Sincere question on playoff system

[Okie Hillbilly]

Is anyone else concerned that a 16 team playoff would in time eliminate the bowls? From a selfish standpoint, I really shouldn't care... I love college football have only one team I like and a very long list of teams I hate (that I am forced to expand each year), and a vast majority of times OU will be in the top 16 at the end of a season, but I love watching the bowl games. A team in the playoffs would not also be in a bowl game and a bowl system without the top 16 teams would become the football equivilent of the NIT. Am I concerned about nothing?

[mrowl]

for all the people that pimp a playoff system, do they really think that all the fans could afford 4 more games? and travel?

[MITSooner]

I only really care about bowls involving BCS conference teams. I just can't force myself to watch the GMAC bowl or other bowls involving teams I've never seen play before. So a playoff would be awesome IMO. I think we have too many bowls right now.

And isn't every bowl besides the BCS champ bowl pretty much the football equivalent to the NIT right now?

[Okie Hillbilly]

I guess the minor bowls aren't important to lots of people, but I love it. "It's the most wonderful time of the year!"

[Frozen Sooner]

for all the people that pimp a playoff system, do they really think that all the fans could afford 4 more games? and travel?

I've been making this point for a while.

The only way you could have a playoff and keep the first few rounds from being sparsely attended would be to have them at home venues. Your logistics problems become a lot smaller at that point. On the other hand, you then have some pretty massive weather issues to deal with should Boise or Nebraska earn a good seed.

[Okie Hillbilly]

Another question I have is why would programs like a Tulsa want a playoff? They can go literally a lifetime with finishing in the top 16.

[Frozen Sooner]

I think most of the serious proponents of a playoff are also advocates of trimming Division 1-a down to 64 or so teams. I think Tulsa would make the cut, which means that their available talent pool would be much better. They'd still get outrecruited by OU and Texas and such, but there'd be a lot more 2-3 star recruits running around looking for a D-1 offer.

[Okie Hillbilly]

Thanks for that comment, Mike. I had never heard that idea.

[boomersooner82]

You'd have to max the regular season at 11 or maybe even 10 games, figure out what to do with the conference championship, then the first-round games (in a 16-team format, or first two rounds in a 24-game format) would have to be at the home site of the higher-ranked team. Programs like ours have no problems sending fans to a conference championship and then a bowl, I think we could sell one more game if needed.

[Octavian]

a playoff would decapitate the sport as we know it

[Frozen Sooner]

No problem. Personally, I'd like to see the following implemented if a playoff comes about:

1. Intersectional scheduling handled by the NCAA instead of the individual ADs with the goal being balanced schedules instead of guaranteed paydays.

2. Teams must play 6 away games each year. Teams that play at neutral sites are allowed to count them as away games.

3. D-1a is trimmed to 64 teams.

4. D-1aa is allowed to give 85 scholarships.

[mrowl]

I've been making this point for a while.

The only way you could have a playoff and keep the first few rounds from being sparsely attended would be to have them at home venues. Your logistics problems become a lot smaller at that point. On the other hand, you then have some pretty massive weather issues to deal with should Boise or Nebraska earn a good seed.

but then you have a low seed that could win 2 or 3 games in the playoffs and still be going to away games.

[Frozen Sooner]

but then you have a low seed that could win 2 or 3 games in the playoffs and still be going to away games.

I don't have a problem with that. If that's a major issue, you could amend the seeding process so that worse seeds beating better seeds take over the better seed, but I don't think that'd be necessary.

[Okie Hillbilly]

mrowl and Mike, do you not think this would change the "flavor" of the regular season to the "wild card" mentality of finishing in the top 16?

[Octavian]

A playoff would rob us of our season long....well, playoff.

UCLA's big win over USC this week? Not so big.

Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.

Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hillbilly-Yes, somewhat.

Octavian-I agree. I'm just throwing out stuff that would need to happen to make a playoff workable.

[snp]

I think most of the serious proponents of a playoff are also advocates of trimming Division 1-a down to 64 or so teams. I think Tulsa would make the cut, which means that their available talent pool would be much better. They'd still get outrecruited by OU and Texas and such, but there'd be a lot more 2-3 star recruits running around looking for a D-1 offer.

Which wouldn't happen for 100 more years.

The best we can hope for is a +1 game and go from there. The idea of jumping to a 16 or 32 team playoff is kinda ridiculous.

[Okie Hillbilly]

So why don't the talking heads say more than "We need a playoff" to discussing how that change might impact the whole of college football?

[mxATVracer10]

I've been making this point for a while.

The only way you could have a playoff and keep the first few rounds from being sparsely attended would be to have them at home venues. Your logistics problems become a lot smaller at that point. On the other hand, you then have some pretty massive weather issues to deal with should Boise or Nebraska earn a good seed.

I wonder if they could do something similar to the basketball tourney with the first couple rounds and have more than one game at the same venue? Tickets would be valid for all games played at said venue, which could solve the "sparsely attended rounds." I know thats not normal in the football world, but other than a little more wear and tear on the field, what would other drawbacks to this be? :pop:

[TopDawg]

A playoff would rob us of our season long....well, playoff.

UCLA's big win over USC this week? Not so big.

Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.

Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is.

Enough with this season long playoff farce. We don't have a season long playoff. In the playoffs, if you lose you're eliminated from contending for the title. If the season really was a playoff, Boise State and Ohio State would be the only teams still in it.

With an 8-team playoff, the importance of SOME regular games would be less, but the importance of a whole lot more games would be greater.

Texas' loss to A&M? Even bigger than it was. A&M would've knocked them out of the playoffs.
USC's loss to UCLA? No more home field advantage for the Trojans.
The Rutgers/West Virginia game had conference implications, but with an 8-team playoff, it would've had playoff implications on top of that.

And then on top of that you've got SEVEN! REALLY important games at the end of the season. Instead of just one.

I think an 8-team playoff is a nice balance between giving enough teams a shot at the national title and still making it logistically feasible. It's only adding 2 more games to the schedule (for those that make it all the way through), and if the first two rounds are hosted by the higher seeds, I think that's pretty practical.

[Texas Golfer]

I guess the minor bowls aren't important to lots of people, but I love it. "It's the most wonderful time of the year!"

I agree. Many complain about the "month layoff" between the end of the regular season and the New Year's Day games and, now, even later games. But, if you truly enjoy college football, there's games to watch the entire month of December.

I love the bowl season!

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

So why don't the talking heads say more than "We need a playoff" to discussing how that change might impact the whole of college football?


Great point. Real easy to say something has to change. Takes a lot more sac to say what changes you think need to happen.

Division II has a playoff system. They also have some goofy BCS sort of system that uses schedule strength,etc that makes the BCS look like the greatest idea of our time. Basically it is a 24 team playoff with 4 regions of 6 teams each. Of course it has flaws that if DI football exposed there would be people drawn and quartered.

Last year Pittsburg St (Kansas) lost to Central Mo 83-21.

Let me type that one more time 83 to 21.

A couple weeks later Pitt St (8-3)made the playoffs ahead of CMSU (7-3) by the virtue of having a stronger overall SOS from winning 8 games instead of 7.

There is no perfect playoff system. I can think of several that might work but there is no way to remove controversy from the process which I think a lot of people in the media are being dishonest about how a playoff could settle everything.

[Texas Golfer]

a playoff would decapitate the sport as we know it

I agree.

[TopDawg]

Also, I don't think a playoff would do away with the bowls. It's not like we'd go from having 60 teams in the post-season to only 8.

And if it cut out a few of the bowls...well, is that really a bad thing? I mean, I love the bowl season too, but if 3 or 4 of them fell to the wayside, I probably wouldn't care too much.

[Texas Golfer]

A playoff would rob us of our season long....well, playoff.

UCLA's big win over USC this week? Not so big.

Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.

Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is.

Okay, someone talk me through this. How does one give someone respect on these boards? Octavian gets some from me.

This is what I've been trying to tell people all along.

[TUSooner]

Is anyone else concerned that a 16 team playoff would in time eliminate the bowls? From a selfish standpoint, I really shouldn't care... I love college football have only one team I like and a very long list of teams I hate (that I am forced to expand each year), and a vast majority of times OU will be in the top 16 at the end of a season, but I love watching the bowl games. A team in the playoffs would not also be in a bowl game and a bowl system without the top 16 teams would become the football equivalent of the NIT. Am I concerned about nothing?

Unless the major bowls were included as part of the playoff system, they would die, and that would actually be bad, I think. Or they might join the minor bowls as a “consolation prize” for teams that can’t make the top 16 or 8. I think with an 8-team playoff, you can use the big bowls as rotating sites for the semis and championship game. But I would miss actually the bowls because their absence would mean less college football in December.


for all the people that pimp a playoff system, do they really think that all the fans could afford 4 more games? and travel?

Right. Another reason why I’d limit it to 8 teams



I only really care about bowls involving BCS conference teams. I just can't force myself to watch the GMAC bowl or other bowls involving teams I've never seen play before. So a playoff would be awesome IMO. I think we have too many bowls right now.

And isn't every bowl besides the BCS champ bowl pretty much the football equivalent to the NIT right now?

So... you don’t like it, therefore the rest of us can’t have it? :mad: OK, I know that’s not what you are really saying. ;) But I LIKE a zillion bowl games, because it simply means more college football when there otherwise would be NONE, or even with a playoff there would be less. More bowls = more college football, so I’d like to see the bowls continue as much as possible. That’s why I agree with this:

***"It's the most wonderful time of the year!"
:D

A playoff would rob us of our season long....well, playoff.
UCLA's big win over USC this week? Not so big.
Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.
Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is.

True. Sort of. But I don’t think every week is a really playoff even now. Consider that early losses are often forgiven under the current mostly-subjective system. Anyway, the dilution of the importance of regular season games would be less of a concern with an 8-team playoff than with a 16-team system. You would still be fighting for one of those spots.

In short, I think an “Elite 8” tourny could be made to work within a few years. It would not require radically revamping D-1 football and killing off the bowl games - - which is not going to happen easily or quickly. An 8-team deal might pave the way for an expanded system later.

[TopDawg]

By most estimations, Arkansas was an incredibly long shot to make the title game heading into their final regular season game this year against LSU. They had already wrapped up a conference title game berth, so there was very little on the line for them. Same is true for LSU.

With an 8-team playoff, the winner of that game is in and the loser is out. Think that wratchets up the interest and excitement for that game?

[TUSooner]

By most estimations, Arkansas was an incredibly long shot to make the title game heading into their final regular season game this year against LSU. They had already wrapped up a conference title game berth, so there was very little on the line for them. Same is true for LSU.

With an 8-team playoff, the winner of that game is in and the loser is out. Think that wratchets up the interest and excitement for that game?
Plus we can still argue and compl.ain about the team or 2 tat should have made the elite 8 but didn't. It's poifect, I tell ya. :D

[TopDawg]

Plus we can still argue and compl.ain about the team or 2 tat should have made the elite 8 but didn't. It's poifect, I tell ya. :D

Exactly! Those who want to have the discussion, can still have their discussion. In the meantime, the top teams will be settling things on the field.

[Texas Golfer]

Unless the major bowls were included as part of the playoff system, they would die, and that would actually be bad, I think. Or they might join the minor bowls as a “consolation prize” for teams that can’t make the top 16 or 8. I think with an 8-team playoff, you can use the big bowls as rotating sites for the semis and championship game. But I would miss actually the bowls because their absence would mean less college football in December.

I don't think the bowl committees would agree with this as "bowls". They'd lose much of their hype, and most of their sponsorships.

Bowls, now, are used quite a bit as marketing tools. They generate alot of money, not only for themselves, but for their communities as well. I don't think they'd want to be used as a ladder to a "better" bowl game.

[Stoop Dawg]

Enough with this season long playoff farce. We don't have a season long playoff. In the playoffs, if you lose you're eliminated from contending for the title. If the season really was a playoff, Boise State and Ohio State would be the only teams still in it.

With an 8-team playoff, the importance of SOME regular games would be less, but the importance of a whole lot more games would be greater.

Texas' loss to A&M? Even bigger than it was. A&M would've knocked them out of the playoffs.
USC's loss to UCLA? No more home field advantage for the Trojans.
The Rutgers/West Virginia game had conference implications, but with an 8-team playoff, it would've had playoff implications on top of that.

And then on top of that you've got SEVEN! REALLY important games at the end of the season. Instead of just one.

I think an 8-team playoff is a nice balance between giving enough teams a shot at the national title and still making it logistically feasible. It's only adding 2 more games to the schedule (for those that make it all the way through), and if the first two rounds are hosted by the higher seeds, I think that's pretty practical.

TopDawg is a genius.

A playoff makes more games meaningful - not less - because there are 8 teams fighting for a spot instead of two or three.

OU hasn't had a shot at the MNC since early October. Would October & November have been more or less interesting if winning out meant a posible spot in a playoff instead of an inconsequential bowl game against Boise State?

[I_SMELL_FEAR]

Force BCS conferences to have 12 teams, plus a championship game. thats round 1.

6 BCS conference champions, 6 BCS bowl teams. Take a new public poll of coaches and media, for the top 6 teams, 1 and 2 get a bye. 3 vs 6 in one BCS bowl and 4 vs 5 in another. Winners move on to face 1 and 2 in the other 2 BCS bowls. Winners here play in the +1 game for chamionship.

Take one non-conf. game off schedule and this means teams are playing at most 1 additional game.

Re-evaluate the BCS conferences every 5 years and any team not meeting a certain criteria (conf. winning percentage etc.) gets booted, and a deserving mid major replaces them.

All non-conf games have to be Div 1 schools, and 2 of them have to be from other BCS conferences.

[Stoop Dawg]

Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.


You mean like Florida's loss to Auburn?


Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is

Well, except for October 14th.

And the national championship is only "on the line" for a handful of teams - especially late in the year. It would be much more exciting if more teams had something "on the line" every week.

[TUSooner]

I don't think the bowl committees would agree with this as "bowls". They'd lose much of their hype, and most of their sponsorships.

Bowls, now, are used quite a bit as marketing tools. They generate alot of money, not only for themselves, but for their communities as well. I don't think they'd want to be used as a ladder to a "better" bowl game.
That's not so different than it is now. The BCS bowls get the Big One only 1 in 4 years or so. Now, on their off years, they have only glamorous exhibition games. Under the 8-team plan, you have a semifinal game some years and even the Biggy every once in awhile (or something like that). Don't tell me a bowl committee can't market a quarterfinal or semifinal game as an event at least as big as an ordinary bowl game.

Heck, a final 4 would be even more manageable and attractive than 8

[OklahomaTuba]

a playoff would decapitate the sport as we know it

Please.

Not when 90% of the fans are screaming to have a playoff.

You people who like seeing these *** wipe reporters and drunken passed over coaches have more of a say in deciding a champion instead of players on the field sicken me.

Decide the NC on the field, not a computer and NOT by Howard Schnellbergers drunk ***.

[OklahomaTuba]

A playoff would rob us of our season long....well, playoff.

UCLA's big win over USC this week? Not so big.

Michigan's loss to Ohio St.? Inconsequential.

Right now, the Super Bowl isn't on the line every week. The national championship is.

Again, this argument isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

If a playoff is determined by who wins their conference and by some at large spots, then your argument is pretty much blown out of the water. Either way, the playoff depends A LOT on the regular season. Its crazy to believe otherwise.

[TUSooner]

There is no perfect playoff system. I can think of several that might work but there is no way to remove controversy from the process which I think a lot of people in the media are being dishonest about how a playoff could settle everything.

True, but I think having 4 or 8 teams in a playoff is BETTER, if not perfect, because it's more FUN and adds more meanintgful games and gives more teams a shot. Look at it this way. In the past few years Mich, USC and Auburn have had legitimnate gripes about being squeezed out of the MNC picture. They were each ranked #3 or 4. A 4-team playoff at least lets them have their chance. Maybe the #5 or #9 team would still have an argument, but it would ordinarily be a weaker argument than, for example, Michigan has this year.

[Okie Hillbilly]

Tuba,
I'm not wanting to be argumentative, I am genuinely asking you, do you see any negative effect a playoff would have on college football?

[TUSooner]

Force BCS conferences to have 12 teams, plus a championship game. thats round 1.

6 BCS conference champions, 6 BCS bowl teams. Take a new public poll of coaches and media, for the top 6 teams, 1 and 2 get a bye. 3 vs 6 in one BCS bowl and 4 vs 5 in another. Winners move on to face 1 and 2 in the other 2 BCS bowls. Winners here play in the +1 game for chamionship.

Take one non-conf. game off schedule and this means teams are playing at most 1 additional game.

Re-evaluate the BCS conferences every 5 years and any team not meeting a certain criteria (conf. winning percentage etc.) gets booted, and a deserving mid major replaces them.

All non-conf games have to be Div 1 schools, and 2 of them have to be from other BCS conferences.

This is a fine plan or theory, but it requires too much radical change and thus will not fly. Eventually something like this may happen, but not for decades. The answer is to evolve. Befere BCS it was all subjective. BCS at least - in theory - gets you to the top 2. The next plan could be the top 4, within the current bowl framework; then maybe 8, then MAYBE 16. Anybody who wants to reorganze D-1 from scartch should expect to be booted out of the room from which all the college presidents are ruling the football world.

[TUSooner]

Tuba,
I'm not wanting to be argumentative, I am genuinely asking you, do you see any negative effect a playoff would have on college football?
uhhhhh........

Good luck, hillbilly!

:D

[Octavian]

Enough with this season long playoff farce. We don't have a season long playoff. In the playoffs, if you lose you're eliminated from contending for the title. If the season really was a playoff, Boise State and Ohio State would be the only teams still in it.

That's true. A "season-long body of work" is more accurate.

This the third century it's been done that way in college football.

I like that a lot.


With an 8-team playoff, the importance of SOME regular games would be less, but the importance of a whole lot more games would be greater.

which would be fundamentally changing the nature of the sport...watering down hallowed rivalry games and shocking upsets that end NC dreams.


Texas' loss to A&M? Even bigger than it was. A&M would've knocked them out of the playoffs.

under the current system they were already out. 2 losses. over.

What if Texas beat A&M and won the conference title?

They'd have made the playoffs and be in contention to win the title w/ 2 losses....and they wouldn't be the only 2-loss team who thought they had a right to play for the national title. Puke.

In that playoff scenario, their K-State loss would be little more than a slight dissapointment....because the playoffs would be right around the corner.


USC's loss to UCLA? No more home field advantage for the Trojans.

Depends on the number of teams in the playoff and the format.

Either way, that loss still wouldn't eliminate them from winning the national title.

Another example of how a playoff would further erode the importance of the regular season.


The Rutgers/West Virginia game had conference implications, but with an 8-team playoff, it would've had playoff implications on top of that.

And that'd be a bad thing...they both had already lost and are out of NC contention under the current format already.

Because they LOST.


And then on top of that you've got SEVEN! REALLY important games at the end of the season. Instead of just one.

That may be but we've got March Madness. We've got the MLB playoffs. We've got the NBA and the NFL.

This is the only sport where the championship is on the line every single gameday for months.

Sure, you can lose early and sneak back in if the football gods give you a ton of breaks....in which case the season turns out to be magical for your team and fanbase.

If not...you don't have an argument because you LOST.


I think an 8-team playoff is a nice balance between giving enough teams a shot at the national title and still making it logistically feasible. It's only adding 2 more games to the schedule (for those that make it all the way through), and if the first two rounds are hosted by the higher seeds, I think that's pretty practical.

My argument against a playoff has nothing to do with class schedules, logistics, or money.

It could work. It could work really well and make a boatload of money if that's the way we wanted to go.

Their currrently isn't a playoff for all the wrong reasons. University presidents...bowl reps...decisions made entirely based on massive profit margins which get spread around to all involved.

Even so, I'm glad at least something keeps the sport unique.

College football is about aiming for -and acheiving- perfection. Every autumn Saturday across America, teams and fanbases congregate to legendary stadiums...knowing that a loss probably means your beloved team won't get a shot to win it all.

That's fun....and it's unique in American sports.

A playoff would absolutely ruin it.

[Octavian]

You mean like Florida's loss to Auburn?

no.

I meant like Michigan's loss to Ohio St.



And the national championship is only "on the line" for a handful of teams - especially late in the year. It would be much more exciting if more teams had something "on the line" every week.

This sport is about history, tradition, and rivalry.

There's plenty of NFL to go around if you wanna watch a watered down regular season followed by a tournament.

[OklahomaTuba]

This sport is about history, tradition, and rivalry.



Exactly.

Just look at all the history, tradition and rivalry in the San Diego County
Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

[Octavian]

Please.

Not when 90% of the fans are screaming to have a playoff.

well it's a good thing this isn't a democracy. Mob rule sucks.

I heart the greedy university Prez's and the bowl committees. :D


You people who like seeing these *** wipe reporters and drunken passed over coaches have more of a say in deciding a champion instead of players on the field sicken me.

sweet...I sicken Tuba :D


Decide the NC on the field, not a computer and NOT by Howard Schnellbergers drunk ***.

So you'd be cool with seeing a 3-loss team win a national championship because they got hot at the end of the year?

That's a distinct possibility under a playoff system. A 2-loss squad would no doubt win one in the first decade of the playoff system.

Not me.

It fundamentally changes the nature of the sport.

[OklahomaTuba]

So you'd be cool with seeing a 3-loss team win a national championship because they got hot at the end of the year?

That's a distinct possibility under a playoff system. A 2-loss squad would no doubt win one in the first decade of the playoff system.

So we should just decide our National Champion by who has the most wins in a season?

Why even have a post season then?? Just award the trophy after the last game like they used too.

Give Boise State the title, they haven't lost, so they MUST be that good.

[Octavian]

Exactly.

Just look at all the history, tradition and rivalry in the San Diego County
Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

or you could look at how a #1 vs. #2 Ohio St.-Michigan game late in the year would've featured a field full of second-stringers because their coaches didn't want anyone to get hurt...since both of them already had home-field wrapped up for the playoffs.

[Octavian]

So we should just decide our National Champion by who has the most wins in a season?

Why even have a post season then?? Just award the trophy after the last game like they used too.

Give Boise State the title, they haven't lost, so they MUST be that good.

heh.

I remember why I stopped reading SO political threads.

[OklahomaTuba]

or you could look at how a #1 vs. #2 Ohio St.-Michigan game late in the year would've featured a field full of second-stringers because their coaches didn't want anyone to get hurt...since both of them already had home-field wrapped up for the playoffs.

Yeah, cause winning the big-10 means NOTHING to either teams.

Please.

Next...

[OklahomaTuba]

heh.

I remember why I stopped reading SO political threads.

Well, you keep saying the season is a playoff. Boise State won the season with OSU, so why not give Boise State part of the title then????

[OSUAggie]

Playoffs suck... March Madness is fun, but rarely does it produce the best team in the sport that year. Playoffs rarely produce a true champion. Logistically, a playoff wouldn't be good for college football.. Then, someone would create the football NIT, which would be even worse... It's just a bad can of worms that should've never been brought up by anybody.

Furthermore, intigrating the bowl games into a playoff is an even worse idea. The idea of a bowl game is for the players/fans to vacation somewhere relatively warm (excluding Boise or Detroit or... uh.. Toronto?) over the holiday season and enjoy the fruits of a long, somewhat successful year.... A playoff would take away the uniqueness of the bowl games...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

You keep all of the current bowls. But you make the top 8 teams eligible for a playoff. The Conference Champs get an automatic bid(Plus they would include some BS measure where Notre Dame is a lock if they win such and such amount of games :P). The Four Big Boys stay Big. National Title Game = Orange Bowl(change every year) 2 Semi-Finals games Sugar and Rose, 4 First Round Games Fiesta (And then we choose 6 other bowl games where they rotate on a 2 year basis) The higher seeded team gets to choose first.

1 Ohio State
8 Wake Forest At the Fiesta Bowl

2 Florida
7 Oklahoma At the Gator Bowl

3 Michigan
6 Louisville Outback Bowl

4 LSU
5 USC At the Cotton Bowl.

These fans are going to sell out games regardless, Plus you limit the season down by allowing everyone to play just two non conference games

[Octavian]

Yeah, cause winning the big-10 means NOTHING to either teams.

Please.

Next...

What the hell would a Big 10 title mean in a playoff format?

They were the top 2 teams in the country.

There would've be endless talk of how they should get the top two seeds in the playoffs not matter what happened in Columbus.

[OklahomaTuba]

Then, someone would create the football NIT, which would be even worse... It's just a bad can of worms that should've never been brought up by anybody.

Whats the difference between the NIT and the bowls now?

They are both meaningless sporting events, that is unless you really do care about who wins the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

[OklahomaTuba]

What the hell would a Big 10 title mean in a playoff format?

They were the top 2 teams in the country.

There would've be endless talk of how they should get the top two seeds in the playoffs not matter what happened in Columbus.

It would mean as much as it does now, which is really nothing except the trophy and possible seeding or automatic bid into the playoff.

The fact they are both ranked 1 and 2 means nothing, nor should it cause that won't happen every year. The only thing it means is that Mich has a shot still instead of being told NO by the press cause they don't think they should play again, thus being left out in the cold.

Exactly the reason why the current system is so bad.

[Octavian]

Then, someone would create the football NIT, which would be even worse... It's just a bad can of worms that should've never been brought up by anybody.



not to mention that a 4 or 8 team playoff format would eventually be broadened to 8 or 16.

9-3 Michigan feels really slighted because they missed out on the playoffs...the only logical solution would be to expand the field to 16 so no one would be griping.

After a few years...a 9-3 Nebraska would get the #17 and we'd have constant sob stories and fanbases that feel their 3-loss team really got screwed out of a shot at he national title.

We'd expand it to to 32 so no one's feelings would be hurt...and we'd all make more money!

Don't believe it? I present to you the tie-breaking game of the NCAA basketball tourney which decides (once and for all) who is really the 64th best team in country and gets a chance to get raped by a #1 seed.

Blah.

[OSUAggie]

Whats the difference between the NIT and the bowls now?

They are both meaningless sporting events, that is unless you really do care about who wins the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

Some programs use it as a springboard. Kinda like the PetroSun Independence Bowl (Not sure who the sponsor was in 1999, maybe still Poulan WeedEater) was a springboard for OU/Stoops. Plus, it gives your young guys 15 more days of practice and a nice vacation for working hard during a season. A tournament is too helter-skelter for college football, where plenty of notice has to be given to hold a game.

[Octavian]

It would mean as much as it does now

no it wouldn't.

Right now it means that Ohio St. gets to play for a national title and Michigan doesn't.

Not so under a playoff.

[OSUAggie]

not to mention that a 4 or 8 team playoff format would eventually be broadened to 8 or 16.

9-3 Michigan feels really slighted because they missed out on the playoffs...the only logical solution would be to expand the field to 16 so no one would be griping.

After a few years...a 9-3 Nebraska would get the #17 and we'd have constant sob stories and fanbases that feel their 3-loss team really got screwed out of a shot at he national title.

We'd expand it to to 32 so no one's feelings would be hurt...and we'd all make more money!

Don't believe it? I present to you the tie-breaking game of the NCAA basketball tourney which decides (once and for all) who is really the 64th best team in country and gets a chance to get raped by a #1 seed.

Blah.

Let's not forget to factor in their losses when their star player was injured and how they did their last 5 games and what their RPI is blah blah blah.... Everyone would bitch at the selection committee for leaving the "next" team out.. It's a bad, bad idea.

[Octavian]

Some programs use it as a springboard. Kinda like the PetroSun Independence Bowl (Not sure who the sponsor was in 1999, maybe still Poulan WeedEater) was a springboard for OU/Stoops. Plus, it gives your young guys 15 more days of practice and a nice vacation for working hard during a season.

why...it's almost like you're a fan of college football.

[OklahomaTuba]

A playoff would take away the uniqueness of the bowl games...

The "uniqueness" of the bowl games?

I've been to several BCS bowl games, let me tell you, they are not that "unique".

[Octavian]

Let's not forget to factor in their losses when their star player was injured and how they did their last 5 games and what their RPI is blah blah blah.... Everyone would bitch at the selection committee for leaving the "next" team out.. It's a bad, bad idea.

And it was really cold during that fourth loss...

It would be a crime if the selection comittee held a bad-weather game against the 8-4 Yellow Jackets.

They should definetly get that #28 seed ahead of a 8-4 Rutgers.

[OklahomaTuba]

no it wouldn't.

Right now it means that Ohio St. gets to play for a national title and Michigan doesn't.

Not so under a playoff.

How do you know this?

What if there are only 4 playoff spots??? The OSU/Mich game just got bigger under in that case if Mich falls to #5.

[OSUAggie]

Uniquity is a relative term. Bowl games are unique in that they have no equal in any other sport.

[Octavian]

How do you know this?

What if there are only 4 playoff spots??? The OSU/Mich game just got bigger under in that case.

No it didn't.

Under a 4-team playoff...both teams stay alive -win or lose- for a chance to play for the national title at a later date.

Under the current system...the loser is gone.

[OklahomaTuba]

Uniquity is a relative term. Bowl games are unique in that they have no equal in any other sport.

First off, the bowls and playoff can co-exist. We currently have a 2 team playoff, and the bowls are doing just fine last I checked.

[OSUAggie]

why...it's almost like you're a fan of college football.

By your earlier post, it's almost as if you recognized that the MLB has a playoff. ;)

[Octavian]

ahh...you edited to add "if they fell to 5"

well...that wouldn't happen.

why?

Because it would be understood that neither team would play their starters the whole game because they were both automatically in.

We can go round and round in a match of mental gymnastics all day long...but a playoff would substantially change the nature of the sport because it waters down the regular season.

And the regular season is college football.

No thanks.

[OklahomaTuba]

No it didn't.

Under a 4-team playoff...both teams stay alive -win or lose- for a chance to play for the national title at a later date.

Under the current system...the loser is gone.

Depends on the playoff I guess, and how spots are seeded. I don't mind re-matches, but in the current system, if Florida hadn't jumped Mich, then Mich would be playing OSU again.

So really, we would have the same problem, except in the current system, reporters and bitchy coaches determined who plays instead of the players. Again, it sickens me that people prefer that to seeing the sport played out on the field.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

No it didn't.

Under a 4-team playoff...both teams stay alive -win or lose- for a chance to play for the national title at a later date.

Under the current system...the loser is gone.


To be fair, Florida was about 4 more screwups away from making that loser...not so gone....

[TUSooner]

Whats the difference between the NIT and the bowls now?

They are both meaningless sporting events, that is unless you really do care about who wins the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.


Meaningless? Since when are you the official ascriber of "meaning." I LIKE watching college football. Even teams I've hardly heard of, playing only for victory in the game at hand.

Like I told a soccer b1tch mom last month when she was whining about our team playing a "meaningless" game on a Sunday evening:
"We are a TEAM, we EXIST so the girls can PLAY GAMES. If you think it's meaningless, then you should take your daughter home and quit."

I'm in favor of some kind of playoff, but . . . n/m, I won't waste any more words.

[OSUAggie]

First off, the bowls and playoff can co-exist. We currently have a 2 team playoff, and the bowls are doing just fine last I checked.

The "2-team playoff" is essentially a bowl game.... A game that has its site pre-determined and set for > month so fans can plan their trip to said game. If the bowls were integrated into a playoff, they would not have the festival, party atmosphere for the time leading up to the game (which is a part of the uniqueness of the bowl games).

The bowls would lose their significance and would just be a "site" for a playoff game. You think the Cotton Bowl would still put on all if its events for the players during the week? No... Then the national heads would claim that there needs to be rotating sites for these playoff games in an effort to maximize the bottom line. The whole idea takes away from the BOWLS, which makes college football unique.

[OklahomaTuba]

a playoff would substantially change the nature of the sport because it waters down the regular season.

And the regular season is college football.

No thanks.

No, it would actually help the regular season, alot!

Instead of just trying to coast thru the season trying not to lose, we might see some more competitive games in the non-conference if a loss still gives a team hope.

Instead, you get teams that play no-bodies so they won't lose, so they don't get hit on their BCS points.

Its common sense man, really.

[Octavian]

To be fair, Florida was about 4 more screwups away from making that loser...not so gone....

fair point.

and if that's the case, then the football gods smiled upon Ann Arbor the way they did OU in '85 when Tennessee beat Miami.

that's been happening for decades in college football. pure magic.

that's different than radically altering the entire game.

[OklahomaTuba]

Meaningless? Since when are you the official ascriber of "meaning." I LIKE watching college football. Even teams I've hardly heard of, playing only for victory in the game at hand.

Like I told a soccer b1tch mom last month when she was whining about our team playing a "meaningless" game on a Sunday evening:
"We are a TEAM, we EXIST so the girls can PLAY GAMES. If you think it's meaningless, then you should take your daughter home and quit."

I'm in favor of some kind of playoff, but . . . n/m, I won't waste any more words.

Yes, they are meaningless to those who seek championships.

Keep the bowls, they can co-exist with the playoff. But don't tell me the fiesta bowl means anymore than the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia bowl, just cause its played in a bigger stadium and gives the big 12 more $$$.

[OklahomaTuba]

The "2-team playoff" is essentially a bowl game.... A game that has its site pre-determined and set for > month so fans can plan their trip to said game. If the bowls were integrated into a playoff, they would not have the festival, party atmosphere for the time leading up to the game (which is a part of the uniqueness of the bowl games).

The bowls would lose their significance and would just be a "site" for a playoff game. You think the Cotton Bowl would still put on all if its events for the players during the week? No... Then the national heads would claim that there needs to be rotating sites for these playoff games in an effort to maximize the bottom line. The whole idea takes away from the BOWLS, which makes college football unique.

Again aggie, there is NO REASON the bowls can't go on existing with a playoff. T. Boones State can still go to their toilet bowl every other year and play the SEC #8 team and have a party while the real teams battle it out for a real championship in the playoff.

Hell, you can even keep your toilet bowl trophy for all I care.

[OSUAggie]

Yes, they are meaningless to those who seek championships.

Keep the bowls, they can co-exist with the playoff. But don't tell me the fiesta bowl means anymore than the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia
bowl, just cause its played in a bigger stadium and gives the big 12 more $$$.

There are bowls that have more prestige than other bowls. For instance, the Orange Bowl is a bit better than the Liberty Bowl, to put it lightly. Oklahoma fans (generally speaking) are very proud of their wins/appearances in the OB. Thus, I will tell you that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl means more than the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

[Octavian]

Wanna see a glimpse of what it would've been like w/ a playoff?

Here's what Ohio St.-Michigan fans were thinking leading up to the big game....with the knowledge that a rematch was possible.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/stewart_mandel/11/14/mailbag/index.html

Prior to the game...all most fans of those teams wanted to do was focus on the rematch...not the regular season game.

Here's a portion of Mandel's response


Here's what I find most amusing about all this: If I had to wager, I would guess that around 90 percent of the people crying for an OSU-Michigan rematch are also in favor of a college football playoff. And yet, in saying these things, they're actually validating university presidents' and conference commissioners' biggest concern about a potential playoff: That it would devalue college football's regular season.

Here we are, just days away from one of the biggest regular-season games in the history of the sport -- and all anyone wants to talk about is a game that won't be played until Jan. 8. Can you imagine if there actually was a playoff? No one would care about this weekend's game because they'd already know both teams would be in it. The coaches might rest their starters.

well said.

[OklahomaTuba]

There are bowls that have more prestige than other bowls. For instance, the Orange Bowl is a bit better than the Liberty Bowl, to put it lightly. Oklahoma fans (generally speaking) are very proud of their wins/appearances in the OB. Thus, I will tell you that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl means more than the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

Bowl prestige is fine and dandy and all, but thats a lousy excuse to not choose a champion on the field IMO.

[OSUAggie]

Again aggie, there is NO REASON the bowls can't go on existing with a playoff. T. Boones State can still go to their toilet bowl every other year and play the SEC #8 team and have a party while the real teams battle it out for a real championship in the playoff.

Hell, you can even keep your toilet bowl trophy for all I care.

OSU would've qualified for this wonderful playoff full of real teams several times in the past 25 years.... Then OSU would have to be called a real team... Why would you be in favor of that?

[Okie Hillbilly]

Tuba,
I think I see our differences. While I also am consumed with interest in OU and championships, I also will circle the date to watch the "meaningless" Liberty Bowl and hang on every play hoping for the Tide to roll the Aggies.

[OklahomaTuba]

Wanna see a glimpse of what it would've been like w/ a playoff?

Here's what Ohio St.-Michigan fans were thinking leading up to the big game....with the knowledge that a rematch was possible.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/stewart_mandel/11/14/mailbag/index.html

Prior to the game...all most fans of those teams wanted to do was focus on the rematch...not the regular season game.

Here's a portion of Mandel's response



well said.

Please.

Next year, if neither are ranked 1 and 2, then it would still mean A LOT, as it always has and always will.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba,
I think I see our differences. While I also am consumed with interest in OU and championships, I also will circle the date to watch the "meaningless" Liberty Bowl and hang on every play hoping for the Tide to roll the Aggies.

Sorry, I don't see how we are different on this. I will watch a good football game, and enjoy seeing the tide roll the aggies as well.

[TopDawg]

no it wouldn't.

Right now it means that Ohio St. gets to play for a national title and Michigan doesn't.

Not so under a playoff.

Nobody (in their right mind) is arguing that having a playoff would not make some games less interesting.

The point is that if it's interesting, high-stakes, regular season games that you want, a playoff gives you MORE.

Right?

[TopDawg]

And I don't think anybody, in their right mind, is arguing that there won't be controversy with a playoff.

8 teams? #9 is upset
16 teams? #17 is upset
and so on.

But I personally would rather deny #9 a chance at the title than #3. And I'll go on record as saying that I am adamantly against a playoff of more than 8 teams. Like I said, I don't disagree that a playoff lessens some of the regular season games and I think the value of the regular season is important. But, to me, an 8 team playoff still gives us a great balance because it doesn't take too much value away from the regular season since 2 losses will leave you out most years. So, arguably, the only games that lose importance are late-season games between two undefeated teams, which rarely occur anyway. This year's Ohio State-Michigan game was an exception. And can't we all agree to some degree that it would've been better had that game received a little less media fawning anyway? ;)

But to the original question...I still don't see how an 8-team playoff will ruin the bowl season or college football. College football is popular because people love college football, not because there isn't a playoff.

[Texas Golfer]

Please.

Not when 90% of the fans are screaming to have a playoff.

You people who like seeing these *** wipe reporters and drunken passed over coaches have more of a say in deciding a champion instead of players on the field sicken me.

Decide the NC on the field, not a computer and NOT by Howard Schnellbergers drunk ***.

I'd like to see your link that 90% of the fans are screaming for a playoff.

Yeah, let's let the players decide who the victors are like in the OU/UO game.

[Stoop Dawg]

no.

I meant like Michigan's loss to Ohio St.

Oh, so this is a SO debate then. Bring up points that support your side and ignore those that don't. Glad we got that cleared up.


This sport is about history, tradition, and rivalry.

I don't think it's about any of those things. That's probably why we disagree.

[Texas Golfer]

I personally would rather deny #9 a chance at the title than #3. And I'll go on record as saying that I am adamantly against a playoff of more than 8 teams.

I'd personally wouldn't want more than a 4-team playoff. Usually, if there's an argument on who's the best teams, it usually doesn't get down to #7 or #8.

[Texas Golfer]

A playoff wouldn't necessarily give you the best team in the country. It would give you the most fortunate team on that particular day.

There's no way in hell that I'd concede that Oregon was better than Oklahoma on that day.

Baylor beat Kansas State which beat Texas, therefore, Baylor is better than Texas? That's the type of argument that could be generated with a playoff (only the teams would be different, of course).

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How about a 119 team Tournament with Quadruple Elimination

[Stoop Dawg]

That's true. A "season-long body of work" is more accurate.

This the third century it's been done that way in college football.

I like that a lot.


We used to **** in the woods too.



They'd have made the playoffs and be in contention to win the title w/ 2 losses....and they wouldn't be the only 2-loss team who thought they had a right to play for the national title. Puke.

In that playoff scenario, their K-State loss would be little more than a slight dissapointment....because the playoffs would be right around the corner.


So I assume you are puking that Florida isn't the only 1 loss team who thinks they have a right to play for the national title?

And Florida's loss to Auburn is little more than a slight dissappointment.



And that'd be a bad thing...they both had already lost and are out of NC contention under the current format already.

Because they LOST.

In case you missed it - Florida LOST.



That may be but we've got March Madness. We've got the MLB playoffs. We've got the NBA and the NFL.

This is the only sport where the championship is on the line every single gameday for months.


No it's not. There's a one loss team playing in the national title game every single year. And some years there's a team claiming a share of the national title without even playing in the national title game!!



Sure, you can lose early and sneak back in if the football gods give you a ton of breaks....in which case the season turns out to be magical for your team and fanbase.

If not...you don't have an argument because you LOST.


Boise State.



College football is about aiming for -and acheiving- perfection.

I don't know what you're smoking, but it looks like it might be pretty potent. Boise State achieved perfection and has no chance to play for a national title. Florida LOST and is going to play for a national championship.

College football is about hoping a bunch of coaches and sportswriters who probably don't even watch your game vote for your team. Nothing more.

You can't ruin it. It's already crap.

[sanantoniosooner]

PLUS ONE.

Best Choice.

[Stoop Dawg]

A playoff wouldn't necessarily give you the best team in the country.

Neither does the current system. So what's the point?

[BASSooner]

the point is that we need a playoff system...bad

[Texas Golfer]

Boise State achieved perfection and has no chance to play for a national title. Florida LOST and is going to play for a national championship.

College football is about hoping a bunch of coaches and sportswriters who probably don't even watch your game vote for your team. Nothing more.

You can't ruin it. It's already crap.

It's not really about teams with the best record, it's about the best teams. Until all teams play the same schedule, you'll not have record equality.

I'll schedule Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana-Layfayette, and The Citadel like Auburn does and you schedule teams from major conferences like OU does and I'll meet you in the playoffs.....NOT!

[birddog]

of course you'd have teams resting their starters at the end of the season . but what about the teams that have to fight like mad to get in the top 8? i don't know, say a team that lost early and won 8 straight.

look i want ou to have a chance to play for an nc every year. but that is going to be impossible with the current system because only 2 teams have a shot. i mean, come on, we only lost 1 legitimate game this year and we would have been passed over.

let's atleast try the damn thing to see how it works before we condemn it.

[Texas Golfer]

Neither does the current system. So what's the point?

My point is that if the two best teams as determined by the BCS computers play for the single best reward, you end up with the best team.

Of course, this isn't always true. Like I said, I'll never concede that Oregon is better than Oklahoma, not on that day and not on any day. But, even if you have a playoff and the final two teams play, the best team may not win.

For those who are saying Boise State should be #2 because they're undefeated, what if we had a playoff this year and Ohio State loses their first game? They're out and you still have a 2-loss team in the playoffs. It should be about the best teams, not the teams with the best records.

A great example is a couple of years ago when OU was touted as the "best team ever assembled" and we lost to KSU. After that, those same people said we shouldn't be competing in the "title" game because we lost. USC and LSU had already lost a game that year but we weren't deserving. They're always be arguments even with a playoff.

There will always be debating on opinions and campaigning on positioning but that's what makes it so much fun.

[birddog]

around and round golfer goes
around and round he goes.

[sanantoniosooner]

a full fledged playoff would kill the bowls.

The bowls serve a purpose.

A Plus One game would allow 4 teams to compete without destroying a bowl system that allows a lot of teams to end on a high note for recruiting and momentum into the next season. The Seniors have a chance to go out on a win even if they don't win it all.

Only a limited number of fans would have to worry about the possibility of traveling to two games.

No matter how many get in, somebody gets screwed. Getting screwed at 5 is not as bad as getting screwed at 3.

[Texas Golfer]

a full fledged playoff would kill the bowls.

The bowls serve a purpose.

A Plus One game would allow 4 teams to compete without destroying a bowl system that allows a lot of teams to end on a high note for recruiting and momentum into the next season. The Seniors have a chance to go out on a win even if they don't win it all.

Only a limited number of fans would have to worry about the possibility of traveling to two games.

No matter how many get in, somebody gets screwed. Getting screwed at 5 is not as bad as getting screwed at 3.

I wouldn't be opposed to a 4-team playoff but most want to make it, at least, 8 and, in some cases, 16.

We already have a plus one for some teams. It's called a conference championship game. If every conference played a championship game, we'd already have our plus one in place.

[Texas Golfer]

around and round golfer goes
around and round he goes.

This is your best argument?

[sanantoniosooner]

Plus One in a conference sense isn't the same thing.

[Texas Golfer]

Plus One in a conference sense isn't the same thing.

It would have been this year. At the top of the polls last week was three teams that are members of major conferences that don't have a championship game (OSU, USC, and Michigan). After their regular season, they didn't have to play an additional game to risk their position.

Had the Big 10 had to play a championship game, everyone would have gotten their OSU/Michigan rematch. The winner would then have to play Florida for the national championship. Where would the argument be then?

[sanantoniosooner]

The conferences need to be uniform as far as CCGs for any system.

[birddog]

This is your best argument?
it doesn't do any good to argue with you because you're talking in circles and your font is blinding me.

we get it dude, you hate playoffs.

[Texas Golfer]

it doesn't do any good to argue with you because you're talking in circles and your font is blinding me.

we get it dude, you hate playoffs.

It's my OU loyalty. My cars are the same color as is my closet full of OU gear. Hell, this site is full of this color. Where's your OU love?

[Octavian]

So I assume you are puking that Florida isn't the only 1 loss team who thinks they have a right to play for the national title?

no.

A 1-loss team playing for a NC due to all other teams also having one loss is a big difference than a 2-3 loss team getting into a playoff format and running the table.


In case you missed it - Florida LOST.

in case you missed where I covered losing and still playing for a national title...read more carefully.



No it's not. There's a one loss team playing in the national title game every single year.

wrong.


And some years there's a team claiming a share of the national title without even playing in the national title game!!!

OMG!!! Split titles happen...it is what it is.

Better to have a split and an eternal argument than gut the game.


Florida LOST and is going to play for a national championship.

I'm aware.


I don't think it's about any of those things. That's probably why we disagree.

You don't think that college football is about history, tradition, and rivalry?

That's exactly why we disagree here.

If we're not all starting from the same point -we don't all share the same view of this holy game -then we won't agree that a college football playoff is akin to killing unicorns.


College football is about hoping a bunch of coaches and sportswriters who probably don't even watch your game vote for your team. Nothing more.

sniff....sniff. I smell an NFL enthusiast.


You can't ruin it. It's already crap.

Yep!

Man, hey....that's fine if you feel that way.

I'd go watch and be a part of the pageantry, history, and culture of the college football experience every year even if I was the only spectator on campus.

You can keep catching scores on your tube between Saturday honey-do's around the house.

The Dallas Cowboys will always be there for you on Sunday. And hey, I hear they have a good shot to make the playoffs.

Enjoy.

[OklahomaTuba]

Its really interesting to see a professed "progressive" liberal like Octavian defend the corporate controlled/corrupted bowl system because "thats just the way its always been done, and dabnammit, thats the way its gonna stay!"

Ironic, to say the least. ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

perhaps this isn't a partisan issue.

[OklahomaTuba]

Nah, its not. Just being snarky. :)

[Stoop Dawg]

in case you missed where I covered losing and still playing for a national title...read more carefully.

Did you cover losing and still playing for a national title even though there are other undefeated teams?


wrong.


Okay, not EVERY SINGLE YEAR. But let's calculate the percentage of times there are exactly two undefeated teams playing for a national title. I'm guessing around 2%.


OMG!!! Split titles happen...it is what it is.

Better to have a split and an eternal argument than gut the game.


It is what it is? :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm in favor of making it a game again - instead of a poll.



sniff....sniff. I smell an NFL enthusiast.

The Dallas Cowboys will always be there for you on Sunday. And hey, I hear they have a good shot to make the playoffs.

Enjoy.

That's funny. I saw "Cowboy Huddle" on the Guide the week after OU/OSU and tuned in to see what Gundy had to say about the loss.

Bottom line: The argument that it's soooo much easier to get into an 8 team playoff than a 2 team national title game is ludicrus. 8 teams out of 119 means you take the top 6.7%. You gotta be damn good to make the top 6.7%.

The argument that removing the top 8 teams from the field of 64 that currently participates in bowl games is also silly. We would be removing 4 of the 32 (32!!!) bowl games and creating something much more interesting. If you're going to argue that the remaining 28 bowls would suddenly be "meaningless" then you'll have to admit that every bowl except the NC game is currently "meaningless".

Any way you slice it, a playoff makes more games more interesting.

[TopDawg]

Better to have a split and an eternal argument than gut the game.

You don't think that college football is about history, tradition, and rivalry?

That's exactly why we disagree here.

If we're not all starting from the same point -we don't all share the same view of this holy game -then we won't agree that a college football playoff is akin to killing unicorns.



I still don't see how an 8-team playoff would "gut" the game. As far as I can remember, the only attempt that anybody has made at explaining how it would is by saying that it would water down the regular season, making games less important. But it seems amazingly clear to me that for every game that loses importance, we'd have at least 2 games (at LEAST) that would gain importance. So I don't see how that ruins the game. Can someone explain that one to me.

The common analogy is to the NFL, but it's still a huge jump. Although I think this argument is fundamentally flawed in it's assessment of the excitment of the NFL's regular season, I'll grant this point. Let's say that any given week in the NFL is not nearly as exciting as it could be because of the playoffs. Does it necessarily follow that an 8-team playoff would have the same impact on college football?

Let's look at this reasonably and compare the NFL playoffs to an 8-team playoff for NCAA. For starters, NFL teams play 16 regular season games, whereas college teams play only 12. This makes the impact of each college game greater than the impact of each NFL game.

In the NFL, you're competing to be in the top 6 of your conference, made up of 16 teams. So you're basically trying to be in the top half of your conference. Top half. In fact, the way it's structured, you could be in the bottom half of your conference and still make the playoffs (if you win your division). But let's just reset this by saying that you only have to be in the top 6 out of 16 to make the playoffs in the NFL.

An 8-team playoff in college football would require you to be in the top 8 out of 119. More than 1/3rd of the NFL teams make the playoffs. Fewer than 8% of college football teams would make this playoff. Can you see how this is different? Does it makes sense that an 8-team college football playoff would not have the same effect on "game-excitement" that the NFL playoffs have in the NFL?

So there are two different reasons why I have trouble grasping how an 8-team playoff would gut the game. I don't see how it would make things less exciting and I think any comparrison to the (alledged) unimportance of the NFL's regular season is flawed on several fronts.

The main reason I don't agree with you, Octavian, is because I DO agree with you on another point. I do believe that college football is about history, tradition and rivalry. College football loyalties run deep and the rivalries are intense. There is so much "stuff" behind college football, that I don't see how a simple 8-team playoff could ruin it. The same is true of the bowl system. There will still be teams wanting to make a bowl game. Any bowl game.

So I just don't get it. I don't understand how an 8-team playoff will ruin the game. If it's just a gut feeling, then say it's a gut feeling, but I don't think the arguments that have been put forward have much, if any, merit. They don't seem to hold water. I understand that I stand on a bit of a slippery slope (if we go with 8-teams, why not 16, why not 32?) but I'm fine with digging my heels in at 8 and saying that's where the balance should be. But I don't have problems with people who think it should be 4 or 16. Anything more than that seems to be a logisitcal nightmare which I think can be argued against on those merits, but I think 8 is a pretty happy medium. And I don't see how it will ruin the game.

[Stoop Dawg]

An 8-team playoff in college football would require you to be in the top 8 out of 119.

This assumes that you take the top 8 (according to some formula - probably the current BCS) and don't do some crazy "conference champs get an automatic bid" crap. I say forget conference champs - you just gotta be in the top 8. Period.

[TopDawg]

Yeah, me too. I don't like all the conference tie-ins some people propose.

[birddog]

that's what i'm sayin'. all these people that like the computers and biased coaches votes can keep their system but spit out the top 8 and let em go at it.

[kruss1971]

Plus One - Not a playoff...wouldn't really satisfy all the playoff hounds.
4 Teams - What's the point? Pretty close to a 2 team playoff.
8 Teams - We still have to have deciding factors to determine who is in and who is out. Currently, there would be 11 2-loss teams competing for the 7th and 8th spot.
16 Teams - We've just added one more game to satisfy the playoff hounds. In this case, there would be 1 2-loss team left out.

Cry me a river! It's college football! There will always be complainers with any system and any playoff would not be without its fair share of whiners.

Realign the conferences, you say! All conferences must have a championship game. Well, we've got 11 conferences and 4 independents now...do we hand off control to the NCAA that everyone loves to whine about?

There are really a lot of issues at play here and the playoff hounds seem to miss a lot of them.

Season Length - Would need to be shortened to account for extra games. With an 8 team playoff and a conference championship game, and a 10 game season would result in 14 games to go the distance. These games would most likely not be played during the current dead weeks in place due to finals. So, we would most likely be looking at 5 home games and higher per-game pricing. The season would probably start the same weekend, but the conference championship games would be played around Thanksgiving so first 2 playoff rounds can be complete by...well, now. Of course those athletes shouldn't worry about finals or finding some time to be with their families on a break that falls around the same time as two world-recognized holidays!

Logistics - If the playoffs are played at a school location, there really wouldn't be a significant monetary incentive for making the playoffs unless you earned homefield advantage. Sure, the final game could be a current BCS bowl game with a BCS payout, but it would be very difficult to use current bowls for the semi-finals, quarter-finals, etc. because the vast majority of fans from both teams of a game simply won't be able to travel to multiple neutral sites in consecutive weekends. Someone mentioned multiple games at one venue. We're talking about football. The field is not a basketball court that can be swept in 5 minutes. We would also be talking about 2x the number in attendance vs. an NCAA men's basketball final...per game. Oh yeah, sign me up for the 2nd game of the day!

No Consensus - In order for people to stop whining, there would have to be agreement on all things college football. Is it record only that gets you to the playoff? After all, that's what most people whine about now. Or, is it a conference championship? Well, we'll need to make sure that all conferences have a championship game. Do we add a human element and have a selection committe like the one that determines half of the NCAA basketball teams that make it to March Madness? Wait, isn't that like a poll? In addition to that, the number of playoff spots that we decide on will help determine the number of conferences. If it's an 8 team playoff, we'll probably have 8 conferences. Are Notre Dame, Army, Navy, or Temple going to join one? If it's 16...which would the the ABSOLUTE highest number...we'll need somewhere around 8 conferences so we can award 8 at large bids. Since there are 119 teams in D1A, do we slash them to 64 to make 8 conferences with 8 teams each? Where do we draw the line on who to push out of D1A? Do we create yet another division with 100 man teams?

It's so easy to sit and dream about a playoff. But, I agree with those who can live with the warped beauty that this system, and the system that has determined champions for many years past, provides. This isn't D1AA. It's not the NFL where a third of the teams make the playoffs. It's not March Madness where a basketball squad (and all it entails) can make three 3-day trips in March/April to win the tourney.

[kruss1971]

This assumes that you take the top 8 (according to some formula - probably the current BCS) and don't do some crazy "conference champs get an automatic bid" crap. I say forget conference champs - you just gotta be in the top 8. Period.

Top 8. Period. That's pretty bold.

So, does the ability to make the playoffs have any requirement other than being in the top 8 according to record? Edit: and formula?

[starclassic tama]

i think what we should do is keep the system as it is right now, except take the top 4 teams and play 1 vs. 4 in one BCS bowl and 2 vs. 3 in another. then take the winners of those two games and play them in the BCS national title game a week later.

[jwlynn64]

I've posted this before but let me throw it out again.

1. Make the league consist of eight 12 team conferences.
2. Conference Champions play in an eight team playoff.
3. The teams left out of the league go down to D-AA.
4. The worst team from each conference each year is relegated down to D-AA and replace by the best teams from there.

In this system, each conference has to play a conference championship game and the leagues are refreshed so that the SMUs and Baylors don't get free rides every year (Yes, I know that both teams have gotten better over the last couple of years).

Just for the record, OU would not make the eight team playoff this year if we had a playoff system in place but the two LSU would. How's that for leaving all controversy behind.

[Octavian]

Its really interesting to see a professed "progressive" liberal like Octavian defend the corporate controlled/corrupted bowl system because "thats just the way its always been done, and dabnammit, thats the way its gonna stay!"

Ironic, to say the least. ;)

heh.

You too....promoting a system where losing isn't a big deal, competiveness and winning are devalued....and where every underpriveledged little bastard in the country is treated the same and has a chance to win it all!

:D

[Octavian]

8 teams out of 119 means you take the top 6.7%. You gotta be damn good to make the top 6.7%.

Not as good as you have to be to make the top 2.


Any way you slice it, a playoff makes more games more interesting.

thats like...your opinion, man.

[Winston Churchill]

http://cache.bordom.net/images/13c421a841c4fa6b1d60e7ed4ca0fcac.jpg

[Octavian]

I still don't see how an 8-team playoff would "gut" the game. As far as I can remember, the only attempt that anybody has made at explaining how it would is by saying that it would water down the regular season, making games less important. But it seems amazingly clear to me that for every game that loses importance, we'd have at least 2 games (at LEAST) that would gain importance. So I don't see how that ruins the game. Can someone explain that one to me.

I don't know why that seems so amazingly clear to you.

Under the current system, every single game has the potential to knock your *** outta the national title game.

Suppose Gordon Reise isn't an idiot and OU formally loses their first game of the '06 season in the RRS. In all likelihood...that's it. We're out of the NCG picture. We can go ahead and snag an at-large bid or even go on and win the conference and have a great season.

But unless we get a once-in-a-generation blessing (which is possible), our national title dreams are dead when our fanbase exits the Fairgrounds. Same for Texas.

Not under the playoff format. Hey, it's only 1 loss. In a playoff, we just need to win out and we're in the post-season...with just as much of a chance to win the thing as the team that just beat us or another superpower that finishes the regular season undefeated.


An 8-team playoff in college football would require you to be in the top 8 out of 119. More than 1/3rd of the NFL teams make the playoffs. Fewer than 8% of college football teams would make this playoff. Can you see how this is different? Does it makes sense that an 8-team college football playoff would not have the same effect on "game-excitement" that the NFL playoffs have in the NFL?

sure...it would be more difficult to make the college playoffs than the pros.

that doesn't concern me....and neither does "excitement." It's about games being meaningful.

Our low-scoring 12-7 victory in 2000 in Stillwater is a great example. We lose that game in '00 and we're done. Out.

Under a playoff we lose and we're still in the Top 8. All our goals are still right in front of us.

That's just not what I want college football to be. I may be in the 2% of the college football fandom that feels that way....but I do.

(This is where the '01 and '03 seasons present the biggest problems for me. Nebbish and OU both lost their last games that year but played for the NC. But....in both instances, the system looked at the season in it's entirety and the two teams got in b/c there weren't any other undefeated teams save '01 Miami. In any event, this is certainly the exception the rule)


So there are two different reasons why I have trouble grasping how an 8-team playoff would gut the game. I don't see how it would make things less exciting...

because, even in a situation where a team made it to the NC after losing late ('01, '03), it wasn't a sure thing.

Every single year...top 10, big-time programs with a loss would know they're in the race.

As it is now...the general rule is they're in the race until they lose or a freak occurrence allows them back in because someone else lost.


...and I think any comparrison to the (alledged) unimportance of the NFL's regular season is flawed on several fronts.

the NFL was just a jab...I couldn't care less how the League handles its affairs or how the season unfolds.

...unless it effects my fantasy team ;)


The main reason I don't agree with you, Octavian, is because I DO agree with you on another point. I do believe that college football is about history, tradition and rivalry. College football loyalties run deep and the rivalries are intense. There is so much "stuff" behind college football, that I don't see how a simple 8-team playoff could ruin it.

Okay...here's where we get to the meat of it and here's where I'll make my naustalgic, sappy case.

College football is a special and unique phenomena in the American sports experience. Perhaps (and only perhaps) major league baseball has a deeper and richer history than college football.

The same college football that has determined its champion for 150 years based on a regular season format.

It forces coaches, teams, and fanbases to strive for perfection in order to reach their ultimate goal. It doesn't always happen, but they expect to be perfect in order to contend for all the marbles.

Because of this expectation and because there is no playoff system, teams and fanbases get to experience "magical" campaigns or seasons of "destiny" when everything must fall into place....and then does.

In a playoff system, Torrence Marshall's INT in College Station would've caused me to say, "Whew...home field advantage still intact." Instead, I came unglued b/c our championship dreams were still alive.

Had he dropped it, the reverse would also be true. "Well, we may not get home-field, but we still could....either way we'll for sure get a chance to keep playing for the championship."

See, we'd lose something with a playoff...an intangible that seperates this game from all others.

It's about going into historic stadiums week in and week out and putting all your trivial sports hopes and dreams on the line. Every single time.

Some people think it's crap...I don't.


If it's just a gut feeling, then say it's a gut feeling, but I don't think the arguments that have been put forward have much, if any, merit.

And I haven't seen an argument that would convince me a playoff system would improve the game one iota.

Actually, I haven't seen a pro-playoff argument that's convinced me it wouldn't damage the game.


And I don't see how it will ruin the game.

And I don't see how it couldn't.

This debate will probably never end in the college football world but it has for me.

It was a good discussion but we're running in circles now...I'm out.

We can pick it up next year at this time when OU is the only undefeated team in the country and you all can tell me how we need to win 4 more games against teams that've already lost multiple times. ;)

[Octavian]

dayum...that was longer than I thought :O

[Crazy Sooner]

Hey Oct, scratch this kitty:
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/hobbs70/kitty11.jpg

[Sooner_Havok]

Bout sums it up. Not short and sweet, but hey :D

[Crazy Sooner]

Bet youhave never seen a cat that fat

[Texas Golfer]

dayum...that was longer than I thought :O

But well stated.

[Crazy Sooner]

But well stated.

your posts burn my retineas, it burns.

[Crazy Sooner]

Why did some spineless poster neg me? If you neg me, you neg the kitties, which proves you dont like cat

[jwlynn64]

I love cat. They're tasty. Especially in tacos. Yum!

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Plus One - Not a playoff...wouldn't really satisfy all the playoff hounds.
4 Teams - What's the point? Pretty close to a 2 team playoff.
8 Teams - We still have to have deciding factors to determine who is in and who is out. Currently, there would be 11 2-loss teams competing for the 7th and 8th spot.
16 Teams - We've just added one more game to satisfy the playoff hounds. In this case, there would be 1 2-loss team left out.

Cry me a river! It's college football! There will always be complainers with any system and any playoff would not be without its fair share of whiners.

Realign the conferences, you say! All conferences must have a championship game. Well, we've got 11 conferences and 4 independents now...do we hand off control to the NCAA that everyone loves to whine about?

There are really a lot of issues at play here and the playoff hounds seem to miss a lot of them.

Season Length - Would need to be shortened to account for extra games. With an 8 team playoff and a conference championship game, and a 10 game season would result in 14 games to go the distance. These games would most likely not be played during the current dead weeks in place due to finals. So, we would most likely be looking at 5 home games and higher per-game pricing. The season would probably start the same weekend, but the conference championship games would be played around Thanksgiving so first 2 playoff rounds can be complete by...well, now. Of course those athletes shouldn't worry about finals or finding some time to be with their families on a break that falls around the same time as two world-recognized holidays!

Logistics - If the playoffs are played at a school location, there really wouldn't be a significant monetary incentive for making the playoffs unless you earned homefield advantage. Sure, the final game could be a current BCS bowl game with a BCS payout, but it would be very difficult to use current bowls for the semi-finals, quarter-finals, etc. because the vast majority of fans from both teams of a game simply won't be able to travel to multiple neutral sites in consecutive weekends. Someone mentioned multiple games at one venue. We're talking about football. The field is not a basketball court that can be swept in 5 minutes. We would also be talking about 2x the number in attendance vs. an NCAA men's basketball final...per game. Oh yeah, sign me up for the 2nd game of the day!

No Consensus - In order for people to stop whining, there would have to be agreement on all things college football. Is it record only that gets you to the playoff? After all, that's what most people whine about now. Or, is it a conference championship? Well, we'll need to make sure that all conferences have a championship game. Do we add a human element and have a selection committe like the one that determines half of the NCAA basketball teams that make it to March Madness? Wait, isn't that like a poll? In addition to that, the number of playoff spots that we decide on will help determine the number of conferences. If it's an 8 team playoff, we'll probably have 8 conferences. Are Notre Dame, Army, Navy, or Temple going to join one? If it's 16...which would the the ABSOLUTE highest number...we'll need somewhere around 8 conferences so we can award 8 at large bids. Since there are 119 teams in D1A, do we slash them to 64 to make 8 conferences with 8 teams each? Where do we draw the line on who to push out of D1A? Do we create yet another division with 100 man teams?

It's so easy to sit and dream about a playoff. But, I agree with those who can live with the warped beauty that this system, and the system that has determined champions for many years past, provides. This isn't D1AA. It's not the NFL where a third of the teams make the playoffs. It's not March Madness where a basketball squad (and all it entails) can make three 3-day trips in March/April to win the tourney.

Fantastic post.


I don't know that I'm in entrenched in the anti-playoff stance but I'm certainly yet to be convinced that a playoff system is going to improve things much if at all. Or I should say "the playoff system" because although it might be that a majority of the fans favor a playoff, I'm not sure they do but presuming they do there is a big difference between saying there should be a playoff and then agreeing what exactly the playoff should be. I bet some of the playoff crowd might not be for them if it isn't the type of playoff that they want.

It's not hard to come up with any of a number of playoff systems. It's even easier to come up with serious flaws with all of them. Too many teams in DI, not everyone in a conference, differences in strength of schedule, etc. All these people that point to DI-AA and DII playoff systems have NO IDEA how screwed up those systems are.

[Stoop Dawg]

Top 8. Period. That's pretty bold.

So, does the ability to make the playoffs have any requirement other than being in the top 8 according to record? Edit: and formula?

What's bold about it? Right now we take the top 2 ... period.

[Stoop Dawg]

Hey, it's only 1 loss. In a playoff, we just need to win out and we're in the post-season...with just as much of a chance to win the thing as the team that just beat us or another superpower that finishes the regular season undefeated.

that doesn't concern me....and neither does "excitement." It's about games being meaningful.

Our low-scoring 12-7 victory in 2000 in Stillwater is a great example. We lose that game in '00 and we're done. Out.

Under a playoff we lose and we're still in the Top 8. All our goals are still right in front of us.

As it is now...the general rule is they're in the race until they lose or a freak occurrence allows them back in because someone else lost.


Dude, I know they're just your opinions and you are certainly entitled to them, but they are full of contradictions.

You want the games to be more meaningful then you say OU was out of the race after losing to Texas. Doesn't that make the rest of OU's games LESS MEANINGFUL? Wouldn't the rest of our games have been more meaningful if we still had a shot at the playoffs?

If, as you say, the only meaningful games are the ones played by teams who are "in the race" - then making the race bigger makes more meaningful games.

And the notion that one loss knocks you out of the current system is just silly. I think you should take a look at how often two undefeated teams play for the national champtionship. Here you go: http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/timeline

Pay special attention to the number of times a team with one loss plays in the title game while an undefeated team plays somewhere else. If that's the history you are trying to protect, I'd say it's time to let it go.

[sanantoniosooner]

This thread needs more cats.

[ocsooner]

I think the obvious answer to this question is that we can't switch to a playoff. If we did, none of the talking heads and hack writers would have anything to talk about. They might have to actually dig for substance, and we all know how bad that can turn out.

[Octavian]

And the notion that one loss knocks you out of the current system is just silly. I think you should take a look at how often two undefeated teams play for the national champtionship. Here you go: http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/timeline

:D

oh, man.

I don't need links to websites to find out or look up the matchups or results of national title games in college football.

not everyone thinks the sport is crap...and some people even go out of their way to learn and memorize much of its history.

[sanantoniosooner]

just to make this simple for some of you.

Basically a Plus One is a 4 team playoff.

you're welcome.

[TopDawg]

I don't know why that seems so amazingly clear to you.

Under the current system, every single game has the potential to knock your *** outta the national title game.

Wrong. Every single game UNTIL YOUR FIRST LOSS, has the potential to knock you out. With the exception of a handful of teams, every game after your first loss has less value without a playoff than it does with a playoff.


Suppose Gordon Reise isn't an idiot and OU formally loses their first game of the '06 season in the RRS. In all likelihood...that's it. We're out of the NCG picture. We can go ahead and snag an at-large bid or even go on and win the conference and have a great season.

But unless we get a once-in-a-generation blessing (which is possible), our national title dreams are dead when our fanbase exits the Fairgrounds. Same for Texas.

Not under the playoff format. Hey, it's only 1 loss. In a playoff, we just need to win out and we're in the post-season...with just as much of a chance to win the thing as the team that just beat us or another superpower that finishes the regular season undefeated.

But here's the rub. Without a playoff, all of our games after Texas are less important because they have no national title implications (unless there is a once-in-a-generation blessing). With a playoff, our remaining games are now more important because we can't afford to lose one more. So while the OU/Texas game may have lost a little importance, every game after that gained a whole lot more.


sure...it would be more difficult to make the college playoffs than the pros.

that doesn't concern me....and neither does "excitement." It's about games being meaningful.

Our low-scoring 12-7 victory in 2000 in Stillwater is a great example. We lose that game in '00 and we're done. Out.

Under a playoff we lose and we're still in the Top 8. All our goals are still right in front of us.

That's just not what I want college football to be. I may be in the 2% of the college football fandom that feels that way....but I do.

Yes. Unfortunately there will be games that aren't as meaningful. I admit that. You don't have to convince me of it. You can stop wasting virtual ink. But for every example you can give me of a game that becomes less meaningful, I can give you 10 games that become MORE meaningful. So if it's meaningful games you want, a playoff gives you more. Right?



College football is a special and unique phenomena in the American sports experience. Perhaps (and only perhaps) major league baseball has a deeper and richer history than college football.

The same college football that has determined its champion for 150 years based on a regular season format.

But that's simply not true. Back when they decided the champion BEFORE the bowl games, the champion was determined based on a regular season format. Somewhere along the lines they took bowl games into consideration. But that's still pretty similar to what you're saying. But the BCS came along with the idea that we're gonna let the two best teams decide it on the field, essentially giving us a one game playoff for the national title. That's fine and all, but I'd prefer it to be a 7 game playoff. At any rate, going from the current system to a playoff system would not change the history of college football championship-deciding. The BCS did that.


It forces coaches, teams, and fanbases to strive for perfection in order to reach their ultimate goal. It doesn't always happen, but they expect to be perfect in order to contend for all the marbles.

Because of this expectation and because there is no playoff system, teams and fanbases get to experience "magical" campaigns or seasons of "destiny" when everything must fall into place....and then does.

In a playoff system, Torrence Marshall's INT in College Station would've caused me to say, "Whew...home field advantage still intact." Instead, I came unglued b/c our championship dreams were still alive.

Had he dropped it, the reverse would also be true. "Well, we may not get home-field, but we still could....either way we'll for sure get a chance to keep playing for the championship."

See, we'd lose something with a playoff...an intangible that seperates this game from all others.

Again, sure, there are some games that are less meaningful. But there are more on the other side.


It's about going into historic stadiums week in and week out and putting all your trivial sports hopes and dreams on the line. Every single time.

But you're not. Usually after your first loss...and certainly after your second...the hopes and dreams are out the door. Gone. So it's not every single time. It's every single time until you lose. And for most teams, that happens before mid-October.


And I haven't seen an argument that would convince me a playoff system would improve the game one iota.

How about this: although it would make some games less meaningful, it would make a whole lot more games more meaningful. And then it would give us 7 games at the end of the year chock FULL of meaning. And it would force those 8 teams, to absolutely (with no chances for a once-in-a-generation miracle) put their hopes and dreams on the lines for those 3 games.



It was a good discussion but we're running in circles now...I'm out.

Aww well hell. I went through all that trouble only to find out your done.


We can pick it up next year at this time when OU is the only undefeated team in the country and you all can tell me how we need to win 4 more games against teams that've already lost multiple times. ;)

Maybe we can pick it up next year when OU gets an undeserved loss on their otherwise perfect record and they have to watch Rutgers and Boise State play their one-game playoff for the national title.

[TopDawg]

Plus One - Not a playoff...wouldn't really satisfy all the playoff hounds.
4 Teams - What's the point? Pretty close to a 2 team playoff.
8 Teams - We still have to have deciding factors to determine who is in and who is out. Currently, there would be 11 2-loss teams competing for the 7th and 8th spot.
16 Teams - We've just added one more game to satisfy the playoff hounds. In this case, there would be 1 2-loss team left out.

Cry me a river! It's college football! There will always be complainers with any system and any playoff would not be without its fair share of whiners.

Again, I think you're arguing against a point that is not being made. Is anybody saying that a playoff will eliminate the arguing or whining? It'll just mean that it's coming from less-deserving teams.



Season Length - Would need to be shortened to account for extra games. With an 8 team playoff and a conference championship game, and a 10 game season would result in 14 games to go the distance. These games would most likely not be played during the current dead weeks in place due to finals. So, we would most likely be looking at 5 home games and higher per-game pricing. The season would probably start the same weekend, but the conference championship games would be played around Thanksgiving so first 2 playoff rounds can be complete by...well, now. Of course those athletes shouldn't worry about finals or finding some time to be with their families on a break that falls around the same time as two world-recognized holidays!

Yeah, we could make it incredible intrusive and annoying...but I think it's also possible to not do so. I don't think it's that difficult to find time for two more games somewhere in there.


Logistics - If the playoffs are played at a school location, there really wouldn't be a significant monetary incentive for making the playoffs unless you earned homefield advantage.

Well this is a ridiculous argument all together. Do NFL teams avoid the playoffs because there is no significant monetary incentive?

But even if this is an issue, profits could be split.


It's so easy to sit and dream about a playoff. But, I agree with those who can live with the warped beauty that this system, and the system that has determined champions for many years past, provides. This isn't D1AA. It's not the NFL where a third of the teams make the playoffs. It's not March Madness where a basketball squad (and all it entails) can make three 3-day trips in March/April to win the tourney.

You're right. It's college football, where Howard *************** and an Excel spreadsheet determine which two teams get to play for it all. While that is charming in it's own way, I'd prefer to limit Howard's power a little bit more.

[sanantoniosooner]

I disagreed with TopDawg once.

I'm thankful it didn't include cut and pastes from War and Peace.

[OSUAggie]

I disagreed with TopDawg once.

I'm thankful it didn't include cut and pastes from War and Peace.

War and Peace was originally titled War, What is it Good For? as I recall.

[sanantoniosooner]

War and Peace was originally titled War, What is it Good For? as I recall.
HUH!?

Good God Y'all

[TopDawg]

Guys, sanantoniosooner is upset that we're not paying more attention to him.

Everybody smile and wave at sas.

;)

[sanantoniosooner]

just don't jump off your merry-go-round and get hurt.

[RFH Shakes]

IMHO,

You have 8 D1 conferences w/ 12 teams each. Each conference has 2 divisions. Champ from each conference plays an 8 team playoff using 7 Major bowls. Rest of bowls can use conference tie-ins for their games. That way you have a playoff and still have the bowls.

p.s. that makes ND join a conf. or get left out.:)

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

IMHO,

You have 8 D1 conferences w/ 12 teams each. Each conference has 2 divisions. Champ from each conference plays an 8 team playoff using 7 Major bowls. Rest of bowls can use conference tie-ins for their games. That way you have a playoff and still have the bowls.

p.s. that makes ND join a conf. or get left out.:)

While that system gives everyone a chance and if I were king of the world I might use it, just imagine the squabble using a scenario like this year when Michigan lost a Big 10 title game by a field goal to Ohio St. For arguments sake 12-0 Florida loses to 10-2 Arkansas in the SEC championship in 2 OT on a blocked PAT. I'll presume the Sun Belt, Mac, Wac, and Conf Usa are disbanded, teams absorbed or reorganziezed so that there are 8 leagues but you wind up with 8 teams like: Ohio St, Arkansas, Oklahoma,USC,Florida St,West Virginia, Central Michigan and TCU. Presume the last 2 teams aren't 12-0 but when their conference title. Complicate it even more if a team from one division with 3 losses beats a previously undefeated team from the opposite division.
Meanwhile 5 of the top 10 ranked teams in the country are at home while at least 3 of the final 8 teams have 2 or 3 losses.

Plus as you mentioned. The huge X-factor would teams like Notre Dame. I'd love to force them to join a conference. That idea sounds great to me. The practical fact is a don't think it would happen. ND simply has too much power and they will be able to do what best suits their own interest and getting pounded by several Big 10 teams most years and then playing USC wouldn't do it. ND would at that point quit being a National school and be more of a regional school.

Whatever playoff comes will probably start out of a plus-1 type scenario (which solves problems some years but not last year for example) and then might morph into a 4,8 or 16 team playoff where conf champs get automatic bids and then the BCS or something like it would seed teams and decide at large teams. Its coming eventually and people will bitch and moan about it just as much as the current BCS.

[TopDawg]

By the way, I should mention that I came in 3rd in the Soonerfans college football pick'em contest, so clearly I'm more of an authority on this matter than all but two of the people on this board.

And those guys are with me on this matter, I'm sure.

[bearcat_sooner]

Fantastic post.


All these people that point to DI-AA and DII playoff systems have NO IDEA how screwed up those systems are.

My alma mater Div. II Northwest Missouri State University will play a total of 15 games if they win the NC. I attended a total of 10 years of schooling at NWMSU, I have YET to EVER hear one the players from the various years I attended bitch and moan about the playoffs because of it took them away from their studies OR families during the holidays............not once, zippo, nada, zilch, null, dark matter, etc, etc ad naseum. It's ALWAYS been celebrated since I've been in and around Northwest.

[sanantoniosooner]

By the way, I should mention that I came in 3rd in the Soonerfans college football pick'em contest, so clearly I'm more of an authority on this matter than all but two of the people on this board.

And those guys are with me on this matter, I'm sure.
Well played.

Haven't heard a line like that since the "spek" comments from gdc.

Check mate.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We need to lay off GDC...I mean yes...he REALLY hated the whorns but you know what if that is your biggest fault in life...you really can't be that bad. I for one miss GDC and Stanley1....Thunder not quite as much :P

[sanantoniosooner]

We need to lay off GDC...I mean yes...he REALLY hated the whorns but you know what if that is your biggest fault in life...you really can't be that bad. I for one miss GDC and Stanley1....Thunder not quite as much :P
gdc had an affinity for pointing out his spek total.

It seemed appropriate as a comparison.

It wasn't a slam on either.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

His spekker was Ginormous though!

[sanantoniosooner]

His spekker was Ginormous though!
meh.......check mine out sometime.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I hear it doesn't get used that often though?

[sanantoniosooner]

It gets occasional workouts.

Spek just isn't what it used to be though.

[jwlynn64]

While that system gives everyone a chance and if I were king of the world I might use it, just imagine the squabble using a scenario like this year when Michigan lost a Big 10 title game by a field goal to Ohio St. blah, blah, blah, blah....

You make policy based on the normal not on the exceptions.

Also, if your only bitch about not getting into the playoffs is that you lost your conference, then you don't have a bitch.

By the way, I've been proposing this system for a month now on the boards. ;)

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

You make policy based on the normal not on the exceptions.

Also, if your only bitch about not getting into the playoffs is that you lost your conference, then you don't have a bitch.

By the way, I've been proposing this system for a month now on the boards. ;)

I know, I know. It isn't really my only problem with the system or the biggest one, though I think a lot of people would be knocking the system if an 8 team playoff this year included Rutgers,Wake Forest and Boise St but not Michigan. The biggest one will be getting the conferences all on the same page. Though hypothtically speaking if MTSU won their conference this year and we had lost to Neb do you think MTSU would have had a better claim for being in a playoff to determine the NC than OU?

I'm not so much a BCS apoligist as I'm yet to see the compelling evidence that a specific system rather than just some general idea of a playoff system is better than what is in place right now. Changing just for the sake of change is not a plan and I don't see a consensus on what changes should be made. As 5 different people and you will come up with 5 different playoff plans, each with their pro's and cons.

I don't even get into the bowl argument.

I don't say it's perfect but a lot of people griping about the BCS now must not remember when the #1 team played the #7 team in the Rose Bowl, #2 and #4 met in the Orange, #5 met #13 in the Sugar and #3 played #16 in the Cotton. Then after the games the champion was decided ONLY by a bunch of writers often with their own agenda and no somewhat objective element (computers) that so many people want to badmouth now.

I thought the BCS was an improvement from day 1. Not so sure about a playoff..

[TopDawg]

Well played.

Haven't heard a line like that since the "spek" comments from gdc.

Check mate.

hey, i'm just sayin'...my 3rd place finish is about the only thing that we can all agree on in this thread, so let's not ignore it

[Stoop Dawg]

:D

oh, man.

I don't need links to websites to find out or look up the matchups or results of national title games in college football.

not everyone thinks the sport is crap...and some people even go out of their way to learn and memorize much of its history.

Sorry, all those comments about "one loss and you're OUT" and "your season is on the line every week" made me think you didn't pay very close attention to the actual records of the teams that play for the national championship.

As it turns out, you DO know the facts - you just choose to ignore them. That may be why the debate is going in circles.....

[TopDawg]

I don't say it's perfect but a lot of people griping about the BCS now must not remember when the #1 team played the #7 team in the Rose Bowl, #2 and #4 met in the Orange, #5 met #13 in the Sugar and #3 played #16 in the Cotton. Then after the games the champion was decided ONLY by a bunch of writers often with their own agenda and no somewhat objective element (computers) that so many people want to badmouth now.

I thought the BCS was an improvement from day 1. Not so sure about a playoff..

While I do have a gripe about the BCS, I also appreciate what it's done. I can have a gripe about my new car even thought it's an improvement over my old one.

And while the BCS has been good, I believe, for college football...I just think taking it from a one-game playoff to a 7-game playoff is better. But heck, right now I'd be pretty happy with a Plus-1 system. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that option yet.

[Stoop Dawg]

hey, i'm just sayin'...my 3rd place finish is about the only thing that we can all agree on in this thread, so let's not ignore it

I heard you had Howard *************** log in to your account and make those picks.

FOUL! FOUL, I SAY!

[TopDawg]

Each week I had a computer program rank the two best coaches to make my picks for that week. Then I flipped a coin to see which of those two would actually make the picks. Howard was a finalist 3 times, but never won the coin toss.

[Scott D]

My alma mater Div. II Northwest Missouri State University will play a total of 15 games if they win the NC. I attended a total of 10 years of schooling at NWMSU, I have YET to EVER hear one the players from the various years I attended bitch and moan about the playoffs because of it took them away from their studies OR families during the holidays............not once, zippo, nada, zilch, null, dark matter, etc, etc ad naseum. It's ALWAYS been celebrated since I've been in and around Northwest.

Logistically how large is Div. II compared to Div. I-A?

[EstablishedSooner1967]

the way I see we have 12 conference and if they all played conference championships in the bowls that would be good.. and then have all the winner get in a play off.. that is a 12 team play off, do it regionally or the higher ranked teams get home field... then the have the bsc bowl rotate for the championship game... it can be worked out if we get all the conference to play a championship game and have those 12 duke it out.

[Scott D]

the way I see we have 12 conference and if they all played conference championships in the bowls that would be good.. and then have all the winner get in a play off.. that is a 12 team play off, do it regionally or the higher ranked teams get home field... then the have the bsc bowl rotate for the championship game... it can be worked out if we get all the conference to play a championship game and have those 12 duke it out.

Good luck getting the Big-10 or Pac-10 to agree to anything that requires them to have more member schools in which to dole out money.

[WakeflyingSooner]

Make every week count. This is what fuels our passion for the weekend! I may not like the end result if WE are not a part of it, but I do understand. Lose a game and you May be out..

[Texas Golfer]

His spekker was Ginormous though!

What? We're comparing the size of spekkers now?

[sanantoniosooner]

What? We're comparing the size of spekkers now?
HOLY CRAP!!

Small Black font from the Golfer.

Hell froze over.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Al Gore has teh biggest though...although PG's could rock your world back in the day as well ;)

[Texas Golfer]

HOLY CRAP!!

Small Black font from the Golfer.

Hell froze over.

I had so many complain that they didn't like seeing OU crimson that I finally conceded.

[Frozen Sooner]

Thank God.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Originally Posted by bearcat_sooner
My alma mater Div. II Northwest Missouri State University will play a total of 15 games if they win the NC. I attended a total of 10 years of schooling at NWMSU, I have YET to EVER hear one the players from the various years I attended bitch and moan about the playoffs because of it took them away from their studies OR families during the holidays............not once, zippo, nada, zilch, null, dark matter, etc, etc ad naseum. It's ALWAYS been celebrated since I've been in and around Northwest.


Logistically how large is Div. II compared to Div. I-A?

Logistically DII is smaller than DI though not by too much I believe. The weakest argument of those opposing as playoff is the time taken away from studies and the burden of an extra game(s).

If you want to use DII as an example though their playoff system is a joke. Last year 8-3 Pitt St loses 83-21 to 7-3 Central Mo yet still get in the playoffs instead of CMSU based on their strength of schedule. There are 4 regions of 6 teams each and the region rankings have as much to do with the teams you play as what your team does itself. If you go undefeated you will get in but some years 1 loss and your out, others 3 losses and you get in and host a playoff game. The Northeast region is a perinnial joke and hasn't even had a team in the championship game since 97 and hasn't won it since Delaware was DII in 79, yet they get 6 teams in the playoff.

This year #10 Valdosta St and #14 Pitt St didn't make the playoffs (Maybe they are getting even with Pitt for making it last year when they shouldn't have) meanwhile #19 Winona St is in, #25 Bryant is in as well as unranked Merrimack, S Connecticutt and West Chester. Those last 3 teams would have a hard time winning 2 games in the MIAA (Conference that includes NW Mo, Mo Western, Pitt St, etc)

I know DI wouldn't use this system but imagine Arkansas, Auburn and Texas not being in a 24 team playoff while there is NE Region consisting (pretty much every year) of West Virginia,Penn St, Rutgers, Boston College,Maryland and Pitt.

Again, I know that DI wouldn't adopt this system but when you hear the talking heads say how DII and DI-AA have a playoff system and it works, keep this in mind.

[kruss1971]

My alma mater Div. II Northwest Missouri State University will play a total of 15 games if they win the NC. I attended a total of 10 years of schooling at NWMSU, I have YET to EVER hear one the players from the various years I attended bitch and moan about the playoffs because of it took them away from their studies OR families during the holidays............not once, zippo, nada, zilch, null, dark matter, etc, etc ad naseum. It's ALWAYS been celebrated since I've been in and around Northwest.
Your alma mater also averaged only 5850 people per game last year. There were only 6837 at DII's championship game. My point is this: the numbers that most successful DI-A schools bring to a game make the facilitation of a playoff much more difficult than comparing it to smaller divisions or other NCAA sports.

[kruss1971]

What's bold about it? Right now we take the top 2 ... period.
That's my point. Somehow, you believe believe satisfaction would be greater if the cutoff was at 8 instead of 2. Like the BCS, in whatever iteration it finds itself, the "system" you propose will seem to have worked perfectly in some years while failing in others.

Your original post stated:

This assumes that you take the top 8 (according to some formula - probably the current BCS) and don't do some crazy "conference champs get an automatic bid" crap. I say forget conference champs - you just gotta be in the top 8. Period.

At this point, you've veered away from nearly every conventional playoff system used for multi-conference leagues: NCAA DI-AA and lower football, NCAA basketball, NCAA baseball, NFL, NBA, NHL, on and on. Basically, it seems you're saying to just go with the top 8 based on the system everyone loves to hate instead of the top 2 based on the system everyone loves to hate...just tweak it so people hate it less. Then, have those top teams that not everyone agrees should be there vie in a playoff for the championship. The pain point still lies in the selection of who goes on to the playoff.

[jwlynn64]

The pain point still lies in the selection of who goes on to the playoff.

This would be eliminated if they would create 8 super conferences and only the winner of the conferences goes to the playoff. If you were not good enough to win your conference, then you don't go. Period. End of discussion.

Since the point of the playoff is to crown the best team, you don't really care if the second best team doesn't makes it to the playoff. In this case, the best team beat them in their conference.

The road block to this however is deciding how to make the eight conferences. I don't think that you want leave the conference like they currently are. You would need to try and create eight equal strength conferences.

How do you do this? Discuss.

[Stoop Dawg]

That's my point. Somehow, you believe believe satisfaction would be greater if the cutoff was at 8 instead of 2. Like the BCS, in whatever iteration it finds itself, the "system" you propose will seem to have worked perfectly in some years while failing in others.

Your original post stated:


At this point, you've veered away from nearly every conventional playoff system used for multi-conference leagues: NCAA DI-AA and lower football, NCAA basketball, NCAA baseball, NFL, NBA, NHL, on and on. Basically, it seems you're saying to just go with the top 8 based on the system everyone loves to hate instead of the top 2 based on the system everyone loves to hate...just tweak it so people hate it less. The pain point still lies in the selection of who goes on.

I'm with you now. But the selection process is a "pain point" in every playoff. Broadening the number of teams you let "in" relieves some of the pressure, but you can't let "too many" in or it becomes logistically impossible. I'm certainly not qualified to pronounce the number of teams that should participate, but I'm thinking it has GOT to be more than 2.

One of the reasons I like a "Top 8" playoff is precisely because it leaves the current system in tact - with a fairly major "tweak". I think it's a good compromise.

But hey, I'm a guy that thinks a one-loss Wisconsin team (only loss is to #3 Michigan) is getting shafted this year, so what do I know? ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

The road block to this however is deciding how to make the eight conferences. I don't think that you want leave the conference like they currently are. You would need to try and create eight equal strength conferences.

I'm no expert, but I'm thinking that conference membership runs deeper than a football playoff. Realigning conferences for the sake of a football playoff seems like a bit of overkill to me. JMO.

[kruss1971]

Broadening the number of teams you let "in" relieves some of the pressure, but you can't let "too many" in or it becomes logistically impossible.
Agreed. This is how March Madness manages...all conference champs receive automatic berths while the rest are chosen by committee. Being the 65th team and left out of the playoff isn't as controversial as being number 3 or 9.


One of the reasons I like a "Top 8" playoff is precisely because it leaves the current system in tact - with a fairly major "tweak". I think it's a good compromise.
My argument isn't necessarily AGAINST a playoff, but against the reported ease with which it could be implemented and against its exaggerated advantage over the current system.


But hey, I'm a guy that thinks a one-loss Wisconsin team (only loss is to #3 Michigan) is getting shafted this year, so what do I know? ;)
You know, that's what I believe makes this the greatest sport. Someone could hear you say that and, if they are a fan of the sport as well, talk with you for hours on all things college football. However, Wisconsin is only shafted from competing in a playoff. If they would have beat Michigan, they would be playing for the title.

[jwlynn64]

I'm no expert, but I'm thinking that conference membership runs deeper than a football playoff. Realigning conferences for the sake of a football playoff seems like a bit of overkill to me. JMO.

How's the SouthWest Conference going these days? ;)

[bearcat_sooner]

Your alma mater also averaged only 5850 people per game last year. There were only 6837 at DII's championship game. My point is this: the numbers that most successful DI-A schools bring to a game make the facilitation of a playoff much more difficult than comparing it to smaller divisions or other NCAA sports.

My point in my original post is don't use some lame excuse that it's keeping the players away from family and studies. I won't make ANY claim about the merits of the playoff system in of and of itself. The presidents and those "in the know" want to use that excuse.......and that's just what it is....an excuse.