College Playoff

[jwinslow]

None of that addresses the issue of a champion being selected between two teams with equal records and equal head-to-head results.

In a playoff scenario, I don't mind WVU & LSU ending up in the national final playing for the title. If it happens within the structure designed to create a compelling postseason, then so be it.

To shift the point slightly, why are you focused on eight teams as the target number, and why do you feel inclined to include conference runners-up?

I'm focused on 8 to preserve the existing bowl structure, particularly those below it, and to...

and why do you feel inclined to include conference runners-up?

prevent mediocrity from the alternative, champions of lousy conferences.

 

[jwinslow]

When the NFL season ends, I want to see a fun series of games crowning a champion. That's more entertaining than voting for who should play the undefeated Patriots.

I don't want to see the Patriots play their division foe they already beat (let's ignore the twice part for now). That's a stupid thing to vote for in a one game setting.

I don't mind if that defeated team reaches the playoffs as part of the 'create a better offseason' setup, and then ends up facing the patriots, whether it be a division foe (Jets / Bama) or cross-division foe (Giants / WVU).

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

I'm not sure this is a sustainable model. It works out nicely this time, but what happens when WVU isn't terrible?

I was wondering The same thing..What if LSU had lost to say Arkansas..what does it do to your model then? Then this race is wide open isn't it. Maybe not in reality mind you..but you can damn near make it a 16 team field at that point..and then it almost has a regional dimension like the tourney does.

At this point don't you need to start making #1's in each region? And those obviously should be picked by a special delegate from say canada?

 

[zincfinger]

In a playoff scenario, I don't mind WVU & LSU ending up in the national final playing for the title. If it happens within the structure designed to create a compelling postseason, then so be it.

So would it be fair to say, then, that your primary interest here is that the structure be designed to create a compelling post-season?

I'm focused on 8 to preserve the existing bowl structure, particularly those below it, and to...prevent mediocrity from the alternative, champions of lousy conferences.

I think a structure which excludes BCS conference runners-up and also excludes mid-majors is possible.

 

[RhodeIslandBuck]

I'm not sure this is a sustainable model. It works out nicely this time, but what happens when WVU isn't terrible? Now LSU might have to play a 3rd in the BCS boise or TCU team.Minor correction, it should be Boise @ Fiesta. And did TCU go there because they were ranked between Bama & WVU? (same as Boise)

Last year it would be:

Fiesta: Oklahoma vs TCU
Orange: Va Tech vs Ohio St
Rose: Oregon vs Wisconsin
Sugar: Auburn vs Arkansas

No TCU goes because you have to win your conference in order to get the non-AQ spot. Something Boise didn't do. But yes TCU goes there because they are ranked between Bama and WVU, just like Okie State is ranked between LSU and Clemson.

Actually, last year would look more like this (at least in my proposal)
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Stanford
Orange: TCU vs. Virginia Tech
Rose: Oregon vs. Wisconsin
Sugar: Auburn vs. Connecticut

 

[buckeyegrad]

No, what I said was that, in my opinion, the only playoff that would substantively address the alleged problem of post-season unfairness, and allow every team to "prove it on the field" in an equal, direct, and undeniable way, is one similar to yours, but more aggressive in terms of realigning the overall organization of the sport. By kicking out a good number of current BCS programs so that the new conferences could plausibly play round-robin schedules, with no intra-conference divisions and no conference championship games.

Or, you go the opposite direction and have super-conferences of 18-20 teams in which there are no-cross divisional games. In essence, take your smaller "conferences" and pair them together in a super-conference that has a championship team between the two divisions--in essence creating a third round of playoffs, but with aligned divisions playing conference championships.

Further, substantial reorganization of the existing conferences would probably be required to obtain optimal balance between them.

Why worry about this? That shifts over time, so they will become unbalanced in the future.

But I also said I do not desire that situation, largely because I like the regional nature of college football, I like the traditions, I like the BigTen Conference, and that scenario would eliminate what's left of all those things. I also don't like it because I believe that arrangement would last about ten years, before it did what all playoffs do: expand. And then you've nationalized, and destroyed the tradition of college football, for no benefit whatsoever, in my opinion.

The regional issue can be addressed by 9-10 team divisions in super-conferences. Out-of conference rivalries continue in that teams still have 2-3 non-conference games. Bowls can still be played and have as much meaning as they do today--very little except for the teams involved and conference bragging rights.

As for the national aspect of college football, that genie is already out of the bottle and there is no going back. Might as well adjust for the inevitable.


Personally, I don't like the idea of conferences larger than 16, but I don't have a problem with the other issues that you raise. Traditions worth keeping will continue. New traditions will emerge. The regional aspect would remain in place, just might be a somewhat bigger region--but hey, we live in a shrinking world, so that really isn't an issue.

 

[knapplc]

Found this, billed as the answer to the "Regular Season Is the Playoffs" crowd:

 

[zincfinger]

Found this, billed as the answer to the "Regular Season Is the Playoffs" crowd:

My vision may be going, but I don't see the Oklahoma State/Iowa State game in that "answer". Or do contenders' games only count if they're against "good" opponents? If so, that's a pretty sweet deal, when you can automatically exclude any and all losses to mediocre opponents.

 

[knapplc]

My vision may be going, but I don't see the Oklahoma State/Iowa State game in that "answer". Or do contenders' games only count if they're against "good" opponents? If so, that's a pretty sweet deal, when you can automatically exclude any and all losses to mediocre opponents.

So you're saying the system is flawed? Agreed.

 

[zincfinger]

So you're saying the system is flawed? Agreed.

No, I'm saying you presented a bullshit argument for...something.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No, I'm saying you presented a bullshit argument for...something.

Like Texas beating UCLA mattering in any universe?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

A 16-team playoff, like what's in FCS (I-AA), division II, and division III is inevitable. It may take five years, or maybe a decade, but it will happen...

 

[zincfinger]

A 16-team playoff, like what's in FCS (I-AA), division II, and division III is inevitable. It may take five years, or maybe a decade, but it will happen...

Death is inevitable. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Death is inevitable. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Didn't say everyone would like it, but it's the best overall way to crown a champion. The old bowl system and the current BCS clusterfuck are flawed (at least more flawed than a playoff).

 

[knapplc]

No, I'm saying you presented a bullshit argument for...something.

It's intended to show that this system is flawed. That's reasonably obvious.