Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by CarolinaBuff, Jan 27, 2009.
Interesting read and a few good points....but I find it very difficult to buy into the comparison between College & NFL football since there is a much greater disparity between teams on the College level.
I for one love the college football regular season as it is by far the best in all of sports, and I'm fairly certain noone would argue against keeping it's value as is. I would think this could be maintained with a playoff system of only 8 or 10 teams, such as the 8 or 10 teams that play in a BCS game each year.
Strawman (the SI article). More than 30% of NFL teams make the playoffs. Even if the NCAA played a 16 team tournament, percentagewise less than half of that number would make it in. It would be an extraordinarily rare event for a 3 loss team to qualify.
It doesn't devalue the regular season to me. You still have to be near perfect to qualify for a playoff position IMO
I think what's being devalued is the body of work of any number of no-loss or one-loss teams who've been left home when a 2-loss L$U or a mediocre, over-publicized Luckeyes team has made it to the title game.
I love the bowls, but to determine a true champion? No.
I'd like to see a post-bowl set up. They could start small - say a "plus one", or a 4 team bracket. If this kind of format garnered sustained interest (I think it would), then an expanded playoff could be instituted. jmho
I hope never to see the 'plus 1' scenario. That would simply delay action on what really needs to be done.
It wouldn't be rare at all, with a 16-team playoff there'd be five or six 3+ loss teams in there.
Never have bought into this argument. I guess nobody pays attention to the college basketball regular season
If you had a 16 team playoff system, you'd still have teams with the same record as what teams 16, 15, 14, and 13 that wouldn't get in and complain and cry about how they were left out and didn't get it. It solves nothing.
In some years there are teams that are start out ranked high and barely drop out of the top 15 or 20 even if they lose 4 games through out their whole season. Some teams don't even crack the top 25 until they get to what 5-0. USC could start out # 1 go 3-2 in a five game spand and still stay in the top 20. CSU could start out 5-0 and they probably couldn't crack the top 25 and even if they did they would probably have to go undefeated and couldn't afford to lose a game at all. The argument can go on and on and on....
Let's face it someone will get screwed year in and year out and we're just going to have to live with it change or no change.
Ok, Dr. Saturday again demolishes the straw man argument using that the cardinals mean a college playoff would destroy the importance of the regular season...
I think that's a high number even if you assume a bunch of automatic qualifiers.
Its definitely not as popular or exciting as college football. You know from the very beginning of the season that North Carolina, Duke, etc. are gonna make the tournament almost everytime and if they lose 5 or 6 games... so what, all they need to do is get hot at the end. The best team in college basketball doesn't always win it all (in fact probably less than 50% of the time) and I know football is the same blah blah blah (and yeah a 4 team playoff would be great), but anything more than say 6 teams (2 with byes) WILL devalue the regular season.
8 teams seems perfect to me. A little devaluation is fine as long as the champion is legit... plus a playoff would be ****ing sweet!
The BCS is great. I mean, who didn't think nebraska belonged in the national championship game in 2002?
Nobody does pay attention to the college basketball regular season.
That's because basketball is boring :smile2:
I guess I didn't realize that the ACC, Big East, ummm KU are playing to empty arenas during the regular season. Thanks for setting me straight. :thumbsup:
There was just an column in the newsroom about this very subject. Sure the regular season means something in North Carolina and Lawrence. But even in Missouri, where they're having a great year, nobody seems to really care much.
Bad link (for me anyway). I still say it's bull**** that a national playoff would hurt college football. Why is it the ONLY sport in the USA without a playoff system? I just don't buy into the lame-brained conference presidents and other shills that are too greedy to give up the worthless bowl system.
I somewhat even agree with the guy because he touches the main problem I have with a playoff system: Do enough to get in, get hot at the right time and bob´s your uncle.
Are the 08 Giants a better team than the 08 Patriots just because they got hot at the right time and beat them in one game?
Finding a perfect system in US sports is hard due to the sheer amount of teams, but playoffs aren´t perfect either because you can win a championship by simply getting hot at the right time. Especially in football where one game decides everything.
That's sports in general, the teams that get on a roll at the right time usually win. Why is that even a factor in this debate? Given that argument we should abolish all playoffs and crown the teams with best records as champions.
How different sports or leagues determine a champion comes down to do you reward the best team throughout the whole season beginning to end, or do do you determine your champion by who plays marginally good enough throughout the whole regular season to qualify for the postseason and then proceeds to play best in a postseason playoff or tournament?
Every major team sport except college football chooses the latter, but that doesn't mean that college football is doing it wrong. It simply means that college football has the most meaningful regular season of the major team sports, and that's what makes the game unique.
I'm not sold that it would make the regular season meaningless. Particularly for those conferences with a championship game, a team had better take care of business from the git go or they won't get the chance to earn their place. Yes, there are occasions where a 2 or 3 loss team, after winning a CCG, would make it to the playoff. If you want to put this into perspective, think about the Buffs 2001 team - 2 fairly early losses, followed by a strong finish that included wins in consecutive weeks against top 5 teams. If there was a playoff in place then, you can't tell me that team wouldn't have deserved to be included.
Plus 1 - (I like this the least, but it may be easiest to initiate) After all the bowls are complete, #1 vs #2 in the rankings. The big 4 or 5 bowls could rotate like they do now.
Four Team - Rotate the bowls so that 2 host the semi game, and a third gets the title game. Probably would have to rotate several bowls for the semi games (lots of pressure and $ involved here).
Eight Team - Start the week after CCG games, higher ranked seeds (i.e., 1 vs 8) would host the game. The conferences with CCG's would keep their auto bid (PAC10, BIG12, BIG10, $EC, ACC) and others could be included based on rankings or by including smaller conferences if they are ranked at or above a certain level (in either format, Boise and Utah would have been included this year). After the first game, the bowls could be used again for the semi games and the title game.
Sixteen team - basically same as the eight team except higher ranked teams would host first 2 games. Also, this method could include the winners of smaller conferences, such as the WAC, MAC, etc., plus some at-large bids.
It's doable. The hang up is how to include the bowl games; the bowls and cities that host them will not want to give up anything - the tourism and $'s mean too much.
Sports Championships should NEVER be decided upon by a playoff system.
Think about it, just what would we be teaching our kids?
That good sportsmanship and giving it your all isn't good enough? That being a nice person isn't good enough? Why should you have to win a "championship" via a playoff when instead a majority of pollsters can simply view your body of work and then decide who the best is, much like a high school prom queen?
I can't believe our current system isn't good enough for some. Sure, you don't have to be the best in your conference (let alone the country) to play for a championship, but come on... when you're the sexy pick and you know it, you can win it all! Isn't that something?!!!!
Why oh why should Division I college football denigrate itself just to be like all other sports in this world that decide a "true champion" on the field? What purpose would that serve? I really can't imagine America NOT disputing a college football national champion from January through August simply because there has never been a true national championship game. Can you imagine an America where everyone agreed on a true champion? I think I'd be sick...
Playoffs? Nah.... I think we should continue to "vote" for the best...
For those who say schools would still bitch about being left out if they were 9th or 17th, I call BS. I would rather there be a debate as to who the 9th best team is vs. who is the #1 team. If you lost 3 games or stumbled in your Conference Championship game and fell down, better luck next year.
There are so many bowl games now to say it would "devalue" the bowl system is BS - that has already happened. There are already 5 BCS games, I am sure that Jerry Jones and his new Texas Stadium with the Cotton Bowl would love to be #6. There is your 8 game playoff - without touching any of the other bowls.
The only semi-legitimate argument I have heard is how much it would hurt lower D1-A schools and I-AA schools. A playoff system will most likely mean the NCAA will cut the 12th game and presumably keep the conference championship game (money). This means (for most) cutting an OOC game. Losing that game doesn't mean much to a larger, BCS program. However if you are lower-tier school, that game vs. larger name program means you meet your budget for the ENTIRE athletic department for the year.
I've never been in favor of the Plus-1 format. That's basically what we have now except it would be adding another game. Until or if there's a playoff, the bowls are the postseason.
I'm in favor a 4-team playoff because that way just about everyone could agree on the 4 truly legitimate NC contenders without compromising the importance of every regular season game. Using the bowls as the semifinal and championship game under the 4-team format is the scenario that Phil Steele advocates and I think it's the perfect solution. It also keep the bowls intact, which allows plenty of teams and their fans to get a postseason reward.
An 8-team playoff is too many because this would start to cause some late-season match-ups to lose their significance. For example, the respective losers of this past year's TT-OU and Bama-UF games would still have gotten in, depending on how the 8 teams are selected, of course. Which brings me to my next point, which is that I'd only be in favor of an 8-team playoff if they took the top 8 teams in the BCS standings, case closed. No auto conference bids because then you get teams like Cincinnati and VT in there.
16 is way too many.
I don't think a football playoff would render the regular season irrelevant either. But that's because there is still a relatively small number of teams in D-1 that have a legitimate shot at a championship. Unlike basketball, where they play 30+ games a year and there are over 200 D-1 schools, D-1 football is a different animal.
While it's certainly true that the regular season in college basketball has become largely ignored, that wouldn't be the case in football.
Great points on the sheer numbers. I'll watch a college bball game every now and then during the regular season, but I don't get really interested until March Madness. It doesn't hold my undivided attention like every Saturday in autumn (and I'm sure I'm not the only one...). Each and every game has it's own level of anticipation, it's own flavor, for the schools, teams, and fans alike. Every game is important and I don't believe modifying the post-season will change that.
Oh, boy... Another reason why other than watching the Buffs, I can care less about college football now. The whole thing is pointless if there is not clear cut national champion that any team could win. If you have less than 16 teams in the playoffs then it isn't fair for all teams and if you aren't going to give a team like Utah, or Ball State a chance to play for it all then they shouldn't be alllowed to play against teams that can win it all. Either include them, or don't!
Conferece champs (or for those conferences that don't declare a champion, their conference gets to send one team) should get a playoff spot and then the other half dozen or so spots should go to the highest ranked teams that are not already in the playoffs. This way, any team can make it into the playoffs and the regular season is still just as important.
A plus 1 system (as said above) does nothing as most years there will still be an argument. Just look at this year, it would have solved nothing as about 4 teams had a good gripe at the end of the year.
A 4 team playoff does about the same as the plus 1. Still leaves too many out.
An 8 team playoff is getting better and includes most teams that could have a gripe, but deciding which teams get in is still too much like voting. If you have 5 undefeated teams and then 6 one loss teams it is unfair to leave out a one loss team that that is a conference champion or maybe really coming on at the end of the year.
Now a 16 team playoff will include any team that has a gripe about being considered and it includes any team that was good enough to be the best from their conference. Best of all, no team could get the Utah treatment and the regular season is just as important as it is now. Slip up once and that team that just beat you could be the team that wins your conference and that loss may drop you out of the top 16. One loss probably isn't enough to knock most teams out of it but two might just do it if you have been scheduling cup cakes the whole season.
I just don't see any flaws with a 16 team playoff and most importantly there is no way that any team that could possibly have any gripe about being left out of a National Championship game could be left out.
Separate names with a comma.