Dr. Saturday's Playoff Plan

[Enhance]

I'll take the unpopular stance of NOT wanting a college football playoff. Every other sport has it - including the NFL. Why do we think being the same is better? If you want a playoff, watch the NFL. If you want passion, watch college football.

:rant

Whether you mean this or not, you're indirectly saying that college football is not a place for a true champion - that college football is place of opinion and not fact.

Opinion = BCS

Fact = playoffs

As another poster said, you can have passion and playoffs in college football. And like I said earlier, any playoff system is going to diminish the regular season. It's inevitable.

 

[Enhance]

Furthermore, the only difference between the eight and ten man playoff pictures is two teams that did not win their conference (this is if the selection goes for six AQ conference winners, two non-AQ conference winners, and then two wildcard type teams).

For hypothetical purposes, say Nebraska is still in the Big 12 as is Colorado. Let's also say the eight team playoff picture is the one in motion.

Nebraska goes 11-1 in the regular season with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 11-1 during the season with one loss to Iowa State. Missouri beats Nebraska closer to the end of the season, thus they jump into the title game versus a 9-3 Oklahoma squad. If Oklahoma wins that game, why does a 10-3 Oklahoma squad deserve to be the only team from the Big 12 in the playoffs? I would think an 11-1 Nebraska squad deserves a wildcard consideration in that scenario. By the earlier instance you mentioned Saunders, would OU be considered the 'hot' team and not the 'best' team?

My point is that purely taking conference winners doesn't mean they're the best team from that conference and deserve to be the only team from that conference. I don't want a large playoff system, but only taking conference winners doesn't seem right at least not to me.

 

[Hercules]

Furthermore, the only difference between the eight and ten man playoff pictures is two teams that did not win their conference (this is if the selection goes for six AQ conference winners, two non-AQ conference winners, and then two wildcard type teams).

For hypothetical purposes, say Nebraska is still in the Big 12 as is Colorado. Let's also say the eight team playoff picture is the one in motion.

Nebraska goes 11-1 in the regular season with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 11-1 during the season with one loss to Iowa State. Missouri beats Nebraska closer to the end of the season, thus they jump into the title game versus a 9-3 Oklahoma squad. If Oklahoma wins that game, why does a 10-3 Oklahoma squad deserve to be the only team from the Big 12 in the playoffs? I would think an 11-1 Nebraska squad deserves a wildcard consideration in that scenario. By the earlier instance you mentioned Saunders, would OU be considered the 'hot' team and not the 'best' team?

My point is that purely taking conference winners doesn't mean they're the best team from that conference and deserve to be the only team from that conference. I don't want a large playoff system, but only taking conference winners doesn't seem right at least not to me.

I think taking conference champions is the only fair way. Your problem isn't so much with playoff selection, it's with how conference champions are decided. You have a problem with a 10-3 Oklahoma squad being crowned conference champion over an 11-1 Nebraska squad that couldn't even win its own division. That's how it goes though, conference championships are decided on the field. Nebraska lost to Missouri, Missouri lost to Oklahoma, Oklahoma is the conference champion, and since they won when it counts, they should be the representative in the playoff. Nebraska and Missouri had their shot, and they couldn't make it count when it mattered most. That means elimination, and it's the only way a true champion can be decided on the field instead of being decided by pollsters.

The fact that the 2008 New England Patriots were 18-0 and considered one of the best teams ever doesn't change the fact that the New York Giants are the 2007-08 Super Bowl Champions. The Giants won when it mattered, and that's all that counts. They're the champs, end of story.

 

[mmmtodd]

whats funny, is even in your plan saunders, how do you determine those top 2 non AQ and/or independent teams?

certainly not by any human element, no bias, like you say...perhaps aliens can pick who they are.

and 3 non defeated teams that didnt win a title...youre really not going with that being okay, are you? considering your plan?

 

[RedDenver]

I'll take the unpopular stance of NOT wanting a college football playoff. Every other sport has it - including the NFL. Why do we think being the same is better? If you want a playoff, watch the NFL. If you want passion, watch college football.

:rant

Whether you mean this or not, you're indirectly saying that college football is not a place for a true champion - that college football is place of opinion and not fact.

Opinion = BCS

Fact = playoffs

As another poster said, you can have passion and playoffs in college football. And like I said earlier, any playoff system is going to diminish the regular season. It's inevitable.

The bolded part is what I really don't like about a playoff. As for fact vs opinion, playoffs factually reward the hottest team at the end of the year, not necessarily the best team throughout.

The obvious example is the 2007 Patriots and Giants. The Giants were 10-6 regular season losing to the Pats by 3 (38-35) in week 17. The Pats were 16-0 regular season. But the Giants beat the Pats by 3 (17-14) in the last game which made them NFL Champions. Does anyone really think the Giants were the better team that year? The teams were 1-1 head-to-head with both wins by 3 points. But the Pats won 6 more games than the Giants.

Even with the playoffs, it's still just an opinion who the best team was.

 

[Enhance]

Furthermore, the only difference between the eight and ten man playoff pictures is two teams that did not win their conference (this is if the selection goes for six AQ conference winners, two non-AQ conference winners, and then two wildcard type teams).

For hypothetical purposes, say Nebraska is still in the Big 12 as is Colorado. Let's also say the eight team playoff picture is the one in motion.

Nebraska goes 11-1 in the regular season with one loss to Missouri, and Missouri goes 11-1 during the season with one loss to Iowa State. Missouri beats Nebraska closer to the end of the season, thus they jump into the title game versus a 9-3 Oklahoma squad. If Oklahoma wins that game, why does a 10-3 Oklahoma squad deserve to be the only team from the Big 12 in the playoffs? I would think an 11-1 Nebraska squad deserves a wildcard consideration in that scenario. By the earlier instance you mentioned Saunders, would OU be considered the 'hot' team and not the 'best' team?

My point is that purely taking conference winners doesn't mean they're the best team from that conference and deserve to be the only team from that conference. I don't want a large playoff system, but only taking conference winners doesn't seem right at least not to me.

I think taking conference champions is the only fair way. Your problem isn't so much with playoff selection, it's with how conference champions are decided. You have a problem with a 10-3 Oklahoma squad being crowned conference champion over an 11-1 Nebraska squad that couldn't even win its own division. That's how it goes though, conference championships are decided on the field. Nebraska lost to Missouri, Missouri lost to Oklahoma, Oklahoma is the conference champion, and since they won when it counts, they should be the representative in the playoff. Nebraska and Missouri had their shot, and they couldn't make it count when it mattered most. That means elimination, and it's the only way a true champion can be decided on the field instead of being decided by pollsters.

The fact that the 2008 New England Patriots were 18-0 and considered one of the best teams ever doesn't change the fact that the New York Giants are the 2007-08 Super Bowl Champions. The Giants won when it mattered, and that's all that counts. They're the champs, end of story.

I'm not debating the issue of whether or not a team is a champion if they win the conference championship. I agree, whoever wins the championship IS the champion.

But again, that's not why I said what I said. I'm saying I don't believe the 10-3 Oklahoma squad deserves to be the only squad from a given conference to go, when it's clearly possible that another team played well enough to make it in, at least in a wildcard capacity.

The NFL accepts two wildcard teams from each league, two teams that did not win their division. I'm not sure I see the difference between this being applicable in college as it is in the NFL.

 

[Enhance]

I'll take the unpopular stance of NOT wanting a college football playoff. Every other sport has it - including the NFL. Why do we think being the same is better? If you want a playoff, watch the NFL. If you want passion, watch college football.

:rant

Whether you mean this or not, you're indirectly saying that college football is not a place for a true champion - that college football is place of opinion and not fact.

Opinion = BCS

Fact = playoffs

As another poster said, you can have passion and playoffs in college football. And like I said earlier, any playoff system is going to diminish the regular season. It's inevitable.

The bolded part is what I really don't like about a playoff. As for fact vs opinion, playoffs factually reward the hottest team at the end of the year, not necessarily the best team throughout.

The obvious example is the 2007 Patriots and Giants. The Giants were 10-6 regular season losing to the Pats by 3 (38-35) in week 17. The Pats were 16-0 regular season. But the Giants beat the Pats by 3 (17-14) in the last game which made them NFL Champions. Does anyone really think the Giants were the better team that year? The teams were 1-1 head-to-head with both wins by 3 points. But the Pats won 6 more games than the Giants.

Even with the playoffs, it's still just an opinion who the best team was.

That's true, but what if a team goes undefeated and wins the playoffs in college? Did they not prove themselves as the best team throughout the year by doing so?

Nobody ever said a playoff system was perfect, because there is no such thing. No system is perfect. But the BCS is a broken system.

A playoff system allows for a champion to be decided on the field through a process. The system we have now decides a champion in one game. You're opining that a system based off of pure opinion and statistical analysis is better than a system that is derived off of actually playing a game.

What makes more sense to you? Guessing whether a coin will land heads or tails, and your guess being the outcome without ever actually flipping the coin? Or, does flipping the coin and seeing the outcome seem more fair?

Besides, even if you did the eight seeded playoff system, you have to play well enough to win your conference aka play well enough across an entire season. How does a face-off between those teams seem worse than a face-off between the two "best" teams in the nation through the BCS?

 

[nemajordude]

Even with the playoffs, it's still just an opinion who the best team was.

But not who the champion was.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I like the proposal. It keeps some importance on winning your conference without making it all-important. Conference championships are (except for one of the last tie-breakers) based on a subset of games. That's why I never like a requirement that you can't be in the BCS championship or a proposed playoff without winning your conference.

Nobody seems to have a problem with every other sport crowning a championship based on a playoff winner. It's just that it would be a change for college football, and some people don't like change. But we've had a tournament, with just 2 teams participating, for the last few years. By November most teams are out of the running. Nebraska certainly was, but we were still excited about the November and December games, weren't we? How can you think a playoff, where more teams will still be in the running, will diminish that? A lot more teams have a chance, and for the top ranked teams, a loss could take them out, or at least will give them a tougher seed.

 

[zoogs]

Even with the playoffs, it's still just an opinion who the best team was.

But not who the champion was.

Not true.

There will be (many) teams with similar records and accomplishments to the teams that made it in - but didn't.

 

[krill]

I like any system that automatically bids conference champions for two reasons. One, it maintains, perhaps even elevates the value of them. This is good because of all the TV deals conferences are cutting and it ups the ante in conference rivalries which is good for fans. Two, it will hopefully allow teams to get away from throwaway non-conference games. Now you can schedule quality opponents without worrying about a non-con loss derailing a title run. This is also good for fans, unless you actually look forward to the paid patsy matchups.

 

[Hercules]

Even with the playoffs, it's still just an opinion who the best team was.

But not who the champion was.

Not true.

There will be (many) teams with similar records and accomplishments to the teams that made it in - but didn't.

That's why they should use conference champions to select playoff teams. Conference champions are decided on the field, and then the national champion is decided on the field by the playoff. Everybody gets their shot. All you have to do is win.

 

[zoogs]

That's a problem too!

Even factoring in some at-large bids, what will the #14-ranked, 10-3 <insert team here> feel when they don't get a spot in the dance, and have to watch Miami (OH) go in their stead?

The problem is kind of a bottom line deal. There are something like 120 teams in this division, and people have this dream of figuring out a way to determine an undisputed champion out of that. That isn't possible. There are many teams in the [elite/very good/goodish/mediocre] bracket, and a lot in the [creampuff pushover] bracket. The problem is, you can't distinguish very objectively. Take a 9-3 or 9-4 team. Now, is that MAC champion Miami of OH or a competitive Big 12 or SEC team that toiled through a tough conference? There are tons of teams that are 9-win teams alone. And you can't include them all.

And for every 10-3 team included, there's a 9-win team cream saying, "but they played four non-conference creampuffs, and we just didn't have that many games on the schedule." The only solution in the interest of total fairness is to expand the playoffs by a lot. This is what NCAA Basketball does, but there's no way you can do something of that magnitude with football. IMO even 16 teams is pushing it.

In my opinion, we should just skip the foreplay and go straight to a Final Four. I think fans can get behind this idea - the notion of a Top Four Tournament. Not six or eight, four. There'll still be controversy, but this doesn't attempt to address that. All it does is acknowledge that you often can't say two teams are the only ones deserving of a shot. So you take those top two teams and you make them prove it on the field - by calling up the next two teams in the BCS standings, and saying "may the best one win."

NCAA Basketball has already acknowledged this fact - because it isn't simply a 64-team tourney. The last four takes on a whole identity of its own. The Final Four is its own sporting event within another show. It's Brad Pitt in a movie that stars Brad Pitt, and then some other guys. One of whom (the title game) is really Brad Pitt playing another character who shows up at the end.

Yeah, poor #5. But that's the controversy part that is inevitable to college football! It's essentially poor #3 now, but poor #3 has been an undefeated BCS conference team in the past. I don't see that happening if we go to a Final Four, and if it does, that's too bad. You can't bend much more than four. Because once you do, it's not Poor #9 anymore, it's Poor (5 semi indistinguishable top 15 teams). Or (15 indistinugishable mid-range teams with 9 or 10 wins apiece). And so on.

 

[Hercules]

That's a problem too!

Even factoring in some at-large bids, what will the #14-ranked, 10-3 <insert team here> feel when they don't get a spot in the dance, and have to watch Miami (OH) go in their stead?

They should feel that they should have won their conference.

If 12-0 Nebraska beats 12-0 Ohio State in the Big 10 Championship game, then Nebraska goes to the playoff. Sure, Ohio State will be upset they're not in the playoff, but all they had to do was beat Nebraska. Then Nebraska gets a #1 seed and plays Miami (OH) in the first round in Lincoln, and Miami (OH) wins. Well then, Miami (OH) did what Ohio State couldn't, and they move on.

In a scenario like that, Ohio State has no room to complain. Win your conference, earn a playoff berth.

If instead you use polls to award playoff berths, you're making conference championships less meaningful, and even less desirable. Look at 2010. Because of the reactionary nature of the polls, teams who lose later (including in conference championship games) get hurt more. In a 16-team playoff, Nebraska would have been a shoo-in before the conference championship game against Oklahoma. However, after a loss to Oklahoma, they would have dropped out of playoff contention, and Missouri, who lost head to head against Nebraska and couldn't even win their own division, would be in the playoffs. All because they lost their division, and therefore didn't have to pass the extra test of a conference championship game. Nebraska would have been punished for their regular season success. How does that make any sense, and how is that fair?

The influence of the polls should be minimized as much as possible - they're crap. Use them to seed teams in the playoff structure, nothing more. Playoff berths should be decided on the field, and the only way to do that is to grant playoff berths to conference champions.

Yeah, poor #5. But that's the controversy part that is inevitable to college football! It's essentially poor #3 now, but poor #3 has been an undefeated BCS conference team in the past. I don't see that happening if we go to a Final Four, and if it does, that's too bad. You can't bend much more than four. Because once you do, it's not Poor #9 anymore, it's Poor (5 semi indistinguishable top 15 teams). Or (15 indistinugishable mid-range teams with 9 or 10 wins apiece). And so on.

Also, it's never going to be that teams #1-#5 are all undefeated. But teams #1-#2, or #1-#3 will be undefeated, and teams #2-#5 or #3-#7 will all be one or two loss teams from major conferences. 2-loss Alabama will say they're more deserving than 1-loss Boise State, and 2-loss Ohio State will say they're more deserving than 1-loss TCU.

As stated before, the only way is to minimize the impact of the polls. They suck.

 

[zoogs]

But Miami (OH) would not deserve a shot to be the champion more than Ohio State does. In reality, Ohio State probably has a good chance to advnace and maybe even win the whole thing. Miami is most likely going to slaughter. They may have nothing to complain about if they buy into that principle, but that's a principle that ignores the 'finding the best team' idea while trying to address it. Ohio State is a 1-loss team that doesn't make it. What if everyone else in the field all have at least 1 loss as well? Ohio State is punished because of the timing of their loss, then, and nothing more. 11-1 Oklahoma, which wins an easy Big 12 field but loses to OOC Florida, would get in. Maybe even win. Both OU and OSU would have lost to one good team all year. The difference is Oklahoma's came in a meaningless OOC game.

You do make a good point with the Missouri example, though, it would hurt CCGs. Teams should not get punished for playing in them. Even with a Final Four (I don't like 16 teams as this opens up a LOT of those scenarios) a similar scenario is probable to happens. I don't have an answer to that, right now.

But you were suggesting a playoff system without at-large bids, and solely only for conference winners? That can't happen. The independent schools, such as Notre Dame, would not have a shot. And it would not allow schools to be independent, something which is their right.

I really believe an objective deciding of playoff teams on the field, is not possible.

Also, it's never going to be that teams #1-#5 are all undefeated. But teams #1-#2, or #1-#3 will be undefeated, and teams #2-#5 or #3-#7 will all be one or two loss teams from major conferences. 2-loss Alabama will say they're more deserving than 1-loss Boise State, and 2-loss Ohio State will say they're more deserving than 1-loss TCU.

Yes, this weakness is acknowledged. The larger the pool, the more shades of gray there are. With two teams, it's minimzed as much as possible - but then there's no 'fighting to deserve you are in the championship game.' There's no tournament aspect. Which is why I suggested four, but no more. The smallest playoff you could get.

That inability to determine precisely who deserves to get in, will always be there. But I do believe "Final Four" is a concept that people can get behind. CCG punishment notwithstanding - I had not thought about that.