A playoff in I-A football

[iggymcfly 0]

NOTE: This was originally going to be a reply in the "last week in college football" thread, but it got pretty long, and I thought it deserved its own topic. I'd really like to see people's opinion on this playoff plan.

 

From a fairness standpoint, a 16-team playoff with every conference champion getting it doesn't work. A team like North Texas just barely belongs in a bowl game, let alone in a playoff to determine the national champion.

 

The fact is that there is enough disparity betwen the upper and lower levels of I-A football that there does need to be some reward for the lower level teams. A 16-team playoff would destroy the bowl system, and in the long run, that would greatly damage most of the mid-majors, as well as take a lot of the magic away from college football, in devaluing regular season games for top level teams.

 

In order to fairly determine a national champion, an 8-team playoff is the only way to go. However, instead of giving automatic berths to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10, and SEC Champions, just give berths to the top 6 conference champions by BCS rank, regardless of what conference they're in. In order to make sure Notre Dame has an easy road, they can even count I-A independents as its own conference. That way, the system doesn't explicitly discriminate against mid-majors, and we won't get stuck with lame-duck teams like West Virginia. This year, for example, Michigan and West Virginia would have gotten left out, while Boise State and California would have made it in.

 

The only real problem with an eight-team playoff is how to implement it without damaging the bowl system. The idea of making an eight-team playoff consist of seven bowl games doesn't work, because no team's fans will travel to three different games, and the bowls wouldn't be able to draw in any traditional sense. However, the playoff games would all be a television ratings bonanza, so there is money to be made with them.

 

The first thing to do with a playoff is to make sure the regular season ends by the last week in November. The conference championship games can be held the week after rivalry week instead of dragging things out for multiple weeks. Then, the quarterfinals of the playoffs can be held at campus sites the week before final exams while the students are still around to go to the games.

 

This will also give enough time that the losers of the BCS games can go to bowls, and their fans will still want to see them. They can even let the bowls mix the quarterfinal losers with non-playoff teams, so that there will be intriguing storylines with the last teams that made the playoffs going against the teams that thought they should have been in. Meanwhile, the semifinal games will also take place at bowl sites on New Year's Day, as plenty of fans will travel to watch their team play in a traditional bowl for a chance to go the national championship.

 

Finally, the national championship can be held two weeks after New Year's Day, even on a weekday if people are worried about conflicts with the NFL playoffs. Both teams will have time to prepare, and there will be enough national interest that the lost travel really won't be that much of a motivation. In order to maximize travel opportunities, they can say that the national championship will be held at the closest major bowl site (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, or Sugar) to the campus of the higher-ranked BCS team in the game.

 

That way, I-A football would be able to determine a true national champion, the bowl system would be (for the most part) intact, exams wouldn't be interrupted, and the NCAA would be able to get a financial bonanza from the playoff system. Even the quarterfinal games at campus sites would be worth about $10 million each in television rights, and the "real national championship game" would probably be worth about $20 million to a network. It seems like the positives of this system would greatly outweigh the negatives, and there's really no good reason not to implement it.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think there are two problems with a playoff system.

 

1. You have the same problem with the 7-8 seeds that you have with the 1-2 Title Game now. Invariably, you have to make some kind of distinction between equally deserving teams, as to who gets a shot and who doesn't.

 

2. You give weaker teams a shot at the championship. Giving a National Championship to say, Virginia Tech, seems like an extremely unsatisfactory conclusion to the USC/Oklahoma/Auburn controversy.

[The Czech Republic 0]

What if they beat all three teams? In the NHL, #6 Calgary knocked off #3 Vancouver, #1 Detroit, and #2 San Jose en route to the finals.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

That's certainly possible. But if they lost twice in the regular season, why should they have the opportunity?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

This year we'd have:

USC

OU

Auburn

Utah

Virginia Tech

Boise State

Texas

Cal

 

I suppose that's a better layout, but I still question any system that would put an undefeated WAC team like Boise in the playoff. The competition's just not there. The Big Ten wasn't very good this year, but Michigan is a *much* better team than Boise State. Still, if it were Louisville, who're the 7th highest-ranked conference champ, I'd be less concerned. So it's not bad.

 

Who gets the revenue from the playoff games? Do the teams in them get as much money as they would from a BCS bid? Do they get more money for going further into the playoffs? $20 million for the rights to broadcast the championship game is good, but who'll see the money, and how will it be distributed? Same conference plan as now, or more to the individual team?

 

The NCAA wouldn't be able to get most of the major conferences to agree to this, though. Show the Big Ten or Big East a system where they wouldn't get in on the playoffs this year, or even one where the ACC sees that its representative would only get in by .0300, and they won't agree. It also would raise another set of questions similar to the question of why Pitt's getting a BCS bid now. This year, your system would take teams 1-6 and 8-9, leaving out #7 Georgia. Enter the concern as to why on earth Boise should be in there instead of them.

 

I like it, but the major conferences would never agree to it.

[MrRant 0]

That's like saying a 10 game over .500 division winner in the MLB Playoffs shouldn't get a shot.

 

Edit: Directed at Al

[CanadianChris 0]

I think there are two problems with a playoff system.

 

1. You have the same problem with the 7-8 seeds that you have with the 1-2 Title Game now.  Invariably, you have to make some kind of distinction between equally deserving teams, as to who gets a shot and who doesn't.

 

2. You give weaker teams a shot at the championship.  Giving a National Championship to say, Virginia Tech, seems like an extremely unsatisfactory conclusion to the USC/Oklahoma/Auburn controversy.

I might agree with this, if it wasn't already the case in EVERY OTHER major sport in college athletics, including Division I-AA, II and III football. You can't have one set of rules for I-A football and one for all the other sports combined -- that's why we have the mess that exists right now.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

That's like saying a 10 game over .500 division winner in the MLB Playoffs shouldn't get a shot.

 

Edit: Directed at Al

Given the circumstances, I would rather see less teams in baseball make the playoffs. Extra teams make the playoffs more exciting, but they diminish the excitement of the regular season. Eight teams, IMO, is too many. It is overkill for what we are trying to accomplish.

 

I think the real problem is that college football needs different systems each year. If there is one clear leading team, then the old system worked fine. If thee are two clear top teams (i.e. Penn State and Nebraska), then the BCS system is best. If there are more than two, like this year, maybe the playoff is best suited. But what's the point of a playoff if we had two undefeated teams? Heck, the playoff might ruin a potential marquis matchup.

 

The point is that Playoffs do have their merits. But they also have their problems, and you have to question whether the system is really better in the long run.

[razazteca 0]

You give weaker teams a shot at the championship.

But the current system is a glorified popularity contest.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You give weaker teams a shot at the championship.

But the current system is a glorified popularity contest.

The current system has its problems, no doubt. But that logic just brings us back to my first point.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

I'd make it pretty simple...if there's only one undefeated team, then the one-loss teams play a "playoff" game for the right to face them. I realize there may be more than two one-loss teams, so limit it to the top 3 rankings. After all, in most of cases of the "wrong" one loss team going to the National Title game, there's only one other team that was the "rightful" choice.

 

If there's two undefeated teams, well, there ya' go. If there's three, then the team that's gone the longest without losing gets the "bye." If there's four, then there ya' go again. Amazingly simple, and could draw megabucks as you at the end of the day, there will only be _one_ undefeated team.

[sfaJack 0]

I still question any system that would put an undefeated WAC team like Boise in the playoff.  The competition's just not there.

And an undefeated Mountain West team deserves a shot? Boise is the same situation as Utah, really. If Utah can get in such a playoff, Boise deserves the same chance as well based on this argument. Rampaging over the Mountain West is no great shakes, but how is it really better than destroying the WAC?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I think an 8-team playoff would be fair. It'd give the powerhouses from the big conferences thier representation, plus give a couple of surprise teams (Utah and that Boise State) their chance to shine. Sure there would be bitching with a team or two getting screwed out of the playoffs, (hell, there's always bitching in the 65-bracket basketball tourney) but it'd be 20 times better than the joke of a system they have now...

[razazteca 0]

I still question any system that would put an undefeated WAC team like Boise in the playoff.  The competition's just not there.

And an undefeated Mountain West team deserves a shot? Boise is the same situation as Utah, really. If Utah can get in such a playoff, Boise deserves the same chance as well based on this argument. Rampaging over the Mountain West is no great shakes, but how is it really better than destroying the WAC?

I would watch Boise State vs Utah if it was a playoff game but if it was one of the many pointless bowl games like say iPod presents the Las Vegas Bowl then I would never give it a second thought.

[Bored 0]

I fully support a 16 team playoff and don't think it's too many teams at all. Remember there are 117 teams in Division I-A so you can't compare it to pro leagues and their playoff systems. That would be less than 15% of all team's in college football making the playoffs as compared to MLB which has more than 25% of their team's making the playoffs and the NBA with more than 50%. Even with 64 teams college basketball sends less than 20% of it's teams to postseason. Also a college football season is only 11 games long so a team is playing less than 10% of the competition.

 

Who's to say Virginia Tech can't be the best team in the country? Some would say they would have beaten USC if it weren't for a phantom pass interference call. My proposal is 16 teams, with conference champions ranked in the Top 25 getting automatic bids (so the Sun Belt conference isn't there to get blown out 70-0 in the first round), and using a BCS type system for the seedings.

 

Part of me doesn't ever want a playoff though as I know the NCAA would screw it up some how.

[MrRant 0]

I think there would be less screwing by going to a playoff as then the issues are decided on the field rather than the computers. Use the BCS system for seeding.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I think a 4 team playoff would be enough. USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, and Utah. Forget Texas and Cal who didn't win their conferences and have a loss.

[phoenixrising 0]

I'd favor an eight team tournament. The tournament won't be very long (three weeks to play all the games) and you'd be able to fit most of the true title contenders in (I'd rather leave out the #9 team with two losses than an undefeated or one loss #3 team). Either way someone is going to be left out, I'd rather it be a team with a somewhat good chance of winning the title than a team that deserves to play in the title game (Miami 2000, Oregon/Colorado 2001, USC 2003, Auburn 2004).

[iggymcfly 0]

Looking at the responses here, the only real criticism I see is that an eight-team playoff would give too many unworthy competitors a chance. However, teams like Boise State and Utah that "haven't proven themselves" really haven't had a chance to do so. Would there really be any argument if say Boise State won a national championship by going 14-0 and beating USC, Texas, and Auburn to win the title?

 

If it's truly a championship for all of Division I-A football, it seems like all 117 teams should have some kind of shot at it, if they go undefeated, and do so in at least moderately impressive fashion. Under the current system, you could make the argument that only USC, Oklahoma, and those two teams' opponents really had a chance to win the national championship this year. Short of blowing every team out by 40 points, Auburn was doomed as soon as the season started.

 

If USC chokes in the national championship game to a 13-2 Virginia Tech team and ends up at 14-1, they still have much less claim that they were "screwed out of the title" then a 13-0 Auburn team or a 12-0 Utah team that did everything that was asked of it. I don't really get how the same people who say "Cal lost on the road to USC by one possession, they don't deserve to be in any kind of playoff" can also say it's not fair for an undefeated to lose their championship claim with one loss in a playoff.

 

As for the idea of a 16-team playoff, my point with North Texas wasn't just that they don't belong in a playoff to determine the national champion, but also that they do deserve some reward for having as good of a season as they can be expected to given their circumstances.

 

If there was a 16-team playoff, so may attractive teams would be used up in a tournament which would have to take place largely at campus sites to be viable, that the bowl system would become obsolete. This would leave most mid-major teams out in the cold, and completely eliminate a sub-structure which helps support the smaller teams in college football, and gives the 90% who don't reach the playoffs something to strive for throughout their seasons.

[Guest Ether]

Collegefootballnews.com 's idea that they run every year is one of the better ideas. 16 teams - one from each conference plus five at-larges, with a maximum of one at-large from each conference. A system like this would work because:

 

a. EVERYBODY has a shot at the beginning of the season.

b. The Cinderella factor that make the basketball tounament popular exists.

c. The majority of games still have meaning.

d. Potential for better non-conerence match-ups - that is what will probably get you in should you not win your conference.

 

I actually like the idea of a 12-team playoff better - one with only one at-large bid and the top four team receiving first-round byes - but I know that the major conferences will never go by it.

 

I hate the idea of just usung final rankings because there is too much influence on preseason rankings, just like the current system.

[Black Lushus 0]

Do it like the NFL conference playoffs...6 teams, the top 6 in the BCS. 1 and 2 get a first round bye, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5...keep the 4 (there are 4 right?) BCS bowls and have an actual Championship Bowl game that rotates to different venues like the Superbowl...3/6 plays in the Sugar Bowl, 4/5 plays in the Rose Bowl then the Orange and Fiesta are used for the next round...rotate THAT as well every year...plain and simple...

[nl5xsk1 0]

I question how much attention everyone has paid to Utah's season if they're going to sit here and discount them as a legitimate contender in a 8 team tournament. They played at least 3 non-conference games, and won them all easily. They DESTROYED good MWC teams. They have the most sought after coach in the game, a very good QB, and a style of offense that is tough to stop.

 

Is it likely that they would beat three great teams in a row to win a playoff? No, truthfully not. But would it really be so surprising if they did? No, not for me.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Since MSU stunk it up this year I won't be watching any bowl games. Maybe the championship, but probably not. I just don't give a shit about the Viagra presents the Citibank Holiday Bowl. If there were a playoff system, of any kind, I would probably watch the whole thing. I think that the major reason that there is no playoff has nothing to do with fairness as far as who gets in or is left out. The whole point is $$. I also think that a playoff would generate a ton of money as people like me would actually watch those games because they would matter as opposed to 27 of the 28 bowls now.

[lomasmoney 0]

The thing about a playoff is that it will show that maybe the best team isnt always the #1 or #2 team, but maybe the one loss #6 team who has been under the radar all season. Who is to say that one loss Cal or Texas wouldnt win it all in an 8 team playoff.

This is the way I would do the BCS playoff

1.You keep the 4 bowl games and 8 teams

2. You use the BCS rankings to determine which teams go. Top 8 teams go no matter what. Pittsburgh, Michigan, yes you won a major conference but there are more deserving teams that can go. This year you would have USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Cal, Texas, Utah, Georgia, Virginia Tech. There would still be controversy with Louisville and Boise left out.

3. You play 1-8, 2-7-,3-6, 4-5 and then assign them to the closest bowl game of the higher ranked team, meaning USC would go to the Rose Bowl, so you have somewhat tradition with the bowl games.

4. Winners of 1/8 and 4/5 play and then the winners of 2/7 3/6 play at two rotating stadiums in the nation.

5. The winners of the games play in a rotating location the weekend of the NFL conference title games. I think this is a good idea because it would be such a huge weekend of football.

6. The rest of the teams in the nation would play bowl games. Yes I know it dimminishes the importance of the EV1.net Houston Bowl, but thats what the NIT is for in college basketballl, the good teams who weren't good enough to make it to the Big Dance

[Black Lushus 0]

what 2 bowl games would you add to the BCS then? you'd need more than 4 for an 8 team playoff...that's why it needs to be 6 teams, keep the 4 BCS Bowls and add a rotating championship game...

[lomasmoney 0]

what 2 bowl games would you add to the BCS then? you'd need more than 4 for an 8 team playoff...that's why it needs to be 6 teams, keep the 4 BCS Bowls and add a rotating championship game...

You would use the current four bowls as the first round playoff sites. Then you would have two predetermined sites, say like Ford Field and Arrowhead Stadium for the Semis, and then you would play the finals at another predetermined site. I say Michigan Stadium just because I want to see a bowl game there

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Michigan Stadium is a shithole. 120,000 people crammed into 90,000 seats. I went to one game there, never again.

[lomasmoney 0]

Its not a shithole its a nice stadium, and they have never crammed in 120,000 people in the stadium and they actually have 107,501 seats and counting. The only time you ever feel crowded there is when everyone in the student section is going nuts