For all the BCS haters out there..

[FirstTimer]

4 would be better than 8 IMO but a 4 team playoff system would never be implemented.

8 is a good number to stop at. No teams get byes, and 16 teams is way too many. You go with 16 and start putting in teams that finished third, maybe 4th in their conference. That's going too far.

That would happen this year with an 8 team playoff what had LSU in it.

:smug:

 

[Bear Pand]

Yeah you're right but LSU is only "technically" third. They beat Bama and have a better record than SC. LSU is the 2nd highest rated SEC team in the BCS and it's unlikely this will change unless they lose.

I'm talking more about teams like Arkansas and Missouri, 4th in their conference but top 16 BCS.

 

[FirstTimer]

I just saw this part, can't say I disagree, if you could actually convince the conferences to drop their championship games.

I'm not sure they would..or really have to. In the end it really may not matter. As long as the champion is being decided on the field I don't really care. I'm not "for" or "against" them remaining. Some people like them. Some people hate them. I couldn't really care either way.

But if every conference team had to play every conference team, and then we settled on taking only the champs of each conference, I'd be fine with it.

I think some conferences like the Big 10, Pac10, and SEC would have to still play divisional ball though if people not wanting college kids to possibly play 14-16 games is a real sticking point.

So long as there's not any bullshit like what we have with the Big Ten some years, where the top two teams haven't played.

Agreed. That would suck, but even then you could go to objective tie breakers if need be but that situation would indeed suck nuts. However I doubt the Big 10 if they were able to avoid it wouldn't structure their set up so that was a possibility.

 

[NAHSTE]

I'm not sure they would..or really have to. In the end it really may not matter. As long as the champion is being decided on the field I don't really care. I'm not "for" or "against" them remaining. Some people like them. Some people hate them. I couldn't really care either way.



I think some conferences like the Big 10, Pac10, and SEC would have to still play divisional ball though if people not wanting college kids to possibly play 14-16 games is a real sticking point.

Easy solution, is to cap conferences at 12 members, then play 11-game conference schedules. You then get 1 OOC game. That appeases the FSU-UF, GT-UGA crowd.

If schools crow about not getting their buy a win cupcake games, make the regular season 13 games, you'd still end up with the champion only playing 15 games total. As it is, the SEC, ACC and BIG XII champion always ends up playing 14 anyway. This means that one team plays 15 games, eight play 14, and everyone else plays 13, 11 of which are in their conference and thus, "meaningful" games. The only real problem is that we'd no doubt see more multi-loss champions.

 

[FirstTimer]

Easy solution, is to cap conferences at 12 members, then play 11-game conference schedules. You then get 1 OOC game. That appeases the FSU-UF, GT-UGA crowd.

If schools crow about not getting their buy a win cupcake games, make the regular season 13 games, you'd still end up with the champion only playing 15 games total. As it is, the SEC, ACC and BIG XII champion always ends up playing 14 anyway. This means that one team plays 15 games, eight play 14, and everyone else plays 13, 11 of which are in their conference and thus, "meaningful" games. The only real problem is that we'd no doubt see more multi-loss champions.

Not an issue there.

We have multi loss champions in every other sport 99.9999999999999999% of the time. It won't blow too many minds. And IMO make those undefeated teams all that more special.

 

[St. Francisco]

Ok. Fine. Get rid of the divisions for all I care. Under my proposal non-conference games likely go away and that opens more spots for conference matchups so each team could play eachother.

My basic premise is let each conference determine their conference champion how they want with on the field results and then plug them into the playoff. My overall goal is objective results leading to the NC. Nothing else. I'm not locked into the divisions remaining the same or even existing at all.

I'd actually like the thank you for this post, because it finally explains your position. You want to completely retool college football. Because all of us here are trying to figure out the best way to implement a college football playoff system that realistically has a chance of succeeding with the current leaders, and you're just living in some fantasy land where anything and everything can happen.

Make no mistake, if I could change everything, my playoff ideas would not be the same. I would dramatically slash the number of FBS teams, restructure conferences, etc. Of course, I would still have at-large teams. Why? Because every single sport allows at-large bids into the playoffs.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'd actually like the thank you for this post, because it finally explains your position. You want to completely retool college football.

I'd like to thank your post for finally catching on after only two years of talking about this.

Why? Because every single sport allows at-large bids into the playoffs.

...Yeah except that in a majority of them the you're dealing with 30 some teams and they are determined only by on the field results. Using the BCS to choose them based on polling and comptuers isn't the same thing. Hence, in order to keep objecivity in the system...do not allow at larges.

Huzzah!

 

[Senser81]

Not an issue there.

We have multi loss champions in every other sport 99.9999999999999999% of the time. It won't blow too many minds. And IMO make those undefeated teams all that more special.

Same here. I have no problem with multi-loss champions...if they win the title by winning playoff games, you can't really doubt their legitimicy. As it stands, we have undefeated teams never getting a chance to play in the title game.

 

[St. Francisco]

I'd like to thank your post for finally catching on after only two years of talking about this.



...Yeah except that in a majority of them the you're dealing with 30 some teams and they are determined only by on the field results. Using the BCS to choose them based on polling and comptuers isn't the same thing. Hence, in order to keep objecivity in the system...do not allow at larges.

Huzzah!

Yes, but they're determined by on-field results because the leagues are balanced far better than college football. Plus, the worst teams get rewarded with the best players in the draft. In college football, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. So you can't use on-field results as the sole reasoning behind playoff spots, because it's just not good enough. Strength of schedule plays a huge factor in the minds of the pollsters, as well it should.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes, but they're determined by on-field results because the leagues are balanced far better than college football.

Or the fact that in every other sport you have 30+ teams playing 16, 82, or 162 games and playing interdivisonal and interconference games so you have a better basis of comparison. In college you have 120 teams playing 12 games and being in 10-12 team conferences so you don't get the crossover ability against other conferences, teams etc to accuratley make a statistical or head to head comparison. Which one of these is not like the other.......?



Varying talent of the leagues is well down the totem pole as to why on the field results aren't used.

In college football, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

I think the point of the article is everyone is getting poorer...Plus recruiting may balance out if each conference gets an auto bid and that's it. Rewarding the rich with possibly 3-4 entries doesn't do anything to balance the talent level out. However a MAC, WAC, MWC, school pitching to a kid if they think their team can get into the "football dance" every year(increased exposure, big fish small pond etc) and have a shot might start pulling recruits away from some football factories that have to run more of a gauntlet.

Strength of schedule plays a huge factor in the minds of the pollsters, as well it should.

Fuck the pollsters. They shouldn't exist.

 

[packersfan4eva]

4 would be better than 8 IMO but a 4 team playoff system would never be implemented.

8 is a good number to stop at. No teams get byes, and 16 teams is way too many. You go with 16 and start putting in teams that finished third, maybe 4th in their conference. That's going too far.

Champion in each conferences plus the best remaining top 25 teams? You only go two deep in most conferences.

 

[NAHSTE]

Champion in each conferences plus the best remaining top 25 teams? You only go two deep in most conferences.

Congratulations, you just invited 5 SEC West teams to the party.

 

[NAHSTE]

But hey, Dan Mullen came to Starkville to win championships.

 

[packersfan4eva]

We have multi loss champions in every other sport 99.9999999999999999% of the time. It won't blow too many minds. And IMO make those undefeated teams all that more special.

Of course, in all those sports they play twice or three times as many games.

Basketball: 30's
Baseball: I don't give a fuck. Really high.
Soccer: Like 16 or something...plus conference tournament and NCAA tournament
Football: 12

 

[nesper]

Agreed. In fact I don't even watch the NCAA basketball tournament until the Elite 8 starts.. because they're the only teams deserving to be there and with a shot to win it all.

What a load of bullshit.

Yeah Oregon would likely get by Troy.. just like Duke gets by Western Texas State in the 1/16 matchup every year. Still doesn't mean it's a bad system. It's fair.. and hell, maybe these low level conferences would actually start to get legit talent since players would go "I have a shot to win down in the Mountain West, WAC, Conf. USA, etc etc"

I don't see what's so bad about a 16 team playoff where every conference champ gets in plus 5 at large opponents.

just like what happened in NCAA basketball, granted it's easier to make a splash in basketball than football simply on the ability of one player to influence the outcome of a game but this would help, as you imply, the weaker conferences.

 

[FirstTimer]

Of course, in all those sports they play twice or three times as many games.

Basketball: 30's
Baseball: I don't give a fuck. Really high.
Soccer: Like 16 or something...plus conference tournament and NCAA tournament
Football: 12

:withstupid:

Last I checked the NFL doesn't play twice as many games...and it would seem that people don't mind that league having a multi loss champion seeing as it's the most popular professional league in America.

 

[Fox1994]

I think a 16-team playoff with 11 conference champs and five at-larges would be great. I wouldn't mind a 32-team playoff with 11 conference champs, 11 second-best in the conference teams.

An imperfect playoff > the current BCS system

And I think they should restructure the regular season, as well, to accommodate for playoffs. Make it less regular season games...

I certainly don't have the perfect system, but if it exists it'll only be figured out once the NCAA and the schools decide they want a playoff.

 

[Hasselbeck]

LSU won't be in the conference championship game because it plays in the same division as Auburn. South Carolina could lose to Clemson next week, then beat Auburn the following week and be the official "SEC Champion" with 4 losses.

Does that make them more deserving of a national title shot than LSU? Under your proposal, 1-loss Auburn and 1-loss LSU would sit at home while 4-loss South Carolina got to play Oregon/Boise/TCU in a first-round game.

You can't penalize LSU for playing in the best division in the country (five ranked teams last I checked). If they were in the East, they'd be playing Auburn in Atlanta in two weeks.

Such a tired ass argument. Seriously. Every single March this happens in the college basketball tournament. You know what would have happened if the BCS took over the NCAA Tournament? Butler would have NEVER EVER EVER been in the National Championship game. Gonzaga would be Boise State and TCU every year. George Mason? LOL at them even getting an invite much less going on an historic run.

What about the NFL? The 16-0 Patriots would have just played the Cowboys that year. Rayman would be cool with that.. and the Patriots probably would have too. The Giants would have been screwed. The 2008 Cardinals? The 2005-06 Steelers? Oh wait.. they'd be screwed as well.

You can go on and on with every single sport and draw up this scenario.. but if South Carolina won the almighty SEC (which is what SEC homers will always paint it as), then proceeded to beat .. lets say Nebraska-TCU-Oregon en route to a title.. you mean to tell me they would deserve that less because they lost some garbage regular season games?

There are flaws in a playoff system, sure, but a "third place team" running a gauntlet against the best of best? Who cares.. they'd clearly be the deserving champion in that case.

 

[NAHSTE]

Such a tired ass argument. Seriously. Every single March this happens in the college basketball tournament. You know what would have happened if the BCS took over the NCAA Tournament? Butler would have NEVER EVER EVER been in the National Championship game. Gonzaga would be Boise State and TCU every year. George Mason? LOL at them even getting an invite much less going on an historic run.

What about the NFL? The 16-0 Patriots would have just played the Cowboys that year. Rayman would be cool with that.. and the Patriots probably would have too. The Giants would have been screwed. The 2008 Cardinals? The 2005-06 Steelers? Oh wait.. they'd be screwed as well.

You can go on and on with every single sport and draw up this scenario.. but if South Carolina won the almighty SEC (which is what SEC homers will always paint it as), then proceeded to beat .. lets say Nebraska-TCU-Oregon en route to a title.. you mean to tell me they would deserve that less because they lost some garbage regular season games?

There are flaws in a playoff system, sure, but a "third place team" running a gauntlet against the best of best? Who cares.. they'd clearly be the deserving champion in that case.

Fair enough, and I'd support South Carolina getting a shot ALONG WITH a 1-loss Auburn should they win the SEC CG, but not instead of. I support the inclusion of deserving at-large bids getting over the winner of say, the Sun Belt ... Unless the winner of the Sun Belt is ranked in the top 8, that is.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Fair enough, and I'd support South Carolina getting a shot ALONG WITH a 1-loss Auburn should they win the SEC CG, but not instead of. I support the inclusion of deserving at-large bids getting over the winner of say, the Sun Belt ... Unless the winner of the Sun Belt is ranked in the top 8, that is.

I can agree with the Sun Belt thing. I personally wouldn't mind auto bids for all conferences, because I think that's most fair.. but in my ideal playoff you basically would just allocate an at-large berth for a Sun Belt team having a great year.

Remember when Ball State almost ran the table out of the MAC conference before losing to shitty Buffalo? Basically had Ball State won that game and went 13-0.. they'd be in the playoffs under all these scenarios.

I don't know, I just don't really see the big deal about a 16-team playoff.. whether or not the MAC/Conference USA/Sun Belt champs are included or not. IMO, if Troy shocked Oregon.. that'd be as exciting as any postseason game in recent memory. Think about how often we watch 1-16, 2-15 matchups in March for basketball.. in the long run, sure it probably kills that glamorous matchup of the top two teams playing each other or something.. but in that moment, there's nothing better than a possible upset.

And if Oregon took care of business in a 16 team playoff against a low level team? Guess what.. their next game is against the 8th or 9th best team in the field. And so on.

This all sounds WAY better than the New Mexico Bowl between Miami-Ohio and Army. But that's just me I guess.