The ongoing playoff debate

[neil29fp]

Could you imagine how much more exciting the regular season would be if the Buffs had 2 losses and were ranked somewhere around 13th, vying for a spot in a 16-team playoff--I would still be interested--more so even because we still have a shot. The whole argument of devaluing the regular season is nonsense; in fact, I think it would be the complete opposite. Instead of talking about 4-5 teams in November, you're now talking about the playoff prospects of 17-20 teams. Everybody loves a cinderella. I also hate the argument of 'it would be unfair to teams ranked 17th, 18th, ...'--are you serious?!? Someone will always feel left out--it's the nature of the beast, but at least it's a party instead of a cockfest.

 

[Mr. Babar]

Could you imagine how much more exciting the regular season would be if the Buffs had 2 losses and were ranked somewhere around 13th, vying for a spot in a 16-team playoff--I would still be interested--more so even because we still have a shot. The whole argument of devaluing the regular season is nonsense; in fact, I think it would be the complete opposite. Instead of talking about 4-5 teams in November, you're now talking about the playoff prospects of 17-20 teams. Everybody loves a cinderella. I also hate the argument of 'it would be unfair to teams ranked 17th, 18th, ...'--are you serious?!? Someone will always feel left out--it's the nature of the beast, but at least it's a party instead of a cockfest.

1. The regular season would be devalued. In five years no one would remember that USC lost to Oregon St this year if there was a playoff. There are numerous examples to be made of why the regular season would be downplayed.

2. There are 117 D1 football teams! You can't play three games a week (ala March Madness). If you have a 16 team playoff then 101 teams would have nothing to play for once they lost their 3rd or 4th game (typically a cutoff for a top 16 ranking).

3. Back to the regular season. College football has THE most exciting regular season of ANY sport. In how many other sports to you hear the phrase "the intensity picks up in the playoffs" - that's because every team knows they don't have to win every regular season game! Have you ever heard - "teams pick up the intensity when they get to a bowl."

4. Playoffs would still leave something to be desired. Let's say a team goes 12-0 in the regular season in the Big 12. They go to the playoffs and get upset (turnovers, injuries, etc which happen) by a team that was 8-4 in the 1st round. Would that be justice? What if you had two 12-0 teams and ended up with a national title game between two teams with 3 losses!

5. The BCS isn't a great system; however, a playoff would still use a similar system to rank and seed the playoff teams.

I am 100% opposed to any sort of playoff system in college football. I know I'm in the vast minority on this issue, but you can't convince me a playoff would make college football any better in any way.

 

[Daaah]

2. There are 117 D1 football teams! You can't play three games a week (ala March Madness). If you have a 16 team playoff then 101 teams would have nothing to play for once they lost their 3rd or 4th game (typically a cutoff for a top 16 ranking).

Huh? What does a team have to play for at this point once they have 3 losses that would be lost if a playoff was instituted?

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

1. The regular season would be devalued. In five years no one would remember that USC lost to Oregon St this year if there was a playoff. There are numerous examples to be made of why the regular season would be downplayed.

All the more reason to take care of business during the reg season. And, imo, I'd remember one of the "elite" teams cruising to a playoff berth, only to be derailed by a lesser team. That would be talked about for years.

2. There are 117 D1 football teams! You can't play three games a week (ala March Madness). If you have a 16 team playoff then 101 teams would have nothing to play for once they lost their 3rd or 4th game (typically a cutoff for a top 16 ranking).[/quote]

I'm not sure we'll ever see a 16 team playoff. But if it did happen, they games would have to start by the 2nd week of December.

3. Back to the regular season. College football has THE most exciting regular season of ANY sport. In how many other sports to you hear the phrase "the intensity picks up in the playoffs" - that's because every team knows they don't have to win every regular season game! Have you ever heard - "teams pick up the intensity when they get to a bowl."[/quote]

Teams would know that there would be an auto-bid to the conference champion, and a slim chance for an at-large. Intensity would be ramped up from game 1.

4. Playoffs would still leave something to be desired. Let's say a team goes 12-0 in the regular season in the Big 12. They go to the playoffs and get upset (turnovers, injuries, etc which happen) by a team that was 8-4 in the 1st round. Would that be justice? What if you had two 12-0 teams and ended up with a national title game between two teams with 3 losses![/quote]

That may happen in a playoff system. Much better than seeing undeserving teams (read, the LuckEyes, the fuskers) being "appointed" to the title game based on ranking, etc.

5. The BCS isn't a great system; however, a playoff would still use a similar system to rank and seed the playoff teams.

True, there may be no other way to do it.[/quote]

 

[Mr. Babar]

Huh? What does a team have to play for at this point once they have 3 losses that would be lost if a playoff was instituted?

Um, a bowl game. The bowl games would mean even less if there was a playoff. Maybe a NIT style playoff of the next 16, that'd be fun... :huh:

 

[Buttermaker]

Um, a bowl game. The bowl games would mean even less if there was a playoff. Maybe a NIT style playoff of the next 16, that'd be fun... :huh:

Disagree, the bowl games would be just as meaningless as they are now.

 

[Mr. Babar]

Disagree, the bowl games would be just as meaningless as they are now.

I guess we could say the same thing as this whole debate topic. I was watching the highlights of the 1983 Sugar Bowl (Nebraska/Miami) a few weeks ago and during the game the announcers were talking about whether college football should use a playoff format.

This debate has been going on for at least 25 years, so I guess I'm not going to get to worked up over the issue. I don't think we should have a playoff, a lot of other people think we should. That's fine with me.

 

[MtnBuff]

I very much agree with the original SI article. The BCS is not perfect but it does a number of things. It gives us a champion that is closest to who was best over the entire season, not just who managed to get in and get hot at the end. It also makes the college football regular season the most intriguing in all of sports. If you don't believe that a playoff system would not impact the interest in the regular season look at the TV ratings for college BB in December and January compared to the playoffs, quick without looking tell me what are the three games today matching the highest ranked teams, can't do it off the top of your head can you. During the college football season we know every week who is playing a big game because those games MATTER. If Georgetown beats Marquette or Washington beats Arizona state or vice versa (those are two of the three games matching ranked teams) nobody outside of the schools gives a crap because all four teams will end up in the tourney and with pretty goods seeds.

If you think that a tournament gives you the best team as a champion look at the number of teams that have won the tourney with 5 or more losses on their records. A team can have a great season then end up with an injury or simply a bad match-up and the season means nothing, they are going home. If this is not enough look at the previously posted examples of teams that had mediocre seasons in the NFL who won the super bowl. Why not just be like hockey and let in half the teams playing, after all isn't that the new American way, everyone gets another chance no matter how pathetic they were when they should have been playing like a team that wanted to win.

Another question is after the tourney is over (or your playoff in the NFL, etc.) other than the winning team nobody cares. In college football we have exactly this argument running till the next season. I have no question in my mind that given a play-off Utah gets killed before they even sniff the championship game. Under the current system they and their fans can spend the next quarter century reveling in the glory of their "undefeated season", Boise can remember the big win over OU, etc.

The arguement that every other sport has a play-off is the best argument for why college football should not. It is a unique game with a unique place in American culture. It may be fun to argue about a playoff, if we had one we would argue about who should be in it. We have arguments every year about who should have gotten into the pathetically bloated NCAA BB final 65. What we cannot argue is that if we had a play-off system college football would be irreparably changed. I for one do not want screw up something that is more interesting and more fun than any other sport.

 

[Timbuff10]

In a legit playoff system, the regular season would be just as important as it currently is.

The key to any post season is to make it possible for any team to win it all. Afterall, if you can't win, what is the point? Losing isn't fun!

The only way you can do this is to give every conference a chance to send their best team to the playoffs and then use rankings to seed them. With the remaining half dozen or so spots, you use the rankings that we currently use and select the highst ranked teams that are not already in the playoffs. Teams would be fighting like mad to the end to be selected their conference champion. One loss and you could be faced with having to be ranked high enough to get one of those few seeds for ranked teams. Every regular season game is still huge, if not bigger.

If a 12-0 USC type team gets beat by a 16th seed Ball State type team, that 12-0 team obviously didn't deserve to advance or get a free pass to the championship game. And yes, that would be justice!

 

[buffwings]

In a legit playoff system, the regular season would be just as important as it currently is.

The key to any post season is to make it possible for any team to win it all. Afterall, if you can't win, what is the point? Losing isn't fun!

The only way you can do this is to give every conference a chance to send their best team to the playoffs and then use rankings to seed them. With the remaining half dozen or so spots, you use the rankings that we currently use and select the highst ranked teams that are not already in the playoffs. Teams would be fighting like mad to the end to be selected their conference champion. One loss and you could be faced with having to be ranked high enough to get one of those few seeds for ranked teams. Every regular season game is still huge, if not bigger.

If a 12-0 USC type team gets beat by a 16th seed Ball State type team, that 12-0 team obviously didn't deserve to advance or get a free pass to the championship game. And yes, that would be justice!

:yeahthat: This is BS. The only major sport pro or college that doesnt have a playoff system. It's friggin monopoly by the same "big" schools year in and year out. FYI, we're not one of them.

The sooner a playoff is implemented that better the game will be for all not just the schools that have won multi MNC and pay the most. Every team will have a stake in the game and has a chance to compete.

 

[Timbuff10]

Yeah, I think the biggest problem, and one that no one ever brings up is, if small schools can't possibly win the championship, why are the big schools allowed to even play them?

People say, "well, if Ball state wants to win it all, they need to schedule the big boys". For some reason, I don't think Ball State will be able to get USC, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and Alabama on their schedule next year.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

In a legit playoff system, the regular season would be just as important as it currently is.

Yup. Even with a 16 team playoff it'd be very hard for teams to make the playoffs with 2 losses or more. With 8 teams it would be really difficult. In fact, even OOC would become more important.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I very much agree with the original SI article. The BCS is not perfect but it does a number of things. It gives us a champion that is closest to who was best over the entire season, not just who managed to get in and get hot at the end. It also makes the college football regular season the most intriguing in all of sports. If you don't believe that a playoff system would not impact the interest in the regular season look at the TV ratings for college BB in December and January compared to the playoffs, quick without looking tell me what are the three games today matching the highest ranked teams, can't do it off the top of your head can you. During the college football season we know every week who is playing a big game because those games MATTER. If Georgetown beats Marquette or Washington beats Arizona state or vice versa (those are two of the three games matching ranked teams) nobody outside of the schools gives a crap because all four teams will end up in the tourney and with pretty goods seeds.

If you think that a tournament gives you the best team as a champion look at the number of teams that have won the tourney with 5 or more losses on their records. A team can have a great season then end up with an injury or simply a bad match-up and the season means nothing, they are going home. If this is not enough look at the previously posted examples of teams that had mediocre seasons in the NFL who won the super bowl. Why not just be like hockey and let in half the teams playing, after all isn't that the new American way, everyone gets another chance no matter how pathetic they were when they should have been playing like a team that wanted to win.

Another question is after the tourney is over (or your playoff in the NFL, etc.) other than the winning team nobody cares. In college football we have exactly this argument running till the next season. I have no question in my mind that given a play-off Utah gets killed before they even sniff the championship game. Under the current system they and their fans can spend the next quarter century reveling in the glory of their "undefeated season", Boise can remember the big win over OU, etc.

The arguement that every other sport has a play-off is the best argument for why college football should not. It is a unique game with a unique place in American culture. It may be fun to argue about a playoff, if we had one we would argue about who should be in it. We have arguments every year about who should have gotten into the pathetically bloated NCAA BB final 65. What we cannot argue is that if we had a play-off system college football would be irreparably changed. I for one do not want screw up something that is more interesting and more fun than any other sport.

Excellent post.

Yeah, I think the biggest problem, and one that no one ever brings up is, if small schools can't possibly win the championship, why are the big schools allowed to even play them?

People say, "well, if Ball state wants to win it all, they need to schedule the big boys". For some reason, I don't think Ball State will be able to get USC, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and Alabama on their schedule next year.

To say that all 120 I-A schools are realistic NC contenders heading into every season is ludicrous. There are 3-4 different levels of competition within I-A football, mainly due to the sheer number of teams and vastly different resource pools at this level. When teams like Marshall, Buffalo, etc. moved up to the I-A level, they knew full well what they were getting into.

 

[Timbuff10]

Excellent post.




To say that all 120 I-A schools are realistic NC contenders heading into every season is ludicrous. There are 3-4 different levels of competition within I-A football, mainly due to the sheer number of teams and vastly different resource pools at this level. When teams like Marshall, Buffalo, etc. moved up to the I-A level, they knew full well what they were getting into.

Well that is the main problem then. If a team can only lose, the the fix is in already.

It is very unlikely that a team like Buffalo or Rice could pull it off, but if it could, why is that so bad? Saying they don't deserve it at that point is ludicrous.

Besides, with a 16 team playoff where conf champs get in, there would only be about 4-5 teams from non-traditional conferences that get in anyway. Believe it or not, they would actually be pretty good teams.

 

[ladyblaise]

i am curious if everyone here who supports a playoff is down with the ncaa controlling the cash flow from said playoff?

they do not get to touch it now.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Everything is in place to have a playoff already. Take the conference champs of every major division, two wild cards for teams like Utah and such. Use the bowls as playoff games. Have a college super bowl the week before the nfl super bowl. all they would have to do is take off a regular season game or 2. its doable but if you know who runs college football, you know why it isnt being done.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Conference champs only, let teams like USC and Texas bitch. You really have no gripe, win you conference and your in. If you dont, your not, simple. Its how Texas High Schools used to do it. Win district or no playoffs, now like 3 teams from each district go. Other words its watered down cause they let too many teams in.

 

[nucurivals]

I don't know if the "GOOD O'L BOYS" down in the south that run the orange, sugar, gator, bowls etc would ever let it happen. When the new pres said he would lend a hand to help with a playoff they released a statement that was basically a F**K YOU - Worry about running the country and we'll run CFB. I remember telling a usc fan back in 2003 when lsu went to the sugar bowl, Do you really think that the good o'l boys are not going to have a team 90 miles away in the title game? He told me that they did every calculation and that there was no way usc would not be playing in the sugar bowl. I told him you didn't calculate "Southern Politics"

 

[Timbuff10]

Could an outside company/promoter set up a 16 team playoff and televise it and set up the whole packge with the money and all and then offer it up to the schools? I know they can make way more money like this than under the current system. In the end, it is all about money. Question is, do the schools get to make the choice or does the NCAA and the good old boys get to make it?

 

[nucurivals]

So far the "good o'l boys" are making it.