Would like your thoughts on the new college football playoff

[Kernal]

My thoughts on the 4-team playoff? It's a tiny step in the right direction. It allows four teams the opportunity to show they are the best team in the nation rather than only two teams.

 

The bowl games weren't "designed" to determine championships. That's why the history of major college football is littered with a hundred different polls and multiple champions many years. A one-game playoff? Really? Imagine the NFL finishing up their regular season and having bowl games determine the champion.

 

Every other sport has a legitimate playoff, including FCS football (24-team playoff). Those kids study too, and have less academic support than the larger FBS programs. NDSU, the FCS champ this year (three-peat), finished 15-0, so they only played one more game than 14-0 Florida State. Next year's FBS champion, assuming they come from a conference with a CCG, will play 15 games too.

[teachercd]

It is simple, play more games, not less.

 

You got like 120 teams? Have 10 divisions if you want, those winners get in...have 4 wild card teams...Whatever, it doesn't matter...But more will be better and even if you are not totally sure if it will be better...once it starts and you are out watching games with your buddies and you have the first round action with 8 games going on that Saturday with some staggered starts you will be loving it. Get that first round games and maybe even second round games on campuses then sell the semi and final

 

.

[Glendower]

I think it might be easier, as a fan and observer, to consider the conference championships to be a sort of "first round" of playoffs. Yeah, maybe a 2 or 3 loss team gives an undefeated team their only loss, but isn't that what playoffs are for in the first place?

[huskerinacaveman]

It's obvious that no system is really a good system when it comes to football, because in CFB any given Saturday anyone can win, generally the better team does.

 

But like one of the last posters said, that is what is fun about it.

 

Something I brought up in a post a while ago, that I think would be cool, and would allow for CFB to retain the bowl system.

 

Move the Bowl Games to the Spring,

 

Have your spring camps, you inter-team scrimmage one week, and then the next week have a bowl game that is more about an exhibition game during spring break.

 

I wonder if graduating players can play since they haven't technically graduated yet.

[Kernal]

It's obvious that no system is really a good system when it comes to football, because in CFB any given Saturday anyone can win, generally the better team does.

 

But like one of the last posters said, that is what is fun about it.

 

Something I brought up in a post a while ago, that I think would be cool, and would allow for CFB to retain the bowl system.

 

Move the Bowl Games to the Spring,

 

Have your spring camps, you inter-team scrimmage one week, and then the next week have a bowl game that is more about an exhibition game during spring break.

 

I wonder if graduating players can play since they haven't technically graduated yet.

 

That would be a fun addition to college football- playing a bowl game in the spring. I'm not sure that would ever happen, but it's fun to think about.

 

The other possibility for the bowl games when a playoff eventually comes is that they could still invite teams that didn't make the playoffs, sorta like the NIT tournament, or whatever.

[Foppa]

Pretty soon there will be 4 16 team conferences and the NCAA as we know it wil cease to exist. A 16 team playoff is coming. If you don't believe it, trust me, it's already in the works and it will happen.

 

I heard that on the radio at like 1am whole driving through Illinois about 5 years ago from some sports talk radio host and I just shook my head and said, "yeah right".

 

As events have unfolded since then, I tend to think he knew something most of us didn't.

 

The NCAA is a joke, it can't even police itself. The bowl games are losing out to a playoff already and Rutgers/Maryland are in the same conference as N.

just like CU is in the same conference as Utah.

 

I understand the NU/Rutgers/Maryland thing, but Colorado borders Utah. It's not that far-fetched as, say, NU in a conference with two teams on the east coast.

[Mavric]

My main thought is it should be eight teams. But for four, I think conference champions should be a high priority but not the only one, as several have said. For example, what if 12-0 Nebraska loses to 12-0 Ohio State (the only remaining unbeaten) in the B1G CCG 24-21. Would that automatically disqualify Nebraska from the playoff in favor of an 11-2 (or worse) champion from the ACC or Big XII? I definitely wouldn't go more than two teams per conference but there is too small a sample size (number of games) in football to automatically say a team is out because of one loss or because they happen to be in the same conference as a great team and let another team in just because they won a weaker conference.

[huskerinacaveman]

My main thought is it should be eight teams. But for four, I think conference champions should be a high priority but not the only one, as several have said. For example, what if 12-0 Nebraska loses to 12-0 Ohio State (the only remaining unbeaten) in the B1G CCG 24-21. Would that automatically disqualify Nebraska from the playoff in favor of an 11-2 (or worse) champion from the ACC or Big XII? I definitely wouldn't go more than two teams per conference but there is too small a sample size (number of games) in football to automatically say a team is out because of one loss or because they happen to be in the same conference as a great team and let another team in just because they won a weaker conference.

I would agree if those two teams didn't play. each other over the course of the season, but generally if you are in a conference like the big 12 where every team plays each other, or a conference like the big 10 where there are 14, You will play everyone in your division you face the division winner of the other side. They won, end of story. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should be the conference championship. Anything after that point is too subjective to someone else's opinions.

 

EDIT* Namely a board that include someone with the last name of Rice.

[Mavric]

My main thought is it should be eight teams. But for four, I think conference champions should be a high priority but not the only one, as several have said. For example, what if 12-0 Nebraska loses to 12-0 Ohio State (the only remaining unbeaten) in the B1G CCG 24-21. Would that automatically disqualify Nebraska from the playoff in favor of an 11-2 (or worse) champion from the ACC or Big XII? I definitely wouldn't go more than two teams per conference but there is too small a sample size (number of games) in football to automatically say a team is out because of one loss or because they happen to be in the same conference as a great team and let another team in just because they won a weaker conference.

I would agree if those two teams didn't play. each other over the course of the season, but generally if you are in a conference like the big 12 where every team plays each other, or a conference like the big 10 where there are 14, You will play everyone in your division you face the division winner of the other side. They won, end of story. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should be the conference championship. Anything after that point is too subjective to someone else's opinions.

 

EDIT* Namely a board that include someone with the last name of Rice.

I see your point but you're only looking at part of the story. Going back to my example, Nebraska has one loss, a three-point setback to the #1 team in the country. Oklahoma (for example) wins the Big XII but lost to 8-4 Notre Dame early on and lost to 10-2 Texas. Other than Oklahoma happened to be in a different conference, what about that says Oklahoma is a better team than Nebraska?

[HuskerinSunDiego]

I think it's ridiculous to say that a team that doesn't win a conference can't go. Utterly ridiculous. So, Nebraska beats Oregon, FSU, Alabama, and USC in non-conference games, loses one conference game by one point, but it's only loss is to a conference mate who doesn't lose any conference games (but did lose 2 non-conference games), so Nebraska can't play for the conference title. Meanwhile, it's one of those rare years where there are only two teams with less than 2 losses in the country. Under this scenario, it would be TOTALLY STUPID to exclude Nebraska simply because they did not win the conference. Utterly ridiculous.

[JJ Husker]

I just can't get beyond Nebraska beating Oregon, FSU, Bama, AND USC (all in same year non-cons). It wouldn't matter what eventually happened later, I would be resting peacefully in the dirt.

[Foppa]

I think it's ridiculous to say that a team that doesn't win a conference can't go. Utterly ridiculous. So, Nebraska beats Oregon, FSU, Alabama, and USC in non-conference games, loses one conference game by one point, but it's only loss is to a conference mate who doesn't lose any conference games (but did lose 2 non-conference games), so Nebraska can't play for the conference title. Meanwhile, it's one of those rare years where there are only two teams with less than 2 losses in the country. Under this scenario, it would be TOTALLY STUPID to exclude Nebraska simply because they did not win the conference. Utterly ridiculous.

 

Your hypothetical is more than utterly ridiculous.

[huskerinacaveman]

I think it's ridiculous to say that a team that doesn't win a conference can't go. Utterly ridiculous. So, Nebraska beats Oregon, FSU, Alabama, and USC in non-conference games, loses one conference game by one point, but it's only loss is to a conference mate who doesn't lose any conference games (but did lose 2 non-conference games), so Nebraska can't play for the conference title. Meanwhile, it's one of those rare years where there are only two teams with less than 2 losses in the country. Under this scenario, it would be TOTALLY STUPID to exclude Nebraska simply because they did not win the conference. Utterly ridiculous.

 

Its not stupid as you put it if that is the requirement. Lets just say that we use your example that Nebraska beats each one of those teams. I am assuming that your argument is those are all highly ranked teams. Well for the sake of the argument, those highly ranked teams at the beginning of the year are all not so highly ranked or even ranked at the beginning of the year.

 

The point I am trying to make is that using the polls or rankings to determine who should and shouldn't be in play to play in the playoff is about establishing a standard. Poll are subjective, and there isn't a real good way to determine how good a team is other them personal, biased, subjective opinions of writers, coaches, and public opinion. None of which has any real factual basis because they don't all play each other.

 

I agree with you that it would TOTALLY AND ROYALLY SUCK if Nebraska did all of that and didn't make it, but to use another example in 2001 when Nebraska did make it to the title game and as a fan, I am saying that they didn't deserve to be there, and we were embarrassed when we played.

 

I'm not saying my way is right, but I am arguing that Conference champs is a FAIR way to establish a STANDARD level of achievement for all teams to be able to play in the game. It relies on nothing more then the performance of the players and the coaches who participate in the game. No other human outside element has control over who plays. Now tell me that isn't BETTER then leaving decisions up to biased, personal, subjective opinions, and money to sway results, or match ups.

[deedsker]

Alabama looked subjectively good going into bowl season, not so good after. (No conference title, no division title)

[huskerinacaveman]

Alabama looked subjectively good going into bowl season, not so good after. (No conference title, no division title)

What do you think that says about the rest of the conference?

 

I would have thrown it out there as an "any one could win on Saturday" after Auburn, but after the bowl game, Alabama look like they lost something. Probably just focus, but I'll say their Mojo has evaporated