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

[Broken Record]

That gives every game a playoff atmosphere. You line up against a patsy early in September and get beat, that will probably do you in. I love that. You've got to show up every week. If you are in contention for a national title, there are no small games.

...wouldn't the same theory apply for a top 16 ranking playoff system though?

my problem is not so much that there isn't a playoff system, but the fact that every year it seems as if there are at least six teams who deserve a shot and the deciding factor is not the players on the field, but a computer and a voting booth. do you have any suggestion on how to fix that?

It's definitely not the same for 16 team playoff system. A good number of those top 16 teams will have two losses.

point is though that they'll have a shot at the title like the one-loss teams....i don't agree with only allowing one team, as chosen by voters, a shot at the #1 ranked team because it makes the NC game a popularity contest unless there is no debate as to who the #2 team is.

but you haven't answered my question.

There will always be a debate as to who the #2 is. If we go to a 16 team playoff, we'll debate who deserves to be #17. All the while we'll be rewarding two loss teams with a chance to play for a championship. The system will never be perfect and to answer your question I don't want it to be perfect. I think it's beautiful in its imperfection. As a fan, when you go through an undefeated season, there's nothing that can replace the drama and the pressure knowing that one slip up can be the end of it all. That's the ultimate fan experience. It's not a 9-7 record and then hit a streak in the playoffs. It lasts all season long. No other sport can touch that.

[Pat]

A playoff would devalue bowls. Yes there are too many bowls, but there is nothing that says College Football than Pac 10 Champ vs. Big 10 Champ at the Rose Bowl. That is tradition, not the 3rd vs 4th seed in the tournament. As well the entire regular season is a playoff, as been mentioned before. Michigan beating ND, OSU beating Michigan, UCLA beating USC. These were playoff games, and they all eliminated the losing teams from contention.

That being said, this system still isn't good. However a playoff would ruin the fun and intensity of a regualr season, and throw out the tradition of the Bowls.

Solution #30294

First off get rid of a bunch of bowls. Noone wants to see .500 teams come Bowl time.

Keep the 4 BCS Bowls. 6 Conference Champions plus 2 at large make it to the BCS Bowls.

This Year:

Rose Bowl: OSU vs USC

Fiesta: Wake Forest vs. Boise St.

Sugar: Florida vs. Michigan

Orange: Oklahoma vs. Louisville

All of these games are finished by January 2nd. The 4 winners play each other...... lets pretend OSU vs. Wake, Michigan vs Oklahoma.... this happens the week of the current BCS National Championship. Then the Big Championship between the winners of those 2 games happens a week later.

There, the prestige of the bowls stay. The intensity of the season stays, and you get a mini playoff.

If you think that would run too long, I wouldnt be opposed to after the 4 BCS games, re ranking the teams, then the top 2 play for the National Championship the week after (same timing as now). In my scenario that would be the winner of OSU USC and Michigan Florida probably.

So thats what I think.

[rams80]

That gives every game a playoff atmosphere. You line up against a patsy early in September and get beat, that will probably do you in. I love that. You've got to show up every week. If you are in contention for a national title, there are no small games.

...wouldn't the same theory apply for a top 16 ranking playoff system though?

my problem is not so much that there isn't a playoff system, but the fact that every year it seems as if there are at least six teams who deserve a shot and the deciding factor is not the players on the field, but a computer and a voting booth. do you have any suggestion on how to fix that?

It's definitely not the same for 16 team playoff system. A good number of those top 16 teams will have two losses.

point is though that they'll have a shot at the title like the one-loss teams....i don't agree with only allowing one team, as chosen by voters, a shot at the #1 ranked team because it makes the NC game a popularity contest unless there is no debate as to who the #2 team is.

but you haven't answered my question.

There will always be a debate as to who the #2 is. If we go to a 16 team playoff, we'll debate who deserves to be #17. All the while we'll be rewarding two loss teams with a chance to play for a championship. The system will never be perfect and to answer your question I don't want it to be perfect. I think it's beautiful in its imperfection. As a fan, when you go through an undefeated season, there's nothing that can replace the drama and the pressure knowing that one slip up can be the end of it all. That's the ultimate fan experience. It's not a 9-7 record and then hit a streak in the playoffs. It lasts all season long. No other sport can touch that.

You're right..teams will get snubbed. The difference here (if its at all like March Madness) is that we'll stop debating who got snubbed a little after kickoff of the first playoff game and for the most part forget about it (with the exception of fans of the snubs), while with the current system the arguments will spiral on into March.

[PeytonManningRocks]

I think in the playoffs, you have to get rid of the ranking distinction, and leave it up to a selection committee, much like the NCAA does for basketball. I'm not exactly sure who makes up the selection committee, but leaving it in the hands of fellow coaches and computers isn't enough. The fact that Jim Tressel, for example, didn't vote, shows how flawed the system really is, and shows that it should be left up to a group of committed individuals who are unbiased (mostly) in their selection.

[Epiphanic]

Right you are, willmorris. Under the current system its more about the name in front of the record rather than the record itself.

[WJMorris3]

You know, while we're on the slight subject of scheduling games, can we please get rid of the Hawaii exemption?

[slapshot]

Allow me to quote myself from early 2005...the numbers are dated from back then, but the gist should be the same:

The NCAA needs to throw the BCS down the toilet and set up playoffs like EVERY OTHER NCAA SPORT. They might have to consider adding extra bowl games (like there aren't enough already) or set up a specific parameter for bowl game participation, like at least 7 or 8 wins. Period.

There are somewhere around 115 Division 1 teams. About 50 (more or less) go to bowl games. Almost half get post-season participation? That's crazy. If you combine the March Madness tournament and the NIT, that comes out to maybe 1/3 of Div. 1 Basketball teams in postseason.

From the start, the NCAA should set the minimum requirement for wins to go to a bowl game. And wins against non division-1 schools do not count, so no beating up on Maine and Delaware just to play in December.

I have counted 35 teams that won at least 8 games, 36 to add in the Sun Belt Conference Champion, North Texas (or maybe Troy), both teams were 7-5. That would leave 18 bowl games. This makes the bowl teams a little more exclusive, from almost 1/2 to 1/3. This does not take into account wins against non Division 1 teams, so maybe this number drops even further.

You could rank them all from 1-36 using math formulas similar to the BCS (strength of schedule a big part of it). You could then single out either the top 8 or top 4 for the Championship Bowl Series. If you do Top 4, then it would rotate between the big 4 bowl sites (the 4th would be left out for one year, then get the Championship Game the next year). If it's top 8, you'd have to add 3 other major bowl sites...Citrus, Peach, Cotton. 8 teams would extend to 3 weeks, 4 teams only goes one week extra.

The rest of the bowl games would be played any time between the second week of December and New Year's Eve. The first round of the title series would be played Jan. 1. The next round could be played Jan. 8, or the closest reasonable Monday night. The Monday after would be the National Championship. Somewhere around Jan. 15, you would have the NCAA championship. Football ratings would still be high, because everyone is still worked up over the NFL playoffs all weekend.

If a bunch of sports-addicted artists can figure out a solution, why can't the NCAA?

Either way, this should reduce the clutter of too many unnecessary bowl game, and rewarding mediocre teams with barely .500 records.

[Epiphanic]

You know, while we're on the slight subject of scheduling games, can we please get rid of the Hawaii exemption?

Could you enlighten me to what they 'Hawaii exemption' is?

[WJMorris3]

You know, while we're on the slight subject of scheduling games, can we please get rid of the Hawaii exemption?

Could you enlighten me to what they 'Hawaii exemption' is?

Ever notice that Hawaii practically never plays road non-conference games? There's a reason for this...

The rules say that a team can play 12 games... however, they may play one extra game if it's played outside the continental United States (so anyone who plays Hawaii in Hawaii is eligible to play 13 games, plus a conference championship). Naturally, a team will agree to play in Hawaii because it means they get to play an extra game out of the deal.

[Epiphanic]

Thanks.

And yes, lets get rid of that and use that "extra game" as fodder for the beginnigns of a true playoff system.

[slightly shotgunned]

That gives every game a playoff atmosphere. You line up against a patsy early in September and get beat, that will probably do you in. I love that. You've got to show up every week. If you are in contention for a national title, there are no small games.

...wouldn't the same theory apply for a top 16 ranking playoff system though?

my problem is not so much that there isn't a playoff system, but the fact that every year it seems as if there are at least six teams who deserve a shot and the deciding factor is not the players on the field, but a computer and a voting booth. do you have any suggestion on how to fix that?

It's definitely not the same for 16 team playoff system. A good number of those top 16 teams will have two losses.

point is though that they'll have a shot at the title like the one-loss teams....i don't agree with only allowing one team, as chosen by voters, a shot at the #1 ranked team because it makes the NC game a popularity contest unless there is no debate as to who the #2 team is.

but you haven't answered my question.

There will always be a debate as to who the #2 is. If we go to a 16 team playoff, we'll debate who deserves to be #17. All the while we'll be rewarding two loss teams with a chance to play for a championship. The system will never be perfect and to answer your question I don't want it to be perfect. I think it's beautiful in its imperfection. As a fan, when you go through an undefeated season, there's nothing that can replace the drama and the pressure knowing that one slip up can be the end of it all. That's the ultimate fan experience. It's not a 9-7 record and then hit a streak in the playoffs. It lasts all season long. No other sport can touch that.

but that's just my point. there's a LARGE difference over debating who is number 2 as opposed to who is 17. and if you're worried about rewarding two loss teams, then explain to me how rewarding .500 teams with a bowl game is better.

[Broken Record]

That gives every game a playoff atmosphere. You line up against a patsy early in September and get beat, that will probably do you in. I love that. You've got to show up every week. If you are in contention for a national title, there are no small games.

...wouldn't the same theory apply for a top 16 ranking playoff system though?

my problem is not so much that there isn't a playoff system, but the fact that every year it seems as if there are at least six teams who deserve a shot and the deciding factor is not the players on the field, but a computer and a voting booth. do you have any suggestion on how to fix that?

It's definitely not the same for 16 team playoff system. A good number of those top 16 teams will have two losses.

point is though that they'll have a shot at the title like the one-loss teams....i don't agree with only allowing one team, as chosen by voters, a shot at the #1 ranked team because it makes the NC game a popularity contest unless there is no debate as to who the #2 team is.

but you haven't answered my question.

There will always be a debate as to who the #2 is. If we go to a 16 team playoff, we'll debate who deserves to be #17. All the while we'll be rewarding two loss teams with a chance to play for a championship. The system will never be perfect and to answer your question I don't want it to be perfect. I think it's beautiful in its imperfection. As a fan, when you go through an undefeated season, there's nothing that can replace the drama and the pressure knowing that one slip up can be the end of it all. That's the ultimate fan experience. It's not a 9-7 record and then hit a streak in the playoffs. It lasts all season long. No other sport can touch that.

but that's just my point. there's a LARGE difference over debating who is number 2 as opposed to who is 17. and if you're worried about rewarding two loss teams, then explain to me how rewarding .500 teams with a bowl game is better.

You're never going to eliminate the debate. If that's your goal, it will never happen. The first time a #16 wins the championship the difference between #2 and #16 is not that LARGE.

If you want to talk about LARGE. There's a LARGE difference in the amount of money, notoriety and recruiting power a team gets for winning the national championship versus winning the New Mexico Bowl. Two loss teams don't deserve a chance at a national championship. BCS bowls and bowls that 5 loss teams get into shouldn't be compared.

[slightly shotgunned]

You're never going to eliminate the debate. If that's your goal, it will never happen. The first time a #16 wins the championship the difference between #2 and #16 is not that LARGE.

If you want to talk about LARGE. There's a LARGE difference in the amount of money, notoriety and recruiting power a team gets for winning the national championship versus winning the New Mexico Bowl. Two loss teams don't deserve a chance at a national championship. BCS bowls and bowls that 5 loss teams get into shouldn't be compared.

i'm not saying you'll ever be able to eliminate the debate because i understand that there will ALWAYS be debate no matter what you do. what i AM saying is that there is a difference between a debate of who is number 2 in the bcs and 16 in a playoff.

the difference is, the debate of whos #2 decides who plays in the national title game and every year there seem to be countless teams that can make the claim of being number 2...or even number 1. so you have a ranking system that is based on computer outputs and the feelings of coaches and schools and is NOT decided by the players themselves. debating who's #16 (or whatever your lowest seed would be) is simply who are the most deserving to have a shot at the title. yes, there are teams that will get snubbed, yes, there will be unhappy fans, yes, teams that lose late probably won't get in, but you would have PROOF of a champion because the players would have to get on the field and prove that their the best in the nation against the best of the nation. What we have now is a theoretical championship system where we say, if x team beats y team and y team beats z team then x team can beat z team...which is true in math, but not in sports. the only game that's ever decided on paper is the national championship match-up. how does that not bother you?

[Broken Record]

You're never going to eliminate the debate. If that's your goal, it will never happen. The first time a #16 wins the championship the difference between #2 and #16 is not that LARGE.

If you want to talk about LARGE. There's a LARGE difference in the amount of money, notoriety and recruiting power a team gets for winning the national championship versus winning the New Mexico Bowl. Two loss teams don't deserve a chance at a national championship. BCS bowls and bowls that 5 loss teams get into shouldn't be compared.

i'm not saying you'll ever be able to eliminate the debate because i understand that there will ALWAYS be debate no matter what you do. what i AM saying is that there is a difference between a debate of who is number 2 in the bcs and 16 in a playoff.

the difference is, the debate of whos #2 decides who plays in the national title game and every year there seem to be countless teams that can make the claim of being number 2...or even number 1. so you have a ranking system that is based on computer outputs and the feelings of coaches and schools and is NOT decided by the players themselves. debating who's #16 (or whatever your lowest seed would be) is simply who are the most deserving to have a shot at the title. yes, there are teams that will get snubbed, yes, there will be unhappy fans, yes, teams that lose late probably won't get in, but you would have PROOF of a champion because the players would have to get on the field and prove that their the best in the nation against the best of the nation. What we have now is a theoretical championship system where we say, if x team beats y team and y team beats z team then x team can beat z team...which is true in math, but not in sports. the only game that's ever decided on paper is the national championship match-up. how does that not bother you?

The only time I have a real problem with the system is when more than two big conference teams finish the season with no losses (because then my "no whining if you lose" doesn't work). In that case, I'd be a proponent of a +1 system.

Outside of their own fan base, not many people think the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year. They were just the best team in December and January. December and January is when it really counts in the NFL. In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

[rams80]

You're never going to eliminate the debate. If that's your goal, it will never happen. The first time a #16 wins the championship the difference between #2 and #16 is not that LARGE.

If you want to talk about LARGE. There's a LARGE difference in the amount of money, notoriety and recruiting power a team gets for winning the national championship versus winning the New Mexico Bowl. Two loss teams don't deserve a chance at a national championship. BCS bowls and bowls that 5 loss teams get into shouldn't be compared.

i'm not saying you'll ever be able to eliminate the debate because i understand that there will ALWAYS be debate no matter what you do. what i AM saying is that there is a difference between a debate of who is number 2 in the bcs and 16 in a playoff.

the difference is, the debate of whos #2 decides who plays in the national title game and every year there seem to be countless teams that can make the claim of being number 2...or even number 1. so you have a ranking system that is based on computer outputs and the feelings of coaches and schools and is NOT decided by the players themselves. debating who's #16 (or whatever your lowest seed would be) is simply who are the most deserving to have a shot at the title. yes, there are teams that will get snubbed, yes, there will be unhappy fans, yes, teams that lose late probably won't get in, but you would have PROOF of a champion because the players would have to get on the field and prove that their the best in the nation against the best of the nation. What we have now is a theoretical championship system where we say, if x team beats y team and y team beats z team then x team can beat z team...which is true in math, but not in sports. the only game that's ever decided on paper is the national championship match-up. how does that not bother you?

The only time I have a real problem with the system is when more than two big conference teams finish the season with no losses (because then my "no whining if you lose" doesn't work). In that case, I'd be a proponent of a +1 system.

Outside of their own fan base, not many people think the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year. They were just the best team in December and January. December and January is when it really counts in the NFL. In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

Which is why in the polls an early-season loss hurts less than a late season one...

[Broken Record]

Late season losses can hurt more, yes, but any loss can be a killer.

[Brian in Boston]

In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

Tell that to Boise State. They never had a shot of making the national championship no matter what they did on the field.

[Broken Record]

In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

Tell that to Boise State. They never had a shot of making the national championship no matter what they did on the field.

I don't blame you for not reading both of these long winded threads all the way through, but that goes back to one of my two hard cold facts of college football which is...

"If you want to play for a Nat'l Championship, don't sign with a mid-major."

[Pat]

In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

Tell that to Boise State. They never had a shot of making the national championship no matter what they did on the field.

They're not even in a BCS Conference, I'm sure everyone of the players and coaches on that team would have been fine with and accepted the chance to play in a BCS Bowl after an undefeated season.

[RichardWitham]

In NCAA D1 it counts all year long.

Tell that to Boise State. They never had a shot of making the national championship no matter what they did on the field.

I don't blame you for not reading both of these long winded threads all the way through, but that goes back to one of my two hard cold facts of college football which is...

"If you want to play for a Nat'l Championship, don't sign with a mid-major."

and my responce to those saying that is "go :censored: yourself" . a playoff would only work if you WIN YOUR CONFRENCE TO GET IN, or be one for the 4 at large teams invited. anyone who doesnt want a playoff has their head up their ass. every other sport in the NCAA has a playoff, so why not d1-a? and for the "they'll miss school" argument, i bet when the presidents see the lincolns that the playoff will indeed generate, they'll overlook that fact