BCS Replaced with Playoff is a Good Move

[soonerboomer]

Replacing the BCS with a playoff is a good move. Starting with a 4-team playoff in 2013 looks like a reality followed with an 8-team playoff a couple of years later (probably 2015) and eventually a 16-team playoff (probably 2017). My suggestion with a 16-team playoff is to require all regular season games completed on Thanksgiving weekend and conference championship games the first weekend of December. The 16 teams chosen could use a modified BCS format with each conference champion guaranteed a spot provided they are in the top 20 or 25. No limit should be placed on the number of teams participating from any conference. In the first round of a 16-team playoff, the top eight teams should be given home field advantage and played the third weekend in December. The second round (quarter-final) should be played two weeks later (very late December/early January) using the current BCS Bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange). The third round (semi-final) should be played two weeks later (mid-January) in a covered stadium or in a stadium located in a warm climate. Finally, the National Championship Game two weeks later (late January/early February) in a covered stadium or stadium located in a warm climate. I don't ever see an expansion to a 32-team format.

[Curly Bill]

Holy crap! A playoff thread, what a novel ideal!

[mikee likee]

I disagree on 1 key point (with each conference champion guaranteed a spot provided they are in the top 20 or 25). Eliminate the rankings so we can avoid the same fiasco as last season. Let all the conference champs line up and play. Take the opinion polls out of it.

[jkjsooner]

The 16 teams chosen could use a modified BCS format with each conference champion guaranteed a spot provided they are in the top 20 or 25.

I'm not in favor of 16 teams. I think 8 is the perfect number.

I'm also not in favor of conference champions getting an automatic bid. I could live with it if every conference is treated equally. If you give preferential treatment for some conferences over others then you don't have a truly representative championship.

I suppose with the top 20 or top 25 rule, you could open it up for all conference champions. It's just that some of the minor conference champions would not meet this critieria - which is fine because they're playing under the same rules as everyone else.

[jkjsooner]

I disagree on 1 key point (with each conference champion guaranteed a spot provided they are in the top 20 or 25). Eliminate the rankings so we can avoid the same fiasco as last season. Let all the conference champs line up and play. Take the opinion polls out of it.

It wouldn't have to include opinion polls. It could be a formula of just wins, losses, and strength of schedule. It would simply be some sort of power ranking.

Lining up the conference champs is a horrible idea. It punishes the power conferences and favors the smaller conferences. It also doesn't address the independents.


I've said it a million times. The function of conferences has nothing to do with a playoff. They exist for logistical reasons - scheduling, marketing, revenue generation, shared resources, etc. In some cases they also have an academic component.

It's okay for a 65 team tournament to give automatic bids to conference winners because the tournament field is so huge. It's not okay to mix the two when it comes to a smaller football sized tournament. Conferences simply were not built for this purpose.

If you want something like that then have the NCAA assign teams to districts that are roughly of equal size and competitiveness.

[ashley]

4 is fine. 8 is too many and would hurt the regular season. So what if 5 thru 8 are left out.

[Curly Bill]

4 is fine. 8 is too many and would hurt the regular season. So what if 5 thru 8 are left out.

Then there'll be much griping about how that particular playoff system left out teams that deserved a spot in said playoff system, and there will be calls to reform said playoff system, and that will likely lead to expansion of said playoff system.

Whatever playoff system is started with, you can expect it to expand as time goes on - its the nature of the beast.

[Dan Thompson]

The national championship game should be played in a neutral site for both teams. None of this LSU at the Sugar Bowl or Texas in the Cotton bowl, Florida in the Orange, etc.

[ashley]

Bill, name a team that finished 6 thru 8 in the last ten years that deserved to be with the top four teams. I also don't think the Presidents will go for it.

[Curly Bill]

Bill, name a team that finished 6 thru 8 in the last ten years that deserved to be with the top four teams. I also don't think the Presidents will go for it.

I don't know that there has been any 6 thru 8 that deserved it, but I bet ya some of those teams and their fans think they did, and that's where the cry to expand will come from, not to mention more teams in the playoffs means more money to go around, and we know what ultimately drives the train.

[rekamrettuB]

Then there'll be much griping about how that particular playoff system left out teams that deserved a spot in said playoff system, and there will be calls to reform said playoff system, and that will likely lead to expansion of said playoff system.

Whatever playoff system is started with, you can expect it to expand as time goes on - its the nature of the beast.

Ya it's already started from a 2 team playoff. The majority of the fans that want a playoff and realize they don't want to cheapen the regular season too much agree on 8 at most. Problem is, as you pointed out, it will expand and it will expand past the point of no return. Look no further than the bball tourney. 68 teams now and there's been talk of taking it to 96. The all mighty dollar comes into play. Almost everyone agrees that 68 is way too many when at least 1/2 have no shot at winning. But try telling the NCAA and CBS to shrink it to 32.

Sure those march madness games are fun but why trade 3 weeks of fun for the greatest regular season of any sport?

[Curly Bill]

Ya it's already started from a 2 team playoff. The majority of the fans that want a playoff and realize they don't want to cheapen the regular season too much agree on 8 at most. Problem is, as you pointed out, it will expand and it will expand past the point of no return. Look no further than the bball tourney. 68 teams now and there's been talk of taking it to 96. The all mighty dollar comes into play. Almost everyone agrees that 68 is way too many when at least 1/2 have no shot at winning. But try telling the NCAA and CBS to shrink it to 32.

Sure those march madness games are fun but why trade 3 weeks of fun for the greatest regular season of any sport?

Couldn't tell ya, but I'm sure one of our fellow posters has the "perfect" answer to that.

[8timechamps]

I'd say leave the bowl games completely out of the playoff format. All games are at the home field of the best seeded team (except the title game), We need less bowls anyway, so just keep the bowls that actually draw attention and dump the rest.

Even with a 16 team playoff, that leave plenty of compelling match-ups to play in the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, etc.

The regular season isn't going to be affected by a playoff. I think we saw a perfect example of that this past season. Bama and LSU played once, one team lost, and guess what...they got to play again for the championship game. Also, when OU played OSU, we knew we were out of any title game consideration, did that make that game any less interesting (well, to the fans at lease)? All of these things that people think playoffs are going to take from the regular season is either 1) over-reaction or 2) just haven't really been thought out.

[LASooner]

I would rather have people bitching over which team should be 8th, than have people bitching over which team should be 4th.

[8timechamps]

I would rather have people bitching over which team should be 8th, than have people bitching over which team should be 4th.

Yep (although, I'd prefer 16). There is much less room to leave out a great team when selecting only four. At 8, you start to be able to separate good teams from really good or great teams.

[Harris County Sooner]

They should ditch the BCS and polls completely. An NCAA committee using a pairwise ranking approach does just fine for the other sports that have a playoff system.

[8timechamps]

Ya it's already started from a 2 team playoff. The majority of the fans that want a playoff and realize they don't want to cheapen the regular season too much agree on 8 at most. Problem is, as you pointed out, it will expand and it will expand past the point of no return. Look no further than the bball tourney. 68 teams now and there's been talk of taking it to 96. The all mighty dollar comes into play. Almost everyone agrees that 68 is way too many when at least 1/2 have no shot at winning. But try telling the NCAA and CBS to shrink it to 32.

Sure those march madness games are fun but why trade 3 weeks of fun for the greatest regular season of any sport?

Can someone explain to me what is so great about the current college football season that would be lost with a playoff? Seriously, I think this line was drilled into ever fan's head by the initial BCS committee.

How can we come off of a season that clearly illustrated the duplicity in place, and still act like there is some holy grail that will be destroyed by a playoff? I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I would be the same fanatic for Oklahoma football with a playoff in place. And, I'm willing to bet all of you would too.

[picasso]

4 team yes, more than that? No. I want to reward a good season.

[King Barry's Back]

I'd say leave the bowl games completely out of the playoff format. All games are at the home field of the best seeded team (except the title game), We need less bowls anyway, so just keep the bowls that actually draw attention and dump the rest.

Even with a 16 team playoff, that leave plenty of compelling match-ups to play in the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, etc.

The regular season isn't going to be affected by a playoff. I think we saw a perfect example of that this past season. Bama and LSU played once, one team lost, and guess what...they got to play again for the championship game. Also, when OU played OSU, we knew we were out of any title game consideration, did that make that game any less interesting (well, to the fans at lease)? All of these things that people think playoffs are going to take from the regular season is either 1) over-reaction or 2) just haven't really been thought out.

Pretty much agree across the board on this. I am VERY MUCH AGAINST playing the semi-finals in the current BCS bowl games. Why give FL and Southwestern teams the advantage, year-in and year-out for eternity? I am a lot more on board with scheme proposed by the B1G, to protect the interests of their cold-weather schools.

And what the hell -- isn't anybody ready to die to see and old fashioned, "frozen tundra" slug fest to make it college's national championship game? Would be awesome.

Finally, a four team play off would do little to undermine the bowls, anyway. The BCS would still pit top-twenty teams against each other, with the difference being that No 5 might be the highest rated participant. And if you set up the timing right, the two losers could still participate in the BCS bowls, and you'd have basically the same thing you have now.

[StoopTroup]

Until the Conferences are all limited to how many Teams they can have and they all either have a Conference Championship or just a situation like the Big XII had this year or just any situation that is the same in each conference....I think making any changes in the BCS is premature.

Also....I think if you are going to have a four Team playoff....it will be the best four teams from four separate conferences and there will never be a LSU / Alabama Playoff for the National Championship in a 4 Team Playoff.

Say if you did a 4 Team Playoff using the BCS Stadings from last year Week 14....

LSU would have played Virginia Tech and oSu would have played Stanford.

Knowing that LSU would have probably beat V-Tech and that oSu lost to Stanford....the National Championship would have been LSU vs Stanford and LSU would have won another MNC with Lester at the helm. The only way it might have been different is if LSU played Stanford and oSu would have played V-Tech. Either way...I think LSU would have won and the only real change a 4 Team Playoff would have made is that it didn't allow two SEC Teams to play each other in the Title Game and that could be easily done without installing a playoff game and just letting the two Teams with the best BCS Ranking to play forall the marbles and make sure that they aren't from the same Conference. In last years case....Aggies would have gotten the biggest dream of their lives and they would have gotten to go to New Orleans and teabag a bunch of drunk LSU Fans in Hamburger joints on Bourbon Street after LSU had won another MNC.

[StoopTroup]

And what the hell -- isn't anybody ready to die to see and old fashioned, "frozen tundra" slug fest to make it college's national championship game? Would be awesome.

you'd have basically the same thing you have now.

As long as it was played indoors...yes...I'm fine with it being played in the Frozen Tundra. :D

And I agree with your last stmt.

[ashley]

We have the best regular season of any sport. Lets don't do anything to cheapen it.

[agoo758]

Then there'll be much griping about how that particular playoff system left out teams that deserved a spot in said playoff system, and there will be calls to reform said playoff system, and that will likely lead to expansion of said playoff system.



And then when they expand to 8, 9-12 is gonna start bitching about being left out, and then the cycle will continue until about half the teams get into the post-season, in which we will realize that we solved absolutely nothing sans a convoluted playoff system with a meaningless regular season. We then wonder why we we didn't just keep it the way it was. :)

[jkjsooner]

And then when they expand to 8, 9-12 is gonna start bitching about being left out, and then the cycle will continue until about half the teams get into the post-season, in which we will realize that we solved absolutely nothing sans a convoluted playoff system with a meaningless regular season. We then wonder why we we didn't just keep it the way it was. :)

Why don't we cross that bridge when we get there? You're essentially voting against any progress out of a fear that we'll go too far. That's an absurd way to look at it in my opinion.

And it's been stated over and over, nobody cares if 9-12 is upset just as nobody cares about the bubble teams who were left out of the basketball tourney. The tournament isn't going to get larger because of this reason. I personally feel that any worries that it could expand beyond 8 anytime soon is completely unfounded.

[rekamrettuB]

LSU would have played Virginia Tech and oSu would have played Stanford.

Knowing that LSU would have probably beat V-Tech and that oSu lost to Stanford....the National Championship would have been LSU vs Stanford and LSU would have won another MNC with Lester at the helm. The only way it might have been different is if LSU played Stanford and oSu would have played V-Tech. Either way...I think LSU would have won and the only real change a 4 Team Playoff would have made is that it didn't allow two SEC Teams to play each other in the Title Game and that could be easily done without installing a playoff game and just letting the two Teams with the best BCS Ranking to play forall the marbles and make sure that they aren't from the same Conference. In last years case....Aggies would have gotten the biggest dream of their lives and they would have gotten to go to New Orleans and teabag a bunch of drunk LSU Fans in Hamburger joints on Bourbon Street after LSU had won another MNC.

Why would you let Stanford in? And not Bama or Oregon? Because they already played someone in the tourney?

[8timechamps]

We have the best regular season of any sport. Lets don't do anything to cheapen it.

Again, I don't understand this mentality. What exactly is going to be lost with the addition of a playoff?

[8timechamps]

And then when they expand to 8, 9-12 is gonna start bitching about being left out, and then the cycle will continue until about half the teams get into the post-season, in which we will realize that we solved absolutely nothing sans a convoluted playoff system with a meaningless regular season. We then wonder why we we didn't just keep it the way it was. :)

Isn't that the same thing that happens now? Didn't it happen before the BCS? The answer is "yes" to both questions. This argument (which I've heard a lot from anti-playoff folks) doesn't wash, as that has been the environment since the inception of a championship. There's always going to be a team or teams that think they should be higher in the computer poll, AP Poll, Coaches Poll, BCS Poll, or should be playing for a national title. Nothing new under the sun.

A playoff would, at the very least, make winning a championship in D1 football a realistic goal for all 120 teams.

I think people that are anti-playoff are really afraid of change, which I understand completely. However, if you stop and really think out the idea, you'll find that it makes much more sense than the current system.

[ashley]

A realistic goal for 120 teams, You have to be kidding. 105 know there is no chance now, six months before the season starts.

[8timechamps]

A realistic goal for 120 teams, You have to be kidding. 105 know there is no chance now, six months before the season starts.

Poor choice of words on my part. "Realistic" is the wrong word. Of course there are plenty of teams that know before the season starts that there isn't a likelihood of winning a title, but under the current system the odds are even worse. So, realistic? No. More likely they have a chance under a playoff? Yes.

You (and anyone else that thinks the same) still haven't enlightened us about what magical event is going to be lost by a playoff...or, better yet, how a playoff will cheapen the regular season.

[ouflak]

I agree completely 100% that we should not do anything to cheapen the regular season. I agree completely 100% that we should have a playoff of some kind in college football (and am looking forward to it).


There is no contradiction there. Unless I'm missing something that I've somehow managed to miss being a lifelong fan of both college football (no playoff at the moment) and college basketball (playoff at the moment).

[XingTheRubicon]

The number of NC's OU has won after losing to Nebraska, texas, or Osu...


0.


So there's a gut-wrenching feeling of all or nothing, especially in Dallas. A 16 or even 8 team playoff would destroy that. It just would.

[ouflak]

The number of NC's OU has won after losing to Nebraska, texas, or Osu...


0.


So there's a gut-wrenching feeling of all or nothing, especially in Dallas. A 16 or even 8 team playoff would destroy that. It just would.

Not for me it wouldn't! I don't care if we're playing for a shot at a national title playoff spot, or a ten dollar vCash bet on the side. I *always* want to beat Texas (and those other teams as well). If Texas' and OU's combined record is 0-8 going into the Red River Whatever-they-market-it-as-these-days, I still want to gut stomp them all over the field until the very last minute, and I will still feel gut-wrenched even if we just lose by one point in triple overtime after a dud effort. And I can't believe any other fan will really feel all that differently. Maybe I would feel different if we played 82 games a season and had a 68 team playoff or something, I don't know. It's really hard to imagine me or anybody devaluing any of our games. Not with the tightrope we have to walk sometimes just make it to our own conference championship game and a BCS bowl. A four or eight team playoff would be torture to get to unless you are suggesting that the landscape of college football has changed in some way (before my eyes) that you can just lose a key in-conference rivalry game and still expect to make the playoffs with ease without some major help from a couple of other season/conference opponents.

The only way I could see regular season games being somehow devalued is if the number of games we had to play increased dramatically, I'm thinking atleast 3-fold. And then if the playoff included so many marginal teams as to be ludicrous. Is that what is being suggested? Have I missed something?

[Curly Bill]

And then when they expand to 8, 9-12 is gonna start bitching about being left out, and then the cycle will continue until about half the teams get into the post-season, in which we will realize that we solved absolutely nothing sans a convoluted playoff system with a meaningless regular season. We then wonder why we we didn't just keep it the way it was. :)

YEP!

[Curly Bill]

Why don't we cross that bridge when we get there? You're essentially voting against any progress out of a fear that we'll go too far. That's an absurd way to look at it in my opinion.

And it's been stated over and over, nobody cares if 9-12 is upset just as nobody cares about the bubble teams who were left out of the basketball tourney. The tournament isn't going to get larger because of this reason. I personally feel that any worries that it could expand beyond 8 anytime soon is completely unfounded.

Then you don't understand human nature.

[MeMyself&Me]

Then you don't understand human nature.

I think it has more to do with the inability to learn from history.

[Curly Bill]

I think it has more to do with the inability to learn from history.

...and that too!

[XingTheRubicon]

Also, playoffs benefit the Boise st, texas, and Va Techs of the world that play sh*tty schedules and stay healthier. The blue bloods are often barely hanging on by December...remember 2000?

[ouflak]

... half the teams get into the post-season...

By the reasoning I'm seeing here, the regular season is already meaningless. If nobody here has noticed, half the teams in Division 1 already get into the post-season! Is OU/TX really that much less meaningless to all of you because of all the barely mediocre 6-6 teams getting into bowls? If yes, then you guys think way differently than I do. I could care less what happens in the HomeDepot.com bowl (or whatever senseless crap they are coming up with) and I never will let that affect my assessment of our regular season.

Even if we did go to some sort of presposterously sized playoff, it would still atleast let us to decide our champion on the field rather than the beauty contest we have going on now. Is the current system full of worthless bowl games really better than a playoff system full of worthless games? Heck I heard some muttering at the end of this season that they are considering some rules changes that might allow the occassional 5-7 team into a bowl! Ridiculous! This is better?

[MeMyself&Me]

By the reasoning I'm seeing here, the regular season is already meaningless. If nobody here has noticed, half the teams in Division 1 already get into the post-season! Is OU/TX really that much less meaningless to all of you because of all the barely mediocre 6-6 teams getting into bowls? If yes, then you guys think way differently than I do. I could care less what happens in the HomeDepot.com bowl (or whatever senseless crap they are coming up with) and I never will let that affect my assessment of our regular season.

Even if we did go to some sort of presposterously sized playoff, it would still atleast let us to decide our champion on the field rather than the beauty contest we have going on now. Is the current system full of worthless bowl games really better than a playoff system full of worthless games? Heck I heard some muttering at the end of this season that they are considering some rules changes that might allow the occassional 5-7 team into a bowl! Ridiculous! This is better?

I think you have that last part backwards. I think they're thinking of making it a requirement that a team is 7-5 to be bowl eligible. In any case, I like the regular season enough that I would much rather see them expand the regular season than to expand the post season in any way.

[8timechamps]

The number of NC's OU has won after losing to Nebraska, texas, or Osu...


0.


So there's a gut-wrenching feeling of all or nothing, especially in Dallas. A 16 or even 8 team playoff would destroy that. It just would.

Do you really think that a playoff would change anything about the atmosphere of the RRR? There is far more at stake in that game than who may go on to win a national title. There have also been many, many years that one (or both) teams were out of the hunt before the game was even played, and the atmosphere didn't change a bit.

Take a look at last year's top 16 (solely for the sake of illustration):




1 LSU 13-0
2 Alabama 11-1
3 Oklahoma State 11-1
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Oregon 11-2
6 Arkansas 10-2
7 Boise State 11-1
8 Kansas State 10-2
9 South Carolina 10-2
10 Wisconsin 11-2
11 Virginia Tech 11-2
12 Baylor 9-3
13 Michigan 10-2
14 Oklahoma 9-3
15 Clemson 10-3
16 Georgia 10-3

There are 4 teams with three losses in there (which I would say is typical of the final week BCS standings). So, the idea that a 5 or 6 loss team getting into a playoff is pretty far fetched. Also, there isn't a team in that top 16 that would be considered a "sham" or "pretender".

Again, everyone against playoff's want to talk about how it will cheapen the regular season, yet nobody can explain how. I think the majority of college football fans have come to this realization, and enough pressure is being put on the powers-that-be, that we are finally going to get some form of a playoff.

[8timechamps]

I think you have that last part backwards. I think they're thinking of making it a requirement that a team is 7-5 to be bowl eligible. In any case, I like the regular season enough that I would much rather see them expand the regular season than to expand the post season in any way.

No, there is talk about dropping the minimum win requirement to 5. But, we don't want to do anything to ruin this perfect setup.

[rekamrettuB]

No, there is talk about dropping the minimum win requirement to 5. But, we don't want to do anything to ruin this perfect setup.

Maybe be but someone had a post on here that said they want to up it to 7 and get rid of 5 or 6 bowls. Still be way too many but it's a start.

Honestly, I don't think the bowls, even if every team was eligible and there were 60+ bowl games, diminish the regular season because they are all meaningless except 1.

[8timechamps]

Maybe be but someone had a post on here that said they want to up it to 7 and get rid of 5 or 6 bowls. Still be way too many but it's a start.

Honestly, I don't think the bowls, even if every team was eligible and there were 60+ bowl games, diminish the regular season because they are all meaningless except 1.

I don't even remember where I read the initial story (ESPN I think). Nonetheless, I agree, the bowls are all meaningless (with the exception of one). I wouldn't mind if they did away with them entirely in addition to a playoff.

Bowl games and the bowl environment used to be more meaningful. When they were all packed in a couple of day span, and you had to have a couple of TVs to watch two at once. When the BCS took over, bowls started to spread out (remember when New Years Day was all about the bowl games?). Then the addition of even more meaningless bowls.

My take on the whole thing is that the addition of a playoff will not change anything about the regular season. As I mentioned a few posts back, if you look at things now, even though a team may have locked up a spot in their conference title game or outright won the conference, the level of play doesn't change. College football isn't, and never will be, the NFL.

[birddog]

We have the best regular season of any sport. Lets don't do anything to cheapen it.

yeah 36 bowls or whatever doesn't cheapen it at all.

[8timechamps]

yeah 36 bowls or whatever doesn't cheapen it at all.

Can you imagine all of the memories that would be lost if the Beef O'Brady Bowl didn't exist?!

[ashley]

yeah 36 bowls or whatever doesn't cheapen it at all.
This has nothing to with the regular season, and, if you don't like it you sure don't have to watch.

[8timechamps]

This has nothing to with the regular season, and, if you don't like it you sure don't have to watch.

LOL. That's your argument?!

[StoopTroup]

Why would you let Stanford in? And not Bama or Oregon? Because they already played someone in the tourney?

It was just an example and I used the Teams with the highest BCS Rating in week 14.

Good God....lets not try and argue about something that didn't happen....lol

[MeMyself&Me]

By the reasoning I'm seeing here, the regular season is already meaningless. If nobody here has noticed, half the teams in Division 1 already get into the post-season! Is OU/TX really that much less meaningless to all of you because of all the barely mediocre 6-6 teams getting into bowls? If yes, then you guys think way differently than I do. I could care less what happens in the HomeDepot.com bowl (or whatever senseless crap they are coming up with) and I never will let that affect my assessment of our regular season.

Even if we did go to some sort of presposterously sized playoff, it would still atleast let us to decide our champion on the field rather than the beauty contest we have going on now. Is the current system full of worthless bowl games really better than a playoff system full of worthless games? Heck I heard some muttering at the end of this season that they are considering some rules changes that might allow the occassional 5-7 team into a bowl! Ridiculous! This is better?


No, there is talk about dropping the minimum win requirement to 5. But, we don't want to do anything to ruin this perfect setup.

This is what I remember reading:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16996317/growing-belief-seven-wins-should-be-magic-number-for-bowl-eligibility

[jkjsooner]

Then you don't understand human nature.


I think it has more to do with the inability to learn from history.

What history are you referring to? Basketball? Sorry but you can pretty much double the basketball field with little or no effort or impact on student athletes. They could let 256 teams in without too much impact on student athletes. All it would take is one extra week and a couple of extra games. None of this can be said about football.

If basketball was so relevant to football, we would already be playing a large football tournament. Using the other sports as evidence of where college football is heading is misguided. If anything 100 years of history has proven this.

Introducing a 4 or 8 team playoff is not going to open the floodgates. To think that it would is ignoring history.

There are many reasons that those in power will limit the size of a football tournament:


They have expressed an interest in maintaining the importance of the regular season. Believe it or not, those in favor of a small playoff (including Delaney) have considered this.
They have expressed concern over the academic impact to student athletes. I think this is a B.S. argument myself considering football takes one away from academics less than just about any other sport but this is a concern of the Presidents / AD's.
Most importantly, they're concerned about the physical toll of extending the season more than one or two games would have on the student athlete. This concern is not going to go away. Furthermore, I think you would find that student athletes who may be heading to the NFL would be hesitant to play more than a couple of extra games.
I think there is interest in maintaining some decent bowl games. If you expand beyond 8 you would seriously jeopardize the major bowls.



BTW, all of these points could be used to argue against any sort of a playoff. The fact that these concerns are not going away means that any playoff in the forseeable future is going to be a compromise that balances the need to identify a champion on the field with these.

[MeMyself&Me]

What history are you referring to?

I could point out that just about every pro league tournament has expanded from it's original inception and FCS football has done the same if you want to limit the discussion to college football only. Which history would you rather remember?

[rekamrettuB]

These folks saying "bowls make regular season meaningless" have you ever left an OU game after a loss and thought "oh well, we can still go to a BCS game", then the next "we can still go to Cotton", then "we can still go to Insight" and feel the same about it every time? That's what I love about it now is wins and losses feel meaningful. I've never cuss as much as I do after an OU loss when my Falcons lose. I don't even tune into every Falcons game, especially early on. A playoff of any size would take a little sting out of those losses and the bigger it gets, and history has shown it will get bigger, the less sting there is.

[PrideMom]

Please give this topic a rest. A play off does not mean the best team wins it all. Look at Green Bay this year when they went undefeated until the play offs. All play offs do is give a team that finally is playing well a shot...but it does not mean that they are the best. Leave the BCS alone. It is better than what we had before the BCS. That is why Alabama proclaims they have 30 National Championships.......

[jkjsooner]

Please give this topic a rest. A play off does not mean the best team wins it all. Look at Green Bay this year when they went undefeated until the play offs. All play offs do is give a team that finally is playing well a shot...but it does not mean that they are the best. Leave the BCS alone. It is better than what we had before the BCS. That is why Alabama proclaims they have 30 National Championships.......

We're not going to give it a rest just because you disagree with us. You don't have a right to tell us when something isn't worth discussing. To think you do is the height of arrogance.

Your first mistake is assuming that the best team should win the championship. That is not true in any system. Every system tries to crown the most deserving team.

Where I think your reasoning fails is the idea that the winner of a post-season tournament isn't the most deserving. If we allowed 6-5 or 7-4 teams in the tournament then you would have an argument but that isn't going to be the case. In a 4 or 8 team field, at most you would have a couple of 2 loss teams. (That is assuming no automatic spots with conference winners which is pretty much a given with a 4 or 8 team field.)

I find it interesting that you all want to discount a team for a single loss early in the season but at the same time argue that a playoff loss is unfair and unrepresentative.

If a 1 loss OSU team beat Alabama and then LSU (or vice versa) would there be any doubt on who had the better season? Even if you viewed the tournament games as just an extension of the regular season, in this scenario you would be hard-pressed to argue that any team had a better season than OSU.


The current system is flawed because it's little more than a popularity contest. It's who the likes of Michael Wilbon thinks are the best two teams. It is too dependent on name recognition and initial impressions. For example, had we lost a game (say A&M) in 2000, the championship game would have been between Miami and FSU (or maybe Washington?). This would have had nothing at all to do with any of those teams being better or more deserving than us. It would have had everything to do with the impression of us going into the season.

I'm in favor of getting rid of human voting altogether. I don't think you need complex computer algorithms to do this. You can do it with a fairly simple power rankings using wins, losses, and some simple SOS compenent. However, the only possible way we could get rid of human voting is for the field to be expanded. Nobody is going to trust a power ranking to pick the top 2. They may trust the power ranking to pick the top 4 or 8 though.

[MeMyself&Me]

Your preference only seems less flawed to you because it's what you want and are not willing to considering anything beyond the shiny looking post season tournament. Nothing more than that.

[8timechamps]

These folks saying "bowls make regular season meaningless" have you ever left an OU game after a loss and thought "oh well, we can still go to a BCS game", then the next "we can still go to Cotton", then "we can still go to Insight" and feel the same about it every time? That's what I love about it now is wins and losses feel meaningful. I've never cuss as much as I do after an OU loss when my Falcons lose. I don't even tune into every Falcons game, especially early on. A playoff of any size would take a little sting out of those losses and the bigger it gets, and history has shown it will get bigger, the less sting there is.

While I completely understand your reasoning, college football (even with a playoff) will never be what the NFL is with a playoff. In other words, the addition of a playoff isn't going to do anything to change the regular season.

Going to a BCS bowl is a nice component of having a good season (but not making the title game), but that environment was created by the BCS. There are 4 BCS bowl games, plus the title game. There are already 10 teams fighting to get into 5 games. A playoff (even a 16 team playoff) would "feel" very much the same. The benefit being the possibility of winning it all.

Seeding will be a very big deal in a football playoff, so teams will continue to have motivation to win as many games as possible. For the teams in the middle down (8-16), it will be even more crucial to win, or face the possibility that they get no home playoff games.

The "sting" of a loss was taken out of the regular season when the BCS was formed. A playoff isn't going to do anything to decrease the pain of losing a regular season game.

[XingTheRubicon]

Ohio St is #2 in late November with some dinged up players. With an 8 team playoff, OSU is assured a spot win or lose their last game.

OSU plays back-ups like the Colts did a couple years ago, but no one cared because the NFL regular season is worthless anyway.

Ohio St/Michigan: exhibition game.



Thanks, but no.

[jkjsooner]

Was Ohio State / Michigan an exhibition game this year? Win or loss it had no impact on the national title.

Anyway wouldn't you think OSU would want home field advantage not to mention pride and Big 10 considerations...

[PLaw]

I like 16.

Ideally, I would like to see 10 conference champs from 12 team conferences (provided they are in the BCS top 25) and 6 at large bids to the next highest ranked teams largely based on SOS. Sadly, it looks like we are headed to mega conferneces.

BOOMER

[XingTheRubicon]

Was Ohio State / Michigan an exhibition game this year? Win or loss it had no impact on the national title.

Anyway wouldn't you think OSU would want home field advantage not to mention pride and Big 10 considerations...


If they're rated 1 or 2, then it is possible that they would be projected to have no chance to slip past #4 if they lost. Still have home field, still win the Big 10...win or lose.

AND they are more motivated than ever to preserve health because they have THREE more games to play.

Top ranked team playing their rival in final game of the year = meaningless. hurray.


Some of you are just short-sighted. You'll see in due time.

[MeMyself&Me]

Was Ohio State / Michigan an exhibition game this year? Win or loss it had no impact on the national title.

Anyway wouldn't you think OSU would want home field advantage not to mention pride and Big 10 considerations...

You're oversimplifying it. If neither team is in the running for the national championship then they are both playing to win for the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever you want to pin it on. Both sides are playing to win.

In the scenario presented, one team is preserving its chances at a national title (which trumphs all those other things) by resting their stars and the other teams is playing for the win because all that matters to them is the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever. There more to college football than just the national championship.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[StoopTroup]

Maybe be but someone had a post on here that said they want to up it to 7 and get rid of 5 or 6 bowls. Still be way too many but it's a start.

Honestly, I don't think the bowls, even if every team was eligible and there were 60+ bowl games, diminish the regular season because they are all meaningless except 1.
But having more than one post season game by having a playoff diminishes the idea of a team playing their *** off to be undefeated or a one loss Conference champion and playing for the National Championship. If we are going to add these playoff games, I think we need to allow more kids to have Scholarships and even more players on the Team to cover for injuries and screw ups who think they can quit going to class after having a decent Season.

[PDXsooner]

Let's have a 117 team tournament and just five everyone a crystal ball. Would that stop the whining? No? Good. Then let's have a 4 team plus one and call it a day.

[8timechamps]

Ohio St is #2 in late November with some dinged up players. With an 8 team playoff, OSU is assured a spot win or lose their last game.

OSU plays back-ups like the Colts did a couple years ago, but no one cared because the NFL regular season is worthless anyway.

Ohio St/Michigan: exhibition game.



Thanks, but no.

This is a myth. There have been NUMEROUS opportunities for college teams to play back-ups (best example: SEC Championship game last season), and it just doesn't happen.

The idea that college football will turn into the NFL because of a playoff is just crazy. It's a myth that was perpetrated by the BCS cartel. There are a host of reasons that NFL players are benched after sewing up a playoff spot, and none of them will apply to college football.

Think about it, do you honestly think Stoops or Gundy would sit players for the bedlam game? No. And there is no way anyone else will either.

[8timechamps]

If they're rated 1 or 2, then it is possible that they would be projected to have no chance to slip past #4 if they lost. Still have home field, still win the Big 10...win or lose.

AND they are more motivated than ever to preserve health because they have THREE more games to play.

Top ranked team playing their rival in final game of the year = meaningless. hurray.


Some of you are just short-sighted. You'll see in due time.

When the addition of conference championship games came about, there was talk that this exact thing would happen. It didn't. What makes college football great is that every game means something. That will not change.

If it was going to change, it would have already happened. We all know by the first BCS standings that there are maybe 10-12 teams realistically in the hunt. Does that make every game played by all the other 110 teams meaningless? Hell no.

What is short sighted is fearing change. In the end, that's all the anti-playoff folks can really argue. I get it, I was worried when the BCS was formed, but in time, it became the norm. Playoffs work for EVERY OTHER SPORT in the world, do you really think adding them to D1 college football is going to change anything? C'mon, I know you are much smarter than that.

[8timechamps]

You're oversimplifying it. If neither team is in the running for the national championship then they are both playing to win for the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever you want to pin it on. Both sides are playing to win.

In the scenario presented, one team is preserving its chances at a national title (which trumphs all those other things) by resting their stars and the other teams is playing for the win because all that matters to them is the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever. There more to college football than just the national championship.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

Rivalry, state pride, tradition, etc. doesn't dissolve because a playoff is introduced. In effect, we already have a pseudo playoff with the conference championship games. And, nothing has changed with the games. Like I mentioned above, if what you're proposing will happen was really going to happen, it already would have. There's been plenty of opportunities for it, most recently being the 2011 SEC championship game.

[rekamrettuB]

Let's have a 117 team tournament and just five everyone a crystal ball. Would that stop the whining? No? Good. Then let's have a 4 team plus one and call it a day.

So you want a +1 and not a 4 team playoff?

[8timechamps]

So you want a +1 and not a 4 team playoff?

Isn't that the same thing?

[Sooner95]

One cannot predict the circumstances of past games based on scenarios that did not exist.

To predict what a team WOULD have done because of a POSSIBLE playoff birth is worthless. To many factors to consider and pointless to speculate.

[ashley]

We may be more likely to get the best two teams in the finals with a 4 team playoff than with a 16 team playoff. Think about it.

[8timechamps]

We may be more likely to get the best two teams in the finals with a 4 team playoff than with a 16 team playoff. Think about it.

That's a decent point. And the point where I am not sure what is best. A 4 team playoff statistically would give us the best two teams in the final, but there's always a chance it will leave out a team that should be there. I'm not sold on what number is best for a playoff, but you make a good point.

[ashley]

Let's have a 117 team tournament and just five everyone a crystal ball. Would that stop the whining? No? Good. Then let's have a 4 team plus one and call it a day.

Yes.

[rekamrettuB]

Isn't that the same thing?

Nope. Not even close. A +1 is a re-ranking after the bowls and 1 and 2 play each other. Everyone has began using this phrase to describe a seeded playoff so they don't have to use the term "playoff". Why anyone uses the term +1 when describing a 4 team seeded playoff is beyond me. Does the NFL call their postseason a +11?

[jkjsooner]

You're oversimplifying it. If neither team is in the running for the national championship then they are both playing to win for the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever you want to pin it on. Both sides are playing to win.

In the scenario presented, one team is preserving its chances at a national title (which trumphs all those other things) by resting their stars and the other teams is playing for the win because all that matters to them is the rivalry, state pride, tradition, or whatever. There more to college football than just the national championship.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

First, I will point out that most scenarios that are truly considered legitimate only have one neutral site game. That means only two teams would get the home field advantage throughout the playoff. Rarely would a team be able to lose so late and retain the #1 or #2 seeding. And if that can happen it can happen today where we have a two team playoff.

In addition, you have to consider that the OSU / Michigan game isn't the last game before the playoffs if conferences retain their conference championship games. OSU wouldn't throw the Michigan game because there's no guarantee they'll win the conference championship game. A loss in both would probably knock them completely out of the playoffs.

If you want to argue a team throwing the conference championship game then you basically have our 2003 situation. We might have thrown that game by our poor play but we definitely didn't sit our best players and blow it off. (Maybe you argue we should have and saved White's health. That's fine but that argument would support my point that such a scenario is almost as likely today as it will be with a playoff.)

No matter how you slice it, it's hard to come up with a scenario where a team will sit its best players without agreeing that an equally probable scenario could exist today unless you think a team doesn't care about seeding or home field advantage.


Using the NFL example, I've never seen a team hold out its starters until home field was locked up. No matter whether there was a playoff or just a Super Bowl with the top NFC and AFC team, starters would have been sat out in the exact same games.


All this ignores the fact that there is still a lot of pride in a OSU / Michigan game.

[jkjsooner]

Nope. Not even close. A +1 is a re-ranking after the bowls and 1 and 2 play each other. Everyone has began using this phrase to describe a seeded playoff so they don't have to use the term "playoff". Why anyone uses the term +1 when describing a 4 team seeded playoff is beyond me. Does the NFL call their postseason a +11?

We may be arguing semantics and the history of the "+1" term but it has been used over the last few years to represent both scenarios.

The +1 scenario that involves playing a normal bowl game and then a championship game by a BCS type calculation is an absurd alternative in my opinion. It doesn't resolve the real problems that exist today. You could still easily end up with three very good undefeated teams after the bowls. In addition, it would encourage teams to play lesser bowl opponents.

Some years that extra game might make the national title picture more clear. In other years it might actually make it more murky. All in all it's just a bad proposition and is ultimately highly inferior to a four team playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

We may be arguing semantics and the history of the "+1" term but it has been used over the last few years to represent both scenarios.

The +1 scenario that involves playing a normal bowl game and then a championship game by a BCS type calculation is an absurd alternative in my opinion. It doesn't resolve the real problems that exist today. You could still easily end up with three very good undefeated teams after the bowls. In addition, it would encourage teams to play lesser bowl opponents.

Some years that extra game might make the national title picture more clear. In other years it might actually make it more murky. All in all it's just a bad proposition and is ultimately highly inferior to a four team playoff.

While I'll agree that a +1 doesn't really change anything, the only reason you see it as inferior is because you want a tournament to decide what you call a champion.


I would rather expand the regular season, than expand the post season.

[Scott D]

I'm good with any idea, because most simply put, people will eventually clamor for more and more, and eventually college football will be turned into the same joke that college basketball is. And they'll never accept the blame for their shortsightedness.

[jkjsooner]

I'm good with any idea, because most simply put, people will eventually clamor for more and more, and eventually college football will be turned into the same joke that college basketball is. And they'll never accept the blame for their shortsightedness.

Disagree. I know anti-playoff guys don't get it but even playoff proponents recognize the uniqueness of the college footballl regular season and strive to maintain it. That sentiment isn't going to disappear just because we add two or six teams to the playoff.

Again I say let's cross that bridge when we get there. Let's not fail to make improvements just because of some irrational fear that these improvements will move us down some slippery slope.

[jkjsooner]

While I'll agree that a +1 doesn't really change anything, the only reason you see it as inferior is because you want a tournament to decide what you call a champion.

Forgive me for thinking that every team should start the season with an opportunity to win a championship.

[Curly Bill]

I'm good with any idea, because most simply put, people will eventually clamor for more and more, and eventually college football will be turned into the same joke that college basketball is. And they'll never accept the blame for their shortsightedness.

What this guy said^^^^^^^^!!!!!!

[Curly Bill]

Disagree. I know anti-playoff guys don't get it but even playoff proponents recognize the uniqueness of the college footballl regular season and strive to maintain it. That sentiment isn't going to disappear just because we add two or six teams to the playoff.

Again I say let's cross that bridge when we get there. Let's not fail to make improvements just because of some irrational fear that these improvements will move us down some slippery slope.

Playoff expansion has happened in every other sport that has them, to think the same would happen with D-1 football is something you might not agree with, but it is anything but irrational.

[jkjsooner]

Playoff expansion has happened in every other sport that has them, to think the same would happen with D-1 football is something you might not agree with, but it is anything but irrational.

No other sport (or any other division of college football) has ever valued the regular season like D1A football. That sentiment isn't going to simply disappear. Even guys in power like the Big 10 commissioner have stated this.

If all other sports were so relevant to college football then we would have had a playoff long ago.

There is a tipping point where expansion would essentially destroy what we love about college football. Almost everyone recognizes this and it's misguided to think this isn't going to factor into their decision making. Some of it is beside the point because I think there are too many other reasons (athletes health, academics, etc.) that would prevent us from reaching that tipping point.


I can promise you if we had an 8 team playoff and someone wanted to expand it to 16 teams I would boisterous in my opposition. (I could live with 12 teams but prefer less.) I'm not alone. In fact, I'm sure most anti-playoff proponents would side with me and a large majority of playoff proponents would as well. Clearly the Big 10 commissioner would as well. There is always goign to be much resistance to expansion and it's always going to be higher than you would have in any other sport.

[MeMyself&Me]

Let's not fail to make improvements just because of some irrational fear that these improvements will move us down some slippery slope.

That's just it. We don't see it as an improvement.


Forgive me for thinking that every team should start the season with an opportunity to win a championship.

Every team does have a chance to win a championship but it takes a smart scheduler and generally takes more than one season to get there. If lesser programs programs think your way is better for them, there is another subdivision for that.


I would rather expand the regular season that expand the post season.

[MeMyself&Me]

Even guys in power like the Big 10 commissioner have stated this.

He also has stated in the past that a tournament would never happen... yet here we are, talking about expanding from 2 to 4.

[jkjsooner]

That's just it. We don't see it as an improvement.

That's fine then make that argument. Frankly, Scott and Curly didn't even express their opinions on the matter - at least not in the last two pages.

My statement that the slippery slope argument is a poor rationale for not moving in a direction that might yield a better system does not hinge on the fact that you feel that any playoff system is better than what we have now. I was making no specific argument about the merits of a four team playoff.

If you think the slippery slope argument stands on its own then my comment is relevant whether you like a small playoff or not.

If you don't think the slippery slope argument stands on its own but instead only amplifies other anti-playoff arguments then you should have stated that.


To summarize:

1. Let's say you think the slippery slope argument stands on its own. That implies that if I were to come up with some playoff system that even you agree would be beneficial you would still be against it because of the inevitable playoff expansion. I'd argue that this is a stupid stance.

2. If you don't think the slippery slope argument stands on its own then I'd say that your recent posts suggest otherwise.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's fine then make that argument. You weren't making that argument the last few posts. You were making a slippery slope argument and that is what I was responding to. My point was to state that if this is your entire argument I think it is a weak rationale for not making a change.

You seem to be moving the goalposts on me. You're happy to argue the slippery slope argument but then when convenient you'll go back to stating that you're against any playoff.

Do you think the slippery slope argument stands on its own or not?

I've been consistent in saying I don't prefer any tournament. And I've been consistent in pointing out to people on both sides of the argument that their position is a matter preference. And I've been consistent in pointing out to people on both sides of the argument when they're making a weak statement or skipping over certain points to support their agenda. I don't know how that's moving the goal posts.

Meanwhile, you've been pretty consistent in oversimplifying circumstances to support your preferred model and pretty consistent at ignoring historical examples that don't support your preferred model.

I've said several times, the biggest reason for me to not want to see a 4 team tournament is it seems that the only tournament proponents I've seen like it simply because it's a 'step' in the direction they prefer. Not because they actually like it. Non-tournament people only like it because it's not as obscene as a 16 team tournament (or whatever the stopping point these 'step' people want it to be).


I'd rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

I've been consistent in saying I don't prefer any tournament. And I've been consistent in pointing out to people on both sides of the argument that their position is a matter preference. And I've been consistent in pointing out to people on both sides of the argument when they're making a weak statement or skipping over certain points to support their agenda. I don't know how that's moving the goal posts.

Sorry I changed my post since you quoted me. I was having trouble expressing my thoughts.

I wasn't stating that you didn't make your anti-playoff preference known or that you would like a small playoff.

I was simply stating that your recent posts (and definitely Curly and Scott's posts) seem to imply that the inevitable expansion argument is self sufficient. That would suggest that you would be against a change that even you would view as an improvement because it might lead to more destructive changes. My point was that I think this is a poor rationale for not making an improvement.


Meanwhile, you've been pretty consistent in oversimplifying circumstances to support your preferred model and pretty consistent at ignoring historical examples that don't support your preferred model.

That's not true at all. I've stated very clearly why I think your comparison between other sports and D1A football isn't relevant. I'm not oversimplifying anything. If anything you are. You flat out refuse to admit that playoff proponents want to preserve the integrity of the regular season just as much as playoff opponets. You also argue on the one hand that D1A football is unique while on the other hand argue that the example of other sports applies directly to D1A football.

I suppose you think that D1A football is only unique because we don't have a playoff. I think it is much more complex than that. Adding a playoff isn't going to change everyone's perception of D1A football or its regular season.


I've said several times, the biggest reason for me to not want to see a 4 team tournament is it seems that the only tournament proponents I've seen like it simply because it's a 'step' in the direction they prefer.

There is some truth to this but I guarantee you for most of them the direction they prefer extends no further than 8 or 12 teams.

I personally want 8 teams in the playoff so I would be in the camp of those who feel that a four team playoff is a step in the right direction. But if we did have four teams I'd probably spend little effort arguing for an eight team playoff as I think the benefit of 8 over 4 is much less than the benefit of 4 over 2.

I agree if you feel that an 8 team playoff is a horrible thing then you probably don't want a four team playoff as it very well might lead to an 8 team playoff. If you're worried about it expanding to 16 teams then I think you're underestimating the resistence that would exist for such a move.

The ones like Mike Leach who propose some huge tournament are by far the minority.

[rekamrettuB]

We may be arguing semantics and the history of the "+1" term but it has been used over the last few years to represent both scenarios.

The +1 scenario that involves playing a normal bowl game and then a championship game by a BCS type calculation is an absurd alternative in my opinion. It doesn't resolve the real problems that exist today. You could still easily end up with three very good undefeated teams after the bowls. In addition, it would encourage teams to play lesser bowl opponents.

Some years that extra game might make the national title picture more clear. In other years it might actually make it more murky. All in all it's just a bad proposition and is ultimately highly inferior to a four team playoff.

Exactly...so quit using the term. If you want a playoff, call it that. Don't be scared.

[MeMyself&Me]

Sorry I changed my post since you quoted me. I was having trouble expressing my thoughts.

I wasn't stating that you didn't make your anti-playoff preference known or that you would like a small playoff.

I was simply stating that your recent posts (and definitely Curly and Scott's posts) seem to imply that the inevitable expansion argument is self sufficient. That would suggest that you would be against a change that even you would view as an improvement because it might lead to more destructive changes. My point was that I think this is a poor rationale for not making an improvement.



That's not true at all. I've stated very clearly why I think your comparison between other sports and D1A football isn't relevant. I'm not oversimplifying anything. If anything you are by on the one hand arguing that D1A football is unique while on the other hand arguing that the example of other sports applies directly to D1A football.

I suppose you think that D1A football is only unique because we don't have a playoff. I think it is much more complex than that. Adding a playoff isn't going to change everyone's perception of D1A football or its regular season.



There is some truth to this but I guarantee you for mostof them the direction they prefer extends no further than 8 or 12 teams.

I personally want 8 teams in the playoff so I would be in the camp of those who feel that a four team playoff is a step in the right direction. But if we did have four teams I'd probably spend little effort arguing for an eight team playoff as I think the benefit of 8 over 4 is much less than the benefit of 4 over 2.

I agree if you feel that an 8 team playoff is a horrible thing then you probably don't want a four team playoff. If you're worried about it expanding to 16 teams then I think you're underestimating the resistence that would exist for such a move.

The ones like Mike Leach who propose some huge tournament are by far the minority.

I never said a 4 team tournament was an improvement. I actually only think it would be tolerable if that was as far as it went but even you want it to go to 8 and history suggests that it will expand further than that. There is no precedent that indicates that it won't. People like Delany (your example) that don't want it to go further right now will change their minds at some point just like Delany didn't want it to go further than 2 just a couple of months ago.

An expanded post season tournament will change the balance of what determines a champion. There's no doubt in that would you say? We've already seen that a 2 team tournament changes the balance quite a bit in some years. If you stack up all of LSU's resume and Alabama's resume this past year, LSU risked more and did more than Alabama but performed worse in the post season for that one reason, and Alabama is champs and not LSU. Do you not think that will happen more often in an expanded tournament and with even lesser deserving teams (keep in mind the distinction between 'deserving' and 'best')? Those of us that do not want a post season tournament prefer the regular season to carry the weight and we aren't bothered by the mess nearly as much as you. College football doesn't need to look like the NFL.


I would much rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[MeMyself&Me]

Exactly...so quit using the term. If you want a playoff, call it that. Don't be scared.

Or better yet, quit calling what you want a playoff. Call it what it is, a tournament. Playoff implies you're breaking a tie which was what the original NFL playoff was, an ad hoc one game tie breaker. They made enough money to do it every year, then expanded on it to make more money and never stopped calling it a playoff for whatever reason. There is no 'tie breaking' in the current 'playoff' talks.

[rekamrettuB]

Or better yet, quit calling what you want a playoff. Call it what it is, a tournament. Playoff implies you're breaking a tie which was what the original NFL playoff was, an ad hoc one game tie breaker. They made enough money to do it every year, then expanded on it to make more money and never stopped calling it a playoff for whatever reason. There is no 'tie breaking' in the current 'playoff' talks.

Sounds good to me. And the bolded part, as many including myself have pointed out, is why this tournament will expand further than 4 and further than 8 no matter who opposes it.

[8timechamps]

Nope. Not even close. A +1 is a re-ranking after the bowls and 1 and 2 play each other. Everyone has began using this phrase to describe a seeded playoff so they don't have to use the term "playoff". Why anyone uses the term +1 when describing a 4 team seeded playoff is beyond me. Does the NFL call their postseason a +11?

I've not heard that explained, thus the question. Thank you.

I'm for a playoff. Preferably a 16 team playoff.

If someone on the anti-playoff side could present an argument as to why it's a bad thing, I'd listen. I've just not heard anything other than fear of change.

[SoonerorLater]

That's just it. We don't see it as an improvement.



Every team does have a chance to win a championship but it takes a smart scheduler and generally takes more than one season to get there. If lesser programs programs think your way is better for them, there is another subdivision for that.


I would rather expand the regular season that expand the post season.


Amen. I can't understand why there are so many people that want a playoff. To what end? Why?

[8timechamps]

Amen. I can't understand why there are so many people that want a playoff. To what end? Why?

It's simple enough for me. I want the champion decided on the field. Not by someone telling me who should be in the championship game. No other sport does it that way, D1 college football shouldn't either.

Now, someone please tell me why there are so many people opposed to a playoff, I can't understand it.

[Scott D]

It's simple enough for me. I want the champion decided on the field. Not by someone telling me who should be in the championship game. No other sport does it that way, D1 college football shouldn't either.

Now, someone please tell me why there are so many people opposed to a playoff, I can't understand it.

in sports with division champions, it's argued that some division champions are less worthy than teams with better records in stronger divisions. Truthfully I think Baseball is the perfect example in regards to the playoff mentality with CFB.

Once upon a time it was good enough that the two teams with the best record in each leagued played for the right to be called "World Champion". Then they expanded and it became Four teams playing for the right...then more expansion and realignment and 4 became 8 including wildcards...now 8 is about to become 10.

Anyone who doesn't think that once the playoff pandora's box is open will turn into an expansion based money grab is deluding themselves. Get enough teams in, and it's inevitable the season gets depreciated. Would anyone seriously want a college team that had a record like the Giants being named National Champion? A team that couldn't get out of it's own way in "non conference" play, but managed to pull together enough to win it's conference and somehow ended up with favorable matchups in a playoff that they barely made it into?

I understand the mindset of "yeah a 4 team playoff is what we need, and it will work" I really do. However, you people aren't the ones looking at the impeding $$$ that those who have the power to change things do. That is where a pristine 4 team model is only a short term thing. Eventually the money will be too much to resist when it comes to increasing it. Really the only thing that could even have a shot at keeping a CFB playoff limited to 4 teams would be a massive redefining of what qualifies to be a team in D-1A so that the midmajors would fall by the wayside and be in a D-1A2 where they'd have the bowls to replace the fact that they didn't meet the requirements for major D1-A football. And you can be damned sure they're not going to go down without a fight in that regard.

[SoonerorLater]

It's simple enough for me. I want the champion decided on the field. Not by someone telling me who should be in the championship game. No other sport does it that way, D1 college football shouldn't either.

Now, someone please tell me why there are so many people opposed to a playoff, I can't understand it.


It is decided on the field. This year Alabama defeated LSU for the National Championship. The fact that no other sport does it that way is just testament to the strength of the present system because College Football is far and away the most interesting sports season. Why would you want to emulate a lesser sport? College Football just does not lend itself to a playoff for many reasons. Leave it alone. I've seen sport after sport kill the goose that laid the golden egg, always with the thought of bigger and better.

[8timechamps]

in sports with division champions, it's argued that some division champions are less worthy than teams with better records in stronger divisions. Truthfully I think Baseball is the perfect example in regards to the playoff mentality with CFB.

Once upon a time it was good enough that the two teams with the best record in each leagued played for the right to be called "World Champion". Then they expanded and it became Four teams playing for the right...then more expansion and realignment and 4 became 8 including wildcards...now 8 is about to become 10.

Anyone who doesn't think that once the playoff pandora's box is open will turn into an expansion based money grab is deluding themselves. Get enough teams in, and it's inevitable the season gets depreciated. Would anyone seriously want a college team that had a record like the Giants being named National Champion? A team that couldn't get out of it's own way in "non conference" play, but managed to pull together enough to win it's conference and somehow ended up with favorable matchups in a playoff that they barely made it into?

I understand the mindset of "yeah a 4 team playoff is what we need, and it will work" I really do. However, you people aren't the ones looking at the impeding $$$ that those who have the power to change things do. That is where a pristine 4 team model is only a short term thing. Eventually the money will be too much to resist when it comes to increasing it. Really the only thing that could even have a shot at keeping a CFB playoff limited to 4 teams would be a massive redefining of what qualifies to be a team in D-1A so that the midmajors would fall by the wayside and be in a D-1A2 where they'd have the bowls to replace the fact that they didn't meet the requirements for major D1-A football. And you can be damned sure they're not going to go down without a fight in that regard.

I can't argue that once the box is opened, there won't be changes. And I also can't argue that it will be driven by money. What I can say is that the sport is already driven by money. Once upon a time, there were real bowl games, and although they were money driven, they weren't a facade of a "championship" system. And I don't know that it's even the BCS' fault, as the increasing availability of television coverage lead to the money hunt we see now.

What I'm saying is that CFB is already a money hunt. There is nothing that can/will be done to change that. As for what number works best for a playoff, I like 16, but I know many other playoff supporters that favor 4 or 8. The point, for me, isn't to push for X number of teams in a playoff, it's to push for a playoff period.

[8timechamps]

It is decided on the field. This year Alabama defeated LSU for the National Championship. The fact that no other sport does it that way is just testament to the strength of the present system because College Football is far and away the most interesting sports season. Why would you want to emulate a lesser sport? College Football just does not lend itself to a playoff for many reasons. Leave it alone. I've seen sport after sport kill the goose that laid the golden egg, always with the thought of bigger and better.

You're correct, Alabama defeated LSU, and that makes Alabama the undisputed national champion. Unless you ask LSU fans. Seeing how LSU already beat Alabama once, it's probably hard for the LSU fans to accept Bama as the national champion. And rightly so. Also, doesn't OSU have a beef with the system? What about Stanford? Regardless of whether or not you agree with this years champion, it's clear that the system in place is very flawed. Why would you want to "leave it alone"?

It's fear of change. I've said it many times, and I believe that to be true. Anti-playoff folks can never say why a playoff would 'ruin' college football, just that it would. Do you not realize that a playoff system was put into place with the addition of the first conference championship game? And guess what? College football wasn't ruined. If anything, we (as fans) were given a reason to watch conference games for conferences we probably wouldn't have really been too interested in.

If college football doesn't lend itself to a playoff, someone should tell the D2, D3 and NAIA teams/fans. It seems to be lending itself to playoffs pretty well.

I would really like to hear a valid reason as to why playoffs would ruin college football. You say you've seen sport after sport killed with the thought of bigger and better, yet I cannot think of a single sport that was ruined with the addition of a playoff.

I just want to hear a definitive reason why a playoff would destroy college football, because I can't think of a single one. I was an anti-playoff guy for years. I read a book that changed my entire perspective on the issue. So, I do have some experience in the other camp, and I could never come up with a reason why I shouldn't support a playoff. As a Sooner fan, I love the thought even more, but that really has no bearing on my support of a playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

No other sport does it that way...

Now, someone please tell me why there are so many people opposed to a playoff, I can't understand it.

Looks like you answered that one for yourself. Many people prefer college football to any other sport. We don't want it to look like the other sports.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[8timechamps]

Looks like you answered that one for yourself. Many people prefer college football to any other sport. We don't want it to look like the other sports.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

I prefer CFB to any other sport, but that doesn't mean I oppose changes. College football is much, much bigger than the national champion. It's the traditions, the rivalries, the recruiting, the locations, the feeling you get on game-day, etc. That's what makes college football so different. A playoff would not change any of that. Not one bit.

What a playoff would do, is provide the fans with a logical conclusion to the season. To see a championship decided on the field.

[ouwasp]

I've been pro-playoff ever since OU finished #3 for three consecutive yrs, I think it was 78, 79, 80...

In my view, 8 would be the "good" number. Keep the podunk bowls for the 7-5 teams. Whatever formula is used to determine the "in" teams, I hope strength-of-schedule is part of it.

[TrueBornSooner]

I'm in favor of a four-team. There's seldom a debate about whether a 7th ranked team is good enough.

They could even do it now with re existing system with little tweaking. Have round 1 around Christmas - few people pay attention to the lesser bowls then so it could increase viewership. Then out the Championship around the 7th. Two weeks to prep. Only two teams are impacted by the slightly longer season.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The Giants won the super bowl with a 9-7 regular season record.

A playoff needs to include all teams with winning records.

[Scott D]

The Giants won the super bowl with a 9-7 regular season record.

A playoff needs to include all teams with winning records.

The Giants are the best reason there should never be a playoff in D-1A CFB.

[TrueBornSooner]

The Giants are the best reason there should never be a playoff in D-1A CFB.
Exactly. No one questions that the Patriots were the better team that year, but that day it was the Giants. If we have a playoff with too many teams, the regular season will be rendered less important. That's also why I only want four teams in a playoff. That still leaves little margin for error during the regular season.

[jkjsooner]

Exactly...so quit using the term. If you want a playoff, call it that. Don't be scared.

I don't think I have used the "+1" term to describe a four team playoff. I know I've used the term "four team playoff" quite a lot.

I agree with you about the original meaning of +1 but I think we've lost that semantic debate.

[jkjsooner]

Or better yet, quit calling what you want a playoff. Call it what it is, a tournament. Playoff implies you're breaking a tie which was what the original NFL playoff was, an ad hoc one game tie breaker. They made enough money to do it every year, then expanded on it to make more money and never stopped calling it a playoff for whatever reason. There is no 'tie breaking' in the current 'playoff' talks.

We've gone through this before. From Merriam Webster.

Definition of PLAY-OFF
1: a final contest or series of contests to determine the winner between contestants or teams that have tied
2: a series of contests played after the end of the regular season to determine a championship —often used in plural


I'm sure you're right in that the word originally appeard to be definition #1 but that has long changed.


I suppose you hate it when people use the term gridlock to refer to general traffic congestion rather than its original meaning of a very specific problems where traffic in a grid pattern gets locked up because people stopped inside the intersection.

Guess what? The meaning of words change over time. It always has and it always will.

[jkjsooner]

It is decided on the field. This year Alabama defeated LSU for the National Championship. The fact that no other sport does it that way is just testament to the strength of the present system because College Football is far and away the most interesting sports season. Why would you want to emulate a lesser sport? College Football just does not lend itself to a playoff for many reasons. Leave it alone. I've seen sport after sport kill the goose that laid the golden egg, always with the thought of bigger and better.

Was it decided on the field in 2004/2005? What about all of those years where we had multiple one loss teams and we chose two from a hat to play for the title?

Any time reporters have a major say in who gets to play for a championship then the system is broken in my opinion. Over the years the BCS has removed or reduced the quality wins, SOS, and computer component from it's equations in favor of giving the human polls more and more influence.

With a few more teams in a playoff there's a real chance that we could remove human voters altogether as the impact of any anomoly caused by a purely objective system would be reduced. Even if we kept the human polls, their influence on who is the ultimate champion would be reduced.


I have three main reasons I want a playoff:

1. Remove or reduce the importance of biased human polls.
2. Have a system where every team has at least some chance of winning a championship. (Someone earlier said that non power conference teams have a chance but it may require a multiple year effort. Such an absurdity in itself is a reason to oppose the current sytem..)
3. Make sure that teams that did have championship caliber seasons always get the chance to play for the championship.


Sorry, guys, but one day OU will go undefeated and get left out. I can promise you many of you will change your tunes when that happens. Frankly, if there would have been three undefeated teams in 2005 and if we were one of them those in power would have done everything they could to keep us out after we laid the egg against USC.

[jkjsooner]

I'm kind of surprised no anti-playoff person has brought up the following point.

We have 7 national titles. These are by and large viewed as legitimate. However, let's say we instituted a playoff tomorrow. Our national titles would still be viewed as legitimate for the time being. Fast forward 30 years. Do you think the next generations will view pre-playoff national titles with the same legitimacy as we do today?

That's the only drawback in my opinion.

[SoonerPride]

I have three main reasons I want a playoff:

1. Remove or reduce the importance of biased human polls.
2. Have a system where every team has at least some chance of winning a championship. (Someone earlier said that non power conference teams have a chance but it may require a multiple year effort. Such an absurdity in itself is a reason to oppose the current sytem..)
3. Make sure that teams that did have championship caliber seasons always get the chance to play for the championship.



1. You can do that now without having a post season tournament. Remove human polls and use computers only.

2. Every team has an equal record at the start of the season. All they have to do is play a quality schedule and go undefeated.

3. That already is the case.

[SoonerPride]

I'm kind of surprised no anti-playoff person has brought up the following point.

We have 7 national titles. These are by and large viewed as legitimate. However, let's say we instituted a playoff tomorrow. Our national titles would still be viewed as legitimate for the time being. Fast forward 30 years. Do you think the next generations will view pre-playoff national titles with the same legitimacy as we do today?

That's the only drawback in my opinion.

Alabama thinks their "titles" from 1929 (pre-AP) are legitimate.

Most OU fans do not.

Over time, perceptions change and standards change.

Apre moi, le deluge.

[jkjsooner]

in sports with division champions, it's argued that some division champions are less worthy than teams with better records in stronger divisions. Truthfully.

Now you're assuming something about the playoff selection criteria that isn't currently being discussed. The question was about why you're against a playoff. You can't make an assumption that a divisional or conference winner gets an automatic bid to the tournament. At least you can't if you're trying to answer the question, "Why are you against a playoff?"

Many of the playoff ideas include only the top X teams and do not give champions of divisions or conferences automatic bids.

[jkjsooner]

The Giants won the super bowl with a 9-7 regular season record.

A playoff needs to include all teams with winning records.

Nice straw man. You know darn well the point you're trying to make is completely irrelevant to any of the proposed playoff scenarios.

If you guys keep making absurd statements then I'm going to conclude that you've admitted defeat and have given up on having a rational discussion.


The Giants are the best reason there should never be a playoff in D-1A CFB.

Right, because something that could not possibly happen in a college football playoff is reason to say that there should never be a playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

Nice straw man. You know darn well the point you're trying to make is completely irrelevant to any of the proposed playoff scenarios.

If you guys keep making absurd statements then I'm going to conclude that you've admitted defeat and have given up on having a rational discussion.



Right, because something that could not possibly happen in a college football playoff is reason to say that there should never be a playoff.

It's exaggerated but it's not irrelevant.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

1. You can do that now without having a post season tournament. Remove human polls and use computers only.

I would be in favor of it. Actually, I'm in favor of a formula that takes into consideration wins, losses, and SOS rather than some complex algorithm. That's especially true of the algorithms are not open to public scrutiny.

I just don't think there is any real chance that this can happen with only two teams being chosen. With such a small field they aren't going to trust a formula or algorithm to pick the two.

As the field expands (even to just 4 or 8) the anomilies would be much less troublesome. It might mean that Alabama was seeded lower than humans thought they should have been or that one team was selected #8 when humans thought it should have been another. Humans might be able to live with these.



2. Every team has an equal record at the start of the season. All they have to do is play a quality schedule and go undefeated.

That ignores the initial bias. One reason Auburn was left out was because they started so low in the initial polls. No matter how you slice it Auburn played a quality schedule. Furthermore, it's not really in ones control how tough their schedule is. Teams have no say in their in-conference schedules and OOC schedules are made years in advance and what appeared to be a quality opponent might not end up being one. In Auburn's case, they got dropped by a 1A opponent and had to scrample to pick up a 1AA opponent to fill their schedule. Such randomness shouldn't exclude any team.

(Now, don't think I'm arguing Auburn's point. If we were going to have two teams I think the deserving two were chosen that year but we shouldn't have a system that limits it to just two teams.)


3. That already is the case.

Auburn 2004.

[BBQ Man]

I want a real playoff, but for now, I'll take the Plus 1 hoping that it expands over time.

[Scott D]

Now you're assuming something about the playoff selection criteria that isn't currently being discussed. The question was about why you're against a playoff. You can't make an assumption that a divisional or conference winner gets an automatic bid to the tournament. At least you can't if you're trying to answer the question, "Why are you against a playoff?"

Many of the playoff ideas include only the top X teams and do not give champions of divisions or conferences automatic bids.

Look at every other version of playoff selection that is out there. No matter how "pure" anyone tries to keep a playoff, there are going to be those who end up in a position to win it that ideally should not have been given the opportunity. 35% of the time, that team pulls off the win.

I'm not anti-playoff, I've never been anti-playoff. I just firmly believe that there isn't any playoff scenario that has ever been put forth that will actually end up being what was envisioned by the populace that clamor so loudly for it. The fact that either the NCAA or Congress would be involved in the creation of said playoff scenario cements my belief in that. Neither one of those bodies has managed to create anything without it being screwed up royally in a very short period of time.

Give me a fair and equitable playoff idea that will not only work, but be proven to not have the potential to fall victim to terrible expansionist ideas to be all inclusive and you'll likely have a playoff system that will never happen because it would make too much sense to be used. I've always said that if there is to be a playoff system the first thing that needs to happen is the FBS system needs to be shrunk....majorly. I'm talking 64 FBS schools at the most. You try telling the other 56 FBS schools "sorry, but we want a playoff, and you guys are well...weighing us down. Go be happy in FCS." Good luck getting that one through.

[MeMyself&Me]

I would be in favor of it. Actually, I'm in favor of a formula that takes into consideration wins, losses, and SOS rather than some complex algorithm. That's especially true of the algorithms are not open to public scrutiny.

I just don't think there is any real chance that this can happen with only two teams being chosen. With such a small field they aren't going to trust a formula or algorithm to pick the two.

As the field expands (even to just 4 or 8) the anomilies would be much less troublesome. It might mean that Alabama was seeded lower than humans thought they should have been or that one team was selected #8 when humans thought it should have been another. Humans might be able to live with these.




That ignores the initial bias. One reason Auburn was left out was because they started so low in the initial polls. No matter how you slice it Auburn played a quality schedule. Furthermore, it's not really in ones control how tough their schedule is. Teams have no say in their in-conference schedules and OOC schedules are made years in advance and what appeared to be a quality opponent might not end up being one. In Auburn's case, they got dropped by a 1A opponent and had to scrample to pick up a 1AA opponent to fill their schedule. Such randomness shouldn't exclude any team.

(Now, don't think I'm arguing Auburn's point. If we were going to have two teams I think the deserving two were chosen that year but we shouldn't have a system that limits it to just two teams.)



Auburn 2004.

I'll agree that using a single computerized poll that is open to public scrutiny would be an improvement but there's no need for a tournament to change that.

Also, every school does have a say in its own schedule. That's a big part of what makes college football unique. There's no big poobah that tells the schools which teams they will play. Schools have a say in which conference they are in and what schools they play out of conference. Schedule too tough and you invite losses, schedule to easy and get left out. There is a bit of chance involved for sure but I think Joe C has shown that you can schedule well consistently if your goal is to actually compete for a championship. Some schools schedule for different reasons than that which I think is what gets some fans confused. Having an AD that schedules for championships and is good at it is an important component. Just like having a good recruiter is an important component, of course there is a bit of chance in that too... and there's nothing wrong with that either.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

I'll agree that using a single computerized poll that is open to public scrutiny would be an improvement but there's no need for a tournament to change that.

In an ideal world you are correct. In the real world it's never going to happen unless you expand the field. Our experience with the BCS shows this.

In reality we'll probably always have polls or a selection committee but these have less impact on the championship if the field is larger. It doesn't have to be much larger. The power of pollsters is significantly reduced if were only expanded to four teams.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

You said that several times but I don't see expanding the regular seasons as getting us much closer to determining who is really the most deserving team. If you accepted some type of innovative dynamic end of season scheduling then that would go a long way. If you just play a couple extra games that were scheduled five years ago you're likely to end up with with the same situation we have now - a random mix of teams whose accomplishments are all pretty equivalent and a biased method to choose two of them.

[MeMyself&Me]

In an ideal world you are correct. In the real world it's never going to happen unless you expand the field. Our experience with the BCS shows this.

In reality we'll probably always have polls or a selection committee but these have less impact on the championship if the field is larger. It doesn't have to be much larger. The power of pollsters is significantly reduced if were only expanded to four teams.



You said that several times but I don't see expanding the regular seasons as getting us much closer to determining who is really the most deserving team. If you accepted some type of innovative dynamic end of season scheduling then that would go a long way. If you just play a couple extra games that were scheduled five years ago you're likely to end up with with the same situation we have now - a random mix of teams whose accomplishments are all pretty equivalent and a biased method to choose two of them.

To your first reply, it seems like we have the same issue with the current system but I would rather fix it and you would rather use a big band aid to cover it up.

To your second reply, it seems you're under the assumption that I think determining a single national champion the only thing there is to do in a college football season.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[Curly Bill]

For the record, since jks essentially said I hadn't stated my preference: I do not see a playoff as an improvement on the current system, I just see it as being different, and thus am in no way in favor of it. And I'll state again that a playoff once initiated will expand in the same manner they have in other sports; anyone that doubts that is delusional.

[jkjsooner]

To your first reply, it seems like we have the same issue with the current system but I would rather fix it and you would rather use a big band aid to cover it up.

No, I think a small playoff is a better solution. You may think it's a band aid but I don't. There are several reasons that I listed for my preference to have a playoff. The human poll problem was just one of them.

And, as for fixing it by removing the human element I think it's a non-starter. I think it's so improbable that that could happen with a two team playoff that's it's hardly worth discussing.



To your second reply, it seems you're under the assumption that I think determining a single national champion the only thing there is to do in a college football season.

Fair enough. I thought your expanded season comment was directly related to our discussion about a playoff and crowning a national champion.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

Well, why didn't you just say that. :-)

[MeMyself&Me]

Fair enough. I thought your expanded season comment was directly related to our discussion about a playoff and crowning a national champion.

No, not directly. Only that you want to have a few teams play more games in the post season. I'm just saying that if extending the number of games in a season for any team is on the table, I rather all teams play more regular season games than just a few play more post season games.



I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[goingoneight]

A playoff is a start to end the stupid popularity contest; but it's not the end-all solution. These conferences need to get their sh** straightened out with who's who and where to make it like any other legitimate playoff that doesn't include 60 some-even teams.

I would love to see a system where conference championships play a major role in getting into a playoff. It would make those OU/Texas games a hell of a lot more intense, I would think. Hell, even last year's Bed-lame game would've had more that a Tostito Bowl Trophy on the line.

[8timechamps]

So far, all I've seen as reasons not to have a playoff are:

- It'll cheapen college football.

- It'll ruin college football.

- The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots, so clearly a college football playoff won't work.



That's it?! Seriously, someone please tell me (definitively) why a playoff wouldn't work. Not some scenario you see in your head, or based on some result in another league (professional at that). A real reason please.


7 pages in, and nobody against playoffs can come up with anything other than conjecture.

[SoonerorLater]

So far, all I've seen as reasons not to have a playoff are:

- It'll cheapen college football.

- It'll ruin college football.

- The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots, so clearly a college football playoff won't work.



That's it?! Seriously, someone please tell me (definitively) why a playoff wouldn't work. Not some scenario you see in your head, or based on some result in another league (professional at that). A real reason please.


7 pages in, and nobody against playoffs can come up with anything other than conjecture.


A playoff is a pointless endeavor for College Football. It will add nothing to the College Football Season Experience. That in and of itself would be enough reason for me not to want a playoff. College Football is just not a sport that lends itself to a "tournament" type championship for multiple reasons. Here is a list of the BCS Champs

998 Tennessee 23 Florida State 16 Fiesta Bowl
1999 Florida State 46 Virginia Tech 29 Sugar Bowl
2000 Oklahoma 13 Florida State 2 Orange Bowl
2001 Miami (Fla.) 37 Nebraska 14 Rose Bowl
2002 Ohio State 31 Miami (Fla.) (2 OT) 24 Fiesta Bowl
2003 LSU 21 Oklahoma 14 Sugar Bowl
2004 USC 55 Oklahoma 19 Orange Bowl
2005 Texas 41 USC 38 Rose Bowl
2006 Florida 41 Ohio State 14 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2007 LSU 38 Ohio State 24 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La.
2008 Florida 24 Oklahoma 14 BCS Championship - Miami, Fl.
2009 Alabama 37 Texas 21 BCS Championship - Pasadena, Ca.
2010 Auburn 22 Oregon 19 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2011 Alabama 21 LSU 0 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La

Where is the problem here? I don't see any unworthy champion except USC, but a playoff wouldn't have prevented those cheaters from winning anyway. Any system you could implement would require subjective judgment. A four team playoff? Who selects the four teams? Why four? When you go to four teams what you are saying is that the fourth best team in the country deserves a shot at a national championship but the fifth best team deserves no shot at all. Another arbitrary decision which if I understand is the reason proponents of a playoff don't like the current system.

I guess implicit in all of this is that people think a playoff will determine the best team in College Football. It won't. At least not any better than what we have now. All it will determine is who would win a post-season tournament, which won't always be the best team.

[MeMyself&Me]

So far, all I've seen as reasons not to have a playoff are:

- It'll cheapen college football.

- It'll ruin college football.

- The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots, so clearly a college football playoff won't work.



That's it?! Seriously, someone please tell me (definitively) why a playoff wouldn't work. Not some scenario you see in your head, or based on some result in another league (professional at that). A real reason please.


7 pages in, and nobody against playoffs can come up with anything other than conjecture.

You won't hear me say it won't work or can't work. FCS shows that a tournament can work. I prefer FBS football though. I don't know why you can't admit that your preference is just that, a preference.


A playoff is a pointless endeavor for College Football. It will add nothing to the College Football Season Experience. That in and of itself would be enough reason for me not to want a playoff. College Football is just not a sport that lends itself to a "tournament" type championship for multiple reasons. Here is a list of the BCS Champs

998 Tennessee 23 Florida State 16 Fiesta Bowl
1999 Florida State 46 Virginia Tech 29 Sugar Bowl
2000 Oklahoma 13 Florida State 2 Orange Bowl
2001 Miami (Fla.) 37 Nebraska 14 Rose Bowl
2002 Ohio State 31 Miami (Fla.) (2 OT) 24 Fiesta Bowl
2003 LSU 21 Oklahoma 14 Sugar Bowl
2004 USC 55 Oklahoma 19 Orange Bowl
2005 Texas 41 USC 38 Rose Bowl
2006 Florida 41 Ohio State 14 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2007 LSU 38 Ohio State 24 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La.
2008 Florida 24 Oklahoma 14 BCS Championship - Miami, Fl.
2009 Alabama 37 Texas 21 BCS Championship - Pasadena, Ca.
2010 Auburn 22 Oregon 19 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2011 Alabama 21 LSU 0 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La

Where is the problem here? I don't see any unworthy champion except USC, but a playoff wouldn't have prevented those cheaters from winning anyway. Any system you could implement would require subjective judgment. A four team playoff? Who selects the four teams? Why four? When you go to four teams what you are saying is that the fourth best team in the country deserves a shot at a national championship but the fifth best team deserves no shot at all. Another arbitrary decision which if I understand is the reason proponents of a playoff don't like the current system.

I guess implicit in all of this is that people think a playoff will determine the best team in College Football. It won't. At least not any better than what we have now. All it will determine is who would win a post-season tournament, which won't always be the best team.

I think Alabama this past season was unworthy.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[8timechamps]

A playoff is a pointless endeavor for College Football. It will add nothing to the College Football Season Experience. That in and of itself would be enough reason for me not to want a playoff. College Football is just not a sport that lends itself to a "tournament" type championship for multiple reasons. Here is a list of the BCS Champs

998 Tennessee 23 Florida State 16 Fiesta Bowl
1999 Florida State 46 Virginia Tech 29 Sugar Bowl
2000 Oklahoma 13 Florida State 2 Orange Bowl
2001 Miami (Fla.) 37 Nebraska 14 Rose Bowl
2002 Ohio State 31 Miami (Fla.) (2 OT) 24 Fiesta Bowl
2003 LSU 21 Oklahoma 14 Sugar Bowl
2004 USC 55 Oklahoma 19 Orange Bowl
2005 Texas 41 USC 38 Rose Bowl
2006 Florida 41 Ohio State 14 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2007 LSU 38 Ohio State 24 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La.
2008 Florida 24 Oklahoma 14 BCS Championship - Miami, Fl.
2009 Alabama 37 Texas 21 BCS Championship - Pasadena, Ca.
2010 Auburn 22 Oregon 19 BCS Championship - Glendale, Az.
2011 Alabama 21 LSU 0 BCS Championship - New Orleans, La

Where is the problem here? I don't see any unworthy champion except USC, but a playoff wouldn't have prevented those cheaters from winning anyway. Any system you could implement would require subjective judgment. A four team playoff? Who selects the four teams? Why four? When you go to four teams what you are saying is that the fourth best team in the country deserves a shot at a national championship but the fifth best team deserves no shot at all. Another arbitrary decision which if I understand is the reason proponents of a playoff don't like the current system.

I guess implicit in all of this is that people think a playoff will determine the best team in College Football. It won't. At least not any better than what we have now. All it will determine is who would win a post-season tournament, which won't always be the best team.

I do have a problem with a lot of those "championship" match-ups. I'll start with last year. Under the current system, there should never be two teams from the same conference in the championship game (especially when one of the two teams didn't even win their own division). What a joke. If Alabama and LSU were the "two best teams in the country", then a playoff would have proven that. Why did OSU or Stanford not get a shot to play for it all? Didn't Alabama have a shot at LSU earlier in the year, and lose?

The current system is ridiculous. If you can show me how the computer polls are currently calculated, it'll be the first time I've ever seen it.

The current system does not provide a level playing field for all division 1 teams. How can you be okay with a system that crowns a "champion", yet doesn't allow every one of it's members to participate. If you're okay with that, then I wish you grew up in my neighborhood, it would have made our backyard football games much easier.

I pointed out last year as an example, but there are more. Without going back and researching every year, I can tell you that even OU shouldn't have played for a national title in 2003. As much as I loved that we were there, it wasn't fair or equitable.

Is the system we have now better than what we had before? Sure. But that's no reason to stop reaching for a better way. Every year, without fail, there is some controversy with the BCS and particularly with the final two. Why should we continue with a system that causes controversy? Why the fear of playing out the championship on the field. Just like D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO COLLEGE FOOTBALL (see, college football can lend itself to a playoff just fine).

I would prefer a 16 team playoff, but any playoff is a step in the right direction.

[8timechamps]

You won't hear me say it won't work or can't work. FCS shows that a tournament can work. I prefer FBS football though. I don't know why you can't admit that your preference is just that, a preference.





Of course it's my preference (I assumed that was understood). If you saw someone drinking from a cup with a hole in side of it, spilling water as they drink from the cup, and you preferred to drink from a cup without a hole, it would be pretty easy to see what the more logical preference is.

[MeMyself&Me]

Of course it's my preference (I assumed that was understood). If you saw someone drinking from a cup with a hole in side of it, spilling water as they drink from the cup, and you preferred to drink from a cup without a hole, it would be pretty easy to see what the more logical preference is.

The point is, neither is better than the other. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Your analogy does not apply because it does not reflect that.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[MeMyself&Me]

The current system does not provide a level playing field for all division 1 teams. How can you be okay with a system that crowns a "champion", yet doesn't allow every one of it's members to participate. If you're okay with that, then I wish you grew up in my neighborhood, it would have made our backyard football games much easier.

If it's a level playing field you want we should do a blind lottery draft kind of deal for high school players instead of recruiting them since schools with large budgets and boosters give certain schools a clear competitive advantage. Then, we should have the NCAA redistrict all the conferences into mandated divisions (no conferences) and mandate out of division schedules based on prior year's performance. All coaches should receive the same pay as well just to make sure the best coaches don't simply go where the money is. Then, we might have a level playing field.

Any of those would help make the playing field more level. A post season tournament does not. It simply increases the chance of a champion that didn't have a champion like regular season.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[SoonerorLater]

I do have a problem with a lot of those "championship" match-ups. I'll start with last year. Under the current system, there should never be two teams from the same conference in the championship game (especially when one of the two teams didn't even win their own division). What a joke. If Alabama and LSU were the "two best teams in the country", then a playoff would have proven that. Why did OSU or Stanford not get a shot to play for it all? Didn't Alabama have a shot at LSU earlier in the year, and lose?

The current system is ridiculous. If you can show me how the computer polls are currently calculated, it'll be the first time I've ever seen it.

The current system does not provide a level playing field for all division 1 teams. How can you be okay with a system that crowns a "champion", yet doesn't allow every one of it's members to participate. If you're okay with that, then I wish you grew up in my neighborhood, it would have made our backyard football games much easier.

I pointed out last year as an example, but there are more. Without going back and researching every year, I can tell you that even OU shouldn't have played for a national title in 2003. As much as I loved that we were there, it wasn't fair or equitable.

Is the system we have now better than what we had before? Sure. But that's no reason to stop reaching for a better way. Every year, without fail, there is some controversy with the BCS and particularly with the final two. Why should we continue with a system that causes controversy? Why the fear of playing out the championship on the field. Just like D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO COLLEGE FOOTBALL (see, college football can lend itself to a playoff just fine).

I would prefer a 16 team playoff, but any playoff is a step in the right direction.




Just a few thoughts. The team didn't win it's conference / division is largely a red herring. If the two best teams in the country are in the same division then of course it will be impossible for team number two to win its conference.

Why not OSU? OSU and Alabama each had one loss Alabama to LSU and OSU to Iowa St. OSU did not have a win over a team as good as Arkansas which Alabama drilled. Combined with the fact that Alabama played in the tougher conference this year it really should have been an easier pick than it was.

AS to "Why the fear of playing out the championship on the field. Just like D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO COLLEGE FOOTBALL".

And what an exciting event the FCS, D2 and D3 playoff is. A perfect example of why a playoff doesn't work. I would wager most of the people on the board who are college football fans, couldn't even tell you who won the FCS championship without looking. (North Dakota St. I had to look). Much less Division II and III

[8timechamps]

If it's a level playing field you want we should do a blind lottery draft kind of deal for high school players instead of recruiting them since schools with large budgets and boosters give certain schools a clear competitive advantage. Then, we should have the NCAA redistrict all the conferences into mandated divisions (no conferences) and mandate out of division schedules based on prior year's performance. All coaches should receive the same pay as well just to make sure the best coaches don't simply go where the money is. Then, we might have a level playing field.

Any of those would help make the playing field more level. A post season tournament does not. It simply increases the chance of a champion that didn't have a champion like regular season.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

At the end of the day, you know in your heart that I'm right. :)

[8timechamps]

Just a few thoughts. The team didn't win it's conference / division is largely a red herring. If the two best teams in the country are in the same division then of course it will be impossible for team number two to win its conference.

Why not OSU? OSU and Alabama each had one loss Alabama to LSU and OSU to Iowa St. OSU did not have a win over a team as good as Arkansas which Alabama drilled. Combined with the fact that Alabama played in the tougher conference this year it really should have been an easier pick than it was.

AS to "Why the fear of playing out the championship on the field. Just like D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO COLLEGE FOOTBALL".

And what an exciting event the FCS, D2 and D3 playoff is. A perfect example of why a playoff doesn't work. I would wager most of the people on the board who are college football fans, couldn't even tell you who won the FCS championship without looking. (North Dakota St. I had to look). Much less Division II and III

We could go back and forth on this years game and who should or shouldn't be in, and while I happen to think Bama was the best team in the country, there is also an argument for both OSU and Stanford.

At MeMyself&Me said, it all boils down to a matter of preference. I would encourage you to read the book Death of the BCS. If nothing else, it'll open your eyes to how corrupt the current bowl system is (that's neither here nor there as it relates to playoffs vs. non-playoffs though).

One thing I will add though (and I like the debate, especially in the off season), as a college football fan, wouldn't a playoff be a great spectacle? Think about it, (using my preference of 16 teams), the month of December would be chalked full of great games each weekend. From purely a fan perspective, you have to admit you would be drawn to that.

[MeMyself&Me]

At the end of the day, you know in your heart that I'm right. :)

You're certainly not right about a tournament leveling the playing field. Perhaps you meant something else. :playful:



I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

A playoff is a pointless endeavor for College Football. It will add nothing to the College Football Season Experience. That in and of itself would be enough reason for me not to want a playoff. College Football is just not a sport that lends itself to a "tournament" type championship for multiple reasons. Here is a list of the BCS Champs

snip

Where is the problem here? I don't see any unworthy champion except USC, but a playoff wouldn't have prevented those cheaters from winning anyway.

Rather than ask yourself whether or not the champion was deserving, ask how many teams were deserving to at least have the opportunity to play for the title. Auburn?



Any system you could implement would require subjective judgment. A four team playoff? Who selects the four teams?

You know darn well we've addressed this point a million teams. There will always be subjectivity but with more teams that subjectivity plays a lesser role in who becomes the champion.

Using your argument we might as well just crown a champion without playing a title game. After all, picking one team and picking two teams are both subjective endeavors.


I guess implicit in all of this is that people think a playoff will determine the best team in College Football.

Not best - most deserving. There is a difference.

Two points are relevant here:

1. You imply that a tournament is unfair because a single bad game can knock the best team out. Guess what? That happens today. The "best" team might have not brought their A game in one of their 12 regular season games and knocked themselves out of the championship race. That is just as arbitrary as the best team getting knocked out in a playoff.

2. If you keep the field to 4 teams you would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where the champion couldn't make a strong claim that they had the best season. If OSU beat Alabama and LSU in such a tournament there would be no doubt in my mind that they had the best season. That would be true even if you didn't consider the tournament games as any more important as the regular season games.

If you expanded to 8 teams then you have the possibility that a two loss team could beat a previously undefeated team for the championship. But, hell, that happened when LSU beat OSU didn't it? Even your post implies LSU was a worthy champion.

[rekamrettuB]

If you expanded to 8 teams then you have the possibility that a two loss team could beat a previously undefeated team for the championship. But, hell, that happened when LSU beat OSU didn't it? Even your post implies LSU was a worthy champion.

OSU had 1 loss that season. Prior to the Big XII champ game Mizzu and WVa were 1 and 2.

What it all boils down to in my mind and why I will be anti-playoff is history. History tells us that money will force the expansion past the point of no return. Which, in college football, is probably 16. I think a post season tournament would be fun as hell but I think the regular season right now is fun as hell...is Hell really that fun? And why change a good thing?

[jkjsooner]

OSU had 1 loss that season. Prior to the Big XII champ game Mizzu and WVa were 1 and 2.

I didn't remember that. Nevertheless, the current system could have easily pitted an undefeated OSU against a two loss LSU team.


What it all boils down to in my mind and why I will be anti-playoff is history. History tells us that money will force the expansion past the point of no return. Which, in college football, is probably 16. I think a post season tournament would be fun as hell but I think the regular season right now is fun as hell...is Hell really that fun? And why change a good thing?

I guess this is where we disagree. I would argue that if this history was so relevant to college football we would have followed the path of other sports long ago.

The history of college football leads me to a different conclusion. College football has changed over the years but it's been a very slow pace. For a long time we didn't even crown a champion. Then we crowned a champion before the bowls. Then we crowned a champion after the bowls without a guarantee that we would match #1 and #2. Then we guranteed that #1 and #2 matched. It took about a century to make these changes.

College football has always valued tradition. Many posts in this thread are evidence of this. I don't see the institution of a 4 team playoff as some watershed event that would all of a sudden lead college football down a path of ignoring tradition towards rapid change.

Some argued that the BCS was such a watershed event. We were inundated with slippery slope arguments when the BCS was formed. It's been 15 or so years since the BCS was created and it hasn't led to wholesale changes in college football. In fact, the BCS might have had the opposite effect by pushing a playoff further and further into the future.

[MeMyself&Me]

2. If you keep the field to 4 teams you would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where the champion couldn't make a strong claim that they had the best season. If OSU beat Alabama and LSU in such a tournament there would be no doubt in my mind that they had the best season. That would be true even if you didn't consider the tournament games as any more important as the regular season games.

We've already seen it happen in a 2 team tournament. You stack up LSU's whole season against Alabama's whole season. LSU's was better. It will happen more often you expand to 4, 8, 16, or whatever.


OSU had 1 loss that season. Prior to the Big XII champ game Mizzu and WVa were 1 and 2.

What it all boils down to in my mind and why I will be anti-playoff is history. History tells us that money will force the expansion past the point of no return. Which, in college football, is probably 16. I think a post season tournament would be fun as hell but I think the regular season right now is fun as hell...is Hell really that fun? And why change a good thing?

FCS actually has more than 16 now so I wouldn't put 16 as the hard limit.

I agree that a post season tournament would be fun to watch. It's just not what college football is.



Some argued that the BCS was such a watershed event. We were inundated with slippery slope arguments when the BCS was formed. It's been 15 or so years since the BCS was created and it hasn't led to wholesale changes in college football. In fact, the BCS might have had the opposite effect by pushing a playoff further and further into the future.

I think the BCS was a watershed moment and that it will lead to an expanded tournament. You pro-tournament folks should praise the BCS for giving you a two team tournament that will likely expand to four teams in the near future and likely beyond that down the line.



I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[SoonerorLater]

Two points are relevant here:

1. You imply that a tournament is unfair because a single bad game can knock the best team out. Guess what? That happens today. The "best" team might have not brought their A game in one of their 12 regular season games and knocked themselves out of the championship race. That is just as arbitrary as the best team getting knocked out in a playoff.

2. If you keep the field to 4 teams you would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where the champion couldn't make a strong claim that they had the best season. If OSU beat Alabama and LSU in such a tournament there would be no doubt in my mind that they had the best season. That would be true even if you didn't consider the tournament games as any more important as the regular season games.

If you expanded to 8 teams then you have the possibility that a two loss team could beat a previously undefeated team for the championship. But, hell, that happened when LSU beat OSU didn't it? Even your post implies LSU was a worthy champion.[/QUOTE]



My opinion in a nutshell. A playoff in College Football is not a viable option to determine a true champion in the sense that
it will determine the best team in college football. Two main reasons:

(1) The sampling size would be too small. It's not like college basketball that can include 68 teams. Basketball lends itself to a tournament, football doesn't. Even the DIV II and III football teams that everybody likes to point out as example of how football payoffs can work has to start in November.

(2) Self-serving scheduling. College football isn't like pro football where an overiding authority sets each teams schedule to ensure a more or less balanced SOS. Nothing like that in college football. The disparity in SOS is too great to have a small playoff (4-8 teams) which even at that will require arbitrary judgement and if you have to do that then why not leave it as is? To top that off do most people really look forward to NFL playoffs per se? Do people think of it as a must see event or do they simply view it on the basis of the match-up of any given game? I think the latter.

If you view a college football playoff as an entertaining event that would happen at the end of each season then I guess
that would just be a matter of preference. I personally don't want to tear down over a hundred years of tradition to have something that will not serve any purpose as to determining the BEST team in college football. If anything I would rather go back to the early post-war days where the champion was determined before the bowl games based on regular season performance.

[jkjsooner]

And what an exciting event the FCS, D2 and D3 playoff is. A perfect example of why a playoff doesn't work. I would wager most of the people on the board who are college football fans, couldn't even tell you who won the FCS championship without looking. (North Dakota St. I had to look). Much less Division II and III

I'm now convinced that you are pro-playoff and you're just trying to make the anti-playoff folks look stupid. I can't see any other reason why you would say such a ridiculous thing.

In case that was a serious argument, you do realize that we pay more attention to FBS because it consists of the largest schools with (by and large) the best teams. We would be no more likely to name the FCS, II, or III champions if they abandoned a playoff next year.

Please tell me your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

[jkjsooner]

(1) The sampling size would be too small. It's not like college basketball that can include 68 teams. Basketball lends itself to a tournament, football doesn't. Even the DIV II and III football teams that everybody likes to point out as example of how football payoffs can work has to start in November.

Wait, I thought your talking points were that a college football playoff would expand indefinitely just as basketball has. Now you're saying that the nature of football makes it difficult to expand a tournament so far.

Since division I would never sacrafice regular seasons games and thus would never start its tournament in November, I guess we can all agree that its tournament would not expand as far as division II's.

Did you realize you were making our point for us?

MeMyself&Me, you need to get SoonerorLater back on the talking points. He's digging you guys a hole.

[MeMyself&Me]

MeMyself&Me, you need to get SoonerorLater back on the talking points. He's digging you guys a hole.

lol, I think he's trying to get under your skin... and doing a good job of it.

[jkjsooner]

If I had my way the tournament would work like the following:

We would calculate some type of SOS number for every team. I'd suspect this would be something similar to the BCS SOS calculation that they used to use.

Then there would be a table with a column for number of losses and SOS. The purpose of this table would be to define who has had a championship caliber season. The table would have two rows - one for zero loss teams and one for one loss teams. A zero loss team would have to have a SOS of X to make the playoffs. A one loss team would have to have a SOS of Y (higher than X) to make the playoffs.

The SOS numbers would be set so that most one loss teams that play an average BCS conference team's schedule would make the playoffs. The SOS requirement for a zero loss team would be lower. I'd suggest it be low enough so that a team like BSU or Utah would make the tournament with zero losses as long as they played at decent OOC schedule. (However, the SOS requirement would still keep a team from filling its schedule with cupcakes.)

You could put a quality win component into the SOS calculation to force teams to have some quality wins.

Anyway, this would yield a variable size tournament. If less than two teams qualify then you would default to a 2 team playoff with the missing team(s) selected using a BCS type formula. Seeding would also use a BCS type formula.

This would make it hard for the tournament to expand as any expansion would necessarily require a major overhaul of the system. In addition, you would not be able to argue that a team could win who didn't have a championship caliber season. By definition it would be limited to championship caliber teams.

Such a system would have given Auburn a chance back in 2004. It would have also given BSU, TCU, or Utah type teams a chance without excluding a one loss BCS conference team.

[MeMyself&Me]

If I had my way the tournament would work like the following:

We would calculate some type of SOS number for every team. I'd suspect this would be something similar to the BCS SOS calculation that they used to use.

Then there would be a table with a column for number of losses and SOS. The purpose of this table would be to define who has had a championship caliber season. The table would have two rows - one for zero loss teams and one for one loss teams. A zero loss team would have to have a SOS of X to make the playoffs. A one loss team would have to have a SOS of Y (higher than X) to make the playoffs.

The SOS numbers would be set so that most one loss teams that play an average BCS conference team's schedule would make the playoffs. The SOS requirement for a zero loss team would be lower. I'd suggest it be low enough so that a team like BSU or Utah would make the tournament with zero losses as long as they played at decent OOC schedule. (However, the SOS requirement would still keep a team from filling its schedule with cupcakes.)

You could put a quality win component into the SOS calculation to force teams to have some quality wins.

Anyway, this would yield a variable size tournament. If less than two teams qualify then you would default to a 2 team playoff with the missing team(s) selected using a BCS type formula. Seeding would also use a BCS type formula.

This would make it hard for the tournament to expand as any expansion would necessarily require a major overhaul of the system. In addition, you would not be able to argue that a team could win who didn't have a championship caliber season. By definition it would be limited to championship caliber teams.

Such a system would have given Auburn a chance back in 2004. It would have also given BSU, TCU, or Utah type teams a chance without excluding a one loss BCS conference team.

I understand where you're coming from in terms of trying to meet in the middle with that idea but it's a bit pie in the sky. For one, I would imagine a variable sized tournament would be a logistical nightmare. I think it would be easier to simply go back to the old pre-BCS/Bowl Alliance days and play an extra post-bowl game ONLY if there was a split poll, which they never did. Second, what you propose would not be as hard as you think it is to expand the tournament. If it became desirable by the powers that be that they wanted more games, and the money that comes with it, they could simply lower the SOS entry standards for the 0 loss and 1 loss teams. I wouldn't call that an overhaul.

[SoonerorLater]

Wait, I thought your talking points were that a college football playoff would expand indefinitely just as basketball has. Now you're saying that the nature of football makes it difficult to expand a tournament so far.

Since division I would never sacrafice regular seasons games and thus would never start its tournament in November, I guess we can all agree that its tournament would not expand as far as division II's.

Did you realize you were making our point for us?

MeMyself&Me, you need to get SoonerorLater back on the talking points. He's digging you guys a hole.

No that's not what I am saying and I will assume you are not purposely trying to mis-characterize me. What I am saying is that if you are a proponent of a post-season tournament to determine a national champion then that tournament should include a sample size that does not preclude a worthy possible champion. In the case of the best example of a post season tournament, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, they have a 64 team field (ex play-in games)which we can assume is a fair representation given the fact that in the entire history of the tournament never has a 16 seed won a game. So a 64 team field in the case of NCAA Basketball is a fair or more than fair number of teams.

What's that magic number in football? I don't know for sure but more than four. More than eight and most likely more than sixteen. If you enjoy the democracy of a tournament system (I don't) then you would have to in all fairness include all of the top 25. Remember in NCAA Basketball Tournament we have had unranked dark horses like NC State and Villanova win national championships.

So to me any fair playoff solution would necessarily require an expanded field and would have to cut into the regular season, unless you think college football teams could play 16-20 games per year.

[8timechamps]

No that's not what I am saying and I will assume you are not purposely trying to mis-characterize me. What I am saying is that if you are a proponent of a post-season tournament to determine a national champion then that tournament should include a sample size that does not preclude a worthy possible champion. In the case of the best example of a post season tournament, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, they have a 64 team field (ex play-in games)which we can assume is a fair representation given the fact that in the entire history of the tournament never has a 16 seed won a game. So a 64 team field in the case of NCAA Basketball is a fair or more than fair number of teams.

What's that magic number in football? I don't know for sure but more than four. More than eight and most likely more than sixteen. If you enjoy the democracy of a tournament system (I don't) then you would have to in all fairness include all of the top 25. Remember in NCAA Basketball Tournament we have had unranked dark horses like NC State and Villanova win national championships.

So to me any fair playoff solution would necessarily require an expanded field and would have to cut into the regular season, unless you think college football teams could play 16-20 games per year.

There are 344 teams in D1 basketball. With 64/65 making the tourney, that's roughly 18% of all teams eligible. If you had a 16 team (my preference) football tourney, that would be around 13%. I think both are a "fair" sample size.

Right now, the FBS doesn't allow for every team the possibility to win the championship. Regardless how you slice it, D1 college football crowns a champion without allowing everyone the opportunity to compete for it.

[jkjsooner]

I understand where you're coming from in terms of trying to meet in the middle with that idea but it's a bit pie in the sky.

I agree. It would never happen. I kind of brought it up just for fun and to emphasize that I do have the same concerns and goals that many playoff opponents have.


Second, what you propose would not be as hard as you think it is to expand the tournament. If it became desirable by the powers that be that they wanted more games, and the money that comes with it, they could simply lower the SOS entry standards for the 0 loss and 1 loss teams. I wouldn't call that an overhaul.

Well, in your scenario even if you let every 0 and 1 loss team in no matter of the SOS you're not going to get many teams in the tournament.

If you expanded to allow 2 loss teams with a certain SOS then you would have to address whether you want two loss teams in the tournament. At the minimum this would force you to evaluate the entry qualifications directly rather than just saying X teams get in. I also think there would be a limit to how far you could take this and at some point it wouldn't make sense to keep such a scheme. Then it would require a wholesale overhaul.

[jkjsooner]

No that's not what I am saying and I will assume you are not purposely trying to mis-characterize me. What I am saying is that if you are a proponent of a post-season tournament to determine a national champion then that tournament should include a sample size that does not preclude a worthy possible champion.

So it's okay to limit it to 2 and have an even higher probability of precluding a worthy possible champion?

Why are you happy with such a problem as it exists today but with a playoff you set the bar so much higher? Is there some expectation that a playoff must be perfect yet no such expectation for a simple championship game? That seems highly unfair.

[SoonerorLater]

So it's okay to limit it to 2 and have an even higher probability of precluding a worthy possible champion?

Why are you happy with such a problem as it exists today but with a playoff you set the bar so much higher? Is there some expectation that a playoff must be perfect yet no such expectation for a simple championship game? That seems highly unfair.


No, what I am saying is that the ONLY persuasive argument that could be made for having a post-season tournament would be to have every conceivable team that might be able to win a post season tournament participate. ( re: my NCAA BB example of Villanova & NC State). Any thing else requires the same subjective decisions as we have now whether that be 2, 4, 8 teams or whatever. It's still subjective even though every geometric progression makes it less subjective. So for the vanity of a subjective 4 or 8 team field you would have to turn tradition on it's head. The same tradition that's made college football season the best in the world. Leave it alone. It's fine as it is.

[Scott D]

It's so amusing how many people want to expand the current 2 team playoff that CFB has but yet tell us that there wouldn't be a clamor for more expansion of a playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

It's so amusing how many people want to expand the current 2 team playoff that CFB has but yet tell us that there wouldn't be a clamor for more expansion of a playoff.

Ironic, isn't it.

[Curly Bill]

It's so amusing how many people want to expand the current 2 team playoff that CFB has but yet tell us that there wouldn't be a clamor for more expansion of a playoff.

For the sake of their agenda they have to ignore that little item.

[jkjsooner]

It's so amusing how many people want to expand the current 2 team playoff that CFB has but yet tell us that there wouldn't be a clamor for more expansion of a playoff.

There's always going to be people who want a larger playoff. Nothing is going to make everybody happy.

That being said, I believe most people are balancing essentially the following two things:

1. The desire to keep the regular season of utmost importance.
2. The desire to guarantee that those who had championship caliber seasons have an opportunity to play for the championship and the desire to reduce the subjectivity and inequality when too few teams are selected.

As you expand the playoffs, #2 is satisfied with the expense of #1. In most people's eyes, there's a certain number where they feel that these two tradeoffs are best balanced.

If you go to four teams many of the playoff proponents are going to become opponents of further expansion. As you go to eight teams even more will oppose further expansion, etc.

Then you have to consider that as you get beyond 8 or 16 other factors come into play - the desire to reduce the impact to the student athlete, etc.


I'm under no illusion that the playoff expansion could not exceed my preferred number. I do feel that playoff expansion, while possibly not yeilding my optimal solution, would stop before it gets to the point where I would feel the result is less desirable than we have today.

[jkjsooner]

It's still subjective even though every geometric progression makes it less subjective.

You said it right there.

[jkjsooner]

For the sake of their agenda they have to ignore that little item.

Not true. We just view the situation to be more complex than you believe it to be.

If my wife and I decide to have a second child, only a fool would believe that that means we will inevitably end up as the next Duggar's. You would have to trivialize our decision making process to conclude that. For the sake of your own agenda you are trivializing our thought processes or the process of compromise.

Afterall, even you would say that we'd never have a 120 team playoff. Right? That means even you understand that those in power would always balance different priorities and desires when determining the right size for the playoff.

[Scott D]

Not true. We just view the situation to be more complex than you believe it to be.

If my wife and I decide to have a second child, only a fool would believe that that means we will inevitably end up as the next Duggar's. You would have to trivialize our decision making process to conclude that. For the sake of your own agenda you are trivializing our thought processes or the process of compromise.

Afterall, even you would say that we'd never have a 120 team playoff. Right? That means even you understand that those in power would always balance different priorities and desires when determining the right size for the playoff.

If you'd told someone in 1945 that the NCAA Hoops Tourney was going to be 16 teams they would have thought you were nuts. Imagine what any living members of the team that won the first one in 1939 must feel about the fact that over the last 72 years they've managed to add 60 more teams.

[jkjsooner]

If you'd told someone in 1945 that the NCAA Hoops Tourney was going to be 16 teams they would have thought you were nuts.

I seriously doubt that. NCAA basketball fans have never viewed the regular season as football fans do. I don't think it would have surprised too many people that the tournament could get bigger nor do I think it was too terribly controversial.

I find it interesting that you guys are so vociferous in your anti-playoff opinions yet you think that the arguments you make will just disappear once a playoff is instituted. Guss what? You're not going away. I'm not going away. The Big 10 commisioner isn't going away. We're not all going to roll over and let Mike Leach get his 64 team playoff.


If you can convince me that there were scores of people arguing about tradition and the importance of the basketball regular season back in the '40s then I'd give you that point.

I simply don't think your comparison is remotely valid and I think your own posts are as much evidence as anything to why the comparison is invalid.


The only sport I think even remotely is comparable is MLB. MLB values tradition in a similar way is CFB. Yes, baseball has expanded but it's been a very slow process. There were 25 years between the time they went from 4 teams to 8 teams and they've been at 8 for 18 years. Let's project that to college football. Let's say we institute a 4 team playoff in 2013. We'll have a 4 team playoff until 2038 when they expand to 8. We'll have an 8 team playoff until at least 2056. I don't know about you guys but if I'm lucky enough to still be around I doubt I'll be too darn concerned about whether they're going to add a couple of more teams to the playoffs.

I just thought I'd put it in a little perspective since you all are so darn convinced that college football is so unique yet identical to every other sport out there.

[MeMyself&Me]

I seriously doubt that. NCAA basketball fans have never viewed the regular season as football fans do. I don't think it would have surprised too many people that the tournament could get bigger nor do I think it was too terribly controversial.

I find it interesting that you guys are so vociferous in your anti-playoff opinions yet you think that the arguments you make will just disappear once a playoff is instituted. Guss what? You're not going away. I'm not going away. The Big 10 commisioner isn't going away. We're not all going to roll over and let Mike Leach get his 64 team playoff.


If you can convince me that there were scores of people arguing about tradition and the importance of the basketball regular season back in the '40s then I'd give you that point.

I simply don't think your comparison is remotely valid and I think your own posts are as much evidence as anything to why the comparison is invalid.


The only sport I think even remotely is comparable is MLB. MLB values tradition in a similar way is CFB. Yes, baseball has expanded but it's been a very slow process. There were 25 years between the time they went from 4 teams to 8 teams and they've been at 8 for 18 years. Let's project that to college football. Let's say we institute a 4 team playoff in 2013. We'll have a 4 team playoff until 2038 when they expand to 8. We'll have an 8 team playoff until at least 2056. I don't know about you guys but if I'm lucky enough to still be around I doubt I'll be too darn concerned about whether they're going to add a couple of more teams to the playoffs.

I just thought I'd put it in a little perspective since you all are so darn convinced that college football is so unique yet identical to every other sport out there.

I like how you keep referencing the Big 10 commissioner who has already changed his position from being OK with a 2 team tournament to a 4 team tournament. If he's capable of changing his position from 2 to 4, why are you so sure he's not capable of changing his position from 4 to 8 and 8 to 16?

Second, I got to tell you, I expect to be around in 2038 and I don't want to see college football go to an 8 team tournament. I would also like to see college football preserved as well as possible for my kids who will still be watching in 2056 (it's not inconceivable that I will be too at 81).

By the way, college football IS unique and that IS why we don't want to make it identical to every other sport out there.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

I like how you keep referencing the Big 10 commissioner who has already changed his position from being OK with a 2 team tournament to a 4 team tournament. If he's capable of changing his position from 2 to 4, why are you so sure he's not capable of changing his position from 4 to 8 and 8 to 16?

Oh my goodness. The Big 10 commissioner after 23 years on the job has decided to favor a four team playoff. The radicals are running the show and we're approaching the speed of light here.


By the way, college football IS unique and that IS why we don't want to make it identical to every other sport out there.

College football would still be unique with a four or eight team tournament. Almost all regular seasons games for contenders would still be do-or-die.

I think this is the difference between us. You think that all is lost with a four team tournament. Of course, if you believe that then it would follow that expansion would continue unabated.

I don't think that the essential elements of college football would change and thus there would still remain resistance to further change. In fact, I think the resistance would increase as more and more people are satisfied with the system.


If we go undefeated and get left out of the championship game you guys will change your tune pretty quickly.

[MeMyself&Me]

First, no I won't change my tune if OU is left out if undefeated. OU has gone undefeated in the past and not gotten a NC. Sometimes it goes that way and the world doesn't end.

As far as the Big 10 commish, 23 years on the job yeah. For the first 8 years he opposed a two team tournament. Then changed his mind to support a two team tournament. Now, 15 years later he supports a 4 team tournament. Anyway, that's not the point is it. You WERE trying to tell us that expansion would not happen. Now you're trying to convince us that expansion will take so long we won't care. Well, I remember last time and I'm here now. I care. Why am I supposed to think I won't care next time?

The more you make the post season more important than the regular season, the more you change college football.


I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[ouflak]

The more you make the post season more important than the regular season, the more you change college football.

But doesn't the post-season currently decide the National Championship? How much more or less important does the post season need to be to preserve college football as-is? I ask in this particular way because college football, like it or not, has been changing ever since its inception. And it will continue to change to adapt to the realities of the world around it. Which set of conditions of college football are you wishing to preserve for eternity? Have those conditions already long since been abandoned (perhaps with the creation of the BCS, or the recent unbounded proliferation of bowl games, or perhaps when universities got control of their own TV rights, ...other?)? Is there a particular decade that you feel exemplified what college football should be like?

If the current period is not the ideal regular/post season importance balance you would like to have, what balance would you like to see? You mentioned expanding the regular season. It's already longer than it ever was. Did such an equivalent state of affairs ever exist? Will a playoff truly throw that balance off so much that the regular season suddenly becomes far more important, making the post season just irrelevant window dressing? Or the opposite, where the post-season is of such importance that teams can effectively coast through the regular season 60% effort to get to where the action really is, the bowl games and/or the playoff if they've qualified?

We've certainly had times in history where the 'National Champion' has been declared after the end of the regular season, making the post season game meaningless. Is this the ideal college football world that we all want to preserve? *shrug* Maybe it is. I personally think it would great to have a playoff, but maybe I'm wrong. Likewise we've seen in other sports where a team can lose 10% to 20% percent of their games and still go through the post season and win a national title, very often beating several teams with higher regular season winning percentages along the way. Is this such an extreme situation as to 'ruin' college football for you or for all of us? Speaking for myself, it won't change things at all for the regular season, and will probably make the post-season a bit more tense, but that's just me. Maybe you're thinking that future generations will care considerably less, or that perhaps even you, and most other fans, will care less now?

[MeMyself&Me]

To the first part, it seems as if you are suggesting that since college football changes, we should accept any change. That's absurd.

Regarding expanding the regular season, I only suggest it in the sense that if allowing a few teams extra games is on the table, I'd rather see all teams play more games in the regular season.

And to the third part, it's certainly not 'wrong' for you to prefer a tournament any more than it is for me to prefer college football without one. It's simply a matter of preference. It's when people start making comments like 'fairness' or 'true champion' or 'human bias' or 'every other sport else has a playoff' that I tend to get involved. And I'll still watch college football either way. And to be clear, I think a post season tournament will be something really cool to watch by itself. I would just rather college football keep what is unique to it with the focus on the regular season. Each expansion of the tournament brings the focus and emphasis more on the post season.



I would rather expand the regular season than expand the post season.

[jkjsooner]

Anyway, that's not the point is it. You WERE trying to tell us that expansion would not happen.

That's not true. I've always said that they may expand but only within reason. I've always said that those in power will try to fix what many feel is broken without destroying what many feel is great about college football. The latter concern will always act as resistence to unabated expansion.

[Curly Bill]

Not true. We just view the situation to be more complex than you believe it to be.

If my wife and I decide to have a second child, only a fool would believe that that means we will inevitably end up as the next Duggar's. You would have to trivialize our decision making process to conclude that. For the sake of your own agenda you are trivializing our thought processes or the process of compromise.

Afterall, even you would say that we'd never have a 120 team playoff. Right? That means even you understand that those in power would always balance different priorities and desires when determining the right size for the playoff.

Your comparison isn't even close to vaild. For you to continue having more and more children requires more and more expense on your part, and thus a very real reason not to have more children. Adding more and more playoff games would have the opposite effect and bring in additional money, and thus a very real reason to continue expanding, and we all know it's money that drives the sports bus these days.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's not true. I've always said that they may expand but only within reason. I've always said that those in power will try to fix what many feel is broken without destroying what many feel is great about college football. The latter concern will always act as resistence to unabated expansion.

So you simply think that expansion won't happen fast, so I shouldn't care?

[jkjsooner]

Your comparison isn't even close to vaild. For you to continue having more and more children requires more and more expense on your part, and thus a very real reason not to have more children. Adding more and more playoff games would have the opposite effect and bring in additional money, and thus a very real reason to continue expanding, and we all know it's money that drives the sports bus these days.

I mentioned this analogy in response to a "I find it ironic" comment. That comment essentially implied that it's stupid to think that we can have change without further change. The child analogy was meant to counter this comment not to provide an analogy that exactly fit college football. It was used just to make the point that in every step the positives are weighed against the negatives. We often choose to take one step without taking two.

In the case of children, money is the main factor resisting more and more change. In the case of a playoff, tradition and the concern over changing what makes college football unique are the main factors resisting more and more change. (If it was money we would have had a playoff long ago.)

As usual you trivialize everything. You trivialize our throught process when instituting a playoff. You're happy to accept that money is not the driving factor today but if we expanded the playoff to four teams then everything else goes out the window and it becomes all about money. You refuse to aknowledge that in each step there are pros and cons. Once the cons outweight the pros then we generally stop further changes.

So, no it is not irrational (or ironic) to believe that that one change could happen without further changes. That was the only point I was trying to make.

[rekamrettuB]

That's not true. I've always said that they may expand but only within reason. I've always said that those in power will try to fix what many feel is broken without destroying what many feel is great about college football. The latter concern will always act as resistence to unabated expansion.

Within reason??? You think the BBall tourney has stoped expanding at a reasonable number? If so, why? I think there are about 24 too many teams in it.

[jkjsooner]

So you simply think that expansion won't happen fast, so I shouldn't care?

I never said you shouldn't care. I don't have a problem with your conclusion. I have a problem with some of the assumptions you make to draw that conclusion.

I've said:

1. We may expand but I predict it will be at a very slow pace and I believe MLB is the best analogy to CFB.
2. There are limits to how far we will expand as there is a cost to every expansion and at some point these costs outweight the benefits.

You're ignoring point #2.

I know, you hate the idea of a four team playoff and an eight team playoff would ruin the game. In that respect we've already expanded too far in your opinion. In my opinion we would have just reached my optimal solution. I would hope that this would be the point where we feel that the costs of further expansion outweight the benefits. We might end up going a little further. I can't say for sure but I am very confident that there are limits to how much further we would go.

[jkjsooner]

Within reason??? You think the BBall tourney has stoped expanding at a reasonable number? If so, why? I think there are about 24 too many teams in it.

Why don't you go back and read my posts? I've explained many times why I don't think we're going to follow the trajectory set by baskeball.

Among other reasons:

1. Basketball has never valued tradition and the importance of the regular season as football has. The only league that does is MLB and they've been very cautious and deliberate with their playoff expansions.

2. Football will always have to balance the academic and health concerns of the student athlete. There's a higher cost to pay in football when adding an extra game or two. (For 1AA they play a larger tournament but the have to sacrafice the length of the regular season to do so. That isn't going to happen in 1A.) They may agree to add one or two extra games but probably not three or four.

Note: When I say "football" I mean college football. The NFL may be expanding their season even further but that is a league made up of professional athletes. What is expected of a professional athlete is completely different than what is expected of a college athlete.

[rekamrettuB]

Why don't you go back and read my posts? I've explained many times why I don't think we're going to follow the trajectory set by baskeball.

Among other reasons:

1. Basketball has never valued tradition and the importance of the regular season as football has. The only league that does is MLB and they've been very cautious and deliberate with their playoff expansions.

2. Football will always have to balance the academic and health concerns of the student athlete. There's a higher cost to pay in football when adding an extra game or two. (For 1AA they play a larger tournament but the have to sacrafice the length of the regular season to do so. That isn't going to happen in 1A.) They may agree to add one or two extra games but probably not three or four.

Note: When I say "football" I mean college football. The NFL may be expanding their season even further but that is a league made up of professional athletes. What is expected of a professional athlete is completely different than what is expected of a college athlete.

That's why I asked if you felt 68 teams was reasonable. I feel 8 teams in college football is reasonable but think they will go to 16 when they see the money this tournament will generate. It will always be "we're only adding one more week" each time they want to expand. 16 is too many to have that same feel we do currently when a team losses. Wins feel so much better and losses feel so much worse. With 16 it will change that feeling for sure.

[CobraKai]

If you'd told someone in 1945 that the NCAA Hoops Tourney was going to be 16 teams they would have thought you were nuts. Imagine what any living members of the team that won the first one in 1939 must feel about the fact that over the last 72 years they've managed to add 60 more teams.

True, but if you told someone in 1946 that we would have a 2 team playoff they would have thought you were nuts too. Back then NCs were awarded prior to bowl games. We started down the slippery slope when we decided to wait until after the season was over to award the champion.

[CobraKai]

Out of curiosity, would most anti-playoff traditionalists prefer to eliminate the BCS and go back to awarding the champion prior to the bowl season? Obviously that would make the regular season even more important than it is now.

[SoonerPride]

Out of curiosity, would most anti-playoff traditionalists prefer to eliminate the BCS and go back to awarding the champion prior to the bowl season? Obviously that would make the regular season even more important than it is now.

If it's an either/or proposition, I'd rather go back to the pre-BCS days instead of having a 4 or 8 or 32 team tournament.

But I'm ok with leaving it just the way it is.

[MeMyself&Me]

Out of curiosity, would most anti-playoff traditionalists prefer to eliminate the BCS and go back to awarding the champion prior to the bowl season? Obviously that would make the regular season even more important than it is now.

I agree with SoonerPride. Pre-BCS is better than a tournament. Unfortunately, we can't go back to that now... never works that way.

[MeMyself&Me]

Why don't you go back and read my posts? I've explained many times why I don't think we're going to follow the trajectory set by baskeball.

Among other reasons:

1. Basketball has never valued tradition and the importance of the regular season as football has. The only league that does is MLB and they've been very cautious and deliberate with their playoff expansions.

2. Football will always have to balance the academic and health concerns of the student athlete. There's a higher cost to pay in football when adding an extra game or two. (For 1AA they play a larger tournament but the have to sacrafice the length of the regular season to do so. That isn't going to happen in 1A.) They may agree to add one or two extra games but probably not three or four.

Note: When I say "football" I mean college football. The NFL may be expanding their season even further but that is a league made up of professional athletes. What is expected of a professional athlete is completely different than what is expected of a college athlete.

You say academic and health concerns and such as deterent but I've always told anti-tournament folks that using such to say we would never have a tournament was a fallacy because other divisions of college football seem to find a way to have a tournament with the same constraints. I think you'd have to apply the same argument here in the sense of just how far expansion can go.

As far as being concerned about tradition goes, how often have we seen lately where money trumps tradition? When ESPN comes in and says "Yah know, if you added one more round to the playoffs we'd pay you X amount more." I don't think for a minute they won't expand. It's just one more round after all.

The one factor you haven't mentioned that think would keep the tournament from expanding is if such expansion would force competition for air time with the NFL. College football folks would be smart to avoid that since the NFL has the real ability to cause harm to college football the same way that the NBA has caused harm to college basketball with the one and done issue. But even then, there would be a way to appease the NFL, like air some of the game on the NFL network for instance, so I wouldn't see that as a hard limit.

[jkjsooner]

If it's an either/or proposition, I'd rather go back to the pre-BCS days instead of having a 4 or 8 or 32 team tournament.

But I'm ok with leaving it just the way it is.

I'm assuming by pre-BCS you are also referring to pre-bowl alliance as well since they are very similar creatures.

If so, I guess that means you are fine with us not getting a shot at LSU, USC, or Florida...

If you just want to go back to the bowl alliance then we wouldn't have had a shot at USC but then we would have played Auburn instead. I suppose we might have beaten Auburn and won the national title - not really an endorsement of the pre-BCS era.

If you go back to pre-bowl alliance we would have been in the Orange, Auburn in the Sugar, and USC in the Rose. What a cluster that would have been.

[jkjsooner]

You say academic and health concerns and such as deterent but I've always told anti-tournament folks that using such to say we would never have a tournament was a fallacy because other divisions of college football seem to find a way to have a tournament with the same constraints.

We only say it's a fallacy when discussing adding a couple of extra games/weeks. It's not a fallacy to think that there are limits on how far the college presidents will allow that to go.


As far as being concerned about tradition goes, how often have we seen lately where money trumps tradition? When ESPN comes in and says "Yah know, if you added one more round to the playoffs we'd pay you X amount more." I don't think for a minute they won't expand. It's just one more round after all.

Then why don't we have a playoff already?

Oh, I forgot. We still have tradition now but if they added two more teams to the playoff all bets are off and it's all about money.

[MeMyself&Me]

We only say it's a fallacy when discussing adding a couple of extra games/weeks. It's not a fallacy to think that there are limits on how far the college presidents will allow that to go.



Then why don't we have a playoff already?

Oh, I forgot. We still have tradition now but if they added two more teams to the playoff all bets are off and it's all about money.

To the first part, I agree with you. However, colleges in other divisions have already gone much further than what even you would like to see so that limit is higher than what you're portraying.

To the second part. We do already have a tournament. And we're talking about expanding it.

[SoonerPride]

I'm assuming by pre-BCS you are also referring to pre-bowl alliance as well since they are very similar creatures.

If so, I guess that means you are fine with us not getting a shot at LSU, USC, or Florida...

If you just want to go back to the bowl alliance then we wouldn't have had a shot at USC but then we would have played Auburn instead. I suppose we might have beaten Auburn and won the national title - not really an endorsement of the pre-BCS era.

If you go back to pre-bowl alliance we would have been in the Orange, Auburn in the Sugar, and USC in the Rose. What a cluster that would have been.

Yes, I meant pre-any bowl alliances or bowl championship series. (i.e. "the good old days :playful:)

Yes, it was a mess.

But expanding beyond the two team playoff we have now would be more of a mess.

That's why I prefer what we have now over either option.

[MamaMia]

Shouldn't the title of this thread start with "I believe", or have the word "is" be changed with the words 'could be' instead of "BCS Replaced with Playoff is a Good Move?"

We all know some kind of a playoff is a better idea than what we have.

[SoonerPride]

We all know some kind of a playoff is a better idea than what we have.

We do?

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm not in favor of 16 teams. I think 8 is the perfect number.

I'm also not in favor of conference champions getting an automatic bid. I could live with it if every conference is treated equally. If you give preferential treatment for some conferences over others then you don't have a truly representative championship.

I suppose with the top 20 or top 25 rule, you could open it up for all conference champions. It's just that some of the minor conference champions would not meet this critieria - which is fine because they're playing under the same rules as everyone else.

If they use conference champs only, make it for all conference champs, regardless of conference.

If they want to make it where rankings are involved, then go with the top 10 teams, regardless of conference affiliation or champion.

[MeMyself&Me]

Yes, I meant pre-any bowl alliances or bowl championship series. (i.e. "the good old days :playful:)

Yes, it was a mess.

But expanding beyond the two team playoff we have now would be more of a mess.

That's why I prefer what we have now over either option.

I wouldn't mind the mess of the old days really. At least the post season was more fun back then.

[OU_Sooners75]

We do?

In determining a true champion...yes we do.

[8timechamps]

I wouldn't mind the mess of the old days really. At least the post season was more fun back then.

A point we agree on. I thoroughly loved the old system (pre bowl alliance). But, as mentioned, there will be no going back. So, given the choice to stay where we are now, or going forward, I choose going forward. That's where we disagree.

[8timechamps]

I have asked this several times throughout this thread, and still haven't really gotten an answer...so I'll try again:


For those of you against a playoff, what is your reasoning? Specifically, what are you against/afraid of?

[OU_Sooners75]

I have asked this several times throughout this thread, and still haven't really gotten an answer...so I'll try again:


For those of you against a playoff, what is your reasoning? Specifically, what are you against/afraid of?

I am pro-playoff....but I can answer this question.

They are scared of change. They think the bowl system adds more to the regular season than a playoff would. They think that a playoff would mean more meaningless games during the regular season (though the teams will still be playing the same conference games as they do now).

Another thing they think is that it is too many games and too much time from school...though during a playoff, school will be on christmas break. And that the kids in high school may have played 15 to 16 games depending if they made a good run into the playoffs.

And finally, no other sport division has a bull crap system of determining a champion like the top division of college football, and they would like it to remain that way.

[8timechamps]

I am pro-playoff....but I can answer this question.

They are scared of change. They think the bowl system adds more to the regular season than a playoff would. They think that a playoff would mean more meaningless games during the regular season (though the teams will still be playing the same conference games as they do now).

Another thing they think is that it is too many games and too much time from school...though during a playoff, school will be on christmas break. And that the kids in high school may have played 15 to 16 games depending if they made a good run into the playoffs.

And finally, no other sport division has a bull crap system of determining a champion like the top division of college football, and they would like it to remain that way.

I agree, I just want them to admit to themselves that they are afraid of change. Everything else is a smokescreen.

[SoonerPride]

I have asked this several times throughout this thread, and still haven't really gotten an answer...so I'll try again:


For those of you against a playoff, what is your reasoning? Specifically, what are you against/afraid of?

A post season tournament doesn't do any better job of determining a champion than what we have now and most certainly would lessen the season IN MY OPINION.

I'm not afraid of change.

I'm afraid of making changes for no good reason.

[SoonerPride]

So if anyone can give me a good reason for a playoff I've yet to hear it.

[OU_Sooners75]

So if anyone can give me a good reason for a playoff I've yet to hear it.

Crowning a true champion that has to run the gantlet of the best of the best.

There is no way in hell the BCS is the best at determining a true champion.

Hell, just this past year, there was plenty of controversy.

IMHO, if you cannot win your own damn conference championship, you should not be able to crown yourself national champion!

[MamaMia]

We do?Tes, but only if its your playoff idea of course. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/smilies/giggle.gif

[OU_Sooners75]

Pride I got a question for you...

What about a playoff makes the season meaningless?

Are you looking at this in the context of the NFL only? Or the basketball tourney?

If they do the playoff right, and fair to all, then it will make the season still mean everything.

My idea of a playoff may differ from everyone elses...but here it is:

First let me explain that there are 120 teams (and two provisional teams) in D-1A football.

To make a fair playoff, you should have more than 3.33% of the division eligible for the playoff. In my humble opinion, a fair amount of teams that are eligible would be right around 10-13% of the teams.

That means a fair playoff, IMHO, should be between 10 and 16 teams and no more.

So in saying this this would give you two options to form a playoff.

There are a lot of folks that like rankings. So I will go with this idea first....a 10 team playoff.

In my version of a 10 team playoff, we would use a ranking be it the BCS form or an RPI form to determine the top 10 teams that are eligible for a playoff. In this ranking, no team that is banned from post season can be included into the rankings.

1. No matter conference affiliation, the top 10 ranked teams are eligible.
2. Top 6 teams would get a bye. 8 would play 9 and 7 would play 10.
3. Top seeded teams gain home field for first, second, and third rounds.
4. Championship game would be at neutral site that is determined by towns bidding to host the game.
5. Host cities cannot bid for a national championship again for 4 years.

My preference is a 16 team playoff. There are still only 4 rounds, but more teams.

This one would not include a ranking of any kind, to determine who gets in. This one would use a selection committee of knowledgeable people. They would have at their disposal a ranking much like the RPI when making their decisions.

1. All conference champions are automatically in the playoff (at this moment there are 10 conferences).
2. The other five teams would be selected by the selection committee.
3. No limits on how many teams from one conference can be in the playoff.
4. All teams are seeded by selection committee.
5. Higher seeded teams get home field for the first, second, and third rounds.
6. Championship round would be a neutral location determined by towns bidding to host the game.
7. Host cities cannot bid for a national championship again for 4 years.

granted these are very vague rules. but it is a starting point and it puts a decent and acceptable amount of teams in the playoffs.


Finally, my preferred playoff (16 teams) format would make it where the regular season would still mean a hell of a lot.

Teams like Oklahoma could schedule teams like USC without fear of being excluded from a national champions playoff birth if they lose.

As it is now, the BCS deters many teams to not schedule teams like OU, Florida, or any other top program.

Sure some still schedule them. But if you look at the SEC the last 5 or 6 years, the BCS AQs they schedule have been the middle to lower tier teams from their respective conferences!

I just think with a playoff, teams would not worry so much about losing a game....They may worry about losing more than 1 or 2 games though.

[rekamrettuB]

Crowning a true champion that has to run the gantlet of the best of the best.

There is no way in hell the BCS is the best at determining a true champion.

Hell, just this past year, there was plenty of controversy.

IMHO, if you cannot win your own damn conference championship, you should not be able to crown yourself national champion!


Well that happens in every other sport and it will happen with a playoff too. A lot of you think the conferences, presidents, etc are going to pass up these truck loads of money offers to maintain the proud regular season of college football. They won't even blink when offered more money to add an extra week to the tournament and include "wild card" teams.

And then in your example you say you want to add non-conference champions!!! Make up your mind.

You also asked why would regular season be "meaningless". I think that word is a bit extreme. No regular season is meaningless...it's just less important in the grand scheme of things. I do not follow NFL regular season like I do college for one reason...there's playoffs. When the playoffs start, I will watch every game.

[OU_Sooners75]

Well that happens in every other sport and it will happen with a playoff too. A lot of you think the conferences, presidents, etc are going to pass up these truck loads of money offers to maintain the proud regular season of college football. They won't even blink when offered more money to add an extra week to the tournament and include "wild card" teams.

In the system that is in place now...if you cannot win your conference you should not be able to win the national championship.

Remember, the regular season is what matters most...and if you are not a conference champion, then you didn't do what you needed to in the regular season....so how does one get rewarded by being one of two teams to play for a national championship?

Hmmmm....sounds like the regular season meant nothing! It sounds more like ESPN and the media determines who gets to play.

In my perferred playoff format, non conference champions would be included. But it would definitely be the best 5.

IN a playoff, I can see a non-conference champion winning it all....but in the BCS I can't.

[SoonerorLater]

Out of curiosity, would most anti-playoff traditionalists prefer to eliminate the BCS and go back to awarding the champion prior to the bowl season? Obviously that would make the regular season even more important than it is now.


Yes. Never happen but it would definitely be my preference.

[MeMyself&Me]

Damn, I check back in here after and evening away and there's a whole page of "true champion" and "scared of change" and "meaningless regular season" and "bull crap system". Why are we resorting to the irrelevant buzz words again? I thought we were having a logical discussion for once.

[Curly Bill]

Shouldn't the title of this thread start with "I believe", or have the word "is" be changed with the words 'could be' instead of "BCS Replaced with Playoff is a Good Move?"

We all know some kind of a playoff is a better idea than what we have.

Actually I don't know that at all. I don't think it would be any better, nor do I know it would be any worse; it would be different, and that's really all that can be said about it at this point.

[Curly Bill]

Damn, I check back in here after and evening away and there's a whole page of "true champion" and "scared of change" and "meaningless regular season" and "bull crap system". Why are we resorting to the irrelevant buzz words again? I thought we were having a logical discussion for once.

There is no "logical discussion" when it comes to this BS. And "true champion" WTF does that even really mean beyond it sounds kind of catchy?

[rekamrettuB]

In the system that is in place now...if you cannot win your conference you should not be able to win the national championship.

Remember, the regular season is what matters most...and if you are not a conference champion, then you didn't do what you needed to in the regular season....so how does one get rewarded by being one of two teams to play for a national championship?

Hmmmm....sounds like the regular season meant nothing! It sounds more like ESPN and the media determines who gets to play.


Regular season meant nothing? Ok State/Iowa St would have meant nothing in a playoff scenario and, with what we have now, was one of the biggest games of the year. Every game feels the same from game 1 to game 12, 13, or 14. That's something you don't see in sports with playoff tournaments. That's what makes college football special in my mind.

[jkjsooner]

Well that happens in every other sport and it will happen with a playoff too. A lot of you think the conferences, presidents, etc are going to pass up these truck loads of money offers to maintain the proud regular season of college football. They won't even blink when offered more money to add an extra week to the tournament and include "wild card" teams.

And yet they continuously pass on the additional money today. You have yet to explain to me why presidents and AD's are so resistant to change today yet apparently once we go to four teams they'll just throw everything they believe in out the window to chase the almighty dolllar.


The only argument I could see to lead me to that conclusion is that the presidents really want the additional revenue today but they're being paid off (free cruises, trips, etc.) by the bowls. If that is true then the current system is full of corruption and needs to be replaced anyway.

[jkjsooner]

Damn, I check back in here after and evening away and there's a whole page of "true champion" and "scared of change" and "meaningless regular season" and "bull crap system". Why are we resorting to the irrelevant buzz words again? I thought we were having a logical discussion for once.

I'll use a phrase that I don't think is irrelevant - beauty contest. When there are multiple teams vying for a spot it is nothing but a beauty contest. The BCS has tried to mitigate this by adding non-human elements but each time the voters disagree with the final result they change the formula to emphasize the voters more and more.

If you weren't good the year before or if your name isn't recognized you're fighting an uphill battle when it comes down to multiple teams with similar resumes. I personally think that makes somewhat of a mockery out of the system.


If you add more teams - even just a few more - you could possible remove the human element altogether. Even if you can't you're getting closer to a situation where the human element plays less of a role on who ultimately becomes the national champion.

[MeMyself&Me]

And yet they continuously pass on the additional money today. You have yet to explain to me why presidents and AD's are so resistant to change today yet apparently once we go to four teams they'll just throw everything they believe in out the window to chase the almighty dolllar.

You say that as though they have never altered and are not altering the post season format for extra money.

[MeMyself&Me]

I'll use a phrase that I don't think is irrelevant - beauty contest. When there are multiple teams vying for a spot it is nothing but a beauty contest. The BCS has tried to mitigate this by adding non-human elements but each time the voters disagree with the final result they change the formula to emphasize the voters more and more.

If you weren't good the year before or if your name isn't recognized you're fighting an uphill battle when it comes down to multiple teams with similar resumes. I personally think that makes somewhat of a mockery out of the system.


If you add more teams - even just a few more - you could possible remove the human element altogether. Even if you can't you're getting closer to a situation where the human element plays less of a role on who ultimately becomes the national champion.

If your issue was really the means of selection then you'd be arguing to change selection criteria to a computer formula only which would fix that issue very easily and I'd be on the same side as you.
But that's not what you are arguing.

Instead, what you really want is an expanded tournament and you'll grab onto any issue facing college football and say an expanded tournament will fix it. The truth in this case is any tournament using human selectors is still a beauty contest whether you have a 2 team tournament or a 4 tournament or 8 or 16 or whatever.

[jkjsooner]

You say that as though they have never altered and are not altering the post season format for extra money.

Have they altered the playoff format? (And don't say they made sure #1 and #2 meet. That was about solving a problem with the old system not a strictly financial decision.)

And by the way the expansion of the BCS was to give non-BCS teams a better chance of getting into the BCS to reduce the chances that they would have an antitrust lawsuit. If I remember correctly when they added the extra game they also instituted rules that would require the BCS to take a team like Boise State if certain criteria were met.

[MeMyself&Me]

Have they altered the playoff format? (And don't say they made sure #1 and #2 meet. That was about solving a problem with the old system not a strictly financial decision.)

I'll grant you there's more too it than JUST the money but I doubt they would have ever changed it if they didn't know they were going to be making more money. I doubt they'd be seriously talking about going to 4 teams if they didn't know they were going to be making more money.

[jkjsooner]

And here's something I got from wikipedia that really emphasizes how ridiculous system is.


During the 2008 season, the Utes finished their regular season schedule undefeated (8–0 in the Mountain West Conference and 12–0 overall) and earned a berth in the Sugar Bowl against Alabama, winning 31–17. Both the number of Top 25 teams (4) and Top 10 teams (2) Utah defeated that year, equalled the number of such ranked teams defeated by eventual one-loss champion Florida.

It wasn't because Utah didn't play a tough schedule. It wasn't because they weren't any good afterall they pounded Bama. It was a popularity contest pure and simple.

And, yes, I recongize that it might have been us they replaced in that game.

[MeMyself&Me]

And here's something I got from wikipedia that really emphasizes how ridiculous system is.



It wasn't because Utah didn't play a tough schedule. It wasn't because they weren't any good afterall they pounded Bama. It was a popularity contest pure and simple.

And, yes, I recongize that it might have been us they replaced in that game.

eeehhh, I don't want you to think I'm supporting the human part of the BCS but 2008 Utah's not as good an example as you're portraying, at least in terms of beauty pageant angle. If you remove the human polls from that year and simply use the computer polls, Utah still finishes outside the top 2. In fact, they'd finish outside the top 5. Why is that if they played all those great teams? Well, a season is more than 4 games and their schedule really did suck when you include them all... and OU and Florida's didn't. Just a quick look at Colley Matrix's data from that year for selection week and his poll has them as 87th for strength of schedule. OU and Florida's SOS according to Colley Matrix was 9 and 13 respectively. That's a vast difference from 87. I didn't look at the other computer polls but I'm sure they were similar.

[jkjsooner]

If your issue was really the means of selection then you'd be arguing to change selection criteria to a computer formula only which would fix that issue very easily and I'd be on the same side as you.
But that's not what you are arguing.

Two points that I've made about ten times in this thread.

1. That isn't my only argument. I also want all championship caliber teams to have a chance.
2. With only two teams selected, they will never turn the criteria over to a formula or algorithm. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but it isn't going to happen.


Instead, what you really want is an expanded tournament and you'll grab onto any issue facing college football and say an expanded tournament will fix it. The truth in this case is any tournament using human selectors is still a beauty contest whether you have a 2 team tournament or a 4 tournament or 8 or 16 or whatever.

And, again, I've addressed this about ten times.

1. People are more likely to agree to some non-human criteria if there are more teams. They may never ultimately agree to it but the chances of that happening increase as more teams are added. (You could have an RPI by itself figure out the NCAA tournament field / seeding in basketball without significantly altering the tournament.)

2. Even if you use a human poll, with more teams the subjective nature of such a selection criteria still plays a lesser role in determining who is the national champion.

Why must I answer the same questions over and over?



For the record, if I knew that there were always only two deserving teams and we could always identify those two teams I'd be happy to keep the current system. I don't want a playoff for the sake of having a playoff. I don't even care whether or not it would be fun to watch. I want it because the system we have today is broken.

But thanks for assuming you know my motivations even though nothing I have stated matches your conclusion.

[MeMyself&Me]

Since the loudest talking seems to indicate there's going to be a four team model taking the 4 highest ranked conference winners I decided to have a look back at the last 10 years and see who would have been participating. Just for amusement and curiosity, not trying to make any points or anything. For simplicity, I used that year's BCS to rank the conference champs (they're going to have to have some method). Had a hard time remembering who won what conference which doesn't actually line up smoothly with rankings. I went back and looked up when I knew I didn't know but it's still possible I got a few wrong. Things of note that I saw:

1) Non-BCS teams would have participated in 4 of the ten years but never host. However, none of them would have been Boise State which gave me a bit of a chuckle.

2) OU gets to participate the same number of times as they actually did, no change. That surprised me a bit. Thought it would have been more. They lose the 2003 opportunity and gain one in 2007.

3) If you don't count Miami, who is now in the ACC, Louisville (2006) and Cincinnati (2009) are the only Big East schools that participate at all. Hey West Virginia! Where have you been?

4) Oklahoma would have gotten to host 3 of the ten years. Washington in 2000, Auburn in 2004, and USC in 2008.

5) Oklahoma State would have hosted Oregon last year. Alabama doesn't even make the cut for last year.

6) If there's some sort of Notre Dame exception that allows them to continue as indie, then they would likely have made the cut in 2005 (depending on the special rule) and played at USC.

6) And speaking of rematches, I didn't actually go through all the schedules to look for rematches but I do see a few obvious first round ones like that Notre Dame/USC 2005 game. Miami and FSU in 2000 for sure. LSU and Virginia Tech in 2007 I think. That's actually more often than I expected. Would have thought that not having multiple participants from the same conference would have limited that occurrence better.

7) Remember the controversy of 2001? Well, Nebbish doesn't make the cut in this model. Instead, Colorado hosts Oregon for the right to be slaughtered by Miami.


Anyway, here's what I got, feel free to error check it. I didn't:

2000
4 Washington @ 1 Oklahoma
3 Miami @ 2 Florida State

2001
8 Illinois @ 1 Miami
4 Oregon @ 3 Colorado

2002
4 USC @ 1 Miami
3 Georgia @ 2 Ohio State

2003
7 FSU @ 2 LSU
4 Michigan @ 3 USC

2004
6 Utah @ 1 USC
3 Auburn @ 2 Oklahoma

2005
6 Notre Dame or 7 Georgia @ 1 USC
3 Penn State @ 2 Texas

2006
6 Louisville @ 1 Ohio State
5 USC @ 2 Florida

2007
4 Oklahoma @ 1 Ohio State
3 Virginia Tech @ 2 LSU

2008
5 USC @ 1 Oklahoma
6 Utah @ 2 Florida

2009
4 TCU @ 1 Alabama
3 Cincinnati @ 2 Texas

2010
5 Wisconsin @ 1 Auburn
3 TCU @ 2 Oregon

2011
10 Wisconsin @ 1 LSU
5 Oregon @ 3 Oklahoma State

Edited to add BCS rank at time of selection.

[rekamrettuB]

Look at things this way...would you have been as "shocked" or "cared as much" when Iowa State defeated Ok State in OT this year? How about a few years back when USC lost to Oregon State? Or 2007 when the craziest last week in the history of college football took place? If a tournament was in place then that weekend would have mattered very little. West Virginia would have still made it to the playoffs, Mizzu would have probably made it as an at large. That excitement and 'holly ****' moments would have been lost.

[MeMyself&Me]

Two points that I've made about ten times in this thread.

1. That isn't my only argument. I also want all championship caliber teams to have a chance.
2. With only two teams selected, they will never turn the criteria over to a formula or algorithm. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but it isn't going to happen.



And, again, I've addressed this about ten times.

1. People are more likely to agree to some non-human criteria if there are more teams. They may never ultimately agree to it but the chances of that happening increase as more teams are added. (You could have an RPI by itself figure out the NCAA tournament field / seeding in basketball without significantly altering the tournament.)

2. Even if you use a human poll, with more teams the subjective nature of such a selection criteria still plays a lesser role in determining who is the national champion.

Why must I answer the same questions over and over?



For the record, if I knew that there were always only two deserving teams and we could always identify those two teams I'd be happy to keep the current system. I don't want a playoff for the sake of having a playoff. I don't even care whether or not it would be fun to watch. I want it because the system we have today is broken.

But thanks for assuming you know my motivations even though nothing I have stated matches your conclusion.

So long as you keep saying an expanded tournament will fix the beauty pagent, I'll keep pointing it out because they are two different issues. I would say that the only reason it's unlikely they'll adopt an objective selection method is because there are too many people like you that are yelling for a need for a tournament instead of yelling for a need to change the selection method.

[StoopTroup]

How hard would it be for a few Bowls to create their own money pits that did indeed offer a ton of money to Teams to play a kind of NIT Football Playoff that had a few teams that weren't BCS Bowl Teams but strong competitors that would agree to play a 4 Team Playoff?

It would hopefully convince Fans, The NCAA and Schools that such a playoff could work and would be financially feesable. I don't understand the push o dismantle the current Bowl System unless the Bowls that are to try this experiment are paid handsomely for competing in such an experiment. In other words, quit bitching and get backers to put their money where their mouths are. If there is no money in it, it will never happen anyway. If its a success and popular with Fans and Schools it won't matter what the NCAA thinks. They will be forced to make the change.

Personally, I understand why folks want a playoff but I don't like the idea of destroying the Traditional Bowls to get it done.

[Spray]

I think they should do something like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JWfEVdzaZM

[jkjsooner]

How hard would it be for a few Bowls to create their own money pits that did indeed offer a ton of money to Teams to play a kind of NIT Football Playoff that had a few teams that weren't BCS Bowl Teams but strong competitors that would agree to play a 4 Team Playoff?

I think it's not just about the teams involved. I think you would have to get NCAA approval to do so. Afterall the NCAA decides how many games we can play, the minimum team requirement for a conference to have a championship game, and the eligibility to play in a bowl game.

The part about the conference championship game annoys me. The SEC was seen as innovative when they added the championship game but it was less about innovation and more about the power of that conference to persuade the NCAA to let them do it. I'm not sure if another conference proposed a championship game if they would have had the power to get it approved.

[OU_Sooners75]

Regular season meant nothing? Ok State/Iowa St would have meant nothing in a playoff scenario and, with what we have now, was one of the biggest games of the year. Every game feels the same from game 1 to game 12, 13, or 14. That's something you don't see in sports with playoff tournaments. That's what makes college football special in my mind.

So you are an advocate of rematches.....got ya!

[rekamrettuB]

So you are an advocate of rematches.....got ya!
If it's the two best teams...I don't mind it. Were the games you were talking about boring as hell, yes. But it had nothing to do with the fact it was a rematch. It was just those teams were so offensively challenged when they couldn't get short fields to work with. UCLA/USC a few years back on championship week would have meant nothing with a tourney, USC/Stanford (41 point underdogs) would have meant nothing, Appalachian State beating Michigan would have meant nothing, TCU beating OU would have meant nothing.

[MeMyself&Me]

So you are an advocate of rematches.....got ya!

Yah know, rematches will happen far more often in an expanded tournament. Just a mathematical certainty. Not really sure why you'd through that at someone that doesn't want an expanded tournament unless you're just trolling.

[8timechamps]

If your issue was really the means of selection then you'd be arguing to change selection criteria to a computer formula only which would fix that issue very easily and I'd be on the same side as you.
But that's not what you are arguing.

Instead, what you really want is an expanded tournament and you'll grab onto any issue facing college football and say an expanded tournament will fix it. The truth in this case is any tournament using human selectors is still a beauty contest whether you have a 2 team tournament or a 4 tournament or 8 or 16 or whatever.

If you're only going to have a 4 team tournament, then there is still a very strong likelihood that it's going to be a beauty contest. With 8 or 16 teams, there is a better chance that the best team wins the title. Can you really argue that a 16 team playoff would only crown the best looking team? Or the most popular? A 16 team playoff would make it pretty transparent.

[8timechamps]

How hard would it be for a few Bowls to create their own money pits that did indeed offer a ton of money to Teams to play a kind of NIT Football Playoff that had a few teams that weren't BCS Bowl Teams but strong competitors that would agree to play a 4 Team Playoff?

It would hopefully convince Fans, The NCAA and Schools that such a playoff could work and would be financially feesable. I don't understand the push o dismantle the current Bowl System unless the Bowls that are to try this experiment are paid handsomely for competing in such an experiment. In other words, quit bitching and get backers to put their money where their mouths are. If there is no money in it, it will never happen anyway. If its a success and popular with Fans and Schools it won't matter what the NCAA thinks. They will be forced to make the change.

Personally, I understand why folks want a playoff but I don't like the idea of destroying the Traditional Bowls to get it done.

The traditional bowls were destroyed when the BCS came to be. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube on that one.

[MeMyself&Me]

If you're only going to have a 4 team tournament, then there is still a very strong likelihood that it's going to be a beauty contest. With 8 or 16 teams, there is a better chance that the best team wins the title. Can you really argue that a 16 team playoff would only crown the best looking team? Or the most popular? A 16 team playoff would make it pretty transparent.

The beauty contest is in the selection. So long as you are using human polls, it's a beauty contest regarding who gets in and where they are seeded.

[8timechamps]

The beauty contest in the selection. So long as you are using human polls, it's a beauty contest regarding who gets in and where they are seeded.

I think the computer polls are a beauty contest. The reality is, nobody can tell you how the computers are configured to rank the teams. I could develop a program and submit it each week and be as legitimate as the current computer polls.

That's the first problem I have with the current BCS system, the computer polls. Everyone hears "computer" and thinks it's official and logical. Not so much.

[MeMyself&Me]

I think the computer polls are a beauty contest. The reality is, nobody can tell you how the computers are configured to rank the teams. I could develop a program and submit it each week and be as legitimate as the current computer polls.

That's the first problem I have with the current BCS system, the computer polls. Everyone hears "computer" and thinks it's official and logical. Not so much.

The only issue I have with the computer polls is that only one (Colley Matrix) lets you know the means of calculation. Assuming they only take input for results on the field, they are objective and there is no beauty contest.

[8timechamps]

The only issue I have with the computer polls is that only one (Colley Matrix) lets you know the means of calculation. Assuming they only take input for results on the field, they are objective and there is no beauty contest.

See, I didn't even realize there was any of them that made the calculations public. The problem is, we shouldn't have to "assume" what is factored in to the computers.

[MeMyself&Me]

See, I didn't even realize there was any of them that made the calculations public. The problem is, we shouldn't have to "assume" what is factored in to the computers.

I agree. The means should not be a mystery.

[jkjsooner]

If it's the two best teams...I don't mind it. Were the games you were talking about boring as hell, yes. But it had nothing to do with the fact it was a rematch. It was just those teams were so offensively challenged when they couldn't get short fields to work with. UCLA/USC a few years back on championship week would have meant nothing with a tourney, USC/Stanford (41 point underdogs) would have meant nothing, Appalachian State beating Michigan would have meant nothing, TCU beating OU would have meant nothing.

First, they would have impacted the seeding at the minimum.

Second, as you guys have said over and over, there's more to college football than the championship. Did the OSU game mean nothing to us? Was the Boise State game meaningless? Was every game after TCU meaningless?

Also, if you want to make the playoffs, losing the first game to TCU isn't exactly the best way to go about it. I'd hardly say that that loss was meaningless.

With a playoff a lot more of the end of season games would be meaningful. There would be a lot of teams fighting for a playoff spot.

[ouflak]

I agree. The means should not be a mystery.

Here here. I've found it unsettling how so many think that these computer rankings are any less biased than any of the human polls. I've made a career in programming, and I just about guarantee you that I could write a rankings system that would keep OU ranked in the top ten no matter what our results on the field were. It's up to the whims of the person who put together the algorithm and what *they* consider to be the most important stats. And for all we know, that emphasis can change at any time during the season.

Any computer program that gets to decide the financial fate of a major institution's post season, should have its algorithm completely open to scrutiny and proof-checking. This won't necessarily remove the bias, but atleast we would then have some kind of an idea where the bias is, and teams will have a better idea of what they should do in the regular to break up any potential tie-breakers for post-season play.

[MeMyself&Me]

Here here. I've found it unsettling how so many think that these computer rankings are any less biased than any of the human polls. I've made a career in programming, and I just about guarantee you that I could write a rankings system that would keep OU ranked in the top ten no matter what our results on the field were. It's up to the whims of the person who put together the algorithm and what *they* consider to be the most important stats. And for all we know, that emphasis can change at any time during the season.

Any computer program that gets to decide the financial fate of a major institution's post season, should have its algorithm completely open to scrutiny and proof-checking. This won't necessarily remove the bias, but atleast we would then have some kind of an idea where the bias is, and teams will have a better idea of what they should do in the regular to break up any potential tie-breakers for post-season play.

Any bias would be as to what the programmer thought was important, yes, but As long as the method is known before the season and not changed during the season, it's objective in terms of results. I'll add that I'm not conspiracy minded enough to think these programmers are actually trying to change the outcome of college football to their whims but I do know if there was a data entry error, there's know way we would ever know with all but one of the computers and it's likely that even if they realized it after they published their own that they would not admit it.

[ouflak]

Any bias would be as to what the programmer thought was important, yes, but As long as the method is known before the season and not changed during the season, it's objective in terms of results. I'll add that I'm not conspiracy minded enough to think these programmers are actually trying to change the outcome of college football to their whims but I do know if there was a data entry error, there's know way we would ever know with all but one of the computers and it's likely that even if they realized it after they published their own that they would not admit it.

There was once an error in the RPI calculation used for selecting the basketball tournament participants, I think just a few years ago if I recall. Fortunately the RPI is an open method. The error was noticed by somebody doing there own version of the RPI, which they soon brought to the attention of the selection committee. For these closed computer methods, even the programmer may never realize there was an error.

Sure I don't really think there is a blatant conspiracy, but look at Sagarin's ratings for example. He openly states that he believes that pure scoring is a better representation of strength of a team than winning. It doesn't take a computer programmer to figure out that a championship quality team that wins consistently defensive knock-down-drag-em-out type games will fare less well in his *closed* method of calculations. The result of the bias could cost a team seeding or even participation in a major tournament come post season time. And that is just because of his own unabashed bias. For basketball and its 68 team tournaments, this may not be such a big deal, but for football this could be devastating.

Now speaking of football, it probably kind of washes out in the end a bit. There are several methods, probably each with their own particular bias (though we don't really since nearly all of them are closed to the public), so they may balance each other to some extent, especially when the human parts are thrown in.

Anyway, playoff or no playoff, in my opinion, all computer methods should be open to scrutiny and independent verification. For football in particular, there's just too much money involved to let this continue to simply be a beauty contest with, in some cases, unknown standards for beauty.

[jkjsooner]

The beauty contest is in the selection. So long as you are using human polls, it's a beauty contest regarding who gets in and where they are seeded.

Nobody is arguing with this statement.

Can I at least get you to admit that the more teams that are added the less chance that the subjective part plays a role in the final outcome?

If you only have one team in the playoff it's highly subjective (i.e. a beauty contest). (I would say 100% subjective but luckily the polls are only a portion nowadays.) If you have two teams the subjectivity plays less of a role on who is the champion. If you add four teams the subjectivity plays an even smaller role.

There is a balance and in CFB that balance would be struck with a smaller tournament than what you would have in other sports. In other threads we've discussion the inclusion vs exclusion argument. I'd rather error by being more inclusive than error by being too exclusive. I'd rather add one or two teams who might not meet the traditional requirements for a national championship (say with 2 losses) than exclude a team who did have a national championship type season (i.e. Auburn).


Anyway, if you have more teams you are more likely to be able to come up with a purely objective criteria to making the playoffs.

[rekamrettuB]

First, they would have impacted the seeding at the minimum.

Second, as you guys have said over and over, there's more to college football than the championship. Did the OSU game mean nothing to us? Was the Boise State game meaningless? Was every game after TCU meaningless?

Also, if you want to make the playoffs, losing the first game to TCU isn't exactly the best way to go about it. I'd hardly say that that loss was meaningless.

With a playoff a lot more of the end of season games would be meaningful. There would be a lot of teams fighting for a playoff spot.

Seedings? Who cares about seedings? Ask Green Bay and the Giants how seedings matter. Just get to the playoffs.

In almost everyone's 8 team tourney conference champs are in. So TCU beating OU in 2005, and all OOC games for that matter, are like preseason games at best.

And yes, maybe more teams are playing for a tourney spot but, outside of my favorite team, I don't watch those other games to see who makes the tourney. I just wait for the playoffs to begin with whoever is there. Right now I watch every game that has any kind of impact on the NC race all year long regardless if OU is there or not. That's what I don't want to lose. Call me afraid of change or whatever you want...I don't want anything to change my favorite sport.

Look at it this way, if I like my favorite food prepared a certain way and the chef came up and asked would I like to change this certain spice because he knows it will be better, I might say 'sure this one time...let's try it'. Then he follows up with 'well it can't be just once...if we change it now there's no going back'. I'm going to change my answer.

[jkjsooner]

Seedings? Who cares about seedings? Ask Green Bay and the Giants how seedings matter. Just get to the playoffs.

In almost everyone's 8 team tourney conference champs are in. So TCU beating OU in 2005, and all OOC games for that matter, are like preseason games at best.

I think you're using the "almost everyone" term very loosely here. Plenty of people don't want automatic bids for conference winners. I for one think it would be a big mistake to automatically include conference champions. And, by the way, that would be impossible with an 8 team playoff as there are more than 8 conferences.

Even in the four team scenario proposed by the PAC 10 commissioner there were no automatic bids for conference winners. There was a requirement that all teams win their conference (unclear how they would deal with independents) but winning the conference did not guarantee inclusion. That means the TCU loss would have still been very meaningful. Most likely we would have had to go through the rest of the schedule with no more losses. Worst case (for us) we could have been excluded by that one loss.


Look at it this way, if I like my favorite food prepared a certain way and the chef came up and asked would I like to change this certain spice because he knows it will be better, I might say 'sure this one time...let's try it'. Then he follows up with 'well it can't be just once...if we change it now there's no going back'. I'm going to change my answer.

I'm not telling you that you have to favor a playoff but when you state rationale that I feel is incorrect I will point it out.

[rekamrettuB]

I'm not telling you that you have to favor a playoff but when you state rationale that I feel is incorrect I will point it out.

I got no problem with that. You aren't telling my to favor a playoff but someone, maybe not you, has said those that oppose playoffs are "afraid of change". I'm telling you why I don't want it to change. I like what I'm eating. But this tourney isn't stopping at 4. It might not even start at 4. It may go straight to 8 with the Big 6 conference champs and 2 at larges. Personally, I feel there is no way this tourney will stay at less than 16 once the ball gets rolling. With that said, you see where my concern is. I would love a 4 team tourney and the regular season just the same if there was a guarantee it would go no further. I wouldn't even complain too terribly much if it went to 8. That would be a pretty good combination of regular season impact and post season when looking at the 120 teams.

[jkjsooner]

It may go straight to 8 with the Big 6 conference champs and 2 at larges.

This is off-topic, but I see this as being improbable. I'm assuming you mean that the non-champions of the Big 6 conferences would be eligible for the at large bids. (If not, I don't see the SEC agreeing.)

1. Notre Dame still has a lot of pull and I don't see them agreeing to be considered on equal footing as the teams from major conferences who did not win their conference.

2. I think you open the door for more antitrust problems from mid-major conferences.

3. I don't think it's the role of the NCAA to favor some conferences over others. Remember, the BCS isn't really an NCAA invention and (polls aside) even the BCS doesn't play favorites when you consider just the national title game.

4. Not all conferences have championship games and therefore there is sometimes ambiguity on who is the true champion. Heck, until this year the Big 10 could have champions who didn't even play each other.

Personally I hate the idea of either excluding non-conference winners or giving automatic bids to conference winners. That the easiest way to guarantee that you don't end up with the X best teams. And, frankly, if they do that many of your points would be valid and I might oppose such a playoff.


I know someone is going to point out that the NCAA bball tourney hasn't always given automatic bids to every conference champion. However, for the NCAA bball tournament, adding automatic bids for conference champions wasn't about benefitting the the major conferences (as they would always get several teams in) as much as it was about throwing a bone to the minor conferences. The major conferences would benefit greatly if the automatic bids were removed.

[rekamrettuB]

This is off-topic, but I see this as being improbable. I'm assuming you mean that the non-champions of the Big 6 conferences would be eligible for the at large bids. (If not, I don't see the SEC agreeing.)

1. Notre Dame still has a lot of pull and I don't see them agreeing to be considered on equal footing as the teams from major conferences who did not win their conference.

2. I think you open the door for more antitrust problems from mid-major conferences.

3. I don't think it's the role of the NCAA to favor some conferences over others. Remember, the BCS isn't really an NCAA invention and (polls aside) even the BCS doesn't play favorites when you consider just the national title game.

4. Not all conferences have championship games and therefore there is sometimes ambiguity on who is the true champion. Heck, until this year the Big 10 could have champions who didn't even play each other.

Personally I hate the idea of either excluding non-conference winners or giving automatic bids to conference winners. That the easiest way to guarantee that you don't end up with the X best teams. And, frankly, if they do that many of your points would be valid and I might oppose such a playoff.


Basically, what you said, is exactly why I don't think it will stop growing until we get to 16 teams.

[SoonerorLater]

My question is why do so many people have this need to have a "Championship"? Just let a team's body of work speak for itself. There is no need to appoint some body of officials to select who they think might be "worthy" to participate in a post season tournament for nothing more than to satisfy people's need for closure.

[MeMyself&Me]

Nobody is arguing with this statement.

Can I at least get you to admit that the more teams that are added the less chance that the subjective part plays a role in the final outcome?

If you only have one team in the playoff it's highly subjective (i.e. a beauty contest). (I would say 100% subjective but luckily the polls are only a portion nowadays.) If you have two teams the subjectivity plays less of a role on who is the champion. If you add four teams the subjectivity plays an even smaller role.

There is a balance and in CFB that balance would be struck with a smaller tournament than what you would have in other sports. In other threads we've discussion the inclusion vs exclusion argument. I'd rather error by being more inclusive than error by being too exclusive. I'd rather add one or two teams who might not meet the traditional requirements for a national championship (say with 2 losses) than exclude a team who did have a national championship type season (i.e. Auburn).


Anyway, if you have more teams you are more likely to be able to come up with a purely objective criteria to making the playoffs.

Can I at least get you to admit that your 'solution' only partially covers up the 'beauty pagent' issue instead of really solving it?

[MeMyself&Me]

My question is why do so many people have this need to have a "Championship"? Just let a team's body of work speak for itself. There is no need to appoint some body of officials to select who they think might be "worthy" to participate in a post season tournament for nothing more than to satisfy people's need for closure.

Haven't you heard? The lack of a tournament in college football is going to cause WW3 and if we could just have a tournament, we could solve world hunger!

[8timechamps]

My question is why do so many people have this need to have a "Championship"? Just let a team's body of work speak for itself. There is no need to appoint some body of officials to select who they think might be "worthy" to participate in a post season tournament for nothing more than to satisfy people's need for closure.

Really?

You're right, we should paint over our national championship years and give back the trophies. Nobody really cares who the national champion is anyway.

C'mon now, you knew the answer to that question before you even asked it.

[jkjsooner]

Can I at least get you to admit that your 'solution' only partially covers up the 'beauty pagent' issue instead of really solving it?

I admitted that there probablly would always be a subjective part. Afterall, I'm operating under the assumption that they would want to retain a human element in the decision making. If you're going to insist that there must be a subjective part you can't complain because there's a subjective part.

You either get rid of the subjective part (more probable if you add more teams) or reduce the impact of the subjective part.


I feel like I'm stating the obvious here but your post kind of forced me to do so.


Haven't you heard? The lack of a tournament in college football is going to cause WW3 and if we could just have a tournament, we could solve world hunger!

I see you've given up on having a rational discussion.

[MeMyself&Me]

I admitted that there probablly would always be a subjective part. Afterall, I'm operating under the assumption that they would want to retain a human element in the decision making. If you're going to insist that there must be a subjective part you can't complain because there's a subjective part.

You either get rid of the subjective part (more probable if you add more teams) or reduce the impact of the subjective part.


I feel like I'm stating the obvious here but your post kind of forced me to do so.



I see you've given up on having a rational discussion.

To the first part, I've never insisted there be a human poll. I don't know why you're attributing that to me. That was my point. That issue can be fixed without an expanded tournament.

The the last part, it was a joke of course. Are we not allowed to laugh while having a discussion? After all, it's not like we're deciding the fate of college football in this thread...

[OU_Sooners75]

Yah know, rematches will happen far more often in an expanded tournament. Just a mathematical certainty. Not really sure why you'd through that at someone that doesn't want an expanded tournament unless you're just trolling.

Yeah, I know...but at the same time, if it is the championship, at least they proved it on the field and not in the media!

That is my biggest problem with the BCS...all you have to do is have ESPN on yourside and as long as you do not lose too many games, you are in the BCS title game!

[rekamrettuB]

Yeah, I know...but at the same time, if it is the championship, at least they proved it on the field and not in the media!

That is my biggest problem with the BCS...all you have to do is have ESPN on yourside and as long as you do not lose too many games, you are in the BCS title game!

OU had the ESPN on its side in 2008?

[OU_Sooners75]

If it's the two best teams...I don't mind it. Were the games you were talking about boring as hell, yes. But it had nothing to do with the fact it was a rematch. It was just those teams were so offensively challenged when they couldn't get short fields to work with. UCLA/USC a few years back on championship week would have meant nothing with a tourney, USC/Stanford (41 point underdogs) would have meant nothing, Appalachian State beating Michigan would have meant nothing, TCU beating OU would have meant nothing.

How do you know it is the two best teams?

How do you know Oklahoma State wasn't the best team that had an off night?

You don't, because they weren't given a chance they rightfully deserved.

Im sorry, but how the system is now, if the Regular Season means so much...then Alabama blew their shot at a title when they lost to LSU.

It wasn't just unfair to OSU to miss the BCS title game...but it was unfair to LSU as well. Because we all know that rematches in football are always tougher on the team that won the first game.

Anyway, my point is, if the regular season is suppose to mean so much, then rematches in the BCS championship should not occur!

[OU_Sooners75]

OU had the ESPN on its side in 2008?

You tell me. OU was the #1 team in the BCS to finish the Season.

Yes there were outspoken people on Texas' side, but there were also outspoken people on OU's side.

After Bama lost to LSU this past season, we immediately started hearing how Bama and LSU were the top 2 teams, by ESPN. And how they deserved to play again in a rematch for the BCS title.

[jkjsooner]

To the first part, I've never insisted there be a human poll. I don't know why you're attributing that to me. That was my point. That issue can be fixed without an expanded tournament.

I didn't mean "you" as in you.

I'd love for them to get rid of the polls - with or without a playoff. The problem is that any objective criteria could come up with weird results on occasion that humans might object to. I'm not really concerned about that but I'm guessing many people are.

With more teams I think there is a chance to remove the subjective component. Even this is a longshot. I see no reason why the RPI can't pick and seed the NCAA basketball tournament but yet they insist on having a committee.

[rekamrettuB]

How do you know it is the two best teams?

How do you know Oklahoma State wasn't the best team that had an off night?

You don't, because they weren't given a chance they rightfully deserved.

Im sorry, but how the system is now, if the Regular Season means so much...then Alabama blew their shot at a title when they lost to LSU.

It wasn't just unfair to OSU to miss the BCS title game...but it was unfair to LSU as well. Because we all know that rematches in football are always tougher on the team that won the first game.

Anyway, my point is, if the regular season is suppose to mean so much, then rematches in the BCS championship should not occur!

OK, how do we "know" Bama didn't have an off night when they lost their game? What you are saying is if Bama had lost to anyone else that they would have deserved a shot at LSU. Bama and Ok State both lost a game as did Stanford. Shouldn't matter to whom they lost to. Heck some people are even saying take the top 4 teams and throw them in a playoff...but that would have eliminated Oregon who beat Stanford and won their common conference. One main reason Oregon is eliminated from that scenario is because they scheduled LSU in the OOC and Stanford played San Diego State, Duke, and Notre Dame. There's just as many problems with a small playoff, if not more when you double or quadruple the size of the tournament, to deal with the way college football is currently organized.

And as far as "did OU have ESPN on their side in 2008"...the answer is a resounding no. Take off your blinders on this situation and think back to all the ESPN pumping Texas the last few weeks of the season. You're crazy if you don't think they weren't in Texas' corner. I would guess 1 out of 5 (and I think I'm being pretty liberal with that) were on OU's side.

[MeMyself&Me]

The problem is that any objective criteria could come up with weird results on occasion that humans might object to.

Which is more weird, objective results, or the subjective people that disagree?


In any case, as long as there's subjective component in the selection and seeding, you're effecting the outcome with subjective material. Expanding the tournament doesn't solve that issue, it just packages it differently.

[OU_Sooners75]

OK, how do we "know" Bama didn't have an off night when they lost their game? What you are saying is if Bama had lost to anyone else that they would have deserved a shot at LSU. Bama and Ok State both lost a game as did Stanford. Shouldn't matter to whom they lost to. Heck some people are even saying take the top 4 teams and throw them in a playoff...but that would have eliminated Oregon who beat Stanford and won their common conference. One main reason Oregon is eliminated from that scenario is because they scheduled LSU in the OOC and Stanford played San Diego State, Duke, and Notre Dame. There's just as many problems with a small playoff, if not more when you double or quadruple the size of the tournament, to deal with the way college football is currently organized.

And as far as "did OU have ESPN on their side in 2008"...the answer is a resounding no. Take off your blinders on this situation and think back to all the ESPN pumping Texas the last few weeks of the season. You're crazy if you don't think they weren't in Texas' corner. I would guess 1 out of 5 (and I think I'm being pretty liberal with that) were on OU's side.

Had they have lost to anyone else, they would have fell a lot further than from #2 to #3.

Had they lost to anyone else, they would have fell to around #8 in the BCS from #2.