...why not a playoff system in 1a football?

[mjrbaseball]

Do you propose that these student-athletes play playoff games while they study for their Final Exams, or do you do every team an injustice, by having them take a month-long break, before you play the playoffs?

People make this argument many times, and it never makes sense. Why are playoffs possible in Division I-AA, II and III -- where the student-athletes are really students -- and not in Division I-A, where for the most part they are primarily athletes that are just called students?

[slightly shotgunned]

*note: for those of you that don't know in all of college sports (meaning, not just football) div 1a football is the only sport that does not decide its champion by some form of a tournament system...

I just want to point out that this is somewhat of a misnomer... There are some sports (D-II hockey, to name one) where there are not enough schools that sanction the sport (in D-II hockey, I believe the number is as low as 7, including just Minnesota-Crookston, St. Anselm's, Assumption, Franklin Pierce, St. Michael's, Southern New Hampshire, Stonehill).

Because there are so few schools, the NCAA will not sponsor a National Championship in D-II hockey. These schools often compete in D-III conferences (the ECAC East, ECAC Northeast and MCHA), which will not allow them to offer scholarships in order for it to be fair for them to compete with the D-III schools in the league. Problem is, once the season is over, often the schools are not elgeable for the conference tourneys, and they certainly aren't elegable for the D-III National Title. So, all that's left is to compete for a regular season conference crown.

Seems to me, that's quite a recruiting disadvantge for the D-II schools... Why would a kid pick, say Minnesota-Crookston over St. Scholastica (in Duluth, MN) when at one (UMC) he has no chance to play for a National Title, while at the other (SSC), he can? Plus no scholarship at either...

So, basic point - the arguement that D-IA football is the *only* sport that doesn't use a playoff is a bit lame. Sorry for the tangent. I think there should be a playoff too, but not because *everyone else* has one...

Moose

...i was unaware of D-II hockey's plight...so i'm sorry for my misstatement, but i'm sure if they had enough teams to have a playoff they would. and to clear this up for you, i'm not supporting a playoff system because everyone else has one. i'm supporting it because with the bcs system there is a possibility of co-champions...and to me, that contradicts competition.

Won't happen. The real reasoning is:

Championship - One team wins its final game, 7 or 15 others don't, another 16-18-24 don't play anything = a lot of unhappy alums and coaches in trouble.

Bowls - Two teams in championship game, four others win BCS-level bowls, 12 others can claim a bowl win to end the season, others can at least get in a postseason game. More happy coaches, more happy alumni=more money coming in.

solution for teams ranked 17 and below there's the pointsettia bowl, the papajohns.com bowl, the independence bowl, you know, the bowls that only fans of participating schools watch. since they don't really mean anything anyway, the remaining schools can play in them as a reward for having a positive season.

[slightly shotgunned]

No to playoffs..well to anything over 4 teams. It'll end up weakening the season and you'll have the highest seeds along w/ conference powerhouses half-assing it into the playoffs. Now that I think about it the NBA should reduce the number of its teams in the playoffs considering how so many players half ass it until the final few weeks of the season.

"weakening the season"...i was wondering when someone would mention this.

to that I ask; "what exactly are mid-major schools playing for if the closest they'll ever come to a national title is a rank no higher than maybe 9th in the bcs." sure, they get to play in a more meaningless bowl game, but they really haven't been rewarded for their amazing season have they? instead of, say, the motor city bowl the team gets to play in the MPC computers bowl. SWEET! what exactly does that mean for the P L A Y E R S? yes, its a great recruiting angle, yes, it generates more money for school, but what exactly do the players get out of that? and how does that make the regular season any more meaningful to a school from the Mountain West or the Mac?

and how can you possibly say that conference powerhouses will half-ass their way into the playoffs? If you keep a ranking system and only the top 16 get in, teams CAN'T half-ass because if they do, and fall out of the top 16, THEY DON'T GET IN!

as far as the nba goes, the problem isn't the number of teams in the playoffs. its the calibur and dedication of the players. let's face it, the days of players playing because they want to win are over. too few are putting in the practice time (just ask allen iverson), too few are willing to play actual defense during the regular season and too few are able to put their egos below the team. also, i think it has to do with the fact that they play somewhere around 82 games before the playoffs...that's just insane to me.

[slightly shotgunned]

And then what? Do you propose that these student-athletes play playoff games while they study for their Final Exams, or do you do every team an injustice, by having them take a month-long break, before you play the playoffs?

*assuming that the student athletes played in the state high school playoffs*

some of them did in high school didn't they?

i know at least the announcers of the michigan state semis and finals thought so.

[BaltimoreFan]

I orginally liked the idea of inviting all 11 conference champions. However my opinion has changed. Mostly because I think 16 teams should be the maximum amount of teams allowed in the tournament (with 8 being the minimum). If you get much bigger than 16 teams the tournament would be too long IMO. If a "mid-major" team was put in just because it won if conference, a team would be left out that would most likely destroy it. For example Middle Tennessee State would get in while it lost to Maryland and South Carolina two team that would not make the tournament (unfortunately for me as a Terps fan). Central Michigan (who could get in tonight if they win) lost to Kentucky earlier in the season, a team that also wouldn't make. These teams would surely get crushed by their opponents and it wouldn't be much fun to watch. Its not to say that "mid-major" (I'm not sure if they are considered mid-major in football, but I'll just call them that anyway) teams wouldn't get a chance. Because Boise State would most likely make a tournament if there was one this season and Utah would have been if there was a tournament in 2004. What I'm saying is just let in the "mid-major" teams that have a "realistic" shot at winning the tournament (or at least a few games because I doubt Boise would be able to beat Ohio State).

[slightly shotgunned]

so here's what we would have if the the top 16 teams in the bcs poll right now were in a playoff for the national title.

1. Ohio state vs. 16. Tennessee

2. USC vs. 15. West Virginia

3. Michigan vs. 14. Virginia Tech

4. Florida vs. 13. Rutgers

5. LSU vs. 12. Oklahoma

6. Louisville vs. 11. Auburn

7. Wisconson vs. 10. Notre Dame

8. Boise State vs. 9. Arkansas

if you wanted to assign bowls to them you could.

...would anyone NOT watch these games?

[PaperAirplane31]

My Playoff System:

The Basics:

-Add one Division I-AA team* to make it 120 even.

-Split the 120 teams into two groups of 60.

-Split the 60 teams into four Conferences of 15 in both groups**.

-Five of the 15 teams make it to the playoffs (Forty teams in all.)

*If Temple deserves to be Division I-A then so does whoever this is going to be, just pick the Division I-AA National Champion.

**So anyone who thinks Notre Dame should finally join a Conference will have their wish fulfilled.

The Games:

-The 40 teams will be ranked based on record, then Conference standings, and then schedule strength and then if any tie-breakers are needed after that I will think of some. Remember there are two "groups" but it's the same system for each one.

-Teams ranked #1-10 get Bye weeks. The others play eache other like this:

11-20

12-19

13-18

14-17

15-16

-The winners then play 1-10, there is no re-ranking.

-This will continue until we reach the last team in each group and they will play for the National Championship.

I don't really like that idea, for one it leaves out tradition of the conferences.

There are Conferences, just not as many. But your system works too.

-Add one Division I-AA team* to make it 120 even.

-Split the 120 teams into two groups of 60.

-Split the 60 teams into four Conferences of 15 in both groups**.

-Five of the 15 teams make it to the playoffs (Forty teams in all.)

[Mac the Knife]

(4) The 8 teams will play first round games on the first Saturday after January 1st. Four games, with ticket prices going for $100 - $200, depending on the venue. The broadcast rights for these games will be offered to ABC, CBS, FOX, TNT, NBC and ESPN, and each will be awarded to the highest bidder.

So you want the playoffs to begin at least a month after the regular season?

Tell me one other sports league that has it's playoffs begin one month after the regular season ended.

You forgot about (3) right above it - allowing the bowl games to be played. The tournament qualifiers wouldn't be determined until after the bowl games, and presumably the top eight teams in the country would make it to at least some form of bowl game... so at most there'd be about a 7-10 day layoff.

First I'd like to say that Mad Mac has it all figured out although I'd prefer a 16- team playoff verses eight, but the idea is solid.

And see, that's the beauty of it - after the first ten years, you renegotiate the deal and expand the field. Remember, the NCAA tournament hasn't been at 64 (or 65) teams forever...

Mad Mac, are you taking investors for your plan?

I am. The minimum buy-in's only $10 million.

[HedleyLamarr]

And then what? Do you propose that these student-athletes play playoff games while they study for their Final Exams, or do you do every team an injustice, by having them take a month-long break, before you play the playoffs?

*assuming that the student athletes played in the state high school playoffs*

some of them did in high school didn't they?

i know at least the announcers of the michigan state semis and finals thought so.

Not here, they don't. The state championships take place a week before final exams.

[TBGKon]

Here is an idea I threw together, loosely based on the NFL's playoff system.

12-team Bowl Championship Series Playoff

Based off of the most recent BCS standings the following teams would be in:

1. Ohio State

2. USC

3. Michigan

4. Florida

5. LSU

6. Louisville

7. Wisconsin

8. Boise State

9. Arkansas

10. Notre Dame

11. Auburn

12. Oklahoma

BCS Opening Round - #’s 1-4 would have a bye week

#12 Oklahoma @ #5 LSU

#11 Auburn @ #6 Louisville

#10 Notre Dame @ #7 Wisconsin

#9 Arkansas @ # 8 Boise State

BCS Quarterfinal Round

Lowest Remaining Seed @ #1 Ohio State

2nd Lowest Remaining Seed @ #2 USC

3rd Lowest Remaining Seed @ #3 Michigan

Highest Remaining Seed @ #4 Florida

BCS Semifinal Round

Lowest Remaining Seed @ Highest Remaining Seed

3rd Lowest Remaining seed @ 2nd Lowest Remaining seed

BCS Championship Game - winners of both semifinal games playing in the previously selected venue (this year would be Glendale, AZ)

BCS Consolation Game – losers of both semifinal games to play in the following season’s championship venue (the year would be New Orleans, LA)

--------------------------

There was another option proposed on www.thebullspen.com (unofficial USF Athletics forum).

- Eliminating bye weeks in the regular season. For example, this season would have begun on the weekend of September 2-3. 12 weeks would last up until the weekend of November 18-19, in which making Championship Saturday November 25th. Under my proposal above, the Opening round would be on the weekend of December 2-3, Qtr-final weekend on December 9-10, and semifinal weekend on December 16-17.

Logistically, I don't know how this would be implemented, but it's only an option.

[BaltimoreFan]

Here's my playoff bracket, if anyone is interested:

[Epiphanic]

Looks good. But shouldn't the conference winners get the byes? I see that you just seeded according to the poll, but I think there should be some sort of benefit for winning your conference.

[NJTank]

Looks excellent nah I think it should go according to ranking

[rams80]

I've always been in favor of a system where all 11 Conference Champions and 5 at larges play in a 16 team tournament (the at-larges would be determined by the BCS Rankings, for lack of anything better). Seeding would primarily be based on the BCS as well.

The First-Round Games would be played at the home of the top 8 seeds, the Quarterfinals would be played at the Outback, Capital One, Cotton, and Gator Bowls, the Semis and 3rd Place games would be played on a rotating basis between the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls, and the National Championship game would be played in the Rose Bowl.

If you don't make the field of 16, but still want Bowl swag...fear not, for the other bowls will still be around for the teams that don't make the field.

So anyway with the final rankings out its time to release my bracket.

@Columbus, OH

1. Ohio State Buckeyes(Big Ten) vs.

16. Troy Trojans (Sun Belt)

@Boise, ID

8. Boise State Broncos (WAC) vs.

9. Auburn Tigers (at large)

@Baton Rouge, LA

4. Louisiana State Tigers (at large) vs.

13. Brigham Young Cougars (MWC)

@Los Angeles, CA

5. University of Southern California Trojans (Pac 10) vs.

12. Wake Forest Demon Deacons (ACC)

@Ann Arbor, MI

3. Michigan Wolverines (at large) vs.

14. Houston Cougars (Conference USA)

@Louisville, KY

6. Louisville Cardinals (Big East) vs.

11. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (at large)

@Gainesville, FL

2. Florida Gators (SEC) vs.

15. Central Michigan Chippewas (MAC)

@Madison, WI

7. Wisconsin Badgers (at large) vs.

10. Oklahoma Sooners (Big XII)

fictionalized results and later rounds will come based on how busy I am over the next two weeks.

BTW-First ones out were Arkansas and West Virginia

[sacker12]

"So anyway with the final rankings out its time to release my bracket.

@Columbus, OH

1. Ohio State Buckeyes(Big Ten) vs.

16. Troy Trojans (Sun Belt)"

That matchup isn't too far off from reality. Were actually playing them in Columbus in 2008. Fortunately, that ought to be my last semester at Troy, so I most likely will be able to go.

[WJMorris3]

Just updating what I'd have for the 24-team playoff...

(17) Arkansas at (16) Troy, winner at (1) Ohio State

(24*) Texas A&M at (9) Auburn, winner at (8) Boise State

(20) Rutgers at (13) Brigham Young, winner at (4) LSU

(21) California at (12) Wake Forest, winner at (5) USC

(18) West Virginia at (15) Central Michigan, winner at (2) Florida

(23*) Oregon State at (10) Oklahoma, winner at (7) Wisconsin

(19) Virginia Tech at (14) Houston, winner at (3) Michigan

(22) Texas at (11) Notre Dame, winner at (6) Louisville

Again, I remind you, conference champions are required to be seeded no lower than 16th, so that they get the privilege of a home game, and no more than four teams in a conference may qualify for the playoffs.

[gueman]

Well I know I am in the minority. But a playoff system in D 1A football would render the season worthless to the casual fan. Which makes up about 80% of the fans. I can here you all bitching now. This board is made up of the super fans. The top 2 to 3 percent of sports fans. Lets use D1A basketball for example. Most of America barely pays attention to collage basketball from November until February. Now before I gat slammed with "What are you basking that on" . Look at the TV ratings. NC-Duke is just a game during the season. But come March it is BIG. Now some may argue that alone would make the playoff system in football a great idea. But lets look at last months Michigan-Ohio State game. If there was a playoff, both teams would have known that they made the playoffs, perhaps even there next opponent. So instead of playing balls to the wall things would have played out differently. Those of you that say that the smaller Mid America or WAC schools never have a chance under the BCS system. That a tourney would allow those schools to dream big. Well hate to pop the bubble, but it ain't ever happened in the Big Basketball dance either. Sure you have a 15 making it to the sweet 16 once every 4 years or so. But I don't think any school lower than a 6th seed (or 8th not 100% sure) has ever won. So they can dream, just not win.

But in my opinion the most important reason is "the water cooler effect". It keeps people talking about collage football well after the season is over. So you can draw up all the play off sinareo's you want. The current system ain't perfect, but IMHO it is pretty good.

Oh and on a side note. I thought this BCS Championship game would pit the 2 best teams after the Bowls, wasn't that the plan after the LSU/USC shared Championship. Did I miss something or am I crazy?

[jkrdevil]

Well I know I am in the minority. But a playoff system in D 1A football would render the season worthless to the casual fan. Which makes up about 80% of the fans. I can here you all bitching now. This board is made up of the super fans. The top 2 to 3 percent of sports fans. Lets use D1A basketball for example. Most of America barely pays attention to collage basketball from November until February. Now before I gat slammed with "What are you basking that on" . Look at the TV ratings. NC-Duke is just a game during the season. But come March it is BIG. Now some may argue that alone would make the playoff system in football a great idea. But lets look at last months Michigan-Ohio State game. If there was a playoff, both teams would have known that they made the playoffs, perhaps even there next opponent. So instead of playing balls to the wall things would have played out differently. Those of you that say that the smaller Mid America or WAC schools never have a chance under the BCS system. That a tourney would allow those schools to dream big. Well hate to pop the bubble, but it ain't ever happened in the Big Basketball dance either. Sure you have a 15 making it to the sweet 16 once every 4 years or so. But I don't think any school lower than a 6th seed (or 8th not 100% sure) has ever won. So they can dream, just not win.

But in my opinion the most important reason is "the water cooler effect". It keeps people talking about collage football well after the season is over. So you can draw up all the play off sinareo's you want. The current system ain't perfect, but IMHO it is pretty good.

Oh and on a side note. I thought this BCS Championship game would pit the 2 best teams after the Bowls, wasn't that the plan after the LSU/USC shared Championship. Did I miss something or am I crazy?

DI Basketball plays 31 games per team in the regular season and 65 teams make the tournment. Under the football scenario teams would play a 12 game regular season and only 16 would make it. There is an obvious difference there. The season wouldn't be watered down as less teams make it playing less games. In fact there would probably more games with National Championship implications than there are now. Under this proposed playoff system anything more than 2 losses puts a team in jeopardy of missing the tournament.

Sure a smaller conference has nver won the NCAA BAsketball tournament (George Mason came pretty close last year though). However the current football system doesn't even allow a Villanova type secnario. Also in College Football conferences such as the WAC, Mountin West, and Conference USA have shown they can produce teams that can be competitive with top teams from the bigger conferences. It's no coincidence that the current system is set up this way, it was done on purpose in order to prevent schools from those conferences from building up there programs. As they don't get an auto BCS birth and are basically prevented from playing for the championship it cuts off possible recruiting possibilities to the top players.

[OB33]

Another example of how flawed the current bowl system is:

Iowa is playing in the Alamo Bowl.

2-6 in Big Ten play Iowa. I know part of this can be attributed to the ever expanding number of bowls now but still, Iowa was picked solely on their fanbase.

[Epiphanic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo_Bowl

Here it says that the Alamo Bowl usually matches up the fourth place teams from the Big 10 and the Big 12. That is probably why it's Texas and Iowa.

The Alamo Bowl (and the other non-major bowls for that matter) are not BCS bowls so they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the system we so vehemently hate. But many of the bowls are contractually obligated more or less to take teams that finish in such and such a place in so and so conference. We could debate that issue too, but we'd probably need a separate thread.