Playoffs

[shyndy]

First, get rid of nonconference. Then the champion of each conference plays a champ of each other conference. Maybe you would only need to cut one or two noncon games idk

[husker_99]

A playoff wouldn't fix anything. Even in NCAA basketball playoffs there is still a team that gets left out and a less deserving team gets in solely because they play in a more recognizable conference. A playoff would only create more crying and moaning that certain teams got left out.

Most people consider what you are describing as a good thing. It gives the media its debate and a chance to fill the airwaves with nonsense for weeks and weeks.

 

This "drama" is good for college football.

 

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

[papersun87]

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

NFC West'd

[RockyMountainOySker]

A playoff wouldn't fix anything. Even in NCAA basketball playoffs there is still a team that gets left out and a less deserving team gets in solely because they play in a more recognizable conference. A playoff would only create more crying and moaning that certain teams got left out.

Most people consider what you are describing as a good thing. It gives the media its debate and a chance to fill the airwaves with nonsense for weeks and weeks.

 

This "drama" is good for college football.

 

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

Of course it has it's flaws but it's still better then a computer telling me who the best team is. At least with a playoff the teams decide who is better on the field.

[knapplc]

Playoffs don't fix every problem. They just fix more problems than any other method of determining a champion.

 

This concept that since NOTHING solves every problem then we should keep what we have is absurd. This system is perhaps the most flawed system of any major sport in the world.

[Hercules]

I have two ideas for playoffs:

 

An 8-team playoff, the top 8 teams decided by the BCS the same as it is now.

 

Lose a non-conference game from the beginning of the year, and slide the conference championship games back a week.

 

The first playoff game is held on the first weekend of December, with higher-seeded teams getting home field advantage (this ensures a sold-out stadium for every playoff game).

 

The final four takes place on the second weekend of December, again with home field advantage for higher seeds.

 

Then the entire bowl system remains as it is now - a consolation prize for teams that didn't make it all the way to the championship game (even the teams that made the playoffs but lost). However, the national champion is decided on the field between the two survivors of the playoff in the national championship game in early January.

 

OR

 

A 12-team playoff, where there is a slot for the champion of each conference (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, C-USA, MAC, MWC, PAC-10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC, and Independents).

 

For the independents, the highest ranked team would be considered the conference champion.

 

In the playoff, the top 4 seeds would receive a bye in the first week.

 

The seeds would be determined by the BCS, and home field advantage would be given to the higher seeds.

 

You'd need to lose at least one non-conference game and slide the conference championship game back at least a week.

 

After the playoff, the bowl system remains as a consolation prize, and it includes the national championship game, like it does now.

 

I actually prefer this scenario... The downside is you let in some silly matchups between Ohio State and Florida Atlantic or something. The upside is that all conference championships are basically settled on the field, with a rare controversial tiebreaker, and this means that there's very little controversy surrounding who makes it into the playoff. It also makes conference races that much more important.

 

The upside to the downside (Ohio St. vs. Florida Atlantic), is that every year during these playoffs, you have a massive underdog in the fight. And on the occasion where Troy gets an upset in the first round, all hell breaks loose in in the sports world. It would be amazing.

[husker_99]

A playoff wouldn't fix anything. Even in NCAA basketball playoffs there is still a team that gets left out and a less deserving team gets in solely because they play in a more recognizable conference. A playoff would only create more crying and moaning that certain teams got left out.

Most people consider what you are describing as a good thing. It gives the media its debate and a chance to fill the airwaves with nonsense for weeks and weeks.

 

This "drama" is good for college football.

 

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

Of course it has it's flaws but it's still better then a computer telling me who the best team is. At least with a playoff the teams decide who is better on the field.

 

really think humans are better? Last year in the NCAA tourny Kansas the overall #1 seed got one of the hardest brackets while Duke pretty much got the easiest and coasted through. either way humans or computers will mess up along the way really bad and crying about it will still happen.

[JTrain]

Playoffs don't fix every problem. They just fix more problems than any other method of determining a champion.

 

This concept that since NOTHING solves every problem then we should keep what we have is absurd. This system is perhaps the most flawed system of any major sport in the world.

 

I wouldn't say it's that flawed. Most years there are between two and five teams that really deserve a title shot (ie. have had seasons traditionally considered worthy of championship consideration). This year it's three. Yes, TCU gets left out, but is that a bigger crime than allowing multiple teams in the title race that really don't deserve to be there? Let's say you put Stanford in a playoff. In the second round Stanford gets Oregon, and this time beats them 28-27. Does that prove Stanford is more national title worthy than Oregon? No, they got beaten by 3 TDs against Oregon in October. So the teams are 1-1, with Oregon having the more convincing win. All it shows is that Stanford was (probably) the better team in December or January. But the national title in CFB has always been about rewarding the most accomplished season as a whole, not just who can pull it all together at the end like college basketball or the NBA (where we watch months of a regular season that's occasionally entertaining but ultimately of little value). Even in an 8-team playoff you can throw out the value of huge regulars season games like Wisconsin over Ohio St. (biggest win in Madison history? Who cares, they both got in).

 

Of course, the best method would be a flexible one (number of teams invited differs from year to year) but that is almost surely too impractical for most people to accept. So we have to settle on a number that is closest to the average number of deserving teams per year. Since the number is almost always between two and five, I think four is pretty clearly the way to go. Not perfect, but as close as you will get with a static system. Also, I would call this a four-team playoff, not a plus-one, since that term is pretty messy and there's no reason to have the bowls as usual (#1 vs. #2 then a bunch of random match-ups) then tack on another game. Just go with your top four and play 4 v 1 and 2 v 3 in mid-December. Winners play early Jan. after the bowls.

 

An eight team playoff almost always includes teams that lost crucial games they could have won, and thus takes the importance of those games away. Plus it gives two-loss teams a shot at the title almost every year, which is despicable to me. Arkansas lost when it had opportunities to beat the big boys (Bama and Auburn). Oh, well, just pull it together in January and you can walk off with the trophy. The regular season losses become forgotten fluff.

 

Oh, and a playoff system doesn't fix boring bowls. Not sure how people figure that it would. Even with a four or eight team playoff, you still have the bowls and still have potential for boring match-ups.

[RockyMountainOySker]

A playoff wouldn't fix anything. Even in NCAA basketball playoffs there is still a team that gets left out and a less deserving team gets in solely because they play in a more recognizable conference. A playoff would only create more crying and moaning that certain teams got left out.

Most people consider what you are describing as a good thing. It gives the media its debate and a chance to fill the airwaves with nonsense for weeks and weeks.

 

This "drama" is good for college football.

 

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

Of course it has it's flaws but it's still better then a computer telling me who the best team is. At least with a playoff the teams decide who is better on the field.

 

really think humans are better? Last year in the NCAA tourny Kansas the overall #1 seed got one of the hardest brackets while Duke pretty much got the easiest and coasted through. either way humans or computers will mess up along the way really bad and crying about it will still happen.

yes humans are better b/c a game is actually being played to decide something. i went to ku and am very aware of the bs that happened at the tourney last year. i remember being pissed as hell when i saw ku's bracket vs. duke's. that being said, all ku had to do was win...band we didn't. duke did. the rest is history b/c it was decided on the court.

[Hercules]

Playoffs don't fix every problem. They just fix more problems than any other method of determining a champion.

 

This concept that since NOTHING solves every problem then we should keep what we have is absurd. This system is perhaps the most flawed system of any major sport in the world.

 

I wouldn't say it's that flawed. Most years there are between two and five teams that really deserve a title shot (ie. have had seasons traditionally considered worthy of championship consideration). This year it's three. Yes, TCU gets left out, but is that a bigger crime than allowing multiple teams in the title race that really don't deserve to be there?

 

Yes. Yes it is.

 

If the other teams don't deserve to be there, surely they'll get beat by a better team and get knocked out. TCU doesn't get a shot, as it is now.

[macroboy]

A playoff wouldn't fix anything. Even in NCAA basketball playoffs there is still a team that gets left out and a less deserving team gets in solely because they play in a more recognizable conference. A playoff would only create more crying and moaning that certain teams got left out.

Most people consider what you are describing as a good thing. It gives the media its debate and a chance to fill the airwaves with nonsense for weeks and weeks.

 

This "drama" is good for college football.

 

I'm not saying it isn't but that it doesn't really fix anything. Even in the NFL if a team from a crappy division gets a playoff spot and another team with a better record doesn't make it they talk about it a lot. Just saying playoffs have flaws too.

 

Actually it completely fixes the most important thing- the game to determine the national champion. To me that seems about 10000000x more important than whether the 65th and 66th best basketball teams in the nation are bitching.

[macroboy]

Has anybody read the Death to the BCS book?

 

I've heard 2 interviews with the author and he has some pretty incredible things to say.

The BCS people are not associated with the NCAA at all. Bizarre? yep.

Even schools going to big bowls end up losing money.

 

If there was a college football playoff I'd tell my wife to take the kids and go to her parents and I would watch nothing but for the entire time it was on.

 

I think you could easily do a 12 or 16 and still keep the bowls.

 

It is so odd to hear people defend a system that is the opposite of letting the teams decide the games on the field.

[The Dude]

What is plus 1 exactly?

 

+1 is kind of a mini-playoff format that people have been talking about for quite a while, maybe since the Huskers backed their way into the 2001 MNC game against Miami. In a +1 format the BCS bowls would play, then the after that there would be another game between the highest-ranked of the winners, which would be the "national championship" game.

Well then, I'd go for that if I had to choose. That plus every conference having a championship game would narrow things down enough for me. I'd prefer to go back to the old bowl system. College football was never suppose to be all about national championships in the first place. I guess we're beyond that.

[Blaze1up]

Playoffs would suck.

 

Makes the NFL regular season almost unwatchable as preseason.

 

Regular season is the buildup to the playoffs, you want to be the bye or home team. I love watching football from week 1 to the SB. People don't have the patience anymore, ADHD or whatever it is just sit down and enjoy the damn game.

[CornKing]

I think the best way would be:

 

Keep existing bowls

lessen the time between season and bowl games.

top records and rank go to bowl games no matter the conference

at the end of the bowls 1 more game, take the winners of the 2 top bowls and there you go.