College Football Playoff

R

raw1

Four-Star Recruit
Since I am relatively new to this board and no longer live in the great state of Nebraska, I am wondering what my home state thinks about a Div I playoff. Listening to Colin Cowherd at this moment discuss it that got me thinking about it.

In my opinion, this year is the best example of why the NCAA should have it. There are many great teams not in the normal BCS club, like South Florida that have emerged this year and while some think it is an anomoly, any intelligent fan knows there are always going to be teams like Cincinnatti or South Florida that get themselves into the mix.

There are two categories: the one I just mentioned, and the other...a team like Michigan, who loses bad early and turns themselves around. Nebraska have had lots of those years under Tom Osborne where they lost early and battled their way back to the top five by the end of the year. It seems that the NCAA would want to find a way to reward student athletes who faced unexpected failure early and were able to turn themselves around. After all isn't that what college athletics is all about...it's very purpose?

I don't have an answer to the bowl question. Lots of money there and obviously that talks. The other argument against a playoff is the extremely high fan interest in college football right now too. I do have an answer for that. The NCAA did very little to build that fan interest. Schools themselves have done that with the quality of the education they offer, the alumni support they enjoy, and the reputation the schools build with facilities and success. So, in a way, the NCAA arguing that the game is more popular than ever, is that organization taking credit for something they did not create.

What is the opinion of the Husker Nation?

 
I like a playoff system..I think the bowl games could be for the teams who make it to the semi/quarter finals who get knocked out of the brackets. Lets say USF plays Ohio State on one side of the semifinals and KU and Hawaii play eachother on the other side. If USF and Hawaii lose they can play each other in the Fiesta Bowl. Or the actual semifinals can be the bowl games?

 
Here's a question for you then (to play devil's advocate): What doesn't work right now? Is it the polls or the BCS? We never really get a true National Champ every year because so often teams and fans argue with who is better. If we move to a playoff system, how many teams go? How do we choose who goes? You can't use the BCS to choose teams cause you're arguing that that system doesn't work. IMO, with the number of teams in CFB and the fact that you can't possibly play everyone, there is never going to be a "good" way of determining a "true" national champion.

 
Overland Park Husker said:
Here's a question for you then (to play devil's advocate): What doesn't work right now? Is it the polls or the BCS? We never really get a true National Champ every year because so often teams and fans argue with who is better. If we move to a playoff system, how many teams go? How do we choose who goes? You can't use the BCS to choose teams cause you're arguing that that system doesn't work. IMO, with the number of teams in CFB and the fact that you can't possibly play everyone, there is never going to be a "good" way of determining a "true" national champion.
Click to expand...
Except that Div I is the only division in college football that doesn't have a playoff. The rest seem to be able to answer the questions and play it out.

I am not a big fan of the BCS because of the computer aspect. It is too easy to build bias into the rankings. I want to figure it out on the field. Baseball does it, basketball does it, volleyball, swimming, softball, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling all do it.

Parody is here to stay and the only fair, decisive, and unbiased way to figure it out is between the white lines.

 
Overland Park Husker said:
Here's a question for you then (to play devil's advocate): What doesn't work right now? Is it the polls or the BCS? We never really get a true National Champ every year because so often teams and fans argue with who is better. If we move to a playoff system, how many teams go? How do we choose who goes? You can't use the BCS to choose teams cause you're arguing that that system doesn't work. IMO, with the number of teams in CFB and the fact that you can't possibly play everyone, there is never going to be a "good" way of determining a "true" national champion.
Click to expand...
Okay, I hope that by saying that there is never going to be a "good" way or a "true" champion you are *only* taking the devil's advocate position and not what you really think. The BCS and voting is absurd because there are objective ways to tell who is better (win/loss) without resorting to the subjective guesswork of voters or the convoluted computer system. Conference champs get in. There should also be some wild cards available to those who are in particularly tough conferences but who did not win (just think of the pre-BCS days when OU and NU were #1 and #2-- only one could have won the conference so they wouldn't get to rematch in an NC under the current BCS system). So the wildcard system *would* depend on human intervention to determine which conference was the most difficult that season. It wouldn't be 100% fair or good, but bringing in opinions to determine 4 teams (or however many) to send to the play offs is far better than having those people determine which 2 teams get to play for the NC and the 117 teams that wouldn't get a shot at it.

So, no. No system is going to be perfect, but a playoff system is going to be more better and a more accurate determinant of who is the best team than the judgments of a few people and a computer (read: "nerds"). It would also get rid of the importance of those ridiculous pre-season rankings and how they screw with subsequent rankings, also, it would help to deconstruct some myths of "The Powerhouse" teams that factor into rankings more than we would like to think. No pre-season rankings, no voted rankings, nothing. Just win your conference and be sure to whup up on non-conference games to make your conference look tougher to get a wild card for one of your conference-mates. There would still be good reason to try (because I think one of the fears is that you could sit back and lose a game or two and shrug it off when that's wouldn't be the case. Even if you feel that you're not going to win the conference, you'd still try to make the conference look strong in hopes of getting a firm 2nd place position that would get you into the playoffs).

 
Overland Park Husker said:
Here's a question for you then (to play devil's advocate): What doesn't work right now? Is it the polls or the BCS? We never really get a true National Champ every year because so often teams and fans argue with who is better. If we move to a playoff system, how many teams go? How do we choose who goes? You can't use the BCS to choose teams cause you're arguing that that system doesn't work. IMO, with the number of teams in CFB and the fact that you can't possibly play everyone, there is never going to be a "good" way of determining a "true" national champion.
Click to expand...
How does Division II do it? They choose a true champion every year. And this year, it will be UNO, GO MAVS!

 
I don't want a college football playoff.

Every game counts in college football, just ask Michigan! I'm afraid a playoff would make more teams schedule more cupcakes, which would make the regular season less exciting. Plus, one of the great things about college football is the emotion and passion of the fans. Ten years later people can still debate whether Michigan would have beat Nebraska. No one does that with NFL teams. Lose a couple games, get to the Super Bowl, play a boring game, hold up a trophy. The next day no one cares!

 
np_husker said:
I don't want a college football playoff.

Every game counts in college football, just ask Michigan! I'm afraid a playoff would make more teams schedule more cupcakes, which would make the regular season less exciting. Plus, one of the great things about college football is the emotion and passion of the fans. Ten years later people can still debate whether Michigan would have beat Nebraska. No one does that with NFL teams. Lose a couple games, get to the Super Bowl, play a boring game, hold up a trophy. The next day no one cares!
Click to expand...
Maybe they could do away with D1 scheduling lower tier schools (D1-AA, DII)during the regular season. There would still be the cupcakes, just not as many.

 
Force every Div I team into a conference so we end up with something like 8 super conferences of 14-16 teams. Each super conference has two divisions (East/West, North/South, Blue/Green, I don't care). The winners of each division face off -- that is the start of your playoffs...16 teams...all decided on the field...no polls, no BCS.

The other teams that don't win divisions can still go bowling...

 
I feel strongly about the BCS system. Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system for choosing a government, but it's the best one mankind has been able to come up with. I think the BCS is in the same boat. Here's why it's the best we've got:

1. Objectivity: Someone argued earlier that they don't like the BCS because it takes objectivity out and that wins/losses would be a better determinant. That is simply nonsensical, the computers add a degree of objectivity by measuring strength of opponents that does not exist in simply looking at a win-loss record. If you simply look at a win-loss record, does that mean a one loss team in the WAC deserves as high a seeding as an SEC team that only lost the conference championship game? Of course not.

2. Importance of playing a complete season: I like the premium placed on every regular season game, which actually makes the regular season feel like a playoff. I think even detractors of the BCS would agree that this is one point in favor of the current system (even if they believe the negatives outweigh it).

3. (and most importantly) The best team in the country usually wins the national championship: This can not be said of a championship like NCAA basketball, where the best team in March becomes the champion. People argue they want a basketball-style tourney because March Madness is sooo exciting. There's a reason March Madness is so exciting: Some team that isn't all that great can get hot for one game from the 3-point line and knock off the best team in the country. I guess that is exciting, but it's a poor way to figure out who deserves a championship.

The bottom line is that there never will be a perfect system for determining a national champion. If we had an 8 team tourney, there would be every bit as much controversy as there is now. If every BCS conference winner got in, we would still be having debates about who should fill the last two spots, the BCS conference runners up (especially if they play a conference championship), non-BCS conference winners, Hawaii, Boise St.? Same argument, different teams.

I trust this system to get it right 90% of the time, which is more than I would trust any tourney where it's one and done.

 
Personally i am kinda torn between the a playoff system and the bowl system, as a fan i would love to see the playoff system because there would be nothing more exciting that Januay Madness. Take the craziness and excitement of March Madness and apply it to the better college sport, football, and i mean jsut WOW gives me chills, can you imagine the debate of filling out those brackets. However i can see why so many money makers like the BCS.

Just think of how many people are benefitted from those bowls, the teams in the bowl games profit, the coaches of those team usually profit, the conferences profit, the sponors profit, i mean jsut think how much money these bowl game brings in for the communitty that the games takes place in. The hype these things like crazy. They have national commercials for the schools, town sponors on during the entire game, they have parade's, etc. So these Bowl games do a lot of things for a lot of people. If this isnt true someone correct me but i dont think college basketball teams really gain a direct profit from being in the Elite 8 or whatever.

Having said that i still think we need a playoff system of some sort, but i dont think we can follow the DII system or the bball system, becasue then college football would start looking like the NFL and the NBA in that teams would just be like well lets win enough games to make it to the playoffs and then we will see what happens. I enjoy the fact that every game matters, so i think an 8 tean playoff would be the max.

I think teams would not be enough cause that #5 team could have a very legit argument every year that they should be in the tourny and 16 teams is too many cause they you would see the Florida's and USC's jsut kinda do enough to get by and make it to the playoff, it would look a lot like the NBA.

So with those 8 teams you will have 7 games there and i think you seperate those seven games into 4 or 5 different types of bowl series of games. the first round will have 4 games and just like college bball you seperate them into 2 sights, so for example the Sugar bowl will have two games and the Fiesta bowl will have two games. Then the winners go to another type of bowl game, the Orange bowl would get one set of winners and the Rose bowl would get one set of winners, and finally those two winners face off in the champioship game in the National Championship bowl (or whatever you want to call it).

I think you could even still use the BCS to determine the 8 team playoff cause i dont think that #9 team would have much to argue whether they are the best team in the land, and if the were they should have taken care of bussiness in the regualre season.

Now i am not saying this is the perfect playoff system but i think it would be a good start. sorry for the rant

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DCHusker said:
I feel strongly about the BCS system. Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system for choosing a government, but it's the best one mankind has been able to come up with. I think the BCS is in the same boat. Here's why it's the best we've got:

1. Objectivity: Someone argued earlier that they don't like the BCS because it takes objectivity out and that wins/losses would be a better determinant. That is simply nonsensical, the computers add a degree of objectivity by measuring strength of opponents that does not exist in simply looking at a win-loss record. If you simply look at a win-loss record, does that mean a one loss team in the WAC deserves as high a seeding as an SEC team that only lost the conference championship game? Of course not.

2. Importance of playing a complete season: I like the premium placed on every regular season game, which actually makes the regular season feel like a playoff. I think even detractors of the BCS would agree that this is one point in favor of the current system (even if they believe the negatives outweigh it).

3. (and most importantly) The best team in the country usually wins the national championship: This can not be said of a championship like NCAA basketball, where the best team in March becomes the champion. People argue they want a basketball-style tourney because March Madness is sooo exciting. There's a reason March Madness is so exciting: Some team that isn't all that great can get hot for one game from the 3-point line and knock off the best team in the country. I guess that is exciting, but it's a poor way to figure out who deserves a championship.

The bottom line is that there never will be a perfect system for determining a national champion. If we had an 8 team tourney, there would be every bit as much controversy as there is now. If every BCS conference winner got in, we would still be having debates about who should fill the last two spots, the BCS conference runners up (especially if they play a conference championship), non-BCS conference winners, Hawaii, Boise St.? Same argument, different teams.

I trust this system to get it right 90% of the time, which is more than I would trust any tourney where it's one and done.
Click to expand...
You do know that computer programs don't write themselves, right? That there is a group of geeks who has to write and tweak the code until it gives them the "right" teams? Computers are not objective and I never said that a playoff would be 100% "objective," if you read what I wrote, I said that you can tell which team is better based on whether that team wins or loses the game. I didn't know that i was being that unclear, but I was talking about the efficacy of a playoff in determining which team among several who have never met in the regular season is the better team (win/loss vs. factorX+factorY/FactorQ*inverse derivative of factorA/factorU etc etc). The notion that computers can make decisions without human intervention has passed non-sense and flown into delusion. Seeding is something that, like the wild card, can be left to a panel at the end of the season. The problem is that voters and a nerd-driven computer system has to decide which two teams (and ONLY 2) get to vie for the national championship. Why bother? Why not just let the computer pick the winner? Why play the game? If the computer knows the difference between 2 and 3 so clearly, why not let it decide between 1 and 2? If it gets it right 90% of the time, then it's definitely better than a coin toss, so the #1 team ought to win 90% of the time, right? D'OH! But it hasn't worked out that way! In fact, it's been just as good as a coin toss in determining the better team!

I don't get how you can see a value in a complete season but then trust the computers to arrange teams that have never played each other in any sort of coherent and reliable order. I don't trust computer models for anything but especially for things that are testable in the real world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
raw1 said:
Since I am relatively new to this board and no longer live in the great state of Nebraska

...a team like Michigan, who loses bad early and turns themselves around. Nebraska have had lots of those years under Tom Osborne where they lost early and battled their way back to the top five by the end of the year. It seems that the NCAA would want to find a way to reward student athletes who faced unexpected failure early and were able to turn themselves around. After all isn't that what college athletics is all about...it's very purpose?

...What is the opinion of the Husker Nation?
Click to expand...
Huh?

I remember Osborne teams being undefeated until Turkey Day (the OU game) and then losing (the last game) to a Florida team in their backyard bowl game.

Although through years of therapy....Nope..Still have nightmares.

I'm impressed with the posts on this thread so far..Some of the same arguments I've expressed to anyone who would listen after they brought up their own version of the perfect playoff scenario.

The only thing I can add, besides what's so important about finding out who is best?

I know.."Strange Earth custom" and "It's the American Way".

The WHOLE season is a playoff..Every sperm ..er..game is precious-M.Python

There's so much luck involved in these games, especially as parity rears it's ugly head..The only way to determine who is really the best team between two is by having a best of 5 or at minimum best of 3.

Then you have teams matching up better with different teams... placing way too much power in someones hands to decide pairings: Rock U. Smashed Scissors A&M, Scissors A&M tore up Paper State, Paper State covered the spread over Rock U. during the regular season.

The "Best" team doesn't always win...But with the current system, Half the teams end their season with a win.

Some of the Best games are the ones that are never played..Just ask '97 Mechicken or '94 State Penn.

It's SILL fun to argue with (poke fun of) their fans about those non-games and how bad we would've beaten them.

The missing ingredient with most sports with playoffs is the "controversy factor"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top