Playoff System

[BigCrimson32]

This would take away from the week to week greatness of college football!

Like coach Stoops said, it would be like college basketball, the whole season is all leading up to the tourney where in football every saturday is make or break your whole chances at the big game.

I do, however, believe there should be a +1 if there is two undefeateded teams remaining after the BCS is finished. Auburn should've had a shot at usc in '04.

If there is a playoff it should be a final four and that's it, the top four teams battle it out.

I personally think any kind of playoff is a bad idea, only BCS +1 is fair.



8?

[goingoneight]

Agreed... 100%. The fundamental problem with a playoff system is that a lucky one could end up a National Champ. Look at the 2006 Super Bowl-- NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TEAMS WERE THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE!!! Not trying to disrespect Florida, but who all thinks they were the "best in the country?

If we have a playoff system, although we dislike the BCS at times... a team who is ranked could have a lucky run and travel from No. 14 in the country to No. 1.

We all know that Lester had a ranked OSU team. What would happen if a nobody like them goes into some "NCAA playoff" and wins six straight games? Even OSU can win six straight!
Not saying that I'm worried about that, just used them as an example. Usually, the better teams work their way through the tourneys, but there is always that "champion" who doesn't belong.

[BigCrimson32]

Yeah this years march madness was one of the best i've seen because of upsets which led to the worst final four and finish i've ever seen. If basketball was played in anyway like football in college duke or uconn, maybe gonzaga would've been battling it out. I can't even remember the name of that no name school that made it to the final four.

[NickZeppelin]

I think a playoff would work if it's no more then 12 teams. I would go for an 8 team playoff the most. That would mean only 3 or 4 extra games which isn't too bad. Plus you would have to have a really good regular season to be in a playoff. Bowl games don't necessarily show the best 2 teams.

[BigCrimson32]

Top 4 teams and that's it

[NickZeppelin]

I would say top 8 only because you could get an at large team a better shot at the playoff. Top 4 wouldn't be bad either. It would be a lot better then we have now.

[okienole3]

I would say top 8 only because you could get an at large team a better shot at the playoff. Top 4 wouldn't be bad either. It would be a lot better then we have now.

GD NICK! Please, please, please learn the difference between then and than. Do it for yourself.

[Tiptonsooner]

GD NICK! Please, please, please learn the difference between then and than. Do it for yourself.


That is pure gold!!!:D


Wish I had spek to give...

[SoonerMachine]

4 or 8 would be cool...

[aztecwilliam]

This would take away from the week to week greatness of college football!

Like coach Stoops said, it would be like college basketball, the whole season is all leading up to the tourney where in football every saturday is make or break your whole chances at the big game.

I do, however, believe there should be a +1 if there is two undefeateded teams remaining after the BCS is finished. Auburn should've had a shot at usc in '04.

If there is a playoff it should be a final four and that's it, the top four teams battle it out.

I personally think any kind of playoff is a bad idea, only BCS +1 is fair.



8?

I strongly agree with your idea. By taking the top four teams every year, matching 1 vs 4 in one BCS bowl, and 2 vs 3 in another, and then a championship game the following week, you would almost certainly include the nation's best team in the mix.

Ask yourself; can you name any season in the last 50 or 60 in which there is even a remote possibility that a team ranked below #4 was actually the best team that year? I believe that one cannot do so. Therefore, a final championship game following the two qualifying games I mentioned above would eliminate the griping that we have heard on more than one occasion and add just one week to the college season.

Oh, I forgot. That is just too logical and practical for the powers that be to accept.

AztecWilliam

[NickZeppelin]

The thing you can add with the top 8 is have the first round games at the homefield of the top 4 seeds. That would make the regular season that more important.

[mrssoonerhubler]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f258/skeeterou/stuckonstupidnick.jpg
Courtesy of skeeterou

[bigdsooner]

GD NICK! Please, please, please learn the difference between then and than. Do it for yourself.

:D , now that right there is some funny $hit

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Ok so we beat Texas, as usual, during the regular season....We both end up in the top 8...Why should they even have a chance when we ve already beat them...Then it doesnt matter who wins the first making it rather meaningless....

People think a playoff would end the arguments but look at the basketball tournament..They allow 64 teams and every year teams 65-90 complain because they didnt get in along with media and fans...

[NickZeppelin]

Complaining about the 8th best team is better then arguing if the top 2 teams deserve to be in there.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I see the top 2 or 3 teams are always up for debate, but why should number 8 get a chance?

[Collier11]

Complaining about the 8th best team is better then arguing if I deserve to live.

FIXED!

[okienole3]

Complaining about the 8th best team is better then arguing if the top 2 teams deserve to be in there.

You did it again.

then= point in time

than= when you are comparing two things

Got it?

[dougsooner]

BCS 1+ is a horrible idea. In 2000 should we, as the only team without a loss, have had to play another team with 1 loss? Say we would have had to play Miami, Fl. after that game and they beat us. Then we both have 1 loss after that game. What would you do then, play another game??? 8 team playoff is the way to go.

[Desert Sapper]

You did it again.

then= point in time

than= when you are comparing two things

Got it?


Wonder if he is smart enough to use this strictly to f*** with you?





Nah.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Ask yourself; can you name any season in the last 50 or 60 in which there is even a remote possibility that a team ranked below #4 was actually the best team that year?


Self, can you think of any? Why yes I can. All those years OU was ranked below #4, they were the best! ;)

[SoonerMachine]

If we implement an 8-team playoff, I would agree it shouldn't be an "open" or "top" eight format. As previously mentioned, rematches among heated rivals would be less than ideal...

[NickZeppelin]

You did it again.

then= point in time

than= when you are comparing two things

Got it?

What are you an English teacher?

[Mac94]

The only idea I think would work would be a championship series of conference champs. That would make the conference portion of the regular season VERY meaningful. And, given the we've now gone to a 12 game season, we could do as the Pac-10 has done and use the extra game to add an extra conference game instead of a "scrimage" against some lowly bidirectional school.

The basic rule would be, only one team per conference and they could be seeded by rankings. It would be up to each conference to determine their champ, either via a championship game, rankings, record, arm wrestling between S&C coachs, cheerleader mud wrestling, whatever. Just one team per conference. If you don't like how a champion is crowned, complain to your respective conference headquarters.

[Quack 10]

I have to respectfully disagree with the whole idea.

Y'all can rightfully accuse me of not being all that concerned with who gets named "Champion" mostly because it's not likely to be my team anyway, but as flawed as the bowl system is, it needs to remain.

Yes, college football is really the only organized sport that doesn't clearly define its "Champion" every year, but that uniqueness isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Bowl season is a celebration of the game, and in most cases, even the losers end up having a good time. Each bowl game is a season finale in its own way. A playoff system would effectively put an end to that, and the "pinnacle" of many teams' seasons, diminutive as it might be, would be lost.

Aside from that, a playoff will require fans of qualifying schools to travel perhaps two to three times, while fans of non-qualifiers, who might have traveled to a minor bowl, will get nothing. It just doesn't make any economic sense.

As a Pac-10 fan, I should probably hate the BCS and wish for any other solution, but as a college football fan who associates bowl season with the holidays, with joy and celebration and the start of a new year, I don't want to see it change.

In the end, all that determining an "official" champion does is create a more credible entry in a history book. Is it that big of a deal? Certainly, as a fan of a team that hasn't won a Rose Bowl since Woodrow Wilson was President, I'm not really qualified to say.

[NickZeppelin]

Why is college football at the Div 1A level the only sport to not have a playoff?

Every other div, and ever other sport must just be wrong I guess.

[Mac94]

Quack -

I actually agree, and that's the nice thing about a tourny of conference champions, the other bowls can remain and do their thing.

Right now we have the "BCS" series and then the other bowls. The conference champ tourney could fit within the BCS system, using those four bowls and allowing the other bowls to go on as normal. We'd get a champion on the field and the other bowls would still remain to do what they have always done, reward good teams with a nice end of the year trip and game.

[okienole3]

What are you an English teacher?

Maybe. I am just trying to help you not look like any more of an idiot thAn you have to.

[snp]

Why is college football at the Div 1A level the only sport to not have a playoff?

Every other div, and ever other sport must just be wrong I guess.

Because it's not like every other sport.

Quit using that arguement.

[NickZeppelin]

How is it different from Div IAA, Div 2 College Football or NFL or HS Football? It's the same sport just different talent levels.

I do agree that the regular season being big is fun. That's why I say we have an 8 team playoff. We can even use SOS and the BCS system. That way it makes scheduling really important if you want to make a playoff. Use the Final 4 with the Bowl games that want to fork over the money. You can keep the bowls if you want to. They would mean as much as they do now. But the Major Bowls would be getting more money for hosting the final 3 playoff games. And you can rotate these games so it's a different one each year.

Another catch is that the first round is hosted by the top 4 teams in this system. That way it makes being in the top 4 that much more important. And if you win a NC as an 8th seed you really would have had to earn it by not only having a good year but also having beat the best team in the road than beating 2 more pretty good teams.

[okienole3]

How is it different from Div IAA, Div 2 College Football or NFL or HS Football? It's the same sport just different talent levels.

I do agree that the regular season being big is fun. That's why I say we have an 8 team playoff. We can even use SOS and the BCS system. That way it makes scheduling really important if you want to make a playoff. Use the Final 4 with the Bowl games that want to fork over the money. You can keep the bowls if you want to. They would mean as much as they do now. But the Major Bowls would be getting more money for hosting the final 3 playoff games. And you can rotate these games so it's a different one each year.

Another catch is that the first round is hosted by the top 4 teams in this system. That way it makes being in the top 4 that much more important. And if you win a NC as an 8th seed you really would have had to earn it by not only having a good year but also having beat the best team in the road then beating 2 more pretty good teams.

He's learning

[NickZeppelin]

I changed it just for you:D

[BigCrimson32]

BCS 1+ is a horrible idea. In 2000 should we, as the only team without a loss, have had to play another team with 1 loss? Say we would have had to play Miami, Fl. after that game and they beat us. Then we both have 1 loss after that game. What would you do then, play another game??? 8 team playoff is the way to go.

In 2000 there was only ONE undefeated team, therefore there was no need for a +1

There should only be a +1 if there are two unbeaten teams at the end of the BCS

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I have to agree with the Quacker....I am not for a playoff at all...but I am willing to always here what people have to say ssoooo:

this is the final ap poll from 2000..which teams should be in the 8 team playoff since that sounds like the opinion heard most? and please explain why....

1. Oklahoma (71) 13-0 1,775 1
2. Miami Fla 11-1 1,690 2
3. Washington 11-1 1,634 4
4. Oregon State 11-1 1,539 5
5. Florida State 11-2 1,488 3
6. Virginia Tech 11-1 1,432 6
7. Oregon 10-2 1,299 8
8. Nebraska 10-2 1,282 9
9. Kansas State 11-3 1,258 11
10. Florida 10-3 1,128 7
11. Michigan 9-3 1,061 17
12. Texas 9-3 894 12
13. Purdue 8-4 765 14
14. Colorado State 10-2 640 23
15. Notre Dame 9-3 611 10
16. Clemson 9-3 563 16
17. Georgia Tech 9-3 545 15
18. Auburn 9-4 498 20
19. South Carolina 8-4 486 NR
20. Georgia 8-4 430 24
21. TCU 10-2 406 13
22. LSU 8-4 340 NR
23. Wisconsin 9-4 208 NR
24. Mississippi St. 8-4 197 NR
25. Iowa State


ESPN/USA Today 2000 Coaches Poll - FINAL RANKINGS
The USA TODAY/ESPN Coaches Top 25 college football coaches' poll, with number of first-place votes and record in parentheses, total points and previous ranking:


RANK TEAM RECORD PTS PVS
1. Oklahoma (59) 13-0 1,475 1
2. Miami Fla 11-1 1,404 2
3. Washington 11-1 1,336 4
4. Florida State 11-2 1,253 3
5. Oregon State 11-1 1,245 6
6. Virginia Tech 11-1 1,215 5
7. Nebraska 10-2 1,099 8
8. Kansas State 11-3 1,077 9
9. Oregon 10-2 1,009 11
10. Michigan 9-3 901 15
11. Florida 10-3 899 7
12. Texas 9-3 731 12
13. Purdue 8-4 626 14
14. Clemson 9-3 590 13
15. Colorado State 10-2 587 22
16. Notre Dame 9-3 457 10
17. Georgia 8-4 357 24
18. TCU 10-2 341 16
19. Georgia Tech 9-3 335 17
20. Auburn 9-4 325 20
21. South Carolina 8-4 314 NR
22. Mississippi St. 8-4 272 NR
23. Iowa State 9-3 225 NR
24. Wisconsin 9-4 220 NR
25. Tennessee 8-4 159 21
OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES
Northwestern 116, Toledo 111, Ohio State 101, LSU 84, Southern Miss 62, N.C. State 57, Louisville 54, Air Force 50, East Carolina 35, West Virginia 17, Texas A&M 9, Boise State 8, Marshall 5, Western Michigan 5, Boston College 4, Pittsburgh 4, Fresno State 1.

[snp]

How is it different from Div IAA, Div 2 College Football or NFL or HS Football? It's the same sport just different talent levels.


Different bowl traditions, TV contracts, and fan bases as well.

[NickZeppelin]

The Bowls can still stay if you want em too.

[SoonerMachine]

While the 4-team playoff is much easier, I would draw up an 8-team playoff as follows:

An 8-team playoff comprised of the top 6 BCS ranked conference champs, plus the 2 highest ranked at-large teams and have them play a home-field advantage playoff until the national championship.

2000 Season

1st Round:

#1 OU (Big 12 champ) hosts and defeats #14 TCU (WAC champ)

#2 FSU (ACC champ) hosts and defeats #7 Florida (SEC champ)

#3 Miami (Big East champ) hosts and defeats #6 Oregon St. (second highest ranked at-large)

#4 Washington (Pac 10 champ) hosts and defeats #5 Virginia Tech (highest ranked at-large)

2nd Round:

#1 OU (Big 12 champ) hosts and defeats #4 Washington (Pac 10 champ)

#2 FSU (ACC champ) hosts and defeats #3 Miami (Big East champ)

Orange Bowl

#1 OU (Big 12 champ) defeats #2 FSU (ACC champ) 13-2

[aztecwilliam]

I have to respectfully disagree with the whole idea.

Y'all can rightfully accuse me of not being all that concerned with who gets named "Champion" mostly because it's not likely to be my team anyway, but as flawed as the bowl system is, it needs to remain.

Yes, college football is really the only organized sport that doesn't clearly define its "Champion" every year, but that uniqueness isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Bowl season is a celebration of the game, and in most cases, even the losers end up having a good time. Each bowl game is a season finale in its own way. A playoff system would effectively put an end to that, and the "pinnacle" of many teams' seasons, diminutive as it might be, would be lost.

Aside from that, a playoff will require fans of qualifying schools to travel perhaps two to three times, while fans of non-qualifiers, who might have traveled to a minor bowl, will get nothing. It just doesn't make any economic sense.

As a Pac-10 fan, I should probably hate the BCS and wish for any other solution, but as a college football fan who associates bowl season with the holidays, with joy and celebration and the start of a new year, I don't want to see it change.

In the end, all that determining an "official" champion does is create a more credible entry in a history book. Is it that big of a deal? Certainly, as a fan of a team that hasn't won a Rose Bowl since Woodrow Wilson was President, I'm not really qualified to say.

The beauty of the four team playoff is that the bowls remain in business. You simply pit #1 against #4 in, say, the Orange Bowl, then #2 vs #3 in, perhaps, the Fiesta Bowl. The following week you have the winners face off in the championship game. The other bowls would still occur. I don't think they would be any less important than they are now. (Which is, in other words, not very important in most cases, except to the schools who participate. But what's wrong with that?)

Also, please remember that there certainly ARE football playoffs in I-AA, II, III, and the NAIA. I'm still waiting for a solid reason why the four team playoff system would not be better all the way around than what we have now. Of course, we could simply forget about the championship game altogether and just let the polls decide the mythical championship as they did for decades.

Now, if you want to get down to the REAL reason why the BCS exists, we can discuss the fact that its true purpose is see that mediocre teams such as the 7-4 Seminoles a couple of years back get their huge bags of loot, while non-BCS teams such as BYU, with 14 wins, is shucked off to secondary bowls, or in the case of ten win Wyoming that same year ('96), not getting a bowl bid at all while Cal, at 6-5 got an invite in which they were deservedly slapped down hard. To prove how unbiased I am, keep in mind that I, as an Aztec fan, practically had to hold my nose in order to say something nice about the Cougs.

[Mac94]

My system:

The BCS needs to become a playoff, and it is already set up to evolve into a playoff system.
IMHO, the ideal would be a tournament of conference champions. College football has so many
teams across the land, that it is really hard to determine which is actually better than another.
Is a teams lofty win loss record and ranking the product of true dominance or a weak conference
and schedule? Which conference is really better in any given year? We really can't even begin
to make that kind of comparision until after the bowl season. Right now, we have a system of
regional conferences across this country and each one has it's own system for determining which
of it's teams is the best of it's conference. Right now, the current BCS takes six of those
teams and places them into its system? What if the BCS continued to do this, and maybe open
it up a bit to take all of the conference champs and actually seeded these champs and played a
real "Bowl Championship Series?" If we included almost all the conferences we would have a
seeding that looked someting like this (based on 2005 season):

1) #1 USC (12-0)
2) #2 Texas (12-0)
3) #3 Penn St. (10-1)
4) #5 Notre Dame (9-2)
5) #8 Georgia (9-2)
6) #11 West Virginia (10-1)
7) #14 TCU (10-1)
8) #22 Florida St. (8-5)
9) Boise St. (9-3)
10)Tulsa (8-4)

Ninee or ten teams (and the conferences that are invited could be negotiated) based on whether Notre Dame finihsed in the top 10 and had 2 or fewer losses (or something like that, ya gotta have some kind of provision for them) would be the teams in
this proposed system. And, for the mid majors, they could also have a "minimum win qualification" or something, too. A week by week would go something like this:

Week 1

game 1: Tulsa @ TCU
game 2: Boise St. @ Florida St.

Everyone else would have a bye. This would be kind of a "play in" into an 8 team tournament.
The higher seeded team would play at home as a reward for the higher ranking (better record?).

week 2

game 3: Tulsa/TCU @ USC
game 4: Florida St./Boise St. @ Texas
game 5: West Virginia @ Penn St.
game 6: Georgia @ Notre Dame.

Again, the higher seeded team gets to play on their own turf. This rewards these teams with
an extra home game (AD's would love the extra $$$ from another home game) which would be good
for the teams and their fans.

week 3

Sugar Bowl: game 3 winner vs. game 6 winner
Orange Bowl: game 4 winner vs game 5 winner

Now we can incorporate the BCS bowls into the final four situation. The 4 bowls would operate
under a 2-1-1 type system in which they would get a final four game two years in a row, then
get the N.C. game one year, then get a "best of the rest game" one year, say #4 Ohio St. vs. #6 Oregon
under this past years situation.

week 4

Rose Bowl

This type of system would operate under the premise that if you are not the best in your own
league, then you can't be considered the best in the land. Of course, some will ask about a
situation like OU in 2003 this year or an unbeaten Iowa like a few years ago. My answer is simple, if your
not the best in your own conference then you're out, and each conference will make its own rules
for determining its champion. If that means a championship game, fine, if that means the highest
ranked team, fine, if a conference wants to have an arm wrestling match between the two teams
strength and conditioning coaches or mud wrestling matchs between the cheerleadering squads, I
don't care. If you don't like the way your league determines its champion, take it up with your
league office. My only rule is one team per conference.

This would also allow the other bowl games to continue on as they always have. Under the current
system, bowls like the Cotton or Alamo have zero, zip, nada meaning to determinging a national
champion so in reality, their status would remain unchanged. THey can take teams and play their
games just like they always have.