Playoffs for College Football
by runninrebel88 on Nov 11, 2009 1:53 PM CST
46 comments
I love tradition in sports, but also know that eventually the winds of change blow for all things. With that in mind, why is college football the only major sport, at any level, that does not have a playoff? Well, it can't be money and I'll explain.
Take the Top 8 teams from the polls (where there are discrepancies, the computer ranking wins out)....When was the last time (I've never seen it) where the No. 9 team had a legitimate beef about playing for the NC.
Let them play a standard playoff scenario: 1 vs 8; 2 vs 7, etc.
That's four initial games, one each for the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta.
Semifinals can be played at Dallas' new stadium and Yankee's new stadium (prestige for the kids)
NC game can rotate between the big 4 bowls.
All teams must start their season the last Sat in August.
Conferences without a championship game play 12 regular season games.
All other conferences play 11 regular season games.
All regular season and conf champ games to be completed by end of Nov.
First two rounds of playoffs to be completed before week of Christmas.
NC game to be played on January 1 each year the way IT SHOULD BE.
Enough crap talk about kids missing classes; this is more post-season money than currently being dealt out; and since this is not baseball or basketball, please no shout-outs for a 16 or 32 or 64 round tournament. Like the TV show, 8 is Enough. No one beyond eighth place EVER has a reason to complain.
This scenario is the only way I can see it being close to fair and equitable for everyone....That means as polls currently stand, TCU and Cincy would get their chance. Lastly, all teams playing a 12 game schedule must have their final game on the weekend that all other conferences play their championship game (no bye luxury here).
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
0 recs |
46 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Nope
not for me, for reasons too many to get into here. But here’s just one: They playoff system produces just as sham a national championship as does the current system. Example # 1 why this is so: 2007 Giants, who had a poor season, got hot at the right time, and beat a terrific team in the Superbowl. They were in no way the best team over the course of the year, just the team who happened to win 4 games in a row at the right time. See here for more: http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/01/13/top-10-worst-super-bowl-teams/
Granted the playoff run was exciting, but in college football every week is exciting, and that would pretty much end with a playoffs.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on Nov 11, 2009 2:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who says
That a super-bowl winning team is a “bad team” is ludicrous. Anyone who watched the Super Bowl game between the Giants and Patriots knew, at the end of the day, that the Giants were the better team. Why? Because they won.
College Basketball has playoffs, does that make the regular season less exciting? For that matter, FCS football has a playoff, does that make the regular season there less exciting? Hardly, what the playoffs do is expose or prove good teams. Take this for instance: last year in the FCS, without a playoff system, James Madison would have played Appalachian State for the title game. What happened? #1 James Madison won in unimpressive fashion against Wofford and Villinova before losing to #4 seeded Montana in the semifinals, and #2 Appalachian State lost to unseeded Richmond in round 2. Richmond went on to win the National Championship. And I, as an Appalachian State fan, won’t dismiss what Richmond did to deserve to be the national champions, because — oh wait — they earned it on the field.
Besides, let’s not fool ourselves. The BCS doesn’t create a system in which each week is exciting, it just creates a playoff system that is unfair for each team at the outset. If Florida or Alabama lose this weekend oh well because they’ll still go to the MNC game if they win in the SEC championship game. No matter what Boise State won’t get a chance to play in the title game, and it’d be a cold day in hell if TCU got a chance to.
Any system that allows more than one undefeated team by season’s end is fundamentally flawed in determining who is the best team out there, on a smaller scale compare it to the Big 10, who doesn’t play a round-robin schedule or have a conference championship game. Consider this: in any given year in the Big 10 two teams can be undefeated by the end of the regular season. What, I wonder, would you do in this situation?
Tennessee Fans: We win at teh Internet!
by bobo_the_vol on Nov 11, 2009 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
College Basketball has playoffs, does that make the regular season less exciting?
Yes.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
What makes the regular season “less exciting” is that there are like 3 times as many games.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Nov 11, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes or No. It doesn't really matter.
The shit is boring regardless of the reason.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Says the man who will watch
people kick each other in the shin, then on the offchance that someone actually scores, will scream like an 8 year old on her birthday who just got the new My Little Pony.
But, agreed.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 11, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hahahaha...
college basketball >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> futbol…
enjoy...
by SpockJenkins on Nov 11, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Scoring a goal in soccer is one of the most difficult things in sport to achieve. They freak out because it’s insanely difficult. Scoring in basketball is easier than getting it on with a hooker with someone else’s money.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
HOW?
The goal is the size of the hole in the Death Star?!
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 12, 2009 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because accomplish something with your feet...
…is a hell of a lot harder than doing something with your hands. Oh and there’s usually an extremely athletic guy around 6’5" or so in the goal blocking your shots…and much like American football, it’s difficult to score inside the redzone because things become compacted. To further complicate the matter, it’s damn near impossible to score outside of 25 yards or so.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 12, 2009 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then you would REALLY
enjoy a good game of “round peg square hole.” It’s absolutely impossible to score, and quite boring to watch, but I mean, come on…it’s the impossible that makes it interesting, right?
I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR
by SugarBowl93 on Nov 13, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously...
…I’ve never understood the “there’s not much scoring” argument. Granted, there’s more scoring in football, but 21-7in football is 3-1 in soccer (a common score) but 21-7 sound sexier. I’m not going to pretend there’s as much scoring in soccer, but there’s a lot more creativity/fluidity involved. And it’s nice not having 12 trillion commercials and timeouts. I don’t try to compare the two (really.) I love them both for different reasons.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 13, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of this:
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on Nov 12, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on Nov 11, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to split hairs
but the Pats had beaten the Giants just a month before the SB. So isn’t just possible, possible mind you, that the Giants were just better that day? And another day, they might have lost? And only some poor play and an incredible, or incredibly lucky, plays on the Giants part lead to them winning that particular day? Or am I way out of line here?
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on Nov 11, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about the
HOLY SHIT, CATCH OF TEN MILLION LIFETIMES?!
But, because he made that catch are the G-men the better team? Nope. Not on this plane of existence. Play it 99 times out of 100, and the Pats smoke that ass. A playoff certainly cheapens the system AND, like the Giants example Bobo cites, only introduces the element of complete randomness, 1-shot, into the system.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 11, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, Playoffs would kill the season excitment.
Your temper brings dishonor to my happy mooshu palace.
by mulletover on Nov 12, 2009 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This would never ever happen
And not just because it’s a playoff system. You’re asking for:
- Teams to slice a game off of their schedule
- The season to start earlier
- Adding two new bowl games which are higher than the four cardinal bowls (have fun working with the bowl heads to get two new bowls placed above their own, even with the MNC game being rotated amongst the four that would never, ever happen).
- It’s still hardly balanced, from what I can see. Why not make it a smaller-scale of the system that every other playoff system uses: all conference champions get a spot, and then add 5 at-large teams for a full 16-team field. There are 125 teams in FCS, and they have a 16-team playoff. Our 120 teams is pretty close to that, no?
Tennessee Fans: We win at teh Internet!
by bobo_the_vol on Nov 11, 2009 3:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
My two cents...
I rarely post on anyting on the internet (so be nice), but I’m going to put this out there because I have never seen anybody suggest this before……I love the idea of playoff system. Personally I like the way D2 does theirs the best, but I doubt it will ever happen. I think what would work best, for the way it is set up now, is a plus one single game NC chosen after the bowl games have been played. This would be whoever has the #1 and #2 in the BCS after the bowls games have been played.
Example: At the completion of the regular season, and Conference CG, the next to final BCS would be released. From here all 32 bowl teams would be chosen based on tie ins. PAC/ Big 10 champion in Rose Bowl, SEC/ Big 12 champion in Sugar Bowl, etc…I would have all bowls be done by January 1. They could then release the final BCS, and whoever is #1 and #2 would play a final game. This would keep the tradition of the bowl games, but eliminate much (some?) of the doubt of who is the best team. I would have the game played the first AVAILABLE Saturday in January, 7 to 10 days after the first of the month.
If anybody has suggested something like this before, I apologize….. :)
by Rebel_Dragon on Nov 11, 2009 3:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
With that in mind, why is college football the only major sport, at any level, that does not have a playoff?
It’s not. Most international soccer leagues award their champion based on aggregate results over the course of the season.
Best case scenario (as far as I’m concerned) is to have teams play EVERYONE in their conference (probably cap the conference size at 10 or 11 teams), eliminate conference championship games and then have a Champions League type scenario where the conference winners (and only the conference winners) get to go to a tournament for a massive knockout tournament. You can still have all the bowls and such for other teams, but create a small knockout tournament.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 3:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
International Soccer?
Ok, technically you’re correct (since I didn’t specify)…Major American sports, the only ones most any blogger is going to care about (no offense to soccer, cricket, rugby or any of the others).
by runninrebel88 on Nov 11, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's right
We should quash all individuality and uniqueness. Since every other sport has a playoff, college football must be weird or wrong or evil.
by Go Hide in the V-berth on Nov 11, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even really believe...
…in the national championship anymore in some ways. There’s no realistic way of crowning a champion out of 120 (soon to be 121) teams considering there are so few contests (12.) That’s why I think we should adopt the Pac-10 model for the conference (everyone plays everyone.) The after the season tournament would be fun, but not fully a fully legitimate method to determine a champion either.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s really nothing inherently positive about the plays-everyone method, since you’re still only playing a tiny subset of the teams. The SEC does the same thing, except we play round-robin within the division not the whole conference. There’s really nothing all that great about expanding that to the whole conference.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Nov 11, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s really nothing inherently positive about the plays-everyone method, since you’re still only playing a tiny subset of the teams
Sure there is, the teams in the conference don’t play the same schedule. It’s kind of ridiculous given the small amount of teams involved. In the conference championship game, it’s theoretically possible to have two teams meeting that only have four common opponents out of a possible 10. It also allows for the possibility of a team with a losing record to be conference champion. Though that’s unlikely to ever happen, the fact that it’s statistically possible should bother people.
I’m opposed to many of the current playoff method suggestions because it allows teams that aren’t conference champions to be national champions, which is kind of ludicrous.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I should mention...
…that my “round robin method” was speaking only about the conference championship…not anything to do with the national picture. FWIW, I think both methods are currently broken.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to play everyone to get a good idea who the best and worst are. If the final conference game of the year were randomly decided, you’d have a point, but it’s not, it’s the best two teams from their division.
The problem with round-robin conferences is that they don’t scale worth a damn. The difference between uniform 10-team and 12-team conferences is an additional TWO FULL CONFERENCES in the case of the former.
When it comes to determining a champion, with the number of teams we have in D-IA, we need enough schedule overlap so that we don’t need a 120-game season. 12-team conferences provide that by determining the top team in each division by vastly similar schedules and then determining the best of those two by direct, head-to-head competition.
There’s really no evidence anywhere that the 10-team round-robin method produces a better champion than the 12-team divisions-and-title-game method.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Nov 12, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s really no evidence anywhere that the 10-team round-robin method produces a better champion than the 12-team divisions-and-title-game method.
We’re clearly not to convince each other otherwise, but I’ll still point to last year’s MAC championship game where 7-5 Buffalo was the champion over 12-0 Ball State. They had five common opponents during the regular season. Ball State was 5-0 against those teams and Buffalo was 2-5. Did that really produce a “better” champion in the sense that it was representative of the aggregate results of the season? No, it was a team from a bad division that got hot for one night.
Also, like I said, it bothers me that the two division system allows for the statistical possibility of a team with a losing record to be conference champion….something that’s more or less impossible in the round robin system.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 12, 2009 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No one likes soccer, Nico...
And you can’t force us to, even with parallels that bolster our complementary arguments. Nor despite the fact that I love Football Factory. NOR that we all like Eurotrash rampaging through their flea-ridden sties on match-day. Nope. Can’t do it.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 11, 2009 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I bet you'd love...
…Republica Deportiva.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 11, 2009 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You win.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 12, 2009 9:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but only after doing a google image on RD
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 12, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Too much traveling
You’re asking fans to travel to a conference championship game, a bowl game somewhere in the country, a semifinal in Dallas or NY, and then a NC game?
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
by Zoltar on Nov 11, 2009 5:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Which is not really that big of a deal. Nobody is asking any one fan to go to all of those games anyhow.
The fans who currently go to all of the games would likely be able to continue to do so. The ones who don’t still wouldn’t. No big deal.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Nov 11, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's no big deal....In europe
when you can take the rail for 49 euro. Or Britain where you can hike it in a week, or hitch it in one long day. But here is very much a big deal.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 11, 2009 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it’s really not. We could sell out stadiums for twice as many games as we currently play. Again: no individual fan has to go to all the games.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Nov 12, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll tell you why it wont happen
Because there is a VERY good chance that every other year we have 2 SEC teams playing each other in the Championship game. The powers that be, would be infuriated by this and i know they think of it. I mean heck, 3 out of the 8 teams every year would be SEC teams.
Look at college baseball, they started putting 3 SEC teams on the same side of the bracket so they wouldnt have any chance of SEC playing SEC. pretty lame, but i am positive its true.
by tidefanstuckatlsu on Nov 11, 2009 6:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Alternative
I like some of the competing theories on here….However, two stated issues that are completely non-issues are the starting the season one week sooner (really????) and two cardinal bowls (they’re still getting the same amount of bowls each year for three years “1”, and every fourth year “2”), so that argument is baseless….However, you could move things around and let Dallas and NY host the first round games featuring the No. 1 and 2 teams and let one of the precious existing bowls have round 2….The point is this (and applies only to those who are the culprits): If you don’t want a playoff, that’s fine, I kinda tend to agree….But the next time our precious Bama or Auburn or Florida or LSU winds up No. 3 and OUT of the BCS NCG, then SHUT YOUR FRIGGIN MOUTH, sit down, and comfort yourself by reading your prior posts you created touting the ridiculousness of a playoff system. Remember, the Super Bowl is only the most watched American sporting event EVER. The one point that I did thing was most poignant in here was that if you don’t win your own conference, you should not be allowed play for an NC—but that of course is waaaaay to sensible.
by runninrebel88 on Nov 11, 2009 7:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe...
…we could go off of best uniform color scheme? Or who looks best in their pants? I think the set-up for most playoff systems would be almost as arbitrary, and probably not as fun to judge.
Nico 2.0 said it better than me up there^^ when he said: “I’m opposed to many of the current playoff method suggestions because it allows teams that aren’t conference champions to be national champions, which is kind of ludicrous.”
But I will say that I’d much rather leave this argument to the fans in the blogosphere and out of the halls of congress…
by Queen of the Universe on Nov 11, 2009 8:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
But I will say that I’d much rather leave this argument to the fans in the blogosphere and out of the halls of congress…
Not there are, oh, I don’t know, ten thousand other pressing things to do.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 12, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who brought...
…this off-season topic to game week?
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Nov 12, 2009 2:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Who brought...
NiceLittleSaturday….Well, that would be me, you know, one of those people capable of multi-tasking…Just seemed appropriate considering all the controversy over the processes and machinations being bandied about concerning college football at the moment…Forgive my four paw (there, a bulldog reference, are you happy).
by runninrebel88 on Nov 12, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
8 is too many
the beauty of college football, regardless of pagentry and rivalrys, is how the NC game landscape changes every week.
The best result is a Plus-One.
Don’t mess with the bowls, just have the BCS bowls play out and the top 2 BCS standings AFTER the Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Rose are played, can play for the NC.
It would work.
by Stinky Twinkies on Nov 12, 2009 4:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why stop there?
After the BCS game, play one more. Then after that one, the winner can play the next best team. Then the next! Why, after 50 more games, you would have the most undefeatable, bestest, most impressive winning team ever!
Seriously, if Bama beats FL and the Texas, would there be any doubt that we are the best team in the nation? Why play another game after that? Or what if, on the final game against Texas, Ingram and Cody go down as we win? Then we lose the next week by 1 to whomever. Could you then credibly say the best team is now the National Champion? What if that next best team is Florida, and they beat our depleted team? Would they then be the undisputed winner of the NC?
Any type of playoff, a plus one, plus 2, 4 team, 8 team, 16 team, 32 team, whatever, would be fraught with such problems, and usher in a whole host of new ones. The system now works fine, why mess with it?
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on Nov 13, 2009 7:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm..
I would have never thought a debate about playoffs would be popular on this site…1st time for everything..
Scoring against Alabama will be like birthing a child: rare, painful, and messy. - The Ghost of Jay Cutler
by bammer on Nov 12, 2009 6:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
