College Playoff

[osugrad21]

Sporting News

College football doesn't need a playoff system

Posted: November 13, 2006


And you poor saps want a national playoff.

How many Novembers do we have to live through before this nonsensical talk ends? How many times must I sit here and explain that every week in college football is your national playoff and that a typical national playoff diminishes the regular season?
Four teams had their seasons end last week -- four teams that just a few days earlier were politicking and scheming and begging to find a way to secure more BCS love and earn that coveted No. 2 spot opposite the Ohio State-Michigan winner in the national championship game.
Louisville, Auburn, Texas and California have been relegated to either playing for a conference championship or playing out the string. Had Florida not blocked a last-second field goal, there would have been five teams picking up the pieces.
"At this point in the season," Florida coach Urban Meyer says, "every play is important."
When all else fails, follow this credo: November is the month to remember. It's when pressure is overwhelming, when teams thrive and survive or flop and drop. We're deep into the last month of a white-knuckle season, and there isn't a person on the planet comfortable picking a matchup in the national title game.
Yeah, this system sucks.
Now that I've proved my point, let's move on and break down the remaining one-loss teams -- you know, those still alive in the weekly national playoff (ranked by best chance to survive).
Southern California. The remaining schedule -- Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA -- will provide enough BCS juice. That and a newfound attitude of a team told over and over that it's done.
Arkansas. The Hogs are the best team in the best conference in the nation. Watch how high their BCS number climbs after wins against LSU and Florida. Bottom line: Arkansas needs to win out and USC -- which it lost to by 36 to begin the season -- to lose.
Notre Dame. Now that ND has won the Commander-In-Chief's Trophy, it must beat USC and have the SEC contenders fall apart.
Florida. The Gators need a USC loss and a win against Arkansas. Good luck with that.
Finally, the Armageddon scenarios that would benefit the current unbeatens:
Rutgers. USC loses to Cal or UCLA, LSU beats Arkansas, Florida loses to Arkansas and USC beats Notre Dame. And, of course, Rutgers wins out.
Michigan-Ohio State loser. Follow the Rutgers scenario, and add a Scarlet Knights loss.
Anyone who thinks all of that can't happen obviously hasn't been paying attention.
And you poor saps want a national playoff.

 

[CookyPuss]

The Pittsburgh Steelers were something like a #6 seed last year. What was their record? I don't know. The point is, they didn't win their division. I'm not bashing the Steelers, or their fans. I'm just using that as an example. I'm sure there are billions of similar examples throughout sports.

Like the year that Nebraska made the BCS Championship game without winning their conference?

I go back and forth on this every year and I have two main reasons for supporting a play-off.

1. Schedules are determined years in advance and schools within each conference do not play all the other schools in the conference. OSU has to play _ichigan and Penn State every year, while team's in weaker conferences or with weaker schedules can make it by winning say one big game and 11 games against patsies. At least in a play-off they will have to play 2 or 3 tough teams to make the championship game. I mean this year everyone is saying how great the SEC is and that those teams are being punished by having to play "tougher" schedules than everyone else. How do we know this? USC waxed Arkansas. Does that make the Pac 10 superior? Some have argued that we would not see as many great out of conference match-ups, but I disagree. I think you would see more. I think teams would be less reluctant to put a tough foe on their schedule, knowing that one game will not necessarily cost them a chance at the title. And that brings me to point #2.

2. The opportunity to see match ups you would never, ever ordinarily get to see. When was the last time tOSU played Florida? Have the ever played Florida? Ever since the goal of the Rose Bowl has faded for the pursuit of a BCS game, anything less than a NC seems a disappointment. I would like to see tOSU get a chance to fight for that spot in the post season year after year, playing teams for far away and exotic places like Rutgers. Wouldn't that be a fun first round matchup at the Shoe?

 

[BB73]

The opportunity to see match ups you would never, ever ordinarily get to see. When was the last time tOSU played Florida? Have the ever played Florida?

tOSU has never played the Gators in football. Nor Arkansas or Rutgers, who are also possible bowl opponents.

 

[ant80]

I would love to see an optional, yes I said OPTIONAL playoff system to determine only the national championship, not to determine other locations in the poll.

For example, in 2004, Auburn and Utah would square off, with the winner playing USC for the title. In 2003, LSU and USC should've squared off (but they should've squared off in the first place aniway). Other years, the system works perfectly.

My reason for saying this is because football is a very physical sport. And we don't need to test the kids, who are not paid to endure the amount of abuse they take aniway, so much when it is not required. Playoffs for determining NC when there is no other option is OK. But playoffs for determining other positions in the polls, or playoff for NC when they are not required, are just stupid. They would probably create needless rematches.

 

[methomps]

Logistically, it's just not possible to have optional games with such short notice.
Plus, you are just shifting the controversy to "when should we have a playoff and when shouldn't we."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Logistically, it's just not possible to have optional games with such short notice.
Plus, you are just shifting the controversy to "when should we have a playoff and when shouldn't we."

Easy, when it benefits Ohio State to have a playoff, we should have a playoff, and when it doesn't, then we shouldn't have a playoff.

Damn, man... I thought you were a mod here.

 

[ant80]

Logistically, it's just not possible to have optional games with such short notice.
Plus, you are just shifting the controversy to "when should we have a playoff and when shouldn't we."

You get a month to prepare. I think that is long enough for that to be arranged if the TV networks put their mind to it.

U have a 4-team playoff when
1) there are more than 2 undefeateds from BCS conferrences
2) there are 2 undefeateds from BCS conferences and one doesn't make it to the title game (possible example would be if rutgers wins out this year)
3) If there is only 1 undefeated team, have the semifinals, but if the undefeated wins out, cancel the finals
4) If no undefeateds, have playoffs if a consensus doesn't exist about the top 2 teams. (If people are not sure whether consensus exists, then consensus doesn't exist. This might mean that you always have playoffs in this case. That's OK)

That would be the ideal system.

 

[BB73]

You get a month to prepare. I think that is long enough for that to be arranged if the TV networks put their mind to it.

U have a 4-team playoff when
1) there are more than 2 undefeateds from BCS conferrences
2) there are 2 undefeateds from BCS conferences and one doesn't make it to the title game (possible example would be if rutgers wins out this year)
3) If there is only 1 undefeated team, have the semifinals, but if the undefeated wins out, cancel the finals
4) If no undefeateds, have playoffs if a consensus doesn't exist about the top 2 teams. (If people are not sure whether consensus exists, then consensus doesn't exist. This might mean that you always have playoffs in this case. That's OK)

That would be the ideal system.

How about when there are 3 undefeated BCS teams? Or 5?

 

[ant80]

How about when there are 3 undefeated BCS teams? Or 5?

If there are 3, then include a 4th once beaten team. Two undefeateds will face off and one will emerge. If the third undefeated remains so, final is on, if not, cancel it.

5 undefeateds, screw the 5th undefeated (necessity and practicality). But honestly has there ever been more than 4 undefeateds in a regular season?

 

[BB73]

If there are 3, then include a 4th once beaten team. Two undefeateds will face off and one will emerge. If the third undefeated remains so, final is on, if not, cancel it.

5 undefeateds, screw the 5th undefeated (necessity and practicality). But honestly has there ever been more than 4 undefeateds in a regular season?

At the end of the regular season, 1973 had 6 (three with ties), plus an undefeated Miami, OH.

At the end of the regualr season, 1979 had 5 (USC had a tie) including BYU.

At the end of 1938, five teams (#1 TCU and 4 others now in BCS conferences) had perfect records.

1948 had TSUN, ND, Clemson, Cal all perfect, and Army and N. Carolina with a tie.

1951 had 6, including Illinois ans Ga. Tech with a tie.

It's very unlikely with the 12-game schedule, overtimes, and CCGs. But I was just being a devil's advocate.

 

[ant80]

At the end of the regular season, 1973 had 6 (three with ties), plus an undefeated Miami, OH.

At the end of the regualr season, 1979 had 5 (USC had a tie) including BYU.

At the end of 1938, five teams (#1 TCU and 4 others now in BCS conferences) had perfect records.

1948 had TSUN, ND, Clemson, Cal all perfect, and Army and N. Carolina with a tie.

1951 had 6, including Illinois ans Ga. Tech with a tie.

It's very unlikely with the 12-game schedule, overtimes, and CCGs. But I was just being a devil's advocate.

Agreed. It is possible for 8 undefeated teams from BCS conferrences to emerge undefeated, but unlikely. I think with an optional playoff to determine the national champion, people would be very satisfied.

btw, where did you get all that information from?

 

[Zurp]

Agreed. It is possible for 8 undefeated teams from BCS conferrences to emerge undefeated, but unlikely. I think with an optional playoff to determine the national champion, people would be very satisfied.

I don't like the idea of "optional" playoffs. It sounds like a team could just say, "Meh - We choose to keep our #1 ranking and not play in your play-offs."

btw, where did you get all that information from?

BB73 isn't a person. BB73 is a computer program which surfs the internet and uses its data base of knowledge to answer odd questions.

You know, for all of you who hate the BCS and want to go to a play-off system, I think that the BCS is doing an excellent job at transitioning from the old bowl games to a playoff. All through history, the Big Ten and Pac-10 teams wanted nothing more than to go to the Rose Bowl. Other conferences had their own bowl games that they aspired for. But now, the Rose Bowl is a consolation prize. When was the last time that the Rose Bowl was looking at which team would lose the Ohio State-Michigan game? I'm going to venture out onto what appears to be a very sturdy limb and say that the Rose Bowl committee has never waited to see which team would lose that game to figure out which team they would host.

Before, if a team lost a game, they'd hope for another team within their conference would lose a game or two, and they'd be right back in the race for the conference championship. Now, that's not enough. You lost. You're out. You're out of the national championship running until "enough" other teams from around the country also lose - not just within your conference. (How many is "enough?" That depends on how many of the voters like you.)

The BCS has created such a fight for one of the top spots that you get coaches polliticking for one of those top spots. And when they don't get what they want, they cry and complain. Maybe with today's 24-hour sports access on cable and the internet, their cries and complaints are only more noticeable. But you have to admit that no one cared when Coach Oldshoes wanted his team, the Pickle State University Hamburgers, to be ranked #2 instead of #3 back in the 1920's. "Hey! Coach Oldshoes! You lost! Go sit down!"

Unfortunately, they won't sit down. They didn't get to where they are by sitting and waiting their turns. The coaches are competitive people, and they're going to get ahead by whatever means necessary. That's why more and more of the coaches, most notably the ones currently ranked #3 - #12, are going to be standing up for a play-off system. Where before they wanted to win their conferences, and didn't care two peanuts what happened outside their conferences, now, the only true prize is that BCS national championship.

That's why the BCS will eventually give way to a play-off system.

It will start as a 4-team play-off. But, soonafter, it will become 8 teams. Then 12. Then 16. By 2040, there will be a 16-team play-off system.

vBet, anyone?

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

It will start as a 4-team play-off. But, soonafter, it will become 8 teams. Then 12. Then 16. By 2040, there will be a 16-team play-off system.

But the 17th best team really deserved in! I demand a play-in game in Dayton every year.

 

[Zurp]

But the 17th best team really deserved in! I demand a play-in game in Dayton every year.

I think that every team should make it into the play-offs. Start the play-offs the week after the conference championship games. Friday at noon. Team #118 vs. Team #119. The winner plays at 4:30 against Team #117. Same field. The winner plays at 9:00 against Team #116. Same field.

The next day, pick a new field, but it should be somewhat close to the last field. The winner of that 9:00 game plays against Team #115 at noon. And so on. Each day, a new stadium. Three games a day, until 118 teams are eliminated.

That's 40 more days of football right there...

 

[CookyPuss]

Imagine this doomsday scenario:
USC and Florida both win out. Florida jumps both USC and Michigan in the BCS. Florida beats tOSU in a close game. scUM blows out USC in the Rose Bowl.

We know that Florida gets the BCS trophy. What happens in the AP? How do those first place votes get split? Does scUM somehow pull a share of the NC? God, I'd hope not.

Even worse, say the refs blow a call at the end of tOSU v. UF leading to the Florida victory. What then?

I'm just thinking outloud. But what a mess this would be.

I am becoming more and more in favor of a playoff system. I would favor a 8 team playoff with the big 6 conference champs plus 2 at large teams. Create some way to seed the teams. 1-4 get home games in round 1. Round 2 (around the time of the New Years bowls) and NC game (a week later) at neutral sites. What this eliminates:

1. The possibility of a team that does not win its conference getting to the title game due to computer ratings and not what happens on the field (Oklahoma, Nebraska). You must play your way into the championship game. Right now, Michigan still has a chance to make it to the NC game and not because of anything they do, but because of other teams losing. I simply do not see how this is any way to decide how makes the NC game. Gee, dad, how did the Browns make it to the Super Bowl this year? Well, the Bengals lost to the Ravens and the Steelers lost to the Titans. Oh, OK.

2. A non-conference loss does not knock a team out of the NC hunt, therefore teams will be more likely to schedule good out of confernce games because it means more $$ for the schools and it boosts opportunity to grab an at large spot.

3. I thought I liked the BCS "and 1" idea floated about in the past. I hate it now. That would really suck. OSU goes undefeated and beats USC in its bowl. scUM beats Florida/Arkansas and then OSU has to play scUM again in the "and 1" championship game. That would be a farce.

4. I mentioned this one above. In addition to better non-conference schedules, you would get to see some great play-off matchups that you would never see. Would this not be a great weekend of CFB:
1. tOSU v. 8. Boise St
2. USC v. 7. Michigan
3. Florida v. 6. Georgia Tech
4. West Virginia v. 5. Texas

5. For those that argue it bucks tradition. I say tradition has been killed by the BCS. Tradition has been killed by the fact that a team not winning its conference can make it straight to the NC game (coming off a loss) and essentially anytime there are teams with equal records mass chaos ensues. Of course those that love tradion are talking about the good old days the NC was left up to the subjective leanings of the voters.

6. It also eliminates teams being punished for playing in a tough conference. This year most agree that the SEC is really tough and may get shut out of the NC because USC or scUM is subjectively ranked higher by the pollsters. They still have a shot at the NC and can "prove" their worth on the field against and undefeated team from a patsy league like the Big East.

[Note: Yes, I realize that in this system I am proposing a scUM v. tOSU rematch would be possible. But, at least they would have to earn the rematch by winning a playoff game or two]