National Championship Bowl System-Which do you prefer?

[RednScarlet]

Thought I'd go ahead and say I was one of the people to vote for the current BCS system.

 

If memory serves, things were going along great until the 90 and 91 seasons when the AP and Coaches polls split the # 1 teams ( bowl tie-in problems )

 

and we got the Bowl Coalition and then the Bowl Alliance to finally fix the problems.

 

Now everyone wants a playoff system and that will fix everything.

 

Just not quite sure there will ever be a way to find out who is really "Number 1".

 

But, I'll go along with a new system just like I adjusted to the old ones.

 

So far, IMHO, the two best teams have played for the title under the BCS .

[Malth]

I like keeping the majority of the focus on the actual season. 16 teams in a playoff is simply too many. At most, I would possibly be willing to support a 4 or MAYBE a 6 team playoff. Keep the stakes high every single week like they already are, it's part of what makes college football unique.

 

Should also keep in mind the physical toll that 2,3,4 extra games in a season would have on the players. These aren't professionals, so let's try to not kill them before they get there.

[Enhance]

Thought I'd go ahead and say I was one of the people to vote for the current BCS system.

 

If memory serves, things were going along great until the 90 and 91 seasons when the AP and Coaches polls split the # 1 teams ( bowl tie-in problems )

 

and we got the Bowl Coalition and then the Bowl Alliance to finally fix the problems.

 

Now everyone wants a playoff system and that will fix everything.

 

Just not quite sure there will ever be a way to find out who is really "Number 1".

 

But, I'll go along with a new system just like I adjusted to the old ones.

 

So far, IMHO, the two best teams have played for the title under the BCS .

It's not that people want the true "Number 1", people just want a number one achieved through more advantageous and fair ways. Take, for example, the NFL playoffs. I don't follow the sports world as closely as I used to, but I don't think there are many people who disagree with the NFL system. It's fair and the rules are pretty cut and dry as far as what you have to do to make the playoffs. At least, that's how I feel about them.

 

College is different, specifically because conferences and teams aren't as balanced as one might argue NFL teams are. There will always be somebody out there who disagrees with whatever system is put in place, but the point is that a playoff system allows more to be settled on the field. As it stands right now, a lot is settled on the field, but even more-so is settled by subjective pollsters and a computer ranking system. I'm sure people will always complain that enough teams weren't let in, like in the NCAA basketball tournament, but a playoff at least says 'OK, these are the *specific number* teams that have earned the right to play for a national championship, and we have seeded them. Forget polls and everything else - line them up on the field and see who wins it all.'

[knapplc]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

[HuskerShark]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

[knapplc]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

 

 

It would be no different than the FCS, which takes 19 teams (out of 120). I don't think anyone is too worried about the FCS regular season being tarnished because of the size of their playoff field.

[HuskerShark]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

 

 

It would be no different than the FCS, which takes 19 teams (out of 120). I don't think anyone is too worried about the FCS regular season being tarnished because of the size of their playoff field.

 

I guess I don't follow the FCS so I don't know. But here's the thing: this year, with a 16-team playoff you have several 3-loss teams in the playoff. While it is highly unlikely, you and I both know that there will be a year when a 3-loss team gets hot and wins the championship. Personally, I don't want to see it happen, so I won't wish a situation into place where it is possible. I outlined an 8-team playoff in my post, and this year, it still would have had a 3-loss Clemson team which was hard enough for me to swallow. Don't forget, just a few years ago, there were a lot of pretty distraught people over the fact that a 2-loss LSU (with DC Bo Pelini) got into the national championship game.

[knapplc]

I guess I don't follow the FCS so I don't know. But here's the thing: this year, with a 16-team playoff you have several 3-loss teams in the playoff. While it is highly unlikely, you and I both know that there will be a year when a 3-loss team gets hot and wins the championship. Personally, I don't want to see it happen, so I won't wish a situation into place where it is possible. I outlined an 8-team playoff in my post, and this year, it still would have had a 3-loss Clemson team which was hard enough for me to swallow. Don't forget, just a few years ago, there were a lot of pretty distraught people over the fact that a 2-loss LSU (with DC Bo Pelini) got into the national championship game.

 

This is true, and it will happen some day. But they will have earned it, not gotten there via a vote like women's figure skating. I can live with the New York Giants beating the New England Patriots every once in a while. If the Patsies were really great, they'd have won.

[HuskerShark]

I guess I don't follow the FCS so I don't know. But here's the thing: this year, with a 16-team playoff you have several 3-loss teams in the playoff. While it is highly unlikely, you and I both know that there will be a year when a 3-loss team gets hot and wins the championship. Personally, I don't want to see it happen, so I won't wish a situation into place where it is possible. I outlined an 8-team playoff in my post, and this year, it still would have had a 3-loss Clemson team which was hard enough for me to swallow. Don't forget, just a few years ago, there were a lot of pretty distraught people over the fact that a 2-loss LSU (with DC Bo Pelini) got into the national championship game.

 

This is true, and it will happen some day. But they will have earned it, not gotten there via a vote like women's figure skating. I can live with the New York Giants beating the New England Patriots every once in a while. If the Patsies were really great, they'd have won.

 

That Pats team still goes down as one of the greatest of all time in my book. Eli just happened to turn it on toward the end of the year that season, and there is a lot of pressure that is put on an undefeated team. Just ask the Packers this year. IMO, losing that many games doesn't mean that you've earned the right to be in the playoffs. It means that everybody else in your conference sucks and you just suck a little bit less than them.

[CheeseHusker]

I voted 4-team... in an ideal world I'd like 8 or 12, but I don't think you can do that without destroying the bowls.

 

Do five major bowls.... Orange, Cotton, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta. Cotton should be included I think because of Jerry World. Get rid of all particular conference tie-ins except Rose Bowl, so that the Orange isn't stuck with the ACC winner every year. Instead, do a rotation where the three non-semifinal bowls can pick any one of the six non-semifinal teams.

 

Set up two as de-facto 1v4 and 2v3 semi-finals and play all five games on Jan. 1. You don't even need to call them semi-finals...just set them up that way. If happens that #1 or #2 come from the BIG or Pac-12, then set up the Rose as one of the semis.

 

Play the champ game at the site of one of the three bowls that didn't get a semi-final the next week on Jan 8/9.

 

You get five BCS games on Jan 1, a championship game later, and a de-facto four team playoff.

 

People will argue over who #4 should be, and occasionally you'll get a #5 and a #6 who will feel slighted. But at least the national champion will be decided out of a pool of four.

[LouisianaHuskerFan]

While I think it would be a tragedy to ditch the bowl system, I really want a small playoff. So I say keep the bowls for teams that don't make the playoffs. One more thing: 16 teams is TOO BIG! If you have a 16-team playoff, this year would have allowed at least three 3-loss teams into the playoffs. That's not right.

 

I would be a supporter of a 6-team or an 8-team playoff. IMO, 8-team is perfect. You use the 6 AQ conferences that we have today, and the champion of each conference makes the playoffs automatically, as long as they are in the top 15 of the BCS standings. Then with the remaining spots, you take the next 3 highest ranked teams from the BCS that haven't already qualified. So this year's 1st round of the playoffs would have looked like this:

 

1 LSU vs. 8 Clemson

2 Bama vs. 7 Wisconsin

3 OkSt vs. 6 Arkansas

4 Stanford vs. 5 Oregon

 

You've got the champions of the SEC, B1G, ACC, Big12, and Pac12. WVU gets booted because they didn't make the top 15 in the final BCS. Then the next 3 teams to make it are Bama, Stanford, and Arkansas. THIS to me (and I would hope most fans) would be extremely attractive to watch.

 

I thought about playing all at neutral sites, but fans don't have that much money to be able to travel to those games, so you would have to have the higher seed get the home game, and then the National Championship game would be at a neutral site.

 

 

I prefer a 16 team playoff but I could live with an eight team playoff. And the only game that should be played at a neutral site is the championship game, as you indicated. I get tired of hearing people want to have a playoff but use the bowl games as sites to play. That just makes no sense at all. Fans of the teams can't travel to all the games. And, which I don't understand is wrong with the conference commissioners and university presidents, a lot more money is to be made having a playoff system than the current bowl system. If anybody disagrees with that or doesn't want a playoff system then go read Death to the BCS. It will change your attitude to the entire bowl system, which stinks. Enough with bowl games, and the BCS. A playoff is the way to go.

[Enhance]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

 

 

It would be no different than the FCS, which takes 19 teams (out of 120). I don't think anyone is too worried about the FCS regular season being tarnished because of the size of their playoff field.

I think a lot of people are worried about the bowl games more than anything. I want a college football season with playoffs and bowl games, because college football history is embedded in those bowl games.

 

That said, I care more about a fair champion than I do bowl games.

[Mavric]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

I have never understood the argument that a playoff would "ruin" or "devalue" the regular season. Are teams going to take a game or two off because they can afford a loss? Are you not going to watch every week because a loss isn't as big of a deal?

 

The argument that really gets me is "every week is a playoff". The first LSU/'Bama game this year didn't mean anything. Granted, they didn't know that at the time but it still meant absolutely nothing (as far as the MNC goes). There was even talk that LSU could still be in the MNC even if they lost their CCG (maybe that game didn't count either?). If every week is a playoff, how can a team go undefeated and still not even PLAY for the NC (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009) often when teams with one loss are in? How does it make sense for two losses to gets you into the NC game one year when most of the time one slip up costs you your chance? Just have to be lucky, I guess.

 

I definitely think you should be rewarded for having a great regular season. That's why I think a playoff should be kept small (16 is way too many). Four teams would be OK but most of the there would still be argument between several one-loss teams over who should get in. I'd rather argue the difference between #4 and #5 than #2 and #3 but still an argument. IMO, eight teams (including conference champs in the Top 12) would catch all one-loss teams (there have been as many as seven in recent years but only twice less than five), giving them a chance to make up for a single slip-up or because their conference or their non-conference opponents that were scheduled seven years ahead of time are having a down year.

[HuskerShark]

I want a "#1" who earned it on the field. I don't want judges voting on who gets into the Finals. This isn't women's figure skating. Let the teams earn their way into the qualifying tournament, and the winner of the tournament earns the title.

 

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go...

I have never understood the argument that a playoff would "ruin" or "devalue" the regular season. Are teams going to take a game or two off because they can afford a loss? Are you not going to watch every week because a loss isn't as big of a deal?

 

The argument that really gets me is "every week is a playoff". The first LSU/'Bama game this year didn't mean anything. Granted, they didn't know that at the time but it still meant absolutely nothing (as far as the MNC goes). There was even talk that LSU could still be in the MNC even if they lost their CCG (maybe that game didn't count either?). If every week is a playoff, how can a team go undefeated and still not even PLAY for the NC (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009) often when teams with one loss are in? How does it make sense for two losses to gets you into the NC game one year when most of the time one slip up costs you your chance? Just have to be lucky, I guess.

 

I definitely think you should be rewarded for having a great regular season. That's why I think a playoff should be kept small (16 is way too many). Four teams would be OK but most of the there would still be argument between several one-loss teams over who should get in. I'd rather argue the difference between #4 and #5 than #2 and #3 but still an argument. IMO, eight teams (including conference champs in the Top 12) would catch all one-loss teams (there have been as many as seven in recent years but only twice less than five), giving them a chance to make up for a single slip-up or because their conference or their non-conference opponents that were scheduled seven years ahead of time are having a down year.

 

Well... You could argue that every week is a playoff unless your team plays in the SEC...