I need to rant

[CJHawkeyes]

I enjoy the debates I engage in on various college football boards and I respect that some fans wish for different things for college football than I do. However, some fans make the dumbest arguments for or against an idea that I have ever seen. One popular argument against a playoff is that college football as is determines a "true" champion moreso than other sports. What the hell is a true champion? The dictionary definition of champion is the winner of first place in a competition. Certainly, college football's national title is the most difficult to win, but how is it more true? Does true mean pure and is it more true simply because there is a smaller margin for error? Even then, how true can it be if an unbeaten season guarantees nothing and opinion decides almost everything?

Another dumb argument is the perceived injustice of a 12-0 team playing a 9-3 team in playoff game. Why should a 12-0 team have to do such a thing some ask even while noting its a shame that Auburn didn't even get an opportunity against other unbeatens? Apparently, it is a greater injustice to Auburn to make them play a 9-3 team in a playoff game then to deny both teams playoff berths. It is all for the good of Auburn.

A 16 team playoff will render college football's regular season as meaningless as the NBA's and NHL's? Apparently 16 of 120 is equal to 16 of 30 and 9-3 is equal to 41-41 or worse. Also, if a 16 team playoff includes auto bids for all conferences, 11 of 66 is the best the BCS can do. 11 of 66 versus the NFL's 12 of 32.

Another is that a playoff will reward a team that just gets hot. Under the model I favor, the 16th seed would have to beat 1, 2, 3, and 4 in succession barring additional upsets with the first three on the road. How many champions under the current or previous system have done anything like that? And to dismiss it as just getting hot seems absurd to me. Even a lowly 9-3 team would finish 13-3 with four straight wins versus top 16 competition.

End of rant.

[Bucs90]

AMEN!! You are right on man. My definition of champion and talent are hand in hand. "Talent" is any individuals ability to contribute to the group's goal- which in football is winning the championship.

So, some say a playoff rewards a team for "getting hot". Well, what if the coach built his team to do that? Doesn't the New England Patriots team do that? If a coach builds his team's strength and conditioning program to build the core strength and prevent injuries, thus prolonging his team health into the playoffs, thats smart. And what if a player, or majority of a team, have the type of "talent" that allows them to improve with experience and eventually mesh to one strong unit, much like the movie "300", that can out-perform a team that is bigger and faster but doesn't play together as well.

Too many variables go into the regular season. Injuries, weather, bad officiating. One loss can knock a great team out of the BCS. What if Vince Young twists an ankle in 2005 vs Ohio State, and they lose that game?

By the same token, how can Utah or Boise State players ask their coach the question: "Coach, how can we in the National Championship?" And he replies "Boys, just win every game we play, and trust me, we still won't get a chance."

Too many people measure talent in physical terms- size, strength, speed. And yeah, those are huge. Thats why USC has done so well. But the intangibles, like winning close games, playing as one unit, having heart, gaining and keeping momentum, playing through a tough crowed, those aren't measurable and are often learned through coaching. I believe the reason USC has so often lately been the team that "should have" won it all is so many people look at their physical talent and assume they "shoulda" been #1.

But a true championship allows ALL avenues of talent to have an impact on the outcome of the season. The team that gains momentum, experience and meshes together late in the season should be allowed to bring it's 9-3 record into a playoff against the 12-0 team that has won all it's games on raw talent alone. Because who knows? That 12-0 team may not have the "talent" to keep mental focus, while the 9-3 team may be hitting full stride near the end of the season. Just like the New England Patriots do every year.

I'm still in favor of a 6 team playoff. 2 teams get a 1st round bye. The BCS system still does the ranking. 1 and 2 get the bye. 3-6 playoff for a chance to get to the final 4, and then the true national champion. IMO, a team ranked 7-16 is deserving of a shot, but honestly, in the BCS era have we argued any team ranked 7 or below "should have" played in the BCS NC game? I think the 6 team "bye" format would be the best compromise. And best of all, my 6 team format consists of 5 total games- the same amount the BCS has now, therefore allowing each bowl to keeps it's cash-cow. Rotate the bowls playoff seeding each year, 1st round game on the 3rd Saturday in December, 2nd round games on New Years Day, and the NC game one week after. Same length to season. Same cash going to bowls. Fans get a 6 team playoff. Ultimate compromise. Don't see why this format could be turned down.

[Blue Hen]

CJH, you just keeping making too much sense. Nice logical 'rant' there.


Good post, B90.
I disagree about your 6 team playoff plan, however, based on the BCS ranking system. You can't have a legitimate championship based on a mythical-opinion system (like the BCS formula).
If you want a 'REAL" champion you have to start with what's 'REAL' as far as setting the playoff field........and what's the only 'real', non opinionated, non voted, non computed thing we have in BD CF ?????.....Conference Championships. You simply throw those 11 'real' champions out there with 5 at-large teams , let 'em play and eliminate. Last team standing is undisputed champion. No formulas, polls, opinions, voting, or any of that fantasy stuff necessary.

[buckeyejim]

I enjoy the debates I engage in on various college football boards and I respect that some fans wish for different things for college football than I do. However, some fans make the dumbest arguments for or against an idea that I have ever seen. One popular argument against a playoff is that college football as is determines a "true" champion moreso than other sports. What the hell is a true champion? The dictionary definition of champion is the winner of first place in a competition. Certainly, college football's national title is the most difficult to win, but how is it more true? Does true mean pure and is it more true simply because there is a smaller margin for error? Even then, how true can it be if an unbeaten season guarantees nothing and opinion decides almost everything?

Another dumb argument is the perceived injustice of a 12-0 team playing a 9-3 team in playoff game. Why should a 12-0 team have to do such a thing some ask even while noting its a shame that Auburn didn't even get an opportunity against other unbeatens? Apparently, it is a greater injustice to Auburn to make them play a 9-3 team in a playoff game then to deny both teams playoff berths. It is all for the good of Auburn.

A 16 team playoff will render college football's regular season as meaningless as the NBA's and NHL's? Apparently 16 of 120 is equal to 16 of 30 and 9-3 is equal to 41-41 or worse. Also, if a 16 team playoff includes auto bids for all conferences, 11 of 66 is the best the BCS can do. 11 of 66 versus the NFL's 12 of 32.

Another is that a playoff will reward a team that just gets hot. Under the model I favor, the 16th seed would have to beat 1, 2, 3, and 4 in succession barring additional upsets with the first three on the road. How many champions under the current or previous system have done anything like that? And to dismiss it as just getting hot seems absurd to me. Even a lowly 9-3 team would finish 13-3 with four straight wins versus top 16 competition.

End of rant.


I agree with everything you have said and I wish there was a 16 team post season tournament. Unfortunately we don't have one yet. I will, however, accept the team that is "selected" #1 in 2007 in the FBS just as I have for all the champions "selected" in the past.

I'm one of the few who accept both with out getting bent all out of shape. It is what it is. To me Florida is every much the champion that Appalachian State or Mount Union were last year. The Gators just won it under a different format.

[CJHawkeyes]

CJH, you just keeping making too much sense. Nice logical 'rant' there.


Good post, B90.
I disagree about your 6 team playoff plan, however, based on the BCS ranking system. You can't have a legitimate championship based on a mythical-opinion system (like the BCS formula).
If you want a 'REAL" champion you have to start with what's 'REAL' as far as setting the playoff field........and what's the only 'real', non opinionated, non voted, non computed thing we have in BD CF ?????.....Conference Championships. You simply throw those 11 'real' champions out there with 5 at-large teams , let 'em play and eliminate. Last team standing is undisputed champion. No formulas, polls, opinions, voting, or any of that fantasy stuff necessary.

Thanks. Now I need to convince you that computed standings are a good thing. :D

[CJHawkeyes]

I agree with everything you have said and I wish there was a 16 team post season tournament. Unfortunately we don't have one yet. I will, however, accept the team that is "selected" #1 in 2007 in the FBS just as I have for all the champions "selected" in the past.

I'm one of the few who accept both with out getting bent all out of shape. It is what it is. To me Florida is every much the champion that Appalachian State or Mount Union were last year. The Gators just won it under a different format.

I agree except that I find it difficult to respect the "selected" aspect of the current system even when the results agree with the rules I do favor. That said, this post was more about ranting against some of the arguments made against a playoff rather than expecting anyone to desire one like I do. Sometimes I think I could do a better job of defending the status quo or at least my idea of a better version of it than those who favor it.

[EvilVodka]

I enjoy the debates I engage in on various college football boards and I respect that some fans wish for different things for college football than I do. However, some fans make the dumbest arguments for or against an idea that I have ever seen. One popular argument against a playoff is that college football as is determines a "true" champion moreso than other sports. What the hell is a true champion? The dictionary definition of champion is the winner of first place in a competition. Certainly, college football's national title is the most difficult to win, but how is it more true? Does true mean pure and is it more true simply because there is a smaller margin for error? Even then, how true can it be if an unbeaten season guarantees nothing and opinion decides almost everything?

Another dumb argument is the perceived injustice of a 12-0 team playing a 9-3 team in playoff game. Why should a 12-0 team have to do such a thing some ask even while noting its a shame that Auburn didn't even get an opportunity against other unbeatens? Apparently, it is a greater injustice to Auburn to make them play a 9-3 team in a playoff game then to deny both teams playoff berths. It is all for the good of Auburn.

A 16 team playoff will render college football's regular season as meaningless as the NBA's and NHL's? Apparently 16 of 120 is equal to 16 of 30 and 9-3 is equal to 41-41 or worse. Also, if a 16 team playoff includes auto bids for all conferences, 11 of 66 is the best the BCS can do. 11 of 66 versus the NFL's 12 of 32.

Another is that a playoff will reward a team that just gets hot. Under the model I favor, the 16th seed would have to beat 1, 2, 3, and 4 in succession barring additional upsets with the first three on the road. How many champions under the current or previous system have done anything like that? And to dismiss it as just getting hot seems absurd to me. Even a lowly 9-3 team would finish 13-3 with four straight wins versus top 16 competition.

End of rant.

Ok, I'll guess I'll respond to everything by paragraph...

1) I've never heard anyone say CFB determines a true champ...CFB determines its champ by the team that comes closest to the perfect season...this may not always be the best team, or the team playing the best at the end of the season...but in CFB, the idea of putting a 2 loss team ahead of a 1 loss team for the National Championship is absurd

2) There isn't a scenario where Auburn gets to play for the NC without playing a 9-3 team? try a 4 team playoff

3) The larger size playoff means the less meaningful a regular season is...its an inverse relationship...7-5 Sun Belt champs and teams like Texas and Cal '04, LSU '06 (aka "second chance" teams, because they didn't win their respective conferences, but get another chance to play for the championship) hurt the meaningfulness of the regular season

College football has the best regular season...its the shortest, and you usually only play your rival once, for bragging rights for a whole year...in the NBA, the Spurs and the Mavericks are huge rivals, they play 4 times a year...I'm a Spurs fan and I can only recall the results from two of the games last year...

4) does winning 4 straight playoff games outweigh 3 horrible losses at the beginning of the season? not in CFB, because CFB takes into account the whole season....personally, I like how CFB is stingy about the whole season, I hate the idea of a 16 team playoff

[EvilVodka]

By the same token, how can Utah or Boise State players ask their coach the question: "Coach, how can we in the National Championship?" And he replies "Boys, just win every game we play, and trust me, we still won't get a chance."

I'm still in favor of a 6 team playoff. 2 teams get a 1st round bye. The BCS system still does the ranking. 1 and 2 get the bye. 3-6 playoff for a chance to get to the final 4, and then the true national champion. IMO, a team ranked 7-16 is deserving of a shot, but honestly, in the BCS era have we argued any team ranked 7 or below "should have" played in the BCS NC game? I think the 6 team "bye" format would be the best compromise. And best of all, my 6 team format consists of 5 total games- the same amount the BCS has now, therefore allowing each bowl to keeps it's cash-cow. Rotate the bowls playoff seeding each year, 1st round game on the 3rd Saturday in December, 2nd round games on New Years Day, and the NC game one week after. Same length to season. Same cash going to bowls. Fans get a 6 team playoff. Ultimate compromise. Don't see why this format could be turned down.

The first paragraph is the biggest problem with the BCS right now...how can you tell Auburn '04, Utah '04, Boise State '06 that they've done everything they can possibly do, but a shot at the championship is still out of their hands

6 team playoff with byes sounds great, I'd love to see that. although possibly with the top 6 conference champs

[EvilVodka]

CJH, you just keeping making too much sense. Nice logical 'rant' there.


Good post, B90.
I disagree about your 6 team playoff plan, however, based on the BCS ranking system. You can't have a legitimate championship based on a mythical-opinion system (like the BCS formula).
If you want a 'REAL" champion you have to start with what's 'REAL' as far as setting the playoff field........and what's the only 'real', non opinionated, non voted, non computed thing we have in BD CF ?????.....Conference Championships. You simply throw those 11 'real' champions out there with 5 at-large teams , let 'em play and eliminate. Last team standing is undisputed champion. No formulas, polls, opinions, voting, or any of that fantasy stuff necessary.

5 at-large bids = second chance teams

you're right on about conference champs, but then you want 5 at-large bids....Zoombag's 12 team playoff is a better idea...only 1 at-large, and byes

[CJHawkeyes]

Ok, I'll guess I'll respond to everything by paragraph...

1) I've never heard anyone say CFB determines a true champ...CFB determines its champ by the team that comes closest to the perfect season...this may not always be the best team, or the team playing the best at the end of the season...but in CFB, the idea of putting a 2 loss team ahead of a 1 loss team for the National Championship is absurd

2) There isn't a scenario where Auburn gets to play for the NC without playing a 9-3 team? try a 4 team playoff

3) The larger size playoff means the less meaningful a regular season is...its an inverse relationship...7-5 Sun Belt champs and teams like Texas and Cal '04, LSU '06 (aka "second chance" teams, because they didn't win their respective conferences, but get another chance to play for the championship) hurt the meaningfulness of the regular season

College football has the best regular season...its the shortest, and you usually only play your rival once, for bragging rights for a whole year...in the NBA, the Spurs and the Mavericks are huge rivals, they play 4 times a year...I'm a Spurs fan and I can only recall the results from two of the games last year...

4) does winning 4 straight playoff games outweigh 3 horrible losses at the beginning of the season? not in CFB, because CFB takes into account the whole season....personally, I like how CFB is stingy about the whole season, I hate the idea of a 16 team playoff

1-I've read the "true champion" argument several times on different boards.

2-Of course, Auburn could get its shot in a smaller playoff. Nevermind that a four team playoff still shuts out at least one unbeaten in 2004. That said, I was addressing the specific argument made about the indignity of "forcing" a 12-0 team to play to a 9-3 team while denying the former a playoff berth altogether is just a shame.

3-I suppose "meaningful" is relative. I don't find the same meaning in a format where an unbeaten season guarantees nothing, where schools would rather play I-AA teams than the best I-A teams, where 53 teams are dismissed outright, where Boise State is expected to play teams that have no transparent incentive to play them, and where opinion decides who wins.

4-I'm a Spurs fans too, but I'm not as invested in the NBA as I am in college football. Even if I was, I wouldn't expect to remember games from the NBA's 82 game regular season as well as from college football's 12 game regular season.

5-Why would the three losses necessarily be horrible? That said, I think four straight playoff wins would be impressive.

6-Ultimately, I can see the value in a stingy regular season even while I favor a larger playoff. The problem I have is that this sport overvalues and undervalues an unbeaten season at the same time. If an unbeaten season isn't going to guarantee anything then the rules need to encourage teams to look for opponents at the top of the standings rather than the bottom. Furthermore, the rules must create an incentive for the best BCS teams to play the best nonBCS teams anywhere if the latter are expected to play the former.

[CJHawkeyes]

EV,

Why are one-loss teams that lost to higher ranked opponents labeled as second chance teams but one-loss teams like Florida that lost to lower ranked teams are not? Perhaps this question does not reflect your thinking, but I'm interested in your answer if it does.

[EvilVodka]

EV,

Why are one-loss teams that lost to higher ranked opponents labeled as second chance teams but one-loss teams like Florida that lost to lower ranked teams are not? Perhaps this question does not reflect your thinking, but I'm interested in your answer if it does.

hehe, don't let hokiehen read that

This question might be best explained by last year, when voters intentionally moved Florida ahead of Michigan...Michigan and Florida both had 1 loss, and Michigan lost to a higher ranked opponent...however, people didn't want to see Michigan have a second chance, and moved Florida, a team that had gone through a much tougher conference slate and won its conference championship, ahead of Michigan

IMO, teams like Texas and Cal '04 had their shots to win their conferences and blew it, and are therefore rewarded with second chances in any playoff system that awards them with a bid

Why should Oklahoma have even the remotest possibility of playing Texas again in 2004 for the National Championship? Same with USC and Cal

Why should Michigan have gotten a second chance against Ohio State last year? Its not fair to the teams that won the first game, OR the teams that have similar records and didn't get a shot

Second chance teams devalue the conference races, and in turn devalues the season

[Blue Hen]

The 5 at large entries......necessary for a nice clean 15 game, 4 week, 16 team championship ( w/no byes), would represent only 4 % of the entire 120 team bowl division...4%. Wouldn't that be tolerable ? It also provides a little 'wild card' drama during the regular season.

[Blue Hen]

Not taking anything away from the terrific Florida Gators.....but they won one single post season game with 6 weeks to prepare.

Appalachian State won 4 consecutive post season playoff games with less than a week to prepare for each. No comparrison in 'degree of difficulty'.

[Blue Hen]

The only problem with that , Evil, is the inconsistency of the regular season. Some teams play 7-8 home games, some teams play 4. Also the big names are allowed to 'custom' schedule. The regular season cannot be all that meaningful under those circumstances......but D1A could sure make up for that with a 'meaningful' post season.....a real championship !!!!!!

[Blue Hen]

ehhhhh hee.....too late Evil. What a great point CJH makes there. That's a hall of fame point. Your point is well stated, also.

The 'wild card' factor intrigues me. OSU/Michigan played for the B10 Championship, not the National championship. The loser last season would have been worthy of one of the 5 'at large' slots to compete for a national championship. If they were to meet up somewhere in the playoffs, heck, that's just more drama, imo.

You mentioned Zoom's 12 team plan. If I remember right it isn't necessarily all inclusive and features 'byes' but I remember liking it.

[Blue Hen]

I kinda view that system as the lesser of the assorted evils.....certainly better than arbitrary 'polls'.

Scoreboard results still best.

[GatorGrad]

Not taking anything away from the terrific Florida Gators.....but they won one single post season game with 6 weeks to prepare.

Appalachian State won 4 consecutive post season playoff games with less than a week to prepare for each. No comparrison in 'degree of difficulty'.

Hmmmm...Florida ended up #1 with wins over the #2 and #3 teams (Ohio State and LSU) each by double digits. They also beat Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, and their in-state rival (FSU) on the road, something that USC couldn't do with UCLA. Just because only one of those games can be classified as "post-season" doesn't mean that the degree of difficulty involved in winning the MNC for the Gators was any less. Our final few games against South Carolina, FSU, Arkansas, and Ohio State can also be viewed as "playoff games" since we had to win each one of them or "go home." Especially the SEC Title Game vs Arkansas. Can't that be called a "post season" game? It certainly was a play-in game to the BCS Title Game for us, no?

[GatorGrad]

Best possible scenario we can realistically someday hope for:
16 team playoff involving all 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids decided by a committee similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament.

Unrealistic scenario that I would implement if I were in charge of college football:
The 6 BCS Conferences break away and form their own league, each conference with 12 members and a 2-division / CCG format. All 6 conference title games are on the same day. The 6 conference winners + 2 at large bids make up an 8-team playoff.

The most likely scenario that we will probably see by 2010 or 2014:
The current BCS basically expands from what is essentially a 2-team playoff to a 4-team playoff using the BCS Bowls to match up 1v4 and 2v3 on Jan 1st with the two winners playing in the BCS Title Game one week later.

[Blue Hen]

Florida won the SEC championship, then, one single post season game against the B10 champion.

ASU had to negotiate a playoff field that included all the league champs. All championships are difficult to win......mythical and real, but 'real' is way, way harder. I guarantee that Urban Meyer would agree with me that negotiating a playoff field would be more difficult.....not that 06 UF couldn'tn have done it. You had a great team. But that great team proved exactly two things :
A) it was SEC champ and B) The SEC champ was better than the B10 champ...that's all.

What's all this "#2 ..#3, ranked this, ranked that" stuff. That's not you GG.

[GatorGrad]

Hen - I'm not a big rankings guy, but the point was that Florida beat Ohio St and LSU, two teams that most obviously felt were very good teams and two teams that had great seasons. After all, they were ranked #2 and #3 with their only three combined losses coming to #1 Florida and Auburn. Certainly, both were strong teams. The Gators also beat beat Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, and FSU...all away from The Swamp. Had they lost any of these games, there would have been no shot at Ohio St in the BCS Title Game. Just like had ASU lost any of their playoff games, they wouldn't have played for the NCAA Championship. So I would argue that there was just as much "pressure" in any of those games as there would be in any playoff given the landscape we have in college football. Sorry, but I don't buy that ASU had more "difficulty" winning their NCAA Championship than we did winning our BCS Championship last year.

[Hubbs]

EVERYBODY PLAYS EVERYBODY IN THEIR CONFERENCE - YOU PLAY A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME LIKE THE ACC AND SEC DOES ALONG WIT THE BIG 12. THEN PLAY OFF THE CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS IN A BRACKET INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE CONFERENCE IN D1 FOOTBALL.


IF YOU ARE NOT THE BEST TEAM IN YOUR CONFERENCE YOU DONT DESERVE TO WIN THE NCG.

[buckeyejim]

Not taking anything away from the terrific Florida Gators.....but they won one single post season game with 6 weeks to prepare.

Appalachian State won 4 consecutive post season playoff games with less than a week to prepare for each. No comparrison in 'degree of difficulty'.

Florida won under a predetermined system - Congratulations Florida
Appalachian State won under a predetermined system - Congratulations Appalachian State
Mount Union won under a predetermined system - Congratulations Mount Union
etc., etc., etc..

Florida only played one post season game because, under the current system, that's all they needed to play. It's also the only game they were allowed to play.

Are we supposed to spit on Florida's national championship because they followed the rules? By they way, Florida's national championship is not mythical, the games were not exhibitions and the congratulations are not undeserved.

Heck, the Gators beat MY team but when my team goes down to defeat, I tip my hat to them and I don't whine about it. I also don't try to pretend that the games are meaningless, because we ALL know that the games DO count and that the championships ARE real.

[Blue Hen]

ASU won a tournament (4 games) that included all the conf. champs. UF won a one game tournament that included one single conf. champ. Sure UF beat some good teams in season.......the lower div national champs did too. I guess we'll just have to disagree on what's more difficult to win.....a voted NC or a real on field NC....a one game/two team playoff or a four game/sixteen team playoff.......6 weeks to prepare for one single playoff opponent or one week to prepare for 4 consecutive playoff opponents.


I wonder if coach Meyer would rather have 6 weeks to prepare for OSU only or one week each to prepare for consecutive games with USC, OSU, Louisville and BSU....something like that.

[GatorGrad]

Well then by this logic, would you agree that Florida had a tougher REGULAR SEASON road than ASU? Considering that ASU could lose several games and still make the playoff, whereas Florida couldn't lose more than one single game to qualify for their "playoff." Had they lost to either Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina, FSU, or Arkansas, Florida would not have played Ohio St in the one game playoff. In fact, they STILL almost didn't make the playoff and their one loss to Auburn almost cost them a shot. So the "playoff" is a 2-team playoff in BD Football and thus harder to qualify for given the limited spots that are available. Thus, the regular season is like a playoff with a playoff atmosphere for top teams wanting to play in the BCS Title Game. The pressure in the regular season to beat LSU for example...where a loss would have cost Florida a BCS Title shot and maybe the SEC Title...does ASU have any such pressure in their regular season? You have to really consider the entire body of work in a season. ASU's road to their NCAA Championship as a whole was no more difficult than Florida's road to the BCS Championship IMO. It's just a different format.

[Blue Hen]

Yes, I agree, GG. With 16 out 121 making the playoff (13%), it's statistically easier to make the field in the Champ Div......vs 2 of 66 (3%) in the BCS.

Once the playoff starts, however, it's far, far, more difficult to actually bring home the NCAA championship trophy than to bring home the BCS trophy. Can you agree with that ?

[EvilVodka]

The 'wild card' factor intrigues me. OSU/Michigan played for the B10 Championship, not the National championship. The loser last season would have been worthy of one of the 5 'at large' slots to compete for a national championship. If they were to meet up somewhere in the playoffs, heck, that's just more drama, imo.

The Michigan-Ohio State game last year basically was a playoff game though...what's the significance of these two teams playing again?

[EvilVodka]

I wonder if coach Meyer would rather have 6 weeks to prepare for OSU only or one week each to prepare for consecutive games with USC, OSU, Louisville and BSU....something like that.

I doubt Florida would have had to play 4 conference champs in a row...most likely, they would have played the MAC or Sun Belt champ first...and then possibly an at-large...

Suppose Florida plays LSU in the second round and loses? How exactly does that not reduce the importance of the regular season?

[Blue Hen]

UF, hypothetically, could have drawn 4 conference champs, simply because some of those champs might have been low seeded. Probably, after a manageable opening game, the Gators would still have to negotiate a tough quarter,semi, and final game to win it all in a championship playoff format.


I see your view about rematches and it's legitimate. There are some rematches in all championship sports including the championship divisions of college football. They don't bother me that much although I would prefer 'fresh' playoff opponents. They, obviously bother you. I look at the regular season for determing conference champions and the post season for determing national champions...........same view as the NCAA takes. Sometimes that involves occasional rematches. And I know that you view the regular season as a body of work from which 'voters' should determine the national championship. I doubt if we'll ever convince each other that our personal preferences for a championship system are 'better'.

[Don]

been waiting for my post so here is my two cent worth!

I am against a 12 or 16 team playoff with all 11 conferences getting autobids! Surprise.

For comparison let's look at college hoops.

65 teams in playoff with 31 autobids out of 336 teams.

65 playoff positions / 336 teams = 0.1934524 Positions/Team
65 playoff positions / 31 autobids = 2.0967742 Positions/Autobid

To get the same proportions in college football as in college hoops:

65 teams in playoff / 336 teams in hoops * 120 teams in football = 23.214286 playoff positions needed

65 playoff positions / 31 autobids in hoops * 11 autobids in football = 23.064516 playoff positions needed.

Therefore to get the same effect in college football as in hoops you need a 24 team playoff with 11 autobids.

That ain't gonna fly.

Conversely, to get the same effect in hoops as a 16 team playoff with 11 autobids in football:

16 playoff positions / 120 teams = 0.1333333 Positions/Team
16 playoff positions / 11 autobids = 1.4545455 Positions/Autobid

To get the same proportions in college hoops as in college football:

16 teams in playoff / 120 teams in hoops * 336 teams in football = 44.8 playoff positions needed in hoops

16 playoff positions / 11 autobids in hoops * 31 autobids in football = 45.090909 playoff positions needed.

Do you really think there would be an NCAA Basketball Playoff if the total number of spots were reduced to 45 AND ALL 31 conferences STILL got auto bids? Just imagine if there were only 14 at-large bids? NO WAY IN #$%@ would that fly.

Conclusion, there is no way in ##%@ that college football will have a 16 (let alone a 12) team playoff with ALL 11 conferences getting autobids!

You MIGHT sell a playoff of 8 with say the highest rated 6 conferences getting autobids or a 10 team playoff with say the highest rated 6 conferences getting autobids and a bye in first round.

Best of all would be a 16 team playoff with the highest 7 conferences getting auto bids.

65 playoff positions / 31 autobids in hoops * 7 autobids in football = 14.677419 playoff positions needed (round to 16).

[GatorGrad]

Yes, I would agree that having to win ONE playoff game is easier than having to win FOUR playoff games. But it's just not that simple to me, because the formats are so different. You could argue that the Gators REGULAR SEASON was a "playoff" due to the structure. LSU, FSU, Arkansas, Ohio St...there's your four "playoff games." Had we lost any of those games, there would be no BCS Title. Just like had ASU lost any of their last four games, there would be no NCAA Title. The sense of urgency is the same to me. And as we both pointed out, it is much easier to make the playoff field in the Champ Division. I would argue that being in a do-or-die situation every single week of the regular season is tougher than for just the final four weeks. Again, I'm talking about the entire body of work. If you want to just look at what is technically called the "post season," then yes...4 is more than 1. But that doesn't make ASU's overall road to a championship more difficult than Florida's.

[CJHawkeyes]

Why would a football playoff need to be statisically equal to a basketball playoff? That said, unless nonBCS schools are the biggest pushovers, there is no way they settle for less than 16 teams plus 11 auto bids. Anything else would allow BCS schools to retain the same competitive advantage they have today.

[Blue Hen]

The fudamental problem with the regular season being a 'playoff' is scheduling. In no team championship sport are teams allowed to schedule their own playoff opponents. In legitimate playoffs, all opponents are assigned by the organization sponsoring the championship. The regular season is not even remotely a 'playoff'.

[GatorGrad]

The fudamental problem with the regular season being a 'playoff' is scheduling. In no team championship sport are teams allowed to schedule their own playoff opponents. In legitimate playoffs, all opponents are assigned by the organization sponsoring the championship. The regular season is not even remotely a 'playoff'.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't make ASU's road to their NCAA Championship as a whole any more difficult than Florida's road to the BCS Championship when you consider the entire body of work.

[H.I.]

CFB determines its champ by the team that comes closest to the perfect season...this may not always be the best team, or the team playing the best at the end of the season...but in CFB, the idea of putting a 2 loss team ahead of a 1 loss team for the National Championship is absurd

how can you continually post this same stupid comment? it is weird that you find it acceptable that a PERFECT team is left out of the national title game, but a 2 loss team jumping a 1 loss team, when the net result is the same, is A-OK with you. makes no sense on any level what so ever.

anyways, here's my 16 team playoff proposal. top 8 conference champs get in. they're seeded 1-8. the top 8 conference will be determined by some type of computer system that's already in place or agreed upon by all the conference. that same system will spit out the top 8 teams not already in the conference champion group and they'll be seeded 9-16. that's it. 4 weeks later you have a champion that's not based on some stupid logic of identify the team that comes closet to perfect.

[buckeyejim]

When doing these "percentages" remember to eliminate the 8 Ivy League schools since they do not participate in post season football. It seems like there are some other teams who play in a predetermined "classic" or something like that at the FCS level.

As far as scheduling goes? That ONLY applies to non-conference games.

[aufan59]

The 5 at large entries......necessary for a nice clean 15 game, 4 week, 16 team championship ( w/no byes), would represent only 4 % of the entire 120 team bowl division...4%. Wouldn't that be tolerable ? It also provides a little 'wild card' drama during the regular season.

16 out of 120 is 13.3%.

13.3% is a huge chunk of teams when you consider how watered down College Football is. It isn't like the NFL where the talent pool and schedules are all roughly the same, there is no team like Temple in the NFL.

[Don]

Why would a football playoff need to be statisically equal to a basketball playoff? That said, unless nonBCS schools are the biggest pushovers, there is no way they settle for less than 16 teams plus 11 auto bids. Anything else would allow BCS schools to retain the same competitive advantage they have today.

decide they want a playoff THEY will decide the format not the non-BCS schools.

Folks always bring up D1AA as an example but don't bother to discuss the fact that there are 15 D1AA conferences but only 8 have autobids and NOT all 15 champs for their 16 team playoff. Again, there is NO precedent for ALL conference champs having autobids except college hoops and I showed that format won't work for D1A either.

How about if a playoff consisted of the 6 BCS conference champs (with 1st round byes) plus 4 more teams in a play-in games. These last four are the highest rated remaining conference champ + the 3 highest rated non-champs. They play to determine the last 2 teams to enter the regular 8 team playoff format.

[H.I.]

16 out of 120 is 13.3%.

13.3% is a huge chunk of teams when you consider how watered down College Football is. It isn't like the NFL where the talent pool and schedules are all roughly the same, there is no team like Temple in the NFL.

i take it you didn't see the raiders play last season.

[Blue Hen]

aufan,

The 5 'at large' teams would represent 4% ( 5/120)..............just like the post stated. You read it like an Auburn grad would :-)

[CJHawkeyes]

decide they want a playoff THEY will decide the format not the non-BCS schools.

Folks always bring up D1AA as an example but don't bother to discuss the fact that there are 15 D1AA conferences but only 8 have autobids and NOT all 15 champs for their 16 team playoff. Again, there is NO precedent for ALL conference champs having autobids except college hoops and I showed that format won't work for D1A either.

How about if a playoff consisted of the 6 BCS conference champs (with 1st round byes) plus 4 more teams in a play-in games. These last four are the highest rated remaining conference champ + the 3 highest rated non-champs. They play to determine the last 2 teams to enter the regular 8 team playoff format.

If the NCAA is running things I believe they must treat all conferences equally. If the BCS schools try to impose their own playoff with rules tilted in their favor, I think nonBCS schools finally sue possibly causing the NCAA to break up. As for I-AA, I believe the conferences without auto bids have voluntarily removed themselves from playoff eligibility (see Ivy), are non-scholarship and ineligible for that reason, or have yet to meet requirements to receive an auto bid. I may have to look this up to see if I know what I'm talking about.

[H.I.]

i just don't see what's so complicated about this.

just start a 16 team playoff with 8 auto bids from the top 8 conference champions and have 8 at-large teams based on some type of computer ranking sort of like the BCS now. it is that simple. you'll have a good mix of traditional powers and at least 2 so-called "mid-majors" each year. and if for example, if boise state is ranked 7th in the computer standings but happens to play in the 10th best conference they'd still get an at-large bid. and this way it also ensures that nobody ranked in the top 8 in the nation gets left out of the playoff.

cut and pasted from a few months ago.

[Blue Hen]

The Ivy League hasn't permitted post season football of any kind since its official formation in 1954.

[Don]

If the NCAA is running things I believe they must treat all conferences equally. If the BCS schools try to impose their own playoff with rules tilted in their favor, I think nonBCS schools finally sue possibly causing the NCAA to break up. As for I-AA, I believe the conferences without auto bids have voluntarily removed themselves from playoff eligibility (see Ivy), are non-scholarship and ineligible for that reason, or have yet to meet requirements to receive an auto bid. I may have to look this up to see if I know what I'm talking about.

You can dream all you want but if push comes to shove the "BCS" schools will simply pack-up and leave the NCAA. There is simply too much money to be had playing "big-time" football and they aren't going to lose it just so YOU can have what YOU believe is a level playing field. Why on earth should the Sun Belt Conference have the same weight as the Big Ten. The Sun Belt (for example) is in NO way remotely the equal of the Big Ten in; education, skill level, attendance, national popularity.... Those schools in the Sun Belt are D1A in name only. When and IF that changes THEN they can demand equal footing. There exist a minimum average attendance that is supposedly required (I think it is somewhere around 20-25k). IF the NCAA would actually enforce that rule many of the problems would disappear.

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

[Blue Hen]

If football was the only NCAA sport, those mega factories would have seceeded from the NCAA by now, imo. (probably about 50-55 schools).....and that would be a wonderful thing ! They could go off and be a semi-professional football league with 200 scholarships per team, no class attendance required etc.....and the NCAA could then proceed to make D1A CF a championsdhip sport.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

Dream all I want? I'm only an advocate for fair competition. If the BCS schools, my favorite included, leave and form their own "league", so be it. Until that day, the NCAA is required to treat all schools and conferences that meet the requirements for I-A equally. You don't tilt the playoff field in favor of more talented and popular schools when the tilted format in place is largely responsible for the disparity in talent and popularity anyway. Whatever the playoff format, all recruits should be able to choose any I-A school knowing each is competing under the same rules.

[buckeyejim]

The Ivy League hasn't permitted post season football of any kind since its official formation in 1954.

That's why I think that when you figure the percentage of FCS schools that make the field, the total of the FCS schools should be 8 less than the actual number due to the Ivy League not participating.

Funny, the Ivy League allows their basketball teams, baseball teams, soccer teams, etc., etc., etc., to compete in the post season but not football. All eight of the Ivy League schools play 7 conference games and 3 non-conference games for a total of 10 games every year.

[Blue Hen]

Yes, good point, bj. The Ivy should not have been part of that % thing. also two teams participate in that Southern Classic game and aren't available for the NCAA playoff.

[Bucs90]

Hen, I'm a little late, but I think my 6 team playoff idea is the best because it's a compromise. Sure, in a perfect world, we'd get 16 1-A teams, just like our glorious 1-AA. But the bowls and school prez's wouldn't give up that cash cow of the bowls. And, honestly, I think the BCS formula does an OK job of determining which teams are the top 6, just not good enough to pick a 2 team playoff. So, top 6 get in, 1 and 2 get a bye. That would be 5 total playoff games, which equals 5 BCS bowls to host each game. And, by playing them on the 3rd Saturday of December, New Years Day, and 1 week after New Years, the season isn't lengthened for the teams, thus eliminating any argument against the playoff, and still rewarding the 1 and 2 teams for their great season- which makes the regular season still relevant (another favorite argument against playoffs). I'd say it's the ultimate and perfect compromise. Even so much that by having only 6, and 1 and 2 getting a bye, the regular season becomes even more important because a team ranked 6th that would have no shot now would have a shot, and an 11-0 SEC team ranked #1 would still need to win the CCG to stay #1 and get the bye.

I'd say it's the perfect compromise, keeps the regular season relevant, even more so IMO, keeps the season the same length, keeps the 5 BCS bowls in the cash flow, gives us a playoff, and best of all.......when have we ever in D-1A history argued a team ranked 7th or below should have been #1? (again, don't mistake this for me not wanting the 16 format, but thats just never gonna happen and we know it, this is the best compromise)

[CJHawkeyes]

A common argument against a playoff is that it would allow teams to take a week off if they have already clinched a playoff berth. Under my preferred format, 16 teams qualify, high seeds host first three rounds, and winners are reseeded following each round. I mention this to give a frame of reference for the importance of seeding under my preferred format. With that in mind, I wanted to know the difference a game would make in the standings if the top 16 qualified (ignoring auto bids for the moment). Listed below are the 16 seeds followed by their playoff seed if one game better and one game worse respectively:

1-1st and 4th
2-1st and 6th
3-1st and 7th
4-1st and 7th
5-2nd and 9th
6-2nd and 9th
7-3rd and 15th
8-5th and 16th
9-5th and Out
10-7th and Out
11-7th and Out
12-7th and Out
13-7th and Out
14-7th and Out
15-7th and Out
16-8th and Out

[Stumpy Stew]

You can't reseed after the first round, it will screw up the office pools.


Sorry, couldn't resisit this. LOL

[CJHawkeyes]

You can't reseed after the first round, it will screw up the office pools.


Sorry, couldn't resisit this. LOL


Just need smarter people running those pools. :D

[Bucs90]

CJHawkeyes, although your 16 team format is good, I offered the 6 team format compromise because you know with 16 teams the BCS supporters are going to scream "The regular seaon loses meaning!!!". And to their point, you could say an SEC team ranked #1 and 11-0 losed the CCG and drops to 3rd or 5th, and in my format they lose a bye week. A HUGE consequence. In the 16 team format, they simply get a lesser seed, but still host a game in the 1st round and have less consequence.

Or, say Michigan is 9-1, ranked #6 and plays Ohio State, 9-1 and ranked 4th. In my format, the loser of the OSU vs Michigan game is OUT of the playoffs. In the 16 team format, the loser is still in.

Now, of course, I'd love the 16 team format. But, to hit all angles of the BCS supporters fight against a playoff, you gotta consider the regular season's "meaningful" status, and in my 6 team format, the regular season keeps it's meaning.

And, of course, as I've said several times, have we ever argued a 7th or lower ranked team should've been #1? My 6 team format is the ultimate compromise, and I think probably the only type of format that would realistically get past the BCS supporters and cash hungry presidents.

[GatorGrad]

And, of course, as I've said several times, have we ever argued a 7th or lower ranked team should've been #1? My 6 team format is the ultimate compromise, and I think probably the only type of format that would realistically get past the BCS supporters and cash hungry presidents.

I think that a 4-team playoff would accomplish everything that a 6-team playoff would, and would be easier to implement. Basically, just ONE extra game for only TWO teams. Don't be surprised to see this by the 2010 season.

[Bucs90]

Ah, but don't forget the BCS bowls, cash cows and "fairness" as preceived by those bowls. In a four team format, you only have 3 games. And you now have 5 BCS bowls. So 2 bowls would be left out of the massive spotlight and money grab. Think the Rose Bowl is gonna accept NOT being in the suddenly glorified playoff 2 out of every 5 years? Heck no, they'd never go for that, neither would the Sugar, Orange or Fiesta. With 6 team format, you get 2 opening round, 2 2nd round, and 1 NC. Which is 5 games, covers the 4 bowls plus the one piggy-back bowl which the BCS blessed us with last year. So, we get a playoff, the bowls get their TV money, and the school presidents get their payday.

Any playoff is going to have to put each bowl in the direct spotlight to keep the $$$ flowing. The 6 team format does that.

[CJHawkeyes]

CJHawkeyes, although your 16 team format is good, I offered the 6 team format compromise because you know with 16 teams the BCS supporters are going to scream "The regular seaon loses meaning!!!". And to their point, you could say an SEC team ranked #1 and 11-0 losed the CCG and drops to 3rd or 5th, and in my format they lose a bye week. A HUGE consequence. In the 16 team format, they simply get a lesser seed, but still host a game in the 1st round and have less consequence.

Or, say Michigan is 9-1, ranked #6 and plays Ohio State, 9-1 and ranked 4th. In my format, the loser of the OSU vs Michigan game is OUT of the playoffs. In the 16 team format, the loser is still in.

Now, of course, I'd love the 16 team format. But, to hit all angles of the BCS supporters fight against a playoff, you gotta consider the regular season's "meaningful" status, and in my 6 team format, the regular season keeps it's meaning.

And, of course, as I've said several times, have we ever argued a 7th or lower ranked team should've been #1? My 6 team format is the ultimate compromise, and I think probably the only type of format that would realistically get past the BCS supporters and cash hungry presidents.

I understand that playoff opponents will argue that the regular season will be diminished. I don't share their opinion. That said, under my preferred format, there would be no CCGs. Nevertheless, a #1 team falling as far #5, costs themselves homefield throughout the playoffs and likely plays at #4 in the quarterfinals. I consider that a huge consequence.

Ultimately, I think a 16 team playoff is necessary to make all teams and conferences relevant. I think my preferrred format would create more parity. I think teams seventh and lower would be better than they are now, but I'm not sure it matters whether or not anyone has argued a case for such teams under the current system. Of course, Boise State was only eighth at the end of the regular season last year. Then there is Tulane and Marshall. I wouldn't argue that these teams should be number #1, but I think they all deserve the opportunity win the national title based on the seasons they had.

I don't think my utopia will happen anytime soon if ever but I enjoy discussing it and objections to it. At this point, I'd be thrilled if the BCS looked like my ideal version of the BCS.

[GatorGrad]

Ah, but don't forget the BCS bowls, cash cows and "fairness" as preceived by those bowls. In a four team format, you only have 3 games. And you now have 5 BCS bowls. So 2 bowls would be left out of the massive spotlight and money grab. Think the Rose Bowl is gonna accept NOT being in the suddenly glorified playoff 2 out of every 5 years? Heck no, they'd never go for that, neither would the Sugar, Orange or Fiesta. With 6 team format, you get 2 opening round, 2 2nd round, and 1 NC. Which is 5 games, covers the 4 bowls plus the one piggy-back bowl which the BCS blessed us with last year. So, we get a playoff, the bowls get their TV money, and the school presidents get their payday.

Any playoff is going to have to put each bowl in the direct spotlight to keep the $$$ flowing. The 6 team format does that.

I understand your point that a 4-team playoff would exclude 2 BCS Bowls from the "playoff" but isn't that better than the current 2-team playoff where even more BCS Bowls are excluded? As it stands now, only ONE game means anything. But it still happens. In a 4-team playoff, three games would mean something which would be an improvement. The 6-team format you suggest is interesting, but you are now asking teams to potentially play three playoff games in a row and then you might as well go to 8 teams. I don't think you need byes in a playoff. A playoff should be 4, 8, or 16 teams IMO.