Playoff In The Future...

#51
#51
tvolsfan said:
I'm sorry, but this argument is garbage. You think this past Iron Bowl means nearly as much if Auburn's just playing for home field advantage? If they lost, they're out under the current system. With a 16 team playoff, they probably finish number 3 and very possibly get home field advantage throughout anyways. But yeah, definitely wouldn't diminish the importance of the regular season at all.

8 teams is too much. The idea of a team like 2009 Iowa getting a shot at the national title is repulsive. It's not the game we've all loved for years. And no system with auto bids could possibly avoid diminishing the importance of the regular season. Don't believe me if you don't want to, but you would eventually see big rivalry games with the starters on the bench resting up for the conference title game.
Click to expand...

I would have disagreed with you 5 years ago, but I've turned a 180 on the "importance of the regular season" argument. I do buy it. I think it's a legit consideration.

I'll go along with a plus-one, but when we start talking 8-team or even ::cringe:: 16-team playoffs...ugh...I don't want anything to do with it. The baby gets tossed out with the bathwater.
 
#53
#53
Heck, here's my idea in summary.

Keep the regular season as is. The playoff would be 16 teams. Keep the BCS rankings system as is or incorporate an RPI formula to track the top 20 teams. Any conference champion who finishes in the top 20 in that poll would receive an auto invite. If you do not finish in the top 20, you do not (we will refer to this as the Big East rule). This helps ensure you don't have a 7-5 conference champ taking up a spot in the playoffs.

The "at-large" spots would be taken from the teams in the final top 20 poll and would be determined by a selection committee similar to the NCAA bball selection committee. They would also be in charge of seeding.

First two rounds would be at the higher seeded team and would be played on two Saturdays in December. Semifinals would be played New Year's Day at 2 bowl locations and the championship would be 8-10 days later.

I've got more specifics, but this is basically how I would do it. I still think 19 out of 20 years, one of your top 4 teams would win the national title
 
#55
#55
GreveHaller said:
There it is. The playoff > regular season.

And they said a playoff wouldn't diminish the regular season. Lol
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah dude, the playoff decides the champion on the field. Of course it will be more important than the regular season.

You still have to make it to the playoffs. What would be wrong with the eight seed winning it? Nothing in my mind. They won the playoff. Pretty simple concept.
 
#56
#56
kidbourbon said:
I would have disagreed with you 5 years ago, but I've turned a 180 on the "importance of the regular season" argument. I do buy it. I think it's a legit consideration.

I'll go along with a plus-one, but when we start talking 8-team or even ::cringe:: 16-team playoffs...ugh...I don't want anything to do with it. The baby gets tossed out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...


So if the eight beat the one seed they are not legitimized for the national championship?

I would like to see the average seed for the basketball winner for comparison.
 
#57
#57
kidbourbon said:
This isn't true at all. The best team often fails to win the super bowl or NCAA championship. The better team loses all the time in a single-elimination setting.

If you want to ensure that the best team wins the championship, the best way to do that is how they do it in baseball and pro basketball with a multiple game series. This obviously isn't an option for football.
Click to expand...

Can't the "best" team also sometimes lose a game in the regular season by sheer unluckiness?

What's the difference between the "best" team losing a regular season game with the current system, or a playoff game in the new one?

If one determines "best" by regular season play, then there are still those who can fall by the wayside, even though being undefeated. The undefeated teams don't play the same schedule, thus determining who is best by this is quite relative.

If one determines "best" by just overall talent, then one can't define the "best" team because they might lose a game because a few bad breaks. This is also relative.

But, with the playoff, the "best" team would be the one who could consistently beat the TOP teams 3-4 weeks in a row. A lucky team might beat a top team or 2, but no way do they beat 3 or 4 and win a championship.

Also, a really great team might have a minor slip and lose one game, whereas a lesser team plays a lesser schedule and makes it in to the BCS championship by virtue of an easier schedule.

For instance, take this hypothetical: Say that 'Bama goes 12-1 next season, but Oregon and FSU go undefeated. Oregon and FSU play inferior schedules compared to 'Bama's and yet they get left out in the cold. In the playoff set-up, 'Bama would get the chance to show they are truly the better team and smash Oregon and FSU.

Again, let's say that 'Bama loses only one game next year, while Oregon, FSU, and Ohio State all go undefeated with easier schedules.

Now we have 3 legit undefeated teams, but only 2 who can play for the title in the BCS. How does that work out? Let's say for the sake of the hypothetical that, because Oregon and FSU were higher ranked in the pre-season polls, an undefeated and better Ohio State team was unable to jump them. Thus, the polls ultimately decide the championship match-up, rather than the play on the field.

Now, let's say that Oregon has to play 'Bama, and FSU has to play Ohio State in a playoff format. Here we would see who the better teams really are, since you might have a one-loss team that is truly the best team in the nation, or an undefeated team that simply is unable to play in the NC by virtue of an early season poll ranking.

A play-off isn't perfect, either, and you'll still have those crying about being left out--BUT, since the net is cast wider for playoff teams, there is less dispute over an 11-1 team making the 8th playoff spot over a 10-2 team.
 
#59
#59
JoeKyleVol said:
1) Can't the "best" team also sometimes lose a game in the regular season by sheer unluckiness?

2) What's the difference between the "best" team losing a regular season game with the current system, or a playoff game in the new one?

.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT questions.
1) Yes, the best team in college football is susceptible to losing a game out of pure unluckiness.

2) The difference is that with the current system every game is a playoff game. Sure, some games are going to be obvious routs. But when the best team, or one of the top teams, is undefeated and is playing a team that has a legit shot at beating them, the game takes on a playoff atmosphere. And there are a handful of games like this every single Saturday. Which is why college football unquestionably has the best regular season of any sport.

This is why I am on the side of the middle-ground "plus-one" format. It doesn't change anything about how awesome the cfb regular season is. But what it does do, is prevent the Auburn 2003 or the LSU-USC situation in 2004. In other words, it takes care of the obviously unfair scenarios that are most likely to play out and piss off fans the most.
 
#60
#60
JoeKyleVol said:
If one determines "best" by regular season play, then there are still those who can fall by the wayside, even though being undefeated. The undefeated teams don't play the same schedule, thus determining who is best by this is quite relative.

If one determines "best" by just overall talent, then one can't define the "best" team because they might lose a game because a few bad breaks. This is also relative.

But, with the playoff, the "best" team would be the one who could consistently beat the TOP teams 3-4 weeks in a row. A lucky team might beat a top team or 2, but no way do they beat 3 or 4 and win a championship.

Also, a really great team might have a minor slip and lose one game, whereas a lesser team plays a lesser schedule and makes it in to the BCS championship by virtue of an easier schedule.

.
Click to expand...

(Part 2)

Again, your post is excellent and every point you have made is valid. And I absolutely, uequivocally agree that a playoff is a fairer way of determining a national champion. But the cfb regular season is the best thing it has going for it. It's what makes it so awesome. And so if I have a choice between a system that more fairly determines the champion at the end, or a system where things get a bit messy at the end but the you've got an entire regular season filled with games that have playoff type intensity that comes as a direct consequence of the fact that if the juggernaut *can't* have that slip-up game. It's simply not an option. They have to win out and so they play balls out.
 
#61
#61
JoeKyleVol said:
For instance, take this hypothetical: Say that 'Bama goes 12-1 next season, but Oregon and FSU go undefeated. Oregon and FSU play inferior schedules compared to 'Bama's and yet they get left out in the cold. In the playoff set-up, 'Bama would get the chance to show they are truly the better team and smash Oregon and FSU.

Again, let's say that 'Bama loses only one game next year, while Oregon, FSU, and Ohio State all go undefeated with easier schedules.

Now we have 3 legit undefeated teams, but only 2 who can play for the title in the BCS. How does that work out? Let's say for the sake of the hypothetical that, because Oregon and FSU were higher ranked in the pre-season polls, an undefeated and better Ohio State team was unable to jump them. Thus, the polls ultimately decide the championship match-up, rather than the play on the field.

Now, let's say that Oregon has to play 'Bama, and FSU has to play Ohio State in a playoff format. Here we would see who the better teams really are, since you might have a one-loss team that is truly the best team in the nation, or an undefeated team that simply is unable to play in the NC by virtue of an early season poll ranking.

A play-off isn't perfect, either, and you'll still have those crying about being left out--BUT, since the net is cast wider for playoff teams, there is less dispute over an 11-1 team making the 8th playoff spot over a 10-2 team.
Click to expand...

Right, casting the net over only two teams is obviously going to create issues nearly ever year.

But in college football, I honestly don't think it is necessary to cast the net any wider than four teams. If we're guided by the same question that guides us now -- which is: what two teams have the best argument to be included in the title game. And then we try to answer that question....well we might have trouble narrowing it down to two. We've seen this. There might be a third team that has an equivalent argumentn as the second team (or, like last year, a third and fourth team that maybe don't hae strong arguments for inclusion over the first and second teams...but it still feels like they've earned the right to get a shot). But has there ever been a fifth team? A fifth team with a resume that would permit such an argument to be considered? Short answer: there hasn't. Not in the BCS era. Maybe it could happen, but it'd be rare.

So, in sum, I recognize the problems you have pointed out with respect to the current system, and I believe the "plus-one" / final four system is a solution that solves the major problems without having the effect of harming the best regular season in all of sports.
 
#62
#62
theutvolunteers said:
So if the eight beat the one seed they are not legitimized for the national championship?

I would like to see the average seed for the basketball winner for comparison.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood where I was going with my argument. It wasn't about the possibility that the 8-seed wins the championship. I mean, it could happen but it wouldn't be the norm.

My point is that the importance of the regular season will diminish proportionally with the increased size of the playoff. A 16-team playoff would remove from college football the very best thing that it has going for it. It would become a lot more like the NFL.

When the best pro team loses a game, is it a big deal? Does it alter the landscape of the season as a whole? Of course not. Because they're still gonna make the playoffs. So every game isn't played like it's a single elimination game...because it's not. There si a whole "second season" to rest up and be preppred for.

I don'twant college football to become that. College football is about the regular season. I sound like a broken record, but it's true.

Finally...in response to your question about the average seed of the team that wins the NCAA championship. I don't kow for sure....I would guess that it would average out to somewhere just under 3. Perhaps 2.7. That's a completely arbitrary guess. I'm sure this number is probably a quick google search away.
 
#63
#63
tvolsfan said:
Still missing the point. How special is Stoerner's fumble or 'Rocky Block' or any of those moments in a 16 team playoff? Not very special at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think there would be multiple 'Rocky Block's and 'Stoerner fumble's that would be just as special to just as many people if they involved their teams advancing in the play-offs.

Additionally, there could be multiple of such moments leading up to the play-offs if they involved their teams making it to or staying in the top 8.

A play-off makes the regular season more important to more teams. That's more fans having more at stake.

tvolsfan said:
Not really, and the 8th place team shouldn't get a shot, anyways.
Click to expand...

Football superiority is best decided on the field. Not in a ballot box.

Since we can't have a play-off involving every team, the next best solution is to at least have the top teams play each other in elimination competition.
 
#64
#64
kidbourbon said:
My point is that the importance of the regular season will diminish proportionally with the increased size of the playoff. A 16-team playoff would remove from college football the very best thing that it has going for it. It would become a lot more like the NFL.
Click to expand...

There are 32 NFL teams that each play 17 games. 12 of them make the post-season. That's 37% of the entire league.

There are 120 D1 football teams that each play 12-13 games. In order for the regular season to be diminished in college football the way it is in the NFL, there would need to be a 45 team play-off and 4 more games played per season by every team.

So, college football would become only a rats-hair more like the NFL in the regular-season-diminishment sense. But, in return, it would become more like the NFL in the nobody-disputes-who-the-champ-is way. That's a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
wheaton4prez said:
Actually, I think there would be multiple 'Rocky Block's and 'Stoerner fumble's that would be just as special to just as many people if they involved their teams advancing in the play-offs.
Click to expand...
Big if. Certainly makes regular season upsets far less dramatic.



Football superiority is best decided on the field. Not in a ballot box.
Click to expand...
It usually is decided on the field.

Since we can't have a play-off involving every team, the next best solution is to at least have the top teams play each other in elimination competition.
Click to expand...
Agreed, if it's 4 teams.
 
#67
#67
utvolpj said:
so UT should have played Tulane in 98?
Click to expand...

I think they should have. at the VERY end of the season and you still have 2 or more undefeated teams....how can you say who is the NC's?
play until only one is left....same as if there are a bunch of 1 loss teams at the end of the year...you play till only 1 is ls left.
 
#68
#68
tvolsfan said:
Big if. Certainly makes regular season upsets far less dramatic.



It usually is decided on the field.


Agreed, if it's 4 teams.
Click to expand...

Problem is there are only 3 undefeated teams. There are 6 one loss teams in the top 25 right now.

Letting 1 one loss team play in a 4 team tourney while 5 others are omitted is no different than 2 undefeateds (Aub & Ore) playing for the NC while 1 (TCU) is left out
 
#69
#69
I don't care if it diminishes the regular season. The epic epic-ness of potential Florida vs. USC, Alabama vs. Ohio State, Oklahoma vs. Oregon, Wisconsin vs. LSU, post season match ups on a yearly basis would completely nullify the disappointment.
 
#70
#70
a 16 team playoff by rankings as seeds..I'll use the AP poll because the BCS is BS

16 Oklahoma St. VS 1 Auburn
15 Alabama VS 2 Oregon
14 Missouri VS 3 TCU
13 Nevada VS 4 Wisconsin
12 Virginia Tech VS 5 Stanford
11 LSU VS 6 Ohio St.
10 Boise St. VS 7 Michigan St.
9 Oklahoma VS 8 Arkansas

now PLEASE tell me why this is not great football?
ANY one of these teams could beat any of the other teams on a given day.
this my friends is what College Football is about...but we will never know it.
 
#71
#71
grimvol said:
a 16 team playoff by rankings as seeds..I'll use the AP poll because the BCS is BS

16 Oklahoma St. VS 1 Auburn
15 Alabama VS 2 Oregon
14 Missouri VS 3 TCU
13 Nevada VS 4 Wisconsin
12 Virginia Tech VS 5 Stanford
11 LSU VS 6 Ohio St.
10 Boise St. VS 7 Michigan St.
9 Oklahoma VS 8 Arkansas

now PLEASE tell me why this is not great football?
ANY one of these teams could beat any of the other teams on a given day.
this my friends is what College Football is about...but we will never know it.
Click to expand...

Simple.

If you cant win your conference, you're not a champion. A national champion is the best of all teams, not a 2nd place in your conference
 
#72
#72
+1 is all collgege football needs. Have the 1 seed play the 4 seed in one BCS bowl and the 2 and 3 seed in another. Rotate the "playoff" and the championship among the bowls as they do currently and that should take care of it.
 
#73
#73
Another problem with the current system is that the regular season is already meaningless for the vast majority of FBS football teams.

Unless your a team from an AQ conference who has a big enough name, it isn't going to matter if you go undefeated---you'll still wind up playing in just another meaningless bowl while the monoply of tradition-laden teams get the nod for champiomship chances.

The regular season might mean something to a few big schools who have a chance for the title in the current system, but for the rest it means nothing but playing in a dinky bowl.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
JoeKyleVol said:
Another problem with the current system is that the regular season is already meaningless for the vast majority of FBS football teams.

Unless your a team from an AQ conference who has a big enough name, it isn't going to matter if you go undefeated---you'll still wind up playing in just another meaningless bowl while the monoply of tradition-laden teams get the nod for champiomship chances.

The regular season might mean something to a few big schools who have a chance for the title in the current system, but for the rest it means nothing but playing in a dinky bowl.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
The mid majors have a far better shot at the national title now than they would with a playoff.
 
#75
#75
tvolsfan said:
The mid majors have a far better shot at the national title now than they would with a playoff.
Click to expand...

How many mid-majors? One? Two, at most? For everyone else, by virtue of the name on their jersey, the regular season is meaningless.

Butler was a mid-major team in b-ball, and yet they went all the way to the title game. Of course, a football playoff isn't exactly comparable to a football play-off, but there is still the chance for the underdog to win. Which makes it exciting in that fact alone.

A playoff system gives meaning to the rest of college football, otherwise successful teams in non-AQ conferences are playing for the prestigious award of the Kraft Hunger Bowl...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top