How would you do a playoff in college football?

[Dre_7]

Which raises the question...
What are the top 8?
If you leave it to AP, then USC will be in every year.
Whatever happened to the "Strength of Schedule" thing? Without THAT, teams can bash up the minnows and get to the top.

He said the top 8 in the BCS.

I think it should be the top 4. 1 v 4 & 2 v 3. Simple as that.

[hicksi]

He said the top 8 in the BCS.

I think it should be the top 4. 1 v 4 & 2 v 3. Simple as that.

We have an "interesting" form of finals series in Australian Rugby League...
Week 1:
1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 with the bottom 2 losers falling out, and re-eanking 1 to 6 (winners above losers, which places 8 above 1 if they won but still below the winner of the other 3 games)
The top 2 winners have a week's rest
Week 2:
3v6, 4v5 and losers are out, and ranking remaining the same (ie, even if 6 wins, it's still below both of 4 or 5)
Week 3:
1v4, 2v3 and losers are out.
Week 4:
Grand Final, Winner vs Winner

It means that 1 and 2 ALWAYS get a second chance, and that 3, 4, 5 or 6 could scrape through to week 2 even if they lose in week 1.

[scott]

16 teams? Jesus, not even the NFL has a 16 team playoff - they'd be playing until March.

I'd be for a Top 4, based on polls - Independents count. Maybe Top 8 after a few years, but I'd probably argue to keep it small. One of the things I really like about College Football is the importance of every single game. When you make the playoffs too expansive, you lose that because a couple of 2-loss teams could enter the fray.

[Marcus Bryant]

While a playoff would seem logical, I think the bowls are too ingrained in the NCAA. A 4 team playoff would mean that only 2 teams would have the prospect of two bowls in any given year. I would guess that a system could be set up where the top 4 teams share the payouts of the 3 bowl games a 4 team playoff would require. At worst that would mean that a couple of teams are bumped out of the bowl picture altogether. I would think that the major conferences would have more pull than the Fresno States of the college football world. If a SEC team (ie Alabama) gets jobbed again you would think that the chorus for a change in the BCS would get louder.

[King]

I'd go top four in the BCS system - and let 1/4 and 2/3 play. The BCS is usually pretty accurate as far as having the best teams at or near the top four - the arguments are on how those four are ranked. So, get the top four, and let them play it out.

Same bowl system. Two of the Orange/Sugar/Fiesta are the playoff games - and the one left over is the consolation game. Rose is the Championship. Then rotate the bowls.

[samikeyp]

If a SEC team (ie Alabama) gets jobbed again you would think that the chorus for a change in the BCS would get louder

as it should.

[TexasAggie2005]

The problem is that none of the scenarios suggested work for every year. Some years you have two undefeated teams and it's logical for them to play each other for the le. Sometimes you have three, and one ends up screwed. Sometimes you have one, and then it's hard to decide who gets to play them. No matter how many teams you include in a playoff or whatever, someone's always going to barely miss out and feel jilted. You have a small playoff and everyone gets upset about the legitimate contenders (like a #5 team, are they inherently that much worse than a #4 team?) that get left out. You have a bigger playoff and the regular season games lose importance and you also lose the excitement of the "non-playoff" bowls.

I like the way it used to be. Let humans who know what they're doing pick the national champion. You keep the bowl system, no one gets totally screwed out of a chance at the le, and it lets people argue about who should be #1. The only change needed (and this has been somewhat rectified) is to make ballots public so that blatant favoritism is exposed.

[Marcus Bryant]

In the years in which you have one undefeated, well, they have the opportunity to prove they are the best. I do not see the problem in having a 4 team playoff in that scenario.

Plus I would say that a playoff system would be more exciting than seeing a team that got frozen out of the le game win a bowl game and then get the final #2 ranking.

[TexasAggie2005]

In the years in which you have one undefeated, well, they have the opportunity to prove they are the best. I do not see the problem in having a 4 team playoff in that scenario.

Plus I would say that a playoff system would be more exciting than seeing a team that got frozen out of the le game win a bowl game and then get the final #2 ranking.

I never said anything about a le game. Having a le game only works well when you have two undefeated teams. I would rather see the pre-BCS system where at least every team has a shot to prove on the field they're worthy. And if you have only one undefeated team, why should they have to prove they are the best in multiple rounds of a playoff? They've already proved it in 11 games, every week of the season (12 counting the bowl).

I don't see college football going to a playoff system anytime soon anyhow. So, in the end, would you rather have thing the way they are now, or the way they were before the BCS?

[Marcus Bryant]

Perhaps because the undefeated team did not face as strong of a schedule as some of the teams with 1 loss. If they can't prove they're the best, do they deserve to be called the best?

[TexasAggie2005]

Perhaps because the undefeated team did not face as strong of a schedule as some of the teams with 1 loss. If they can't prove they're the best, do they deserve to be called the best?

Then voters have the right to vote a solid one loss team ahead of them. It's happened before, multiple times. And what happens if there's only one undefeated team and they played a tough schedule? Don't they deserve the le without having to play more games?

Also, one of the biggest pros of such a system would be a desire to play tougher schedules. With the BCS, we've seen pretty much the end of difficult non-conference games (Texas/OSU this year being a major exception). Big intersectional non-conference games are good for the sport and the fans.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well then we have the determination made off the field. Sure, a 4 team playoff within the bowls is imperfect, but it's better than the current or prior methods.

[TexasAggie2005]

Well then we have the determination made off the field. Sure, a 4 team playoff within the bowls is imperfect, but it's better than the current or prior methods.

Then you end up with a lot of debate over who's #4 and who's #5. And if, God forbid, the #4 team should win it all you end up with crying from the #5 (who thinks they're just as good) and the #1 (who doesn't think the #4 belongs in the first place). Take last year. Did #4 Texas really belong in a playoff with USC, Auburn, and OU? Did #5 Cal deserve to be in it less than Texas? Especially with Mack Brown's stumping for votes, you'd have a lot of pissed off Bears.

Besides, if you have a playoff, you end up with a lot of debate about home field advantage. Say Texas ends up #1 and UCLA #4 and the first round is scheduled to be at the Rose Bowl. Is that fair for Texas? And do you guys really think fans will want to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for multiple rounds of a playoff? The director of the Orange Bowl is gonna be pissed as when he ends up with two teams from across the country playing in a semifinal game (or even a quarterfinal with an 8 team playoff) in his bowl. You really think that many people will travel cross-country for an early round playoff game?

Take the bowls out of the playoffs entirely, and all of a sudden bowls mean nothing. The NCAA will never let that happen. I don't see a playoff coming any time soon. Talk about it all you want, it's not happening. And I'd rather have the old system than this crap.

[hicksi]

16 teams? Jesus, not even the NFL has a 16 team playoff - they'd be playing until March.

I'd be for a Top 4, based on polls - Independents count. Maybe Top 8 after a few years, but I'd probably argue to keep it small. One of the things I really like about College Football is the importance of every single game. When you make the playoffs too expansive, you lose that because a couple of 2-loss teams could enter the fray.

No, there's only 8...

[Marcus Bryant]

Then you end up with a lot of debate over who's #4 and who's #5. And if, God forbid, the #4 team should win it all you end up with crying from the #5 (who thinks they're just as good) and the #1 (who doesn't think the #4 belongs in the first place). Take last year. Did #4 Texas really belong in a playoff with USC, Auburn, and OU? Did #5 Cal deserve to be in it less than Texas? Especially with Mack Brown's stumping for votes, you'd have a lot of pissed off Bears.

Besides, if you have a playoff, you end up with a lot of debate about home field advantage. Say Texas ends up #1 and UCLA #4 and the first round is scheduled to be at the Rose Bowl. Is that fair for Texas? And do you guys really think fans will want to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for multiple rounds of a playoff? The director of the Orange Bowl is gonna be pissed as when he ends up with two teams from across the country playing in a semifinal game (or even a quarterfinal with an 8 team playoff) in his bowl. You really think that many people will travel cross-country for an early round playoff game?

Take the bowls out of the playoffs entirely, and all of a sudden bowls mean nothing. The NCAA will never let that happen. I don't see a playoff coming any time soon. Talk about it all you want, it's not happening. And I'd rather have the old system than this crap.

Again, the #5 team isn't as likely to be an undefeated team deserving of a shot at a national le game as is the #3 team in the current arrangement.

Sure, the bowl tradition complicates matters, but it's not hard to see some kind of limited playoff ending the rather glaring potential for gridiron injustice.

[TexasAggie2005]

No, there's only 8...

There's 12 (8 division winners, 4 wild cards). And they'd be playing the same length of time, there just wouldn't be byes. The NFL doesn't do 16 because that's too many teams. I hate how 16 teams make the playoffs in basketball. A #8 seed has no chance of winning it all, they shouldn't be in it.

[TexasAggie2005]

Again, the #5 team isn't as likely to be an undefeated team deserving of a shot at a national le game as is the #3 team in the current arrangement.

Sure, the bowl tradition complicates matters, but it's not hard to see some kind of limited playoff ending the rather glaring potential for gridiron injustice.

I'm not advocating the current arrangement. I never have. And explain to me how your four team playoff works for last year's final standings. Why does Texas deserve a shot at the national le and Cal doesn't? Texas would've only had to win two games, there's a decent shot it would've happened. Maybe I just don't see the glaring injustice you do. I think the polls do a pretty good job of voting the best team #1 by the end of the season. And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

[samikeyp]

And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

See my first post.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm not advocating the current arrangement. I never have. And explain to me how your four team playoff works for last year's final standings. Why does Texas deserve a shot at the national le and Cal doesn't? Texas would've only had to win two games, there's a decent shot it would've happened. Maybe I just don't see the glaring injustice you do. I think the polls do a pretty good job of voting the best team #1 by the end of the season. And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

It's not hard to understand that if you don't allow for at least the top 4 teams to have a playoff that you can have a team from a major conference who goes undefeated and is frozen out of having a shot at playing in the national le game (see Auburn).

Look at this season, you could have both Va Tech and Alabama undefeated at the end of the year and they'll be on the outside looking in if the current rankings don't change. Are the ACC and SEC really weaker conferences than the Pac-10 and Big 12?

You know, maybe we should see other collegiate and pro sports implement this voting system to determine a champion since it's so fair...

[TexasAggie2005]

See my first post.

I did. Read my posts if you want to know why I think it's impossible to do.

[samikeyp]

I did. I disagree.

[TexasAggie2005]

It's not hard to understand that if you don't allow for at least the top 4 teams to have a playoff that you can have a team from a major conference who goes undefeated and is frozen out of having a shot at playing in the national le game (see Auburn).

That's why I don't agree with the BCS. No offense man, but do you even read before posting? I've never once said we should do things the way they are now.

Look at this season, you could have both Va Tech and Alabama undefeated at the end of the year and they'll be on the outside looking in if the current rankings don't change. Are the ACC and SEC really weaker conferences than the Pac-10 and Big 12?

No, they're better conferences (the ACC and SEC). Substantially. Again, I've never promoted the current system, so this is irrelevant. If they play well enough, I think the voters move them up. Besides, how often are you going to have four undefeated teams from major conferences? In addition, the likelihood of this would be reduced with the tougher non-conference schedules played without the BCS.

You know, maybe we should see other collegiate and pro sports implement this voting system to determine a champion since it's so fair...

I'm not saying it's the best possible scenario. Just that it's better than the BCS and the most equitable solution that has a chance of actually being implemented. And you've still never addressed any of the problems I've brought up with having a playoff.

[TexasAggie2005]

I did. I disagree.

Care to explain? A playoff would destroy the bowl system (as I explained in numerous posts earlier), therefore the NCAA would never implement it. I gave plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work earlier, feel free to show me where I'm going wrong on them.

[samikeyp]

Its not a matter of right or wrong, its a difference of opinion. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying I don't agree with you. I explained how the bowls could work in harmony with a playoff. I stand by that. I started this thread to get opinions from everyone. Its not a thread for "I'm right, you're wrong" its a "what do you think" thread. I never said a playoff would happen, I said I think it should happen. I would even take a compromise...if after the BCS, USC and Va Tech are still undefeated...let them play an extra game to decide. My basic point was that I feel that championships should be decided on the field and not by a computer. As long as we have the BCS, that is not always guaranteed. Other sports and even other levels of college football can do, I feel the big boys can too.

[samikeyp]

That's why I don't agree with the BCS

I think the one thing we all agree on is that we don't agree with the BCS.