Possible solution other than a playoff

[theneguy95]

I think I'm probably part of the minority in that I'm against a playoff system in college football and I know that this topic has been debated for a long time. I agree with most that the current system is not the best system, but I strongly disagree with a playoff system. I wonder if it's coincidence that college football is one of America's most popular sports when the most obvious difference is the lack of a playoff system. I don't want to see a playoff because it takes away from the importance of the regular season. With the current system every game matters and I like that. I agree that the Championship is supposed to decide who the best team is, but we don't have that with playoffs either. For example: The NFL In 2007, the Patriots were obviously the best team in the league with their 18-0 record going into the Super Bowl against the Giants' 13-6 record going into the Super Bowl... The Giants won, but are they really the best team? There's many examples like this, so a playoff system won't decide the best team any better than the current system.

 

I don't want to debate about BCS vs Playoff though. I want to bring up another solution that might work with your ideas thrown into what I've come up with. So here it is...

 

1. No more preseason polls.

I don't believe there is any reason to have preseason polls. We want to know who the best team is each year, so basing polls on what happened in previous years, recruits (by stars? hardly accurate), and worst of all your schools name.

2. Bring out the very first polls 3-4 weeks into the season.

Base these off of stats and facts on the current season.

3 Do away with human polls.

No more AP, media, or coaches polls for example. This is like being a judge in a case where your own child is on trial. I have a hard time believing that it's going to be done fairly. (Stupid example, but you catch my drift)

4. Only have a computer poll.

I know a computer must be programmed by a human, but if done before a season begins every team will be helped and hurt equally. The only thing is that I believe after a team is ahead by a set number of points, that team no longer benefits from more scoring (trying to get away from running up the score for computer points/votes)

 

This is more like something I would like to see for college football. I want it to be fair and I agree with most people that playoffs would be better than the current system, but I really don't want playoffs either.

 

I'm really not trying to get the BCS vs Playoff debate started because we've already been there, right? But I haven't found many ideas for another option. I wonder if part of the reason the majority of people are for a playoff is because there haven't been many other options presented.

 

Do you have something you would add or change with the system I would like to see?

Do you have another system you would like to see?

Thoughts?

[frazier9495]

If it was computer polls I don't think it would make a difference if you had polls start week 1 or week 4...If human polls were done I think it should be more like week 5 or 6 because many teams play 4 powder puffs right away for the first 4 weeks.

[JTrain]

Human polls are awful for the most part, but you will always have a hard time trying to convince humans that human polls are not the way to go.

 

Ideally, I think you would use a very select group of voters, who have great track records of reasonable, rational, mostly unbiased voes. You wouldn't use any current coaches because they don't get to see most of the games, have extreme biases, and most of the coaches don't even fill out their own ballots anyways. I would select 40-50 media members after a a rigorous search process, and have them conduct the BCS human poll. I would count that as 50% of the formula, then average a group of computer rankings (the current ones seem solidd) for the other percentage.

 

Playoff-wise, I think you can go as high as six teams without taking much if any of the significance away from the regular season games. Four would work fine too, but then you still get a team like '08 Utah left out. Nothing is perfect, but I think a 6-team mini playoff would be the best way to keep regular season importance extremely high, while giving the very best teams a chance at the end of the season.

 

In my opinion, only the final game should be at a neutral site. This award the higher teams, and assures games will be packed full. As Perlman argued, you can't expect fans to be traveling thousands of miles for multiple games in mid-December at neutral sites.

 

So, my system would have looked something like this last season:

 

First round games (Saturday, December 13, 2008)

 

#6 Utah at #3 Texas (Austin, TX)

#5 USC at #4 Alabama (Tuscaloosa, AL)

 

Second round games (Saturday, December 23, 2008)

 

Highest-seeded winner (Texas, Alabama or USC) at #2 Florida (Gainesville, FL)

Lowest-seeded winner (Alabama, USC or Utah) at #1 Oklahoma (Norman, OK)

 

The championship game would be at the same time and venue as normal.

[redout22]

Yeah I don't think there should be a preseason pole either but I think that the polls should start after week one not after week 3 or 4. It gives the fans something to look at. I do think there should be human polls. I like the human aspect of it. I honestly think that they should get rid of the computer rankings. Thats just me though.

[Landlord]

I think that the system should be left as is, and then when the bowl season is over (except shorten the bowl season considerably, with ALL of the bowls ending on the 1st), have a final four of the four most impressive teams at the end of the season.

 

 

the biggest complaint i hear is when a team playing in a bcs bowl that isn't the championship game stomps on their opponent, and then whines that they should have had a shot. well, now they do get their shot for playing well in their bowl game.

[theneguy95]

Yeah I don't think there should be a preseason pole either but I think that the polls should start after week one not after week 3 or 4. It gives the fans something to look at. I do think there should be human polls. I like the human aspect of it. I honestly think that they should get rid of the computer rankings. Thats just me though.

 

What don't you like about the computer rankings? What do you like about the human aspect? I see the computer rankings as being based on facts and stats and the human polls being skewed and bias. What are your thoughts on this?

[hskrpwr13]

If it was computer polls I don't think it would make a difference if you had polls start week 1 or week 4...If human polls were done I think it should be more like week 5 or 6 because many teams play 4 powder puffs right away for the first 4 weeks.

 

Technically, the computer poll would have to start after every team has had a chance to play. The computer would need data to generate a ranking.

 

As far as human polls, it doesn't matter what week they post them. I'm sure they already have their preseason poll (certainly preconceived bias) even if its not publicized. One cant really "force" a voter to not formulate any opinions prior to a certain week of the season. Fans just won't be able to see how the voters change their feelings on a week to week basis until a latter week.

[shyndy]

If it was computer polls I don't think it would make a difference if you had polls start week 1 or week 4...If human polls were done I think it should be more like week 5 or 6 because many teams play 4 powder puffs right away for the first 4 weeks.

 

Technically, the computer poll would have to start after every team has had a chance to play. The computer would need data to generate a ranking.

 

As far as human polls, it doesn't matter what week they post them. I'm sure they already have their preseason poll (certainly preconceived bias) even if its not publicized. One cant really "force" a voter to not formulate any opinions prior to a certain week of the season. Fans just won't be able to see how the voters change their feelings on a week to week basis until a latter week.

 

The computer rankings are bat sh#t crazy. Seriously pay attention to where the computer ranks teams this year, there are times it will blow your mind. You can't just pretend its some sort of unbiased artificial intelligence- from what I've seen a human is more CAPABLE of being objective in CFB voting.

[rkhufu7]

If it was computer polls I don't think it would make a difference if you had polls start week 1 or week 4...If human polls were done I think it should be more like week 5 or 6 because many teams play 4 powder puffs right away for the first 4 weeks.

 

Technically, the computer poll would have to start after every team has had a chance to play. The computer would need data to generate a ranking.

 

As far as human polls, it doesn't matter what week they post them. I'm sure they already have their preseason poll (certainly preconceived bias) even if its not publicized. One cant really "force" a voter to not formulate any opinions prior to a certain week of the season. Fans just won't be able to see how the voters change their feelings on a week to week basis until a latter week.

 

The computer rankings are bat sh#t crazy. Seriously pay attention to where the computer ranks teams this year, there are times it will blow your mind. You can't just pretend its some sort of unbiased artificial intelligence- from what I've seen a human is more CAPABLE of being objective in CFB voting.

Bowls are dead with true playoffs. This is still a beauty contest and gives no reward to winning your conference. 16 teams, auto bids to conference champs or bonus points in the football RPI, top 8 get homefield down to final 4, which would be two weeks in a bowl site or a site that bids for the games like the final 4. The bowls would just be for the teams that don't make the playoffs, and the college presidents and chancellors would give up their seats on the bowl game corporate sponsors' boards, which is why we have no playoffs!!! Kickbacks are why there are no D1 16 team playoffs!!!

[Alamo City Husker]

Isn't it wonderful to dream.

[VA Husker Fan]

Computers don't have the ability to take mitigating factors in. The BCS forced them to take out margin of victory to avoid teams running up the score, and even if you allowed it, it's hard to tell apart a garbage TD you score in the 4th vs. a legitimate blowout but with a meaningless TD given up in the last seconds. And without it, if the obviously best team in the country wins in a bunch of blowouts, but loses one game due to terrible weather, terrible calls, and injuries that knock out their top 2 QBs they may be behind a team that gets blown out once and lucks out a win every other game.

[T_O_Bull]

What do I think? I think that greatest ending for a college sport got all screwed up because a bunch of money hungery NCAA execs, and whinny sports channel talking heads (both TV and sports radio people) started to say, "We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff." And now all of us have fallen in behind them saying, "We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff." Sorry but as far as I am concerned, "We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff."

T_O_B

[redout22]

Yeah I don't think there should be a preseason pole either but I think that the polls should start after week one not after week 3 or 4. It gives the fans something to look at. I do think there should be human polls. I like the human aspect of it. I honestly think that they should get rid of the computer rankings. Thats just me though.

 

What don't you like about the computer rankings? What do you like about the human aspect? I see the computer rankings as being based on facts and stats and the human polls being skewed and bias. What are your thoughts on this?

Just because they use useless statistics when they put the percentages in, like strength of schedule. Even if a team isn't playing well the computer's don't know that. I have never understood them and never will. Most coaches will be honest and they can tell how team's are playing

[Touchdown Tommie]

What do I think? I think that greatest ending for a college sport got all screwed up because a bunch of money hungery NCAA execs, and whinny sports channel talking heads (both TV and sports radio people) started to say, "We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff." And now all of us have fallen in behind them saying, "We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff. We need a playoff." Sorry but as far as I am concerned, "We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff. We don't need a playoff."

T_O_B

 

So what you are saying is that you don't want a playoff? I not quite sure.....

[JTrain]

Computers don't have the ability to take mitigating factors in. The BCS forced them to take out margin of victory to avoid teams running up the score, and even if you allowed it, it's hard to tell apart a garbage TD you score in the 4th vs. a legitimate blowout but with a meaningless TD given up in the last seconds. And without it, if the obviously best team in the country wins in a bunch of blowouts, but loses one game due to terrible weather, terrible calls, and injuries that knock out their top 2 QBs they may be behind a team that gets blown out once and lucks out a win every other game.

 

Injuries, luck etc. shouldn't be taken into account. They are part of the game. To illustrate the point, let's take it to the extreme, and say that our 10 best players all go down with serious injuries right before the season starts. They are all out the first half of the season, and we lose four games without them. They then come back and we finish the season 5-1, finishing 8-5. Even though we are clearly a great team with everyone healthy, what matters is what actually occurred on the field. Injuries, weather, or luck should make no difference in determining the highest rank team. So let's say some other team-- we'll say Arkansas-- gets tons of lucky breaks, and even though they are clearly inferior talent-wise, their incredibly lucky season ends up 11-1. Even if Nebraska is the better team, Arkansas produced the far more deserving results, and thus should be ranked well ahead.

 

Always keep in mind that rankings, when determining the national champion, are in place to find the most deserving team based on the results on the field, not the most talented team. If it was the other way around, there would be no reason to play any games. We would simply have a team of skilled talent scouts watch every team practice for a couple months, then declare the most talented team (probably USC) and crown them champions. The fact that many things (injuries, luck, weather, bye weeks, home field, off-the-field distractions, etc.) factor into the outcome of any given game, and the superior team talent-wise can still come out on the losing end, is a huge part of what makes football (or any other sport) so great.