Printable View
For a minute, let's stop arguing about what kind of playoffs the NCAA should have (8-team, 16-team, etc.)
Instead, I'm just curious how many people think there should be some sort of expanded playoff system (more than the current single-game National Championship).
Absolutely.
Yes!
Absolutely Not!
Why should it? College athletics aren't founded on the premise of finding the best team in the nation or crowning a national champion.
The problem is college football isn't a sport that lends itself to a large-scale tournament that would be needed with over 100 schools playing in 11 different conferences (including 4 teams who aren't even in a conference). Even if there were a playoff, who determines the seeding...computers? voters? combination, aka bcs? If a playoff is implemented, it would have to include at least 12-16 teams or it would cause just as much controversy over who gets in or not.
Any playoff system, in my mind, would have to involve 24 teams (8 getting first round byes) or ideally 32 teams which would include the 11 conference champs & the rest to be selected at large (either 13 or 21 others), with the Independent schools having to either align with a conference or hope for an at-large selection. This will never happen though, leaving us with, at best, an 8 team, and in my opinion, flawed playoff. If the playoff is flawed, what would distinguish it from the bcs?
This is solely my opinion, and I'm willing to bet this idea is in the minority, so no need to give it too much credence
Then why did the NCAA become the first to call it and crown a "National Champion"? Much like high school athletics playing for a state championship the idea of proving you are the best team in the country is why college athletics NEEDS a National Champion. Otherwise, college athletics loses allure. Let's face it. For many of these kids education is NOT at the forefront for athletics. If we take away their "big games" or their "championships" why play in college? For the awards? Pff. These kids play to win...programs put together championship caliber teams to prove they are the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Taking away a NC is not going to stop kids from not graduating...it's going to halt development of talent in team sports and slow enrollment in colleges as athletes are led to amateur leagues in Europe to hone their skills and go for the pros.
And in response to Etothep...much like the college basketball tournament a committee would decide at-large bids. Victories, strength of schedule, and quality wins would most likely be taken into account. 11 Conference Champions plus 5 at-large bids gives us a decent sized tournament that does not give us 17-19 games a season which no doubt could hurt the quality of play. The D1AA has 16. D2 has 24. D3 has 16.
Much like Dan Wetzel's plan no longer would "power conference" be an almighty guarantee. A BCS conference that is down (the ACC, Pac-10, SEC, Big Ten, Big East) would not longer be given priority over a non-BCS that is up (Mountain West).
I think a Final 4 Playoff would be great.
yes
Absolutely.
Why doesn't college football go back to the way it was in the 90's? From what I remember, it was the split National Championship in 1996 that started all this ruckus anyways. Now, I'm a stickler for tradition. I would prefer that they go back to the bowls as a final step. However, I wouldn't be opposed to having a +1 game a week after. This way, if there are still 2 undefeateds (or clear favorites), they can match up in the Championship Game. This way, the bowls are a defacto semifinal.
it was also split in 1991, GA tech and ColoradoQuote:
Originally Posted by PotatoOfCouch13
Thats been my problem is the sharing of the national title, or a team not getting the title shot when you can make a legitimate case for them. It usually comes down to 2 teams, one on the outside looking in that causes all the debate.
Thats why I love the idea for a Final Four. For starters 2 games wouldnt be as taxing to go through for these young players as an 8 game playoff, and it would only be 1 extra game if you still have all the bowl games. If you had the playoff on a neutral site I believe it would be as popular if not moreso than the College Basketball tourney.
But I dont mind the way it is now. Its just a bad deal when you get a team left out of it from time to time. For the most part they get it right.
I don't think they need a playoff system - but I agree with BradK that the regular season should be overhauled. There are too many teams in Div1 football to reasonably rank everyone. Create an upper division in college football. Keep the conferences, but shrink the conference schedule. The top teams would have to schedule a minimum of 2 or 3 non-conference games against other top teams. Teams that aren't in the upper division can play their way in through something like the BCS rankings - top few lower division teams are moved up each year, the bottom few in the upper division are relegated down.
The fact of the matter is Division 1 football is the only sport in which they crown a champion this way. Why?
Money.
When college football established the bowls it was to garner extra money for Southern schools who played each other to see who was better. The bowls were not created to determine a national champion in any way. The NCAA started to hand out the title shortly after fans of northern and western schools decided they wanted to play these southern schools and big name writers began to debate who was better.
In 1990 the split National Championship is still hotly debated around Georgia Tech's campus due to the fifth down CU recieved against Missouri. The 1996 split title was the one that broke the back.
Why should we let fat cat writers who may have never played the game decide who is #1?
All I think is that we should let the teams decide. Why does the Pac-10 and Big Ten disagree? MONEY.
The Rose Bowl still generates millions of dollars in revenue. These two conferences will not give that up just for a few weeks of great playoff football.
Money owns college football more then any other college sport.
The growth of interest in college football is heavily stunted by the current system. It's become painfully outdated. Nobody cares about half these bowl games except alumni and fans of certain schools.
How much of a joke is the matchup of VaTech and Cincinnati? That's not a marquee matchup by any stretch of the imagination, but because their conferences are vested in some outdated system, it's being pushed on us as a marquee matchup.
Why is Ohio State playing in one of the biggest games in the country? And why are they playing Texas, a team which has a fairly good argument for a shot at the national championship? Shouldn't Texas be playing Alabama or Utah?
Beyond the BCS bowls, the matchup system is ridiculous, stupid, and almost pointless. Boise State should be paired with a top tier team from a big conference, like Texas Tech or Missouri. Winning a conference of almost equal quality to the Big East or ACC and being undefeated should be worth more than getting the privilege to play another overlooked team from another overlooked conference. The worst part is, BSU-TCU is a great matchup of two teams that are better than Cincinnati and VaTech, and could probably stand toe to toe with Utah and Ohio State, but it's lost in the shuffle and means next to nothing.
They say it's the popularity and fan base of the big schools and conferences. This only prevents the "mid-majors" (which, especially in the case of the MWC, aren't so "mid" anymore) from growing popularity and a fan base.
They say it's money. Going back to the last point, how can the "mid-majors" ever be profitable if they're more or less forced to remain in college football's second class? Another thing... you don't think a playoff system, or a system which would promote and lift up formerly lesser known teams, and which could give us a legitimate national champion, and a few weeks of great games, all having national championship implications... would be profitable?
They say it's tradition. I call BS on this. I'm not feeling very nostalgic about the Bearcats and Cavaliers, sorry. And I don't know a single person who does. As for the Rose Bowl, these days it means nothing more than a football game with a couple of good teams to anyone who doesn't live in the Midwest or California.
Grow the sport in areas that have largely been ignored. Bring in more fans who have no ties to schools. Give us a more exciting playoff season. And give us a legit national champion.
It's not too much to ask, it makes sense, and it gets rid of an antiquated and stupid system.
Totally in agreement with justane
Which situation is better:Quote:
Originally Posted by BradK
1) 5 or so teams claim to be the "odd man out" in regards to a national title game. All these teams, along with the top 2 ranked teams, have good arguments for having a chance to play for the national championship. The title game is played, one team wins unconvincingly. Another team, perhaps the third ranked team, destroys another top team but is lucky to end the season ranked second. Another 5 to 10 teams claim they're talented enough to be in the championship game, or at least one of the four other big games. These teams play in a bunch of meaningless bowl games, and their seasons end with them trouncing crappy .500 teams, or 2nd or 3rd place teams from conferences like C-USA.
2) 1 team, perhaps Ball State, perhaps a fourth place team in the Big 12 or SEC, complains about being left out of a 16-team playoff.
Situation 1 has been the norm for years now. Situation 2 is the potential "downfall" of a playoff system. I'll take Situation 2 without hesitating. Give me one odd man out of a large playoff over several odd men out of ONE game... any day.
I believe there should be a playoff system. I like the idea of a 16 team playoff. 1-aa uses it so I know it works. If the problem stems from odd man out like has been mentioned, please make it a 32 team playoff. Use the BCS rankings as a seeding system.
Before you state that they would be playing too many games. If the season was shortened back to 11 games, then the two teams going all the way would play 15 games total in a 16 team playoff, 16 games in a 32 team playoff. Teams that play in conference championship games now already play in 14 game seasons, including bowl games.
Also, take the div1-aa games off the schedule. It makes for a little better scheduling. In most cases they would play tougher schedules.
Why did they make it a 12 game regular season?
I'm in total agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
College Football schedules are made years in advice. This means that even if Texas scheduled Bama, nobody at the time it would have been scheduled would have really viewed it as a real big-time OOC matchup, same with Kansas (who had always been somewhere in the 5-7 to 7-5 ranger for awhile before just 2-3 years ago, and if LSU had scheduled Ball St, the odds of them getting a 12-1 Ball St are slim at best. I agree for the most part (about not just scheduling a bunch of DII teams, but USC scheduling tOSU was supposed to be the big early season OOC matchup. USC has done a great job in recent years scheduling strong OOC foes (UVA, nebraska, va tech, arkansas, tOSU, auburn, colorado, kansas st).Quote:
Originally Posted by BradK
And there are many who think it was Oklahoma's OOC schedule that gave them the nod over Texas (Oklahoma's 2 best OOC wins were against TCU & Cincy opposed to Texas' best 2 being against FAU & Rice).
I completely agree that the prestige of a good chunk of these bowl games is nil. Especially considering that over half the DI teams are playing in a bowl (68 of 120), so trying to claim wanting to keep the prestige of the bowls (from the vaunted papjohns.dot bowl to the one we always want to see our favorite team playing in, the Meineke Car Care Bowl) is a rather weak argument in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BradK
YES.
Also like said before, NO MORE DIV II games scheduled, they should be docked whatever points for scheduling these games. Also being a Trojans fan, I would love not being so locked into having to play every team in the conference. This year we especially got docked for it having the grand ole teams from Washington on our schedule. With only so many Out of Conference games to play, and the way they are done in advance, I would love to have us play some Big 12 or SEC team, but by the time we play them, they would probably be in a down year (Nebraska, Arkansas).
Yes, but we also need scheduling reform, and if I had to pick between the 2, I'd take scheduline reform.
I agree. NO NATIONAL CHAMPION.
Have a Rose Bowl Winner
and an Orange Bowl Winner
And a Fiesta Bowl Winner
That's good enough.
There are too many teams, playing too many levels of competition to realistically name ONE as the best
Y is this brought up again?
Utah?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Its the only major sport where there really is no champion. The bowls are way, way outdated. 8 team playoff, 16 team playoff...something, anything makes sense. There have been too many split championships and other injustices in college football.
As for the "someone will always be left out" argument. Thats inconsequential. Choosing two teams to play in the ultimate game often eliminates a third team which seems to have as much right to be there (see LSU, Oklahoma, and USC in 2003, and THREE undefeated teams in 2004, with Auburn drawing the short straw). The #3 team in these two years could just as easily have been voted #2 or #1. Its just too close to call, and these teams are too close to the top.
If there existed an 8 team playoff, the #9, #10, etc., teams would certainly cry, but who cares? Their claim would be that they were as good as the #8 team in the country. So what? Many would contend that the #8 team shouldn't be in the hunt anyway. Its like college basketball where 65 teams are included in the tourney, and there is always some 19-14 team that whines about it. Nobody cares that those teams fail to get in, and no one would really care about the football teams that would miss out on an 8 or 16 team playoff.
I understand all the arguments for not having a playoff. They just make no sense to me.
Y is a mouse when it's spinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage