams, we would almost certainly enjoy a Baylor vs. Oregon matchup in the Fiesta and the Sugar Bowl would be left with Alabama vs. UCF.  But that's not how the process works this year.

[Gauss]

There aren't words to do this justice:

http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...v,23/w,16/

The placement of Stanford at #15 in that ballot is truly bizarre.

The ballot itself does not look crazy, and it's not like the writer irrationally thinks the Pac-12 is weak (as many in the south do): he ranks Oregon at #9, ASU #17, UCLA #18, and SC #23.

I'm typically fairly good at understanding how people think, but here I'm in a bit of a loss. It is possible that he rates Oregon's win over Tennessee very highly, or that he weighs bad losses much heavier than the average pollster (Arizona is 4-5 in the Pac Vs Utah's 2-7), but still, Stanford 6 spots behind Oregon is a bit extreme.

[Gauss]

There aren't words to do this justice:

http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...v,23/w,16/

The placement of Stanford at #15 in that ballot is truly bizarre.

The ballot itself does not look crazy, and it's not like the writer irrationally thinks the Pac-12 is weak (as many in the south do): he ranks Oregon at #9, ASU #17, UCLA #18, and SC #23.

I'm typically fairly good at understanding how people think, but here I'm in a bit of a loss. It is possible that he rates Oregon's win over Tennessee very highly, or that he weighs bad losses much heavier than the average pollster (Arizona is 4-5 in the Pac Vs Utah's 2-7), but still, Stanford 6 spots behind Oregon is a bit extreme.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9073.msg77262#msg77262 date=1386529444]
There aren't words to do this justice:

http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...v,23/w,16/

The placement of Stanford at #15 in that ballot is truly bizarre.

[/quote]

He confused Stanford for Samford.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9073.msg77262#msg77262 date=1386529444]
There aren't words to do this justice:

http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...v,23/w,16/

The placement of Stanford at #15 in that ballot is truly bizarre.

[/quote]

He confused Stanford for Samford.

[Kathy]

It seems that Stanford will end up #5 in tonight's final BCS rankings. There will always be a #5 team who thinks it deserves to be included.

We are a two-loss team and we're ranked No. 5. That's pretty damn good! The truth is, we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and USC, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

This year, we are going to the Rose Bowl for the second year in a row, and the team earned that spot by winning the Pac-12 championship ... again. I'm thrilled, and I really don't care which teams those other bowls take.

[Kathy]

It seems that Stanford will end up #5 in tonight's final BCS rankings. There will always be a #5 team who thinks it deserves to be included.

We are a two-loss team and we're ranked No. 5. That's pretty damn good! The truth is, we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and USC, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

This year, we are going to the Rose Bowl for the second year in a row, and the team earned that spot by winning the Pac-12 championship ... again. I'm thrilled, and I really don't care which teams those other bowls take.

[OutsiderFan]

..we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and University of Spoiled Children, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

This would be a perfectly reasonable position to take if the other teams played nine conference games.  However, not only do they only play eight, the Pac-12 has better teams than the B1G and ACC, and based on Sagarin, the SEC as well.

If I have to lift 100 pounds once to win a prize and you have to lift 200 pounds twice to win it, don't I have an unfair advantage?  It's not like one team gets four outs in baseball and another three.  This is what this "just beat Utah and USC" mentality is akin to accepting.  Like we didn't score enough with our three outs, so we can't complain about the team that beat us that was given four outs.

The fact is college football at the FBS level is tough.  Teams can only get "emotionally up" for about three games per season.  Stanford had to play too many really good teams to be able to match the intensity of every team on the schedule.  Why do you think Alabama schedules Chatanooga at home after playing LSU?  Stanford beats #3 Oregon and its off TO the L.A. Coliseum for homecoming in front of 93,000 to play one of the most talented teams in the country, arguably more talented than Oregon, at least the starters.

Stop it with the "We don't deserve it" mentality.  Stanford played and beat more good teams than anyone else in the country.  They won every big game they played (against a ranked opponent).  Did Ohio State?  Did Alabama? Did Auburn? Did Michigan State? No.  Only Florida State did, and they too played a much less rigorous schedule than Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

..we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and University of Spoiled Children, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

This would be a perfectly reasonable position to take if the other teams played nine conference games.  However, not only do they only play eight, the Pac-12 has better teams than the B1G and ACC, and based on Sagarin, the SEC as well.

If I have to lift 100 pounds once to win a prize and you have to lift 200 pounds twice to win it, don't I have an unfair advantage?  It's not like one team gets four outs in baseball and another three.  This is what this "just beat Utah and USC" mentality is akin to accepting.  Like we didn't score enough with our three outs, so we can't complain about the team that beat us that was given four outs.

The fact is college football at the FBS level is tough.  Teams can only get "emotionally up" for about three games per season.  Stanford had to play too many really good teams to be able to match the intensity of every team on the schedule.  Why do you think Alabama schedules Chatanooga at home after playing LSU?  Stanford beats #3 Oregon and its off TO the L.A. Coliseum for homecoming in front of 93,000 to play one of the most talented teams in the country, arguably more talented than Oregon, at least the starters.

Stop it with the "We don't deserve it" mentality.  Stanford played and beat more good teams than anyone else in the country.  They won every big game they played (against a ranked opponent).  Did Ohio State?  Did Alabama? Did Auburn? Did Michigan State? No.  Only Florida State did, and they too played a much less rigorous schedule than Stanford.

[washingtonismoney]

The truth is, we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and University of Spoiled Children, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

Why don't we deserve a playoff shot in a hypothetical four-team playoff? Who, of the top contenders, has played a schedule even close to ours? My guess is that FSU, bama, and Auburn would be lock picks for the playoff. As to the fourth, it's a choice with (something like): OSU, MSU, Baylor.

All those teams have one loss but then all of them played much easier schedules. Stanford played 7 home/6 road. MSU 7 home/5 road/1 neutral. OSU 7 home/5 road/1 neutral. Baylor 8 home/4 road.

Strength of schedule.

Sagarin (up-to-date): Stanford (4); MSU (56); OSU (57); Baylor (60)
Football Outsiders (as of last week): Stanford (2); MSU (79); Baylor (66); OSU (95)
ESPN: Stanford (4); OSU (59); MSU (48); Baylor (67)

The computers agree -- Stanford hasn't just played a tougher schedule, it's played a tougher schedule by a lot. I personally think playing a tougher schedule -- by a brobdingnagian degree -- outweighs an extra loss. Others might disagree, but it's not inarguable.

[washingtonismoney]

The truth is, we DON'T deserve a playoff shot at the NCG this year. Next year, who knows? Don't lose to Utah and University of Spoiled Children, or anyone else, and we'll be in that Top 4 ranking.

Why don't we deserve a playoff shot in a hypothetical four-team playoff? Who, of the top contenders, has played a schedule even close to ours? My guess is that FSU, bama, and Auburn would be lock picks for the playoff. As to the fourth, it's a choice with (something like): OSU, MSU, Baylor.

All those teams have one loss but then all of them played much easier schedules. Stanford played 7 home/6 road. MSU 7 home/5 road/1 neutral. OSU 7 home/5 road/1 neutral. Baylor 8 home/4 road.

Strength of schedule.

Sagarin (up-to-date): Stanford (4); MSU (56); OSU (57); Baylor (60)
Football Outsiders (as of last week): Stanford (2); MSU (79); Baylor (66); OSU (95)
ESPN: Stanford (4); OSU (59); MSU (48); Baylor (67)

The computers agree -- Stanford hasn't just played a tougher schedule, it's played a tougher schedule by a lot. I personally think playing a tougher schedule -- by a brobdingnagian degree -- outweighs an extra loss. Others might disagree, but it's not inarguable.

[stupac2]

Only Florida State did, and they too played a much less rigorous schedule than Stanford.

Florida State didn't play ANY good teams. No, Clemson is not a good team.

[stupac2]

Only Florida State did, and they too played a much less rigorous schedule than Stanford.

Florida State didn't play ANY good teams. No, Clemson is not a good team.

[Nan3cy]

While we stew about not enough respect, here's a nice article to the contrary.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...and-barrel

[Nan3cy]

While we stew about not enough respect, here's a nice article to the contrary.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...and-barrel

[Farm93]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the playoffs were this year.  In many ways I think it would be good for the committee to get together this week and then announce what teams they would select this year.  I say this because I would assume that FSU and Auburn would be in their 4, so the announcement would not create controversy and could help lift some of the uncertainty around their process.

The options for the other two teams would appear to be
Michigan State - 1 loss but in a weak conference
Baylor - 1 loss but terrible OOC
Alabama - 1 loss, but not conference champ or even division champ
Stanford - Toughest schedule, conference champ, but 2 losses.
For kicks one could claim UCF is an option too - 1 loss, beyond terrible conference

My guess is that the Michigan State and Baylor would be selected by virtue of their 1-loss conference champ claim.  Then it would be easy to explain away Alabama and Stanford.  Alabama did not win the division of their conference.  Stanford had two losses.  This way, the committee could then tell everyone that winning the conference was important.  Bama fans could complain, but the lack of an SEC title would be hard to overlook.  Stanford fans could complain but 2 road losses to unranked teams would likely be 1 too many.

FWIW - If Pac-12 Stanford had only 1 loss, then clearly Stanford would qualify for the playoffs next season.
FWIW2 - If Pac-12 Stanford had only 1 loss, then I suspect that the BCS system people and voters would make sure that Auburn jumped over Stanford this year.

[Farm93]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the playoffs were this year.  In many ways I think it would be good for the committee to get together this week and then announce what teams they would select this year.  I say this because I would assume that FSU and Auburn would be in their 4, so the announcement would not create controversy and could help lift some of the uncertainty around their process.

The options for the other two teams would appear to be
Michigan State - 1 loss but in a weak conference
Baylor - 1 loss but terrible OOC
Alabama - 1 loss, but not conference champ or even division champ
Stanford - Toughest schedule, conference champ, but 2 losses.
For kicks one could claim UCF is an option too - 1 loss, beyond terrible conference

My guess is that the Michigan State and Baylor would be selected by virtue of their 1-loss conference champ claim.  Then it would be easy to explain away Alabama and Stanford.  Alabama did not win the division of their conference.  Stanford had two losses.  This way, the committee could then tell everyone that winning the conference was important.  Bama fans could complain, but the lack of an SEC title would be hard to overlook.  Stanford fans could complain but 2 road losses to unranked teams would likely be 1 too many.

FWIW - If Pac-12 Stanford had only 1 loss, then clearly Stanford would qualify for the playoffs next season.
FWIW2 - If Pac-12 Stanford had only 1 loss, then I suspect that the BCS system people and voters would make sure that Auburn jumped over Stanford this year.

[ahuang06]

I haven't watched these teams a ton - but Clemson has looked like a good team to me. Michigan State, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Oklahoma all looked like very good teams. Alabama and FSU have looked like elite teams.  Stanford has been a bit of very good and a bit of elite.

Yes, there are 8-team schedules and media biases - but there are also number of losses - there are just a lot of factors! I don't think it's this UTTER LACK OF RESPECT for Stanford or the Pac-12 (except for that LSU beat writer's ballot - that's just offensive), and I wish we'd give other teams a little more due respect in this thread.

[ahuang06]

I haven't watched these teams a ton - but Clemson has looked like a good team to me. Michigan State, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Oklahoma all looked like very good teams. Alabama and FSU have looked like elite teams.  Stanford has been a bit of very good and a bit of elite.

Yes, there are 8-team schedules and media biases - but there are also number of losses - there are just a lot of factors! I don't think it's this UTTER LACK OF RESPECT for Stanford or the Pac-12 (except for that LSU beat writer's ballot - that's just offensive), and I wish we'd give other teams a little more due respect in this thread.

[stupac2]

I haven't watched these teams a ton - but Clemson has looked like a good team to me. Michigan State, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Oklahoma all looked like very good teams. Alabama and FSU have looked like elite teams.  Stanford has been a bit of very good and a bit of elite.

Yes, there are 8-team schedules and media biases - but there are also number of losses - there are just a lot of factors! I don't think it's this UTTER LACK OF RESPECT for Stanford or the Pac-12 (except for that LSU beat writer's ballot - that's just offensive), and I wish we'd give other teams a little more due respect in this thread.

For me it's that a lot of these teams beat up on shitty teams, then collapse into a ball of nothingness once they play anyone with a pulse. For instance, look at Clemson. The only team they've beaten of any consequence whatsoever is Georgia, and I'm not actually convinced that Georgia would've been good without all the injuries. Baylor is the same thing, except that the Big 12 is resoundingly mediocre this year, beating up on all those crappy teams but getting shut down by the only team with a good defense that they've played (OKST is #7 according to F+, I can't see anyone else in the Big 12 in the top 25). When you play a good team and get slaughtered, that's a lot more telling to me than playing an okay/bad team close and losing, while ALSO beating good teams.

[stupac2]

I haven't watched these teams a ton - but Clemson has looked like a good team to me. Michigan State, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Oklahoma all looked like very good teams. Alabama and FSU have looked like elite teams.  Stanford has been a bit of very good and a bit of elite.

Yes, there are 8-team schedules and media biases - but there are also number of losses - there are just a lot of factors! I don't think it's this UTTER LACK OF RESPECT for Stanford or the Pac-12 (except for that LSU beat writer's ballot - that's just offensive), and I wish we'd give other teams a little more due respect in this thread.

For me it's that a lot of these teams beat up on shitty teams, then collapse into a ball of nothingness once they play anyone with a pulse. For instance, look at Clemson. The only team they've beaten of any consequence whatsoever is Georgia, and I'm not actually convinced that Georgia would've been good without all the injuries. Baylor is the same thing, except that the Big 12 is resoundingly mediocre this year, beating up on all those crappy teams but getting shut down by the only team with a good defense that they've played (OKST is #7 according to F+, I can't see anyone else in the Big 12 in the top 25). When you play a good team and get slaughtered, that's a lot more telling to me than playing an okay/bad team close and losing, while ALSO beating good teams.

[Bruce Wang]

I'm with you all on the huffing and puffing about how tough schedule our has been.  I do want to point something out.  A 9 conference opponent schedule isn't a good argument when one of those opponents is Kal.

[Bruce Wang]

I'm with you all on the huffing and puffing about how tough schedule our has been.  I do want to point something out.  A 9 conference opponent schedule isn't a good argument when one of those opponents is Kal.

[stupac2]

I'm with you all on the huffing and puffing about how tough schedule our has been.  I do want to point something out.  A 9 conference opponent schedule isn't a good argument when one of those opponents is Kal.

Yeah, but the SEC has Arkansas, the Big 12 has Kansas, the B1G has Illinois, and the ACC has NC State. There are shitty teams all over the place, and I don't think that Cal is really that much worse than any of those other teams.

[stupac2]

I'm with you all on the huffing and puffing about how tough schedule our has been.  I do want to point something out.  A 9 conference opponent schedule isn't a good argument when one of those opponents is Kal.

Yeah, but the SEC has Arkansas, the Big 12 has Kansas, the B1G has Illinois, and the ACC has NC State. There are shitty teams all over the place, and I don't think that Cal is really that much worse than any of those other teams.

[g1313]

I subscribe to the notion that any efforts to compare conferences and teams is inherently flawed and likely to be subject to bias of the observer. For every compelling argument that the Pac-12 is stronger than the SEC/B1G/B12, there is an equally compelling argument in the other direction. The sample size of head-to-head games is not big enough, and the transitive property (X beat Y beat Z so X should beat Z) does not seem to hold in football. Statistics like points per game, points allowed, etc, are very strongly affected by the opponents you play and your playstyle, so those are also not comparable across conferences.

If you look at the past two years of Stanford BCS opponents, would you say they didn't deserve to be there? OK State from the Big 12 beat us, and Wisconsin played us close despite going 4-4 in the B1G.

My hope for the playoff system is that they bias heavily towards "if you win your conference, you are in". Will there be some unfairness due to one fewer SEC conference game? Sure, but we don't have any control over that. This works similarly to the NFL, where you can get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.

[g1313]

I subscribe to the notion that any efforts to compare conferences and teams is inherently flawed and likely to be subject to bias of the observer. For every compelling argument that the Pac-12 is stronger than the SEC/B1G/B12, there is an equally compelling argument in the other direction. The sample size of head-to-head games is not big enough, and the transitive property (X beat Y beat Z so X should beat Z) does not seem to hold in football. Statistics like points per game, points allowed, etc, are very strongly affected by the opponents you play and your playstyle, so those are also not comparable across conferences.

If you look at the past two years of Stanford BCS opponents, would you say they didn't deserve to be there? OK State from the Big 12 beat us, and Wisconsin played us close despite going 4-4 in the B1G.

My hope for the playoff system is that they bias heavily towards "if you win your conference, you are in". Will there be some unfairness due to one fewer SEC conference game? Sure, but we don't have any control over that. This works similarly to the NFL, where you can get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.

[Extra Point]

Yeah, but the SEC has Arkansas, the Big 12 has Kansas, the B1G has Illinois, and the ACC has NC State. There are shitty teams all over the place, and I don't think that Low APR U is really that much worse than any of those other teams.

In the Pac-12, each team doesn't play two conference teams. In the SEC, each team doesn't play five conference teams. For an average team in the SEC, this means avoiding two and a half superior teams. For the top teams in the SEC, this means replacing at least two teams with the potential to beat you with inferior teams. When you combine this with the practice of playing out of conference cupcakes, you have the recipe for the strongest conference in the country.

[Extra Point]

Yeah, but the SEC has Arkansas, the Big 12 has Kansas, the B1G has Illinois, and the ACC has NC State. There are shitty teams all over the place, and I don't think that Low APR U is really that much worse than any of those other teams.

In the Pac-12, each team doesn't play two conference teams. In the SEC, each team doesn't play five conference teams. For an average team in the SEC, this means avoiding two and a half superior teams. For the top teams in the SEC, this means replacing at least two teams with the potential to beat you with inferior teams. When you combine this with the practice of playing out of conference cupcakes, you have the recipe for the strongest conference in the country.

[OutsiderFan]

...[in the] the NFL... you get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.

Only college football has never acted this way.  The problem is four teams is not enough for a playoff to be practical because there are five major conferences: Pac-12, Big12, B1G, ACC, and SEC (sorry ACC, you aren't major).  I'd be in favor of ranking the conferences against each other and choosing the champions of the Top 4 conferences, but you've heard plenty of chirping from the SEC that "we deserve two teams" since the playoff talk started, and then you have your issue with comparing conferences against each other.

The thing the committee has the opportunity to do is establish some order in the selection process.  One thing they can (and I expect will do), is follow the NCAA's championship field selection philosophy which is to reward the teams that play the toughest schedules so a Stanford with two losses against the toughest schedule is valued more than Ohio State's one loss against a significantly less tough one.  If this is the case, there will be an incentive for the other conferences to move to nine conference games and tougher OOC games.  This would really be great for college football, and establish some order that can be built on for when the playoffs expand, because in the never ending quest for more revenues, there will be an economic imperative to expand.

[OutsiderFan]

...[in the] the NFL... you get in by winning your division, regardless of whether you have suffered horrible losses to other teams that will not be making it.

Only college football has never acted this way.  The problem is four teams is not enough for a playoff to be practical because there are five major conferences: Pac-12, Big12, B1G, ACC, and SEC (sorry ACC, you aren't major).  I'd be in favor of ranking the conferences against each other and choosing the champions of the Top 4 conferences, but you've heard plenty of chirping from the SEC that "we deserve two teams" since the playoff talk started, and then you have your issue with comparing conferences against each other.

The thing the committee has the opportunity to do is establish some order in the selection process.  One thing they can (and I expect will do), is follow the NCAA's championship field selection philosophy which is to reward the teams that play the toughest schedules so a Stanford with two losses against the toughest schedule is valued more than Ohio State's one loss against a significantly less tough one.  If this is the case, there will be an incentive for the other conferences to move to nine conference games and tougher OOC games.  This would really be great for college football, and establish some order that can be built on for when the playoffs expand, because in the never ending quest for more revenues, there will be an economic imperative to expand.

[stupac2]

One thing they can (and I expect will do), is follow the NCAA's championship field selection philosophy which is to reward the teams that play the toughest schedules so a Stanford with two losses against the toughest schedule is valued more than Ohio State's one loss against a significantly less tough one.

I'm hopeful about this too.

[stupac2]

One thing they can (and I expect will do), is follow the NCAA's championship field selection philosophy which is to reward the teams that play the toughest schedules so a Stanford with two losses against the toughest schedule is valued more than Ohio State's one loss against a significantly less tough one.

I'm hopeful about this too.

[Farm93]

The baby steps are already throughout the NCAA.

Step #1 - Go to a Final 6 type format, like Men's Water Polo.  The two best seeds get to avoid that round.  This way you can take the current BCS AQ's conference winners if they are in the top 10 (no more than 2 losses or whatever).  If there are openings because of too many losses (think 1999 Stanford or 2013 Wisconsin) the committee can pick other teams but they must play in the play-in 3v6 or 4v5 round.

Step #2 - The next move would be to go to Elite 8 type format.  Major conference winners (again with a possible screen for too many loses - would not want last year's Wisconsin team, for example) and a few at-large.  Once you get to 7vs8vs9vs10 I think all of those fans should know that the team either is very lucky to be #8 or know too many mistakes were made if they are 9+.

[Farm93]

The baby steps are already throughout the NCAA.

Step #1 - Go to a Final 6 type format, like Men's Water Polo.  The two best seeds get to avoid that round.  This way you can take the current BCS AQ's conference winners if they are in the top 10 (no more than 2 losses or whatever).  If there are openings because of too many losses (think 1999 Stanford or 2013 Wisconsin) the committee can pick other teams but they must play in the play-in 3v6 or 4v5 round.

Step #2 - The next move would be to go to Elite 8 type format.  Major conference winners (again with a possible screen for too many loses - would not want last year's Wisconsin team, for example) and a few at-large.  Once you get to 7vs8vs9vs10 I think all of those fans should know that the team either is very lucky to be #8 or know too many mistakes were made if they are 9+.

[stupac2]

The baby steps are already throughout the NCAA.

Step #1 - Go to a Final 6 type format, like Men's Water Polo.  The two best seeds get to avoid that round.  This way you can take the current BCS AQ's conference winners if they are in the top 10 (no more than 2 losses or whatever).  If there are openings because of too many losses (think 1999 Stanford or 2013 Wisconsin) the committee can pick other teams but they must play in the play-in 3v6 or 4v5 round.

Step #2 - The next move would be to go to Elite 8 type format.  Major conference winners (again with a possible screen for too many loses - would not want last year's Wisconsin team, for example) and a few at-large.  Once you get to 7vs8vs9vs10 I think all of those fans should know that the team either is very lucky to be #8 or know too many mistakes were made if they are 9+.

I doubt CFB ever has a 6-team playoff. I think the next step is either 8 or 12.

[stupac2]

The baby steps are already throughout the NCAA.

Step #1 - Go to a Final 6 type format, like Men's Water Polo.  The two best seeds get to avoid that round.  This way you can take the current BCS AQ's conference winners if they are in the top 10 (no more than 2 losses or whatever).  If there are openings because of too many losses (think 1999 Stanford or 2013 Wisconsin) the committee can pick other teams but they must play in the play-in 3v6 or 4v5 round.

Step #2 - The next move would be to go to Elite 8 type format.  Major conference winners (again with a possible screen for too many loses - would not want last year's Wisconsin team, for example) and a few at-large.  Once you get to 7vs8vs9vs10 I think all of those fans should know that the team either is very lucky to be #8 or know too many mistakes were made if they are 9+.

I doubt CFB ever has a 6-team playoff. I think the next step is either 8 or 12.