How a College Football playoff would look in 2010 if I was in charge

[Cryolemon]

I don't really know why I'm posting this because it's likely to cause a shit-storm, but oh well.

My idea for a playoff is that you can keep the polls and keep the bowl sponsorships while still having an 8 team playoff (all the other bowls can stay for non-playoff teams too).

How it would work is that the top 8 teams (maximum of 2 per conference) would have a straight knockout tournament.

Based on the latest BCS standings:

#1 Auburn - SEC
#2 Oregon - P10
#3 TCU - MWC
#4 Stanford - P10
#5 Wisconsin - B10
#6 OSU - B10
#7 Arkansas - SEC
#8 MSU - B10 - miss out because of "2 per conference" rule.
#9 Oklahoma - B12

This leaves a first round of:

#1 Auburn - #9 Oklahoma - Fiesta Bowl
#2 Oregon - #7 Arkansas - Cotton Bowl
#3 TCU - #6 Ohio State - Outback Bowl
#4 Stanford - #5 Wisconsin - Capital One Bowl

Semi-finals:

#1 / #9 vs #4 / #5 - Orange Bowl
#2 / #7 vs #3 / #6 - Sugar Bowl

Final

Two winners - Rose bowl.

Obviously, this would end some of the bowl's attachment to certain conferences, but I don't think that matters massively.

 

[mcstl25]

I think this solution makes way too much sense. There's no place for something like this in college football.

 

[mgoblue2290]

BUT DEY DIDNT WIN DER CONFENCE!!11

 

[JeremyHight]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

 

[Cryolemon]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

Certainly that is a reasonable compromise if 8 teams is seen as too many or whatever.

What would the top 8 conference champs give?

 

[JeremyHight]

What would the top 8 conference champs give?

1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
4 Wisconsin
5 Oklahoma
6 Boise
7 Virginia Tech
8. Unranked Champion

Ya... that would be pretty bad. Top 4 works pretty well since it make sure the team is in the top 10 (normally) and won their conference. When you start going to more, you have the chance like in this case of getting an unranked conference champion. It is the same flaw the BCS has right now with automatic bids.

 

[mgoblue2290]

1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
4 Wisconsin
5 Oklahoma
6 Boise
7 Virginia Tech
8. Unranked Champion

Ya... that would be pretty bad. Top 4 works pretty well since it make sure the team is in the top 10 (normally) and won their conference. When you start going to more, you have the chance like in this case of getting an unranked conference champion. It is the same flaw the BCS has right now with automatic bids.

You'd have a tough time convincing every other conference to go with that. In typical NCAA fashion it will probably be a little to much and they'll go 16 teams. 11 conference winners, I believe, 5 at large teams. To me though, this is still better than the BCS.

 

[JeremyHight]

You'd have a tough time convincing every other conference to go with that. In typical NCAA fashion it will probably be a little to much and they'll go 16 teams. 11 conference winners, I believe, 5 at large teams. To me though, this is still better than the BCS.

I'd rather the BCS than a lot of playoff options. While I prefer a playoff, a bad playoff is worse since they won't ever shrink it, they'll only expand it to include more underqualified teams.

 

[St. Francisco]

We're on the same level Cryo, minus the two per conference rule (which isn't a bad idea, now that I think about it). I think taking the top eight teams according to the BCS rankings is the best option, but I'd be ok with a four-team playoff if that's all we could get.

 

[NAHSTE]

Pretty much what I suggested last week. It's not perfect, but it's the most reasonable thing to shoot for.

I'd still prefer just a straight 4-teamer but 8 might be necessary to satisfy the "outsiders".

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season

And OU didn't have a blah season, they won the Big XII in a year in which 4 or 5 teams were pretty good. If they don't belong in a playoff, they'll get bounced in round 1. What's the harm in letting them enter?

 

[Cryolemon]

One reason I'm not convinced that it should be tied to conference champions is because of the independent teams. ND wouldn't be too pleased with any system that shut them out.

 

[Bear Pand]

Two per conference rule sucks, but won't be necessary once conferences get championship games and play better schedules. There's 3 Big 10 teams in the top 8 right now and the main reason is the shitty Big 10 schedule.

I'd also want 4, but 8 would be ok.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

:jonesy:

They'd be the last team in.. if the last team in runs the gauntlet over Auburn, Wisconsin and Oregon .. they deserve the title.

This part of the argument is so painfully stupid and yet you cling to it. It's like if the 8-8 NFC West champion Rams or Seahawks rattle off 4 straight wins and win the Super Bowl .. does that mean they don't deserve it? Of course not.

 

[NAHSTE]

Fuck the Big Ten scheduling, that we can agree on. Glad they're getting it fixed pronto. Can't wait til Bo Pelini makes that conference his bitch. The fact that the new 10-member Big 12 will play 9 conference games is huge. No more 'claimed a share of the title' bullshit.

 

[Bear Pand]

:jonesy:

They'd be the last team in.. if the last team in runs the gauntlet over Auburn, Wisconsin and Oregon .. they deserve the title.

This part of the argument is so painfully stupid and yet you cling to it. It's like if the 8-8 NFC West champion Rams or Seahawks rattle off 4 straight wins and win the Super Bowl .. does that mean they don't deserve it? Of course not.

You could use this same logic to let any team in, which is the problem. The same argument works for a 16 team field or a 32 team field. Let's say you want a playoff format where 16 teams and every conference champ gets in. If FIU gets in for winning the Sun Belt and runs the gauntlet then yeah I'd guess they'd deserve it. But they're 6-6, the line has to be drawn somewhere and the regular season should still mean something. Plus FIU would make the playoffs over several better teams just because they won a shit conference.

 

[Hasselbeck]

You could use this same logic to let any team in, which is the problem. The same argument works for a 16 team field or a 32 team field. Let's say you want a playoff format where 16 teams and every conference champ gets in. If FIU gets in for winning the Sun Belt and runs the gauntlet then yeah I'd guess they'd deserve it. But they're 6-6, the line has to be drawn somewhere and the regular season should still mean something. Plus FIU would make the playoffs over several better teams just because they won a shit conference.

Did you really just compare Oklahoma to FIU?

C'mon man..

And if a 16 team playoff were in place, and FIU ran the table.. I'd consider them the champions. That's how playoffs work. Just like if a 16 seed went on a miracle run to the NCAAB title.

Neither of which would happen, but this is just foolish. It's not like the 9th best team in the country is going to be some slouch squad. I understand cutting it off by not letting the Sun Belt champ in with an auto-bid, that makes sense, but raising a big uproar because the NINTH best team in the country ran the table (similar to a 3 seed in basketball).. that's just retarded.

 

[JeremyHight]

You could use this same logic to let any team in, which is the problem. The same argument works for a 16 team field or a 32 team field. Let's say you want a playoff format where 16 teams and every conference champ gets in. If FIU gets in for winning the Sun Belt and runs the gauntlet then yeah I'd guess they'd deserve it. But they're 6-6, the line has to be drawn somewhere and the regular season should still mean something. Plus FIU would make the playoffs over several better teams just because they won a shit conference.

Exactly, you cannot say a playoff wouldn't hurt the importance of the regular season if you start letting anyone in regardless of resume. Oklahoma is probably going to have only 2 wins over ranked teams all season, 2 losses, but they deserve a shot for beating a hobbled Nebraska team?

I'd rather too few teams get in than too many. With too few, you put priority on how you performed in the season and scheduling tough OOC teams. With too many, you are allowing teams to skate through a season and still get into a playoff.

 

[NAHSTE]

Exactly, you cannot say a playoff wouldn't hurt the importance of the regular season if you start letting anyone in regardless of resume. Oklahoma is probably going to have only 2 wins over ranked teams all season, 2 losses, but they deserve a shot for beating a hobbled Nebraska team?

Oregon has only beaten one ranked team if we want to play that game. It's not like all hell will break loose if we let in a Big XII champion with an 11-2 record, I mean that's pretty standard. How would it diminish the regular season one bit? If anything, it'd enhance it. For instance, Arkansas would get in under this format as a 7 seed. That LSU-Arkansas game last week would have been way more important with a playoff bid on the line. Instead, the two teams were playing for the right to collect $1 million from a meaningless Sugar Bowl.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Exactly, you cannot say a playoff wouldn't hurt the importance of the regular season if you start letting anyone in regardless of resume. Oklahoma is probably going to have only 2 wins over ranked teams all season, 2 losses, but they deserve a shot for beating a hobbled Nebraska team?

I'd rather too few teams get in than too many. With too few, you put priority on how you performed in the season and scheduling tough OOC teams. With too many, you are allowing teams to skate through a season and still get into a playoff.

Oklahoma went 11-2 and won one of the best conferences in the country.

Yeah .. they suck. Awful squad.

And the season still carries a lot of weight, in this scenario.. OU is playing for a national title, Nebraska and Oklahoma State are not.

Again - don't see the issue here about #9 Oklahoma getting a shot at winning a championship if they went through Auburn and then 2 equally tough matchups thereafter.

 

[Bear Pand]

Did you really just compare Oklahoma to FIU?

C'mon man..

No, where did you see me compare Oklahoma to FIU? My issue isn't with Oklahoma making it into an 8 team playoff bracket. My issue was with the backwards logic of "if a team gets in and runs the gauntlet then they deserve to be there." Which completely ignores that a team should have to earn their spot before they're let in, instead of after.

That sort of thinking is dangerous, and I'm scared that if/when a playoff system is implemented they'll let too many teams in. I don't want to see garbage teams let in, and people just shrug and say "Well whats the big deal? If they win out they obviously deserved to be there!" I want to see the teams have to earn it by putting together a solid resume in the reg season.