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

[NAHSTE]

Just looked back at the original post, and of the four first round match-ups, I counted four amazing games. Yeah, nobody would want to watch that. It wouldn't make any money.

 

[FirstTimer]

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?

............................

Could say the same thing for letting any conference champ in.

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)...

Agreed.

 

[NAHSTE]

............................

Could say the same thing for letting any conference champ in.

But this is isn't any conference champ, this is a conference with five ranked teams.

 

[JeremyHight]

I'll just remind people of what happened when the BCS was started. People loved the idea that we would see a 1v2, but because it was in its infancy, people saw that all you had to do was play an easy schedule, but if you ran it, you could still be in the championship game. If you are going to take the top 8 teams, why would anyone schedule a tough OOC opponent? Why risk it when instead, they could just face 4 creampuffs, get to the top 8 and make the playoffs guaranteed?

If you start letting in too many teams, there is no need to try to separate from the pack. Just play it safe, schedule FCS or nobodies, get 1-2 losses in your conference and if you were ranked high enough preseason, you are getting in the playoff. Letting in 8 teams is where you start making it so that teams don't need to schedule anyone to get into the top 8, especially if they are a top tier team that starts the season in the top 10.

On the other hand, if you take the top 4 conference champions, teams not only have to win their conference (1-2 losses in conference could cost you that), but also, they need to make sure they are in the top 4. They need a tough schedule to make sure the computers or pollsters don't keep them out of the playoffs. Maybe a big win OOC can make up for a loss in conference in the eyes of the voters, so teams would be more willing to schedule someone.

 

[FirstTimer]

But this is isn't any conference champ, this is a conference with five ranked teams.

Ok and everyone trashes on the Big 10 and they have 3 teams ranked in the top 9.

And I agree with the overall point about letting Oklahoma in.

I just think all these playoff scenarios are kind of missing the point that the BCS is fucking lame in people's minds but are still wanting to use the BCS to determine playoff teams.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'll just remind people of what happened when the BCS was started. People loved the idea that we would see a 1v2, but because it was in its infancy, people saw that all you had to do was play an easy schedule, but if you ran it, you could still be in the championship game. If you are going to take the top 8 teams, why would anyone schedule a tough OOC opponent? Why risk it when instead, they could just face 4 creampuffs, get to the top 8 and make the playoffs guaranteed?

If you start letting in too many teams, there is no need to try to separate from the pack. Just play it safe, schedule FCS or nobodies, get 1-2 losses in your conference and if you were ranked high enough preseason, you are getting in the playoff. Letting in 8 teams is where you start making it so that teams don't need to schedule anyone to get into the top 8, especially if they are a top tier team that starts the season in the top 10.

On the other hand, if you take the top 4 conference champions, teams not only have to win their conference (1-2 losses in conference could cost you that), but also, they need to make sure they are in the top 4. They need a tough schedule to make sure the computers or pollsters don't keep them out of the playoffs. Maybe a big win OOC can make up for a loss in conference in the eyes of the voters, so teams would be more willing to schedule someone.

IMO the first step with any playoff system if you really want to do it right is get rid of preseason polls or polls all together.

 

[Cryolemon]

The problem with the top 4 conference champions is what happens if ND go undefeated and are ranked #4?

You would have to specifically say "top 4 conference champions, counting the highest ranked independent as a conference champion".

 

[JeremyHight]

IMO the first step with any playoff system if you really want to do it right is get rid of preseason polls or polls all together.

I don't mind preseason polls, they are going to happen. I think that if you go to a playoff, you could get the Harris Poll as one (which starts the same week as the BCS) and the AP as the other (which is not done by biased coaches).

As for the computers, I think that MoV should be allowed to be put in. Right now, every computer poll has their actual ranking and then another that they changed and gave to the BCS since the BCS forces them to take out certain aspects. I say let the computers do whatever ranking they think is most accurate.

Total, I say the BCS should be 40/40/20 with it being AP/Harris/Computers for figuring out rankings.

 

[FirstTimer]

Iand the AP as the other (which is not done by biased coaches).

I'm pretty sure writers have a bias as well....

 

[Hasselbeck]

I'll just remind people of what happened when the BCS was started. People loved the idea that we would see a 1v2, but because it was in its infancy, people saw that all you had to do was play an easy schedule, but if you ran it, you could still be in the championship game. If you are going to take the top 8 teams, why would anyone schedule a tough OOC opponent? Why risk it when instead, they could just face 4 creampuffs, get to the top 8 and make the playoffs guaranteed?

How many of these Top 5-10 teams really step out of their conference and go out of their way to schedule a tough opponent to begin with? Very very few. And most of the Top 8-10 teams in the country are in tough conferences that wouldn't allow them to pad their schedule with cupcakes to begin with. The SEC, Big XII (now 10), Big Ten (now 12), Pac XII.. all of these conferences will be tough in that if you're a pretender.. you're not getting through this unscathed. And Boise State, TCU, Utah, etc.. they're already knocked down in this present system by being accused of not scheduling tough OOC opponents and by playing vanilla teams in conference 7 or 8 times a year.

If you start letting in too many teams, there is no need to try to separate from the pack. Just play it safe, schedule FCS or nobodies, get 1-2 losses in your conference and if you were ranked high enough preseason, you are getting in the playoff. Letting in 8 teams is where you start making it so that teams don't need to schedule anyone to get into the top 8, especially if they are a top tier team that starts the season in the top 10.

16 teams is iffy, although I am biased as a fan and want to watch as many playoff games as I could. That said.. 8 teams is not too many. It's perfect. 4 teams is not enough. You'd still have teams being screwed in the end. 8 has just the right mix of major conference champions and at-large squads that had very good years and could make noise in a playoff. As for the other "points" of your take (all extremely weak and easily fixable).. just put stipulations that limit how often teams play FCS squads and remove preseason polls/rankings until the middle of the season. Then they can deploy the BCS ranking system to slot the 8 best teams in the country.

On the other hand, if you take the top 4 conference champions, teams not only have to win their conference (1-2 losses in conference could cost you that), but also, they need to make sure they are in the top 4. They need a tough schedule to make sure the computers or pollsters don't keep them out of the playoffs. Maybe a big win OOC can make up for a loss in conference in the eyes of the voters, so teams would be more willing to schedule someone.

Again.. 4 teams is weak. And scheduling is done years in advance, how would this ensure top ranked teams would start to schedule bigger games?

The playoffs in every other major sport are at least 8 teams.. college football needs 8 teams as well.

 

[Hasselbeck]

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.

I agree. I think the 8-team playoff is the most logical system that would keep importance on the regular season, while determining a fair champion.

A 6-6 FIU team obviously wouldn't deserve to be anywhere near this playoff.. and the beauty of the 8-team playoff is in the rare event that a Sun Belt team has a sensational season (like 12-0 sensational) - they actually get a chance to play with the big dogs for a championship.

 

[JeremyHight]

I agree. I think the 8-team playoff is the most logical system that would keep importance on the regular season, while determining a fair champion.

A 6-6 FIU team obviously wouldn't deserve to be anywhere near this playoff.. and the beauty of the 8-team playoff is in the rare event that a Sun Belt team has a sensational season (like 12-0 sensational) - they actually get a chance to play with the big dogs for a championship.

How would 8 teams keep the importance on the regular season? A team doesn't even need to win its division and could get into your 8 team model. How does that make any game important what so ever, even conference games, if you know you can lose 2+ games and still walk into the playoffs?

 

[NAHSTE]

How would 8 teams keep the importance on the regular season? A team doesn't even need to win its division and could get into your 8 team model. How does that make any game important what so ever, even conference games, if you know you can lose 2+ games and still walk into the playoffs?

Because you don't know you can lose 2 games. You'd still have to finish in the top 8:

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.

.... Yeah, it'd make the games matter more, not less.

 

[JeremyHight]

Because you don't know you can lose 2 games. You'd still have to finish in the top 8:

In the last 3 years, there have been 8 teams with 2 or more losses in the top 8. I think it is safe to say that you could schedule all creampuffs, get 1-2 losses and probably make it into a 8 team playoff regardless of who you beat OOC if you start out the season high enough ranked.

I would rather reward teams for doing well against a tough schedule than just reward anyone who did pretty good that year. Teams should earn playoff spots, not be handed them because they ran through a weak schedule with 2+ losses.

 

[NAHSTE]

But Arkansas didn't run through a weak schedule ...

 

[JeremyHight]

But Arkansas didn't run through a weak schedule ...

They didn't, but other teams did. Ohio State played 1 team ranked in the current top 25 and they lost to them, they would be in. Same goes for Stanford, they would be in. Michigan State beat 1 ranked team all season and lost to an unranked team by 31, they'd be in.

Again, just because a team finishes in the top 8 doesn't mean they were all that good this year or deserving of a shot at the title. Its better to take too few than to set the precedent that you don't have to beat a single ranked opponent all year to get into the playoff.

 

[Cryolemon]

Some of the problem with 2 loss teams being in the top 8 is to do with the pre-season polls. Get rid of them and things would change a bit.

 

[mgoblue2290]

Some of the problem with 2 loss teams being in the top 8 is to do with the pre-season polls. Get rid of them and things would change a bit.

Agreed. No polls until week four or five.

 

[citizenerased]

The problem with the top 4 conference champions is what happens if ND go undefeated and are ranked #4?

You would have to specifically say "top 4 conference champions, counting the highest ranked independent as a conference champion".

And that's a problem how? They already have it and it works.

 

[JeremyHight]

Some of the problem with 2 loss teams being in the top 8 is to do with the pre-season polls. Get rid of them and things would change a bit.

And how exactly do you plan on forcing the AP to not do pre-season rankings? They are a news group not affiliated in any way with the NCAA.