Proposed Division I-A National Playoffs (by me...haha)

That 16 team playoff looked good. They could even get it down to 12 or 8 and play every year and still be done around the same time as the bowl games finish. I mean there are some teams that wait over one month to play in a bowl game. That's ridiculous.

 

Hmmm... Where should I begin?


First off, Warden you might wanna think about putting Georgia in the playoff bracket or you might start a civil war with the people down in Athens.

People say that College Football is the only collegiate sport where a team is rewarded for how they perform throughout an entire season. Well, I don't find that entirely true. What if Texas would have lost to Texas A&M on friday? It would have wiped away all the work they had done all season long and they would not be playing for a National Championship. The only thing about college football that I do agree with is that it is the only sport where every regular season game has significant importance. Because as I just said, one slip up, and you're championship hopes are down the drain.


Now...Here's the deal about having a playoff system in Division 1-A.

1. I think you continue using the current BCS formula, but only to determine seeding.

2. If the NCAA puts together a playoff system, in return they'll request that the major conferences do away with their Conference Championship Games and use regular season records as a method of determine the automatic bids. This has a lot to do with scheduling. The 1-A regular season would end on Thanksgiving weekend to allow the playoffs to begin in early December. But, as everybody knows, the major conferences will never wanna give up that big money making championship game.

3. I think a Division 1-A playoff needs more than 16 teams. My suggestion is a 24 team playoff. You look at this season and the number of teams in the major conferences that are legit. (LSU, UGA, Va. Tech, Notre Dame, Oregon, Penn State) having only 16 team playoff is gonna keep some mighty good football teams at home for the Bowl Season. I would have 10 automatic bids from the conferences that Warden listed from, and then 14 at large bids to teams that even though they are likely not teams to win National Championships, but are teams that are good enough to deserve post-season play. Remember, doing away with the current system and going to a playoff is going to eliminate a lot of teams from getting bowl exposure to begin with. I would hate to be a team that went 7-4 or 8-3, play a tough schedule and then in return have my season end on Thanksgiving because we didn't go undefeated or only lose one game.

Have the top 8 automatic bids (determined by BCS ranking) have first round byes and then the other 16 teams can play each other in the opening round being seeded by BCS rankings. Those opening round games can begin one week after Thanksgiving. Then the second round would be nine days later, the Saturday on the first full week of December. The playoff would then end right around New Year's, just like the current BCS system.

 

The American collegiate football fan wasn't sick and tired of anything until ESPN and the rest of the sports media told you that you were. Seriously, this is a completely nonsensical media controversy fed by the networks because they want more games to cover and more ways to make money. It's a power/greed thing.

I already explained why a playoff system doesn't make teams earn anything. All it does is give the illusion of control, when in reality any system that puts emphasis on a few games at the end of the season rather than the entire body of work is going to be much more dependant upon luck than skill. And obviously the more teams you include, the more luck is involved.

Honestly it amuses me when people complain about computer rankings. Computer calculations are the basis of our entire society, but somehow they aren't fit to decide how teams compare? Computers are the only ones who aren't swayed either for or against Notre Dame. They're the only ones that can impartially evaluate the results. In fact, the only flaw with the computer rankings is the formula that determines them. Like any task, the calculation is only as good as the programming, and currently there are still flaws to be worked out. That said, I have a lot more faith in the computers than I do in sportswriters and coaches who almost certainly don't watch more than 2-8 teams play each weekend.

In hindsight, sure you can say that. But at the time, not only was Oklahoma a more worthy challenger for USC, but many could and did argue that the Sooners were actually the best team in the nation. I can't explain why they had a meltdown in the championship game each of the last two seasons (obviously it had something to do with the pressure), but over the course of the season they had more than proven that they were an exceptionally good team.

Let me try and explain this again. Match-ups are critical to college football, because certain types of teams will usually beat certain other types of teams if the talent is relatively equal. It's roughly equivalent to rock-paper-scissors. So if Team A and Team B had to play the same theoretical schedule of 12 other teams, Team A would prove to be the better team because they actually play better. But the problem is that Team B matches up very well with Team A because of the styles each team employs, so Team B would usually beat Team A. Does that mean that Team B is the better team? According to the head to head formula, yes it would, but obviously Team A would be better in the larger picture. Note for instance that UNC always beats N.C. State. It doesn't matter how good State is or how bad Carolina is in a particular year; the Tar Heels always win. Does that mean UNC was always the better team in those years? No. Sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't, but winning one particular game doesn't mean that you're the better team overall. It means you were the better team in that one particular match-up on that one particular day.

 

In response to Collin's comments...

I agree that the media does push the idea of a playoff quite a bit and that they may want you to think that the media is an accurate depiction of public opinion.

In reguards to playoffs being more about luck than it is skill...well my friend that is a two-way street. The luck of Penn State running the table and winning the National Championship is no more different than Matt Leinart fumbling the ball out of bounds at the goal line against Notre Dame.

 

I was sick and tired of the pre-BCS and the current BCS before ESPN ever came up with the idea. I always wondered why Division I-AA, Division II, Division III, NAIA, NCCAA, etc.. can have playoffs but the best, elite teams in America can not enjoy a competitive playoff system to where it crowns the best team in America? It would give them more games to cover and money would be made, but it puts to rest the controversy on who really is the best team in America.

Then explain this to the other divisions who put the best teams in, and the best team wins the championship at the end. With the playoff system, the teams can indeed earn money just like in a traditional bowl game. If seperate sponsors are brought in for the national playoffs, they can payoff teams. However throughout the four rounds, the total can not exceed the maximum amount ($17 million) to make things fair for all teams (in the playoffs and in the traditional bowl games). With a 16 team tournament (9 conference champions and 5 at-large teams), the luck factor is eliminated because at least five of these teams (conference champions of Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and WAC) are going to be non-factors anyway unless they are a Utah (MWC) team from last year or Boise State (WAC), who contended high in the BCS. So basically it's an 11-team tournament, featuring the nation's elite teams.

I have no faith in a bucket of bolts or in a media representative. As formerly of the latter, sports writers are unreliable are get partial because they are in essence, highly regarded sports fans. They have teams that they want to see in the national spotlight because it adds more to the circulation to their paper (Gets fans to read their articles). If the computers are anything like I have to put up with, I'll wind up putting a .223 shell into the side of it. You're right, computers are unbiased, but what would you rather see...A computer making an error and putting the wrong team to face the national favorite (I.E.--Nebraska, into the 2001 Rose Bowl national title game vs favored Miami, when it should have been Ohio State, I think.), or teams winning on the last play with heroism. That's a no brainer.

Well, its a good thing you didn't tell Auburn and Utah that because they had the stats that would have challenged Southern California for the national championship. We all saw how good Urban Meyer led Alex Smith (Who should have stayed for his senior year), and we all saw the triple headed offensive monster of Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Cadillac Williams and the War Eagle defense that limited opponents to around 14 points a game. My money was Auburn that if they got to play USC that they would win. With the playoff system, you would have gotten this. Its pretty shameful to limit a team to a worthless bowl game to wind up with a best case scenario, to tie, winning the AP National Title causing a split national champion. A playoff system would have given the final game winner, the Undisputed National Championship and would have put to rest who is the best team in the land.


Playoffs are known as "The Second Season". Regardless of what you've done in the regular season, its all in how you finish. When you get to the playoffs, no one gives a damn on what you did in the regular season. Most teams cant start the season with a dream to win the national championship because they'd never get the high rating because of a computer issue or a sports writer's opinion. The playoff will give the team a chance at the beginning of the season to plant the seed that any team in America can win the title. Just like the most memorable games in the NCAA basketball tournament, the smaller seeds will be determined to knock off their more favored opponents and give us cinderella teams that makes this more exciting than pre-BCS and currently.

When there is doubt that there is more than two schools that are the best, the playoff is required. And right now, America isn't certain that it's all about USC/Texas. IM sure LSU, Virginia Tech, and Penn State would love to argue that on the field and not on a show like "Around The Horn".

 

I actually like the idea of the conference champions of the lower divisions getting in. Half the fun of watching the basketball tournament is the small chance that a #15 or #14 seed has in beating a Top 10 team. There's usually at least one team 13-15 who win. I mean Fresno almost beat the #1 team in the country and they didn't even win the WAC. Too much money though, the same reason Notre Dame is going to a BCS is the same reason why we won't see a playoff. It's all about the money.

 

I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that's true of the average collegiate football fan. In fact, I rarely heard complaints about the system until they started being fed the silly line about the BCS being the perfect solution. That set the BCS up for failure, which it did, and now you have the media causing a controversy where none should exist.

Not even close, dude. Most seasons people think that the winner of the NCAA tournament in basketball wasn't the best team in the country. A prime example of that was Syracuse a couple of years back, as the Orangemen had been decidedly mediocre all season before getting hot in March. The same can obviously be said for baseball, where even team executives will admit that the regular season is the only test of a team's ability because the playoffs are a total crapshoot. There is and always will be controversy surrounding who is the "best," and obviously there have been plenty of college football games where the majority of people came away convinced that the team who lost was actually the better team. A playoff would prove nothing at all, it would just introduce new reasons to disagree while getting rid of all the charm that's left in the current bowl system.

Let's say that Vince Young has his worst game ever and Colorado ends up beating Texas. Would you then suggest that the Buffaloes were a better team than the Longhorns? I doubt you would, and I certainly wouldn't.

Ugh. I can't believe you just said that luck would be eliminated because only 11 of the teams would be elite. That is some astoundingly retarded logic, chief. Luck (and match-ups) would be heavily involved even with only the 11 elite teams. It's inevitable in any one and done playoff system.

Utah played no one at all, and we've seen this year just how "awesome" Urban Meyer is now that he's in a major conference. Alex Smith wasn't, isn't, and won't be a top quality quarterback. Hell, Louisville was the better mid-major football team by far last season. They almost certainly would have wiped the floor with Utah.

No, you wouldn't. You seem to think that the favorites will automatically make it through to the point you want them to. The only time that has ever happened was in your imagination. Instead some number of USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah would have fallen to competitors, and the number of those four making it to the final rounds of a playoff would largely be determined by how many rounds you had.

Are you retarded? Ask USC's players if they're ashamed of their 2003 national championship. Ask LSU if they're ashamed of theirs. Hell, not even the media pretends that either team's half of the split is illegitimate. So what's the loss? We have two great teams that shared a national title and the only people who are sore about it are people like yourself. The players and fans may have been upset about it at the time (largely because of the media), but I daresay that they love it now.

And note that a playoff means that every team except one ends its season in disappointment. I know it sounds like a little thing, but it's so incredible to end your season with a win even if it is in a meaningless bowl game. You tell the fans and players of a certain team that their bowl win didn't mean anything because they didn't win the national championship. Hell, they're ecstatic. Meanwhile as a fan I know from much experience how miserable the NCAA tournament is. When UNC lost to Utah in the Final Four, I wasn't happy we made it that far or proud of what we did during the regular season. I was crushed because we ended the season in disappointment. And if UNC had lost to Illinois last year, I would have been just as crushed, regardless of the regular season victories, and the players would have been considered failures. Explain to me how it's a good thing for only one team's players and fans to end the season happy instead of half of the participating teams.

Obviously you subscribe to the "if you say it enough then people will eventually believe that it's true" theory. Winning a playoff rarely results in an undisputed winner. Even today people talk about Chris Webber's timeout. Even today people talk about the phantom pass interference call against Miami in OSU's championship. Rarely is a team so far above the competition that there is no doubt or debate about who was best, regardless of who won the actual tournament.

Which is part of the reason that playoffs are so stupid. If the regular season is meaningless, why play it at all? Why not just have the whole season be a playoff? Who cares if Team A was one of the worst teams in the country at the start of the season; if they're the hottest team at the end then by definition they're a better team than Team B who was very good the entire season.

That's total B.S. The only way a team goes undefeated and gets no consideration for the national championship is if they don't play anyone along the way. That was the problem with Utah, but I guarantee that if Louisville had beaten Miami on the way to an undefeated season, people would have given them consideration. Of course, they wouldn't have played in the game because you still would have had more undefeated teams than spots in the championship game, but that's very rarely an issue. Moreover, the computers don't care what conference you're from or how much you're on television. They rank you by your performance, so you'll be ahead of the Notre Dames if you actually deserve to be.

This is really the only good argument for a playoff system. It would be horribly unfair (much moreso than the current system), but it would make for some great drama. So you have to decide for yourself which is more important, drama or fairness.

 

Nah, it actually is different. The difference is that playoffs are a one and done system whereas the regular season is not (theoretically anyway). That's relevant because luck definitely plays a part during the regular season as well, but over a larger sample size the luck tends to even out (in any sport).

 

The playoff ends the speculation by the fans, the critics, and the media and allows the teams to decide, on the field, of who is the best.

If Colorado, Toledo, or any other team beat Texas in the national playoff, then yes, they were better than the Longhorns in the end.

"Every Dog Has His Day"

Maybe I was a little bit excessive to say "luck would be eliminated". However, BigDan is right, it's luck and skill.

If they're to qualify for the playoffs, they have to be good all-season long. I thought you realized that. But from what your're saying if a team is like Arkansas State (who I believe is the Sun Belt Conference champions), they lost 4 games early on in the non-conference, but managed to go 7-1 in conference play. They won their conference tournament and would have earned the right to play in the national playoffs. If they ran the table (no chance), then they'd be the best because they're the champs.

Oh My God... Which is more important? Both. And the playoff system gives the best teams a fair chance to determine, on the field, who is the national champion. Do you think it's fair to be undefeated and placed in a bowl game and have to hope a sports writer will vote for you? Do you think it's fair for Auburn, who was IMO the best team in America, to have to be one game short and not get a chance to play for the national title? The playoffs would have given Auburn that chance. It's fair, and it does give drama.

Let the teams settle it on the fuckin' field, not a sports writer in a conference room. It only makes sense.

 

Dan, had Notre Dame not been in the picture, Georgia would have been in. But since the BCS has the rule on Notre Dame, I had to put them in. Believe me, the Dawgs are highly worthy of being in the National Playoffs.

You can allow the conference title games and begin the playoffs the next week. That gives the playoffs more intrigue if a team who goes up against a highly ranked one, more incentive to beat them and to qualify for the national playoffs. Even with your proposal, the finals would be a week or two later than the conclusion of bowl games.