BCS - Need a playoff

[AIT]

and now you've left out undefeated boise state, one loss ball state (easily could have ended up undefeated), TCU (who ended Boise State's undefeated season in their bowl game), and the champion from both the ACC and Big East. Not to mention a very good Oregon State team that beat USC and only lost in a rivalry game and to a Penn State team that almost went undefeated.

The only way an 8-team playoff could be remotely realistic is is to take the six BCS conference champs plus two wild cards. Notre Dame would probably have their own clause to lock up one wild card if they finish high enough. The non-BCS schools would probably have another clause to lock up one wild card if one of them finishes high enough. So it's possible to have an 8-team playoff with no wild cards. This year an 8-team playoff would probably be:

1 Oklahoma v. 8 Va Tech
2 Florida v. 7 Cinncinnatti
3 Texas (wild card) v. 6 Penn St
4 USC v. 5 Utah

 

[jumbopackage]

Exactly! A playoff would make the games MORE meaningful because 2 losses would most likely eliminate a team from the playoff.

In my way of thinking - the major bowls would be incorporated into the playoff. The smaller bowls could continue to operate provided there was a demand for them.

Except that every realistic scenario puts conference champions in the playoff. That means 2 loss Cincinnati, 4 loss Virginia Tech get in, alongside 4 loss Troy.

Who says Utah isn't the best team in the entire country? Fact is, nobody knows and nobody ever will in the current system.

Utah beat 6 bowl teams this year... plus a victory at Michigan before anyone knew how bad they were going to be. How many bowl teams did Iowa beat this year? I think 3. One was South Carolina (they stink)... another was Penn St (good, but we saw what USC did to them)... and finally Wisky (FSU destroyed them).

Utah has as good of wins as nearly anyone. They beat Boise St, TCU, and Alabama. 3 top 15 teams. Not to mention BYU as well.

Playoff is the only way to go!

Utah didn't play Boise State, and before Alabama their best win was TCU.

 

[URBCLONE]

If this ever gets implemented, about 90 D1 programs (including ISU) better hope that they have assume basketball programs because their football programs will slip further behind the top 15 programs. The current bowl system gives the middle-of-the-pack teams a chance to climb the ladder of success. Every playoff plan that I've seen would end up killing off the majority of the bowls that currently give more teams something to play for.

If so, then why don't all the 1-AA teams that fail to make the playoffs give up? FCS is the only major sport that decides its 'champion' without a true playoff. A 16 team, 4 week playoff would result in such huge $$$ that it would more than makeup for any lost bowl games. Again, the larger bowls should be preserved and incorporated into a playoff, while the smaller bowls could continue to be played, provided there was a market for them. Is there not a NIT to go along with the NCAA Tournament?

 

[Clone5]

The only way the playoff system would ever be put into place would be if there were still the same amount of teams who would make the postseason. There would still be bowls.

 

[jumbopackage]

Not true. Every game matters in the NFL. I have DirecTV to watch the Bengals every week. In '06 they finished 8-8 and would have made the playoffs had they won even one of their final three games. Many teams are in this position as the season winds on and there are compelling matchups nearly every week.

MLB and the NBA are different because their seasons are too long. The NBA playoff system has been expanded too far and lasts three months. Thus, things don't get really interesting until the conference championships and the finals. In a way the bowl system kind of reminds me of the NBA postseason.

That's because you're a fan of the Bengals. Noone else would subject themselves to watching that dreck And it's just the last 3 games of the season that mattered. What about the 13 before those last 3?

The only way an 8-team playoff could be remotely realistic is is to take the six BCS conference champs plus two wild cards. Notre Dame would probably have their own clause to lock up one wild card if they finish high enough. The non-BCS schools would probably have another clause to lock up one wild card if one of them finishes high enough. So it's possible to have an 8-team playoff with no wild cards. This year an 8-team playoff would probably be:

1 Oklahoma v. 8 Va Tech
2 Florida v. 7 Cinncinnatti
3 Texas (wild card) v. 6 Penn St
4 USC v. 5 Utah

That will not happen because it's not fair to the mid-majors. What about Boise State this year? And if Ball State doesn't lose it's conference championship, that leaves you 3 mid-majors that are undefeated that all have legitimate claims to be in that playoff. Utah could just as easily be left out of that playoff. And with no bowl games to go to to prove worth, you could end up with 3 undefeated teams while a 4 loss team wins the national championship.

 

[AIT]

If so, then why don't all the 1-AA teams that fail to make the playoffs give up? FCS is the only major sport that decides its 'champion' without a true playoff. A 16 team, 4 week playoff would result in such huge $$$ that it would more than makeup for any lost bowl games. Again, the larger bowls should be preserved and incorporated into a playoff, while the smaller bowls could continue to be played, provided there was a market for them. Is there not a NIT to go along with the NCAA Tournament?

Have you seen the attendance numbers for I-AA football? Their fans kind of do give up.

 

[jumbopackage]

If so, then why don't all the 1-AA teams that fail to make the playoffs give up? FCS is the only major sport that decides its 'champion' without a true playoff. A 16 team, 4 week playoff would result in such huge $$$ that it would more than makeup for any lost bowl games. Again, the larger bowls should be preserved and incorporated into a playoff, while the smaller bowls could continue to be played, provided there was a market for them. Is there not a NIT to go along with the NCAA Tournament?

If, as you suggest, the playoff would result in huge $$$, then why isn't there one? After all, the NCAA and the conferences are all about money.

Many of the smaller bowl games barely break even as-is. A playoff would crush them. All that money you claim would be generated would have to come from somewhere.

 

[Clone5]

That's because you're a fan of the Bengals. Noone else would subject themselves to watching that dreck And it's just the last 3 games of the season that mattered. What about the 13 before those last 3?



That will not happen because it's not fair to the mid-majors. What about Boise State this year? And if Ball State doesn't lose it's conference championship, that leaves you 3 mid-majors that are undefeated that all have legitimate claims to be in that playoff. Utah could just as easily be left out of that playoff. And with no bowl games to go to to prove worth, you could end up with 3 undefeated teams while a 4 loss team wins the national championship.

There is no easy way to solve the mid-major dilemma but at least in a playoff champions are decided on the field by the players and coaches and not by sportswriters and computers. As a fan I want to see the best teams play each other and not be content with one really good game each postseason.

 

[URBCLONE]

That's because you're a fan of the Bengals. Noone else would subject themselves to watching that dreck And it's just the last 3 games of the season that mattered. What about the 13 before those last 3?

Well, I do agree that the Bengals are an 'acquired' taste. That said, the NFL is the most popular of the major sports leagues and its playoffs and championships are followed by even the most casual FB fans. Same way with the NCAA Tournament. Even the most casual BB fans tune in to March Madness.

Now just stop and imagine a month-long celebration of college football starting after the conference championships and lasting until NY's Day. As for your point about the smaller schools and the bowls, I would argue that the smaller schools would occasionally get the sympathy vote to be in the playoffs. The smaller bowls could continue with their exhibition games outside of the playoff structure. On that front I don't see that much would change. Right now the only people that care about games like the Chick Fil A Bowl are the fans of the schools that are playing in it.

 

[jumbopackage]

There is no easy way to solve the mid-major dilemma but at least in a playoff champions are decided on the field by the players and coaches and not by sportswriters and computers. As a fan I want to see the best teams play each other and not be content with one really good game each postseason.

Playoff proponents contradict themselves OVER and OVER with the "best teams decide it on the field" argument.

How do you know who the best teams are? How do you know that Texas is somehow worthy of being in a playoff but Tulsa isn't?

Would Oklahoma winning a tournament consisting of mid-major football teams make them the best team in the nation?

Does the fact that you could go winless in non-conference, lose a couple of conference games and still win your BCS conference mean you should get into a tournament?

You have to get teams into the playoff subjectively somehow, and that means that polls are going to be a part of whatever system gets implemented.

 

[Clone5]

Well, I do agree that the Bengals are an 'acquired' taste. That said, the NFL is the most popular of the major sports leagues and its playoffs and championships are followed by even the most casual FB fans. Same way with the NCAA Tournament. Even the most casual BB fans tune in to March Madness.

Now just stop and imagine a month-long celebration of college football starting after the conference championships and lasting until NY's Day. As for your point about the smaller schools and the bowls, I would argue that the smaller schools would occasionally get the sympathy vote to be in the playoffs. The smaller bowls could continue with their exhibition games outside of the playoff structure. On that front I don't see that much would change. Right now the only people that care about games like the Chick Fil A Bowl are the fans of the schools that are playing in it.

Yeah but the NFL playoffs are so boring and they make the regular season not matter. :wink:

 

[AIT]

That will not happen because it's not fair to the mid-majors. What about Boise State this year? And if Ball State doesn't lose it's conference championship, that leaves you 3 mid-majors that are undefeated that all have legitimate claims to be in that playoff. Utah could just as easily be left out of that playoff. And with no bowl games to go to to prove worth, you could end up with 3 undefeated teams while a 4 loss team wins the national championship.

Yep. So now you're up to a or 16-team playoff (or maybe 12 with byes). It'll take 4 weeks, and you've got all the problems associated with a big playoff. I like the uniqueness of the college game with its limited postseason. I'd like to see a plus-one game, but I hope they never get to a full-blown playoff.

 

[URBCLONE]

If, as you suggest, the playoff would result in huge $$$, then why isn't there one? After all, the NCAA and the conferences are all about money.

College presidents, ADs, and coaches love the bowl system. 32 games = 64 teams out of 119 D-1 programs in the 'postseason'. They can sell this as a 'reward' for an 'outstanding' season to their fanbase and generate some income from it. The biggest proponents of a playoff are the fans. The biggest opponents are those whose careers might suffer if they were forced to make it into a true playoff.

For example, LSU would not have made the playoffs this year. That could have led to pressure on Miles, the AD and president at LSU. Instead, they played in the Chick Fil A Bowl and crushed GT allowing them to claim some measure of success for their season. As I said earlier, I see the bowl system as the functional equivalent of a participation medal in grade school. This is one reason why I never bought the argument that ISU should have retained DM because he made it to 5 bowl games in 6 years.

Frankly, I think 32 bowl games is too many. No one is really going to miss the Emerald Bowl or the International Bowl.

 

[AIT]

Yeah but the NFL playoffs are so boring and they make the regular season not matter. :wink:

I don't pay much attention to the NFL's regular season. If it weren't for fantasy football, I have a feeling a lot less people would care about the NFL's regular season. See the NBA.

 

[Clone5]

Playoff proponents contradict themselves OVER and OVER with the "best teams decide it on the field" argument.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. They really would be playing actual college football games against each other, I know how much that displeases you.
How do you know who the best teams are? How do you know that Texas is somehow worthy of being in a playoff but Tulsa isn't?
There is no way of knowing for sure but at least in this system there aren't only two teams who have a shot at a national title in the postseason. How do we know Auburn didn't deserve a shot a few years ago? Well a playoff would have answered that question.
Would Oklahoma winning a tournament consisting of mid-major football teams make them the best team in the nation?
Um... I have no idea who suggested having a mid-major tournament.
Does the fact that you could go winless in non-conference, lose a couple of conference games and still win your BCS conference mean you should get into a tournament?
In my opinion, no but I would rather see teams like Virginia Tech show they belong than watch them play in a meaningless bowl game.
You have to get teams into the playoff subjectively somehow, and that means that polls are going to be a part of whatever system gets implemented.

The polls are completely controlling college football right now and in a playoff, although polls would still play a large part, more teams would have a shot and better matchups would occur, how can you argue against that as a fan?

 

[AIT]

College presidents, ADs, and coaches love the bowl system. 32 games = 64 teams out of 119 D-1 programs in the 'postseason'. They can sell this as a 'reward' for an 'outstanding' season to their fanbase and generate some income from it. The biggest proponents of a playoff are the fans. The biggest opponents are those whose careers might suffer if they were forced to make it into a true playoff.

For example, LSU would not have made the playoffs this year. That could have led to pressure on Miles, the AD and president at LSU. Instead, they played in the Chick Fil A Bowl and crushed GT allowing them to claim some measure of success for their season. As I said earlier, I see the bowl system as the functional equivalent of a participation medal in grade school. This is one reason why I never bought the argument that ISU should have retained DM because he made it to 5 bowl games in 6 years.

Frankly, I think 32 bowl games is too many. No one is really going to miss the Emerald Bowl or the International Bowl.

The LSU fans I've seen are pretty ticked at Miles, bowl win or not. And I guarantee Cal and UConn are glad they played the Emerald and International bowls.

 

[Clone5]

I don't pay much attention to the NFL's regular season. If it weren't for fantasy football, I have a feeling a lot less people would care about the NFL's regular season. See the NBA.

There are a lot less fans who follow the NBA's and MLB's regular seasons simply because they are so long, not because they don't have a bowl system and two teams playing for the championship. Look at the Monday Night Football compared to the "big" college football games' ratings and you will realize you are in the minority.

 

[jumbopackage]

College presidents, ADs, and coaches love the bowl system. 32 games = 64 teams out of 119 D-1 programs in the 'postseason'. They can sell this as a 'reward' for an 'outstanding' season to their fanbase and generate some income from it. The biggest proponents of a playoff are the fans. The biggest opponents are those whose careers might suffer if they were forced to make it into a true playoff.

For example, LSU would not have made the playoffs this year. That could have led to pressure on Miles, the AD and president at LSU. Instead, they played in the Chick Fil A Bowl and crushed GT allowing them to claim some measure of success for their season. As I said earlier, I see the bowl system as the functional equivalent of a participation medal in grade school. This is one reason why I never bought the argument that ISU should have retained DM because he made it to 5 bowl games in 6 years.

Frankly, I think 32 bowl games is too many. No one is really going to miss the Emerald Bowl or the International Bowl.

So, as a Cyclone fan, would you be ok with never having gone to the post season? Ever? In the storied history of ISU football, under pretty much any proposed system, ISU would have never been to a playoff game. Our season would have always ended with the last game of the Big XII season.

I'm not saying all the bowls a great, but they give fans a chance at a quick vacation for the teams that make them. It is a reward for a good season. And it gives teams a bunch of extra practice time. Ask cyclone football players if they would rather sit at home during bowl season or go to the Emerald or International or even Humanitarian bowl and see what the answer is. And ask yourself the same.

 

[URBCLONE]

The LSU fans I've seen are pretty ticked at Miles, bowl win or not. And I guarantee Cal and UConn are glad they played the Emerald and International bowls.

That's the point that I was arguing with the other poster. He claimed that a playoff would diminish interest in the regular season. I disagree, regardless, I think the only people who are really concerned with the outcome of those and similar bowl games are the fans of those schools and gamblers in Vegas.

 

[Cat4ISU]

I'd like to see a plus-one game

I think this is the best solution. It retains the pageantry of the bowl system but allows for gray area in deciding the Nat'l Champ. For example, another poll or system pits the winner of Florida/Oklahoma against USC, Texas (if they win big) or Utah for the real Championship, or something like that.

It keeps the excitement of the regular season in tact and imo adds more excitement to the major bowls.

I agree with the comments about a full blown playoff excluding a huge chunk of mid-range teams trying to make a name for themselves.

all for +1