Should College Football Have A Playoff System?

[Clay Dreslough]

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).

[justanewguy]

Absolutely.

[ragecage]

Yes!

[filihok]

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.

[etothep]

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

[OregonDuck1989]

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.

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.

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).

[ragecage]

I think a Final 4 Playoff would be great.

[Wassit3]

yes

[Swampdog]

Absolutely.

[PotatoOfCouch13]

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.

[Wassit3]

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 Colorado

[ragecage]

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.

[kenny1234]

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.

[OregonDuck1989]

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.

[justanewguy]

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.