College Playoff

[smithlabs]

I have a detailed version of my Perfect System. The top level goes like this.

(1) Only have 48 teams in D1 football.
(1a) four conferences of 12 teams, 6 divisions(aka superconferences)
(1b) Keep traditional conferences (a la 15 years ago) for all sports except football. [why should woman's vollyball be dictated by football revenue]
(1c) group conferences together for football play-ins (e.g. B1G and MAC)

(2) Have relegation games (think Premier League) to determine who those 48 teams are
(2a) Teams with winning records play in traditional bowl games and gain immunity.
(2b) Teams with loosing records play in relgation games at the end of the season.

(3) 12 game regular season schedule
(3a) play 8 conference games (your division + 3 from rival division)
(3b) play 2 "equal level" non-conference games (1's vs 1's, 12's vs 12's)
(3c) play 1 "preseason game" against a non-D1 opponent
(3d) play 1 protected "rivalry game"

(4) True national championship
(4a) conference champions enter 3 game playoff
(4b) Home field advantage in semi finals given to higher seeded teams. (e.g. B1G plays in Lucas Oil Field )
(4c) Seeding determined from a design of experiment type formula based on the previous year's bowl games and the two non-conference games. The non conference season matters, bowl games matter again AND we get to see compelling football.
(4b) Rotating national championship game


I think this system will generate an enormous amount of compelling football games. Every game still matters except the "preseason" and the "rivalry" which shouldn't need any extra hoopla. The money earning potential for this is really high (24 bowl games, 24 relegation games, play offs, conference championships and a lot of good football). There are a lot of teams with a "shot" at a national championship very late into the season.

 

[zincfinger]

Why even bother with 2 at-large teams? Seems like the perfect answer to the entire mess is simply have 4 Super-Conferences and let the 4 Champions play each other in a playoff.

Why even entertain the bizzaro world possibility of having a national champion who is not their conference champion?

Yep. If your desire is that national champions "prove it on the field", wild-cards absolutely should not be allowed. Nor should teams that win some third-rate conference, and only have to beat two quality opponents for the year to become "national champions". And conference champions should be decided by one-off, round-robin schedules. No subdivisions, no rematches, no 8-4 teams being "conference champion" over 11-1 teams who already beat them.

edit: And don't even get me started on college basketball, where you've got a "regular season conference champion", a "conference tournament champion", and then a national championship tournament on top of that. Christ. And don't get me wrong, March Madness is a hoot. But there's no doubt that it fails to single out "the best team" to a far greater extent than even the obviously lacking BCS does.

 

[BB73]

Why even bother with 2 at-large teams? Seems like the perfect answer to the entire mess is simply have 4 Super-Conferences and let the 4 Champions play each other in a playoff.

Why even entertain the bizzaro world possibility of having a national champion who is not their conference champion?

I've never been in favor of a large playoff system, but I would be able to support this system. It accomplishes some things that I would welcome:

1 - Four conference champions get in - period. You win your conference, or GTFO, regardless of how much ESPN wants to pimp you, so the Evil Empire can just stop trying to influence voters since it would be a waste of time. The SEC would have 1 team, the same as the B1G, PAC-xx, and the ACC. Mountain West-Big East-Conf.USA-WAC-MAC-Sun Belt: your teams suck, they're not invited. ESPN's lobbying for Boise State can just echo along the Snake River Canyon with Evel Knievel's exhaust fumes.

2 - It forces Notre Dame to get into a conference (whichever one, just pick one Domers, and get over yourselves), or to be left out of the NC race every year.

3 - The regular season still matters, at least the conference games. And teams would no longer be afraid to schedule marquee non-conference games early in the season. They could put on a show for conference bragging rights, and use those games as a measuring stick to find their own weaknesses, but a non-conference loss wouldn't affect anybody's chances at the NC, so there could be more quality OOC games in September. And that's a net win for fans, even though those games wouldn't drastically hurt the loser's chances of winning a national title. Because there would likely be a lot more of them.

 

[Zurp]

1 - Four conference champions get in - period. You win your conference, or GTFO, regardless of how much ESPN wants to pimp you, so the Evil Empire can just stop trying to influence voters since it would be a waste of time. The SEC would have 1 team, the same as the B1G, PAC-xx, and the ACC. Mountain West-Big East-Conf.USA-WAC-MAC-Sun Belt: your teams suck, they're not invited. ESPN's lobbying for Boise State can just echo along the Snake River Canyon with Evel Knievel's exhaust fumes.

I like it, except what if your team DOESN'T suck? You have ABSOLUTELY no way of getting in?

How about making each of the major conferences also have minor conferences. Like, Big Ten Major, and Big Ten Minor. Each year, the worst 3-4 teams in the major conference drops to the minor conference, and the best 3-4 teams in the minor conference gets promoted to the major conference. That way, the Poopstoppers University Plungers have a chance to get into a major conference and then to the national championship game, should they win the conference and the playoff game.

Of course, even if you allow games between major and minor conferences, it'll likely destroying some rivalries. But.. meh.. college football already is losing its former identity, especially if we're making playoffs.

 

[OH10]

The devil is in the details folks. What is the plan that would address where we are at this moment?

I'm tired of people proposing plans. 4 is better than 2. Let's just start with that premise and move from there.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a shit about a rematch if there were more than two teams. But since they've given us a non-sensical clusterfuck of a system that parcels it down to only 2, I'd rather those "2" not have already played.

 

[smithlabs]

I like it, except what if your team DOESN'T suck? You have ABSOLUTELY no way of getting in?

How about making each of the major conferences also have minor conferences. Like, Big Ten Major, and Big Ten Minor. Each year, the worst 3-4 teams in the major conference drops to the minor conference, and the best 3-4 teams in the minor conference gets promoted to the major conference. That way, the Poopstoppers University Plungers have a chance to get into a major conference and then to the national championship game, should they win the conference and the playoff game.

Of course, even if you allow games between major and minor conferences, it'll likely destroying some rivalries. But.. meh.. college football already is losing its former identity, especially if we're making playoffs.

2) Have relegation games (think Premier League) to determine who those 48 teams are
(2a) Teams with winning records play in traditional bowl games and gain immunity.
(2b) Teams with loosing records play in relgation games at the end of the season.

 

[zincfinger]

4 is better than 2. Let's just start with that premise and move from there.

Let's think about that premise for a moment. What is its basis? Is it just that larger number is better than smaller number? Is 8 better than 4, is 16 better than 8, is 64+2 better than 2, when it comes to determining who the best team is? In short, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your standalone premise.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Big school football needs a big time playoff and that's a fact. Another fact is that a playoff will not solve any of the problems in finding a national champion. At least not with the current system of rankings, schedules, conferences, and media. I have yet to see a playoff system offered that can fix these things. The more I think about it the more I agree with a thought I posted on another thread. The ncaa needs to be divided and 2 seperate polls only ranking teams within the divide needs to be created. While I doubt this is perfect it has to be easier to keep an eye on, and rank 60 teams than it is 117 or whatever. Someone..like FOX needs to step up and get the Tele contracts for a couple of conferences and sink some money into it if this is going to happen. I'm not saying FOX is less corrupt than espn..But I sure don't like the feeling of espn having any say so in what our ranking is before, during, or after the season. Just Imagine, tOSU 12-0, Texas 12-0, USC 12-0, LSU 12-0, I seriously doubt espn would have us in that same order. :osu:

 

[buckeyegrad]

Let's think about that premise for a moment. What is its basis? Is it just that larger number is better than smaller number? Is 8 better than 4, is 16 better than 8, is 64+2 better than 2, when it comes to determining who the best team is? In short, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your standalone premise.

Depends where you hit diminishing and negative returns. Once you go beyond 16, I think its clear that you are in the negative returns region. As for when diminishing returns start, hard to say, but its not between 2 and 4.

 

[BB73]

2) Have relegation games (think Premier League) to determine who those 48 teams are
(2a) Teams with winning records play in traditional bowl games and gain immunity.
(2b) Teams with loosing records play in relgation games at the end of the season.

Relegation sounds like a good idea to force teams to be competitive, but it would NEVER be approved by the University Presidents, who would see it as a way for a revenue stream to potentially dry up.

It's a well-intended idea, but it would go absolutely nowhere, so it's hardly worth discussing in terms of college football.

 

[BB73]

Big school football needs a big time playoff and that's a fact.

Nope. That's an opinion. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.

 

[OH10]

As for when diminishing returns start, hard to say, but its not between 2 and 4.

Exactly. People can debate how many teams until they're blue in the face, but 4 is better than 2. I'd rather have the 5th team complaining that the 3rd.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.

Is that a fact or are you just stating your opinion? :p

 

[Muck]

Big school football needs a big time playoff and that's a fact. Another fact is that a playoff will not solve any of the problems in finding a national champion.

So it's a fact that the college sport that is by far the most popular & lucrative needs to change to a system that won't fix any of the problems that people complain about eh?

Interesting things, facts.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

Nope. That's an opinion. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.

You're right..less of a fact..it's more of a truth. Seriously one team winning one game doesn't make that team the best team in the country. And looking at the sugarbowl losing said game doesn't mean you are not the best team in the country either.