If college football were to have a playoff...

#1
XtennesseeX

XtennesseeX

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
6,300
Likes
15
#1
...what would be the best style of playoff? How would you implement it?

After reading a thread on Boise State, I wanted to have a good discussion on playoffs. I did a search on VN, and to what I found, were no threads on a true debate on what type of playoff would make the most sense to college football. There is always debate on whether or not to have a playoff, keep the BCS as is, or scrap the system and go back to the days before the late 90's.

You generally have a number of camps when it comes to the discussion of playoffs. There are ones who want a plus-one format. People who would like an all out sixteen team playoff (A college football version of March Madness, if you will). Following them somewhere in the middle, you have the ones who would like an eight team playoff.

The debate surrounding playoffs generally derives from arguments on whether or not college football has a true champion, and if we had a playoff - could the players/schools handle the extra games, and preparations for them.

How can you go about having a playoff, solve the majority of the controversy, and keep the regular season meaningful as it is today? How do you keep the tradition of bowl games for teams who do not qualify for playoffs? Do you somehow incorporate bowl games within or around the playoffs? When would the postseason start and finish? Would the number of regular season games change? Would you have conference championship games? Or do you scrap it all and start over?

I'm starting this thread with the hope of getting some good discussion about the whole topic of how to get a playoff done. How would you do it? Is college football capable of a large change or do we see a minor shift to a plus-one format?
 
#3
#3
For me to tackle the issue of keeping "the tradition of bowl games for teams", you are going to have to define for me what the tradition is. As far as I can tell, the BCS already smashed up the tradition to pieces anyway, and it will never go back to how it was.
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
For me to tackle the issue of keeping "the tradition of bowl games for teams", you are going to have to define for me what the tradition is. As far as I can tell, the BCS already smashed up the tradition to pieces anyway, and it will never go back to how it was.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't care about the future of bowl games. However, when people talk about playoffs, one of the first things brought up - is how to keep the bowl games, and how much it means to players, coaches, the schools and fans.

For me, it isn't a huge worry, however it is an issue to tackle when talking about implementing playoffs. If you're adding a plus-one format, it really doesn't matter.
 
#5
#5
Would an eight team playoff be good for college football? I know it would still provide controversy if you gave automatic bids to BCS conference teams.

This would have been what happened last season.

8 team playoff

Conference Champions

#1 Alabama (13-0) - SEC
#2 Texas (13-0) - Big XII
#7 Oregon (10-2) - PAC-10
#8 Ohio State (10-2) - Big Ten
#9 Georgia Tech (11-2) - ACC
#3 Cincinnati (12-0) - Big East

At Large

#4 TCU (12-0) - MWC
#5 Florida (12-1) - SEC

Teams left out

#6 Boise State (13-0) - WAC

If you were to have the top eight of the AP advance to the playoffs - take out Georgia Tech, and add Boise State.
 
#6
#6
Auto-bids for Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC and ACC.

Even Kornheiser said on PTI today that the Big East no longer deserves an automatic BCS bid. If that doesn't convince anybody they don't deserve it anymore, I don't know what will.

Three spots for the highest-ranked remaining at large teams. Seeding based entirely on BCS (or whatever ranking average you want to choose) standings.
 
#7
#7
XtennesseeX said:
Would an eight team playoff be good for college football? I know it would still provide controversy if you gave automatic bids to BCS conference teams.

This would have been what happened last season.

8 team playoff

Conference Champions

#1 Alabama (13-0) - SEC
#2 Texas (13-0) - Big XII
#7 Oregon (10-2) - PAC-10
#8 Ohio State (10-2) - Big Ten
#9 Georgia Tech (11-2) - ACC
#3 Cincinnati (12-0) - Big East

At Large

#4 TCU (12-0) - MWC
#5 Florida (12-1) - SEC

Teams left out

#6 Boise State (13-0) - WAC

If you were to have the top eight of the AP advance to the playoffs - take out Georgia Tech, and add Boise State.
Click to expand...

2008 would have been a worse nightmare under an 8 team format. Conference winners were Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn St, Va Tech, and Cincy. Next two in rankings were Texas and Alabama.

Utah would have been left out, the same undefeated Utah which beat Alabama on a neutral field.

A +1 in 2008 would have also omitted Utah as Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, and Texas were the top four ranked teams. USC with 1 loss would have stirred more controversy.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
milohimself said:
Auto-bids for Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC and ACC.

Even Kornheiser said on PTI today that the Big East no longer deserves an automatic BCS bid. If that doesn't convince anybody they don't deserve it anymore, I don't know what will.

Three spots for the highest-ranked remaining at large teams. Seeding based entirely on BCS (or whatever ranking average you want to choose) standings.
Click to expand...

For once I agree with Kornheiser. ACC also needs to step it up or lose their AQ status. Less than a .200 winning % in BCS games looks bad for them when the WAC and MWC are each 2-1.
 
#9
#9
Best style of playoffs would be 4 teams. Very hard to get in and every regular season loss still remains a huge blow to getting in. Absolutely no auto-bids whatsoever. Just finish in the top 4.
 
#10
#10
tvolsfan said:
Best style of playoffs would be 4 teams. Very hard to get in and every regular season loss still remains a huge blow to getting in. Absolutely no auto-bids whatsoever. Just finish in the top 4.
Click to expand...

This is the most likely scenario if a playoff comes around. It would require minimal changes to the current BCS system. Alternate two of the BCS games every year to be part of the playoff and take the current fifth NCG (which is already a week later) as a match between the two winners.
 
#11
#11
milohimself said:
Auto-bids for Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC and ACC.

Even Kornheiser said on PTI today that the Big East no longer deserves an automatic BCS bid. If that doesn't convince anybody they don't deserve it anymore, I don't know what will.

Three spots for the highest-ranked remaining at large teams. Seeding based entirely on BCS (or whatever ranking average you want to choose) standings.
Click to expand...

Warning: I'm thinking aloud and rambling...

That sounds pretty good.

However, Vercingetorix, and Vandyfan were having a good debate in the other thread about whether or not there are any benefits of playing a tough OOC schedule. I was having that same discussion in another thread a couple of days ago.

There could be a problem in giving automatic bids to BCS conferences. If teams feel that playing cupcake OOC games gives them a better chance at winning the conference title, then teams have no reason to play a touch OOC schedule. Although, perhaps by giving an auto bid to the playoffs by winning the conference - you encourage teams to get ready for conference play by taking on stronger opponents out of conference.

Having a ranking system similar to that of the BCS and having a bigger component to a teams schedule strength might encourage and reward teams that are willing to play other tough opponents. It would also mean teams like Boise State would have to continue playing and beating teams like VT to gain that schedule strength.
 
#12
#12
tvolsfan said:
Best style of playoffs would be 4 teams. Very hard to get in and every regular season loss still remains a huge blow to getting in. Absolutely no auto-bids whatsoever. Just finish in the top 4.
Click to expand...

My only problem with that is you're still giving a lot of power to the pollsters. At least with an eight team playoff, the teams who are left out generally have two or more losses - therefore can't really complain about being left out.
 
#13
#13
Four top BCS teams seeded according to BCS ranking. 3 games later, you've got your champion. There has never been and never will be an 8th ranked team deserving a shot at a National Championship.
 
#14
#14
Plus 1, Final Four, whatever you want to call it. It's the best compromise. It gives us who want a playoff a playoff but doesn't screw up the regular season. Sure #5 will complain but's better than #3 complaining.

And seriously, the non-playoff people need to drop the "tradition of the bowls" crap, unless by "tradition" they mean "money". Don't give me this tradition crap when you have 40 freakin' bowls and a 6-6 record gets you a bid. Tradition went out the window a LONG time ago.
 
#15
#15
kptvol said:
Four top BCS teams seeded according to BCS ranking. 3 games later, you've got your champion. There has never been and never will be an 8th ranked team deserving a shot at a National Championship.
Click to expand...

True, but the whole "settle it on the field" thing goes away when you leave out an undefeated #5 Boise State and take undefeated #4 TCU.

TCU had a stronger conference schedule to go through, but using revisionist history - Boise State beat TCU on a neutral site.

I'd rather give an 8th place team a shot than leave out a team like a Boise, or someone who had a terrible preseason rank - therefore has a more unforgiving time getting inside the top four.

I'll take a plus-one (since it's way more likely), but I'd rather have an eight team playoff.
 
#16
#16
XtennesseeX said:
My only problem with that is you're still giving a lot of power to the pollsters. At least with an eight team playoff, the teams who are left out generally have two or more losses - therefore can't really complain about being left out.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, almost all the controversy so far would have been solved with a 4 team playoff, such as 2003 or 2004. There have been situations, like last year, where someone may have complained, but I'd much rather hear them complain than allow a 2 or even 3 loss team ranked 8 the same shot at national championship as an unbeaten team ranked number 1. I understand Auburn's complaint about 2004, but I certainly wouldn't want to give a team like Iowa last year a shot at a national title. I think that allowing 8 teams would begin to diminish the regular season.
 
#17
#17
Or at the end of the day - you could take the top 5 teams and have a play in game. I can't remember who on ESPN was talking about that idea.

#1 vs (#4 vs #5)
#2 vs #3
 
#18
#18
XtennesseeX said:
Or at the end of the day - you could take the top 5 teams and have a play in game. I can't remember who on ESPN was talking about that idea.

#1 vs (#4 vs #5)
#2 vs #3
Click to expand...
I could even understand 6, like one conference in the NFL. I'd rather it be 4, but I could live with 6.
 
#20
#20
tvolsfan said:
The way I see it, almost all the controversy so far would have been solved with a 4 team playoff, such as 2003 or 2004. There have been situations, like last year, where someone may have complained, but I'd much rather hear them complain than allow a 2 or even 3 loss team ranked 8 the same shot at national championship as an unbeaten team ranked number 1. I understand Auburn's complaint about 2004, but I certainly wouldn't want to give a team like Iowa last year a shot at a national title. I think that allowing 8 teams would begin to diminish the regular season.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly that a plus-one would go along way with solving the majority of the past controversies.

I would support a plus-one, 100%.

However, I do think you will still create unfortunate events like last season where pollsters would have to choose between two undefeated teams, or two even teams in who to send home and who not to send home.
 
#22
#22
XtennesseeX said:
True, but the whole "settle it on the field" thing goes away when you leave out an undefeated #5 Boise State and take undefeated #4 TCU.

TCU had a stronger conference schedule to go through, but using revisionist history - Boise State beat TCU on a neutral site.

I'd rather give an 8th place team a shot than leave out a team like a Boise, or someone who had a terrible preseason rank - therefore has a more unforgiving time getting inside the top four.

I'll take a plus-one (since it's way more likely), but I'd rather have an eight team playoff.
Click to expand...

No way is ever going to be totally fair. Even in the NFL, you get some team from a garbage division in the playoffs with a record that's barely over .500 and some team that might be able to get hot at the right time (like the Giants a few years back) doesn't get it in even though they have a better record.
 
#23
#23
Scrap the bowl games. Keep the BCS but only as a way to identify the two and large teams. 6 BCS conference champions and 2 at large teams. Do it this way every year.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Redefine D-I first: You need 6-8 twelve team conferences.

Each conference should be made up of two divisions with a CG to crown the champ.

I believe the Pac10 is there now with their recent additions as well as the Big 10, SEC, and ACC. The Big 12 could add Boise and TCU to get back to 12. The Big East could add say- ND, ECU, a MAC team, and someone out of CUSA or the Sunbelt.

The rest of the mid-majors could be dropped back to FCS or else form a new level or form 1-2 new BCS conferences out of the "best of the rest".

Out of the major conferences you'd have 8 teams playing a 3 round tournament for the championship. Use NYD bowls for the first round, rotate the BCS venues for the 2nd and championship round.

This really doesn't require much change from the way it is done in practice now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top