Mark Cuban working on a playoff system

[Kadosh]

I usually don't pay much attention to what Cuban is doing, but this is quite interesting. He's got some good ideas and with his money, playoffs may be possible. His billionaire status will help get the attention of the donors.

Mark Cuban exploring BCS alternative (http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=5924399&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

[Eielson]

Screw him...and a 12-16 team playoff.

[ouwasp]

Bring on the playoffs!!!

[Sooner Suzie]

Unless he can convince Pasadena to give up the Rose Bowl and their contract with the PAC-10 & Big 10, it ain't gonna matter, and somehow I think the folks out there could care less about Mark Cuban or any of his ideas or money.

[MeMyself&Me]

I knew there was a reason I didn't like that guy.

[soonerborn45]

I just don't get it. How do you decide the teams that get in? Is it with the rankings? Because if it is, say you have a situation where team A is 16 in one poll and 17 in another and they get the nod over team B even though team B is ahead of team A in one poll. Do you just pick conference champions? If so then something is going to have to change. Either make all teams play a conference title game or don't have one period. What about the smaller conferences like the Mountain West or the WAC? Do they get any consideration for being their conference champion? You are still going to have the same mess you have now. Just because the NFL has a playoff doesn't mean college should too. The NFL has 32 teams and 12 teams make it to the playoffs. There are 120 FBS teams and you want to only pick 12-16 that make it to the playoffs? If someone can explain all these factors to me then I will jump aboard the playoff wagon but until then I am sticking with the system that loves OU more than any other team no matter how much they try to change it.

[Curly Bill]

Just another reason Mark Cuban sucks!

[usaosooner]

DO WANT

[C O R N * D O G]

big fan of cuban. 'uge.

[soonervegas]

Awful idea

[C O R N * D O G]

Awful idea

working on a playoff system is an awful idea?

[badger]

The more I read about the bowls profiting while college football programs operate in the red, the more I like the idea of postseason games played at home stadiums of top teams.

[Frisco]

This is just Cuban being an attention whore. He isn't relevant to the people making the decision. I've probably talked to more athletic directors, television executives, media buyers, advertisers and sports marketing consultants about a playoff than he has. And his money won't make a difference.

[Mark_in_Tulsa]

You can do a playoff by just adding 2 more bowl games.
8 team playoff.

Rose #1 vs #8
Orange #2 vs #7
Fiesta #3 vs #6
Sugar #4 vs #5

These can rotate every year.
Then you can have 2 BCS semi final bowls.
Then your BCS championship bowl.

[picasso]

Doosh rocket.

[85sooners]

Fu

[fwsooner22]

Cuban, whether you like him or not, has the ear of tons of people. He gets things done. This is probably a good thing but watch out because if he is involved it sometimes takes some wild twist and turns; just witness the sale of the Texas Rangers. That was better than any TV series or movie. It also got done. No, he didn't end up with the Rangers but most who know more than I say he never really wanted them just wanted to make sure it got done.

[Okie35]

Cuban, whether you like him or not, has the ear of tons of people. He gets things done. This is probably a good thing but watch out because if he is involved it sometimes takes some wild twist and turns; just witness the sale of the Texas Rangers. That was better than any TV series or movie. It also got done. No, he didn't end up with the Rangers but most who know more than I say he never really wanted them just wanted to make sure it got done.

Not really.

[RahOkU]

This is just Cuban being an attention whore. He isn't relevant to the people making the decision. I've probably talked to more athletic directors, television executives, media buyers, advertisers and sports marketing consultants about a playoff than he has. And his money won't make a difference.

Yup, I agree he is just looking for attention and possibly to stir things up a bit.

While he stated it would cost less to finance a playoff system than to purchase a ML team, in the end, he will make it known that owning a baseball team is more profitable.

The bottom line is economic feasibility, not price tag........

[humblesooner]

You can do a playoff by just adding 2 more bowl games.
8 team playoff.

Rose #1 vs #8
Orange #2 vs #7
Fiesta #3 vs #6
Sugar #4 vs #5

These can rotate every year.
Then you can have 2 BCS semi final bowls.
Then your BCS championship bowl.

I agree with the number of teams, but you almost have to have first round games played on campus. Not many people are going to travel to three consecutive "bowl" games. If it goes this way, it will end up like the SuperBowl with 90% of tickets going to corporations and big-wigs. Not many true fans of each school will get tickets.
If you play home games for the higher ranked teams in the first round, you eliminate the long-distance travel for the first week.

[Okie35]

I agree with the number of teams, but you almost have to have first round games played on campus. Not many people are going to travel to three consecutive "bowl" games. If it goes this way, it will end up like the SuperBowl with 90% of tickets going to corporations and big-wigs. Not many true fans of each school will get tickets.
If you play home games for the higher ranked teams in the first round, you eliminate the long-distance travel for the first week.

I agree. Hardly anyone would care about the regular season either.

[CowboyMRW]

I for one don't want a playoff. I like how it's set up now and if teams have problems with it at the end maybe they should play tougher teams. O and because the BCS keeps screwing Boise and I hate them the most out of any team followed closely by aTm and Tech.

[tcrb]

If Cuban can do for CFB what he did for the Mavericks, CFB will be totally F'ed up in no time.

[The]

Bowl Games are Decadent and Depraved.

They should be done away with immediately, and their supporters drug out into the streets and sprayed with mace, whilst being beaten in the kidneys with truncheons forged from the shattered remains of the atavistic and loathsome trophies they used to hand out.

[OklahomaTuba]

I agree. Hardly anyone would care about the regular season either.WE have a two team playoff now, and people still care about the regular season.

Oh and the other divisions of college football/pro football/ and every other sport has a playoff, and they care about their regular season as well.

[badger]

If Cuban can do for CFB what he did for the Mavericks, CFB will be totally F'ed up in no time.

Um... didn't the Mavs suck before he arrived? Didn't he upgrade their facilities, provide fans with innovations such as the three-side shot clock that got picked up by other teams, etc etc? Didn't he also negotiate a deal to bring the All-Star game to Dallas in a partnership with Jerry Jones?


Now yeah, the guy acts like a spoiled frat boy at times, but hasn't he at least turned Dallas into a playoff regular?

[OklahomaTuba]

The more I read about the bowls profiting while college football programs operate in the red, the more I like the idea of postseason games played at home stadiums of top teams.

20 team playoff!!!!

If NCAA FCS football can pull it off, the big boys can too.

http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2010/ncaa_bracket_FCS_football.html

[fwsooner22]

Not really.

If you were a Mavericks season ticket holder before Mark Cuban you would understand. The guy is a self-made billionaire and we hang out at SF.com. You're two word responses say all I need to know. Cuban doesn't need anybody defending him but c'mon really.

[JLEW1818]

more than 8 would be dumb

[rekamrettuB]

"The more I think about it, the more sense it makes as opposed to buying a baseball team," said Cuban, who tried to buy the Chicago Cubs and Texas Rangers within the last few years. "You can do something the whole country wants done."



Translation: Since I can't buy a baseball team then I should waste my time elsewhere.

[Caboose]

working on a playoff system is an awful idea?

Until someone can show that would fix any of the perceived problems with the BCS instead of making them worse and adding more problems... then yes. It is a waste of time.

[Caboose]

more than 8 would be dumb

Except for years when 10 teams are equally deserving. Then you have years when only 1 team is deserving, or 2, or 3... those years 8 is dumb.

[Caboose]

20 team playoff!!!!

If NCAA FCS football can pull it off, the big boys can too.

http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2010/ncaa_bracket_FCS_football.html

*vomit*

[Caboose]

WE have a two team playoff now, and people still care about the regular season.

Oh and the other divisions of college football/pro football/ and every other sport has a playoff, and they care about their regular season as well.

Not exactly.

[MeMyself&Me]

Bowl Games are Decadent and Depraved.

They should be done away with immediately, and their supporters drug out into the streets and sprayed with mace, whilst being beaten in the kidneys with truncheons forged from the shattered remains of the atavistic and loathsome trophies they used to hand out.

Hmmm, don't think I want to meet you!


WE have a two team playoff now, and people still care about the regular season.

Oh and the other divisions of college football/pro football/ and every other sport has a playoff, and they care about their regular season as well.

That's a good point. In fact, it's such a good point that if you can't watch college football without a playoff, FCS is just right for you!!! Please keep your hands off of the best sport in the world thank you! :mad:


more than 8 would be dumb

I actually think more than 4 would be dumb. I can't remember a time where there was someone outside of the top 4 that I thought really got screwed. Actually, considering that each program is responsible for their own schedule, I don't know that anyone ever has been screwed in the BCS era. Anyway, the problem with saying, "I want a playoff but it should be limited to X number of teams" is that even if you get your way at first, it WILL be expanded further than that. Just like every other version of tournament that I'm familiar with.

[usaosooner]

The bowl system sucks as it is 70 teams.. 35 games of which 34 don't "really" mean any thing... A playoff system which keeps some bowls is the perfect solution.. The bowls become the "NIT" The Playoffs = March Madness.. It makes sense financially

[badger]

It really does make sense financially, because BOWLS LOSE MONEY FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT THE BOWLS (who are allegedly non-profit)

Football programs are expensive, and bowls reap the profits. How many football programs actually turn a profit? Even less turn a profit in the postseason alone, when travel costs, unsold tickets et al add up when you have to share your bowl money with your conference (unless you're Notre Dame, I guess).

The bowl system simply cannot continue as-is and it won't. Schools want more money and more control, mid-majors wants more inclusion, and Congress wants more oversight. Might as well get the playoff discussion started, because we all know that's where this is headed

[IndySooner]

Translation: Since I can't buy a baseball team then I should waste my time elsewhere.

Actually, he said today that he still could buy a baseball team, but this would be bigger.

[SpankyNek]

I am all for a playoff.

The regular season losing meaning argument is total BS.

Right now, the regular season means nothing to about 95% of FBS teams...has that stopped people from attending?

Some will argue that the exclusivity of a 2 team playoff makes the regular season more relevant. That is only true until you get 2 losses (save 2007), or you start the season in an FBS conference named the WAC, MAC, Conference USA, Big East, Sun Belt or MWC.

To abbreviate:
The regular season means nothing to half of the FBS before a single game is played, and to all but a small handful of teams by week 8...yet people still watch and attend.

The perfect solution would be for the NCAA to wrest control of the sport from the private conferences and to either a)spit the upper division again, realizing that New Mexico St is simply not going to be competitive with the Ohio St's of the world, or b) restructure all of the FBS into a geographical division system that lets these lesser teams truly swim with the sharks.

As neither is likely to happen, the only current solution for team selection would be a BCS type system that would merely take the top 12 (I think the perfect number) with top 4 getting a week 1 bye and first two rounds played on campus.

[IndySooner]

It really does make sense financially, because BOWLS LOSE MONEY FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT THE BOWLS (who are allegedly non-profit)

Football programs are expensive, and bowls reap the profits. How many football programs actually turn a profit? Even less turn a profit in the postseason alone, when travel costs, unsold tickets et al add up when you have to share your bowl money with your conference (unless you're Notre Dame, I guess).

The bowl system simply cannot continue as-is and it won't. Schools want more money and more control, mid-majors wants more inclusion, and Congress wants more oversight. Might as well get the playoff discussion started, because we all know that's where this is headed

You read the same book I did! :)

After reading "Death to the BCS", I've been doing a ton more research on my own. It's AMAZING how bad the system is, how little people care about it, etc.

As far as a "meaningful" regular season, that's ridiculous. 100% ridiculous.

Also, do you all realize how much of OU's bowl allocation is going to be spent on unused tickets this year? It's a lot, by the way.

A 16-team playoff is where we're headed, like it or not. The only way I can see it being less is if the 4 big boy conferences (Big 10, Pac 10, SEC & ACC) expand to 16 teams and create a 64-team Division I. In that case, we'll be looking at an 8-team playoff starting with the conference championships.

Wetzel's system outlined in his book makes the most sense. It would make OU a TON of money, would be GREAT for the city of Norman and the state of Oklahoma financially and would be unbelievable as a fan. Read the book, then tell me again why you wouldn't like it.

[IndySooner]

I am all for a playoff.

The regular season losing meaning argument is total BS.

Right now, the regular season means nothing to about 95% of FBS teams...has that stopped people from attending?

Some will argue that the exclusivity of a 2 team playoff makes the regular season more relevant. That is only true until you get 2 losses (save 2007), or you start the season in an FBS conference not named the WAC, MAC, Conference USA, Big East, Sun Belt or MWC.

To abbreviate:
The regular season means nothing to half of the FBS before a single game is played, and to all but a small handful of teams by week 8...yet people still watch and attend.

The perfect solution would be for the NCAA to wrest control of the sport from the private conferences and to either a)spit the upper division again, realizing that New Mexico St is simply not going to be competitive with the Ohio St's of the world, or b) restructure all of the FBS into a geographical division system that lets these lesser teams truly swim with the sharks.

As neither is likely to happen, the only current solution for team selection would be a BCS type system that would merely take the top 12 (I think the perfect number) with top 4 getting a week 1 bye and first two rounds played on campus.

12 would be great, except then you run into the same "exclusivity" issues and the little guys won't agree. That's why you need a 16-team playoff with all conference champions. Like I said above, the only way this isn't coming down the pipe is if the 4 conferences expand into 16-team leagues with an 8-team playoff.

[IndySooner]

And as for the RIDICULOUS notion that Mark Cuban can't get something like this done, he's made "ideas" happen to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars since he was 20 years old. The dude can make things happen!

[texaspokieokie]

spankynek

any system where some teams get "byes" would be unfair.

[badger]

Never read Death to the BCS, sorry. But I've read tons of articles for and against the current bowl system and apparently came to the same conclusion the book did.

My favorite article on this topic was in a recent issue of SI. Check it out here. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1177192/2/index.htm)

As for OU bowl tickets, I'm sure OU finds good ways to dump its ticket allotment so it might be able to sell most of them --- they got my parents to go on official OU bowl trips to Pasadena and San Diego :D

[SpankyNek]

spankynek

any system where some teams get "byes" would be unfair.
I think that the unfairness would be a great reward for those teams that had a stellar season.

[IndySooner]

Never read Death to the BCS, sorry. But I've read tons of articles for and against the current bowl system and apparently came to the same conclusion the book did.

My favorite article on this topic was in a recent issue of SI. Check it out here. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1177192/2/index.htm)

As for OU bowl tickets, I'm sure OU finds good ways to dump its ticket allotment so it might be able to sell most of them --- they got my parents to go on official OU bowl trips to Pasadena and San Diego :D

Those guys wrote the book. That's why they're coming to the same conclusion.

[texaspokieokie]

I think that the unfairness would be a great reward for those teams that had a stellar season.

JMHO; i totally disagree. the extra wear & tear of a football game (& injuries)
is too much to overcome.

just let the 4 "bye" teams have their own play-off & forget about the other 8.

[setem]

Why is this a bad idea? It puts the control back in the teams hands and you don't have to rely on computers and voters to decide if you are worthy or not. Do what you can Cuban boy!

[IndySooner]

JMHO; i totally disagree. the extra wear & tear of a football game (& injuries)
is too much to overcome.

just let the 4 "bye" teams have their own play-off & forget about the other 8.

So it's okay for high school kids and IAA, Div. II, Div. III, NAIA, NAIA Div. II, JUCO, JUCO Div. II kids to have the wear and tear but not the best athletes?

Absolutely ZERO of the arguments against the playoff system make any sense to me.

[texaspokieokie]

So it's okay for high school kids and IAA, Div. II, Div. III, NAIA, NAIA Div. II, JUCO, JUCO Div. II kids to have the wear and tear but not the best athletes?

Absolutely ZERO of the arguments against the playoff system make any sense to me.

i'm only talking about "byes", could give a **** less if they go to playoffs.

the arguments against playoffs apparently don't have to make sense, at least not so far.

[setem]

What blows my mind is that the NCAA does not officially recognize a D1 National Champion!

[NormanPride]

The people in this thread hating on the idea just because Cuban thought of it are the people that would hate on the cure for cancer if it was invented by someone they didn't like.

Bowls lose the teams craploads of money. You want to know why OU is one of like 6 schools with an athletic budget in the black? Because when schools go to bowl games in their supposed "cash cow" sport of football, they lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's positively criminal how bad the bowl system is for schools, but everyone in power just harps on tradition and bull**** like that.

Make a damn playoff, NCAA. Step in and regulate like you do every other freaking sport. OH WAIT, you suck and we can't rely on the NCAA to do anything right. So what to do? Do it ourselves.

[rekamrettuB]

12 would be great, except then you run into the same "exclusivity" issues and the little guys won't agree. That's why you need a 16-team playoff with all conference champions. Like I said above, the only way this isn't coming down the pipe is if the 4 conferences expand into 16-team leagues with an 8-team playoff.

Then 16 turns to 32 just like the basketball tourney expanded from 8 to 64 (now 68).

[texaspokieokie]

lots of folks hating on playoffs before cuban was ever mentioned.

[IndySooner]

Here's a great article outlining what I'm talking about for ticket sales. If you look around the country, only ONE bowl game is sold out. Most articles you'll find talk about "steady" ticket sales which still leave schools holding thousands of tickets they're responsible for.

The system is officially broken. Teams go to the same bowls every year, which becomes boring. People no longer want to go to the same place every year. It's time for a change.

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/tech-may-lose-money-again-orange-bowl

[IndySooner]

Then 16 turns to 32 just like the basketball tourney expanded from 8 to 64 (now 68).

It will only do that if it's working. I can't see how it would be feasible time-wise to go above 16, but hey, if it's working and it's awesome (which it will be) and it's feasible, I don't care how many teams they want to expand to. Right now 70 teams go to bowl games. 70 FREAKING TEAMS!

[Leroy Lizard]

Bowl Games are Decadent and Depraved.

They should be done away with immediately...

Sounds contradictory.

[The]

Sounds contradictory.

It's not.

[IndySooner]

The headline of this article is hilarious! Just another example.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2013689596_uwfb16.html

[Leroy Lizard]

WE have a two team playoff now, and people still care about the regular season.

Oh and the other divisions of college football/pro football/ and every other sport has a playoff, and they care about their regular season as well.

So which sport has the highest attendance for regular season games? The ones with the playoff or the one without the playoff?


The regular season means nothing to half of the FBS before a single game is played, and to all but a small handful of teams by week 8...yet people still watch and attend.

With our bowl system, even the weakest teams have something to play for each year. A playoff threatens that bowl system.

Why are we doing this again? We've had this argument dozens of times.

[Caboose]

It will only do that if it's working. I can't see how it would be feasible time-wise to go above 16, but hey, if it's working and it's awesome (which it will be) and it's feasible, I don't care how many teams they want to expand to. Right now 70 teams go to bowl games. 70 FREAKING TEAMS!

Sounds like you have a pretty lax definition of what "working" means. And the number of teams that go to bowls (way to high in my opinion) has nothing to do with this debate.

[Leroy Lizard]

Sounds like you have a pretty lax definition of what "working" means. And the number of teams that go to bowls (way to high in my opinion) has nothing to do with this debate.

But this is part of the problem. Playoff proponents love to play both sides of the fence. On one hand, they assure everyone that the bowls won't go away if a playoff is implemented. On the other hand, they claim we need a playoff because there are too many bowl games.

And this is why arguing with playoff proponents presents an ever-shifting target. They jump from 4-team concepts to 16-team concepts, from BCS selection criteria to conference-champion criteria, whichever happens to be the most convenient to overcome whatever barrier they encounter.

[jkjsooner]

You can do a playoff by just adding 2 more bowl games.
8 team playoff.

Rose #1 vs #8
Orange #2 vs #7
Fiesta #3 vs #6
Sugar #4 vs #5

These can rotate every year.
Then you can have 2 BCS semi final bowls.
Then your BCS championship bowl.

You must have more money and time off than the average fan. I'm assuming you can travel to Tempe, then Florida on one week's notice and then Miami on one week's notice (or whatever cities it might be).

That's the biggest problem of using the bowls as the playoffs. I don't care how much you think your fans can travel, they can't send 35,000 to three cities in three weeks. In basketball you have to send a few thousand fans at most. You are sharing a much smaller venue with three other teams.

Hell, the pros don't even have neutral site games until the Super Bowl.

[jkjsooner]

Unless he can convince Pasadena to give up the Rose Bowl and their contract with the PAC-10 & Big 10, it ain't gonna matter, and somehow I think the folks out there could care less about Mark Cuban or any of his ideas or money.

Let the Big 10 and PAC 10 do their own thing. We'll declare a national title without them. It will be a repeat of the Bowl Alliance and once a B10/P10 team gets left out in the cold (Penn St. in '94) the B10/P10 will fold just as they did when the BCS was formed.

[OklahomaTuba]

So which sport has the highest attendance for regular season games? The ones with the playoff or the one without the playoff?

Not a fare comparison, as basketball arenas and div 1a stadiums are smaller. But seriously, you're nuts if you think that expanding from a 2 team playoff will hurt attendance, not increase it. Hell just throwing in the extra home games will up the attendance!




With our bowl system, even the weakest teams have something to play for each year. A playoff threatens that bowl system.They can both co-exist, as they do now.

We have a playoff game (The BCS National Title Game) and BCS bowls.

See? It all works just fine.

[jkjsooner]

I agree. Hardly anyone would care about the regular season either.

With an 8 team playoff you can lose a max of 2 games. Some teams, depending on schedule strength, would have to go undefeated or lose only one game. Either way, the regular season remains damn important (not to mention that teams still want to win their conferences).

I would make it simple - you have a simple algorithm based on number of losses and strength of schedule. I would define the algorithm to mimic what pollsters generally do now but leaving out the human factor:

1. Losses weigh heavily.
2. SoS weighs slightly lower.

An SoS differential must be high for a team with more losses to surpass a team with fewer losses. This is essentially what pollsters do and the original BCS formula weighed losses in a similar manner.

SoS could be a calculation based on opponent's win % and opponent's opponent's win % similar to what the original BCS did.

Would the #9 team have an argument? Sure but most likely that team lost at least one game (so there is room to blame themselves) and they would know the system is unbiased and not influenced by the human element. Plus, as the number of teams grow, the argument of getting left out gets less and less meaningful. (In basketball the bubble teams may argue about being left out but they hardly have an argument against the legitimacy of the national championship).

[cdlbdd]

Not a fare comparison

Great point, we are talking about football here Leroy not culinary arts!

[tfoolry]

If he gets some help from Jerry, there WILL be a playoff & all games will be at Jerry World. If there's $ to be made, those two will figure out how to do it.

[IndySooner]

So which sport has the highest attendance for regular season games? The ones with the playoff or the one without the playoff?


So, you think that the NCAA regular season is beating the NFL regular season? Look at attendance figures. Look at TV ratings. You might be surprised.

[jkjsooner]

I am all for a playoff.

The regular season losing meaning argument is total BS.

Right now, the regular season means nothing to about 95% of FBS teams...has that stopped people from attending?

Some will argue that the exclusivity of a 2 team playoff makes the regular season more relevant. That is only true until you get 2 losses (save 2007), or you start the season in an FBS conference named the WAC, MAC, Conference USA, Big East, Sun Belt or MWC.

To abbreviate:
The regular season means nothing to half of the FBS before a single game is played, and to all but a small handful of teams by week 8...yet people still watch and attend.

The perfect solution would be for the NCAA to wrest control of the sport from the private conferences and to either a)spit the upper division again, realizing that New Mexico St is simply not going to be competitive with the Ohio St's of the world, or b) restructure all of the FBS into a geographical division system that lets these lesser teams truly swim with the sharks.

As neither is likely to happen, the only current solution for team selection would be a BCS type system that would merely take the top 12 (I think the perfect number) with top 4 getting a week 1 bye and first two rounds played on campus.

Good points. Was OU's season meaningless once we lost to Missouri? In fact, it would have remained much more menaingful had we had a playoff.

It's possible that you could have an undefeated team take a week off the last week of the year (similar to NFL teams) but the seeding and home field advantage would mitigate that possibility greatly.

[Caboose]

With an 8 team playoff you can lose a max of 2 games. Some teams, depending on schedule strength, would have to go undefeated or lose only one game. Either way, the regular season remains damn important (not to mention that teams still want to win their conferences).

I would make it simple - you have a simple algorithm based on number of losses and strength of schedule. I would define the algorithm to mimic what pollsters generally do now but leaving out the human factor:

1. Losses weigh heavily.
2. SoS weighs slightly lower.

An SoS differential must be high for a team with more losses to surpass a team with fewer losses. This is essentially what pollsters do and the original BCS formula weighed losses in a similar manner.

SoS could be a calculation based on opponent's win % and opponent's opponent's win % similar to what the original BCS did.

Would the #9 team have an argument? Sure but most likely that team lost at least one game (so there is room to blame themselves) and they would know the system is unbiased and not influenced by the human element. Plus, as the number of teams grow, the argument of getting left out gets less and less meaningful. (In basketball the bubble teams may argue about being left out but they hardly have an argument against the legitimacy of the national championship).

Cart before the horse. Until you can come up with a valid reason to give #8 Clemson (9-3 record, lost to #1 Miami 52-7 in week 5) the same opportunity to be the National Champion as #1 Miami (13-0 record, #1 SOS, average score 58 to 6) then we dont have a need for your solution.
Inclusion is just as much (arguably more so) a problem as exclusion.

[IGotNoTiming]

As far as controversy over who gets selected to go to the playoffs well...

Would you rather have a system where you have 3 legitimate undefeated teams and one gets left out OR would you rather see the controversy slide down the ranks where (in a 16 team playoff), 4, 9-2 schools are bitching about not getting into that 16th slot.... a slot that probably could not be won from that easily?

The BCS is despicable...

[Caboose]

As far as controversy over who gets selected to go to the playoffs well...

Would you rather have a system where you have 3 legitimate undefeated teams and one gets left out OR would you rather see the controversy slide down the ranks where (in a 16 team playoff), 4, 9-2 schools are bitching about not getting into that 16th slot.... a slot that probably could not be won from that easily?

The BCS is despicable...

The first option. By far. And it has nothing to do with #16 and #17 bickering over who gets the last spot.... because regardless of which one gets it it is a travesty to the teams on the other end of the seeding. I don't think you have thought about the problem of inclusion as much as you should.

[jkjsooner]

But this is part of the problem. Playoff proponents love to play both sides of the fence. On one hand, they assure everyone that the bowls won't go away if a playoff is implemented. On the other hand, they claim we need a playoff because there are too many bowl games.

And this is why arguing with playoff proponents presents an ever-shifting target. They jump from 4-team concepts to 16-team concepts, from BCS selection criteria to conference-champion criteria, whichever happens to be the most convenient to overcome whatever barrier they encounter.

How many times do you have to be told that we are not all the same person. We don't change our minds or shift our targets. Any time you come up with a new concept you will have debate about what is the right way to do it and there's never 100% agreement from the beginning.

You apparently think that a playoff is a dumb idea simply because we don't all agree 100% on the details. With those expectations no form of representative government would have ever been formed.

[Okie35]

So it's okay for high school kids and IAA, Div. II, Div. III, NAIA, NAIA Div. II, JUCO, JUCO Div. II kids to have the wear and tear but not the best athletes?

Absolutely ZERO of the arguments against the playoff system make any sense to me.

For the fans theres always pros but even coaches hate the idea of a playoff for the FBS. As a fan yea that'll be fine for me. The question is, how does a playoff benefit the players like the bcs or other bowls do? All the playoffs you mentioned doesn't even come close to the BCS experience for players and coaches.

[jkjsooner]

Cart before the horse. Until you can come up with a valid reason to give #8 Clemson (9-3 record, lost to #1 Miami 52-7 in week 5) the same opportunity to be the National Champion as #1 Miami (13-0 record, #1 SOS, average score 58 to 6) then we dont have a need for your solution.
Inclusion is just as much (arguably more so) a problem as exclusion.

First, as I've said you can't have multiple neutral site games so Miami would have home field advantage in the first round.

Is it fair that Duke has to play Mississippi Valley State in Charlotte in the NCAA basketball tournament?

If the #8 team is so bad then they won't survive the tournament. If #1 is so deserving then they will survive and advance. If #8 beats #1 then, well, maybe #1 wasn't as good as you thought.

[jkjsooner]

On one hand, they assure everyone that the bowls won't go away if a playoff is implemented. On the other hand, they claim we need a playoff because there are too many bowl games.


You are totally misrepesenting the argument. We're offering to keep the stupid meaningless bowls to keep you happy. We don't like having 35 bowl games but since you insist we're showing you that it's possible to keep them.

Do you honestly think an 8 team playoff would threaten the viability of the Little Caesar's Bowl? The coaches and players will enjoy the trip just as much and the fans will be disgusted just the same.

The playoffs will only threaten the top tier (mostly BCS) bowls.

[Caboose]

First, as I've said you can't have multiple neutral site games so Miami would have home field advantage in the first round.

Is it fair that Duke has to play Mississippi Valley State in Charlotte in the NCAA basketball tournament?

If the #8 team is so bad then they won't survive the tournament. If #1 is so deserving then they will survive and advance. If #8 beats #1 then, well, maybe #1 wasn't as good as you thought.

Why is #1 13-0 Miami playing #8 9-3 Clemson (Clemson already lost to Miami 52-7) in a "playoff" game?

What are they "playing off"? What tie or dispute are they trying to settle by playing the game? Do you believe 13-0 Miami and 9-3 Clemson (already lost to Miami 52-7) are tied in some way?
You are offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and creating a bigger and worse problem by doing so.

So let's say Clemson beats Miami in the "playoff" game on a last second field goal aided by a VERY controversial call, 26 to 24. Now Miami is 13-1 against the #1 SOS in the nation and Clemson is 10-3... and they are tied head to head (although Miami's win was a blowout and Clemson's by all accounts should have been a loss). Now you are telling me a (lucky to be) 10-3 team is better and MORE DESERVING of playing for a National Championship than a 13-1 team.

Look at the NFL in 2007 for an example of an absurd illogical scenario playoff supporters have to rationalize when their beloved playoff tells us a 14-6 Giants team had a better season than the 18-1 Patriots.

When you INCLUDE teams that are not deserving of playing for the championship to begin with it doesn't work. Plain and simple. It is a bigger problem than EXCLUDING a team that might deserve to be there.

We dont need a system to determine whether or not #1 is better than #8 or if #2 is better than #7. Why are you trying to provide one? And why did you provide one that doesn't even do it correctly? We ALREADY know #1 is better than #8 and YOUR system may very well tell us the opposite.

[Okie35]

Why is #1 13-0 Miami playing #8 9-3 Clemson (Clemson already lost to Miami 52-7) in a "playoff" game?

What are they "playing off"? What tie or dispute are they trying to settle by playing the game? Do you believe 13-0 Miami and 9-3 Clemson (already lost to Miami 52-7) are tied in some way?
You are offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and creating a bigger and worse problem by doing so.

So let's say Clemson beats Miami in the "playoff" game on a last second field goal aided by a VERY controversial call, 26 to 24. Now Miami is 13-1 against the #1 SOS in the nation and Clemson is 10-3... and they are tied head to head (although Miami's win was a blowout and Clemson's by all accounts should have been a loss). Now you are telling me a (lucky to be) 10-3 team is better and MORE DESERVING of playing for a National Championship than a 13-1 team.

Look at the NFL in 2007 for an example of an absurd illogical scenario playoff supporters have to rationalize when their beloved playoff tells us a 14-6 Giants team had a better season than the 18-1 Patriots.

When you INCLUDE teams that are not deserving of playing for the championship to begin with it doesn't work. Plain and simple. It is a bigger problem than EXCLUDING a team that might deserve to be there.

Which is why in the NFL they always say, playoffs only matter. CFB will end up having massive fires if teams don't make it to playoff games consistently.

[IndySooner]

For the fans theres always pros but even coaches hate the idea of a playoff for the FBS. As a fan yea that'll be fine for me. The question is, how does a playoff benefit the players like the bcs or other bowls do? All the playoffs you mentioned doesn't even come close to the BCS experience for players and coaches.

The coaches like it for one reason and one reason only: $$$$$$$

They keep their jobs by going 7-5. They get bonused for going 7-5. It's ridiculous.

[Okie35]

The coaches like it for one reason and one reason only: $$$$$$$

They keep their jobs by going 7-5. They get bonused for going 7-5. It's ridiculous.

That's not true, while that may be a reason to some its not a reason to most.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-01-04-fiesta-bowl_N.htm

[IndySooner]

That's not true, while that may be a reason to some its not a reason to most.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-01-04-fiesta-bowl_N.htm

He doesn't like an 8-team playoff. He'd support a 16-team playoff that gave the small conferences automatic bids. That's the only way a playoff would work and be accepted by the masses.

Not only that, but Patterson was saying that upon making hundreds of thousands of dollars, and maybe millions, for making a BCS bowl game. What do you expect him to say?

[MeMyself&Me]

First, as I've said you can't have multiple neutral site games so Miami would have home field advantage in the first round.

Is it fair that Duke has to play Mississippi Valley State in Charlotte in the NCAA basketball tournament?

If the #8 team is so bad then they won't survive the tournament. If #1 is so deserving then they will survive and advance. If #8 beats #1 then, well, maybe #1 wasn't as good as you thought.

One of the things that are great about college football is that the early season losses do matter. Playoff people seem to like the idea that the team playing the best at the end of the season can win it all regardless and bowl people like that the fact that currently, the entire season is taken into the final result.

For example, the 2007 NY Giants lost 6 games in the regular season, including one to the Pats. But because the NFL playoffs take so many teams the Giants were afforded the opportunity to play the undefeated Pats for the championship. Now, the Giants won that game and were the champions for that season. But for college football, I like it that a team like that doesn't have that opportunity at the end.

You start adding in playoffs and the more, and more teams you include in those playoffs, the more you change what college football is. There are a lot of us that like college football the way it is. I think there are even a lot of playoff proponents that ultimately would be disappointed if we went down that road too.

If it's really so bad you can't stand it, watch something else.

[Okie35]

He doesn't like an 8-team playoff. He'd support a 16-team playoff that gave the small conferences automatic bids. That's the only way a playoff would work and be accepted by the masses.

Not only that, but Patterson was saying that upon making hundreds of thousands of dollars, and maybe millions, for making a BCS bowl game. What do you expect him to say?

I expect him to say what he did and it was the truth. He said he would hate flying his players around every week and they won't get the same experience from a playoff as they get from the BCS. As a fan sure I'll watch playoffs but I'm fine how it is now. Playoffs has its pros but has a lot of cons as well. I wouldn't watch as much CFB as I do now if there were playoffs.

[IndySooner]

I expect him to say what he did and it was the truth. He said he would hate flying his players around every week and they won't get the same experience from a playoff as they get from the BCS. As a fan sure I'll watch playoffs but I'm fine how it is now. Playoffs has its pros but has a lot of cons as well. I wouldn't watch as much CFB as I do now if there were playoffs.

I call BS on that. You wouldn't watch as much football if there was a playoff?

Right.

[IndySooner]

One of the things that are great about college football is that the early season losses do matter. Playoff people seem to like the idea that the team playing the best at the end of the season can win it all regardless and bowl people like that the fact that currently, the entire season is taken into the final result.

For example, the 2007 NY Giants lost 6 games in the regular season, including one to the Pats. But because the NFL playoffs take so many teams the Giants were afforded the opportunity to play the undefeated Pats for the championship. Now, the Giants won that game and were the champions for that season. But for college football, I like it that a team like that doesn't have that opportunity at the end.

You start adding in playoffs and the more, and more teams you include in those playoffs, the more you change what college football is. There are a lot of us that like college football the way it is. I think there are even a lot of playoff proponents that ultimately would be disappointed if we went down that road too.

If it's really so bad you can't stand it, watch something else.

Most teams could still only lose one, two max, games and get into a playoff as an at-large. An early season loss would still be extremely meaningful.

[Okie35]

I call BS on that. You wouldn't watch as much football if there was a playoff?

Right.

BS on my own preferences lol thats funny. I hardly watch any other teams besides OU if there was a playoff. I would wait until bowl season. Other games wouldn't matter to me, unless I wanted a team to lose to make OU go higher in the polls. I'd treat it like the NFL if its not the Bucs I basically don't watch it.

[SoonerPride]

I call BS on that. You wouldn't watch as much football if there was a playoff?

Right.

A second one here that would watch it less.

I'd watch it like I do the NFL. Some during the regular season and avidly during the playoffs.

I prefer a system where 4 months of games matter instead of 4 weeks.

College football>NFL.

[Okie35]

A second one here that would watch it less.

I'd watch it like I do the NFL. Some during the regular season and avidly during the playoffs.

I prefer a system where 4 months of games matter instead of 4 weeks.

College football>NFL.

The same point I just made. There would be a large % of ppl that would watch less college football due to a playoff system.

[TMcGee86]

A second one here that would watch it less.

I'd watch it like I do the NFL. Some during the regular season and avidly during the playoffs.

I prefer a system where 4 months of games matter instead of 4 weeks.

College football>NFL.

Are you going to watch the Fiesta Bowl?

Did you watch the Big12CG?

[Rocker]

make it happen

[Okie35]

Are you going to watch the Fiesta Bowl?

Did you watch the Big12CG?

Of course he'd watch OU games.

[SoonerPride]

Are you going to watch the Fiesta Bowl?

Did you watch the Big12CG?

Yes and yes.

I'd watch OU regardless of what or where they play.

I'm more apt to watch regular season games like S Carolina v Alabama this year since I knew that game mattered. I'd be less inclined to bother with such a game if I knew Bama would be in the playoff with or without that one loss. Get it?

[TMcGee86]

Yes and yes.

I'd watch OU regardless of what or where they play.

I'm more apt to watch regular season games like S Carolina v Alabama this year since I knew that game mattered. I'd be less inclined to bother with such a game if I knew Bama would be in the playoff with or without that one loss. Get it?

Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, I could see that. Maybe a slight decrease in interest there.

But I would think it would be made up for in games where teams were competing to see who would be included in the playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

Most teams could still only lose one, two max, games and get into a playoff as an at-large. An early season loss would still be extremely meaningful.

http://dailyme.com/story/2010120900005987/plenty-reasons-bowl-system-playoff.html

If you're talking about the teams looking for at-large births because they didn't win their conference. You'd be right more often than not but that's only because there are quite a few one and two loss teams. Most don't really deserve a shot. But the only playoff model that makes any sense involves conference champions and that includes teams like 6-6 Florida International. Now I don't think they'd have any chance of winning the championship I also don't think they deserve a chance.

Oh, and I hated that 2 loss LSU got it a few years ago. I've always felt that a 2 loss team is deserving of a college football national title and that year made me wish for the way it was prior to the BCS.

As for 6-6 Florida International getting into playoffs instead of other 1 and 2 loss BCS quality teams, I think there be a huge push by the 'haves' after a few years of that to go to a 32 team playoff.


And none of that really addresses one thing I've hated in college football... and that's rematches. I don't like them in conference championship games and I don't like the idea of them happening in playoffs. It cheapens the first accomplishment by the original winner.

[MeMyself&Me]

Oh, and those one and two loss teams in that playoff system would need a whole lot less help than they do now. Losses now are devastating... and they should be. It's not the NFL, or MLB, or college basketball.

[MeMyself&Me]

I would also watch less of the regular season for the same reason others have said here.

[Scott D]

And as for the RIDICULOUS notion that Mark Cuban can't get something like this done, he's made "ideas" happen to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars since he was 20 years old. The dude can make things happen!

Yeah.....he can make buying the Cubs happ...oh wait, that didn't happen. Maybe the Rang......oh wait, he failed at that as well.

His idea is terrible, and good luck getting all donors to quit donating to their schools to push the Presidents to create a playoff. Good luck getting the bowls to agree to be pushed into the background like the NIT.

His idea is as full of fail as the concept of Dirk Nowitski being "the man" at any point when it really matters.

[jkjsooner]

Why is #1 13-0 Miami playing #8 9-3 Clemson (Clemson already lost to Miami 52-7) in a "playoff" game?

What are they "playing off"? What tie or dispute are they trying to settle by playing the game? Do you believe 13-0 Miami and 9-3 Clemson (already lost to Miami 52-7) are tied in some way?
You are offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and creating a bigger and worse problem by doing so.

So let's say Clemson beats Miami in the "playoff" game on a last second field goal aided by a VERY controversial call, 26 to 24. Now Miami is 13-1 against the #1 SOS in the nation and Clemson is 10-3... and they are tied head to head (although Miami's win was a blowout and Clemson's by all accounts should have been a loss). Now you are telling me a (lucky to be) 10-3 team is better and MORE DESERVING of playing for a National Championship than a 13-1 team.

Look at the NFL in 2007 for an example of an absurd illogical scenario playoff supporters have to rationalize when their beloved playoff tells us a 14-6 Giants team had a better season than the 18-1 Patriots.

When you INCLUDE teams that are not deserving of playing for the championship to begin with it doesn't work. Plain and simple. It is a bigger problem than EXCLUDING a team that might deserve to be there.

We dont need a system to determine whether or not #1 is better than #8 or if #2 is better than #7. Why are you trying to provide one? And why did you provide one that doesn't even do it correctly? We ALREADY know #1 is better than #8 and YOUR system may very well tell us the opposite.


So you're essentially saying the NFL, NBA, NHL, Div 1/2/3 basketball, Div 1AA/2/3 football, etc systems are worse than our current CFB system where #1 and #2 are (mostly) voted on?

Good for the Giants for beating the Patriots. In every sport you have a chance at a rematch in the playoffs. That's just as true in World Cup soccer as it is in high school football. I don't get your problem with that.

And, seriously, do you think it's a valid argument to paint a picture of one team barely beating another team on a controversial last second call? That's just weak.

[jkjsooner]

Oh, and those one and two loss teams in that playoff system would need a whole lot less help than they do now. Losses now are devastating... and they should be. It's not the NFL, or MLB, or college basketball.

Spare me your NFL or MLB comparisons. In an eight team playoff system some would not be able to survive one loss and most would not be able to survive two losses. If you want to argue, argue the reality instead of throwing out comparisons that have little to nothing in common with what playoff proponents are proposing.

[Caboose]

So you're essentially saying the NFL, NBA, NHL, Div 1/2/3 basketball, Div 1AA/2/3 football, etc systems are worse than our current CFB system where #1 and #2 are (mostly) voted on?

Good for the Giants for beating the Patriots. In every sport you have a chance at a rematch in the playoffs. That's just as true in World Cup soccer as it is in high school football. I don't get your problem with that.

And, seriously, do you think it's a valid argument to paint a picture of one team barely beating another team on a controversial last second call? That's just weak.

Yes. I am saying they are worse because of the problem of inclusion. 14-6 is not better than 18-1. Period. They are systems that can generate answers that we already know are wrong.

Which of these do you find more egregious -

Wondering if #3 TCU could have beaten Oregon or Auburn?
-or-
KNOWING that you crowned the NY Giants as "champions" when they didnt deserve to even be playing for it and the 18-1 Patriots were the best team and had the best season?

[Okie35]

Spare me your NFL or MLB comparisons. In an eight team playoff system some would not be able to survive one loss and most would not be able to survive two losses. If you want to argue, argue the reality instead of throwing out comparisons that have little to nothing in common with what playoff proponents are proposing.

You can hardly do that now unless you win your conference. You do realize if there was an 8 team playoff they would take conference leaders most likely. It would be completely unfair to just take the top 8 teams. I know I wouldn't watch a playoff that favored more teams from a particular conference and at the same time the non AQ teams w/ better records will get snubbed.

[jkjsooner]

You can hardly do that now unless you win your conference. You do realize if there was an 8 team playoff they would take conference leaders most likely. It would be completely unfair to just take the top 8 teams. I know I wouldn't watch a playoff that favored more teams from a particular conference and at the same time the non AQ teams w/ better records will get snubbed.

Well, I wouldn't automatically take conference champions. Since we're arguing something that doesn't yet exist I'll argue the way I think it should be.

As I've said earlier, it would use the number of losses and SoS as factors. It would be 100% objective. Non AQ teams would have no argument as they can control their SoS and number of losses.

Why would that be unfair? If it favors SEC or Big 10 or Big 12 teams then, well, it's because they scheduled harder competition and/or lost fewer games.

I find it funny that you would consider an objective formula to determine 8 teams is unfair but a subjective (voting) formula for determine the top 2 is fair.

[jkjsooner]

I want to put one thing to rest right now. Most playoff plans do not at all resemble the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL. Teams that won 60% or even 70% of their games are not going to make it to the playoffs. If you're going to make an argument please at least be honest in your characterizations.

[IndySooner]

I want to put one thing to rest right now. Most playoff plans do not at all resemble the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL. Teams that won 60% or even 70% of their games are not going to make it to the playoffs. If you're going to make an argument please at least be honest in your characterizations.

This.

[Caboose]

I find it funny that you would consider an objective formula to determine 8 teams is unfair but a subjective (voting) formula for determine the top 2 is fair.

I find it funny that you think objective and subjective are synonymous with fair and unfair. In many situations in sports and in life subjectivity is required to make a fair judgment.

[MeMyself&Me]

I want to put one thing to rest right now. Most playoff plans do not at all resemble the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL. Teams that won 60% or even 70% of their games are not going to make it to the playoffs. If you're going to make an argument please at least be honest in your characterizations.

The realistic playoff plans include 16 teams and all conference champions are included. That would include a 6-6 Florida International this year. That's a team that won 50% of its games.

If you want to make your arguments about inclusion, be absolute about it. Can't say it's more appropriate to make it an 8 team play off so that xyz still has a shot and exclude almost half of the conference champions.

[silverwheels]

Scrap the polls and do not award a national champion.

[MeMyself&Me]

Actually, it's the subjective part of the BCS that I don't like. But that really has little to do with the playoff vs bowls debate since you can make it objective for either the bowls or a playoff. It's just a matter of how you like to select your teams.

[jkjsooner]

Yes. I am saying they are worse because of the problem of inclusion. 14-6 is not better than 18-1. Period. They are systems that can generate answers that we already know are wrong.

Which of these do you find more egregious -

Wondering if #3 TCU could have beaten Oregon or Auburn?
-or-
KNOWING that you crowned the NY Giants as "champions" when they didnt deserve to even be playing for it and the 18-1 Patriots were the best team and had the best season?

I think you're inclusion argument is weak. If it is so bad then why do 99% of all leagues/sports that crown a champion have a playoff? Was it terrible when Villanova beat Georgetown or Kansas beat OU? (Putting aside that we're OU fans.) Most consider those epic games that help define March Madness.

And since you cherry pick a Super Bowl from several years ago (another epic game BTW), what do you think about 2004. Why don't you WONDER about 2004 with Auburn, OU, and USC?


For the record, you won't see me defending Auburn. I hate Auburn for their behavior in 2004 but that is not because they felt that the system is flawed but because they felt that OU should have been left out. They turned it on OU instead of the BCS.

[JDawg2303]

I just don't get it. How do you decide the teams that get in? Is it with the rankings? Because if it is, say you have a situation where team A is 16 in one poll and 17 in another and they get the nod over team B even though team B is ahead of team A in one poll. Do you just pick conference champions? If so then something is going to have to change. Either make all teams play a conference title game or don't have one period. What about the smaller conferences like the Mountain West or the WAC? Do they get any consideration for being their conference champion? You are still going to have the same mess you have now. Just because the NFL has a playoff doesn't mean college should too. The NFL has 32 teams and 12 teams make it to the playoffs. There are 120 FBS teams and you want to only pick 12-16 that make it to the playoffs? If someone can explain all these factors to me then I will jump aboard the playoff wagon but until then I am sticking with the system that loves OU more than any other team no matter how much they try to change it.

IMO, it's simple. The only teams that get into the playoffs are conference winners (however that is determined by the conference). If there is a tie, like in the Big 10 this year, then use the tie breakers, that are decided by the conference. Bottom line...you can't be a national champion if you can't win your conference.

P.S. I know about 2004 when OU went to the MNC after losing the Big XII game and if they had one, yes I would say OU is the National Champion. Is that a double standard...yes it is. Do I care....Nope.

[Scott D]

I don't get it with playoff proponents. Once the NCAA gets it's hands on something it gets diluted by a lot. This is the timeline of the NIT killing NCAA basketball tournament. a Football playoff would likely follow a faster timeline because of the influence of television (more advertising money in quicker expansion).

on a side note, prior to 1975 only conference champions could participate. But wait..now there are 'regular season conference champs getting automatic bids' and 'postseason conference champs getting automatic bids'


The NCAA tournament has expanded a number of times throughout its history. This is a breakdown of the history of the tournament format:
1939–1950: eight teams
1951–1952: 16 teams
1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
1975–1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980–1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985–2000: 64 teams
2001–2010: 65 teams (with an opening round game to determine whether the 64th or 65th team plays in the first round)
2011-future: 68 teams (four play-in games before the tournament, the nominal first round)
After the conclusion of the 2010 tournament, there was much speculation about increasing the tournament size to as many as 128 teams. On April 1, 2010, the NCAA announced that it was looking at expanding to 96 teams for 2011. On April 22, 2010, the NCAA announced a new television contract with CBS/Turner and that the field would expand to 68 teams, as opposed to the often speculated 96.

[MeMyself&Me]

By the way, I'll never say that playoffs are impossible or whatnot like some others say. I think that's a worthless argument. I simply that playoffs change what college football is and that I prefer the way it is compared to what a playoff would bring.

For instance, I like my coffee black. Others may like cream and sugar in your coffee. That's fine with me. But please don't make me have my coffee with cream and sugar because that's the way YOU like it. There are other versions of football with playoffs. There's even other versions of college football with playoffs you can follow and enjoy. If you MUST have playoffs, please don't ruin OUR version of college football in the name of "EVERYONE WANTS A PLAYOFF!!"

[texaspokieokie]

agree with MM&M.

[jkjsooner]

Actually, it's the subjective part of the BCS that I don't like. But that really has little to do with the playoff vs bowls debate since you can make it objective for either the bowls or a playoff. It's just a matter of how you like to select your teams.

Well, we can agree on something. However, I think it would be a very difficult task to come up with an objective formula to pick the top 2. Depending on how the formula was set up, you could have years where there were two clearly deserving teams but the formula didn't work out for one of them. That is exactly why the BCS has the human poll and why this poll has played a larger and larger role as time goes on.

With more teams, it wouldn't be hard to make an objective formula that guaranteed that the most deserving teams would make it. At worst, they would have a slightly lower seeding than most people thought they deserved.

The argument becomes about the #5, #9, or #17 team not making it and that becomes a much weaker argument.

Frankly I think the NCAA bball tournament should devise a similar formula instead of a selection committee. We don't really need guys sitting around debating about who is going to be a 13 seed and who is going to be left out. Maybe the committee could seed the teams but we really don't need the to select them.

[soonerborn45]

IMO, it's simple. The only teams that get into the playoffs are conference winners (however that is determined by the conference). If there is a tie, like in the Big 10 this year, then use the tie breakers, that are decided by the conference. Bottom line...you can't be a national champion if you can't win your conference.

P.S. I know about 2004 when OU went to the MNC after losing the Big XII game and if they had one, yes I would say OU is the National Champion. Is that a double standard...yes it is. Do I care....Nope.

Ok so how many conference champions go to the playoffs. All conference champions? There are 11 conferences and the independents. How do you do decide which conferences go? The teams that are in the other conferences are still going to complain about not being able to go. What about Notre Dame? They're not in a conference. How do they get in? There are still too many problems to work out. The reason the NFL and MLB playoffs work so well is because of the fact that there are not as many teams and they are separated into divisions and leagues. 120 FBS teams is too much to split into divisions and leagues. NCAA basketball has 68 teams in their playoffs and quite frankly it's ridiculous that a team that is 16 - 14 can still make the playoffs. Some people also forget that the NCAA has nothing to do with this situation when it comes to declaring a national champion. The NCAA's only job in FBS football is to act as a governing body. The NCAA does not even recognize FBS football as national champions. Why? Because they have no say on how a champion is declared.

P.S. it was 2003 that you are thinking of.

[Caboose]

The argument becomes about the #5, #9, or #17 team not making it and that becomes a much weaker argument.



Not really. That argument is there but minor. The argument is that #4,#5, #8, #9, #16 and #17 dont deserve to be there, regardless of which of two debating teams wins the argument.

You still have not made a case of need for everybody pretending that the # 1 team and the # 8 or #16 team are somehow tied and need to "play it off" to determine which of them is more deserving of a national championship. In what year were the #1 and #16 team both equally deserving of being named National Champion at the end of the regular season?

[jkjsooner]

I find it funny that you think objective and subjective are synonymous with fair and unfair. In many situations in sports and in life subjectivity is required to make a fair judgment.

When there are perceived haves and have nots and teams with media exposure and teams without media exposure and these all play a role in the voting, then, yes, this form of subjectivity is unfair. We're talking about voting with regional biases, favoritism, etc. We're not talking about a selection committee of unbiased experts who are trying to come up with the truly deserving teams.

I agree in life that subjectivity is necessary but the type of subjectivity we have in the polls is neither unbiased nor is it fair.

Either way, even if you use the BCS formula to pick the top 8 teams the relative injustice due to the subjective nature of the polls becomes much less significant.

[Okie35]

Well, I wouldn't automatically take conference champions. Since we're arguing something that doesn't yet exist I'll argue the way I think it should be.

As I've said earlier, it would use the number of losses and SoS as factors. It would be 100% objective. Non AQ teams would have no argument as they can control their SoS and number of losses.

Why would that be unfair? If it favors SEC or Big 10 or Big 12 teams then, well, it's because they scheduled harder competition and/or lost fewer games.

I find it funny that you would consider an objective formula to determine 8 teams is unfair but a subjective (voting) formula for determine the top 2 is fair.

Because it would be absolutely retarded to have an 8 team playoff w/ 4 SEC teams that's why.

[jkjsooner]

Not really. That argument is there but minor. The argument is that #4,#5, #8, #9, #16 and #17 dont deserve to be there, regardless of which of two debating teams wins the argument.

You still have not made a case of need for everybody pretending that the # 1 team and the # 8 or #16 team are somehow tied and need to "play it off" to determine which of them is more deserving of a national championship. In what year were the #1 and #16 team both equally deserving of being named National Champion at the end of the regular season?

I'm not a proponent of a 16 team playoff so I'm not going to entertain your #1 vs #16 scenario.

I know one thing, many years there isn't a clear #1 and #2. I'd much rather include someone you might feel is not deserving than exclude someone who is deserving. I'd sure like to know that if OU went undefeated and played a relatively tough schedule they would be in the national title game. While it has worked out for us this decade, there is no guarantee that we won't be the next Auburn.

There are also years with 5-6 one loss teams from major conferences and we seemingly randomly select two of them to play in the title game. That is a problem.

[Caboose]

I'm not a proponent of a 16 team playoff so I'm not going to entertain your #1 vs #16 scenario.

I know one thing, many years there isn't a clear #1 and #2. I'd much rather include someone you might feel is not deserving than exclude someone who is deserving. I'd sure like to know that if OU went undefeated and played a relatively tough schedule they would be in the national title game. While it has worked out for us this decade, there is no guarantee that we won't be the next Auburn.

There are also years with 5-6 one loss teams from major conferences and we seemingly randomly select two of them to play in the title game. That is a problem.

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #8 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

[jkjsooner]

Because it would be absolutely retarded to have an 8 team playoff w/ 4 SEC teams that's why.

So you're just making stuff up? If you used the BCS then this year there would be two SEC schools. If you used SoS with a heavy negative weight on losses then you would probablyl have two schools.

But feel free to keep making up scenarios.

[Okie35]

So you're just making stuff up? If you used the BCS then this year there would be two SEC schools. If you used SoS with a heavy negative weight on losses then you would probablyl have two schools.

But feel free to keep making up scenarios.

No but who's to say they would never have that many teams in the top 8 or any conference for that matter. I mean you made up an 8 team playoff. Right now its all make believe. Fine then, there can be 3 teams from the same conference in the top 8. Its happened before. That would be stupid to have 3 teams from a single conference in an 8 team playoff. Take 2007 for instance. That would be ridiculous to have Us, Mizzou and KU in an 8 team playoff.

[jkjsooner]

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #8 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

Maybe in some years they are close? Unless you have some type of variable number of teams playoff you have to pick a number and stick to it. The exclusion problem in a 2 team playoff is more severe than the inclusion problem in an 8 team playoff.

I've said this many times. You think inclusion is a big problem and I don't. I'm not going to rehash this over and over.

[Caboose]

Maybe in some years they are close? Unless you have some type of variable number of teams playoff you have to pick a number and stick to it. The exclusion problem in a 2 team playoff is more severe than the inclusion problem in an 8 team playoff.

I've said this many times. You think inclusion is a big problem and I don't. I'm not going to rehash this over and over.

Ok, if you think being unsure you are %100 correct is worse than knowing for a fact that you are wrong... then I guess there is no convincing you.

[IndySooner]

Ok so how many conference champions go to the playoffs. All conference champions? There are 11 conferences and the independents. How do you do decide which conferences go? The teams that are in the other conferences are still going to complain about not being able to go. What about Notre Dame? They're not in a conference. How do they get in? There are still too many problems to work out. The reason the NFL and MLB playoffs work so well is because of the fact that there are not as many teams and they are separated into divisions and leagues. 120 FBS teams is too much to split into divisions and leagues. NCAA basketball has 68 teams in their playoffs and quite frankly it's ridiculous that a team that is 16 - 14 can still make the playoffs. Some people also forget that the NCAA has nothing to do with this situation when it comes to declaring a national champion. The NCAA's only job in FBS football is to act as a governing body. The NCAA does not even recognize FBS football as national champions. Why? Because they have no say on how a champion is declared.

P.S. it was 2003 that you are thinking of.

The only playoff that would work would incorporate all conferences. 11 automatic bids. 5 at-large teams. Higher seeds get home games. It would look something like this this year.

1---Auburn
16--Florida Atlantic
8---Arkansas
9---Michigan State
4---Wisconsin
13--Central Florida
5---Stanford
12--Virginia Tech
2---Oregon
15--Miami (OH)
7---Oklahoma
10--LSU
3---TCU
14--Connecticut
6---Ohio State
11--Boise State

So, as you can see, none of those teams that DIDN'T win their leagues have more than 2 losses. Tell me again how this devalues the regular season?

Last year, it would have looked like this:

1---Alabama
16--Troy
8---Ohio State
9---Georgia Tech
4---TCU
13--LSU
5---Florida
12--Penn State
2---Texas
15--East Carolina
7---Oregon
10--Iowa
3---Cincinnati
14--Central Michigan
6---Boise State
11--Virginia Tech

Last year, all five undefeated teams would have gotten in. A couple of 3-loss at-large teams, but they were low seeds playing on the road. Tell me you wouldn't have loved to see LSU at TCU last year or Virginia Tech at Boise.

Not only that, but the home teams get a TON of revenue pumped into the cities. Norman would LOVE to have one more home game, let alone the possibility of three.

[ouleaf]

I think Mark brings some good points to the table, but even he said that he's only beginning to explore the possibility of a playoff system. Putting any bias aside, Mark is definitely a smart guy and knows how to promote, market, and sell and idea or product. If it's something he's really passionate about, I don't doubt he can come up with a viable alternative to the BCS.

Getting away from the CFB business though....I would be more surprised if Cuban doesn't focus his efforts on getting a group together to purchase the majority interest of the Dallas Stars....It makes too much business-sense not too if he can get them for a good price from Hicks. To have full control of the AAC, and be able to better negotiate TV deals for the Mavs and Stars.

Cuban has said he isn't much of a hockey guy, but I think he'd be a great owner for them and can do for them what he did for the Mavs. The Stars have suffered from bad ownership, much like the Rangers did under Hicks. Surprisingly enough, the Stars are off to a pretty good start this season and playing well as a team. Now they just need a great owner to compliment them.

[IndySooner]

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #8 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

Have #1 and #8 played the same schedule? Is there a SURE way to know that #1 is better than #8? Last year, was Cincinnati better than Florida? I mean, they were ranked ahaead of them, so they were better, right?

[Okie35]

The only playoff that would work would incorporate all conferences. 11 automatic bids. 5 at-large teams. Higher seeds get home games. It would look something like this this year.

1---Auburn
16--Florida Atlantic
8---Arkansas
9---Michigan State
4---Wisconsin
13--Central Florida
5---Stanford
12--Virginia Tech
2---Oregon
15--Miami (OH)
7---Oklahoma
10--LSU
3---TCU
14--Connecticut
6---Ohio State
11--Boise State

So, as you can see, none of those teams that DIDN'T win their leagues have more than 2 losses. Tell me again how this devalues the regular season?

Last year, it would have looked like this:

1---Alabama
16--Troy
8---Ohio State
9---Georgia Tech
4---TCU
13--LSU
5---Florida
12--Penn State
2---Texas
15--East Carolina
7---Oregon
10--Iowa
3---Cincinnati
14--Central Michigan
6---Boise State
11--Virginia Tech

Last year, all five undefeated teams would have gotten in. A couple of 3-loss at-large teams, but they were low seeds playing on the road. Tell me you wouldn't have loved to see LSU at TCU last year or Virginia Tech at Boise.

Not only that, but the home teams get a TON of revenue pumped into the cities. Norman would LOVE to have one more home game, let alone the possibility of three.

That would be alright. My only thing would be once again I'd watch less CFB during the regular season.

[IndySooner]

That would be alright. My only thing would be once again I'd watch less CFB during the regular season.

I don't understand that. Saturdays wouldn't change. There would still be pressure to win EVERY game. If you don't, you stand the chance of losing out on a playoff. I guess I don't understand how this would make anyone want to watch football less?

I watch the NFL every week. I watch MLB all season. They both have playoffs that incorporate a MUCH higher percentage of their teams.

[The]

Y'all got this figured out yet?

[Caboose]

Have #1 and #8 played the same schedule? Is there a SURE way to know that #1 is better than #8? Last year, was Cincinnati better than Florida? I mean, they were ranked ahaead of them, so they were better, right?

#1 is 13-0 and beat #8 52-7. #8 is 9-3.

Do you think they are tied and need to play it off?

[bigfatjerk]

That would be alright. My only thing would be once again I'd watch less CFB during the regular season.

That's never going to happen unless the season gets longer. The reason why there are more important games in college football is because everyone plays only 12 or 13 games.

[Caboose]

The only playoff that would work would incorporate all conferences. 11 automatic bids. 5 at-large teams. Higher seeds get home games. It would look something like this this year.

1---Auburn
16--Florida Atlantic
8---Arkansas
9---Michigan State
4---Wisconsin
13--Central Florida
5---Stanford
12--Virginia Tech
2---Oregon
15--Miami (OH)
7---Oklahoma
10--LSU
3---TCU
14--Connecticut
6---Ohio State
11--Boise State

So, as you can see, none of those teams that DIDN'T win their leagues have more than 2 losses. Tell me again how this devalues the regular season?

Last year, it would have looked like this:

1---Alabama
16--Troy
8---Ohio State
9---Georgia Tech
4---TCU
13--LSU
5---Florida
12--Penn State
2---Texas
15--East Carolina
7---Oregon
10--Iowa
3---Cincinnati
14--Central Michigan
6---Boise State
11--Virginia Tech

Last year, all five undefeated teams would have gotten in. A couple of 3-loss at-large teams, but they were low seeds playing on the road. Tell me you wouldn't have loved to see LSU at TCU last year or Virginia Tech at Boise.

Not only that, but the home teams get a TON of revenue pumped into the cities. Norman would LOVE to have one more home game, let alone the possibility of three.

That would have been awful. Out of 32 playoff spots you awarded in two years maybe what 5 or 6 of them actually deserved to play for the championship?

You guys have shown without a shadow of a doubt that you dont know what "playoff" means... I am beginning to doubt you have a clear understanding of what "champion" means as well.

[IndySooner]

#1 is 13-0 and beat #8 52-7. #8 is 9-3.

Do you think they are tied and need to play it off?

They also played South Carolina and beat them once, but the second time around was one of the highest rated games all season on TV.

They may need to generate some rules to keep conference teams in separate quarters of the bracket, but I don't see anything wrong with re-matches.

Of course, I'm sure you're very excited about watching the Holiday Bowl this year, right?

[Okie35]

I don't understand that. Saturdays wouldn't change. There would still be pressure to win EVERY game. If you don't, you stand the chance of losing out on a playoff. I guess I don't understand how this would make anyone want to watch football less?

I watch the NFL every week. I watch MLB all season. They both have playoffs that incorporate a MUCH higher percentage of their teams.

That's you. I know tons of ppl that only watch their NFL team and only the playoffs. Especially MLB some ppl hate how long the season is and only watch a few games then strictly watch the post season. The same applies to the NBA. You must really not understand. While there would be pressure to win every game I'd only watch OU. I couldn't care less about everyone else. I mean I don't now but I really wouldn't watch any other conference championship games because they would be meaningless if either team are already going to "the playoffs".

[bigfatjerk]

A playoff just won't happen any time soon. But I'm for making the regular season mean more because right now more and more the college football regular season is meaning less and less because of bowl games. I think we need to go from more than half of the teams going for a bowl to about 40 teams which is 1/3rd of the teams. That's the only problem with college football today. For example last years OU team probably had no business being a bowl.

[Okie35]

A playoff just won't happen any time soon. But I'm for making the regular season mean more because right now more and more the college football regular season is meaning less and less because of bowl games. I think we need to go from more than half of the teams going for a bowl to about 40 teams which is 1/3rd of the teams. That's the only problem with college football today. For example last years OU team probably had no business being a bowl.

Well they should cut the Bowl games to 8 wins or more and at least a .500 record in your conference.

[Caboose]

They also played South Carolina and beat them once, but the second time around was one of the highest rated games all season on TV.

They may need to generate some rules to keep conference teams in separate quarters of the bracket, but I don't see anything wrong with re-matches.

Of course, I'm sure you're very excited about watching the Holiday Bowl this year, right?

You havent explained why you think #1 and #8 are somehow tied and need to "play it off" when #1 is 13-0 and #8 is 9-3 and #1 has already defeated #8 by 45 points.

[bigfatjerk]

A 16 team playoff is far too many teams for a college football. I think 8 is the most I would be for. 4 team would be just fine with me. But I would not use any conference ties. Just go with the top 8 teams.

[Okie35]

A 16 team playoff is far too many teams for a college football. I think 8 is the most I would be for. 4 team would be just fine with me. But I would not use any conference ties. Just go with the top 8 teams.

None of that would solve anything. Ppl will still cry if say 3 teams from the same conference is in the 8 team playoff. Imagine if that happened 2 or 3 straight years. If they went by SOS well then I'd feel bad for some teams because schedules are made years ahead unless you make last min changes and pay out the other school.

[IndySooner]

A 16 team playoff is far too many teams for a college football. I think 8 is the most I would be for. 4 team would be just fine with me. But I would not use any conference ties. Just go with the top 8 teams.

Yeah, I know. Obviously, 16 teams is too many. I mean, IAA just expanded to 20 because they thought 16 sucked so bad.

[bigfatjerk]

Yeah, I know. Obviously, 16 teams is too many. I mean, IAA just expanded to 20 because they thought 16 sucked so bad.

IAA is different from IA. 20 teams is probably too many in IAA. I just don't think the smaller conferences will matter 99% of the time. Once in a while you get a Boise State or TCU type team or Utah a few years back. But that's usually only about 1 team a year from the smaller conferences. 8 teams would be perfect for a playoff. And just use the BCS system we have now with the top 4 getting home field advantage for the first round. Using bowls in the 2nd and final rounds.

But we can't even do practical things with the system we have now. We need to make sure every conference has a title game and then also cut down on the number of bowl teamss to about 40. Possibly you can convince 50 teams. But not any more than that. Those 2 things would make college football much more popular in the long run. Right now the regular season pretty much doesn't matter if you are in a BCS conference because you know you are going to a bowl. If you lose 2 or 3 games it really doesn't matter because there's not a real punishment for losing anything from 3-6 games. All the Bowls are pretty much the same.

[TMcGee86]

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #8 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #2 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

[Caboose]

Why should we pretend that the #1 team and the #2 team are tied and need to "play it off" when they clearly arent?

Excellent point. Some years there is a clear number 1 and there is no reason to even play a BCS championship game. 2000 was a good example. It is retarded to pretend that some cookie cutter predetermined system is going to work every year (or even most years) when the number of deserving teams varies wildly every season.
Thanks for backing me up.

[Phil]

Bowl Games are Decadent and Depraved.

They should be done away with immediately, and their supporters drug out into the streets and sprayed with mace, whilst being beaten in the kidneys with truncheons forged from the shattered remains of the atavistic and loathsome trophies they used to hand out.

HST and the Kentucky Derby say hi.

[soonerborn45]

The only playoff that would work would incorporate all conferences. 11 automatic bids. 5 at-large teams. Higher seeds get home games. It would look something like this this year.

1---Auburn
16--Florida Atlantic
8---Arkansas
9---Michigan State
4---Wisconsin
13--Central Florida
5---Stanford
12--Virginia Tech
2---Oregon
15--Miami (OH)
7---Oklahoma
10--LSU
3---TCU
14--Connecticut
6---Ohio State
11--Boise State

So, as you can see, none of those teams that DIDN'T win their leagues have more than 2 losses. Tell me again how this devalues the regular season?

Last year, it would have looked like this:

1---Alabama
16--Troy
8---Ohio State
9---Georgia Tech
4---TCU
13--LSU
5---Florida
12--Penn State
2---Texas
15--East Carolina
7---Oregon
10--Iowa
3---Cincinnati
14--Central Michigan
6---Boise State
11--Virginia Tech

Last year, all five undefeated teams would have gotten in. A couple of 3-loss at-large teams, but they were low seeds playing on the road. Tell me you wouldn't have loved to see LSU at TCU last year or Virginia Tech at Boise.

Not only that, but the home teams get a TON of revenue pumped into the cities. Norman would LOVE to have one more home game, let alone the possibility of three.

Seriously? That's your big master plan for a playoff? That would be horrible to watch. Florida Atlantic playing Auburn in the first round would be awful to watch. I still haven't heard how you determine the teams that are in the playoff. How would a team like Notre Dame get into the playoffs in that situation. Say they make a miraculous return to college football dominance. How do they get in?

[bigfatjerk]

Seriously? That's your big master plan for a playoff? That would be horrible to watch. Florida Atlantic playing Auburn in the first round would be awful to watch. I still haven't heard how you determine the teams that are in the playoff. How would a team like Notre Dame get into the playoffs in that situation. Say they make a miraculous return to college football dominance. How do they get in?

The only playoff I really like is an 8 team playoff using the BCS system we have now. Just get the top 8 teams. The top 4 teams get home field advantage. This is really the only one I truly like.

But we screwed up the system we have now so much that it's hurting the regular season in college football more and more.

[Caboose]

The only playoff I really like is an 8 team playoff using the BCS system we have now. Just get the top 8 teams. The top 4 teams get home field advantage. This is really the only one I truly like.

But we screwed up the system we have now so much that it's hurting the regular season in college football more and more.

Once you can rationalize a way to justify pretending #1 and #8 are tied and need to "play it off" to settle the non-existent dispute over which one had a better season and is more deserving of being the National Champion then that will make sense.

[jkjsooner]

#1 is 13-0 and beat #8 52-7. #8 is 9-3.

Do you think they are tied and need to play it off?

Show me a 9-3 team who lost 52-7 and was still ranked #8 by any ranking system.

How about #1 is 9-3 and lost to #8 52-7. If you can make up things that will never happen then I can too.

[Caboose]

Show me a 9-3 team who lost 52-7 and was still ranked #8 by any ranking system.

How about #1 is 9-3 and lost to #8 52-7. If you can make up things that will never happen then I can too.

I am not the one proposing some ridiculous system that will only work under a narrow set of circumstances as a fix-all for college football. You cant predict what will happen next year in college football and neither can I, so you cant reasonably tell me your 8 team playoff idea will be adequate to handle it. The BCS gets tweaked almost yearly because every year some unforeseen scenario pops up that one group another doesn't like.

So next year when #1 is 13-0 and beats 9-3 #8 52-7 justify why your system asks the public to pretend they are tied and need to play again to settle their non-existent dispute. Then when #8 barely wins the rematch and is now 10-3, explain to me why they should advance in the playoff and the 13-1 team should stay home.

Get this through your thick skull. You are putting the horse before the cart. You came up with your "solution" and are trying to pretend it is warranted by reality when it isnt. There has NEVER EVER been a year in which anyone thought #8 should be playing for the national championship at the end of the regular season. So why are you trying to fix a problem that does not exist? All you are doing is creating more and bigger problems.

Start at the beginning. Imagine college football has a regular season and that is it. What is the purpose of naming any of the teams that competed as the "National Champion"? What does that mean? What should that title tell me about the team? If you told me that Michigan was the National Champion in 1948 what should I be able to assess about that team from that piece of information alone?

Hint: If you told me that the NY Giants were the Champions of the NFL in 2007 and that is all I knew about the 2007 that would conjure a VERY different image in my head about what happened that season than if I had actually watched the season (playoffs included).

[TMcGee86]

Excellent point. Some years there is a clear number 1 and there is no reason to even play a BCS championship game. 2000 was a good example. It is retarded to pretend that some cookie cutter predetermined system is going to work every year (or even most years) when the number of deserving teams varies wildly every season.
Thanks for backing me up.

Exactly. In fact, why should we play any games, lets just see how the preseason polls play out, and then just crown the national champion and move on to other sports.

[IndySooner]

Seriously? That's your big master plan for a playoff? That would be horrible to watch. Florida Atlantic playing Auburn in the first round would be awful to watch. I still haven't heard how you determine the teams that are in the playoff. How would a team like Notre Dame get into the playoffs in that situation. Say they make a miraculous return to college football dominance. How do they get in?

Nope. Not my plan. I can't take credit. That's Wetzel's plan, backed up by years of research.

That being said, I think it's funny that you use the #1 vs. #16 game to further your argument. Nevermind the fact that LSU would be coming to Norman, Michigan State would be going to Fayetteville and Boise State to Columbus. Second round matchups of Arkansas @ Auburn, OU @ Oregon, Ohio State @ TCU and Wisconsin @ Stanford would really suck, too.

I can see why you think it would be awful to watch.

As for Notre Dame, they would have to get an at-large bid. This year, that means being in the top-12. Last year, it would have been top-15.

[IGotNoTiming]

Caboose I can't jump on your playoff scenario, at all....

The pressure is greater in the playoffs just like it is in the CCGs (although not everyone plays those) If OKIE State would have played Nebraska in that game and WON after being beaten at home you could have made the same argument but it is stupid. You win when the pressure is on, a team has to rise up when there is more on the line, it is what defines champions in every sport on the globe..... oh except college football. Ou had to beat OSU to get to the CCG, more pressure, more on the line. They only get to a BCS bowl by winning there next game against Nebraska. Essentially you have 2 playoff games there.... Anyone says they would lose interest in the "regular season".... well I can't for the life of me think that a REAL SOONER FAN would not watch OU at all on Saturdays. If so.... they ain't real fans.

[ashley]

So it's okay for high school kids and IAA, Div. II, Div. III, NAIA, NAIA Div. II, JUCO, JUCO Div. II kids to have the wear and tear but not the best athletes?

Absolutely ZERO of the arguments against the playoff system make any sense to me.

Name an 8th place team that ever deserved to be in a playoff.

[IndySooner]

Name an 8th place team that ever deserved to be in a playoff.

Define "deserve". We would potentially be the #8 team this year and I certainly think we would hold our own against Auburn, Oregon and TCU, but we didn't play similar schedules, so we'll never know.

[ashley]

The only playoff that would work would incorporate all conferences. 11 automatic bids. 5 at-large teams. Higher seeds get home games. It would look something like this this year.

1---Auburn
16--Florida Atlantic
8---Arkansas
9---Michigan State
4---Wisconsin
13--Central Florida
5---Stanford
12--Virginia Tech
2---Oregon
15--Miami (OH)
7---Oklahoma
10--LSU
3---TCU
14--Connecticut
6---Ohio State
11--Boise State

So, as you can see, none of those teams that DIDN'T win their leagues have more than 2 losses. Tell me again how this devalues the regular season?

Last year, it would have looked like this:

1---Alabama
16--Troy
8---Ohio State
9---Georgia Tech
4---TCU
13--LSU
5---Florida
12--Penn State
2---Texas
15--East Carolina
7---Oregon
10--Iowa
3---Cincinnati
14--Central Michigan
6---Boise State
11--Virginia Tech

Last year, all five undefeated teams would have gotten in. A couple of 3-loss at-large teams, but they were low seeds playing on the road. Tell me you wouldn't have loved to see LSU at TCU last year or Virginia Tech at Boise.

Not only that, but the home teams get a TON of revenue pumped into the cities. Norman would LOVE to have one more home game, let alone the possibility of three.

centeral Michigan deserves to be in a playoff?

[IndySooner]

centeral Michigan deserves to be in a playoff?

Last year they did. Heck, they were pretty good last year, actually. This year, they didn't win their conference so they don't deserve it.

[silverwheels]

"Deserve" is so subjective, especially with the current alignment of college football. I hate seeing that word thrown about.

[ashley]

Define "deserve". We would potentially be the #8 team this year and I certainly think we would hold our own against Auburn, Oregon and TCU, but we didn't play similar schedules, so we'll never know.

We had our chance and clearly do not deserve to be in a playoff. Whe have had a playoff. The regular season, witch meant something.

[IndySooner]

We had our chance and clearly do not deserve to be in a playoff. Whe have had a playoff. The regular season, witch meant something.

/argument

[MeMyself&Me]

I had to go to work when this was just getting good. Lot to say here I guess.


Well, we can agree on something. However, I think it would be a very difficult task to come up with an objective formula to pick the top 2. Depending on how the formula was set up, you could have years where there were two clearly deserving teams but the formula didn't work out for one of them. That is exactly why the BCS has the human poll and why this poll has played a larger and larger role as time goes on.

With more teams, it wouldn't be hard to make an objective formula that guaranteed that the most deserving teams would make it. At worst, they would have a slightly lower seeding than most people thought they deserved.

The argument becomes about the #5, #9, or #17 team not making it and that becomes a much weaker argument.

Frankly I think the NCAA bball tournament should devise a similar formula instead of a selection committee. We don't really need guys sitting around debating about who is going to be a 13 seed and who is going to be left out. Maybe the committee could seed the teams but we really don't need the to select them.

To me, if a predetermined objective formula was used, the top two teams as determined by that formula would be the most deserving.


I'm not a proponent of a 16 team playoff so I'm not going to entertain your #1 vs #16 scenario.

I know one thing, many years there isn't a clear #1 and #2. I'd much rather include someone you might feel is not deserving than exclude someone who is deserving. I'd sure like to know that if OU went undefeated and played a relatively tough schedule they would be in the national title game. While it has worked out for us this decade, there is no guarantee that we won't be the next Auburn.

There are also years with 5-6 one loss teams from major conferences and we seemingly randomly select two of them to play in the title game. That is a problem.

I'm much the other way around. I'd rather make sure someone that didn't deserve the SINGLE championship, didn't get it.


Ok, if you think being unsure you are %100 correct is worse than knowing for a fact that you are wrong... then I guess there is no convincing you.

I really like that! I may make that my sig if you don't mind.


That would be alright. My only thing would be once again I'd watch less CFB during the regular season.

I agree here. Playoffs will make the post season pretty fun. But I would watch less regular season for the same reasons I don't watch much NFL regular season (outside of my team) yet I watch most of the playoffs.


I don't understand that. Saturdays wouldn't change. There would still be pressure to win EVERY game. If you don't, you stand the chance of losing out on a playoff. I guess I don't understand how this would make anyone want to watch football less?

I watch the NFL every week. I watch MLB all season. They both have playoffs that incorporate a MUCH higher percentage of their teams.

I'd bet most people aren't like you if they'd admit it. And Saturdays would change. Instead of losing one game and needing help to get back in the race, you lose one game and hope you're still in it. That is quite a bit different when it comes to how the games feel as you watch them.


That would have been awful. Out of 32 playoff spots you awarded in two years maybe what 5 or 6 of them actually deserved to play for the championship?

You guys have shown without a shadow of a doubt that you dont know what "playoff" means... I am beginning to doubt you have a clear understanding of what "champion" means as well.

Well, I'll say they've shown they don't care what the tradition of champion means in college football. I can't say they don't have a clue, just that they don't care about what college football is which makes me wonder why they are fans at all.


Define "deserve". We would potentially be the #8 team this year and I certainly think we would hold our own against Auburn, Oregon and TCU, but we didn't play similar schedules, so we'll never know.

What OU would do does not matter. They may be playing the best football in the country right now... or better yet, I'll put it this way, they may be playing soooo good now that they could beat an NFL team... BUT, they don't deserve a national championship because they didn't earn it throughout the season.

[Scott D]

this thread is sufficient proof as to why a playoff is still just a pipe dream. No matter how many people Mark Cuban wants to bribe to make one happen.

[MeMyself&Me]

this thread is sufficient proof as to why a playoff is still just a pipe dream. No matter how many people Mark Cuban wants to bribe to make one happen.

I hope you're right!

[bigfatjerk]

I hope you're right!

If we have a playoff and just a playoff it's better for college football. Really we need to make the regular season more important in college football. Right now it's not that important outside of the top 5 or maybe top 10. Basically OU's game against A&M meant nothing this year because they still went to the Fiesta Bowl win or lose that game.

[MeMyself&Me]

If we have a playoff and just a playoff it's better for college football. Really we need to make the regular season more important in college football. Right now it's not that important outside of the top 5 or maybe top 10. Basically OU's game against A&M meant nothing this year because they still went to the Fiesta Bowl win or lose that game.

That's not exactly correct. At the time of the game, we knew that if OU lost, it's title hopes were lost as well. With a win, OU still had a shot to get there, with help of course. It didn't turn out that way but we didn't know at the time.

[MeMyself&Me]

You also won't hear me talk about the season being more or less meaningful for that matter. It would mean different things for different reasons with a post season tournament which would change how we view what we watch in the regular season and how important each win or loss is. That makes college football as a whole different. You may think that's a good thing. That's fine. There are numerous other sports that do things that way. It's even done in football that way. As a matter of fact, it's even done in division I college football that way.

Just leave alone this one unique part of sports the rest of us enjoy OK.

[jkjsooner]

For instance, I like my coffee black. Others may like cream and sugar in your coffee. That's fine with me. But please don't make me have my coffee with cream and sugar because that's the way YOU like it. There are other versions of football with playoffs. There's even other versions of college football with playoffs you can follow and enjoy. If you MUST have playoffs, please don't ruin OUR version of college football in the name of "EVERYONE WANTS A PLAYOFF!!"

So you're asking us to drop the team we've rooted for since we were 4 years old, the school we have degrees from, a school that we feel represents what we came from to root for some random division 1AA school? That's both absurd and insulting.

Would you have said the same back in the day when the powers that be devised a plan to match #1 with #2? (Remember the days of being #2 and hoping that #1 was an independent otherwise there would be no #1 vs #2 matchup?) I mean, those guys changed YOUR version of college football afterall.

Why don't we pick the national title before the bowls? That was the way it was done years ago. (sarcasm) Maybe the guys who wanted to vote after the bowls should have become division 1AA or NFL fans. (/sarcasm)

[bigfatjerk]

Why don't we just pick the National Championship game before the season starts? That's probably just as accurate as the end of a season some years.

[MeMyself&Me]

So you're asking us to drop the team we've rooted for since we were 4 years old, the school we have degrees from, a school that we feel represents what we came from to root for some random division 1AA school? That's both absurd and insulting.

No need to drop being a fan of it. I follow teams in other sports that have playoffs/tournaments. I don't expect eveyone else to change to suite me though. I would consider THAT to be insulting.

Would you have said the same back in the day when the powers that be devised a plan to match #1 with #2? (Remember the days of being #2 and hoping that #1 was an independent otherwise there would be no #1 vs #2 matchup?) I mean, those guys changed YOUR version of college football afterall.

I really enjoyed college football back then. I don't have a need to crown a clear champion to enjoy college football. I originally liked the idea of getting a #1 vs #2 matchup in the postseason. Never campaigned for it or thought of it as something that just HAD to be done though. I now find myself wishing it was the way it was back then too. So what if we argued about who was champion or if more than one won a poll.

Why don't we pick the national title before the bowls? That was the way it was done years ago. (sarcasm) Maybe the guys who wanted to vote after the bowls should have become division 1AA or NFL fans. (/sarcasm)

Actually, at that time, not only was there no 1AA playoff, but there was no 1AA division. The NFL only started to do a playoff as a means to break a tie in the regular season, hence the name "playoff" instead of "tournament".

In any case, I do like including the bowl games in the decision for crowning a champion but not making 2-4 post season games more important than the prior 12 regular season games. It just changes to much of what it is.



;)

[King Barry's Back]

I'll be honest. I haven't read even one post in this thread.

But I can say that that ego-maniacal, head case Cuban is never going to be allowed to be within 100 miles of college football.

Geez, and he thinks intervening in the relationship between universities and their donors is going to win him friends?

[MeMyself&Me]

LOL... 99% of this thread had nothing to do with Cuban. I think MOST of us agree with you on this one. There were a few dissenters along those lines though. I guess if you're a self made billionaire, you can do anything right?

[IndySooner]

The guys at Death to the BCS with a great blog post today:

http://deathtothebcs.com/blog/2010/12/cuban/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d0af147e3757593%2C0

[SpankyNek]

Frankly there are no champions of college football, and it looks like many of you are fine with that.

But there are many of you out there that gladly hold up the 7 fingers in reference to our National Titles and simultaneously scoff at the Alabama's and Princeton's if they dare claim more than we think is appropriate.

I would like the NCAA to get off of the pot and set up a criteria for championship designation.

Until a major restructuring of the Division occurs, there is no way to determine a true champion.

Here is the only fail safe method to be used:

Establish 4 major regional conferences comprised of 2, 12 team divisions.
Have each division play round robin schedules.
Division Champs square off in a CCG.

The 4 Champions are seeded into a Tournament.

The obvious obstacles to this:

Some folks are happier allowing entities with varying levels of objectivity vote on which team is better.

Trimming the FBS to 96 teams will be difficult(Although, I feel, completely necessary).

Certain Divisions could be stronger than others, but It would probably not be too difficult to arrange them based upon geography and current conference ties...as we all know, the Big XII South has been, by far, the toughest division in all of college football...how many times have we had 2 teams from the South in BCS Bowls (I think it has happened once).

This system actually does make the entire season a playoff tournament, and is the best solution (albeit a logistical Everest)

[Leroy Lizard]

Not a fare comparison, as basketball arenas and div 1a stadiums are smaller. But seriously, you're nuts if you think that expanding from a 2 team playoff will hurt attendance, not increase it. Hell just throwing in the extra home games will up the attendance!


They can both co-exist, as they do now.

We have a playoff game (The BCS National Title Game) and BCS bowls.

See? It all works just fine.

Then leave it alone.

[MeMyself&Me]

Frankly there are no champions of college football, and it looks like many of you are fine with that.

But there are many of you out there that gladly hold up the 7 fingers in reference to our National Titles and simultaneously scoff at the Alabama's and Princeton's if they dare claim more than we think is appropriate.

I would like the NCAA to get off of the pot and set up a criteria for championship designation.

Until a major restructuring of the Division occurs, there is no way to determine a true champion.

Here is the only fail safe method to be used:

Establish 4 major regional conferences comprised of 2, 12 team divisions.
Have each division play round robin schedules.
Division Champs square off in a CCG.

The 4 Champions are seeded into a Tournament.

The obvious obstacles to this:

Some folks are happier allowing entities with varying levels of objectivity vote on which team is better.

Trimming the FBS to 96 teams will be difficult(Although, I feel, completely necessary).

Certain Divisions could be stronger than others, but It would probably not be too difficult to arrange them based upon geography and current conference ties...as we all know, the Big XII South has been, by far, the toughest division in all of college football...how many times have we had 2 teams from the South in BCS Bowls (I think it has happened once).

This system actually does make the entire season a playoff tournament, and is the best solution (albeit a logistical Everest)

I got lost as to why this is sooo necessary. :confused:

[SpankyNek]

Then leave it alone.

To answer your earlier question, Leroy...

The NFL sells out a larger portion of its games than any other sport (Regardless of league or division) than any other in America.

And they have a playoff system that will (possibly very soon) have a team with a losing record in the post-season.

[Leroy Lizard]

Frankly there are no champions of college football, and it looks like many of you are fine with that.

Hasn't stopped you from watching the games and caring about the outcome, has it?


But there are many of you out there that gladly hold up the 7 fingers in reference to our National Titles and simultaneously scoff at the Alabama's and Princeton's if they dare claim more than we think is appropriate.

Do we chastise them? Many of us do. Are we willing to risk ruining college football to settle the issue? Many of us are not.

It just isn't that important. For example, I thought OU was the best team in 1973, but we weren't voted #1. I can deal with it.

The rest of your post is a pipe dream and not even worth discussing.

[SpankyNek]

I got lost as to why this is sooo necessary. :confused:
Obviously, it is only "necessary" if we want the NCAA to determine a National Champion.

Otherwise we can continue to let private entities like the BCS, Street and Smith's, or The Helms' Athletic Association....

Some would rather get the actual outcome in a boxscore...I guess some are ok with guessing.

[Leroy Lizard]

To answer your earlier question, Leroy...

The NFL sells out a larger portion of its games than any other sport (Regardless of league or division) than any other in America. [Actually, I think the NBA does, but no matter.]

And they have a playoff system that will (possibly very soon) have a team with a losing record in the post-season.

And for those that like that, I suggest they watch the NFL. Just leave college football alone.

[soonerborn45]

Frankly there are no champions of college football, and it looks like many of you are fine with that.

But there are many of you out there that gladly hold up the 7 fingers in reference to our National Titles and simultaneously scoff at the Alabama's and Princeton's if they dare claim more than we think is appropriate.

I would like the NCAA to get off of the pot and set up a criteria for championship designation.

Until a major restructuring of the Division occurs, there is no way to determine a true champion.

Here is the only fail safe method to be used:

Establish 4 major regional conferences comprised of 2, 12 team divisions.
Have each division play round robin schedules.
Division Champs square off in a CCG.

The 4 Champions are seeded into a Tournament.

The obvious obstacles to this:

Some folks are happier allowing entities with varying levels of objectivity vote on which team is better.

Trimming the FBS to 96 teams will be difficult(Although, I feel, completely necessary).

Certain Divisions could be stronger than others, but It would probably not be too difficult to arrange them based upon geography and current conference ties...as we all know, the Big XII South has been, by far, the toughest division in all of college football...how many times have we had 2 teams from the South in BCS Bowls (I think it has happened once).

This system actually does make the entire season a playoff tournament, and is the best solution (albeit a logistical Everest)

NCAA has no say in the matter. They just act as a governing body for the rules. Have you ever noticed that in the NCAA championship commercials there is never any FBS teams shown. Thats because they have no say in crowning a champion in FBS football.

[Leroy Lizard]

Obviously, it is only "necessary" if we want the NCAA to determine a National Champion.

Otherwise we can continue to let private entities like the BCS, Street and Smith's, or The Helms' Athletic Association....

Some would rather get the actual outcome in a boxscore...I guess some are ok with guessing.

I certainly am, and thousands of fans that continue to watch the games agree. FBS college football is the most popular college sport of all, and it isn't even close. NO playoff, yet the fans somehow manage to enjoy the games despite no NCAA titlist.

So why do we watch the games? Why do we care? Think about it.

[MeMyself&Me]

Obviously, it is only "necessary" if we want the NCAA to determine a National Champion.

Otherwise we can continue to let private entities like the BCS, Street and Smith's, or The Helms' Athletic Association....

Some would rather get the actual outcome in a boxscore...I guess some are ok with guessing.

College football has done just fine without the NCAA determining the champion for such a long time that I find that notion a bit funny that we somehow need the NCAA to do that now. I certainly don't think that way. I think there's more like me than playoff proponents realize.

[SpankyNek]

Hasn't stopped you from watching the games and caring about the outcome, has it?
Nope, and no matter how much you try and make me believe otherwise, it would not make Southern Miss vs Kansas more (or any less) appetizing to you (or anyone else) if it were changed.




Do we chastise them? Many of us do. Are we willing to risk ruining college football to settle the issue? Many of us are not.
Whether or not a post season tournament would ruin college football is certainly up for debate and not a position that is held, as far as I can tell, by a majority of fans. Therefore, I refuse to accept this as a certainty.


It just isn't that important. For example, I thought OU was the best team in 1973, but we weren't voted #1. I can deal with it.
Is is important or isn't it?

Seems that you value your opinion more highly than this dubious statement.

Why are you willing to let a bunch of sportswriters and "Legends" determine it for you?



The rest of your post is a pipe dream and not even worth discussing.
I find it interesting that even you would shy away from discussing the merits of such a system because of a perceived inability to implement it.

Any insight as to why you would believe it wouldn't be better at determining a champion than to let the likes of Lupica to tell us it's so?

[soonerborn45]

Nope. Not my plan. I can't take credit. That's Wetzel's plan, backed up by years of research.

That being said, I think it's funny that you use the #1 vs. #16 game to further your argument. Nevermind the fact that LSU would be coming to Norman, Michigan State would be going to Fayetteville and Boise State to Columbus. Second round matchups of Arkansas @ Auburn, OU @ Oregon, Ohio State @ TCU and Wisconsin @ Stanford would really suck, too.

I can see why you think it would be awful to watch.

As for Notre Dame, they would have to get an at-large bid. This year, that means being in the top-12. Last year, it would have been top-15.

I don't give a crap who's plan it is, it's stupid. What is your argument? Do you want better games to watch or crown a national champion? Who cares if LSU is coming to Norman or Michigan State is going to Arkansas? That is not the point of a playoff system. As for teams with no conference like Notre Dame, how do you decide that they get an at-large bid? What poll do you use? What if Notre Dame is vying for an at-large bid with some other school? What if Notre Dame is 12 in one poll and St. Mary's and the Blind are 12 in another? No matter what you do in college football to crown a national champion there is always going to be someone left out in the cold. You cannot please everybody and most people think that a playoff would please all schools when it clearly won't. It sucks that TCU is not going to play for a national title this year. However, Auburn and Oregon have just as much right to play for the national title as TCU and probably deserve it more. In 2004 when all this playoff crap started, it was all because people were crying that an undefeated Auburn didn't go to the national title game when there were already two undefeated teams that deserved to go play as well. I have yet to hear a legit form of a playoff that would not raise as many questions as some of the other half brained ideas that have been thrown out there. Wetzel's plan is just as dumb as the other proposed playoff formats. You know why there isn't going to be a playoff system in my lifetime or yours? Because there is no one out there that can come up with a good form for a playoff system because there isn't a good form of a playoff system. Not when you have multiple polls and 120 FBS teams. Half in which don't play anybody worth a darn in their non-conference schedule.

[MeMyself&Me]

Whether or not a post season tournament would ruin college football is certainly up for debate and not a position that is held, as far as I can tell, by a majority of fans. Therefore, I refuse to accept this as a certainty.

I don't think anyone really thinks that a post season tournament would ruin college football. Only that some think that it would change college football for the worse (like me) and some think we are simply changing something that is known to be good to something we don't know. I don't think anyone at all thinks that college football will be ruined as a certainty. In fact, the only certainty is that a lot of people actually like college football the way it is now. Why can't you accept that?

Any insight as to why you would believe it wouldn't be better at determining a champion than to let the likes of moron reporter who criticizes things he doesn't know about to tell us it's so?

I've said myself here that I'd prefer there be a more objectionable method of determining the champion (or the championship participants) than we have now. But also like I said before, that has little to do with Bowl vs Playoff and more to do with the selection criterion you prefer.

;)

[SpankyNek]

;)

I can definitely go with the last part of your above comment...I think that, really, the best short term solution is the +1 model, and a return to a 50/50 split in power between computer polls and human votes to determine the participants.

The above diatribe is mostly a devil's advocate for the nearly 80 teams that have very little hope of obtaining the championship in their division (FBS)

As a born and bred Sooner, I have to say, the current format is great ;)

If I happened to have been born a Cincinnati Bearcat, I would probably think the current format is less than desirable.



As for the first part, I was merely responding to Leroy's claim that it could ruin it.

[MeMyself&Me]

I can definitely go with the last part of your above comment...I think that, really, the best short term solution is the +1 model, and a return to a 50/50 split in power between computer polls and human votes to determine the participants.

The above diatribe is mostly a devil's advocate for the nearly 80 teams that have very little hope of obtaining the championship in their division (FBS)

As a born and bred Sooner, I have to say, the current format is great ;)

If I happened to have been born a Cincinnati Bearcat, I would probably think the current format is less than desirable.



As for the first part, I was merely responding to Leroy's claim that it could ruin it.

I would actually prefer no human poll element but the 50/50 was better than now. I used to think that the fact that the lesser conferences had NO chance was a flaw in the system. But on closer look, they do actually have a chance in some years which, given what they bring to the table, is more than fair as far as I'm concerned.

Looking at this year, Boise State actually had a stronger overall schedule than Oregon! Now, we have so much of a HUMAN element that it probably negates that... but are you sure? There was a strong Boise sentiment this year already. If they made some noise pointing out their stronger overall schedule, they might have been able to swing some of those human voters... if they hadn't lost to Nevada. Cincy's situation was even more favorable than Boise's. Their strength of schedule was MUCH better than either Boise or Oregon's and I think would be in the NC game THIS year because of it if they had run the table. It wouldn't have taken much poloticn' to make it happen because they were already in an AQ conference, for one and, their strength of schedule was quite a bit higher than Oregon's and Boise's.

The simple fact is, the reason these teams usually don't get that far is that they're actually NOT that good. They don't win when they get the chance when they have the schedule that matters.

[Leroy Lizard]

Nope, and no matter how much you try and make me believe otherwise, it would not make Southern Miss vs Kansas more (or any less) appetizing to you (or anyone else) if it were changed.



Whether or not a post season tournament would ruin college football is certainly up for debate and not a position that is held, as far as I can tell, by a majority of fans. Therefore, I refuse to accept this as a certainty.


Even if there is a chance of it, I'm not in favor.

If college football had problems with popularity, I can see making such huge changes. But the system has worked well for over 100 years, and is in fact the most popular system in all of college sports. So just leave it alone.



Is is important or isn't it?

Seems that you value your opinion more highly than this dubious statement.

Why are you willing to let a bunch of sportswriters and "Legends" determine it for you?

They don't. They have their opinions, I have mine. I don't lose sleep over the fact that someone else out there thinks USC was a better team that year.


I find it interesting that even you would shy away from discussing the merits of such a system because of a perceived inability to implement it.

I have no use for playoff systems that have no chance of seeing daylight. Let's stick with what can happen.


Any insight as to why you would believe it wouldn't be better at determining a champion than to let the likes of moron reporter who criticizes things he doesn't know about to tell us it's so?

It might be better, depending on what you are seeking. Who knows? But even so, it isn't that important. We had no true national title this year and still people watched the games.

There is no playoff used to determine the NASCAR champion, yet people still go to the races. It is quite possible for folks to disagree on who they think was the best race car driver last year. So what?

The same goes for tennis and golf.

[Scott D]

actually Leroy, NASCAR does have a playoff...and it's a dumb format.

[IndySooner]

I don't give a crap who's plan it is, it's stupid. What is your argument? Do you want better games to watch or crown a national champion? Who cares if LSU is coming to Norman or Michigan State is going to Arkansas? That is not the point of a playoff system. As for teams with no conference like Notre Dame, how do you decide that they get an at-large bid? What poll do you use? What if Notre Dame is vying for an at-large bid with some other school? What if Notre Dame is 12 in one poll and St. Mary's and the Blind are 12 in another? No matter what you do in college football to crown a national champion there is always going to be someone left out in the cold. You cannot please everybody and most people think that a playoff would please all schools when it clearly won't. It sucks that TCU is not going to play for a national title this year. However, Auburn and Oregon have just as much right to play for the national title as TCU and probably deserve it more. In 2004 when all this playoff crap started, it was all because people were crying that an undefeated Auburn didn't go to the national title game when there were already two undefeated teams that deserved to go play as well. I have yet to hear a legit form of a playoff that would not raise as many questions as some of the other half brained ideas that have been thrown out there. Wetzel's plan is just as dumb as the other proposed playoff formats. You know why there isn't going to be a playoff system in my lifetime or yours? Because there is no one out there that can come up with a good form for a playoff system because there isn't a good form of a playoff system. Not when you have multiple polls and 120 FBS teams. Half in which don't play anybody worth a darn in their non-conference schedule.

Pretty simple answer to your long and drawn out rant:

You use ONE system to determine who gets in. Wetzel thinks a committee would be the best option. I don't necessarily agree. I would prefer using the current BCS to decide who the 5 at-large teams are. That's how Notre Dame would get in until they decide to join the big boys in the real world.

[SpankyNek]

actually Leroy, NASCAR does have a playoff...and it's a dumb format.

I agree.

To sidetrack on this topic....

I would love for the last 10 races to be a knockout setup, with only the drivers in contention participating.

Again, a logistical nightmare due to the way sponsorships work, but would be awesome to watch.

[texaspokieokie]

I agree.

To sidetrack on this topic....

I would love for the last 10 races to be a knockout setup, with only the drivers in contention participating.

Again, a logistical nightmare due to the way sponsorships work, but would be awesome to watch.

logical, but fans wouldn't show up (as much) if their favorite drivers (dale jr.)
weren't included. JMHO

[IndySooner]

Here's the bottom line for me:

Further expansion is on its way. I foresee four or five 16-team leagues. Probably four. That will force a playoff. Therefore, this discussion is probably worthless anyway.

[jkjsooner]

I want to throw this out. One reason I want a playoff is because I get sick of arguing the relative merits of playing in the SEC vs Big 12 vs Big 10 vs PAC 10.

Often times we have teams from these conferences with identical records vying for that #2 spot. Since SoS has been completely removed and the rankings has been given more weight, in many cases it comes down to voter's opinions on the relative difficulty of the schedules. As we've seen recently, the SEC nowadays gets all of the benefit of the doubt. I don't mind a little banter between conferences but in the current system it's less about conference pride and more about which conference should be given the benefit of the doubt when determining who gets into the national title games. That's a screwed up system.

Someone said earlier that they would hate to see 3 or 4 SEC teams in an 8 team tournament. Forgetting that this is a made up scenario and isn't supported by recent final BCS rankings, I'm getting sick of seeing the SEC in the title game every year. I admit they've done their job once in the game (many times on almost home fields) but as long as we give the SEC so much benefit of the doubt they will be in there every year.

The problem with college football is that there are so few cross conference games. It's very difficult to judge the relative strengths of the conferences because they play 75% of their games in conference and so many of the other games are against weak competition. The bowls tell a little more but this is after #1 and #2 have been chosen.

Due to the scheduling nature of college football, it really become a crapshoot who is taken as #1 and #2. (Some years it works out and some years it's simply who the media designated.) Because of this I'd rather be a little more inclusive than exclusive. I emphasize "little" as IMO an 8 team playoff would still keep intact most of the do-or-die components of the college football regular season.


As a side note, I don't know why we're listening to people who have essentially admitted that they only follow national title contending teams and their own team. Interestingly, with something like an 8 team playoff more teams remain in contention for a longer period of time so you would think they would remain interested in a few more teams...

[pphilfran]

A bunch of ideas about a playoff system from people that do not understand all of the reasons keeping a playoff from happening....

I don't care one way or another...

[jkjsooner]

No need to drop being a fan of it. I follow teams in other sports that have playoffs/tournaments. I don't expect eveyone else to change to suite me though. I would consider THAT to be insulting.

You pretty much did ask us to drop being a fan in an earlier post.



I really enjoyed college football back then. I don't have a need to crown a clear champion to enjoy college football. I originally liked the idea of getting a #1 vs #2 matchup in the postseason. Never campaigned for it or thought of it as something that just HAD to be done though. I now find myself wishing it was the way it was back then too. So what if we argued about who was champion or if more than one won a poll.

I think most people disagree with you. College football became much better once the Bowl Coalition and later the BCS started. We bitch about the BCS only because it didn't go far enough not because it's inferior to the old system.

The old system was horrible with #1 playing in one bowl and #2 playing in another (unless one was an independent). I'm glad people with guts changed it and the old farts who can't accept change stepped away.

The only thing I miss about the old system is our tie-in with the Orange Bowl but that could have easily been kept and I think that the lost tie in was due more to the creation of the Big 12 than the BCS/Bowl Coalition.



Actually, at that time, not only was there no 1AA playoff, but there was no 1AA division.

The point still stands. You asked us to jump to another league rather than change D1 football. I showed you that D1 football has made significant changes over the years and for the most part these changes have been for the better and have not hurt the game one bit.

[Caboose]

A bunch of ideas about a playoff system from people that do not understand all of the reasons keeping a playoff from happening....

I don't care one way or another...

Even worse they dont understand the reason for having a playoff either.

[MeMyself&Me]

I want to throw this out. One reason I want a playoff is because I get sick of arguing the relative merits of playing in the SEC vs Big 12 vs Big 10 vs PAC 10.

Often times we have teams from these conferences with identical records vying for that #2 spot. Since SoS has been completely removed and the rankings has been given more weight, in many cases it comes down to voter's opinions on the relative difficulty of the schedules. As we've seen recently, the SEC nowadays gets all of the benefit of the doubt. I don't mind a little banter between conferences but in the current system it's less about conference pride and more about which conference should be given the benefit of the doubt when determining who gets into the national title games. That's a screwed up system.

Someone said earlier that they would hate to see 3 or 4 SEC teams in an 8 team tournament. Forgetting that this is a made up scenario and isn't supported by recent final BCS rankings, I'm getting sick of seeing the SEC in the title game every year. I admit they've done their job once in the game (many times on almost home fields) but as long as we give the SEC so much benefit of the doubt they will be in there every year.

The problem with college football is that there are so few cross conference games. It's very difficult to judge the relative strengths of the conferences because they play 75% of their games in conference and so many of the other games are against weak competition. The bowls tell a little more but this is after #1 and #2 have been chosen.

Due to the scheduling nature of college football, it really become a crapshoot who is taken as #1 and #2. (Some years it works out and some years it's simply who the media designated.) Because of this I'd rather be a little more inclusive than exclusive. I emphasize "little" as IMO an 8 team playoff would still keep intact most of the do-or-die components of the college football regular season.


As a side note, I don't know why we're listening to people who have essentially admitted that they only follow national title contending teams and their own team. Interestingly, with something like an 8 team playoff more teams remain in contention for a longer period of time so you would think they would remain interested in a few more teams...

Your 8 team model might fit your ideal format but it would never fly in the real world so I don't know why you insist on arguing for it. For one, there is no way there's going to be a playoff with 6 or more teams where the 'big six conferences' don't get an auto birth. That only leaves 2 spots for everyone else. The smaller conferences won't go for that because of the reduced chances they'd have and big conferences wouldn't want to give up one of those only 2 spots to a small conference team. No conference would like it.

Now, assuming you were able to convince the Big 6 conferences to forgo the auto births and just take the top 8 teams, there ARE recent examples where there would be 3 teams from one conference in that tournament. In 2007, you'd have Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas all in the top 8. OU had already beaten Missouri twice even. So that 'made up scenario' is supported by recent BCS standings.

[MeMyself&Me]

You pretty much did ask us to drop being a fan in an earlier post.

If you go back and look at the wording of my post, I said if you MUST have a playoff to enjoy football. I'm guessing you enjoy 1a football now as it is too and that you don't really need a playoff to enjoy it. I was just pointing out you have other options. You take away the bowls in favor of a playoff and you take away one of the most unique thing in sports and something a lot of people think is pretty special... you take away my only option.

I think most people disagree with you. College football became much better once the Bowl Coalition and later the BCS started. We bitch about the BCS only because it didn't go far enough not because it's inferior to the old system.

There are a lot of people I talk to that would rather it go back to the old way or do a playoff... they just don't seem to like the BCS altogether. I don't go that far and yeah I know there are a lot of pure playoff people nowadays too so I'm not saying most people are like me. I do think that once we go to a playoff, you'll see a lot of people lamenting the old days... those that we'll never be able to get back to because the road to a playoff is a one way trip.

The old system was horrible with #1 playing in one bowl and #2 playing in another (unless one was an independent). I'm glad people with guts changed it and the old farts who can't accept change stepped away.

I really liked college football back then. I would never agree that it was horrible. I was for the change back then but I certainly like college football the way it was too.

The only thing I miss about the old system is our tie-in with the Orange Bowl but that could have easily been kept and I think that the lost tie in was due more to the creation of the Big 12 than the BCS/Bowl Coalition.

I miss that too. Made me sick when I heard it happened that way. I think it had more to do with having a weak commissioner than the fact the conference was 'new'. The Big 12 did have an auto-tie in with Orange Bowl for a few years before it was shifted to the Fiesta.

The point still stands. You asked us to jump to another league rather than change D1 football. I showed you that D1 football has made significant changes over the years and for the most part these changes have been for the better and have not hurt the game one bit.

There's nothing as significant a change as there would be going to a playoff. Nothing even comes close to comparison.

;)

[jkjsooner]

Now, assuming you were able to convince the Big 6 conferences to forgo the auto births and just take the top 8 teams, there ARE recent examples where there would be 3 teams from one conference in that tournament. In 2007, you'd have Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas all in the top 8. OU had already beaten Missouri twice even. So that 'made up scenario' is supported by recent BCS standings.

Okay, so three might happen but four is highly unlikely. BTW, I'd also not use the BCS but instead use SoS and number of losses. This would strongly favor the current BCS conferences which should ease their concerns.

I will admit that the conference championship games present a hurdle to a playoff.

I'm glad you mentioned the Missouri game. You (I think it was you) mentioned earlier about #1 beating #8 badly. The same can happen in the Big 12 as you pointed out. We beat Missouri but we were forced to turn around and beat them again. I have no problem with that as I want a clear Big 12 champion instead of the crap the Big 10 has faced year after year. Apparently the founders of the Big 12 had no problem with it either. If a rematch is good enough for the Big 12 then it's good enough for a playoff tournament.

[MeMyself&Me]

Okay, so three might happen but four is highly unlikely. BTW, I'd also not use the BCS but instead use SoS and number of losses. This would strongly favor the current BCS conferences which should ease their concerns.

I will admit that the conference championship games present a hurdle to a playoff.

I'm glad you mentioned the Missouri game. You (I think it was you) mentioned earlier about #1 beating #8 badly. The same can happen in the Big 12 as you pointed out. We beat Missouri but we were forced to turn around and beat them again. I have no problem with that as I want a clear Big 12 champion instead of the crap the Big 10 has faced year after year. Apparently the founders of the Big 12 had no problem with it either. If a rematch is good enough for the Big 12 then it's good enough for a playoff tournament.

No, it wasn't me but I did say I hate rematches in college football. I would like the Big 12 championship game a whole lot more if there was no inter-divisional play. Why should the second game be more important than the first one? And yes, I do think Nebbish got screwed this year... and I think that screw job was intentional too.

I'm not really sure that a conference championship game really presents a hurdle for playoff though. I've heard people say it but it doesn't make any sense to me. Again, you wont hear me say that a playoff can't happen... just that I don't want it to.

I do like the idea of simply using number of losses (or record) and SoS but, again, that's simply a selection criteria. Not really a bowl vs playoff thing.

[Caboose]

Okay, so three might happen but four is highly unlikely. BTW, I'd also not use the BCS but instead use SoS and number of losses. This would strongly favor the current BCS conferences which should ease their concerns.

I will admit that the conference championship games present a hurdle to a playoff.

I'm glad you mentioned the Missouri game. You (I think it was you) mentioned earlier about #1 beating #8 badly. The same can happen in the Big 12 as you pointed out. We beat Missouri but we were forced to turn around and beat them again. I have no problem with that as I want a clear Big 12 champion instead of the crap the Big 10 has faced year after year. Apparently the founders of the Big 12 had no problem with it either. If a rematch is good enough for the Big 12 then it's good enough for a playoff tournament.

This is the part you arent getting. Making #1 play #8 again in a playoff or making OU play Missouri again only produces a "clear champion" as you say if #1/OU win the rematch. If #8/Missouri wins, it merely clouds the picture up even more than it already was. There is no point to them playing again because they arent tied. You need to come up with something more compelling than the mindless catch-phrases you clearly haven't really thought about.

I already presented this #1 Miami vs #8 Clemson issue to you in this thread and you have ducked it repeatedly. Now you are pretending it somehow supports your position when it doesnt.

Justify why #1 Miami (13-0, #1 SOS, already beat Cleamson 52-7) should play #8 Clemson (9-3, already blown out by Miami) to continue on in the playoffs. If Clemson manages to win the rematch explain why a then 10-3 Clemson team should be considered more worthy of the National Championship than 13-1 Miami? By Clemson beating Miami in a rematch in the first round of your playoff we werent provided with a "clear winner". We were provided with the EXACT opposite. Now we have two teams whoa re 1-1 vs each other, while the superior team all season long with the blowout victory and better overall and conference record has to go home while the inferior team continues on the playoff. Everyone knows Miami was the better team over the course of the season and had the better overall season and is more deserving of being AWARDED with a title. Not only does your playoff FAIL to do what you say it does, not only does it FAIL to solve any of the problems you say it does, it creates new and worse problems along the way.


Why don't you just admit that the only justification you have for wanting a playoff is that it would be fun to watch and neat and exciting (which I happen to agree with)? Drop the pretense that it works any better or solves any problems or "decides it on the field" or gives us a "true champion" or a "clear winner" or any of the other catch-phrases you guys typically use.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think you're inclusion argument is weak. If it is so bad then why do 99% of all leagues/sports that crown a champion have a playoff?

Not true. There is no playoff in NASCAR to determine its champion -- drivers accumulate points in each race. A lot of sports determine their champion this way. (And no, if any qualified driver can enter the last race, it is not a playoff.)

[TopDawg]

Not true. There is no playoff in NASCAR to determine its champion -- drivers accumulate points in each race. A lot of sports determine their champion this way.

If we could work out a way to have all football teams play against all other football teams each week, then that NASCAR system might work in college football too!

Let's get Cuban on that!

You may be right that "a lot of sports" determine their champion without a playoff. However, most of those sports are designed so that all of the competitors are competing against each other in the same contest. In other words, each competition isn't just one team or individual (out of many) going up against one other team or individual (out of many). In almost all of those types of sport, a playoff is implemented to determine the champion.

[Leroy Lizard]

If we could work out a way to have all football teams play against all other football teams each week, then that NASCAR system might work in college football too!

Let's get Cuban on that!

You may be right that "a lot of sports" determine their champion without a playoff. However, most of those sports are designed so that all of the competitors are competing against each other in the same contest. In other words, each competition isn't just one team or individual (out of many) going up against one other team or individual (out of many). In almost all of those types of sport, a playoff is implemented to determine the champion.

Yes, but by the same token it is a myth that nearly all sports have a playoff. Playoff proponents state it like a mantra and it simply isn't true.

By the way, boxing is one exception to the notion that non-playoff sports necessarily feature all participants facing each other every week.

[Caboose]

If we could work out a way to have all football teams play against all other football teams each week, then that NASCAR system might work in college football too!

Let's get Cuban on that!

You may be right that "a lot of sports" determine their champion without a playoff. However, most of those sports are designed so that all of the competitors are competing against each other in the same contest. In other words, each competition isn't just one team or individual (out of many) going up against one other team or individual (out of many). In almost all of those types of sport, a playoff is implemented to determine the champion.

Too bad it doesnt mean a playoff actually works. Some of us want the National Championship to be indicative of the performance of a team over the course of the entire season. Not some meaningless title that gets bestowed upon whatever team gets hot and wins a few games in a row in the post-season... like the NFL... and NCAA Basketball. March Madness itself is GREAT yet it completely ruins the regular season and tells us NOTHING about which teams performed with sustained excellence throughout the entire season.

What I have seen from the playoff proponents here (and anywhere else I have encountered them) is that they decided on the solution in advance without even thinking about what problems they are trying to solve. There seems to be a mental disconnect there concerning why we crown a champion in the first place.

[IndySooner]

Too bad it doesnt mean a playoff actually works. Some of us want the National Championship to be indicative of the performance of a team over the course of the entire. Not some meaningless title that gets bestowed upon whatever team gets hot and wins a few games in a row in the post-season... like the NFL... and NCAA Basketball. March Madness itself is GREAT yet it completely ruins the regular season and tells us NOTHING about which teams performed with sustained excellence throughout the entire season.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I couldn't care less about who is the best team in the country in September. "sustained success throughout the entire season" means nothing to me. I want to know who the BEST team is. That's what a playoff has the potential to show you. Sure, the best team might lose, but at least they had a chance to prove it on the field.

The system doesn't work, that's the bottom line. I'm not convinced that TCU isn't better than Auburn and Oregon. Yet, we'll never know because they don't get a chance to show us.

And as for a "team getting hot and winning it", a playoff only consists of conference champions and at-large berths. I've gone back to 1950, and in no case would an at-large come outside of the top-13. That means you essentially have to be a top-10 team to get in. That does NOTHING to devalue a regular season.

[MeMyself&Me]

If we could work out a way to have all football teams play against all other football teams each week, then that NASCAR system might work in college football too!

Let's get Cuban on that!

You may be right that "a lot of sports" determine their champion without a playoff. However, most of those sports are designed so that all of the competitors are competing against each other in the same contest. In other words, each competition isn't just one team or individual (out of many) going up against one other team or individual (out of many). In almost all of those types of sport, a playoff is implemented to determine the champion.

I've never understood the argument that "everyone else has a playoff so college football should too". To me that's an argument for keeping things the same. College football is unique and special. We should be looking at preserving that... not carelessly throwing it away.

[IndySooner]

I've never understood the argument that "everyone else has a playoff so college football should too". To me that's an argument for keeping things the same. College football is unique and special. We should be looking at preserving that... not carelessly throwing it away.

I'm having trouble understanding how changing the system is keeping things the same?

The truth is, those in this thread who are against a playoff are scared of the change.

[MeMyself&Me]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I couldn't care less about who is the best team in the country in September. "sustained success throughout the entire season" means nothing to me. I want to know who the BEST team is. That's what a playoff has the potential to show you. Sure, the best team might lose, but at least they had a chance to prove it on the field.

The system doesn't work, that's the bottom line. I'm not convinced that TCU isn't better than Auburn and Oregon. Yet, we'll never know because they don't get a chance to show us.

The only thing a playoff will give is who is hot in the post season which isn't always the best team. Neither system guarantees that best team is crowned champion. The way things are, the whole season has more balance in determining the champion than there would be with a playoff.

[JohnnyMack]

No thanks.

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm having trouble understanding how changing the system is keeping things the same?

That's my point. They present that as an argument for change but, to me, it's really an argument for keeping it the same. I don't think playoff supporters really think that through when they say it

The truth is, those in this thread who are against a playoff are scared of the change.

Why wouldn't I be. I like what college football is now. I don't need a playoff to enjoy college football now. I'll admit that a playoff would be quite fun to watch in and of itself. BUT, I know it will change college football in a way that we could never undo. I think there's more bad than good that will come of it too because we'll lose what makes college football unique. So why wouldn't I be scared of the change? Duh!

;)

[TopDawg]

Yes, but by the same token it is a myth that nearly all sports have a playoff. Playoff proponents state it like a mantra and it simply isn't true.

By the way, boxing is one exception to the notion that non-playoff sports necessarily feature all participants facing each other every week.

Perhaps college football could work out a "title-belt" system where any team could challenge the current title holder and if they won, they would assume the title.

Where FBS college football differs from most (all?) other sports is that a team has no way to control its own destiny in competing for the title.* In my opinion, this is what playoff proponents are looking for and in sports that are structured like football, a playoff is usually the best way to go about doing that. It's certainly not the only way, (i.e. - round robin, conference structure) but I think it's the most realistic way.

A playoff isn't perfect (like Caboose said, it allows a team to win who may just get hot at the right time) but in my opinion, it's better to allow a "wild card" team or a #6 seed (or whatever) to get the national title by way of beating the best teams in a playoff (despite some regular season losses) than to keep at team like Auburn '04 or TCU this year out of any sort of national title competition.

*Technically, it's true that in boxing you don't control your own destiny because you can challenge the title-holder but the title-holder doesn't have to accept your challenge. Of course, that's different than college football where you can't even challenge the title holder (at least not in a competition that will give you the title if you win it).

[Caboose]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I couldn't care less about who is the best team in the country in September. "sustained success throughout the entire season" means nothing to me.

I dont just want to know who was the best in September.. I want to know who was the best for the ENTIRE year. A playoff doesnt tell me that.


I want to know who the BEST team is. That's what a playoff has the potential to show you. Sure, the best team might lose, but at least they had a chance to prove it on the field.

A playoff doesnt tell who the best team is... it only tells you who won the playoff. If that is all you wanted to know to begin with then why even have a regular season? Just have a big *** playoff that starts in September.




The system doesn't work, that's the bottom line. I'm not convinced that TCU isn't better than Auburn and Oregon. Yet, we'll never know because they don't get a chance to show us.

Whether the current system works is debatable. For anyone to take you seriously you are going to have specifically itemize the problems the current system has then specifically show how your proposed system would not only resolve those problems but not create additional problems to go along with them. So far none of you have come close to doing either of those things. All we get is generic catch-phrases on both ends. Instead of identifying an actual problem with the current system we get such tripe as "The BCS is like figure-skating". Instead of explaining how your system will solve any problem we get such idiocy as "a playoff decides it on the field!".





And as for a "team getting hot and winning it", a playoff only consists of conference champions and at-large berths. I've gone back to 1950, and in no case would an at-large come outside of the top-13. That means you essentially have to be a top-10 team to get in. That does NOTHING to devalue a regular season.

Wrong. That completely devalues the regular season. It means that 13-0 with the #1 SOS means NOTHING because some 9-3 or 8-4 also ran gets the same opportunity as the undefeated team. Again, refer to the Miami/Clemson scenario jk has been ducking this entire thread. Refer to the NFL in 2007 (or was it 2008?) when the Patiots were freaking 16-0 and and the 10-6 Giants were named champions. That ONLY flies if you define champion as some inane mindless phrase like "whoever wins the playoff". And by stooping to such idiocy you have in effect declared the regular completely meaningless.

[Leroy Lizard]

The only thing a playoff will give is who is hot in the post season which isn't always the best team. Neither system guarantees that best team is crowned champion.

Besides, college football is not about crowning a true champion. The AP vote didn't even start until 40 years after college football was invented. College football is about the individual matchups and we should keep it that way.

[Caboose]

I've never understood the argument that "everyone else has a playoff so college football should too". To me that's an argument for keeping things the same. College football is unique and special. We should be looking at preserving that... not carelessly throwing it away.

Exactly. Why are so many people so eager to jump into a homogeneous bore fest? I doubt any college football fan would disagree that college football is the greatest sport on earth. So why the rush to change it? Frankly, I kind of like the debating at the end of the year. Its fun.

[Caboose]

Besides, college football is not about crowning a true champion. The AP vote didn't even start until 40 years after college football was invented. College football is about the individual matchups and we should keep it that way.

THIS.

College football IS the regular season.

[MeMyself&Me]

Perhaps college football could work out a "title-belt" system where any team could challenge the current title holder and if they won, they would assume the title.

Where FBS college football differs from most (all?) other sports is that a team has no way to control its own destiny in competing for the title.* In my opinion, this is what playoff proponents are looking for and in sports that are structured like football, a playoff is usually the best way to go about doing that. It's certainly not the only way, (i.e. - round robin, conference structure) but I think it's the most realistic way.

A playoff isn't perfect (like Caboose said, it allows a team to win who may just get hot at the right time) but in my opinion, it's better to allow a "wild card" team or a #6 seed (or whatever) to get the national title by way of beating the best teams in a playoff (despite some regular season losses) than to keep at team like Auburn '04 or TCU this year out of any sort of national title competition.

*Technically, it's true that in boxing you don't control your own destiny because you can challenge the title-holder but the title-holder doesn't have to accept your challenge. Of course, that's different than college football where you can't even challenge the title holder (at least not in a competition that will give you the title if you win it).

As to a playoff being the better way to go, that's really a matter of opinion. As to Auburn '04 and TCU getting left out. I'd have more sympathy for them if this sport's governing body (NCAA) set their schedules for them like is done in most other playoff sports. You can say that you can't guarantee that certain opponents will pan out as good when you schedule them but I think Joe C has shown that you have enough control in your schedule get a tough SoS rating on consistent basis.

[IndySooner]

Besides, college football is not about crowning a true champion. The AP vote didn't even start until 40 years after college football was invented. College football is about the individual matchups and we should keep it that way.

This is crap.

MLB didn't used to have a wild card. People (including me) were dead set against it. They're now expanding it it worked so well.

The NCAA Tournament used to play second fiddle to the NIT. The NIT didn't change with the times and now the NCAA Tournament is the second largest event in sports.

Other sports are constantly changing with the times. College football, on the other hand, is run by a bunch of old, fat and happy guys who keep filling our heads with one liners like "the best regular season in all sports" and "the best thing for the student athletes".

Here's the thing: They're full of it!

We don't have to have a concrete solution on this board. That's for the people who come up with the system to do. What this board is for is throwing around ideas. Some will be viable, some won't. The best solution I've seen is in "Death to the BCS". If you haven't read it, I suggest you do.

Until then, I guess we'll continue watching these exciting bowl games instead of a crappy tournament to end the season.

By the way, anyone excited about the bowl games this weekend? I didn't think so. I'm so glad we don't have four playoff games to watch instead. I certainly wouldn't want to be camped out at our tailgate party in Norman right now drinking beer and getting ready for our game against LSU tomorrow. That would suck.

[MeMyself&Me]

Frankly, I kind of like the debating at the end of the year. Its fun.

Me too. But it seems a lot of people hate it.

[Caboose]

A playoff isn't perfect (like Caboose said, it allows a team to win who may just get hot at the right time) but in my opinion, it's better to allow a "wild card" team or a #6 seed (or whatever) to get the national title by way of beating the best teams in a playoff (despite some regular season losses) than to keep at team like Auburn '04 or TCU this year out of any sort of national title competition.


This is what the entire debate boils down to, in my opinion. All of the other points are ancillary. And there really doesnt look to be much middle ground.

In my opinion inclusion of non deserving teams corrupts the system (any system) in far more profound ways than excluding deserving teams. By excluding TCU this year, for example, the worst that can happen is that we will never really know if TCU could have won it all if they had been given the chance. But when you include non-deserving teams we KNOW we got it wrong when one of them wins (See Patriots/Giants Superbowl). We KNOW without a doubt that we just gave the trophy to the wrong team and it flies in the face of every reason ever offered (catch-phrase or not) to justify having a play off. It completely nullifies the entire premise of having a playoff to being with.

[Caboose]

This is crap.

MLB didn't used to have a wild card. People (including me) were dead set against it. They're now expanding it it worked so well.

The NCAA Tournament used to play second fiddle to the NIT. The NIT didn't change with the times and now the NCAA Tournament is the second largest event in sports.

Other sports are constantly changing with the times. College football, on the other hand, is run by a bunch of old, fat and happy guys who keep filling our heads with one liners like "the best regular season in all sports" and "the best thing for the student athletes".

Here's the thing: They're full of it!

We don't have to have a concrete solution on this board. That's for the people who come up with the system to do. What this board is for is throwing around ideas. Some will be viable, some won't. The best solution I've seen is in "Death to the BCS". If you haven't read it, I suggest you do.

Until then, I guess we'll continue watching these exciting bowl games instead of a crappy tournament to end the season.

By the way, anyone excited about the bowl games this weekend? I didn't think so. I'm so glad we don't have four playoff games to watch instead. I certainly wouldn't want to be camped out at our tailgate party in Norman right now drinking beer and getting ready for our game against LSU tomorrow. That would suck.

Popular != correct, functional, working

And for the umpteenth time the bowl games have nothing to do with the debate. The problem with the unexciting bowl games is because there are simply too many. There needs to be maybe 15. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the BCS/playoff debate.

[IndySooner]

Popular != correct, functional, working

And for the umpteenth time the bowl games have nothing to do with the debate. The problem with the unexciting bowl games is because there are simply too many. There needs to be maybe 15. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the BCS/playoff debate.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the debate. The only reason we don't have a playoff today is the SAME reason we have 35 bowl games.

The bowl games make themselves money. They make the AD's and coaches money. Therefore, they don't want it to end. On the other hand, half of the teams going to bowl games LOSE money. Ask Virginia Tech how happy they are to be going to the Orange Bowl this year. Or UConn the Fiesta. Both are going to lose millions of dollars for the "privilege" of going to the bowl games.

The system works, though, right? Ask the tax payers of Connecticut how they feel.

[MeMyself&Me]

This is not a good year to use the bowl lineup as an example of bad football. There will always be those yawners when you have so many like Caboose said but there are a lot of good ones in there this year that I'm looking forward to.

[MeMyself&Me]

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the debate. The only reason we don't have a playoff today is the SAME reason we have 35 bowl games.

The bowl games make themselves money. They make the AD's and coaches money. Therefore, they don't want it to end. On the other hand, half of the teams going to bowl games LOSE money. Ask Virginia Tech how happy they are to be going to the Orange Bowl this year. Or UConn the Fiesta. Both are going to lose millions of dollars for the "privilege" of going to the bowl games.

The system works, though, right? Ask the tax payers of Connecticut how they feel.

I would imagine that the University of Connecticut is quite happy with the exposure that a Fiesta Bowl appearance will bring their Uny. I bet you'll find some tax payers that don't like it and some that do.

[Caboose]

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the debate. The only reason we don't have a playoff today is the SAME reason we have 35 bowl games.

The bowl games make themselves money. They make the AD's and coaches money. Therefore, they don't want it to end. On the other hand, half of the teams going to bowl games LOSE money. Ask Virginia Tech how happy they are to be going to the Orange Bowl this year. Or UConn the Fiesta. Both are going to lose millions of dollars for the "privilege" of going to the bowl games.

The system works, though, right? Ask the tax payers of Connecticut how they feel.

You are talking about a different debate all together. The debate in this thread is over whether or not a playoff "works" in determining a true champion. That is the fan debate.

If you want to talk about the other debate - the "money" debate, don't bother. It is over before it began. No point in bringing it up.

As far as the "works" debate goes...how exciting the bowls may or may not be is irrelevant. That has no bearing on whether or not some ridiculous dysfunctional 16 team playoff pipe-dream would actually do anything you say it would do.

[IndySooner]

This is not a good year to use the bowl lineup as an example of bad football. There will always be those yawners when you have so many like Caboose said but there are a lot of good ones in there this year that I'm looking forward to.

That's your argument? Wow.

I can't name five games I'm excited about watching. On the other hand, if we had a playoff, I'd be excited about matchups like:

1st round:
OU/LSU
Boise/tOSU
Michigan St./Arkansas

2nd round:
OU/Oregon
Auburn/Michigan St.
Ohio St./TCU
Wisconsin/Stanford

3rd round:
Oregon/TCU
Auburn/Stanford

Champion:
Oregon/Auburn

So, we still get the potential exciting matchup, with 9 other great matchups that we don't get right now. Instead, we get September games against East Popcorn State, since the regular season is SO great!

[IndySooner]

I would imagine that the University of Connecticut is quite happy with the exposure that a Fiesta Bowl appearance will bring their Uny. I bet you'll find some tax payers that don't like it and some that do.

$2 million worth of marketing? I'm pretty sure they won't be happy about that.

[IndySooner]

You are talking about a different debate all together. The debate in this thread is over whether or not a playoff "works" in determining a true champion. That is the fan debate.

Thats not the entire debate. In fact, I don't really care about a "true" champion. I just want it settled on the field and I want to not be bored for the entire month of December.

If you want to talk about the other debate - the "money" debate, don't bother. It is over before it began. No point in bringing it up.

Not sure what you mean here, but I think it's a legitimate debate. My alma mater is leaving MILLIONS of dollars on the table by sticking with the current system. That's a really big deal. Also, when athletic departments aren't self funded, such as UConn, losing $2 million on a bowl game is extremely irresponsible to the tax payers. Iowa and Virginia Tech are facing similar issues this year, and frankly, if OU wasn't self funded, so would we.

As far as the "works" debate goes...how exciting the bowls may or may not be is irrelevant. That has no bearing on whether or not some ridiculous dysfunctional 16 team playoff pipe-dream would actually do anything you say it would do.

Here's what I say it would do.

1) It would give EVERYONE a chance to win a championship. No more Congressional time wasted on this. You win your conference and you have a shot.

2) It would reward good seasons with extra home games. As a fan, I love this. As a tax payer, even better. The state and city of Norman would rake it in in a playoff system.

3) It would more double the TV ratings for every game but the BCS Championship Game. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue pumped into college football and college athletics in general. California wouldn't have to drop baseball. Other schools could consider adding sports they've had to drop. Estimates show that playoffs would generate $600 million more in revenue than the BCS every year!

4) It would create MORE important games every year. Our championship game would have mattered to people outside of Oklahoma and Nebraska. The ACC Championship Game would have mattered to people outside of the Florida Panhandle and Virginia. Etc., etc., etc. Zero games mattered the first weekend in November. Zero. That needs to change. That's not good for college football.

I'd hate to improve the game, though. Let's just stay static. That always works.

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm making an argument that bowls are more exciting than a playoff. Just that this is a good year for bowls. I've said previously that playoffs would be very exciting to watch. I've just said that it changes what college football is... negatively.

[I Am Right]

won't work

[IndySooner]

I'm making an argument that bowls are more exciting than a playoff. Just that this is a good year for bowls. I've said previously that playoffs would be very exciting to watch. I've just said that it changes what college football is... negatively.

How? You keep saying that, but I don't see anything as to HOW it changes negatively.

[IndySooner]

won't work

What won't work and why?

[MeMyself&Me]

I don't think anyone here has said a playoff wouldn't make more money. That's the reason I think a playoff will happen eventually. I've always said bull**** to the people that said a playoff won't happen because there's more money in the bowl system.

[MeMyself&Me]

How? You keep saying that, but I don't see anything as to HOW it changes negatively.

Because the balance right now favors the full season. That's something unique to college football. Playoffs put more importance on the post season and weakens the importance of the regular season.

What college football is is unique. If we're fans of the sport, we shouldn't be rushing to throw it away. I've yet to see a compelling argument that crowning a champion with a playoff is truly better. It's nothing more than different at best. You may prefer it that way but I don't. I was a fan of college football before any other sport. I always thought it odd when I watched other sports and some team that had several loses could win a championship.

[IndySooner]

Because the balance right now favors the full season. That's something unique to college football. Playoffs put more importance on the post season and weakens the importance of the regular season.



How? I haven't seen any argument as to HOW the regular season is cheapened by a playoff. Heck, LSU won it all with two losses a couple of years ago. No at large would get in with more than two losses in a playoff this year.

If anything, the regular season is enhanced. The Big 12 and Big 10 races were meaningless by November this year. No one was winning the title.

[SoonerPride]

How? I haven't seen any argument as to HOW the regular season is cheapened by a playoff.

Giants.
Patriots.
/argument

[IndySooner]

Giants.
Patriots.
/argument

You can't compare a college playoff and an NFL playoff.

/argument

[IndySooner]

Just curious:

Those of you that support the current system, are you happy that Texas will probably make MORE money than OU from this year's bowl season?

[SoonerPride]

You can't compare a college playoff and an NFL playoff.

/argument

Why have a playoff in the first place?

I like it the way it is and see no improvement by having a post season tournament.

Remember, don't compare it to other sports as justification.

[MeMyself&Me]

How? I haven't seen any argument as to HOW the regular season is cheapened by a playoff. Heck, LSU won it all with two losses a couple of years ago. No at large would get in with more than two losses in a playoff this year.

If anything, the regular season is enhanced. The Big 12 and Big 10 races were meaningless by November this year. No one was winning the title.

Not this year. But is this year like every year? It seems funny that you jump from 2007 to 2010 like they're the same seasons.

Also, regarding the 1 loss teams, it's one thing to say that if you lose a game, you need a lot of help to win it all versus if you lose a game, you still have a good chance. I've never seen a playoff that wouldn't include non-deserving teams. You may want that. I don't.

[bigfatjerk]

Why have a playoff in the first place?

I like it the way it is and see no improvement by having a post season tournament.

Remember, don't compare it to other sports as justification.

Why have a regular season?

[SoonerPride]

Why have a regular season?

That's what I ask of the NFL each year.

[MeMyself&Me]

Just curious:

Those of you that support the current system, are you happy that Texas will probably make MORE money than OU from this year's bowl season?

You seem really hung up on the money. I've already said a playoff would make more money. But I don't watch football for the payouts and such. In fact, I can't even remember a crack like "My school made more money than your school this year!".

[Caboose]

You can't compare a college playoff and an NFL playoff.

/argument

Then why do you guys keep comparing them? "ALL these other sports have a playoff? Are you telling me they got it wrong?"

And yes you can compare them because your proposed playoff adds the same element of inclusion that the NFL playoff has.


Let me make this simple for you.

OU is playing Florida State in football. At the end of the 4th quarter the score is OU 41 - Florida State 7. Inexplicably the head official proclaims that there will now be a 15 minute overtime period and whoever scores the most in that period wins the contest. Florida State scores 10 in the overtime, OU scores 7.

So what does that do to the regulation period of the game? What did OU 41- FSU -7 mean at that point? NOTHING. The reality is that OU outscored Florida State 48 to 17 over the course of the ENTIRE contest. But due to someones borderline retarded idea of adding an unneeded overtime period to "settle it on the field" at the end of regulation, we the fans must literally deny reality and pretend that FSU outperformed OU in order to reconcile what we saw happen with what the new system says happened.


In this analogy the regulation period of the game represents the regular season of college football. The unneeded overtime represents your ridiculous playoff idea. By inexplicably letting UConn, for example, play Auburn in an unneeded playoff you have explicitly proclaimed that what happened in the regular literally means NOTHING.

This concept is not hard to grasp. Why are you and jk pretending to be so daft that you can not get it?

[Caboose]

Why have a regular season?

College football IS the regular season. Why would you not have it? Do you not like college football?

[bigfatjerk]

That's what I ask of the NFL each year.

I ask that for college football right now. A regular season in college is meaning less and less because 60% of the teams are going to bowl games.

[bigfatjerk]

College football IS the regular season. Why would you not have it? Do you not like college football?

I like football period but the regular season in college football only matters for a hand full of teams. MAYBE. NFL every team is close to even. There's only a few that are really bad every year. You have teams that were terrible just a few years ago going to super bowls and winning(Arizona, New Orleans)

You have teams that have the most talent but don't always win. Dallas and Indy come to mind this year. Minnesota is another one.

[jkjsooner]

This is not a good year to use the bowl lineup as an example of bad football. There will always be those yawners when you have so many like Caboose said but there are a lot of good ones in there this year that I'm looking forward to.

I thought you only watched games with national title implications?