Would like your thoughts on the new college football playoff

[VA Husker Fan]

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.

But it's not really establishing a standard level because it only considers conference games, plus some conferences have that elimination championship game, and others don't. And some conferences have 14 teams, while others have 8. It's far from a standard level.

 

I'd argue that it's like saying that a team has to win it's rivalry game to make the playoffs. If Oregon rolls through the rest of the schedule but loses the Civil War game vs Oregon St, and still goes on to win the Pac 12, they can't go, because if you can't even win your rivalry game for your own state's bragging rights, you don't get in. If you don't have a rivalry game, well, that rule just doesn't apply to you so you're eligible. Not the same thing as winning a conference? Why not? The only difference is that a conference championship involves more games, but it doesn't take into account the entire season.

 

The committee can make it fair. They aren't employed by ESPN if you're worried about the SEC bias. I'd hope that this year they'd have considered the conference championship factor enough to include Auburn, FSU, Stanford, and Michigan St, and leave Alabama out because 3-5 were so close. No need to mandate Alabama out,and if Michigan St and probably Baylor had another loss or two, I think Alabama should get in.

[Count 'Bility]

I always thought a conference championship should be a requirement for a playoff. I know in a way it's not like that in other sports in the NFL, but in a way it is. Conference/division champions are rewarded with automatic bids to playoffs/tournaments in all team sports. Why not College football? How can you get a chance to play for being the best team in the nation, if youre not even the best team in your conference that is actually settled on the field of play and not by some computers or folks behing closed doors? And get that opportunity over someone who DID win their conference on the field of play. In the 4 teamer this year, Pac 12 champ Stanford or Big 10 champ Sparty gets left out for Bama, who couldnt even win their division. i dont care if it was one flukish play. The lost the game. They lost the division. They lost the conference. Sparty and Stanford won their conferences, without a doubt, on the field of play. They proved it. Bama did not.

 

I always thought the play off should be 8 teams. 6 auto bids to the 6 outright champions of major conferences, and 2 wildcards for teams like Bama, who this year, yes, can be considered the best team out there, and for that occasion non AQ team like the Boises and NIU's that occasionally make a run. There. That's simple. No committee. No need to complicate it with perception and bullsh#t. Wanna be National Champion? Win your conference. That's the only way to ensure a shot. That's my opinion.

[BaytownHusker]

Playoff.. Did some one say Playoffs.. There is going to be 99.9% more controversy with the play off system then there was with the BCS. Can anyone honestly say they got the championship wrong other then the LSU-Bama rematch. Us as the Huskers will be hard pressed to ever be top5 team unless we blow out everyone by 40 points like the old days. ! due to the fact everyone thinks the Big is so weak. Play off system should have been a format that included all conf champs.

[Count 'Bility]

Playoff.. Did some one say Playoffs.. There is going to be 99.9% more controversy with the play off system then there was with the BCS. Can anyone honestly say they got the championship wrong other then the LSU-Bama rematch. Us as the Huskers will be hard pressed to ever be top5 team unless we blow out everyone by 40 points like the old days. ! due to the fact everyone thinks the Big is so weak. Play off system should have been a format that included all conf champs.

Years of incorrectness/controversy of the BCS champion ship game.

2000-The argument between Florida St and Miami since Miami beat FSU on the field.

2001-*vomits* We know what happened here

2003-This was just as bad as 2001. OU gets the shot after getting blown out in CCG. USC gets AP National title. Pretty sure this was the only "split/non unanimous" year in the BCS.

2004-Not necessarily wrong, but there were 3 teams unbeaten. Undefeated Auburn got left out.

2006-Unbeaten Ohio St. Controversy surrounding other team with bunch of 1 loss teams

2007-2-loss LSU gets in and wins it. This year needed a playoff more than anyone. No one could stay unbeaten

2008-Controversey first about Big 12 south champ as TT, UT, and OU had an equal 3 way split. OU gets nod, wins conference and faces 1 loss Florida. Big 12-S champ was decided of course by BCS rankings.

2011-LSU/Bama. Need I say more?

2013-Not sure you cant make a case for Sparty or Stanford as 1 loss teams over Auburn. Sure in hindsight the way the game turned out, we say Auburn was the right choice, but the competitiveness of the Rose Bowl, and the fact that neither team needed a pair of the luckiest, most flukish plays in football history to avoid a 9-3 reg season and was playing as good as football as anyone at the end of the year, says the Mich St and Stanford probably deserved just as much of a look.

 

All in all, the BCS has been surrounded by turmoil more times than not. Trying to pick just two teams out of a pool of 5-8 legit contenders in this day and age of parity is just not getting it done.

 

I agree, there will be controversey surrounding the playoff. Like the NCAA basketball tourney, the first 2-3 teams out will always be pissed, which is why I think conference champ auto-qualifiers is the way to go. I also hope it goes to 8 teams shortly. I believe year after year the top 5-8 teams are all legit contenders. Dont think you can make that argument for the 10th, 12th team and so on. 16 would be too many.

[Landlord]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but most of it.

 

 

I'll throw out this - I think it's very unlikely to see it go to 16 teams. Why? Player safety. That's just too many football games. We're already at 14 for the successful schools, 15 next year. No way the powers that be will opt for a possible seventeen game schedule for two teams - unless we go the way of getting rid of a non-conference game, which also won't happen, because those schools need a certain amount of home games for revenue.

[Comish]

Needs to be minimum of 8 asap

[huskerinacaveman]

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.

But it's not really establishing a standard level because it only considers conference games, plus some conferences have that elimination championship game, and others don't. And some conferences have 14 teams, while others have 8. It's far from a standard level.

 

I'd argue that it's like saying that a team has to win it's rivalry game to make the playoffs. If Oregon rolls through the rest of the schedule but loses the Civil War game vs Oregon St, and still goes on to win the Pac 12, they can't go, because if you can't even win your rivalry game for your own state's bragging rights, you don't get in. If you don't have a rivalry game, well, that rule just doesn't apply to you so you're eligible. Not the same thing as winning a conference? Why not? The only difference is that a conference championship involves more games, but it doesn't take into account the entire season.

 

The committee can make it fair. They aren't employed by ESPN if you're worried about the SEC bias. I'd hope that this year they'd have considered the conference championship factor enough to include Auburn, FSU, Stanford, and Michigan St, and leave Alabama out because 3-5 were so close. No need to mandate Alabama out,and if Michigan St and probably Baylor had another loss or two, I think Alabama should get in.

I disagree, here's why.

 

Non-Conference is a joke anyways and to early in the season to truly establish anything other than a perceived ranking based on what? Kind of the same thing that the BCS never started their rankings until after halfway through the season.

 

Each of the conferences have established clear ways to win the conference. All of the conferences with CCG have divisions and then a title game. The other are small enough to play everyone to establish a winner with ties going to the winner of the two, and so on and so forth.

 

I'm not saying that Alabama wasn't good this year, they were, but by what I am saying you shouldn't be allowed to play if you can't win your conference. As someone else put it mentioned, they didn't even win their division.

 

If you don't make this the standard then you have to open it up wider (at least top 25 teams to 36 teams, and the argument that the season doesn't matter anymore starts.) to allow the teams that are at a natural disadvantage (Non-AQ schools) to get into it. Other wise you have little to no shot to ever get in. 2 Non AQ schools in the last 4 years have made it in the top 10

 

Do I feel that Boise State or TCU were good enough to deserve those rankings. I do not, but my opinion shouldn't matter, not should anyone else's. They won the games that were put in front of them more then they lost. They should have a chance to prove it. Not have someone else decide with a committee

[huskerinacaveman]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but most of it.

 

 

I'll throw out this - I think it's very unlikely to see it go to 16 teams. Why? Player safety. That's just too many football games. We're already at 14 for the successful schools, 15 next year. No way the powers that be will opt for a possible seventeen game schedule for two teams - unless we go the way of getting rid of a non-conference game, which also won't happen, because those schools need a certain amount of home games for revenue.

 

Agree, and the only way to reduce that is to remove the Non-conference schedule, play conference play, and the non-con is essentially the playoffs of however many teams.

[Redmusky]

Should have gone to 6

the 2 top conference champions get a bye

T he 2 other major conference champions are in with 2 wild card teams

One must be from a non major conference and the other would be the best record from a major conference (non champion).

 

The first 2 rounds should be played inside the conference zone who has the best record.( cut down travel cost)

 

There should be no crying win your conference (if a Major conference) your in

If you trip up you have a second shot if you have a good record.

[Husker John]

8 team play-off.......head-to head matchups will always be a more valid and reliable measurement of who the best is vs. a committee with innate biases attempting to be objective.

[huskerinacaveman]

8 team play-off.......head-to head matchups will always be a more valid and reliable measurement of who the best is vs. a committee with innate biases attempting to be objective.

How do you determine which 8 teams make it?

[Mavric]

How do you determine which 8 teams make it?

I say any conference champion in the final Top 12 (or so) would be in. That way you give conference champions first crack but if you were only 9-4 (or maybe even 10-3) but won a crappy conference, you might not get there. Then fill in the rest as needed - a committee to chose the remaining ones seems best to me.

[wildman]

the way this should be done to be fair to every conference is to use the conference championship games as first round. For those conferences that don't have a conference championship game, they will be in a play in scenario. So conference champion of Big 12, Sunbelt, AAC and Independent will play each other. For example Big 12 champ would play AAC Champ, Sunbelt Champ would play Independent highest ranked or best record. Those 2 winners would play in the first round of playoffs same weekend as the conference champions. The conference champions with the winner of the play in games would advance into the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls. Then those winners to the final 4 then the championship game. With this scenario every conference will have a fair shot at the national championship. Plus they'd only play 2 additional games 3 if your in a conference without a conference championship game. If they cut back non con games to 3 then it's only 1 to 2 additional games for those that make the championship game. The conference champions can rotate bowls so it's not always BIG 10 playing Pac 12 for example.

[TAKODA]

I think this first step (4 Teams) will only lead us to the natural progression of an 8 team playoff. I don't think we will see 16 teams because of the additional time it would take to complete the brackets and the administrations at the universities are already concerned over lengthy seasons hampering student athletes!

[irafreak]

Different system...same set of controversies...