Somewhere, Bob Lilly's chest is puft out.

TCU puts up 55 points in winning share of Big 12 | Dallas-Fort Worth Sports News - Sports New...

They have to be in the playoff IMO.

Baylor looks way better to me than they did earlier in the year. It's so close between them and TCU, I don't know how you call it. I know they beat TCU, but they also lost by two TDs to a lousy West Va team.

I kind of feel like Baylor at its best would be better because they have more pro-looking athletes. But TCU's D is better.

I just hope one of them gets in and then makes some noise.

Actually, I'd love K-State to win and eliminate this controversy.

Already it is obvious a four team "tournament" playoff is toweringly inadequate. Should be 16 teams, minimum.

16 is too many. You're adding 4 games to the college regular season.

8 team playoff is probably the most we're ever gonna get.

ThoughtExperiment said:

Baylor looks way better to me than they did earlier in the year. It's so close between them and TCU, I don't know how you call it. I know they beat TCU, but they also lost by two TDs to a lousy West Va team.

I kind of feel like Baylor at its best would be better because they have more pro-looking athletes. But TCU's D is better.

I just hope one of them gets in and then makes some noise.

Actually, I'd love K-State to win and eliminate this controversy.

Keep reading...

Maybe FSU and Ohio St lose and Baylor and TCU both get in.

peplaw06 said:

16 is too many. You're adding 4 games to the college regular season.

8 team playoff is probably the most we're ever gonna get.

Keep reading...

Div. 2 does 16 teams if I'm not too much mistaken. Doesn't hurt it at all.

D2 national championship game is Dec. 20. They get it all handled before Christmas and there's no doubt left who the legitimate national champion is.

D2 has 24 teams in the playoff out of 282 member institutions with football programs.

There are only 128 Div I FBS teams. And they already have up to 13 regular season games. D2 doesn't play that many. They're already into their playoffs.

peplaw06 said:

D2 has 24 teams in the playoff out of 282 member institutions with football programs.

Keep reading...

Pretty sure it's only 16. That's my count, on the brackets.

2012 bracket where my West Texas Buffaloes got to the semifinals:

2012 Division II Football Tournament | NCAA.com





EDIT: Yeah you're right it is 24 teams, eight have the first round bye.

That makes a better case for 16 D1 teams. Four is woefully inadequate.

At this point, I'm just glad it's not the bullshit 2 team BCS anymore. I do think they'll eventually get to 8, but it probably won't be till the 2030s. NCAA moves too slowly to get to 16 teams in our lifetimes.

I think they should set up eight 16-team conferences that all have conference championship games and then the champs get AQ bids to the 8 team playoff. It would be a de facto 16 team playoff without saying so.

peplaw06 said:

At this point, I'm just glad it's not the bullshit 2 team BCS anymore. I do think they'll eventually get to 8, but it probably won't be till the 2030s. NCAA moves too slowly to get to 16 teams in our lifetimes.

I think they should set up eight 16-team conferences that all have conference championship games and then the champs get AQ bids to the 8 team playoff. It would be a de facto 16 team playoff without saying so.

Keep reading...

In D2 the conferences don't matter. You get into the tournament based on your regional power rankings - this guarantees every region of the country gets at least one representative team in the tourney.

It's a true national championship.

It's not any more of a true national championship than the current D1 system. It's based on certain people's subjective opinions versus playing it out on the field.

If you divide the schools up into conferences where every team has an equal chance to win their conference and secure an AQ bid to the playoff, that's a true championship.

peplaw06 said:

It's not any more of a true national championship than the current D1 system. It's based on certain people's subjective opinions versus playing it out on the field.

Keep reading...

Umm, no. The power rankings aren't decided on opinion, it's based on record, strength of schedule, many other factors - a entire formula. It's much more objective.

The current D1 system still has all the politics and subjectivity of the old one.

We at least agree 4 teams isn't anywhere near cutting it, and that we'll never see 16 teams in our lifetimes.

The thing is, the NCAA already has a model for deciding a football national champion and it works very well, and there's never any case to be made for any team that didn't get into the tourney. And that's the D2 model.

Of course they won't adopt it, big box conference politics stops them from doing it.

When you look at how it is done, you see how it works. The top four teams from the four regions, get into the tourney. Period. Regardless of conference, regardless of prominence.

DII College Football Rankings - Regional Rankings | NCAA.com

See any undefeated teams there not in the top four of their region? See any two loss teams in the top four?

And with so many fewer D1 teams this becomes even more objective than it is in D2.

I didn't think it could happen but they both might get left out (Ohio State).

The playoffs should be 8 teams. period.

That way all of the big 5 conference champs could get in. It doesn't mean they all will but there's room for them. If the Big Ten champ is 9-4 then they would lose out to better SEC, Pac-12 teams, etc.

The conferences shouldn't matter. The four top teams from the four regions, should.

A conf. championship should be a nice trophy you put in your trophy case, but should guarantee you nothing else.

Doomsday said:

Umm, no. The power rankings aren't decided on opinion, it's based on record, strength of schedule, many other factors - a entire formula. It's much more objective.

Keep reading...

It's never objective if you don't have the teams you are ranking between play each other on the field. If 2 teams in the same region are undefeated, then you are going to a person/computers subjective views of the facts of the situation.

While I'm not sure if the regional rankings are done by humans or computers, I do know that if there is a method for ranking teams other than having them decide it on the field, then it's a subjective methodology.

The current D1 system still has all the politics and subjectivity of the old one.

We at least agree 4 teams isn't anywhere near cutting it, and that we'll never see 16 teams in our lifetimes.

Keep reading...

Agreed.

The thing is, the NCAA already has a model for deciding a football national champion and it works very well, and there's never any case to be made for any team that didn't get into the tourney. And that's the D2 model.

Of course they won't adopt it, big box conference politics stops them from doing it.

Keep reading...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the D2 model is just as subjective. You just get more teams in so it doesn't seem as bad. I remember when my school was D2, and missed out on the playoffs by one spot in the regional rankings and the team that did get in we did not play during the regular season. It feels just the same as the two teams getting left out today will feel. You have someone deciding which team is better based on something other than playing it out on the field. That's subjectivity by definition.

I think NCAA has at least taken steps towards a more objective model... I do think money is starting to speak more than politics with the NCAA. Maybe the process speeds up and we get that sooner rather than later. I doubt it, but I can hope.

peplaw06 said:

It's never objective if you don't have the teams you are ranking between play each other on the field. If 2 teams in the same region are undefeated, then you are going to a person/computers subjective views of the facts of the situation.

While I'm not sure if the regional rankings are done by humans or computers, I do know that if there is a method for ranking teams other than having them decide it on the field, then it's a subjective methodology.

Agreed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the D2 model is just as subjective. You just get more teams in so it doesn't seem as bad. I remember when my school was D2, and missed out on the playoffs by one spot in the regional rankings and the team that did get in we did not play during the regular season. It feels just the same as the two teams getting left out today will feel. You have someone deciding which team is better based on something other than playing it out on the field. That's subjectivity by definition.

I think NCAA has at least taken steps towards a more objective model... I do think money is starting to speak more than politics with the NCAA. Maybe the process speeds up and we get that sooner rather than later. I doubt it, but I can hope.

Keep reading...

Since we all know and agree it is impossible to have every team play every other, this is what playoffs are for.

You're telling me your team was undefeated and the four teams ranked ahead of it in the region were too? In this case they have tiebreakers. Common opponents, strength of schedule - for example if your team played even one lesser classification team - a NAIA one for example, that hurts you in the rankings.

The D2 system IS objective and far superior to what D1 is trying to do, mainly because it does not consider conference affiliation. D1 does, because that's the politics of it. It's also the reason most people resist having the far superior D2 model installed in D1.

Look at the deal today in D1 - there would be 16 teams in this upcoming playoff. Those who didn't make the playoffs would populate the bowl games. Everyone wins.

The current D1 system is senseless. Because it is conference politics driven.

Doomsday said:

Since we all know and agree it is impossible to have every team play every other, this is what playoffs are for.

Keep reading...

Playoffs are for determining the best team on the field... not for every team to play each other.

You're telling me your team was undefeated and the four teams ranked ahead of it in the region were too? In this case they have tiebreakers. Common opponents, strength of schedule - for example if your team played even one lesser classification team - a NAIA one for example, that hurts you in the rankings.

Keep reading...

No, my school wasn't undefeated. But neither was the team we lost out to in the rankings. The people doing the rankings just thought the other team was better based on things other than who won a game head to head. That's a subjective standard. If tiebreakers are common opponents, strength of schedule, etc. those are subjective ways of ranking teams.

The D2 system IS objective and far superior to what D1 is trying to do, mainly because it does not consider conference affiliation. D1 does, because that's the politics of it. It's also the reason most people resist having the far superior D2 model installed in D1.

Keep reading...

I don't think you understand the difference between an objective standard and a subjective standard. Objective information is based on observable facts. Subjective information is opinion-based. If you have people deciding which team of two is better based on anything other than watching them playing it out on the field, then it's subjective. You're arguing between D1 and D2 systems is just choosing which subjective standard you like best.

Look at the deal today in D1 - there would be 16 teams in this upcoming playoff. Those who didn't make the playoffs would populate the bowl games. Everyone wins.

Keep reading...

Team number 17 doesn't win. They missed out on the chance to win a championship by one spot based on a subjective ranking of the teams. Being in a meaningless bowl game isn't going to be a consolation.

The current D1 system is senseless. Because it is conference politics driven.

Keep reading...

It's better than what we had... but it still needs work.