If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that... - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

It is important to have a consensus National Champion.  Because in every other sport that I can think of - the champion crowned at the end reached that pinnacle by knocking off the best of the best.  Not so much in college football.  Many of the best teams (on paper) in college football never play each other.  Also, in college football - it is difficult to run the table - so when you lose is weighted too heavily in the polls... And how high you are ranked preseason - often times provides too much of a cushion for certain teams.  Thus the BCS is skewed.

 

A playoff eliminates that for the most part, the two biggest issues with the BCS...

 

1.) The Preseason skews the rankings

2.) The late one loss teams that get punished in the polls.

 

I believe a 4 team playoff is still far from perfect and should be expanded.  IMO, the Automatic Qualifying Conferences within the current BCS system should used, and expand to an eight team playoff format:

 

1.) ACC conf champ

2.) B12 conf champ

3.) Big East conf champ

4.) Big 10 conf champ

5.) Pac-12 conf champ

6.) SEC conf champ

7.) At large bid - (Independent, possible non-BCS conference or another team from one of the 6 power conferences)

8.) At large bid - (Independent, possible non-BCS conference, or another team from one of the 6 power conferences)

 

The first six teams should be selected via each individual conference championship winner.  And the two at large bids would be selected by a committee of FBS executives (similar to what the NCAA selection committee does for basketball) and select the two at large bids based on things like national FBS polls, strength of schedule, etc.

Most people agree with you that having a National Champion (consensus) is important.  Just not me.   So what if Auburn and USC both claim to have won the title in '04?  Who is hurt by not knowing which of those teams is better than the other?

I also think people give a playoff a little too much credit for being able to solve all of our "problems."  I've used this example before, but here it is again anyways; last year with the way LSU and Alabama were playing at the end of the season, it's quite possible that they would have faced each other in the championship game even with a playoff.  If it's a 4-team playoff, LSU would have beat OK State in the semis.  So when all is said and done (assuming the same result in the final) you still have 2 one-loss teams at the end, with the loses still just being to each other at different times of the year.  What would make Alabama a more "consensus" champion in that scenario than in the current one?  Or consider if OK St beat LSU then beat Alabama.  You still have 2 one-loss teams that lost at different times of the year.  (For the record, OK States loss was to unranked Iowa State)

A playoff would be fun, sure, but its not going to "fix" everything ... of course, that's my opinion, but my opinion is also that nothing is really broken ... so there's that.  And then again maybe I'm broken, so then there's that on top of it.  (Fargo reference )

My last comment regarding your playoff plan (which would be fun, no doubt) is that I have a big problem with giving all conference champions automatic spots IF they are all going to continue playing conference championship games.  I would think allowing Wisconsin into the mix over LSU, Georgia, or whoever would be a shame.  Also last year, UCLA defaulted into the Pac 12 title game and crazier things have happened than a mediocre 6-6 team upset a top 5 ranked team.  UCLA would have 'stolen' a spot from Oregon.  Maybe just add a caveat to your rule:  If your championship game is "compromised" by a team with NCAA sanctions (USC last year, Ohio State this year) then you forfeit your automatic bid.  Your champion would have to earn it on merit that year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

I don't know how you can +1 this GD... If you are going to spend more time trying to schedule cross rival conference games... Why do that - and not do a playoff?  

Didn't say it would be easy to accomplish or would not take time, just that it would be ideal.  With that idea, you could eliminate the debate about whether an 89-0 victory over Southwest North Dakota A&M is more impressive than a 48-10 win over Northeastern South Carolina Tech.  When you got to the end and asked "who did they beat?" there would always be a more legitimate answer.

It keeps the regular season relevant and doesn't require extending the season to 16 games. Those games are getting played anyway and I would rather see Alabama play Oregon than Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic or Western Carolina. Getting 2 or 3 more real games from each of the contenders would go alone way to figuring out who is the best. 

Look the proposals for having an 8 team playoff using conference championships. Do you really want to see Wisconsin, Louisville, or even Fl St in a playoff over Fl, LSU, GA, SC, Or, A&M,  or Ok? This year 1 of those teams would make the playoff (ND would be the other open slot) and the others would stay home. You could have some rule where you need to be in the top 15 to make the playoffs but that does nothing to encourage the SEC (or other conferences) to play real games out of their conference. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

I don't know how you can +1 this GD... If you are going to spend more time trying to schedule cross rival conference games... Why do that - and not do a playoff?  

I am not opposed to a playoff (quite the contrary - I think it would be very exciting) but my view is also positive of the BCS, which is why I say I don't think we "need" a playoff.  But just for fun, if somebody was to put me in charge and give me a completely blank slate and I could do whatever I wanted, it would go something like this:

1.  Every team in FBS plays 12 games against only other FBS schools, no exceptions.

2.  Eliminate conference championship games.

3.  One weekend (late October perhaps) is "challenge week" where every BCS school plays an opponent from another BCS school.  (Thank you, x129 for that idea!)

4.  Consolidate the regular season such that everybody finishes the last weekend in November.

5.  Conclude with a 16-team playoff that starts two weeks after regular season ends (this year that would be this coming Saturday).  The 2nd and 3rd rounds would occur on consecutive weeks, then take the week of Christmas off, and have the Championship game on New Years Day - just like old times.

6.  The rest of the bowl games could basically follow their same schedule with slightly better teams.

Only 4 teams would play more games than several teams currently play - teams in leagues with champ. games already play 14, so only the final four in my playoff scenario would play more.  Furthermore, the season duration would be no longer so they wouldn't practice any more than they already do either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

Shorten the season.  In the 60's and 70's teams were playing 10 games on average.  Today, teams are playing 12 to 13 games.  Get rid of the cupcake out of conference games.  Then you have plenty of time to play the conference championship - and then the bowl/playoff games to end the season.  And still keep it at a 12 to 13 game average.

Aside from those elite teams in the top 8 who make it to the playoffs, I would think the NCAA's concern is what to do with the other teams who can't play those playoff games. I think those teams would want more revenue as well as give an opportunity for the student athletes to show off their skill to scouts despite who they play from the last 2 or 3 games of the year. I agree of getting rid of the out-of-conference games and focus on their own conference championship to make the playoffs. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

You can still have games like the 'GoDaddy.com Bowl' or the 'Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl' (I love their Asian Zing sauce by the way)... They just wouldn't be part of the formalized BCS playoff format.  Just another bowl game, that only die hard fans are going to tune in and watch, which would be played over the course of December. 

This year one of them is called the "Taxslayer.com Bowl!"  Can't leave that one out either!

Hey all.....stumbled on this thread searching for point/counter points for and against the BCS.  Personally, I think college football needs to expand their playoff structure, and eventually they will.  I know comparing football to the NCAA basketball tournament is not always apples to apples, but think of all the great match ups there would be, in an 8, or 16 team playoff??  Yes, I agree ND is hands down deserving of a #1 ranking, and under the current system hands down deserves to play for the NC.  However, having a playoff would put them against teams that they, nor their opponents have played in a lot of cases, and would really determine a true champion.  I suppose if you do not feel the need to have a "true champion" then that would be why you'd be against it.

I really think it boils down to $$$ and the old Bowls putting their own best interests ahead of what is best for the game. (not that I am qualified to decide what is best for the game by any stretch!)  I just think the current (and older) systems are archaic, and that while changing them will take some major cooperation from all parties involved, eventually it could become great.  

Just my opinion,

bk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

Ok - going back through and reading this thread... Let me say this again why I don't like the BCS (current BCS standings below)... ND is 12-0.  No question they should be playing for the title.  And while I agree - Alabama is solid option to play for the title against ND.... Florida, Oregon, KSt... They all have an argument too IMO.  This is why we need a playoff system.

 

 

BCS Standings
RK	TEAM	RECORD
1	Notre Dame	12-0
2	Alabama	12-1
3	Florida	11-1
4	Oregon	11-1
5	Kansas State	11-1
6	Stanford	11-2
7	Georgia	11-2
8	LSU	10-2

I agree with you regarding the other 1 loss teams.  I mean, who is to say that Alabama's loss is "better" than Oregon's or Kansas State's??  Granted, I watched a lot of football, and I have to say that Alabama is great football team, and very well could beat both K-State and Oregon.....but wouldn't it be nice to find out??

bk

Quote:

Originally Posted by bksportsblog 

 

I agree with you regarding the other 1 loss teams.  I mean, who is to say that Alabama's loss is "better" than Oregon's or Kansas State's??  Granted, I watched a lot of football, and I have to say that Alabama is great football team, and very well could beat both K-State and Oregon.....but wouldn't it be nice to find out??

 

 

bk

The problem is I'm not sure this argument will change with a playoff because if the take the top 8 teams whoever is #9 will most likely have the same record as #8. I do think the BCS is horrible and a playoff is much better but you will still have a lot of the same arguments. Plus they might have to look at dropping conference championships or make them not count against the rankings because that will really open the door for teams to get bumped that have no conference championship.