If 4 teams go undefeated in College Football...

[infrared41]

16-team playoff.

11 Conference champs

5 at larges

Seeding done by whatever ranking system is in place by then.

You were wondering what the point of marquee games would be?  Seeding.

Perfectly fair.

Also in your Iowa scenario, it's ludicrous to suggest that a team capable of winning games against OSU, Michigan, and Penn State in a given year would have that awful a Non-Conference schedule.  Anyway, my defense of the system there would be...1) We place a lot of emphasis on winning the conference, something Iowa clearly was capable of doing.  2) The quality Conference wins should silence any doubt about Iowa's worthiness.

Ludicrous? Probably. Impossible? No. Maybe my example was too extreme but there still remains a very real possibility that based on Big 10 scheduling some very good teams would be outside looking in. First off, all of the legitimate playoff teams in the Big 10 don't play each other every year. So there is a very real possibility that three or four teams could end up with the same record at the end of the season. The original playoff system I was responding to says that all conference winners and runners up get in. So let's say that The Big East returns to form and Pitt wins it at 8-4 with WVU the runner up at 7-5. Based on that WVU gets in at 7-5 while Penn State at 10-2 is on the outside looking in.

Your system isn't the answer either. 11 conference winners and 5 at large. We already know that Notre Dame will always get an at large if they win 8 games or more so we're already down to 4 at large most of the time. If the season ended today at least three Big 10 teams alone deserve a shot. OSU, Michigan and Iowa. The Big 12 has at the very least three deserving teams, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Then there's the matter of the SEC. Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn are all legitimate playoff contenders. (Remember we're not talking title contenders just playoff worthy teams.) That's 11 teams from three conferences. Take away the conference winner in each one and your still left with 8 legitimate playoff teams and we haven't even gotten to the PAC-10, The ACC, or the Big East where at least 10 more teams are worthy of a bid 7 of which go into the at large pool.

So far that's 6 conferences with a total of 15 legitimate at large teams to choose for 4 or 5 spots. And we still have five conferences to go. So who do you leave out at this point? You think teams bitch about the BCS now? Implement a system where LSU stays home so the Conference USA or MAC champion can get in.

Unless we can find a way to do at least a 24 team playoff it's not going to work. Actually a 32 team playoff would work best because any team outside the top 32 wouldn't really have a legitimate complaint. It works in basketball (most of the time) because there is a field of 65 teams but every year we still talk about who got screwed. Imagine the debate if March Madness was reduced to 16 teams.

Finally, if a playoff was ever put in place we'd have to stop arguing about it and concentrate on the truly important things around here like whether or not the Browns should modernize their uniforms etc.

[whitedawg22]

I think a college football playoff is a bad idea. The case for a playoff hinges on several questions:

1) What should be the criteria for crowning the national champion?

It seems trivial, but it needs to be answered. Should it be the team playing the best at the end of the season, or should it be the team that had the most impressive season start-to-finish? Personally, I would argue for the latter.

2) Would a playoff more effectively determine the national champion?

Given that a football game between two even teams comes down to a lot of chance, this is in question. Case in point was the Miami-OSU Fiesta Bowl... no pass interference, no championship, and that was a call that legitimately could have gone either way. Not only that, but a playoff values the last few games of the year extremely disproportionately compared to the bulk of the schedule, and really only selects the team that is playing the best at the end of the season. Case in point is the NCAA basketball tournament - just in the last decade, Florida, Maryland, Syracuse, and Arizona, to name a few, won the championship despite mediocre seasons.

3) Would a playoff reduce controversy?

Creating a 4 or 8 team playoff from the polls taken before the bowls last season (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?pollId=null&weekNumber=15&seasonYear=2005) would have produced controversy over the last teams to get in, because again, polls of some form must be used. Any way you slice it, a playoff would have allowed in one or more 2-loss teams. If one of those teams won the playoff over a 1-loss USC or Texas team, controversy would reign.

4) Would a playoff devalue the regular season?

This one is an easy yes. The current system places the outcome of the national championship on every game. A playoff system has the potential to let teams coast - the 2005 Indianapolis Colts didn't play a meaningful game for 5 straight weeks, and nobody wants to buy tickets to watch Jim Sorgi.

Given that a playoff wouldn't be more effective in crowning a champion, that it wouldn't reduce controversy, that it would devalue the regular season, and that polls would still be needed to pick playoff teams, there isn't much benefit to a playoff system.

Since I hate when people criticize things without offering solutions, I think a much better solution would be to maintain the current 5-game BCS structure, but to use a committee similar to the Final Four committee to pick the teams. That way there would be no politics (Mack Brown 2004), computer nonsense (Nebraska over Colorado, 2001), or conference ties (Pittsburgh 2004, FSU 2005) that influence who should make BCS bowls. There isn't any way to eliminate controversy, but this would certainly minimize it.

[rams80]

16-team playoff.

11 Conference champs

5 at larges

Seeding done by whatever ranking system is in place by then.

You were wondering what the point of marquee games would be?  Seeding.

Perfectly fair.

Also in your Iowa scenario, it's ludicrous to suggest that a team capable of winning games against OSU, Michigan, and Penn State in a given year would have that awful a Non-Conference schedule.  Anyway, my defense of the system there would be...1) We place a lot of emphasis on winning the conference, something Iowa clearly was capable of doing.  2) The quality Conference wins should silence any doubt about Iowa's worthiness.

Ludicrous? Probably. Impossible? No. Maybe my example was too extreme but there still remains a very real possibility that based on Big 10 scheduling some very good teams would be outside looking in. First off, all of the legitimate playoff teams in the Big 10 don't play each other every year. So there is a very real possibility that three or four teams could end up with the same record at the end of the season. The original playoff system I was responding to says that all conference winners and runners up get in. So let's say that The Big East returns to form and Pitt wins it at 8-4 with WVU the runner up at 7-5. Based on that WVU gets in at 7-5 while Penn State at 10-2 is on the outside looking in.

Your system isn't the answer either. 11 conference winners and 5 at large. We already know that Notre Dame will always get an at large if they win 8 games or more so we're already down to 4 at large most of the time. If the season ended today at least three Big 10 teams alone deserve a shot. OSU, Michigan and Iowa. The Big 12 has at the very least three deserving teams, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Then there's the matter of the SEC. Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn are all legitimate playoff contenders. (Remember we're not talking title contenders just playoff worthy teams.) That's 11 teams from three conferences. Take away the conference winner in each one and your still left with 8 legitimate playoff teams and we haven't even gotten to the PAC-10, The ACC, or the Big East where at least 10 more teams are worthy of a bid 7 of which go into the at large pool.

So far that's 6 conferences with a total of 15 legitimate at large teams to choose for 4 or 5 spots. And we still have five conferences to go. So who do you leave out at this point? You think teams bitch about the BCS now? Implement a system where LSU stays home so the Conference USA or MAC champion can get in.

Unless we can find a way to do at least a 24 team playoff it's not going to work. Actually a 32 team playoff would work best because any team outside the top 32 wouldn't really have a legitimate complaint. It works in basketball (most of the time) because there is a field of 65 teams but every year we still talk about who got screwed. Imagine the debate if March Madness was reduced to 16 teams.

Finally, if a playoff was ever put in place we'd have to stop arguing about it and concentrate on the truly important things around here like whether or not the Browns should modernize their uniforms etc.

First off you're way overrating the Big Ten. Michigan and OSU would most likely (and should) go to the playoffs. From what I've seen of Iowa this year they are a borderline team at best...if a lot of teams drop like flies (getting PWN3D at home by a fellow playoff team is not exactly a ringing endorsement of your playoff worthiness). Also I would suggest Iowa play a few more trophy games with the heavy hitters if that's your concern.

Anywho, I don't think that any conference could claim to have more than two or three truly playoff worthy teams in any given season. (As of right now this year I'd make a case for at large bids for the loser of the Texas-Oklahoma game, LSU, the loser of Michigan-OSU, and two spots go to any combination of Notre Dame, the loser of Louisville-West Virginia (SOS kills), the winner of the SEC East, and Oregon).

As for your comparison to March Madness; it used to be you had to win your Conference tournament to even have a shot. Where was the complaining then?

[Fred T. Jane]

Should it be the team playing the best at the end of the season, or should it be the team that had the most impressive season start-to-finish? Personally, I would argue for the latter.

I assume you object to the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the most recent Super Bowl then?

[infrared41]

First off you're way overrating the Big Ten. Michigan and OSU would most likely (and should) go to the playoffs. From what I've seen of Iowa this year they are a borderline team at best...if a lot of teams drop like flies (getting PWN3D at home by a fellow playoff team is not exactly a ringing endorsement of your playoff worthiness). Also I would suggest Iowa play a few more trophy games with the heavy hitters if that's your concern.

Anywho, I don't think that any conference could claim to have more than two or three truly playoff worthy teams in any given season. (As of right now this year I'd make a case for at large bids for the loser of the Texas-Oklahoma game, LSU, the loser of Michigan-OSU, and two spots go to any combination of Notre Dame, the loser of Louisville-West Virginia (SOS kills), the winner of the SEC East, and Oregon).

As for your comparison to March Madness; it used to be you had to win your Conference tournament to even have a shot. Where was the complaining then?

You've managed to argue (and not very convincingly I might add) against one of the 15 teams I used as an example from 6 of the 11 conferences. Maybe I am over rating the Big 10 but where does your argument go when it comes to the SEC? And the point still remains do you really think Iowa or LSU is less deserving than The MAC or Conference USA champ? Sure you could limit the playoff to the BCS conferences and eliminate that problem. You'd still have deserving teams left out. And you'd have to hope to win the lawsuits that are filed the next day by the non-BCS conferences. Their case would be easy to win...They'd only need to point to The NCAA basketball tournament.

Also, any way you shake it a playoff will devalue the regular season. Here's another scenario to make the point. Let's say USC is 11-0 going into the UCLA game. They wrapped up the conference title two weeks prior and are guaranteed a playoff spot. UCLA is 6-5 and going nowhere. Why on Earth would Pete Carroll let his first team anywhere near the field for that game? The same holds true for Ohio State-Michigan, Oklahoma-Nebraska etc. The playoff system as proposed would render some all-time great rivalries meaningless. Maybe not every year but it would happen...a lot. Find a way around that one and we're a step closer.

[rams80]

First off you're way overrating the Big Ten.  Michigan and OSU would most likely (and should) go to the playoffs.  From what I've seen of Iowa this year they are a borderline team at best...if a lot of teams drop like flies (getting PWN3D at home by a fellow playoff team is not exactly a ringing endorsement of your playoff worthiness).  Also I would suggest Iowa play a few more trophy games with the heavy hitters if that's your concern.

Anywho, I don't think that any conference could claim to have more than two or three truly playoff worthy teams in any given season.  (As of right now this year I'd make a case for at large bids for the loser of the Texas-Oklahoma game, LSU, the loser of Michigan-OSU, and two spots go to any combination of Notre Dame, the loser of Louisville-West Virginia (SOS kills), the winner of the SEC East, and Oregon).

As for your comparison to March Madness; it used to be you had to win your Conference tournament to even have a shot.  Where was the complaining then?

You've managed to argue (and not very convincingly I might add) against one of the 15 teams I used as an example from 6 of the 11 conferences. Maybe I am over rating the Big 10 but where does your argument go when it comes to the SEC? And the point still remains do you really think Iowa or LSU is less deserving than The MAC or Conference USA champ? Sure you could limit the playoff to the BCS conferences and eliminate that problem. You'd still have deserving teams left out. And you'd have to hope to win the lawsuits that are filed the next day by the non-BCS conferences. Their case would be easy to win...They'd only need to point to The NCAA basketball tournament.

Also, any way you shake it a playoff will devalue the regular season. Here's another scenario to make the point. Let's say USC is 11-0 going into the UCLA game. They wrapped up the conference title two weeks prior and are guaranteed a playoff spot. UCLA is 6-5 and going nowhere. Why on Earth would Pete Carroll let his first team anywhere near the field for that game? The same holds true for Ohio State-Michigan, Oklahoma-Nebraska etc. The playoff system as proposed would render some all-time great rivalries meaningless. Maybe not every year but it would happen...a lot. Find a way around that one and we're a step closer.

The point is, the NCAA always makes a point of rewarding teams for accomplishing the difficult task of winning the Conference at any level. Why do you think those Minor-Conference champions get bids to the Dance in March? I don't think anyone entertains the idea that those teams are better than say the 6th or 7th place team in a Big Bowl 6 Conference, but we let them in all the same. That is why the MAC champion or even the Sun Belt Champion should be let in. Again-it works in the other Divisions and doesn't seem to devalue the Regular Season as much as you say it will.

In regards to the SEC-they'd probably be a 3-bid league this year. (Florida, Auburn, and LSU) Georgia (last second touchdown to beat Colorado at home? PLEASE...) and Tennessee (why don't you beat Florida sometime) have not looked good enough IMO to deserve bids.

Notre Dame-see Iowa and add needing a Massive 4th Quarter comeback to beat a team that just lost at home to Illinois. Not Good

Any Big XII team not named Texas or Oklahoma? The North Division sucks in general and nobody else in the South looks playoff good.

Big East-the loser of Louisville/West Virginia is going to face serious strength of schedule issues, and it gets worse from there.

Big Ten-Iowa is not playoff worthy, and neither is anyone else not named OSU or Michigan

ACC-Don't make me laugh.

Pac Ten-Oregon is unbeaten thanks to rather questionable officiating in its game against likely playoff team Oklahoma. At home. Ouch. (Course if hell freezes over and they beat USC, Pac Ten could steal a bid.)

UCLA-USC, other massive rivalry games: One word: Alumni (the fact that they will demand your dismissal if you make a habit of losing those games.)

If Oklahoma/Nebraska were so important, they'd play every year. They don't.

OSU-Michigan is the de facto Big Ten Championship more often than not.

[infrared41]

The point is, the NCAA always makes a point of rewarding teams for accomplishing the difficult task of winning the Conference at any level. Why do you think those Minor-Conference champions get bids to the Dance in March? I don't think anyone entertains the idea that those teams are better than say the 6th or 7th place team in a Big Bowl 6 Conference, but we let them in all the same. That is why the MAC champion or even the Sun Belt Champion should be let in. Again-it works in the other Divisions and doesn't seem to devalue the Regular Season as much as you say it will.

In regards to the SEC-they'd probably be a 3-bid league this year. (Florida, Auburn, and LSU) Georgia (last second touchdown to beat Colorado at home? PLEASE...) and Tennessee (why don't you beat Florida sometime) have not looked good enough IMO to deserve bids.

Notre Dame-see Iowa and add needing a Massive 4th Quarter comeback to beat a team that just lost at home to Illinois. Not Good

Any Big XII team not named Texas or Oklahoma? The North Division sucks in general and nobody else in the South looks playoff good.

Big East-the loser of Louisville/West Virginia is going to face serious strength of schedule issues, and it gets worse from there.

Big Ten-Iowa is not playoff worthy, and neither is anyone else not named OSU or Michigan

ACC-Don't make me laugh.

Pac Ten-Oregon is unbeaten thanks to rather questionable officiating in its game against likely playoff team Oklahoma. At home. Ouch. (Course if hell freezes over and they beat USC, Pac Ten could steal a bid.)

UCLA-USC, other massive rivalry games: One word: Alumni (the fact that they will demand your dismissal if you make a habit of losing those games.)

If Oklahoma/Nebraska were so important, they'd play every year. They don't.

OSU-Michigan is the de facto Big Ten Championship more often than not.

First off we can't compare March Madness to a football playoff. The basketball tournament is a 65 team field so it's easy to let in the smaller conferences without screwing too many more deserving schools. That wouldn't be the case in football. Why even waste Toledo's or BG's time by sending them in as a sacrificial lamb to the number one seed? A lot of people like to say the smaller bowls are a waste of time but which is worse? Two evenly matched 6-5 teams or USC vs. Bowling Green in the Music City Bowl? I'll take the 6-5 matchup over watching USC hang 70 on the Falcons.

Your argument for the massive rivalry games keeping their importance just doesn't hold water. Do you really think Lloyd Carr would have less pressure on him if he had the Big 10 and a playoff berth clinched yet still went with his starters just to beat Ohio State in a meaningless game? What happens if he ends up losing Henne or Manningham to injury and possibly blowing a shot at a National Championship? I am an Ohio State alum and I can say for certain that a National Title is more important than beating Michigan. Only a fool (like Lloyd carr) would risk a run at a title on a meaningless game.

Sorry but my opinion is that a playoff system just doesn't work. It will create far more problems than it solves. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Still it is a fun topic to debate.

Also, when did Oklahoma and Nebraska stop playing each other every year? I thought they still played every season.

[rams80]

The point is, the NCAA always makes a point of rewarding teams for accomplishing the difficult task of winning the Conference at any level.  Why do you think those Minor-Conference champions get bids to the Dance in March?  I don't think anyone entertains the idea that those teams are better than say the 6th or 7th place team in a Big Bowl 6 Conference, but we let them in all the same.  That is why the MAC champion or even the Sun Belt Champion should be let in.  Again-it works in the other Divisions and doesn't seem to devalue the Regular Season as much as you say it will.

In regards to the SEC-they'd probably be a 3-bid league this year.  (Florida, Auburn, and LSU)  Georgia (last second touchdown to beat Colorado at home? PLEASE...) and Tennessee (why don't you beat Florida sometime) have not looked good enough IMO to deserve bids.

Notre Dame-see Iowa and add needing a Massive 4th Quarter comeback to beat a team that just lost at home to Illinois.  Not Good

Any Big XII team not named Texas or Oklahoma?  The North Division sucks in general and nobody else in the South looks playoff good.

Big East-the loser of Louisville/West Virginia is going to face serious strength of schedule issues, and it gets worse from there.

Big Ten-Iowa is not playoff worthy, and neither is anyone else not named OSU or Michigan

ACC-Don't make me laugh.

Pac Ten-Oregon is unbeaten thanks to rather questionable officiating in its game against likely playoff team Oklahoma.  At home.  Ouch.  (Course if hell freezes over and they beat USC, Pac Ten could steal a bid.)

UCLA-USC, other massive rivalry games:  One word: Alumni (the fact that they will demand your dismissal if you make a habit of losing those games.)

If Oklahoma/Nebraska were so important, they'd play every year.  They don't.

OSU-Michigan is the de facto Big Ten Championship more often than not.

First off we can't compare March Madness to a football playoff. The basketball tournament is a 65 team field so it's easy to let in the smaller conferences without screwing too many more deserving schools. That wouldn't be the case in football. Why even waste Toledo's or BG's time by sending them in as a sacrificial lamb to the number one seed? A lot of people like to say the smaller bowls are a waste of time but which is worse? Two evenly matched 6-5 teams or USC vs. Bowling Green in the Music City Bowl? I'll take the 6-5 matchup over watching USC hang 70 on the Falcons.

Your argument for the massive rivalry games keeping their importance just doesn't hold water. Do you really think Lloyd Carr would have less pressure on him if he had the Big 10 and a playoff berth clinched yet still went with his starters just to beat Ohio State in a meaningless game? What happens if he ends up losing Henne or Manningham to injury and possibly blowing a shot at a National Championship? I am an Ohio State alum and I can say for certain that a National Title is more important than beating Michigan. Only a fool (like Lloyd carr) would risk a run at a title on a meaningless game.

Sorry but my opinion is that a playoff system just doesn't work. It will create far more problems than it solves. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Still it is a fun topic to debate.

Also, when did Oklahoma and Nebraska stop playing each other every year? I thought they still played every season.

MAC teams do have a pesky tendency to not roll over and die when they play Big Bowl 6 teams. I dunno, why do we have 16 seeds play 1 seeds in the NCAAs? Also March Madness did make it work with a lot fewer at larges back in the day.

I'm prepared to say you're in the minority on the alumni thing. My (Division III ) school could only lose one game all year, make the playoffs, and win the national title, but if that loss was to the big time rival-hoo boy, the coach is in trouble.

Nebraska and Oklahoma stopped being an annual thing the year the Big Eight acquired the Texas schools from the Southwest Conference.