Poll: College Playoff Yes or No?

[lvbuckeye]

I didn't agree on this system.

I would consider 2004 to be a serious disaster, with three undefeated teams from major conferences (if you count the Pac 10). Heck, if I were an Auburn, I'd wish there were more. They wouldn't have been alone on that miserable toilet bowl of an island.

I'm out of this discussion. I can think of no more arguments than the 100 or so I've already put out there for why the BCS sucks.

FYI, that crappy Pac Ten school beat the greatest team since sliced bread 55-19. you shouldn't be knocking the Pac Ten in this debate, you should be knocking the Big XII, which has been on the receiving end of the two most lopsided CG losses in the BCS era...

 

[coolcobra]

two conditions...

first off, 100% agree w/iv!

i have been adamantly opposed to playoffs but could stand a four teamer (plus one?) if there were a rule of no more than one team per conference.

that would reduce chance of rematch (worst possibility imho). limiting to 4 would retain sense of urgency in regular season but give really good teams a decent chance w/1 loss and make 04-type situation unlikely.

i know it prolly wouldn't help mid majors but the odds of them having the best team in any given year are astronomical anyway.

 

[CookyPuss]

As it stands now, it is 56-47 in favor of some form of playoffs over the bowls. The reason for starting the poll were the statements in the media by persons such as Stewart Mandell of SI that the overwhelming majority of college fans want a playoff. I personally think this board is a good sample of engaged college football fans and I have to conclude that saying that everyone wants a playoff system is quite the overstatement. I would say that if you take a large scale poll involving more of the pedestrian fan, it would be stronger toward desire for a playoff. Most fans who prefer the bowl system due so because of tradition, the integrity of the regular season, and a knowlege that the finanical revevue is important for the health of college athletics. These are not the type of arguments you are going to hear from the casual fan.

I have enjoyed the discussion here as well as in the college playoff thread. I continue to believe that a playoff is necessary and the discussion on this board has helped me to move beyond the typical "settle it on the field" argument and to consider why I truly belive it is the correct solution. I have reached this conculusion because I believe that in most any season there are more than 2 teams who legitimately deserve the opportunity to play in a national championship game. The BCS system is not reliable enough to assure me that it will be able to select the 2 most appropriate teams in any year. (This year I happend to think it worked correctly). Because of this I am willing to move a little further down the slippery slope of non-deserving teams in order to reduce that rate of error. I do not believe eliminating the BCS for a playoff will solve all of the controversy. In fact, rather than 1 or 2 teams whinning that they got scumbaged in any given year, you will likely have 5+ teams crying like a little kid whose toy just got taken away. The format of the playoff system and the rules for selecting teams and seeds would be extremely important for its acceptance as legitimate. I don't want to see a system where the Rose Bowl ends up being the Big 10 #3 team against the Pac 10 #4 every year because the best teams are in the playoffs. Or a system where Notre Dame basically gets an automatic bid every year by beating the Commander-In-Cheif's trophy teams. I do want to see a system that rewards teams for playing tough non-conference games and encourages those match-ups in a way which elevates the sport.

I have also concluded that there are 2 components of the current system that I cannot live with. I do not think that when selecting only 2 teams to play for the title that one of them can be a team that did not win its own conference. This needs to be a rule next year. I said the same thing after Nebraska got in and then when Oklahoma made it. I will continue to stand by that. Second, I cannot agree with any system that allows a team to advance to the championship game coming off a loss or because another team lost. I believe that you have to win your way in. This is something that the BCS cannot correct and that is the main reason why I will always favor a playoff (but not at any cost).

Unless someone starts ripping me a "new one" for this post, I think I have satisfied my urge to debate this topic for now. Looking at the current bowl schedule, I must say that the OU-Boise St game and the Wake-Louisville games would be far more interesting to me if they were playoff games. Just a thought.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

You should've had an "Other" option. I'd say have a 16-team playoff (like all the other divisions) but incorporate the first- and quarter-final rounds into the existing low- and mid-tier bowls...

 

[23Skidoo]

You should've had an "Other" option. I'd say have a 16-team playoff (like all the other divisions) but incorporate the first- and quarter-final rounds into the existing low- and mid-tier bowls...

I don't think that could ever work with 16 teams. Even a fanbase as strong and loyal as ours is not going to travel well to 4 different bowl destinations. I would be surprised if the first round and quarterfinals did not have a very poor turnout. Not to mention that it propagates the current advantage towards southern teams, as northern ones will continue to travel much farther than their opponents -- and occasionally play in their opponent's backyard.

 

[ScarletBlood31]

I don't think that could ever work with 16 teams. Even a fanbase as strong and loyal as ours is not going to travel well to 4 different bowl destinations. I would be surprised if the first round and quarterfinals did not have a very poor turnout. Not to mention that it propagates the current advantage towards southern teams, as northern ones will continue to travel much farther than their opponents -- and occasionally play in their opponent's backyard.

I agree, 16 teams is way too many. 12 games is a pretty exhausting enough season, when you have class and everything else to deal with, and then having another 4 playoff games, probably on the road, would probably take away from the championship game because the teams would have been worn down by time they got there.

I know that even after a 10 game high school season, 4 playoff games is alot. By time we got to the state playoffs, most of us were physically and emotionally worn out. I can only imagine how it would be with the extra pressures of the college level.


An or 8 playoff would work out pretty well, because it would make each came compelling and more intense. The only thing is if you wanted to do a 6 team (or 10 team) playoff, you would have to have a "wild card" play-in round, much like the NFL playoff system (only with 6 teams, the winner of the play-in games go straight to the semi-finals to play the higher-ranked team.)

 

[OCBucksFan]

Meh, I enjoy the regular season of the NFL, granted I feel like it takes about 4 weeks longer than needed, but that may be just me. Some years it's up, some it's down. I don't feel the regular season is meaningless, tho I do like how intense every game is in college.

 

[Oh8ch]

i have been adamantly opposed to playoffs but could stand a four teamer (plus one?) if there were a rule of no more than one team per conference.

that would reduce chance of rematch

Solid position that I have seen before - and I also could live with four teams. However, even this playoff scenario does not address the biggest controversy we have this year. It would just take two more teams around Michigan.

I don't think that could ever work with 16 teams. Even a fanbase as strong and loyal as ours is not going to travel well to 4 different bowl destinations.

Bingo. If you go beyond 4 teams you are looking at least three weeks of games - in December and January. Play them in warm climates and it is the same disadvantage to Mid-West schools we have always had.

Play a game between the 4 and 5 or 8 and 9 seeds 1000 miles from home and good luck filling that stadium.

Playing the games at home with a well earned home field advantage would fill the stadiums and solve some of the travel problems. However, today is trash day at my house. I just got back in from rebagging the stuff that blew all over my yard. It is mid-twenties with wind that cuts right through you. Welcome to December in the Mid-West. Screw that.

Of course we could play in the domes. Nothing beats football in a dome.

 

[23Skidoo]

Solid position that I have seen before - and I also could live with four teams. However, even this playoff scenario does not address the biggest controversy we have this year. It would just take two more teams around Michigan.

I don't know if it solves the controversy in a way people are comfortable with -- but it certainly mitigates it. If it was a known rule that only conf champions could go to the NCG, then who would Llllloyd be blaming right now? The worst he can do is blame the B10 itself for not having a CCG.
I think the rhetoric right now would probably be that everyone knew what was at stake going into that game, ttun has a hand in deciding how the B10 choses their champion, and it's his own fault for not taking care of business. Instead, we've got this spin cycle going on.
The biggest scandal that could happen under a champ-only system is basically 2002 B10 (2 teams with the same record who didn't play eachother -- to make it more scandalous, assume Iowa went undefeated). And right now we're the only conference that has that achilles heel, and it's basically our own conference's doing.

 

[OH10]

As it stands now, it is 56-47 in favor of some form of playoffs over the bowls. The reason for starting the poll were the statements in the media by persons such as Stewart Mandell of SI that the overwhelming majority of college fans want a playoff. I personally think this board is a good sample of engaged college football fans and I have to conclude that saying that everyone wants a playoff system is quite the overstatement. I would say that if you take a large scale poll involving more of the pedestrian fan, it would be stronger toward desire for a playoff. Most fans who prefer the bowl system due so because of tradition, the integrity of the regular season, and a knowlege that the finanical revevue is important for the health of college athletics. These are not the type of arguments you are going to hear from the casual fan.

Well, I would disagree that a poll on a Buckeye message board is indicative of what the 'average' college football fan wants. First of all, "engaged" is a positive spin on what we, as message board followers really are - the other words you could use are 'obsessed' or more accurately 'overly-involved'. I'm not saying its necessarily a bad thing, considering I've posted over 2000 times on this board. Yup, I've got problems.

But most importantly, Buckeye fans have had no concrete reason as of late to desire a playoff system. We haven't been 'screwed' so to speak. In fact, you could argue that Ohio State has benefitted from the lack of a playoff. In 2002, we only had to win one game over Miami. In 2006, we only have to win one more instead two or three. So I would think that Buckeye fans might be less-inclined to see a playoff than your 'average' college football fan.

 

[OH10]

FYI, that crappy Pac Ten school beat the greatest team since sliced bread 55-19. you shouldn't be knocking the Pac Ten in this debate, you should be knocking the Big XII, which has been on the receiving end of the two most lopsided CG losses in the BCS era...

How, exactly, did you decipher that I was calling USC a 'crappy' school from my post? I mean, I'm not even mad. That's amazing.

 

[23Skidoo]

But most importantly, Buckeye fans have had no concrete reason as of late to desire a playoff system. We haven't been 'screwed' so to speak. In fact, you could argue that Ohio State has benefitted from the lack of a playoff. In 2002, we only had to win one game over Miami. In 2006, we only have to win one more instead two or three. So I would think that Buckeye fans might be less-inclined to see a playoff than your 'average' college football fan.

I think that's a good point. It seems a large chunk of the support for playoffs comes from the SEC, and it only stands to reason being that they were a big mover in moving out of the old bowl system and establishing their Conference Champion Game nonsense. The SEC itself is already setup like a playoff, and everyone there (in my experience) reasons that playoffs are, by default, superior and the only legitimate postseason option. I'm not trying to rip on the SEC -- just pointing out that it's already a part of how they view college football. (And this is evident on any of their talk shows -- they constanty complain that the P10, B10, and BE don't have a CCG. Despite the fact that the P10 and BE actually play everyone in their conference.)

 

[Oh8ch]

I don't know if it solves the controversy in a way people are comfortable with -- but it certainly mitigates it. If it was a known rule that only conf champions could go to the NCG, then who would Llllloyd be blaming right now? The worst he can do is blame the B10 itself for not having a CCG.

Imagine we had such a playoff in place and Florida had lost to Arkansas. Now you have Michigan and Wisconsin both sitting home while two loss teams from the PAC-10 and SEC play for the title along with OSU and I presume Louisiville. Leaving out of course, the only other undefeated team as well in Boise.

So let's go to 8 teams. Do you take both Michigan and Wisky now? Do you almost guarantee rematches? Heck, you have to go to #9 to get the top ranked BCS team from the mighty Big XII and 14th to get the ACC champ. And ND can't be left out. So now we just have to go to 16 teams.

Or do we stick with the "conference champs only" rule and let Michigan, LSU and Auburn sit home and watch Boise and Wake get their shot?

I will throw it out there again since nobody bit the first time. If you were going to run the NCAA basketball tourney with 4 or 8 or 16 teams, how would you pick 'em? You don't kill the controversy with a playoff, you just toss some kerosene and a match at it.

 

[23Skidoo]

Imagine we had such a playoff in place and Florida had lost to Arkansas. Now you have Michigan and Wisconsin both sitting home while two loss teams from the PAC-10 and SEC play for the title along with OSU and I presume Louisiville. Leaving out of course, the only other undefeated team as well in Boise.

So let's go to 8 teams. Do you take both Michigan and Wisky now? Do you almost guarantee rematches? Heck, you have to go to #9 to get the top ranked BCS team from the mighty Big XII and 14th to get the ACC champ. And ND can't be left out. So now we just have to go to 16 teams.

Or do we stick with the "conference champs only" rule and let Michigan, LSU and Auburn sit home and watch Boise and Wake get their shot?

I will throw it out there again since nobody bit the first time. If you were going to run the NCAA basketball tourney with 4 or 8 or 16 teams, how would you pick 'em? You don't kill the controversy with a playoff, you just toss some kerosene and a match at it.

Just to clear up, I'm not arguing for a playoff or for the champion rule. I'm very much against a playoff (though I'll admit I could deal with 4 teams) and I'm on the fence about the champions-only thing.
My point was only that such a rule would mitigate a lot of the politicking and bad juju that occurs between coaches and programs, because there is nobody to really put blame on -- only yourself, and your own conferene.

Having said that, all your points are solid and is exactly why I'm not sold on the conference champions only rule.

 

[CookyPuss]

Imagine we had such a playoff in place and Florida had lost to Arkansas. Now you have Michigan and Wisconsin both sitting home while two loss teams from the PAC-10 and SEC play for the title along with OSU and I presume Louisiville. Leaving out of course, the only other undefeated team as well in Boise.

So let's go to 8 teams. Do you take both Michigan and Wisky now? Do you almost guarantee rematches? Heck, you have to go to #9 to get the top ranked BCS team from the mighty Big XII and 14th to get the ACC champ. And ND can't be left out. So now we just have to go to 16 teams.

Or do we stick with the "conference champs only" rule and let Michigan, LSU and Auburn sit home and watch Boise and Wake get their shot?

I will throw it out there again since nobody bit the first time. If you were going to run the NCAA basketball tourney with 4 or 8 or 16 teams, how would you pick 'em? You don't kill the controversy with a playoff, you just toss some kerosene and a match at it.

Oh8ch, you sucked me back into the debate already. I appreaciate your pragmatic nature. I happen to agree that drawing up a playoff system is really quite a chore. Saw31 pointed out in post #145 in the College Playoff Thread Link that you will need at least 10 teams in a system to offset the current pay structure of the BCS. Otherwise, some other type of revenue agreement must be arranged. I think the only other option that is viable is the "+1" idea that has been floated. This scenario works within the current BCS structure, but pits #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 and the winners play in the championship game. The problem with this is it means adding yet another BCS bowl to make up for the 2 teams that would have to be removed to make it work. Also you are stuck with the whole "conference champ" question. Personally, I am not theoretically opposed to a team that did not win its conference winning a national championship. I just believe that when you only have 2 teams that are given the opportunity, you cannot take a second place team over a conference champ.

My best solution at this point is a 10 team playoff. The #1 and #2 seeds earn a bye. The 6 BCS conference champs get an automatic bid. Conferences like the Big and Pac 10 that do not have championship games will have to decide how to do tie breakers. This leaves 4 "at large" play-off spots which would be decide with a system something like the current BCS. I do prefer it to the NCAA "selection committee". So #1 and #2 in the final "BCS" standings get a double bye.


Round 1: Seeds 3-10 play at the home sites of the higher ranked teams. This year it would look like this (assuming all seeds hold):

Round 1 December 16 (3rd Week of December):
#10 Wake Forrest at #3 Michigan
#9 Oklahoma at # 4 LSU
#8 Boise St at #5 USC
#7 Wisconsin at #6 Louisville

Round 2 December 23 (last Saturday that falls at least 7 days before New Years):
#3 Michigan vs. #6 Louisville in Rose Bowl
#4 LSU vs. #5 USC in Sugar Bowl

Round 3 January 1 (New Year's Day):
#4 LSU vs. #1 OSU in Fiesta Bowl
#3 Michigan vs. #2 Florida in Orange Bowl

National Championship January 8 (1st Week of January):
#2 Florida vs. #1 OSU in Glendale

(Four bowl sites and championship site would rotate annually with the #1 seed playing at the site of the NC game in Round 3)

Pros: System incorporates the traditional bowl sites to keep them happy. System still includes 10 teams. Winning conference "means" something. Byes and seedings will keep regular season games important. USC would have had a playoff spot locked up going into the UCLA game, but having a double bye would be huge. Yes, the double bye. This was something I had not considered until I tried to put 10 teams in a bracket. I kind of like this idea because it gives such a huge advantage to being in one of those positions. Having to win 1 game to get to the championship instead of 3. This is one of the few ways that I could see keeping a real emphasis on the regular season. Yes, I'm sure that over the years, a few teams from seeds 3-10 would win championships, but I am willing to bet that it would happen less often than in other sports with large playoff systems. Wake Forrest, for example, would have to beat Michigan, Florida, and likely OSU to win a National Championship. If they did that, I'd say they earned it.


Cons: Allowing more than 2 teams per conference would screw up the revenue. Teams 3-6 get home playoff games, but not teams 1 and 2. Again, I think you could work a revenue agreement to offset this. You probably have every team ranked 11-16 or so pissing and moaning about how the got left out (this year Notre Dame would be screaming). Travelling for up to 4 games would be more than most fans could handle. (I do like the idea of the #1 seed being able to play both games at the same site -another big reward for performance in the regular season).

I had originally found myself to be in favor of an 8 team play off, but many practial arguments have lead me to believe that could never happen. I have done my best to incorporate the BCS bowl system and to keep the integrity of the regular season. I also thought it was important to have games on New Year's Day. This would not eliminate the other bowls so ESPN can have their December programming and Cryami can still go play in the Smurf Turf bowl. I know that some of these ideas are very unconventional (double bye) and I will probably be ridiculed for the suggestions. Just thought I'd throw something different out there.

Edit: I should clarify that I would never in a million years expect the NCAA to adopt such a format. This was an intellectual exercise by me in attempt to satisfy the majority of the objections I have heard to a potential playoff and the current BCS system.