College Playoff

[Mibabalou]

So here is what i think the playoff system should be. Ive never heard anyone wanna use this.

So I would like a 8 team playoff

any one of the D-1 teams that go undefeated automaticly gets a bid.

that way all the little guys get a chance

then i would like it to go to the top 25 poll the top this year would be four teams (excluding alabama bc there undefeated)

i dislike the top 6 conference champions get a bid because clearly the sec and big 12 are a lot better than acc and big east this year

so it would look like this, this year

1. Alabama
8. Ball State

4. Texas
5. USC

3. Oklahoma
6. Utah

2. Florida
7. Boise State

what do you guys think

[FondestMemory]

so teams aren't rewarded at all for winning their conference?

[Mibabalou]

they win there conference but do you think cincinatti can play with texas if you gave teams an auto bid it would make 2ed best teams in stronger conference no chance of getting in

if you win your conference and are in the top 4 ap poll you would get in

[FondestMemory]

so you think boise state, utah and ball state can play with texas?

[domotime2]

thats not terrible...the whole rewarding the undefeated teams and stuff.....but i think if there arent enough undefeated teams then the big east and ACC must have a representative....like if boise state and ball state werent' there, then Cincy and Boston College would have to be in this tournament scenario..

remember we have to talk realistic too....why would the big east and ACC agree to this format? They could keep the format they have now and generate more money from playing in one of the 5 biggest games of the year....or they could go with your format in which they'll be left out most likely every year.

[Mibabalou]

not ball state but its nice to see teams have at least a shot

for the not power conference teams there only chance is to go undefeated

while the bcs conference teams they would just have to win there conference

do you think it would be better with just the top 8 ap teams?(asking honestly not being a dick)

[Mibabalou]

thats not terrible...the whole rewarding the undefeated teams and stuff.....but i think if there arent enough undefeated teams then the big east and ACC must have a representative....like if boise state and ball state werent' there, then Cincy and Boston College would have to be in this tournament scenario..

remember we have to talk realistic too....why would the big east and ACC agree to this format? They could keep the format they have now and generate more money from playing in one of the 5 biggest games of the year....or they could go with your format in which they'll be left out most likely every year.

no i think it goes with the power struggle in the game member a few years ago acc was beast and big east had va tech and miami my system allows for best teams to play

and i could let all 6 conference winners in then 6 more at large teams like the nfl playoff but i thought this is better

[FondestMemory]

but in your scenario, even if you win a bcs conference, you're not guarenteed a playoff spot. that would never fly.

and in order for a playoff to work, they need to keep the bcs ranking system, not the ap poll.

[+thecalisonme]

i think ball state is 15 not 8 so this is nonsense

[TakingBackDowd]

where is Texas?

[Mibabalou]

you guys make a good point i

ok so heres a tweaked system

bcs conference winners get auto invite then 6 more at large teams where first teams invited are undefeated teams

then would go to top bcs rankings so it woule be like this

RED Bracket
1. Alabama (SEC Champ)
2. Flordia (At Large 5)
3. USC (At Large 6)
4. Boise State (At Large 2)
5. Oregon State (Pac 10 Champ)
6. Boston College (ACC Champ)



Blue Bracket
1. Texas (Big 12 Champ)
2. Oklahoma (At Large 4)
3. Utah (At Large 1)
4. Penn State (Big 10 Champ)
5. Ball State (At Large 3)
6. Cincinnati (Big East Champ)

first round
3v6
4v5

second round
1v highest seed remaining
2v lowest seed remaining

third round (national semi)
last two teams left

fourth round

red winner vs blue winner

[fhsbb232]

where is texas tech? one game does not force you out of the national championship discussion...they did beat texas after all...get ball state out of there...

[Mibabalou]

no ball state went undefeated it come down to usc vs texas tech and USC is higher

some teams will always be left out osu tt

[iihungrieii]

what if one team in the blue bracket is a blood?

[Mibabalou]

what if one team in the blue bracket is a blood?

lol


what do u think of the system

[djUbilla]

lol


what do u think of the system
Are you even a college football fan? Do you actually prefer it over pro?

I disagree with a college playoff system in general, but if I were to see one, I'd only like to see one with four teams. The eight best team should not have a shot to compete for the national title by going on a three-game winning streak.

The college football season acts as its playoff, and I would hate to see those games lose its meaning.

Seeding would not matter nearly as much in college football as in professional sports because college football is much more unpredictable.

[Mibabalou]

yes i am and no i like the nfl more it dosent mean i dont like cfb

i wish ppl would stop using that arugement that its gonna lose how important the reg season is

last time i checked the post season should mean a little more

[laxcrs]

i hate the playoff idea

[bigmike]

they win there conference but do you think cincinatti can play with texas if you gave teams an auto bid it would make 2ed best teams in stronger conference no chance of getting in

if you win your conference and are in the top 4 ap poll you would get in
Cincinnati WAS playing with Oklahoma until their starting quarterback broke his leg in the middle of the game, which then became a romp.

[acfrue]

lol, this would probably cause more controversy than the system right now....ball state #8? theyre like #15 right now

[preppyak]

The college football season acts as its playoff, and I would hate to see those games lose its meaning.
This is consistently the worst argument against a college playoff...though, for some reason, its the most used. Do non-conference games in college basketball "not matter" and do teams "not play hard"...if you've ever seen any college basketball game, you would know the answer is no. You'd know that teams that aren't locks to make the tournament have to try harder in non-conference because if they struggle there, they might well miss the tournament. Teams that mess up in November and December often give themselves no chance in March, barring a miracle run like Kentucky last year.

Since 2004, the best games in college basketball have happened in November (MSU v Gonzaga at Maui in double OT, etc), December, and occasionally early in conference play (Oklahoma State v Texas comes to mind in 2007, as that was a 2-3 OT epic game). Why is this?

Because without one game costing you your entire season, teams go out and challenge themselves. And not just teams ranked in the 20's...teams in the top 5 play teams in the top 5 because they know to win the tournament, you have to be ready...and they know full well that a loss doesn't sink their season. Hell, their are entire conference head-to-head match ups, with the best of each conference facing each other. And the mid-majors...they play an entire weekend of showcase games to state their case for the tournament. Wouldn't you love to see Utah play Boise State right now, and the winner gets the BCS game...well, they call that "Bracket Busters" in college basketball...it happens YEARLY. Wouldn't you love to see Boise State's schedule include USC, Texas, Penn State, and a host of other top 25 teams...in college basketball, the team is called Gonzaga and it happens YEARLY.

So let me reiterate my point...the argument that "the games would lose meaning" is and will always be the poorest argument (beyond perhaps "they need time to take finals") against a college playoff. Arguments like it adding too many games, or losing regular season games, are viable points...but the thought that Ok State v Oklahoma would be less of a game...despite the fact in any 8 team playoff it would determine likely if either team had a shot to get in...is just stupid in my mind

And while I think their should be a playoff...I also think the perceived obstacles (like the one I just discussed) are the very reason we won't have one for a while. Once people realize that most of the obstacles being discussed are minor in comparison to ones not being discussed...then we could actually come up with a real college playoff idea (which I believe happened last year in an epic college football playoff thread)

[FondestMemory]

i hate the argument that the regular season works as a playoff.

no it doesn't. the regular season doesn't mean a fucking thing. the last two weeks do, but everything before that tends to get ignored.

[preppyak]

If every game matters now...then how does a head-to-head win...which is THE deciding factor in other conferences and the NFL...not matter now. Its not all the BCS' fault, the Big 12 fucked up by not having it break down logically (3 way tie, take the 2 highest ranked teams and consider their tie-breakers, like other conferences do it)

[rcrook]

i hate the argument that the regular season works as a playoff.

no it doesn't. the regular season doesn't mean a fucking thing. the last two weeks do, but everything before that tends to get ignored.

winner. college football is a system where losing early ultimately helps a team at the end of the season. oklahoma losing early helped them out as they jumped texas this week because of two impressive wins at the end of the season against ranked opponents. OU ended their season with wins against Texas Tech and Oklahoma St while Texas ended their season with wins against mediocre teams like Baylor, Kansas and Texas A&M.

[LeftWideOpen]

If every game matters now...then how does a head-to-head win...which is THE deciding factor in other conferences and the NFL...not matter now. Its not all the BCS' fault, the Big 12 fucked up by not having it break down logically (3 way tie, take the 2 highest ranked teams and consider their tie-breakers, like other conferences do it)

The only issue that can still arise is what if the 3 teams are ranked something like 2nd, 3rd, and 4th? Hell, even 2nd, 3rd, and 7th is a little too close to comfort for me (since they are all 1 loss teams).

There is no good way to settle this, besides a fairly inclusive playoff. The more I think about it, I don't think 8 teams settles it. I think you have to go 12, to include all the BCS league champions, the best at-large schools and a potential undefeated non-BCS that cracks the top 12 of the BCS standings. The leagues win by getting the automatic berth, the little guys win by still getting their shot at a national title and you have room to include the 4 or 5 best BCS at large teams.

Fondest has proposed something similar to this in the past.

edit: and, if the season ended today, this playoff would include: Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, Florida, USC, Penn State, Texas Tech, Utah, Ohio State, Boise State, Cincinati and the ACC champ. Would that not basically appease every argument thats been made so far?

[bigmike]

I don't like that everyone is pointing to the Texas-OU game as reasons why Texas should go. Texas Tech is getting cast aside despite being a one loss team, as well. In a 3 way tie in which all 3 teams have losses to only each other, there is no head-to-head argument, in my mind, that settles things.

[rcrook]

I don't like that everyone is pointing to the Texas-OU game as reasons why Texas should go. Texas Tech is getting cast aside despite being a one loss team, as well. In a 3 way tie in which all 3 teams have losses to only each other, there is no head-to-head argument, in my mind, that settles things.

winner. the texas beat oklahoma so they should be ranked higher theory is bogus becase texas tech beat texas but we don't hear anybody speaking about that and how texas tech is being "shafted".

[FondestMemory]

I don't like that everyone is pointing to the Texas-OU game as reasons why Texas should go. Texas Tech is getting cast aside despite being a one loss team, as well. In a 3 way tie in which all 3 teams have losses to only each other, there is no head-to-head argument, in my mind, that settles things.

winner. the texas beat oklahoma so they should be ranked higher theory is bogus becase texas tech beat texas but we don't hear anybody speaking about that and how texas tech is being "shafted".

i said this in the ncaa thread a few days ago, but i'll restate it.

i have no problem leaving texas tech out. when you start comparing the three teams, they all came out with the same amount of wins, similar schedules, and losses coming only to each other. so instead of comparing wins, let's compare losses.

taking opponent names out completely, here's how that goes:

texas tech: got blown out on the road. never made it a game.

oklahoma: lost by 10 at a neutral site. the game wasn't as close as the final score indicated and they were pretty much physically dominated throughout the entire game.

texas: lost on the last play of the game on the road in their fourth game in a row against top 12 opponents.

with that, i have no qualms throwing tech out completely. that leaves texas and oklahoma. and texas' loss is more impressive than oklahoma's. then you throw in the fact that oklahoma's loss was actually to texas, and i don't even see how it's a contest who should be ranked higher.

[more heart]

i agree, conference winners and some wild card-esque teams should play in a playoff format.

[bigmike]

i said this in the ncaa thread a few days ago, but i'll restate it.

i have no problem leaving texas tech out. when you start comparing the three teams, they all came out with the same amount of wins, similar schedules, and losses coming only to each other. so instead of comparing wins, let's compare losses.

taking opponent names out completely, here's how that goes:

texas tech: got blown out on the road. never made it a game.

oklahoma: lost by 10 at a neutral site. the game wasn't as close as the final score indicated and they were pretty much physically dominated throughout the entire game.

texas: lost on the last play of the game on the road in their fourth game in a row against top 12 opponents.

with that, i have no qualms throwing tech out completely. that leaves texas and oklahoma. and texas' loss is more impressive than oklahoma's. then you throw in the fact that oklahoma's loss was actually to texas, and i don't even see how it's a contest who should be ranked higher.
I absolutely understand your point, but I'm not convinced the Tech-Oklahoma game was indicative of the discrepancy between the two programs. Though, not much you can do about it -- they got blown out.

[FondestMemory]

I absolutely understand your point, but I'm not convinced the Tech-Oklahoma game was indicative of the discrepancy between the two programs. Though, not much you can do about it -- they got blown out.

i just think that if you have a handful of teams whose bests are all similar, it's only logical to compare how those teams were at their worst.

of the three, texas tech's worst is far and away worse than the others.

[GiggsOho]

The whole issue with this is money. You can argue about whatever excuse you want - it's a moot point. The bowls, specifically the BCS, are cash cows for not only the schools - but the conferences. That's why you don't hear shitty programs barking about a tournament/playoff so they could possibly become something of a "football cinderella", if you will. They get money no matter what happens. Money is the reason for the Big East/ACC shift a few years back, thus causing that big shake-up. Football dominates athletic budgets, and the conf payouts at the end of the season help to put those departments in the black.

[FondestMemory]

The whole issue with this is money. You can argue about whatever excuse you want - it's a moot point. The bowls, specifically the BCS, are cash cows for not only the schools - but the conferences. That's why you don't hear shitty programs barking about a tournament/playoff so they could possibly become something of a "football cinderella", if you will. They get money no matter what happens. Money is the reason for the Big East/ACC shift a few years back, thus causing that big shake-up. Football dominates athletic budgets, and the conf payouts at the end of the season help to put those departments in the black.

that's a bullshit argument too.

the little schools could keep their bowls. there's no need to eliminate those completely.

and for the big schools, there's no way a playoff system brings in less money than the current bcs bowl system. and chances are, it ends up bringing in even more.

[domotime2]

what about looking at common opponents....(Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Baylor, and eachother)

OU: 320-183 (difference is 147)
Texas: 245-135 (difference is 110)
TTech: 257-192 (difference is 65)

if you want to go by who blew out who, by more.

[GiggsOho]

that's a bullshit argument too.

the little schools could keep their bowls. there's no need to eliminate those completely.

and for the big schools, there's no way a playoff system brings in less money than the current bcs bowl system. and chances are, it ends up bringing in even more.

The first part - I'd be willing to bet that if presented with the opportunity - a small football program would rather try to become a cinderella for a national championship than play in some podunk bowl on Dec. 27th in Detroit. People are still talking about that Boise State Fiesta Bowl, as they should be, and they probably will for a long time.

I just fail to see why the big wigs that run football wouldn't want to take what makes March Madness great (cinderellas - GMU, Davidson, Valpo, Butler, Gonzaga (not now obviously), and apply it to footbal.lIit absolutely could work.

The second part - I agree, but try telling the old asshats running college football.

[FondestMemory]

The first part - I'd be willing to bet that if presented with the opportunity - a small football program would rather try to become a cinderella for a national championship than play in some podunk bowl on Dec. 27th in Detroit. People are still talking about that Boise State Fiesta Bowl, as they should be, and they probably will for a long time.

I just fail to see why the big wigs that run football wouldn't want to take what makes March Madness great (cinderellas - GMU, Davidson, Valpo, Butler, Gonzaga (not now obviously), and apply it to footbal.lIit absolutely could work.

The second part - I agree, but try telling the old asshats running college football.

no doubt, every small school would hope they could get into the playoffs. but when they don't, they'd still have their podunk bowls to fall back on.

it's win/win for them.

[FondestMemory]

what about looking at common opponents....(Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Baylor, and eachother)

OU: 320-183 (difference is 147)
Texas: 245-135 (difference is 110)
TTech: 257-192 (difference is 65)

if you want to go by who blew out who, by more.

i hate margin of victory. anything that encourages teams to run up the score is horrible for the game in my opinion.

the way i look at it, once it gets past 20+, it's all the same to me. i'm no more impressed by a team winning games by an average of 40 points than i am of a team winning every game by 28.

[GiggsOho]

no doubt, every small school would hope they could get into the playoffs. but when they don't, they'd still have their podunk bowls to fall back on.

it's win/win for them.

You could just make the "podunk bowl" the conference championship the way college basketball does it. I can't personally compare the TV ratings of Mid-Major conf. basketball tournaments to bowls like the Humanitarian Bowl or Walnut Bowl, but I know I watch the basketball tournaments more. Maybe because it's basketball, and I like college b-ball more, but at least the kids are playing for SOMETHING. Those pre-BCS bowls, they don't matter. What are they winning? The kids that are playing don't see that money that gets awarded to the school. I think if the kids were playing for something, people would actually watch those bowl games, and ratings would go up, which ultimately means $$$$. But then again, I could be wrong, and people actually watch those bowls.

[djUbilla]

This is consistently the worst argument against a college playoff...though, for some reason, its the most used. Do non-conference games in college basketball "not matter" and do teams "not play hard"...if you've ever seen any college basketball game, you would know the answer is no. You'd know that teams that aren't locks to make the tournament have to try harder in non-conference because if they struggle there, they might well miss the tournament. Teams that mess up in November and December often give themselves no chance in March, barring a miracle run like Kentucky last year.

Since 2004, the best games in college basketball have happened in November (MSU v Gonzaga at Maui in double OT, etc), December, and occasionally early in conference play (Oklahoma State v Texas comes to mind in 2007, as that was a 2-3 OT epic game). Why is this?

Because without one game costing you your entire season, teams go out and challenge themselves. And not just teams ranked in the 20's...teams in the top 5 play teams in the top 5 because they know to win the tournament, you have to be ready...and they know full well that a loss doesn't sink their season. Hell, their are entire conference head-to-head match ups, with the best of each conference facing each other. And the mid-majors...they play an entire weekend of showcase games to state their case for the tournament. Wouldn't you love to see Utah play Boise State right now, and the winner gets the BCS game...well, they call that "Bracket Busters" in college basketball...it happens YEARLY. Wouldn't you love to see Boise State's schedule include USC, Texas, Penn State, and a host of other top 25 teams...in college basketball, the team is called Gonzaga and it happens YEARLY.

So let me reiterate my point...the argument that "the games would lose meaning" is and will always be the poorest argument (beyond perhaps "they need time to take finals") against a college playoff. Arguments like it adding too many games, or losing regular season games, are viable points...but the thought that Ok State v Oklahoma would be less of a game...despite the fact in any 8 team playoff it would determine likely if either team had a shot to get in...is just stupid in my mind

And while I think their should be a playoff...I also think the perceived obstacles (like the one I just discussed) are the very reason we won't have one for a while. Once people realize that most of the obstacles being discussed are minor in comparison to ones not being discussed...then we could actually come up with a real college playoff idea (which I believe happened last year in an epic college football playoff thread)
I understand where you're coming from, and I love the college basketball format. It works great for college basketball where you have 30 some odd games and can afford to build more of a resume, like you mentioned.

I would absolutely love to see the Div I-AA teams playoff to play in the BCS. That's actually a fantastic idea that I haven't heard yet.

On the Ok St and Oklahoma game, I hate the idea of Oklahoma State even competing for the national championship. They had a fine season, but by no means would I even want to consider them "making a run" in a playoff system. College football is too entropic to entrust. If you want to even consider the possibility of a team ranked around the 8-12 range to be eligible for a college playoff then we're starting another argument entirely. I always hear that pro-playoff people hated the BCS because they wanted to see a definitive champion. I don't think college football plays to that in any playoff format of 8 or even 6 teams or greater.

So, I suppose I would be intrigued by a four-team playoff, but most of the playoff ideas I'm hearing, I am against.

[Mibabalou]

Ok so Since Ball State is out of my current System here is what it is right now

i have two ill explain them both

A)

So I would like a 8 team playoff

any one of the D-1 teams that go undefeated automaticly gets a bid.

that way all the little guys get a chance

then i would like it to go to the bcs the top this year would be five teams (excluding alabama bc there undefeated)

i dislike the top 6 conference champions get a bid because clearly the sec and big 12 are a lot better than acc and big east this year

so it would look like this, this year

1. Alabama
8. Boise State

4. Florida
5. USC

3. Texas
6. Utah

2. Oklahoma
7. Texas Tech

B)

This one gives the 6 major conference winners an automatic bid to make all conference happy
then it goes to undefeated teams as the top at large bids (boise state , utah this year) the top 6 remaining ranked teams

a 12 team playoff (i know its a lot) like the nfl two "side" of the bracket top 2 seeds get by in the first round

A - Bracket

1. Alabama (SEC Champ)
2. Florida (At Large 4)
3. USC (Pac 10 Champ)
4. Penn State (Big 10 Champ)
5. Boise State (At Large 2)
6. Va Tech (ACC Champ)



B - Bracket
1. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
2. Texas (At Large 3)
3. Utah (At Large 1)
4. Texas Tech (At Large 5)
5. Ohio State (At Large 6)
6. Cincinnati (Big East Champ)

first round
3v6
4v5

second round
1v highest seed remaining
2v lowest seed remaining

third round (national semi)
last two teams left

fourth round

title game

[Mibabalou]

i honestly like a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff more than 12 but i dont know a way to give the big 6 confrence champions and the undefeated mid majors both a chance