Recent Comments

But you cannot tell me that an 8 team playoff would water anything down since you still have to win your conference.

Absolutely you can. the problem with anything above 4 is that you wouldn't be able to limit to just conference champions. The argument that a 1 loss Bama is still better than most every team in the country is extremely valid. And if you truly want to see who the best team in the nation is you can't exclude them from a tournament so large just because they lost their conference championship game. Saban, Meyer and Slive already said this when the idea of only conference champions in the plus one or 4 team play off systems were being discussed.

With only 4 top teams you take only the best ranked. Here you could argue against Saban and SEC that only conference Champions can make it. 6 team tourney maybe you can do it as well, but I doubt it.

Bruinsnation.com is their SBnation blog, there's usually quite a bit of content on there. Not as much in depth analysis as french's writeups but still good. That's the one I frequent. As someone who attended both schools and follows both teams, this is pretty much my worst sports-related nightmare.

Are you sure that intensity isn't because there are only 12 games in the regular season for a team and in basketball there are 30+ in a basketball season and all they're playing for is seeding? That's why you give a huge advantage to the conference champs. That way you aren't playing for seeding, you're playing for the top 2 spots in the conference of 12-14 teams where conference losses could be devastating in a close race.

No one is advocating a 32 team CFB playoff. Most want a 8, 12, or 16 team one. I get the 16 team playoff probably could water things down since you will have 2 and 3 loss teams in there. But you cannot tell me that an 8 team playoff would water anything down since you still have to win your conference.

But you see, cancelling bowl games would then cripple teams and leagues who need the payout from the smaller leagues. It would also cripple the cities where the games are hosted that depend on that influx of money yearly. If teams were only supposed to play in warm areas, there wouldn't be a football team in Blacksburg.

ah yes, this is correct.

you see, you just solved your question though. The extra practice time and jump on next season is in itself a great reward. So you play Idaho in freezing temp but it's still worth it dude.

I prefer college football to basketball. I realize March Madness is a lot of fun, but honestly, that's really the only time I watch college basketball. I watch college football every weekend from September to New Years, and part of the reason is because of the prolonged intensity of it.

3rd place and above 50% on the year?

I'm impressed with myself.

Thanks for doing this every week, BCO!

Yep, this is how I did the non-stop trip as well. Down to Vegas and then 40. then all the way through to end of Tenn and up to Blacksburg. Best part of the drive going east Arkansas because its night when I reach there and that means its Waffle House time. Going west I would say dropping into New Mexico east of Albuquerque is fantastic. Beautiful countryside there. West of 'Querque though is fairly boring. I always stopped at both sides of the state. Tucumcari for gas and Mexican food, and then Gallup for dinner at a truck stop diner I forget the name of. Great road trip food in both places when you do the non-stop trip.

yeah I've gone all the way from Reno to Salt Lake through phucking Nebraska, with side trip to Mt Rushmore, through Iowa up to Chicago and then around the lakes up to Niagara Falls, then to NYC and back down to VT. Loved every minute except for Nebraska.

I don't think they need to be the 4 best conference champions either. If someone like Boise St was able to schedule a very strong season and beat ranked teams, go undefeated then they have a shot at being top 4. It's a long shot yes, but that's why it's called a Cinderella story. There will always be haves and have-nots. VT is somewhere in the middle of that but could magically make a run like in '99 and get to the final game.

I think you're misreading what I mean by "four best conference champions." If Boise State goes undefeated and wins the Mountain West Conference, I'm pretty certain the poll voters and playoff committee would consider them one of the top four conference champions. The only way they wouldn't make it is if the ACC, SEC, Big XII and Pac-12 (or Big Ten) champions were also ALL undefeated. In a 4 team bracket, I believe that any time there are fewer than 5 undefeated teams, then they will ALL be conference champions and they will ALL be in the playoffs. I really like the 4 team bracket... as long as it only includes conference champions. With over 120 teams playing at this level, then it is imperative that conference titles be used to pare down the teams under consideration for those four playoff spots.

Let's use examples close to home.

VT vs. FSU in the first year of the ACCCG. Records and ranking wise, VT was the better team, but FSU won the championship game, and therefore was the champion.

There was one year where VT lost to GT, and therefore missed the ACCCG, but was still considered to be better than both teams in the CG. I think it might have been 2006.

And then this year, if Duke or any team from the Coastal could have pulled off the upset against FSU, they would be the champion...but we all know that if you rank all 14 ACC teams from top to bottom, FSU and Clemson are both above any Coastal team.