Does anyone on here really want a college football playoff?
- Thread starter Hanmudog
- Start date
it doesn't further dilute the bowl system. i don't like all of these small bowls that have popped up over the years. i barely watch half now. i wouldn't mind if we reduced the number of crappy bowls by one and had the 4 team playoff for the championship. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 and then winners play to take all. so we get three good games out of it instead of two good bowl games and a turrible one.
in other words, delete one from the bottom and add one to the top
in other words, delete one from the bottom and add one to the top
Call the bowls the same as they are now with the same sponsors. And just have one extra game with the two winners that is called the "national championship".
Seems pretty $$%$+%@ easy huh?
Seems pretty $$%$+%@ easy huh?
There are just too many seasons where the best team (or one of the best teams) at the END of the season is ranked out of the Top 4. USC last year, for example. The one unexpected loss during the season could plague teams just as much under a "plus one" as it does now.
I used to be in strong favor of a playoff--"We just HAVE to know which team is really #1"--but now I think the debates just add to the fun, and with the bowls, 30 teams finish on a winning note.
Not to mention that nearly every playoff scenario would leave out nearly every MSU team in history.
I used to be in strong favor of a playoff--"We just HAVE to know which team is really #1"--but now I think the debates just add to the fun, and with the bowls, 30 teams finish on a winning note.
Not to mention that nearly every playoff scenario would leave out nearly every MSU team in history.
Mississippi State will never be a national championship contender in the BCS era. Hell, look at Auburn, a team with mountains more of football tradition that we do. They went unbeaten in the SEC and were left out.
I favor a playoff. In fact, I favor a full-fledged 16-team playoff, with the champions of the 11 conferences joining five at-large teams and being seeded according to the BCS/RPI -type formula. Keep the traditional bowl games around - Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Cotton, possibly Holiday and get rid of the other crappy games. Little Casears Pizza Bowl will happen this December. Are you serious? Let those five games pick from non-playoff teams in their traditional conference alignments.
2008 would have looked like this in 615dawg's world.
The National Championship Playoff - First Round
<span style="font-style: italic;">Upper Bracket</span>
#16 seed Buffalo (MAC Champion) at #1 seed Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion)
#9 seed Boise State (WAC Champion) at #8 seed Penn State (Big Ten Champion)
#12 seed TCU (at-large #5, seeded down to avoid conference rematch) at #5 seed USC (Pac 10 Champion)
#13 seed Virginia Tech (ACC Champion) at #4 seed Alabama (at-large #2)
<span style="font-style: italic;">Lower Bracket</span>
#10 seed Ohio State (at-large #4) at #7 seed Texas Tech (at-large #3)
#15 seed Troy (Sun Belt Champion) at #2 seed Florida (SEC Champion)
#11 seed Cincinnati (Big East Champion) at #6 seed Utah (Mountain West Champion)
#14 seed East Carolina (C-USA Champion) at #3 seed Texas (at-large #1)
Second Round (projected)
Boise State at Oklahoma
USC at Alabama
Texas Tech at Florida
Utah at Texas
National Semifinals (projected)
USC at Oklahoma
Texas at Florida
National Championship Game (site to be bid on, Miami won in my world)
Oklahoma at Florida
New Year's Day Traditional Bowl Games (The NIT of College Football)
Orange Bowl (ACC vs. Big East/ND) - Georgia Tech vs. Pittsburgh
Sugar Bowl (SEC vs. at-large) - Georgia vs. BYU
Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 vs. at-large) - Oklahoma State vs. Northwestern
Rose Bowl (Big 10 vs. Pac 10) - Oregon vs. Michigan State
Cotton Bowl (Big 12/SEC vs. at-large)- Missouri vs. Ole Miss
You see, five bowl games after taking the top 11 teams and other conference champions starts to get boring - and this is all ranked teams. Why do we endure an additional 25+ bowl games after the BCS?
I favor a playoff. In fact, I favor a full-fledged 16-team playoff, with the champions of the 11 conferences joining five at-large teams and being seeded according to the BCS/RPI -type formula. Keep the traditional bowl games around - Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Cotton, possibly Holiday and get rid of the other crappy games. Little Casears Pizza Bowl will happen this December. Are you serious? Let those five games pick from non-playoff teams in their traditional conference alignments.
2008 would have looked like this in 615dawg's world.
The National Championship Playoff - First Round
<span style="font-style: italic;">Upper Bracket</span>
#16 seed Buffalo (MAC Champion) at #1 seed Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion)
#9 seed Boise State (WAC Champion) at #8 seed Penn State (Big Ten Champion)
#12 seed TCU (at-large #5, seeded down to avoid conference rematch) at #5 seed USC (Pac 10 Champion)
#13 seed Virginia Tech (ACC Champion) at #4 seed Alabama (at-large #2)
<span style="font-style: italic;">Lower Bracket</span>
#10 seed Ohio State (at-large #4) at #7 seed Texas Tech (at-large #3)
#15 seed Troy (Sun Belt Champion) at #2 seed Florida (SEC Champion)
#11 seed Cincinnati (Big East Champion) at #6 seed Utah (Mountain West Champion)
#14 seed East Carolina (C-USA Champion) at #3 seed Texas (at-large #1)
Second Round (projected)
Boise State at Oklahoma
USC at Alabama
Texas Tech at Florida
Utah at Texas
National Semifinals (projected)
USC at Oklahoma
Texas at Florida
National Championship Game (site to be bid on, Miami won in my world)
Oklahoma at Florida
New Year's Day Traditional Bowl Games (The NIT of College Football)
Orange Bowl (ACC vs. Big East/ND) - Georgia Tech vs. Pittsburgh
Sugar Bowl (SEC vs. at-large) - Georgia vs. BYU
Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 vs. at-large) - Oklahoma State vs. Northwestern
Rose Bowl (Big 10 vs. Pac 10) - Oregon vs. Michigan State
Cotton Bowl (Big 12/SEC vs. at-large)- Missouri vs. Ole Miss
You see, five bowl games after taking the top 11 teams and other conference champions starts to get boring - and this is all ranked teams. Why do we endure an additional 25+ bowl games after the BCS?
only conference champs will get to move on and we stay home. With the system in place now there many happy teams at the end of the year comming of a win or feel good about going to a bowl game. Not so with true playoff.
I never thought of it that way. That way you get rid of the ****** conference champions real quick. Less time for Southern Miss fans to ***** about why mid major's never get a chance. O wait...
No matter how many teams you had a playoff with. 4, 8 etc it doesnt matter. I dont really have a problem with the way it is now. The only thing I would make different is I would install a plus one if necessary kind of deal. This way someone who really does deserve a shot ( like Auburn in 04) gets it.
and if a Boise State or somebody pulls an upset, the whole nation is behind them for a week, just like March Madness. If the small schools can win on the field, they deserve a chance.
Can you imagine the first weekend of games?
An eastern and West Coast game on Thursday night, a mid-major home game on Friday night and an five meaningful games on Saturday?
The next Saturday you get an 11 a.m., 2:30, 6:00 and 9:00 quarterfinal menu?
Then a day/night doubeheader on Semifinal Saturday?
My point is in the end, more than likely, you are going to get the best two teams.
Can you imagine the first weekend of games?
An eastern and West Coast game on Thursday night, a mid-major home game on Friday night and an five meaningful games on Saturday?
The next Saturday you get an 11 a.m., 2:30, 6:00 and 9:00 quarterfinal menu?
Then a day/night doubeheader on Semifinal Saturday?
My point is in the end, more than likely, you are going to get the best two teams.
Ask yourself what you would rather see:
1) 16 teams play 15 games to determine the national champion
2) A few hundred people and some computers decide on 2 teams to play for the title
If you chose number 2, you're probably the type of person who yells at the TV during pregame shows. I'd give up all the talk on deciding who the top 2 were for 14 more games that have an influence on the championship. Some might say that with a playoff the best team may not win every year, but sports are about the outcome of individual games and series, not what would happen if the teams played a thousand times.
Do a two tiered system: a 16-game playoff and bowls. You could even play the first two rounds right after conference championships so the losers could still make it to a bowl as well. That way the minor conference champions still have a shot at ending their season with a win.
1) 16 teams play 15 games to determine the national champion
2) A few hundred people and some computers decide on 2 teams to play for the title
If you chose number 2, you're probably the type of person who yells at the TV during pregame shows. I'd give up all the talk on deciding who the top 2 were for 14 more games that have an influence on the championship. Some might say that with a playoff the best team may not win every year, but sports are about the outcome of individual games and series, not what would happen if the teams played a thousand times.
Do a two tiered system: a 16-game playoff and bowls. You could even play the first two rounds right after conference championships so the losers could still make it to a bowl as well. That way the minor conference champions still have a shot at ending their season with a win.
but it would suck for us.
Teams like Troy have a real chance to make the playoffs while teams like State sit at home and watch. Our best team of the last 20 years, 1999, probably wouldn't have made your playoff.
As a football fan, I want a playoff. As a State fan, I know a 16 team deal that includes conferences like CUSA and Sun Belt would put a hurtin on our program.
Teams like Troy have a real chance to make the playoffs while teams like State sit at home and watch. Our best team of the last 20 years, 1999, probably wouldn't have made your playoff.
As a football fan, I want a playoff. As a State fan, I know a 16 team deal that includes conferences like CUSA and Sun Belt would put a hurtin on our program.
We will not see a 4+ team playoff in our lifetime, too much money and too much power for university presidents to give up. I've actually become pretty content with the current system, remember it is leaps and bounds ahead of the old system. Now a +1 game is something that could be discussed over the next few years but I wouldn't expect to see it anytime soon, also I believe a lot of the +1 issues relove around the Big 10, I can't remember why but I'm pretty sure it does, otherwise they would have started discussing that +1 the last time the BCS was having television negotations.
of the game itself.
I hear people all the time talk about how they like college football so much better than pro, but installing a playoff would make them almost identical. Teams who knew they were in would be taking off the last game of the season to get ready for the playoffs. Can you imagine how many fans college football would lose if Ohio State or Alabama were sitting their best players against Michigan and Auburn?
Also, Pros are pros.College athletes dont get paid (allegedly). Football is not their job, and you cant ask them to extend the season through the holidays.
I hear people all the time talk about how they like college football so much better than pro, but installing a playoff would make them almost identical. Teams who knew they were in would be taking off the last game of the season to get ready for the playoffs. Can you imagine how many fans college football would lose if Ohio State or Alabama were sitting their best players against Michigan and Auburn?
Also, Pros are pros.College athletes dont get paid (allegedly). Football is not their job, and you cant ask them to extend the season through the holidays.
GABully24 said:
You can't ask them to extend the season through the holidays? Really? Are you aware that FCS, D2, D3, etc. all have playoffs that extend through the holidays? And those are the guys who really are just in it for fun. And there's absolutely no way Alabama would sit its best players against Auburn even if they were 11-0. Remember, the key of the playoffs would be seeding. A loss to Auburn could drop Alabama from the #1 seed (home game against Troy) to the #9 seed (road game at USC or something). Pretty big deal. Don't believe a team can fall that far? Well, 2 years ago, West Virginia was #2 in the BCS going into the final week and dropped to #9 after losing to Pittsburgh.
It's already there. Of course they'd add one to the bottom though to make up for the #1 and #2 teams getting bumped back down to the Rose/Fiesta/Sugar/Orange bowls.
Haha, what's that? Let's make up the rules as we go? Who decides when it's necessary?
As far as always having an argument, I'd rather be wondering if the 7th or 8th best team got left out of the top 8 versus the best team getting left of the national championship game. Although #1 and #2 make for more entertaining arguments.</p>
As far as always having an argument, I'd rather be wondering if the 7th or 8th best team got left out of the top 8 versus the best team getting left of the national championship game. Although #1 and #2 make for more entertaining arguments.</p>
Our best shot at competing for a national championship is a playoff and either
(1) Winning the SEC Championship (we were 6 minutes away from doing this in '98)
(2) Having a good enough season to end up in the top 12 or so of the BCS ('99 team was a win over Bama from doing this)
If we would have gone 12-0 this season, we would have been penalized because we would not likely have entered the top 25 until October. The current system relies too heavily on the polls (Harris and USA Today) for us to have a chance. It would take 3-4 years of top 15 programs for us to have a shot in the current system.
(1) Winning the SEC Championship (we were 6 minutes away from doing this in '98)
(2) Having a good enough season to end up in the top 12 or so of the BCS ('99 team was a win over Bama from doing this)
If we would have gone 12-0 this season, we would have been penalized because we would not likely have entered the top 25 until October. The current system relies too heavily on the polls (Harris and USA Today) for us to have a chance. It would take 3-4 years of top 15 programs for us to have a shot in the current system.
The more teams a playoff has the more it takes away from the regulary season which is what makes college football unique. There may only be 1 national championship game but just about any week after this point in the season you can turn on the TV and see someone playing for the national championship. Last week it was Texas. Sorry, if Texas just has to be in the top 8, I am not nearly as interested in that game. Top 16? I wouldn't care at all.
And for the record, I am for a plus-one scenario pitting 4v1 and 2v3 in BCS bowls.</p>
And for the record, I am for a plus-one scenario pitting 4v1 and 2v3 in BCS bowls.</p>
Conference Championship Games. These could potentially make or break a team's appearance in the playoffs. A 2 loss SEC team could ranked # 10 could possibly jump a one loss USC # 8 to make the playoffs by winning the SEC champ. game. All this when USC would not even get a chance to win a conference champ game and move up as well. Parody between the conferences would have to go to make things as fair as possible. Personally, I dont like it.
If we were 13-0 this year beating then #4 LSU, #1 Florida, and #1 Alabama, and then Florida again I'm positive we'd only be behind an undefeated Texas.
But 13-0 is what it would take for us under the current system. 12-1 would almost never get it done. Under a 16 team playoff we'd probably have to go 10/11-2 and then go 3-0 (against top 16 teams, mind you) to get to the National Championship game. 11-2 plus 3-0 is certainly more doable than 13-0.</p>
But 13-0 is what it would take for us under the current system. 12-1 would almost never get it done. Under a 16 team playoff we'd probably have to go 10/11-2 and then go 3-0 (against top 16 teams, mind you) to get to the National Championship game. 11-2 plus 3-0 is certainly more doable than 13-0.</p>
The PAC10 does not have a conference championship game because every team plays every other team. You would not have to win a championship game to win your conference's automatic berth. One might say having the championship game gives a much less deserving team a shot at the playoff, but that's how it would work. Division I-AA has done it this way and it seems to work fine for them. Basketball does it too with great success.
Keep the current BCS format and use it to determine the Top 4 teams at the end of the regular season/conference championships. Yes, there will be an argument about who gets the 4th spot, but that's a better argument to have than who gets the 2nd spot. There's always an argument about the last spot. Just look at March Madness. However, to maintain the value of the regular season, something very important in college football, you can't expand to 8 or 16 teams. A plus-one system still makes each week just as important as it is now.
In order to follow the lines of historic value and thus keep the bowl system as intact as possible, you keep the current BCS bowls as they are, and let them rotate the semifinal games each year. An actual bowl game no longer determines the national championship, so as far as I'm concerned the NCAA has already compromised the old system enough to manipulate it this much more.
The designated "National Championship Game" is already part of the BCS, but with a plus-one system those teams would not be pre-determined. In theory you are losing ONE pre-determined BCS game, so adding a game like the Cotton Bowl to the BCS structure wouldn't hurt, although for explanation's sake I'll leave it out for now.
Here is what a good plus-one system would look like (at-large substitutions would be applied for Bowl tie-in teams who finished in the Top 4):
2010
Rose Bowl - Pac 10 vs. Big Ten
Fiesta Bowl - Big XII vs. At-large
Sugar Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Orange Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
National Championship Game in Pasadena, CA - Sugar Bowl winner vs. Orange Bowl winner
2011
Rose Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Fiesta Bowl - Big XII vs. At-large
Sugar Bowl - SEC vs. At-large
Orange Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
National Championship Game in Glendale, AZ - Orange Bowl winner vs. Rose Bowl winner
2012
Rose Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Fiesta Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Sugar Bowl - SEC vs. At-large
Orange Bowl - ACC vs. Big East
National Championship Game in New Orleans, LA - Rose Bowl winner vs. Fiesta Bowl winner
2013
Rose Bowl - Pac 10 vs. Big Ten
Fiesta Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Sugar Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Orange Bowl - ACC vs. Big East
National Championship Game in Miami, FL - Fiesta Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner
If the NCAA wanted to take maintaining historical value a step further, they could determine the semifinal sites each year based on the Top 2 teams and their respective BCS Bowl tie-ins (i.e. if the SEC Champ was in the Top 2, their game would be at the Sugar Bowl) but I have a feeling the Orange Bowl wouldn't appreciate that. I doubt we'll see something like this anytime soon, but as you can see, it's really not that complicated. It stays as true as possible to the current system and ideals that promote the value of the regular season. It gives even more significance to the current BCS Bowls, since each year two of them determine who plays for the national title. In the current format, none of the four BCS bowls have anything to do with who is crowned the national champion.
I've yet to think of a logical reason why this system wouldn't work.
In order to follow the lines of historic value and thus keep the bowl system as intact as possible, you keep the current BCS bowls as they are, and let them rotate the semifinal games each year. An actual bowl game no longer determines the national championship, so as far as I'm concerned the NCAA has already compromised the old system enough to manipulate it this much more.
The designated "National Championship Game" is already part of the BCS, but with a plus-one system those teams would not be pre-determined. In theory you are losing ONE pre-determined BCS game, so adding a game like the Cotton Bowl to the BCS structure wouldn't hurt, although for explanation's sake I'll leave it out for now.
Here is what a good plus-one system would look like (at-large substitutions would be applied for Bowl tie-in teams who finished in the Top 4):
2010
Rose Bowl - Pac 10 vs. Big Ten
Fiesta Bowl - Big XII vs. At-large
Sugar Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Orange Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
National Championship Game in Pasadena, CA - Sugar Bowl winner vs. Orange Bowl winner
2011
Rose Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Fiesta Bowl - Big XII vs. At-large
Sugar Bowl - SEC vs. At-large
Orange Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
National Championship Game in Glendale, AZ - Orange Bowl winner vs. Rose Bowl winner
2012
Rose Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Fiesta Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Sugar Bowl - SEC vs. At-large
Orange Bowl - ACC vs. Big East
National Championship Game in New Orleans, LA - Rose Bowl winner vs. Fiesta Bowl winner
2013
Rose Bowl - Pac 10 vs. Big Ten
Fiesta Bowl - BCS #1 vs. BCS #4
Sugar Bowl - BCS #2 vs. BCS #3
Orange Bowl - ACC vs. Big East
National Championship Game in Miami, FL - Fiesta Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner
If the NCAA wanted to take maintaining historical value a step further, they could determine the semifinal sites each year based on the Top 2 teams and their respective BCS Bowl tie-ins (i.e. if the SEC Champ was in the Top 2, their game would be at the Sugar Bowl) but I have a feeling the Orange Bowl wouldn't appreciate that. I doubt we'll see something like this anytime soon, but as you can see, it's really not that complicated. It stays as true as possible to the current system and ideals that promote the value of the regular season. It gives even more significance to the current BCS Bowls, since each year two of them determine who plays for the national title. In the current format, none of the four BCS bowls have anything to do with who is crowned the national champion.
I've yet to think of a logical reason why this system wouldn't work.
Besides, that will be their problem, not ours. If they want to address the problem they are more than welcome to figure out a way of doing it.
That's a good idea that I'm not sure I've heard before in the plus-one discussion. Semi-home games for #1 and #2. You're probably right though that the Orange Bowl wouldn't be crazy about it. Might be better to just have the bowls pre-selected and attempt to give #1 and #2 their respective tie-ins if possible.jamdawg96 said: