or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #91 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Lastly, my only argument against a playoff is ... why do we need one?  The answer to that one is obvious, right:  "Because that is the only way to truly determine a consensus national champion."  That may be true, but it also may not ... keep in mind that this year if we had a 4-team playoff it WOULD NOT include Kansas State, Stanford, Georgia, LSU, or Texas A&M.  So maybe an 8-team playoff would do the trick.  I don't know.

 

My point is, is it really that important that we have a consensus national champion?  If so, why?

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.

 

Then once the eight teams are selected, the committee seeds the teams accordingly.... Again on items like strength of schedule, national FBS polls, quality wins/loses, etc.  

 

Week 1

1 seed plays the 8 seed...... Rose / Orange / Fiesta / Sugar

2 seed plays the 7 seed...... Sugar / Rose / Orange / Fiesta

3 seed plays the 6 seed...... Fiesta / Sugar / Rose / Orange

4 seed plays the 5 seed...... Orange / Fiesta / Sugar / Rose

 

* Rotate the bowl games on which seeded teams they would host each season - so that each host gets to have a featured #1 seed every four years.

 

Week 2 Semi-Final

 

Winner of 1 vs 8.................. Plays Winner of 4 vs 5.  

Winner of 2 vs 7.................. Plays Winner of 3 vs 6.

 

* Naming of these games - and host city/site could be selected similar to other major sporting events (city/atmosphere/fundraising/corporate sponsorships)

 

Week 3 Championship

Head to Head winners from Week 2 - face-off for all the marbles.

 

* Call it the BCS Playoff Championship - again the host city/town could be based on any number of things like corporate sponsors, charity fundraising, host city would submit bids and NCAA would award selection similar to how host cities are selected for hosting other major sporting events like the Superbowl, etc.

post #92 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

 

You're probably correct, which is why the big bowls don't want to see a playoff system happen. They're the ones standing in the way of it occurring. They use words like "tradition" to defend their position. And they only care about their matchup. They don't want to be part of a playoff system. My guess is they don't want to be a semifinal game of a playoff system, for example. They would rather have the, say, #5 ranked team play the #9-ranked team, call a great matchup & be done with it. I think they think a playoff would degrade their prestige.

It's not the big bowls... It's the big conferences.  They want the money which is generated by going to the said bowl game.

post #93 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

Or would you take those top 16 teams and make the losers keep playing? IE after 1 beats 16 does 16 then get to play 7? The other question is would the money still be there? IE supposedly the big bowls make money off of tourism. It is a bit harder to get that if you don't have 4 weeks to plan vacations.

 

Personally I think the real solution is to have more REAL games during the regular season.  Get rid of the cupcakes and make the SEC (to big the most blantant example) play real teams. It would be a bit of scheduling nightmare but make week 8 Pac-10/SEC challenge week where the teams all get seeded and face off. Week 12 could be SEC vs Big 12.  Or maybe you split it in half and have some of the teams play ACC/Big 10 games. You could get enough good intersection games (sure it favors cupcakes early, good teams late scheduling but nothing is perfect) to get a decent idea how good the conference is. Right now I don't have any feel for good the Big 12 or Pac 12 is. I know the ACC and Big East suck but teams like Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Kansas St, and Ok don't have any big out of conference wins (or losses other than Stanford and OK) to talk about. 

 

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?  

post #94 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

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. c2_beer.gif  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 c3_clap.gif)

 

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 View Post

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.

post #95 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
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.

I agree with this piece 100%.  And another at large bid could potentially replace that conferences champion that backed in by default of another team within their conference being ineligible.   This would be good as it would ensure the conferences are educating their players, coaches and faculty on the rules and how to prevent infractions.  As the monies generated for the conferences by attending these games are significant.  

post #96 of 214

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 View Post

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?  

post #97 of 214

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.

post #98 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

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. 

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.

post #99 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

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. 

post #100 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

For what it's worth, and I am not a fan of the BCS system, but they got it right this year. ND v Bama.

 

See, you gotta let the season play out first. It's too easy to say after Week 10, with five teams with a single loss (or whatever) that this team deserves it & that team doesn't. It is designed to determine #1 versus #2 after the season has finished.

 

ND went undefeated. Bama beat Georgia in the SEC Championship. No brainer.

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

 

 

post #101 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPMPIRE View Post

 

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. 

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. 

post #102 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

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!

post #103 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

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

I'm just glad I don't have to try and market that bowl game. g2_eek.gif

post #104 of 214

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

post #105 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

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

post #106 of 214

It isn't a "true champion". It is just a different one. One game playoffs have a huge luck role. The good news is that we would see a bunch of good games.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bksportsblog View Post

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

post #107 of 214
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bksportsblog View Post

 

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

Yep, and your avatar is scary bk. LOL

post #108 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by bksportsblog View Post

 

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. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
  • If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.