Playoffs

[Hujan]

Here's why I like the idea of using conference champions to form a playoff structure, and dislike the idea of using the polls.

 

Let's say that this year, there was a 16-team playoff structure in place, using the top 16 in the BCS. Well, before the Big 12 championship game, Nebraska would have been part of that playoff, along with Oklahoma. After the Big 12 championship game, Nebraska would have been knocked out, while Missouri and Oklahoma State made the playoff. Nebraska beat both of those teams head-to-head, and the only reason Nebraska has a different record is because it had to play an extra game.

 

If you want a championship to be decided on the field, you have to minimize the impact of the polls. Let BCS decide seeds, and nothing else.

 

Yeah, but under the alternative---using conference champions to seed the playoffs---Nebraska still would have missed out. There are simply too many crappy conferences (WAC, ACC, Big East) to fill precious playoff spots with those conferences' champions.

 

That's why I think the best solution is to have a 16-team, hybrid system. With eight 12-team conferences, you can have 8 seeds reserved for conference champions and 8, "at-large" seeds that are drawn from the next 8 highest ranked teams in a BCS-type ranking who are not already in as conference champs.

 

In fact, I think the rankings should be locked after the last regular season game and before the conference championship games. That way, teams can only go "up" by winning the CCG, but not down by losing in what amounts to an extra game. How do you measure a 10-2 Missouri team against a 10-3 Nebraska team that lost by a field goal to OU in the CCG?

 

The CCG should only be for intra-conference bragging rights and as a way to guarantee a playoff birth for the winner; it shouldn't punish the loser of an extra game against what is guaranteed to be a difficult opponent.

[Hercules]

Here's why I like the idea of using conference champions to form a playoff structure, and dislike the idea of using the polls.

 

Let's say that this year, there was a 16-team playoff structure in place, using the top 16 in the BCS. Well, before the Big 12 championship game, Nebraska would have been part of that playoff, along with Oklahoma. After the Big 12 championship game, Nebraska would have been knocked out, while Missouri and Oklahoma State made the playoff. Nebraska beat both of those teams head-to-head, and the only reason Nebraska has a different record is because it had to play an extra game.

 

If you want a championship to be decided on the field, you have to minimize the impact of the polls. Let BCS decide seeds, and nothing else.

 

Yeah, but under the alternative---using conference champions to seed the playoffs---Nebraska still would have missed out. There are simply too many crappy conferences (WAC, ACC, Big East) to fill precious playoff spots with those conferences' champions.

 

That's why I think the best solution is to have a 16-team, hybrid system. With eight 12-team conferences, you can have 8 seeds reserved for conference champions and 8, "at-large" seeds that are drawn from the next 8 highest ranked teams in a BCS-type ranking who are not already in as conference champs.

 

In fact, I think the rankings should be locked after the last regular season game and before the conference championship games. That way, teams can only go "up" by winning the CCG, but not down by losing in what amounts to an extra game. How do you measure a 10-2 Missouri team against a 10-3 Nebraska team that lost by a field goal to OU in the CCG?

 

The CCG should only be for intra-conference bragging rights and as a way to guarantee a playoff birth for the winner; it shouldn't punish the loser of an extra game against what is guaranteed to be a difficult opponent.

 

If you used the polls, the only fair way would be to lock the top 8 or 16 or whatever going into the conference championship games.

 

However, I really don't have a problem with crappy conference champions getting a playoff spot. The system is simple: win your conference, and you have a shot at the title. If you don't win your division, you're eliminated. If you don't win your conference, you're eliminated. The regular season and the conference championship game would actually be as meaningful as everyone says they are now. The regular season actually would be a playoff. Everything would be decided on the field.

 

I don't have a problem with Troy getting a shot over Nebraska. If Nebraska couldn't win its own conference, it doesn't deserve a shot. If Troy did win the Sun Belt, sure, let them have a shot at Alabama. Maybe they'll come up with one of the most spectacular upsets in the history of sports and form a legendary cinderella story.

 

As far as reforming conferences into 8 twelve team conferences... That's a way longer shot than any form of a playoff structure. The Big Ten isn't going to force Penn State to another conference in order to bring in Notre Dame. You have to let conferences take care of themselves, and allow them to build relationships with the schools they want to build relationships with. You can't just mash them together soley for the purpose of creating a playoff. A playoff should be structured on the foundation that's already there in college football.

[JTrain]

No reason for anything more than four (occasionally six would be alright). People just want to see change for change's sake, and big brackets are fun to look at. Look at March Madness expanding to 68 teams. It's about nothing except money. Has no basis in any argument from fairness or integrity of the game. Nobody outside of the top 32 has ever even gotten to the title game.

 

Regular season games in college football are the best and most important in any sport, by far. Think Wisconsin-Ohio St., Stanford-Oregon, Boise-VT, Boise-Nevada, Michigan St.-Wisconsin. Teams know exactly what they need to do to get into the top four by the end of the season. It keeps the high value of the regular season. Boise needed to beat Nevada and they'd be #4 right now. Nobody from the MAC, C-USA or Sun Belt has any interest in playing for the national title because they aren't anywhere near the level of the top teams, and they know it. FIU lost to Rutgers, and got destroyed by Pitt! On the rare occasion that a non-AQ program reaches top 10 level play (ex. Boise St and TCU) they know they have to schedule a tough OOC and dominate their weak conferences, and they should make the top four. TCU did it. Boise would have done it with a win at Nevada. Stanford got beat by three TDs in their big shot against Oregon. Wisconsin couldn't get it done against one of the worst one-loss AQ teams in years (MSU).

[BornRedCornFed]

Screw it. Have a 10 game season with a 64 team playoff. Top 2 teams play 16 games, top 4 play at least 15, top 8 play at least 14, top 16 play at least 13, top 32 play at least 12, top 64 play 11.

bad...

[Oklahoma Husker]

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.

 

A 12 or 16 team playoff would add too many games to the schedule for those teams. What some people are forgetting when talking about adding a playoff or there being too much time before the bowls is that these athletes still have finals to take and, ideally, are able to spend some time with family around the holidays. Any plan that has playoffs going on for the majority of December will never come to fruition because of this.

[BornRedCornFed]

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.

 

A 12 or 16 team playoff would add too many games to the schedule for those teams. What some people are forgetting when talking about adding a playoff or there being too much time before the bowls is that these athletes still have finals to take and, ideally, are able to spend some time with family around the holidays. Any plan that has playoffs going on for the majority of December will never come to fruition because of this.

 

see thats really not a good argument though because college basketball runs full-board through finals and the holidays every single year. same with bowl games that are scheduled around that time, and teams that make it to a bowl are practicing pretty much through the holidays anyway.

 

a playoff needs to happen. there is no ideal situation, and we could debate what would be better all year long. whats baffling is how we keep going with seemingly the most imperfect option. im getting very tired of it

[Big Red 40]

No reason for anything more than four (occasionally six would be alright). People just want to see change for change's sake, and big brackets are fun to look at. Look at March Madness expanding to 68 teams. It's about nothing except money. Has no basis in any argument from fairness or integrity of the game. Nobody outside of the top 32 has ever even gotten to the title game.

 

Regular season games in college football are the best and most important in any sport, by far. Think Wisconsin-Ohio St., Stanford-Oregon, Boise-VT, Boise-Nevada, Michigan St.-Wisconsin. Teams know exactly what they need to do to get into the top four by the end of the season. It keeps the high value of the regular season. Boise needed to beat Nevada and they'd be #4 right now. Nobody from the MAC, C-USA or Sun Belt has any interest in playing for the national title because they aren't anywhere near the level of the top teams, and they know it. FIU lost to Rutgers, and got destroyed by Pitt! On the rare occasion that a non-AQ program reaches top 10 level play (ex. Boise St and TCU) they know they have to schedule a tough OOC and dominate their weak conferences, and they should make the top four. TCU did it. Boise would have done it with a win at Nevada. Stanford got beat by three TDs in their big shot against Oregon. Wisconsin couldn't get it done against one of the worst one-loss AQ teams in years (MSU).

Agree with this. 30+ years of watching college football, and i cant ever recall having more than 2 teams who deserved to play in the championship game more than top 2 in the polls. Could probably work this out to keep the bowls and reward teams for a good year, but not string the season out much longer.

[knapplc]

It's silly to think that playoffs destroy the importance of the regular season. Regular season games aren't minimized by playoffs, they just have different meaning. Instead of playing for that ridiculous two spots in the MNC game, you're playing for your playoff life and/or seeding.

 

Ask the New York Giants this morning how "boring" or "minimal" regular season games are. They went from winning their division and a first-round bye to having to win out to make the playoffs. Doesn't sound boring or minimal to me.

 

So many of the arguments against a playoff are so easy to skewer. It's like people don't even think before throwing these arguments out - they're just so ingrained to support the BCS that they toss out any old argument without bothering to look at the myriad examples we already have where playoffs work, and work well.

[bobleeswagger]

Yeah, I'm fully in support of scrapping the current system. I don't think for a second that I can put together the best system, but I do know that the whole "if you win out even against the worst 11 teams in America, you deserve to be in the CG." Nor do I buy the, "the kids don't determine their strength of schedule" crap. The kids DO determine what strength of schedule they want to play in. Let's say I'm an 18 y.o. HS FB standout getting offers from Hawaii and say...Nebraska; at what school will I get a chance to play against the higher level of competition? If I choose NU, I am playing a tougher schedule and it isn't incidental.

[Big Red 40]

It's silly to think that playoffs destroy the importance of the regular season. Regular season games aren't minimized by playoffs, they just have different meaning. Instead of playing for that ridiculous two spots in the MNC game, you're playing for your playoff life and/or seeding.

 

Ask the New York Giants this morning how "boring" or "minimal" regular season games are. They went from winning their division and a first-round bye to having to win out to make the playoffs. Doesn't sound boring or minimal to me.

 

So many of the arguments against a playoff are so easy to skewer. It's like people don't even think before throwing these arguments out - they're just so ingrained to support the BCS that they toss out any old argument without bothering to look at the myriad examples we already have where playoffs work, and work well.

For every game like the Giants game there are many that dont matter because the teams are mathematically eliminated, they have home field,and playoff spots locked up already. Giants game would have mattered just as much in the Bcs and so would some of the others.Bengals, Seahawks,etc have been out of it for weeks, but even crappy teams like UTEP, Troy etc in college had a bowl game to play for. Hate those NFL games where the teams are resting the starters at the end of the season.

Many arguments FOR a playoff can be easily skewered also.For instance why would you want to drag 12-16 teams into a playoff when only maybe 4 teams have any claim to being good enough to be there. Makes the season way too long, and really doesnt help with the main goal of crowning a champion. People throw out ideas that arent well thought out on either side. IMO the BCS works well at its main goal of crowning the #1 team. Bowl games are also an incentive for lesser teams. Not much reason to change.

[knapplc]

For every game like the Giants game there are many that dont matter because the teams are mathematically eliminated, they have home field,and playoff spots locked up already. Giants game would have mattered just as much in the Bcs and so would some of the others.Bengals, Seahawks,etc have been out of it for weeks, but even crappy teams like UTEP, Troy etc in college had a bowl game to play for. Hate those NFL games where the teams are resting the starters at the end of the season.

And you don't have those games in myriad numbers now? 60 teams don't make bowl games this year. That's hundreds of games that have zero bearing on anything.

 

UTEP and Troy can still go to a bowl - only eight bowl games would die in the playoff scenario. So you can still have the Poulon Weed-Eater Bowl and the South-Central Friends of Jim-Bob Jones Bowl and the We Have An Empty Stadium Bowl every year, too. The only difference is that in a playoff scenario, you have a real bona-fide champion, not some beauty pageant winner.

 

Many arguments FOR a playoff can be easily skewered also.For instance why would you want to drag 12-16 teams into a playoff when only maybe 4 teams have any claim to being good enough to be there. Makes the season way too long, and really doesnt help with the main goal of crowning a champion. People throw out ideas that arent well thought out on either side. IMO the BCS works well at its main goal of crowning the #1 team. Bowl games are also an incentive for lesser teams. Not much reason to change.

 

Yes, many arguments for a playoff can be skewered. But the one you've chosen holds no water. Boise St. would beat 99% of teams out there this year, and would qualify for a playoff, but this year, because they had one bad quarter, they have no shot at the title. Completely unfair, and you cannot assert with a straight face that Oregon and Auburn are the ONLY teams that deserve a shot. Who's to say that the SEC #2 doesn't deserve at least a shot? Typically the SEC loser has lost one game, has better SOS than most other schools, and lost a close game. This year the Pac-10 #2, Stanford, is a better argument than the SEC loser, since their one loss was to Oregon early in the season.

 

I would rather have a 16-team playoff where every game holds urgency and grabs my attention (because anyone in any of those games could be the National Champion), instead of 7,000 bowl games, 99% of which hold no more drama or impact than regular season games between two C-USA teams. Do you really see drama in the Beef 'O' Brady's bowl? Do you really see drama in the Meineke Car Care bowl? Really, do you care who finishes #8 on a typical year, unless it's Nebraska? If you do you're among the vast minority. The majority of people know two things - who won the national championship and whether their team won their bowl game. Aside from that, the rest of bowl season is just clutter.

 

The BCS works was well at crowning the #1 team as "just the tip" works at preventing pregnancies. If it worked they wouldn't have had to change the formula every year for the last ten years. If it worked people wouldn't be lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks this time every year. If it worked - and this is the most damning point of all - if it worked, someone else would use it to determine a champion.

 

But nobody else does. Nowhere. In any sport.

[Big Red 40]

For every game like the Giants game there are many that dont matter because the teams are mathematically eliminated, they have home field,and playoff spots locked up already. Giants game would have mattered just as much in the Bcs and so would some of the others.Bengals, Seahawks,etc have been out of it for weeks, but even crappy teams like UTEP, Troy etc in college had a bowl game to play for. Hate those NFL games where the teams are resting the starters at the end of the season.

And you don't have those games in myriad numbers now? 60 teams don't make bowl games this year. That's hundreds of games that have zero bearing on anything.

 

UTEP and Troy can still go to a bowl - only eight bowl games would die in the playoff scenario. So you can still have the Poulon Weed-Eater Bowl and the South-Central Friends of Jim-Bob Jones Bowl and the We Have An Empty Stadium Bowl every year, too. The only difference is that in a playoff scenario, you have a real bona-fide champion, not some beauty pageant winner.

 

Many arguments FOR a playoff can be easily skewered also.For instance why would you want to drag 12-16 teams into a playoff when only maybe 4 teams have any claim to being good enough to be there. Makes the season way too long, and really doesnt help with the main goal of crowning a champion. People throw out ideas that arent well thought out on either side. IMO the BCS works well at its main goal of crowning the #1 team. Bowl games are also an incentive for lesser teams. Not much reason to change.

 

Yes, many arguments for a playoff can be skewered. But the one you've chosen holds no water. Boise St. would beat 99% of teams out there this year, and would qualify for a playoff, but this year, because they had one bad quarter, they have no shot at the title. Completely unfair, and you cannot assert with a straight face that Oregon and Auburn are the ONLY teams that deserve a shot. Who's to say that the SEC #2 doesn't deserve at least a shot? Typically the SEC loser has lost one game, has better SOS than most other schools, and lost a close game. This year the Pac-10 #2, Stanford, is a better argument than the SEC loser, since their one loss was to Oregon early in the season.

 

I would rather have a 16-team playoff where every game holds urgency and grabs my attention (because anyone in any of those games could be the National Champion), instead of 7,000 bowl games, 99% of which hold no more drama or impact than regular season games between two C-USA teams. Do you really see drama in the Beef 'O' Brady's bowl? Do you really see drama in the Meineke Car Care bowl? Really, do you care who finishes #8 on a typical year, unless it's Nebraska? If you do you're among the vast minority. The majority of people know two things - who won the national championship and whether their team won their bowl game. Aside from that, the rest of bowl season is just clutter.

 

The BCS works was well at crowning the #1 team as "just the tip" works at preventing pregnancies. If it worked they wouldn't have had to change the formula every year for the last ten years. If it worked people wouldn't be lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks this time every year. If it worked - and this is the most damning point of all - if it worked, someone else would use it to determine a champion.

 

But nobody else does. Nowhere. In any sport.

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

[CornHOLIO]

Playoffs would suck.

 

Makes the NFL regular season almost unwatchable as preseason.

 

So the system the way it is now, is ok?

 

Much better than it was when all we had were a few Bowls; each with conference tye-ins.

And much more better than the extremely boring NFL regular season or smaller division college playoffs.

By better I mean every game being "life-or-death" until you've already lost more than three.

 

A plus one is almost what we have already with the BCS targeting a one verses two in the MNC.

 

That's one of the reasons I like this system over what the playoffs would show us.

A best "overall Season" as opposed to which team got hot after every other team had too many injuries at the end of the year.

 

 

How many times has the SuperBowl champion been considered the best team that year? In that they'd probably beat everyone on their schedule.

[billdozer15]

They only major sport that doesnt have a legitimate playoff is NCAA Football. Why is every other sport able to do it? School, finals, classes.....see all other divisions of football playoffs, they do it why cant Div 1? This garbage about ruining college football is just that...garbage. Does a playoff ruin any other collegiate sport or pro sport for that matter? As a matter of fact most of us can't wait till the playoffs roll around, why would it be any different for Div 1 college football?

 

The arguments agianst a playoff are lame and weak. Eventually a playoff will come to fruition but not as long as the NCAA is around. There will have to be a major shake up in college football of schools leaving the NCAA and embarking on their own.

 

My resolution to this whole thing is to make every conference have a conference championship and then playoff the conference champions. Its not real difficult to figure out.

[knapplc]

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

 

A true national champion has never been crowned in college football - at least not Div1A. It's always been based on a popularity contest - votes cast by ballot. That's not winning it on the field, it's a collective guess. Why do you think it's so commonly referred to as the "Mythical" National Championship?

 

You want unique and interesting. The rest of the sporting world wants their team to have a legitimate shot at a deserved title. And it is really failing that bad, and it will be gone. My guess is within a decade. The kinds of money involved in college football put it under the jurisdiction of the Sherman Act. Don't think for a second this is just water cooler talk. Maybe it is for you, but not for those who are serious about the sport.