College Playoff

[TJnTN]

The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, March Madness, etc., playoff systems don't always crown the best team as champion, but few complain about the eventual winners.

The big difference is none of those other systems leave us with a question of "what if?".

We will never know if OkieSt could have beat either team of those teams last night. We can sit here and debate till the cows come home whether or not they would or who deserved to play in that game but in the end we are still left with that uncertainty where a playoff, should at least eliminate that. I realize that could mean the best team in the nation may not win it every year and I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that over having this stupid debate every year.

 

[BB73]

The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, March Madness, etc., playoff systems don't always crown the best team as champion, but few complain about the eventual winners.

The day that college football allows teams that were .500 in their conference into a playoff is the day I go over the edge.

Count me among the 'few' who is complaining about a 9-9 UConn team (which finished in a 3-way tie for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East) winning the NCAA Basketball Title - especially when their coach was allowed to serve his suspension in the following season.

 

[BB73]

The big difference is none of those other systems leave us with a question of "what if?".

We will never know if OkieSt could have beat either team of those teams last night. We can sit here and debate till the cows come home whether or not they would or who deserved to play in that game but in the end we are still left with that uncertainty where a playoff, should at least eliminate that. I realize that could mean the best team in the nation may not win it every year and I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that over having this stupid debate every year.

It'll never end. Wherever the line is drawn, that's where the complaints start. Look at all of the talk about which teams get left out of the 68-team March Madness between the time the pairings are announced until the first game.

If there's a 4-team playoff, folks will ask for 6 or 8.

If its 8 they'll ask for 12.

If it's 12, they'll ask for 16.

If it's 16, many will still ask for 32.

Going to a conference champion only 4-team format would allow exciting early season OOC contests, without seriously damaging a team's chance to make the final 4 teams. It would also keep out garbage conference champions which have been in the BCS as winners of 'AQ' conferences lately.

Conference champion only minimizes the impact that human voters and EPSN hype can have on determining the playoff participants. Each conference determines its own champion, and the 4 highest ranked go into the playoff. The controversy would be between the 4th, 5th, and 6th rated conference champions, but I could live with that.

That would also be good for tOSU, since starting in 2017, tOSU will have an annual game against a PAC-12 contender, such as Oregon or USC. A potential loss in those September games wouldn't knock tOSU out of the NC race, as long as they win the B1G CCG and are one of the 4 highest ranked conference champions, which would almost always be the case for the B1G winner.

This year, it would have been: LSU-Oregon-Oklahoma State-Wisconsin

 

[jlb1705]

It makes a big difference to me if the 'plus 1' is a seeded 4--team playoff, as opposed to matching up the top-2 two after the January 1st/2nd bowl games. I'd much rather have a seeded 4-team playoff that incorporates two January 1 bowls as National Semifinals.

Gotta have a rubber game.

Actually, they probably would have found a way to give us Alabama vs. Arkansas again.

 

[TJnTN]

It'll never end. Wherever the line is drawn, that's where the complaints start. Look at all of the talk about which teams get left out of the 68-team March Madness between the time the pairings are announced until the first game.

If there's a 4-team playoff, folks will ask for 6 or 8.

If its 8 they'll ask for 12.

If it's 12, they'll ask for 16.

If it's 16, many will still ask for 32.

Going to a conference champion only 4-team format would allow exciting early season OOC contests, without seriously damaging a team's chance to make the final 4 teams. It would also keep out garbage conference champions which have been in the BCS as winners of 'AQ' conferences lately.

Conference champion only minimizes the impact that human voters and EPSN hype can have on determining the playoff participants. Each conference determines its own champion, and the 4 highest ranked go into the playoff. The controversy would be between the 4th, 5th, and 6th rated conference champions, but I could live with that.

That would also be good for tOSU, since starting in 2017, tOSU will have an annual game against a PAC-12 contender, such as Oregon or USC. A potential loss in those September games wouldn't knock tOSU out of the NC race, as long as they win the B1G CCG and are one of the 4 highest ranked conference champions, which would almost always be the case for the B1G winner.

This year, it would have been: LSU-Oregon-Oklahoma State-Wisconsin

Completely agree with you. If the top teams are picked based on polls then yeah there will always be at some level, debate.

 

[Systems_id]

I honestly wouldn't mind an 8-team playoff consisting of the six conference champions from the power conferences and two teams from the toughest non-AQ conferences.

 

[Bucknut24]

I honestly wouldn't mind an 8-team playoff consisting of the six conference champions from the power conferences and two teams from the toughest non-AQ conferences.

I don't think you should limit 2 wild cards to non-AQ, that would create a big shit storm, with Boise and TCU moving to AQ conf, who's there that will deserve it?

just make it 2 wild cards

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The big difference is none of those other systems leave us with a question of "what if?".

No, the big difference is that they have a good-sized field of teams participating, whilst the BCS does not...that's why none of those other systems leave us with a question of "what if?".

If the FBS (I-A) goes to a 16-team format, there will be little "what if" sentiment at the end.

 

[Systems_id]

I don't think you should limit 2 wild cards to non-AQ, that would create a big [Mark May] storm, with Boise and TCU moving to AQ conf, who's there that will deserve it?

just make it 2 wild cards

True. You could also make them "play-in" games ala March Madness.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

No plays-ins, no auto-qualifiers, no bullshit. Just take the top 16 BCS-ranked teams and seed them 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14, etc. If the B1G runner-up happens to be seeded ahead of the PAC-12 champ or whatever, so be it.

 

[Systems_id]

No plays-ins, no auto-qualifiers, no bull[Mark May]. Just take the top 16 BCS-ranked teams and seed them 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14, etc. If the B1G runner-up happens to be seeded ahead of the PAC-12 champ or whatever, so be it.

What about the rest of the Top 25? Why should they be left out? That's why you should have to win your conference to be qualified for the playoffs. You want a chance to play for a NC? Win your own conference. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

[Jake]

The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, March Madness, etc., playoff systems don't always crown the best team as champion, but few complain about the eventual winners.

None of those other sports play their regular season then hold an election to vote 2 teams into the "championship" game. That's why few complain about those eventual winners.

We can argue forever as to whether the "best" team ultimately wins but we know for a fact the winners in those sports had to beat other teams - in a playoff format - to get to the championship match.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

None of those other sports play their regular season then hold an election to vote 2 teams into the "championship" game. That's why few complain about those eventual winners.

That's my point...re-read my post about using the BCS rankings to seed the playoffs. And yes, the NCAA backetball tournament does indeed elect/select/whateveryouwanttocallit teams for the tournament. Using the BCS rankings to determine the 16-team field in no worse than March Madness seedings or the systems used in I-AA (FCS), II, and III football playoffs.

 

[Bucknut24]

What about the rest of the Top 25? Why should they be left out? That's why you should have to win your conference to be qualified for the playoffs. You want a chance to play for a NC? Win your own conference. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

a Big East champion that's 8-4 shouldn't get a shot while a runner up from another conf goes 11-1 and the 1 loss was to the conf champ

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

What about the rest of the Top 25? Why should they be left out?

You have to have some sort of cutoff point. There would be far less complaints about #17 not making the playoffs than the #3 team--by thousands of a point in the BCS rankings--not getting a chance.

That's why you should have to win your conference to be qualified for the playoffs. You want a chance to play for a NC? Win your own conference. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

So a conference champ from the SunBelt should get in but not the SEC runner-up? Alabama is clearly better than virtually any conference champ. And check all the other sport playoffs (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, college bball, etc.)...none of them limit their playoffs to "division/conference champs only".