How would you do a playoff in college football?

[TexasAggie2005]

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.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound contentious. I realize it's just an opinion, but no one's offering a solid argument. Everyone keeps disagreeing (well, I guess just you, me, and MB) and no one's willing to actually discuss reasons. How do you deal with issues of home-field advantage? How do you keep bowls viable if they don't mean as much? How do you deal with final exams conflicting with three or four weeks of a playoff? Are regular season games still going to be as exciting when 4, 8, or even 16 teams get a playoff spot? I can handle you disagreeing with me, but explain to me why. I've brought up a number of concerns with the ideas outlined in your original posts. If you're going to disagree with me, explain why.

As an aside, your suggestion of a compromise of having the two final teams play an extra game to decide it is referred to as the +1 system. The big problem with that again, is that an extra game is not always warranted. What if there's a clear cut #1 after the bowls? And if you're going to only require it some years, who gets to decide when it's necessary?

[samikeyp]

You have the right to express all your concern and they are valid ones. I explained my idea in detail in my first post, but I will in the interest of fairness, I will address the concerns you just mentioned....To be fair though.....just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their takes any less solid.

Most of these games will be held after exams are over, for those that aren't, arrangements are made for athletes who are traveling to do homework and take tests...those same measures can be implemented here. Homefield can be deterimined by a seeding process just like the NCAA basketball tourney or use neutral fields. The Basketball tourney will not put a team in their own area (for the regionals and final four) to ensure neutrality. The bowls are still important because you will have a bunch of teams who would not qualify for the playoff and who will still be overjoyed to go to a bowl game and will follow their teams to that specfic city.

[samikeyp]

As an aside, your suggestion of a compromise of having the two final teams play an extra game to decide it is referred to as the +1 system. The big problem with that again, is that an extra game is not always warranted. What if there's a clear cut #1 after the bowls? And if you're going to only require it some years, who gets to decide when it's necessary?

I agree with that...I just mentioned it because that has been mentioned by college football people as a compromise. One that I could live with.

[Marcus Bryant]

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.

Well going back to the old way does not address the fundamental problem, only the ranking method. Yes, I do read posts before I respond.

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.

They're better conferences but then you also have the problem of perhaps a great team (ie USC) being penalized because it plays in a less than great conference.

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.

Yeah, the problem with a playoff is that some fans might have to make another trip to see their team compete for a national le. I really don't think that's a problem. Yes, the larger problem is the bowl system. No surprise there. I don't see why just because there will be some grumbling among bowl officials that means this is a horrible idea. I think a horrible idea is seeing deserving teams gets ed over year after year and doing nothing about it.

Rotate the national le game among the bowls. Hardly a new concept.

[samikeyp]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a culling of some of the lesser bowls...I just think there are too many.

[samikeyp]

I think a horrible idea is seeing deserving teams gets ed over year after year and doing nothing about it.

which is the worst travesty of all.

[j-6]

I find it fair to put 16 teams in the NBA and NHL playoffs because they utilize more than one game in their playoff systems. The NFL, on the other hand, could drop to the eight division winners and eliminate the wild card round. I'd be all for that.

On the subject of putting eight teams versus four in a college football playoff, I feel it is a necessity. When 117 teams only play ten to twelve games a year, any of the top eight teams from around the country could hang with each other. And eight just works better from an absolute standpoint (conference winners advance, etc) or a selective (top eight BCS teams).
-----------------------------------
Exhibit One - BCS teams

1- USC (Pac-10), no losses
2- Texas (XII), no losses
3- Va Tech (ACC), no losses
4- Alabama (SEC), no losses
5- UCLA (Pac-10), no losses
6- Miami (ACC) 6-1, loss to #9 FSU
7- Penn State (B10) 8-1, loss to Michigan
8- LSU (SEC) 7-1, loss to Tennessee

Left in the cold: Florida St (9th, 7-1 w/ loss to Virginia), Ohio State (10th, 6-2, w/ losses to #2 Texas and #7 Penn State), UGA (11th, 7-1, w/ loss to Florida), Wisconsin (12th, 8-1, w/ loss to N'Western).

In a traditional 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 matchup, this is how things look:
R1: USC-LSU; UT-Penn St; Va Tech-Miami; Bama-UCLA (I know that VTech and Miami still have to face each other in the ACC, but bear with me for speculative purposes.) Every one of those games is a powerhouse matchup, and the lower seeds have a decent to good shot in each.

The problem is that Wisconsin, Florida State, and Georgia have at least as much right to be there as their counterparts in Penn State, Miami, and LSU.

-----------------------------------------

Exhibit Two: Playoffs w/ Conference Champions (all speculative with a note to Notre Dame: join a conference or pout to yourselves)

Seedings based on number of losses and relative conference strength.

ACC: Va Tech (2)
BEast: West Va (6)
Pac-10: USC (1)
XII: Texas (3)
B10: Wisconsin (4)
SEC: LSU (5)
MWC/WAC playin: TCU (7)
MAC/CUSA playin: Toledo (8)

Now a Toledo-USC game may not interest anyone, but TCU-Va Tech might be a thriller. UT-WVU and LSU-Wisconsin aren't anything to overlook either. The problem here are that someone like Miami or Penn State are much better teams than Toledo, and everyone knows it. We may never see a non-conference game between two powerhouse teams again as well.

This speculative bull is sorta fun, though.

[samikeyp]

This speculative bull is sorta fun, though.

Very true.

Nice breakdown, bro.

note to Notre Dame: join a conference or pout to yourselves

[scott]

BCS > "The Old Days"

At least with the BCS, teams know what they are getting themselves into. An option that teams haven't fully explored on how to avoid getting screwed is by scheduling harder non-conference games. Ohio State is the only team to my knowledge that has said they will consciously schedule tougher non Big 10 games. The BCS isn't any worse than the "old days," its just more transparent. I don't know why people think the old days were so great. Under the old system, we'd probably end up with 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and like the REALLY old days we'd have 4 different national champs from various polls. At least the BCS puts two top teams together instead of watching #1 USC play the #10 ranked Big 10 champ.

I still will say that an 8 team playoff cheapens the regular season too much. In both of the cases you outlined, j-6, I think there are teams that simply don't deserve to to be in the le game. In the first, those teams still have to play each other and usually you end up with a couple of 2 loss teams in the top 8. (For example, last year we had Iowa, Georgia, Michigan, LSU and Virginia Tech all with 2 losses going into Bowl Games and were legit picks for the top 8. Miami was up there as well with 3 losses).

In the second case, I don't think TCU or Toledo ever deserve a national le shot without scheduling 3 major D-I games in their non-conf. schedule. TCU lost to SMU for the love of Pete.

And even with an 8 team playoff, there will still be debate around who should be #8. Heck, there is always "controversy" around who is number #64 (actually, #65 with the play-in game) in the NCAA Hoops tourny. It is inescapable.

[scott]

And PS, Independents should be allowed to compete. Notre Dame's schedule is usually as tough or tougher than any conference player.

[samikeyp]

you are right....the BCS is better than the "old days" but it is still not the best way, IMO. You are also right about controversy, there will always be some but I think the BCS causes more than necessary.

[TexasAggie2005]

BCS > "The Old Days"

At least with the BCS, teams know what they are getting themselves into. An option that teams haven't fully explored on how to avoid getting screwed is by scheduling harder non-conference games. Ohio State is the only team to my knowledge that has said they will consciously schedule tougher non Big 10 games. The BCS isn't any worse than the "old days," its just more transparent. I don't know why people think the old days were so great. Under the old system, we'd probably end up with 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and like the REALLY old days we'd have 4 different national champs from various polls. At least the BCS puts two top teams together instead of watching #1 USC play the #10 ranked Big 10 champ.



And even with an 8 team playoff, there will still be debate around who should be #8. Heck, there is always "controversy" around who is number #64 (actually, #65 with the play-in game) in the NCAA Hoops tourny. It is inescapable.

How many times were there four undefeated teams under the old system? There's rarely more than one or two (I'm talking recent history, not 1920 when there were only four decent football teams in the entire country). Besides, I'd rather have a couple of undefeated teams that never got a chance to play than a situation like last year where Auburn can run the table and never even get a shot at the le. At least with the old system, the voters could've put Auburn #1 if OU beat USC in an ugly game and Auburn looked dominant against a good team. I could deal with a "pseudo-BCS" system that pits the conference winners or highly ranked teams against each other in bowls, but none of this #1 vs. #2 crap. Because then, no matter what happens, you're screwing the #3 team.

What people don't understand is that college football's just different. You have polls/rankings. Other sports may rank teams, but none put as much stock in it as college football. You have a bowl system. Nobody else does that. Every game is exciting during the year because it's a de facto playoff game. Lose and you're as good as out of the national le race. I like college football like that and don't want to see it changed.

[samikeyp]

I think this where we differ...I think D1 football relies too much on the polls. I feel it should be settled on the field where their is no question. Just my .02 though. Its all good. This is what makes message boards fun.

[Marcus Bryant]

You use the polls to give you who should be among the top 4 to play off for a national le. That preserves the bowl system, that preserves the poll system and that introduces some fairness into the process.

[j-6]

You use the polls to give you who should be among the top 4 to play off for a national le. That preserves the bowl system, that preserves the poll system and that introduces some fairness into the process.

I think the polls and a playoff have to be under a different system. The pollsters are too susceptible to bias, and that will really hinder the entire process. There should be something like a BCS selection committee in the same manner as the basketball tourney selection guys if the national le chase isn't going to be decided in a playoff.

[hicksi]

I think the polls and a playoff have to be under a different system. The pollsters are too susceptible to bias, and that will really hinder the entire process. There should be something like a BCS selection committee in the same manner as the basketball tourney selection guys if the national le chase isn't going to be decided in a playoff.

OMG...
The media shows BIAS?
That sould never happen.

[scott]

At least with the old system, the voters could've put Auburn #1 if OU beat USC in an ugly game and Auburn looked dominant against a good team.

They can still do that in the current system, see 2003 when USC won the AP National le while LSU won the BCS le.

[TexasAggie2005]

They can still do that in the current system, see 2003 when USC won the AP National le while LSU won the BCS le.

That only gives a team half of a le. And with the supposed #1 playing the supposed #2, that makes it almost impossible for the #3 team to pass them. Auburn had next to no chance last year. The only reason USC did it in 2003 was because they were already #1 in both polls. With the changes in the BCS made since, that scenario will never happen again.

[scott]

That only gives a team half of a le.

As did all the times there were split national champions in the "old days" you long for.

And with the supposed #1 playing the supposed #2, that makes it almost impossible for the #3 team to pass them. Auburn had next to no chance last year. The only reason USC did it in 2003 was because they were already #1 in both polls. With the changes in the BCS made since, that scenario will never happen again.

How is that any different than the old days? You are the one making up these scenarious, only to turn around and say they are unrealistic.

[j-6]

At least in the old days everyone knew that the polls would decide which team(s) would be the champions. Not that it wasn't a flawed system by any means, but there weren't computers from the New York Times and Jeff Sagarin adding their pollution as well.

Question: Do you think a split national le is better than having a major conference team run the table like Auburn in '04 left out in the cold?

[TexasAggie2005]

As did all the times there were split national champions in the "old days" you long for.

Split championships weren't that common. And if they do occur every once in a while, isn't that better than one deserving team getting completely screwed?

How is that any different than the old days? You are the one making up these scenarious, only to turn around and say they are unrealistic.

I'm not "making up" any scenarios, I'm using things that have happened the past couple years to illustrate my points. And it's unrealistic for things to happen now the way they did in the past because the BCS has changed. A situation like 2003 will never happen again, becuase of the altered formula, thus last year Auburn had no chance at winning a split le.

[scott]

Split championships weren't that common. And if they do occur every once in a while, isn't that better than one deserving team getting completely screwed?

They were just as, if not more common than they are under the BCS system.

I'm not "making up" any scenarios, I'm using things that have happened the past couple years to illustrate my points. And it's unrealistic for things to happen now the way they did in the past because the BCS has changed. A situation like 2003 will never happen again, becuase of the altered formula, thus last year Auburn had no chance at winning a split le.

The AP could have voted for Auburn just as easily in the BCS system than they could have in the old system. To say Auburn had no chance at winning a split le is pure speculation - assuming someone who voted for USC would have changed their vote to Auburn had the Trojans beaten Michigan instead of Oklahoma.

In the new system, the chances of a split le are reduced, because typically there are two clear cut teams competing for the national le, and they play for it. You want to abandon that to mitigate against the occasions where there are more than 2 teams deserving (which, while becoming more common is still rare). So now, instead of an Auburn getting screwed every now and then, there would be arguing over at least 1 team getting screwed every year.

Old System Bowl Games:

#1 USC Plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl
#2 Oklahoma probably would have played Georgia from the SEC in the Cotton Bowl
#3 Auburn would have played ACC Champ Virginia Tech (which they did anyway) in the Sugar Bowl

Assume all 3 win... how is that situation any better than USC playing Oklahoma and Auburn still playing VT, other than now there are 3 teams with a gripe instead of just 1?

[TexasAggie2005]

They were just as, if not more common than they are under the BCS system.

There's been one split le since the BCS started and it'll never happen again for reasons I explained before. Sure split les would be more common under the old system, but I think that's a GOOD thing. Would you rather have a guaranteed non-split le (and one team guaranteed being screwed) or the possibility of two deserving teams sharing the le? I don't see what's so inherently bad about a split le.

The AP could have voted for Auburn just as easily in the BCS system than they could have in the old system. To say Auburn had no chance at winning a split le is pure speculation - assuming someone who voted for USC would have changed their vote to Auburn had the Trojans beaten Michigan instead of Oklahoma.

In the new system, the chances of a split le are reduced, because typically there are two clear cut teams competing for the national le, and they play for it. You want to abandon that to mitigate against the occasions where there are more than 2 teams deserving (which, while becoming more common is still rare). So now, instead of an Auburn getting screwed every now and then, there would be arguing over at least 1 team getting screwed every year.

Old System Bowl Games:

#1 USC Plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl
#2 Oklahoma probably would have played Georgia from the SEC in the Cotton Bowl
#3 Auburn would have played ACC Champ Virginia Tech (which they did anyway) in the Sugar Bowl

Assume all 3 win... how is that situation any better than USC playing Oklahoma and Auburn still playing VT, other than now there are 3 teams with a gripe instead of just 1?

If you'd read what I posted before, you would've seen where I explained that Auburn had no chance of winning the AP le precisely because of the BCS match-up. Whether Auburn deserved it or not, voters aren't going to put them ahead of a #1 team that beat a #2 team or a #2 team that beat a #1 team.

The scenario you outlined is possible, but the odds of having three undefeated teams after the bowls is extremely unlikely, especially with the harder non-conference schedule you'd see with a non-BCS system. Anyhow, I'd rather let the voters have the option of voting any deserving team national champion after the bowls than limit yourself to two teams, because then you're guaranteeing the #3 team has absolutely no chance at the le. With the old system, at least if they looked dominant in their bowl, there was a chance of passing the top two teams and/or the possibility of both top two teams losing since they wouldn't be playing each other.

[hussker]

LATE: In 1997, I sent a letter to Grant Teaff and Vince Dooley who were on the NCAA Football commission. I aill copy that letter I received from Vince Dooley soon....


I see a 16 team playoff...more to follow.....

Hugz,
Hussker

[scott]

And now that Va Tech has lost, with the "Old Days" we'd be looking at USC-Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Texas versus SEC #2 in the Cotton Bowl. But, because of the BCS, instead we will have the top 2 teams in the nation, Texas and USC, playing each other for the le.

Playoff > BCS > "Old Days"