Playoff, shmayoff

[aero]

I used to think a playoff for D1 college football would be a good thing. Many years I thought OU was the best team, playing the best football at the end of the year. But now I think it's maybe as close as its going to get and maybe its good enough. What would a playoff get us? This year a playoff of the top 8 teams looks like it could be decent since there are no 2 loss teams. What if TT lost to texas, then texas lost to OU in the title game? Rubber match? What if TT beat Utah for the title? Would everybody say they were the best team this year? What if it was expanded to 16 teams? You'd have four 3-loss teams. If one of them won the tourney, would they be the best team this year? We hear all of the time about how other sports or lower division football have playoffs to settle it. Does the best team always win? Hardly. D1 football is different than other sports. How many double headers have you seen in football? How many double elimination football tourneys have you seen? Ever seen a football game where there were multiple injuries occur during the game. That would seem rather odd in any other sport. What other sport has to move 80+ players, large staff, and tons of equipment? Actually, I think D1 football has come closer, more often than not, of crowning it's best team that year than any other sport. And what other sport keeps us watching EVERY week, and usually not just our team but other conferences also. Yes, EVERY game does count. And for our texas friends who "cleverly" chant "no they don't", the TT-texas game sure did count. I think a playoff could end up taking away a big part of the season and certainly could leave us with a champion that maybe several teams were better. Right now, we have a great season which essentially IS a playoff and we end up with a champion that at the very least is legitimate.

[L-Boy]

I used to think a playoff for D1 college football would be a good thing. Many years I thought OU was the best team, playing the best football at the end of the year. But now I think it's maybe as close as its going to get and maybe its good enough. What would a playoff get us? This year a playoff of the top 8 teams looks like it could be decent since there are no 2 loss teams. What if TT lost to texas, then texas lost to OU in the title game? Rubber match? What if TT beat Utah for the title? Would everybody say they were the best team this year? What if it was expanded to 16 teams? You'd have four 3-loss teams. If one of them won the tourney, would they be the best team this year? We hear all of the time about how other sports or lower division football have playoffs to settle it. Does the best team always win? Hardly. D1 football is different than other sports. How many double headers have you seen in football? How many double elimination football tourneys have you seen? Ever seen a football game where there were multiple injuries occur during the game. That would seem rather odd in any other sport. What other sport has to move 80+ players, large staff, and tons of equipment? Actually, I think D1 football has come closer, more often than not, of crowning it's best team that year than any other sport. And what other sport keeps us watching EVERY week, and usually not just our team but other conferences also. Yes, EVERY game does count. And for our texas friends who "cleverly" chant "no they don't", the TT-texas game sure did count. I think a playoff could end up taking away a big part of the season and certainly could leave us with a champion that maybe several teams were better. Right now, we have a great season which essentially IS a playoff and we end up with a champion that at the very least is legitimate.


Would you say the same thing if TX sympathy was just enough to sneak them into the #2 position, so they go to the Big 12 championship, and then the BCS championship?

[aero]

Would you say the same thing if TX sympathy was just enough to sneak them into the #2 position, so they go to the Big 12 championship, and then the BCS championship?

yes. I could care less about texas.

[Desert Sapper]

I think 8 teams in a playoff would still be better, and the biggest reason is that I would want to see good football every week instead of waiting for the big game (or at least the BCS games next week).

[insuranceman_22]

Old arguement - Playoff would be better, much better (then again, that's just my opinion)

[CrimsonJim]

aero: Excellent post and well stated. Very interesting food for thOUght. I too have always trumpeted for a playoff, but yOUr post does give credence to OUr existing system. Thank yOU for the interesting perspective.


Would you say the same thing if TX sympathy was just enough to sneak them into the #2 position, so they go to the Big 12 championship, and then the BCS championship?

L-Boy (and all Gator fans while we're at it): If yOU learn nothing else during yOUr stay here, please note that thrOUgh OUr tireless bloviating about tradition and love for OUr team, yOU will NOT hear us make excuses. We win some, we lose some; thank God we win most of them. When we win, we celebrate. When we lose, we commiserate. The beautiful thing abOUt being an OU fan is that we don't have to wonder if we will ever win another MNC, we only have to wonder when. :D

[OUstud]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. College football is not made for a playoff. Especially if the semis are in bowl locales. Suppose OU plays Alabama in New Orleans and Texas plays Florida in Glendale, and the winners meet in Miami the next week. Who could afford to attend both of these? Who would want to attend the semis? And think of all the cancelled flights, last minute bookings, etc. Not practical at all.

Also, for those considering larger, conference champion-involving playoffs, consider this scenario: Say OU was undefeated this year, and Texas and Tech each lost an additional conference game. OU wraps up the division title with 2 games to play. In order to save players for the playoffs (after all, we could be playing 3 additional games), we play our scrubs, meaning we play Tech and Aggy with backups. Who would want this? What makes college football great is that it isn't the NFL, and a playoff would turn it into that. :mad:

The only legitimate way a playoff would work would be to give teams home field advantage. But then when, for example, an SEC team comes in and loses to a Big XII team on the road, it just starts another, "well if it was at our place Bob Loblaw" series of "unfair" cries.

Bottom line: this is the best system. All these talking heads decrying the "flawed system" we have need to realize that college football wasn't meant for playoffs. And the BCS is a lot better than what came before it (split MNCs, teams winning titles by defeating the number 6 team in the country, etc.)

[soonermix]

yes a playoff will change the signifigance(sp*) (not even gonna try) of every game. but i would like to say that OU would get even more chances to play for a MNC with a playoff system. (you would have to f the bowl games for this one)

and yep i'm not against OU playing for more MNCs (are you? aero??? )

[ETGator1]

Gallup Poll: 69% of college football fans favor a playoff compared to 15% who favor the current system:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26107/Florida-Fans-Choice-Top-College-Football-Team.aspx

I would appreciate comments on this playoff proposal:

BCS Bowl 16 Team Playoff:

The BCS ranking is used to identify the 16 participants.

The 11 conference champions receive an automatic invite if ranked in the BCS top 25.

Three team limit per conference.

The 8 first round games are played on the home field of the higher seed.

The quarter, semi, and finals are played in the bowls, 7 games.

The first round games are played after finals - the third weekend in December.

Using this season as an example, these are the first round games:

(16) Virginia Tech at (1) Oklahoma
(15) BYU at (2) Florida
(14) Georgia at (3) Texas
(13) Georgia Tech at (4) Alabama
(12) Cincinnati at (5) USC
(11) TCU at (6) Utah
(10) Ohio State at (7) Texas Tech
(9) Boise State at (8) Penn State

This plan gives enough inclusion of non-BCS conferences to ensure no legal problems under the anti trust act.

There is no required reorganizing of the conferences.

The manner for identifying playoff participants has already been accepted by college football.

The playoff doesn't interfere with the academics of student athletes.

Allowing 11 conference champions to have an automatic invite if ranked in the BCS top 25 covers the bias in the polls against non-BCS teams. If a conference champion can't garner enough support to be ranked in the BCS top 25, they don't belong in a playoff.

The remaining bowls go on as a reward for the other teams that became bowl eligible, but didn't qualify for the playoff.

It's all about $$$$$. ESPN just signed a lucrative contract for 5 BCS bowls. Can you imagine the huge amount of $$$$$ that would be bid to televise 8 first round home games and the 7 BCS playoff bowls. Sell this plan and the $$$$$ to the university presidents and we'll have a playoff for the 2015 season when the current ESPN contract expires.

Let the playoffs begin.

[Leroy Lizard]

Gallup Poll: 69% of college football fans favor a playoff compared to 15% who favor the current system:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26107/Flo...ball-Team.aspx

Take a poll after you detail the playoff that is planned to be instituted and that number will plummet. Choosing whether or not conference champs get an automatic bid or not will cut that number in half.

All this says is that 69% are in favor of a playoff, as long as its a playoff system they want. But not the other guy's.



I would appreciate comments on this playoff proposal:

BCS Bowl 16 Team Playoff:

The BCS ranking is used to identify the 16 participants.

The 11 conference champions receive an automatic invite if ranked in the BCS top 25.

Three team limit per conference.

Why should Oklahoma State be penalized for playing in a tough conference? The Cowboys have only three losses, all of which came against Top-10 teams. Two of those losses were close games. Virginia Tech has four losses, none of them to particularly good teams. They played one decent team out--of-conference, and lost. They went on to lose three conference games. But somehow they are more worthy of playing for a national title?

[Leroy Lizard]

but i would like to say that OU would get even more chances to play for a MNC with a playoff system.

Based on our fabulous post-season record?

[Leroy Lizard]

[quote]I've said it before and I'll say it again. College football is not made for a playoff. Especially if the semis are in bowl locales. Suppose OU plays Alabama in New Orleans and Texas plays Florida in Glendale, and the winners meet in Miami the next week. Who could afford to attend both of these?[/qiuote]

I think attending the games is the smaller problem. How do fans prepare to spend enough time in the host city to make a real vacation out of it on such short notice? The stadiums will be filled with mostly locals, which is bad news for the Chamber of Commerce.

The host cities know this is a problem, which is why they oppose a playoff system.

[stoopified]

Bowls,poles.Playoffs are the ONLY WAY to DECIDE football.That being said I will accept the Sears Trophy after we beat down Teabag and the Crocs.

[aero]

No doubt a playoff would give us an NCAA champion, but that doesn't mean we will get the best team. It would become a tournament at that point. And, as stated, we would still get "well, if it had been at our place", or "the refs sucked", or "that one lucky play". Who really wants to see their team go 13-0 or 12-1 and lose to an 8 or 16 seed? We all know that ANYTHING is possible and it would happen eventually. Probably sooner and more often than other sports. Yes, we all want more football and that would be one benefit of a playoff. But would it diminish the regular season? Losses would not be so huge. You could lose 2, 3, maybe even 4 games and still get in and then its anything goes. There can be only 2 teams each year playing for the title and only 1 champ. Yes, I can see why some people would like a playoff. I'm sure Georgia, Oregon, Georgia Tech, OKSt, Cinci, TCU, Boise, and TT would LOVE to have a playoff this year. How would that be to cap off the year with an OKst, Cinci, TCU, or TT win over OU? How about an Oregon win over a 1 loss OU? Or even a 3 loss OKSt or a 3 loss Georgia over texas? While it would be amusing, is that really what we want to see for our national champ? Not me. I can live with the current MNC and at least have respect for the champ.

[L-Boy]

aero: Excellent post and well stated. Very interesting food for thOUght. I too have always trumpeted for a playoff, but yOUr post does give credence to OUr existing system. Thank yOU for the interesting perspective.



L-Boy (and all Gator fans while we're at it): If yOU learn nothing else during yOUr stay here, please note that thrOUgh OUr tireless bloviating about tradition and love for OUr team, yOU will NOT hear us make excuses. We win some, we lose some; thank God we win most of them. When we win, we celebrate. When we lose, we commiserate. The beautiful thing abOUt being an OU fan is that we don't have to wonder if we will ever win another MNC, we only have to wonder when. :D


I would think you would feel differently if TX were to campaign and it actually worked, and OU gets snubbed. It almost happened this year. That would certainly pi$$ me off. I was not sure UF would make it in over TX. I would just rather see the top 8 play for it. It only adds one more week, you could make the first round the 4 major BCS bowls, and since it is limited to 8 it doesn't really take away from the regular season, because if you have 2 losses the odds are against you making it in at all.

I just look at all this campaigning, the discussions about style points, the decisions coaches are having to make to leave the 1st string in to run up the score, that shouldn't be what college football is about.

[Desert Sapper]

I don't like this crap of playing playoff games in BCS Bowls. I think the playoffs could, however be used to determine BCS Bowl matchups in addition to determining the teams that play for the champeenship.

I think 16 teams might work, but only if you give the top 4 teams a first round bye. 8 teams makes more sense to me, and I could really give a crap about bias. Homefield advantage up to the bowl games. Let's say you take the top 8 BCS teams. Playoff first round is like this:

Week 1 (13 DEC 08)
Penn State @ OU
Tech @ UF
Utah @ UT
USC @ Bama

The losers of those four games get seeded into the bottom 2 BCS bowls.

The winners play the next week (20 DEC 08). You have the top 2 BCS Bowls lined up a good two weeks out with this system and can actually play them on New Years Day.

I'm also good with taking the top 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams:

Boise @ OU
Penn State @ UF
Utah @ UT
USC @ Bama

There are many, many ways to slice it, and it isn't uncharted territory, because pretty much every team sport in the universe uses some form of it, except FBS football. If they took the time to think about it, it would be a great source of revenue for everybody (especially the University, who gets another game) and it wouldn't have to scrap the bowl system.

I just would rather watch badasses duke it out than watch the Pointsettia bowl (although that could continue to exist on the same weekend).

[goingoneight]

The only reason people argue for the current system is because it's what we have and what we're stuck with.

Meanwhile, every other sport and event known to man settles championships on the field of play.

Conference champions play off for the MNC... this would continue to make every game count, and would finally mke conference championships matter for something more than just bragging because you lost your meaningless Fiesta Bowl. For the whiners who think someone's going to get left out of an 8-team conference champion playoff... well, right now 8 teams are being left out who on paper have just as good if not a better chance of winning the MNC than us.

I'm glad to be where we're at... but the current system is retarded. Just because it works in your favor in 2008 doesn't mean it's right.

[CrimsonJim]

I would think you would feel differently if TX were to campaign and it actually worked, and OU gets snubbed. It almost happened this year. That would certainly pi$$ me off. I was not sure UF would make it in over TX. I would just rather see the top 8 play for it. It only adds one more week, you could make the first round the 4 major BCS bowls, and since it is limited to 8 it doesn't really take away from the regular season, because if you have 2 losses the odds are against you making it in at all.

I just look at all this campaigning, the discussions about style points, the decisions coaches are having to make to leave the 1st string in to run up the score, that shouldn't be what college football is about.

Oh, make no mistake about it, I would have been all kindsa pi$$ed off. Heck, I was PO'd even though it didn't work because this was nothing new from the whorns - it was more expected than a surprise. But had it have happened, we would have dusted ourselves off, enjoyed the bowl season, and looked forward to next year.

Having said that, don't forget that I too want a playoff. I was only complimenting aero on a good initial post, that in the late hour made some semblance of sense. While I do not agree with him, he made some valid points.

As for which playoff format to use, we can discuss that until the cows come home. Your idea of having the top 8 fight it out could work, but ETGator's 16 team playoff sounds good as well. I just want a friggin playoff, because as DS put it, "pretty much every team sport in the universe uses some form of it." It is the only way to decide a true champion.

[Curly Bill]

The only reason people argue for the current system is because it's what we have and what we're stuck with.

Meanwhile, every other sport and event known to man settles championships on the field of play.

Conference champions play off for the MNC... this would continue to make every game count, and would finally mke conference championships matter for something more than just bragging because you lost your meaningless Fiesta Bowl. For the whiners who think someone's going to get left out of an 8-team conference champion playoff... well, right now 8 teams are being left out who on paper have just as good if not a better chance of winning the MNC than us.

I'm glad to be where we're at... but the current system is retarded. Just because it works in your favor in 2008 doesn't mean it's right.

College football is better then all these other sports, why lower itself to their level?

...and who does the most whining? Those in favor of a playoff or those against? ;)

[silverwheels]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-bowls121808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Give me a postseason tournament similar to what the lower divisions of NCAA football use.

[Curly Bill]

Why do you peeps want D-1 college football to be like every other sport? Makes no damn sense at all. Unless one likes being a sheep.

Hey! Look at what they're doing! Lets follow along! Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[silverwheels]

Why do you peeps want D-1 college football to be like every other sport? Makes no damn sense at all. Unless one likes being a sheep.

To me, it's not about making it like every other sport. It's about having the postseason that best determines a champion in my opinion. I wouldn't mind keeping things the way they were or going back to the old bowl system if we stopped designating a national champion at the end of the season, because there isn't a true champion under this system.

[Curly Bill]

To me, it's not about making it like every other sport. It's about having the postseason that best determines a champion in my opinion. I wouldn't mind keeping things the way they were or going back to the old bowl system if we stopped designating a national champion at the end of the season, because there isn't a true champion under this system.

The current system is as good as a playoff for determining a champion when in a playoff system your "true champion" is just as likely to be the hottest team as opposed to the actual best.

[silverwheels]

The current system is as good as a playoff for determining a champion when in a playoff system your "true champion" is just as likely to be the hottest team as opposed to the actual best.

So you think the "best" team can be determined from playing 12 games, possibly 13, and one bowl game, when every team plays very different schedules. I don't. I'd rather include more teams in the postseason tournament (like 6 more than what we have now) so it will at least attempt to balance that out.

Also, no more human polls, or at least take away their influence on the postseason.

[Curly Bill]

So you think the "best" team can be determined from playing 12 games, possibly 13, and one bowl game, when every team plays very different schedules. I don't. I'd rather include more teams in the postseason tournament (like 6 more than what we have now) so it will at least attempt to balance that out.

Also, no more human polls, or at least take away their influence on the postseason.

Who decides who gets into the playoff?

[silverwheels]

Who decides who gets into the playoff?

Computer rankings, like the ELO ranking. I think Sagarin uses it. The conference ranks would count, too.

I just want a system that's more fair. What we have now isn't, especially with human polls involved.

[Curly Bill]

No system is going to be "fair" in the eyes of everyone. I'm just not in a hurry to trade in one flawed system for another.

[silverwheels]

No system us going to be "fair" in the eyes of everyone. I'm just not in a hurry to trade in one flawed system for another.

No, there is no perfect system that everyone will agree on. I just want to get rid of the one we have now. I think a tournament at the end of the season with the participants being decided by neutral computer rankings is more "fair" than one where media members and coaches with agendas can decide who gets in and who doesn't.

[Curly Bill]

No, there is no perfect system that everyone will agree on. I just want to get rid of the one we have now. I think a tournament at the end of the season with the participants being decided by neutral computer rankings is more "fair" than one where media members and coaches with agendas can decide who gets in and who doesn't.

To me football and tournament just do not go together. Tournaments tend to be won by the hot teams, not necessarily the season-long best team.

[silverwheels]

To me football and tournament just do not go together. Tournaments tend to be won by the hot teams, not necessarily the season-long best team.

"Best team" is subjective with this system. Alabama was the only BCS conference school to finish the regular season undefeated. They had the best record, so were they the best team? The next week proved otherwise.

OU, Florida, USC, Penn State, Texas, and Texas Tech all finished the regular season with one loss. Which of those teams is the best?

[Curly Bill]

"Best team" is subjective with this system. Alabama was the only BCS conference school to finish the regular season undefeated. They had the best record, so were they the best team? The next week proved otherwise.

OU, Florida, USC, Penn State, Texas, and Texas Tech all finished the regular season with one loss. Which of those teams is the best?

There's no way of telling. BCS won't do it, playoff system won't do it. Why I like to argure against the playoff folks, I actually don't care too much either way, is that a lot of the playoff folks are convinced that their pet playoff system is the surefire way to arrive at who's the best. Truth is -- there is no way of really deciding.

[silverwheels]

There's no way of telling. BCS won't do it, playoff system won't do it. Why I like to argure against the playoff folks, I actually don't care too much either way, is that a lot of the playoff folks are convinced that their pet playoff system is the surefire way to arrive at who's the best. Truth is -- there is no way of really deciding.

You're right. There isn't. That's why I want to take the subjectivity out of the equation and let neutral, unbiased rankings decide who gets in. I think an 8-team playoff would be a decent compromise between what we have now and the full 16-team tournament that the FCS uses.

[aero]

The only reason people argue for the current system is because it's what we have and what we're stuck with.
I'd say more people argue for a playoff because their team hardly ever has a chance as it is now because they lose too many games


Meanwhile, every other sport and event known to man settles championships on the field of play.
There is no other sport like college football


Conference champions play off for the MNC... this would continue to make every game count, and would finally mke conference championships matter for something more than just bragging because you lost your meaningless Fiesta Bowl. For the whiners who think someone's going to get left out of an 8-team conference champion playoff... well, right now 8 teams are being left out who on paper have just as good if not a better chance of winning the MNC than us.
Wow. What if Mizzou won the B12 this year? They're the best to represent the B12? And what if they got in based on conference champ and won it all. Hmmm. Somehow that doesn't seem like it would be better than what we have now.

Also, what about all of the conferences not having the same number of teams as others, some with conference championships some not, some schools independent, some conferences with weaker teams/schedules. Doesn't seem like everybody would be playing on the same level as far as how they would make it to the "tournament". It's not like basketball where you can play almost 40 games and play several OOC games.


I'm glad to be where we're at... but the current system is retarded. Just because it works in your favor in 2008 doesn't mean it's right.
I'm glad to be where we're at but next year I'll say the same. I just don't see where a playoff is going to improve anything and possibly make it worse. As I said, there have been many years I felt OU would have done quite well in a playoff.

[aero]

I also think the current "no playoff" system keep so many of us watching our team, other teams, sizing up the field, trying to figure out how good teams are, etc. throughout the year. Each week is a playoff and we can't wait to see who lost, who beat who, who moved up in the polls, etc. I personally don't watch much basketball or baseball until the playoffs. Actually it's not imperative that I watch pro football until the playoffs. But every year I can't wait until college football and every week is pretty interesting.

[silverwheels]

I watch and love college football in spite of the current postseason. What really interests me is the different types of offenses and defenses you see and when the talent is as spread out as it is now, you get a bunch of great games throughout the year.

[ETGator1]

Why should Oklahoma State be penalized for playing in a tough conference? The Cowboys have only three losses, all of which came against Top-10 teams. Two of those losses were close games. Virginia Tech has four losses, none of them to particularly good teams. They played one decent team out--of-conference, and lost. They went on to lose three conference games. But somehow they are more worthy of playing for a national title?

Because in this plan there is a 3 team per conference limit and a BCS conference champion took their slot. The current BCS bowls have a limit of two teams per conference. Texas Tech based on rank would get a BCS bowl without the limit. It's just an extension of spreading the wealth around to avoid a one-conference invitational which none of the other conferences is likely to accept.

This year the combined 3 team limit and top 25 conference champion rules affects the Big 12. In other years, it could affect the SEC.

Other examples that could have happened this season:

Ball State would have bounced BYU had they beaten Buffalo.

East Carolina might have made the top 25 and bounced Georgia if they had not swooned during the middle of the season.

For those that think the regular season is cheapened with a playoff, you can be sure that teams will be fighting like heck to make it into the top 3 of their conference to have the chance at the playoff and as high in the BCS as they can get to avoid being bumped by a conference champion who is ranked in the top 25.

[Leroy Lizard]

Because in this plan there is a 3 team per conference limit and a BCS conference champion took their slot. The current BCS bowls have a limit of two teams per conference.

But there is a big difference: Virginia Tech would be allowed to compete for a national title, OSU wouldn't. That is a far cry from just being able to play in a BCS bowl.

Any playoff scenario that allows a Virginia Tech to compete for a national title and not Oklahoma State is screwed up. We will be no better off than the NFL, where good teams stay home while crappy teams get to compete for the title.

If we are going to replace the current system, let's make the new one better. Institutionalizing unfairness doesn't solve the problem.

[Leroy Lizard]

Playoffs are the ONLY WAY to DECIDE football.

I dunno' about that. We have been deciding it without a playoff for over 100 years. Of course, we didn't have the same number of whiners then that we have now.

[L-Boy]

Oh, make no mistake about it, I would have been all kindsa pi$$ed off. Heck, I was PO'd even though it didn't work because this was nothing new from the whorns - it was more expected than a surprise. But had it have happened, we would have dusted ourselves off, enjoyed the bowl season, and looked forward to next year.

Having said that, don't forget that I too want a playoff. I was only complimenting aero on a good initial post, that in the late hour made some semblance of sense. While I do not agree with him, he made some valid points.

As for which playoff format to use, we can discuss that until the cows come home. Your idea of having the top 8 fight it out could work, but ETGator's 16 team playoff sounds good as well. I just want a friggin playoff, because as DS put it, "pretty much every team sport in the universe uses some form of it." It is the only way to decide a true champion.

I don't think my 8 team proposal is inherently better than the 16 team proposal with a 4 team bye, I actually kind of like that. I only throw the 8 team proposal because I think it is the most easily implemented.

The arguments stated against:

The Bowls will not get their pot of money: In my proposed format, you have the top 8 in the major bowls, and I would think the first round of a playoff would actually generate more interest than just some random bowl with 2 teams playing for nothing except pride. I don't have a ton of interest in the other bowls this year, but I would pay more attention if they were playoffs.

The season would be too long: This format would only add one week to the season for 4 teams.

The regular season would be diminished: With only 8, you can afford to lose only one, maybe 2.

I think you would have to take the top 8 - using the BCS rankings or some other system. If you start trying to put in conference winner tie ins, then you have to deal with the likes of this year's ACC winner and Big East winner.

Others have stated there would still be controversy about who is number 8, and that would be true, but the purpose of this is to determine a national champion. I don't think most people really believe the 9 team really should be competing for the top spot. If your regular season performance has not gotten you into the top 8, well too bad so sad.

[aero]

Others have stated there would still be controversy about who is number 8, and that would be true, but the purpose of this is to determine a national champion. I don't think most people really believe the 9 team really should be competing for the top spot. If your regular season performance has not gotten you into the top 8, well too bad so sad.
And there are a lot of years most people don't think numbers 5 through 8 should be competing for the title. More years than not, most people could agree the top 2 through maybe 4 should be playing for the title. Of course each year is different. Doubt we want to create new rules or system every time a different scenario plays out.

[L-Boy]

And there are a lot of years most people don't think numbers 5 through 8 should be competing for the title. More years than not, most people could agree the top 2 through maybe 4 should be playing for the title. Of course each year is different. Doubt we want to create new rules or system every time a different scenario plays out.


Top 4 would certainly be better than top 2, but you still have a significant probability of leaving legit contenders out. This year you end up leaving out USC, PSU, TT and Utah. I think each one of those have as much of an argument for inclusion as the top 4.

There is obviously a balance. I think 8 is optimal, and is the most easily implementable.

[aero]

Yes. Once again, THIS year. How about 2006? We would have had 3- 2 loss teams, 4 - 1 loss teams, and 1 undefeated. Or how about 2005? There would have been 4 - 2 loss teams, 2 - 1 loss teams, and 2 undefeated. Would have been a shame to see the undefeated not even play each other and have a 2 loss team win it all. I just can't see how that would be better. Just to say we had a playoff and so it's official. Not for me.

[Leroy Lizard]

Others have stated there would still be controversy about who is number 8, and that would be true, but the purpose of this is to determine a national champion.

That would be the initial purpose, but after a while getting an invite to the playoffs will be just as important. Look at the crying that takes place every year for the NCAA basketball tournament. Those teams on the fringe never think they have a chance of winning it all, but the prestige of being allowed to play in the playoffs takes precedence. After a while, that is all that will matter. (Which is why the old bowl system will not survive a playoff.)

The original purpose is never remembered. The BCS has been a success if you gauge it by its original purpose, to pit a #1 versus #2. But now the people are crying anyway. And when the playoffs are implemented, there will be constant outrage because some team didn't get invited into the playoffs.

People are never going to be happy, no matter what you do. I suggest leaving it alone.

[L-Boy]

Yes. Once again, THIS year. How about 2006? We would have had 3- 2 loss teams, 4 - 1 loss teams, and 1 undefeated. Or how about 2005? There would have been 4 - 2 loss teams, 2 - 1 loss teams, and 2 undefeated. Would have been a shame to see the undefeated not even play each other and have a 2 loss team win it all. I just can't see how that would be better. Just to say we had a playoff and so it's official. Not for me.

I go back to 1996, pre BCS. FSU and Arizona St would have played each other had the BCS been in existance. Both were undefeated. However, the Big 10 and Pac 10 were not yet participating in this madness of trying to match the two top teams - so what you got was

#1 FSU playing #3 UF (a rematch, UF lost to FSU @FSU )
#2 ASU playing #4 Ohio St (Ohio state lost to an inferior Michigan team)

As it turns out, UF beat FSU badly, and Ohio State beat Az St. in a close game. THat Ohio St team had a lot of talent. UF and Ohio St were clearly the better teams. UF won the MNC. Under the BCS scenario that would not have happened, and nobody would have known any different.

While its fun to talk about, speculate, debate, etc - a popularity contest is really an odd way to "elect" the candidates to play in the final game.

[L-Boy]

That would be the initial purpose, but after a while getting an invite to the playoffs will be just as important. Look at the crying that takes place every year for the NCAA basketball tournament. Those teams on the fringe never think they have a chance of winning it all, but the prestige of being allowed to play in the playoffs takes precedence. After a while, that is all that will matter. (Which is why the old bowl system will not survive a playoff.)

The original purpose is never remembered. The BCS has been a success if you gauge it by its original purpose, to pit a #1 versus #2. But now the people are crying anyway. And when the playoffs are implemented, there will be constant outrage because some team didn't get invited into the playoffs.

People are never going to be happy, no matter what you do. I suggest leaving it alone.

I agree, people will still whine. But I don't think that is sufficient reason not to try to make it better. What we have now, as flawed as it is, is infinitely better than 20 years ago when there were conference tie ins and bowl participants were picked well before the season ended. I am sure there were some at that point in time that argued for the charm of the top 2 not playing each other, the bowl conference tie ins, etc.

[Leroy Lizard]

But I don't think that is sufficient reason not to try to make it better. What we have now, as flawed as it is, is infinitely better than 20 years ago when there were conference tie ins and bowl participants were picked well before the season ended.

For some reason, people didn't seem to complain so much then. I was around at that time and I don't recall people unable to get through life because the real champion wasn't "settled on the field."

I liked the older system. You play your regular season games, and you got invited by a bowl to play an extra game as a reward for a good season. In the end, various organizations elect who they thought was the best team at the end of the year, and that was that. USC got to crow about its UPI title. Oklahoma got to crow about its AP title. So there wasn't a unanimous decision that made damn sure one of the two went home a loser. So what?

This system did very well, until the spoiled rotten generation couldn't stand to have any doubts as to which team was really the "best." So we have had one fix after another, and the more we fix it, the more people complain.

My favorite are the ESPN idiots who spend countless hours telling us about the greatness of the FCS playoff system. Chris Fowler announces the score of the national title game, with the prelude "Where they settle it on the field." Okay, so if he thinks FCS is so much better, why doesn't he spend as much time talking about those games? Only in college football do we hold up the least successful version of a sport as the paradigm of how it should be done.

The bowl system is our tradition. I want to keep that tradition. (And no, keeping the bowl system around to die on the vine is not a valid compromise.)

[L-Boy]

For some reason, people didn't seem to complain so much then. I was around at that time and I don't recall people unable to get through life because the real champion wasn't "settled on the field."

I liked the older system. You play your regular season games, and you got invited by a bowl to play an extra game as a reward for a good season. In the end, various organizations elect who they thought was the best team at the end of the year, and that was that. USC got to crow about its UPI title. Oklahoma got to crow about its AP title. So there wasn't a unanimous decision that made damn sure one of the two went home a loser. So what?

This system did very well, until the spoiled rotten generation couldn't stand to have any doubts as to which team was really the "best." So we have had one fix after another, and the more we fix it, the more people complain.

My favorite are the ESPN idiots who spend countless hours telling us about the greatness of the FCS playoff system. Chris Fowler announces the score of the national title game, with the prelude "Where they settle it on the field." Okay, so if he thinks FCS is so much better, why doesn't he spend as much time talking about those games? Only in college football do we hold up the least successful version of a sport as the paradigm of how it should be done.

The bowl system is our tradition. I want to keep that tradition. (And no, keeping the bowl system around to die on the vine is not a valid compromise.)


I think competition is natural in sports and there is a natural inclination to determine who is the best, via playing it on the field (court, park, etc). As you say, some do not like the finality of a playoff. They prefer a somewhat fantasy world where a half dozen teams can argue that they are the best. It was a world where the top teams played mostly a bunch of chumps, the conferences were fairly concentrated, only a couple of teams were really good. Bowls were selected sometimes after 8 or so games.

If that is what you like, to each his own, but to me that is not what sports is about.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think competition is natural in sports and there is a natural inclination to determine who is the best, via playing it on the field (court, park, etc).

I play softball in a local league. I think we have a pretty good team. The fact that we haven't played every team in the county to settle who is really the best doesn't bother me. Maybe there is a better team out there, maybe there isn't. I'm not going to kill myself just because I don't know.

We care about winning against the teams in our league, and that's all. In college football, we already have conferences that do that job.


It was a world where the top teams played mostly a bunch of chumps, the conferences were fairly concentrated, only a couple of teams were really good. Bowls were selected sometimes after 8 or so games.

I see nothing that tells me the top teams play any better teams today than in the past. And I am not sure what you mean by a "concentrated" conference.

And only a couple of teams were really good? I don't see any difference today than back then.

[L-Boy]

I play softball in a local league. I think we have a pretty good team. The fact that we haven't played every team in the county to settle who is really the best doesn't bother me. Maybe there is a better team out there, maybe there isn't. I'm not going to kill myself just because I don't know.

We care about winning against the teams in our league, and that's all. In college football, we already have conferences that do that job.



I see nothing that tells me the top teams play any better teams today than in the past. And I am not sure what you mean by a "concentrated" conference.

And only a couple of teams were really good? I don't see any difference today than back then.

The problem is, there is clearly a desire to determine a national champion, so we resorted to a bunch of polls to figure it out.

In terms of conferences being less concentrated, that probably has more to do with # scholorship limitations than anything else.

[ETGator1]

Leroy Lizzard, I don't agree that leaving out ACC champion Virginia Tech to include a 4th place also ran from the Big 12 is the right thing to do. However, isn't it nice that we can disagree with team 16 instead of teams 3 through 9 who are greatly more deserving of being in a playoff.

You failed to grasp that the top 25 in the BCS rule for a conference champion automatic invite is for fairness to the non-BCS conferences who are discriminated against in the rankings by the Coaches and Harris polls that make up 2/3s of the BCS. The rule also satisfies most of those people that want the 11 conference champions and 5 at larges. This year, we would have 8 conference champions in the playoff while 3 conference champions are eliminated from qualifying, East Carolina, Buffalo, and Troy. Can you imagine a playoff with the eliminated conference champions in the playoff and BYU, Georgia, and Georgia Tech left out? I'm sure the networks would bid top dollar to televise those games. (LOL)

Finally, now that you are on record of being opposed to a playoff, I doubt any playoff will make you happy. You are in the 15% who don't want a playoff and also doesn't like the current BCS system. Do we go back to the days when the national championship was awarded before the bowls and it didn't matter that the national champion lost their bowl game? Maybe we should just go back to 1963 college football rules when players played both ways in single platoon football and there was limited substitution? You know, at one time players wore leather helmets. (wink)

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy Lizzard, I don't agree that leaving out ACC champion Virginia Tech to include a 4th place also ran from the Big 12 is the right thing to do. However, isn't it nice that we can disagree with team 16 instead of teams 3 through 9 who are greatly more deserving of being in a playoff.

Sure, as long as you're not a fan of the team left out.


You failed to grasp that the top 25 in the BCS rule for a conference champion automatic invite is for fairness to the non-BCS conferences who are discriminated against in the rankings by the Coaches and Harris polls that make up 2/3s of the BCS.

How is it that Virginia Tech would have been screwed if they had been left out?


The rule also satisfies most of those people that want the 11 conference champions and 5 at larges. This year, we would have 8 conference champions in the playoff while 3 conference champions are eliminated from qualifying, East Carolina, Buffalo, and Troy. Can you imagine a playoff with the eliminated conference champions in the playoff and BYU, Georgia, and Georgia Tech left out? I'm sure the networks would bid top dollar to televise those games.

Finding a suckier system doesn't make it any better. It would be a travesty to leave OSU out and let Virginia Tech in. That is rewarding a team for playing in a weak conference, no matter how you rationalize it.


Finally, now that you are on record of being opposed to a playoff, I doubt any playoff will make you happy. You are in the 15% who don't want a playoff and also doesn't like the current BCS system. Do we go back to the days when the national championship was awarded before the bowls and it didn't matter that the national champion lost their bowl game?

Wouldn't bother me a bit. But we don't have to go back that far. 1985 would be fine.