So can it work? It's one of the biggest and oldest arguements in sports, right behind whether or not college athletes should be paid (they should, but it's impossible). I've seen various ideas for a playoff bountied about, but none of them seem to really solve the problem.
Here's what I see are the major barriers to a playoff:
1. The Big Six conferences. The ONLY way a national college playoff will work is if all eleven conferences (plus independents) are involved. Otherwise, there's not much difference from the current system. A sixteen-team playoff (with four at-large bids) would seem to be the best option, but...
2. Time. Now that teams are playing 12- and 13-game seasons, the regular season starts to creep into December. A December playoff could work, but it would be a scheduling nightmare. And then you've got to figure out where to have the game. Which leads us to...
3. The bowls. I often hear the argument that the lesser bowls could be used as early round games. Nevermind the expense in traveling to two or three different bowl sites. Bowl commitees don't give two flips about putting the best game on the field, or even where they fit in a national title picture. They just care about which team is going to bring the most fans and spend the most money. Period. Which is why you see a 4-loss Notre Dame team in a major bowl, or why the Rose and Orange Bowls were in a struggle over Iowa. And I don't think even the most die hard fans can afford to travel to two or three bowl games. And finally...
4. The money. We all agree that a college football playoff will bring in big bucks. But how does that money get split up? And why would the Big Six (see #1) want to share what they're already getting with the smaller conferences? The Big Ten pulled in TWENTY SIX MILLION dollars from the BCS alone. Why would they want to share that with, say, the WAC?
5. The regular season. This is a cliche, I know, but in college, Every Game Counts. We already *have* a playoff system; it started last week. Auburn's out. NC State is out. Ohio State came DAMN close to being out. Last man standing wins. Yes, sometimes there's abberations, but to get to the big game, you've got to be perfect, or damn near close to it.
Show me a workable system, and I'm in. But I think there's too many variables to keep it from happening.
Your thoughts?
"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
I saw an idea(I believe it was in Sporting News) using both the BCS and a playoff sytem. The BCS would be used to rank the top eight teams and the playoff games would only be played with these teams.The games would be played at the rotating BCS bowl games with the final two obviously playing for the national title.This would eliminate automatic bowl bids and maybe let an underdog sneak in just like in college basketball. I think it would work but it would make confrence championships not important and make Notre Dame pretty mad.Typed to the best of my knowledge.
If your playoff system has started already, then it sucks. Your telling me one loss should be enough to dissqualify you from playing for the national title? Meanwhile, teams that had easy games (miami vs La Tech, Mich vs N. Mich etc.) are still in it? A REAL playoff system is needed, hell cut a game off and go to 10 games if you are worried about school, or start earlier. Let them play into late January if need be, but have a way where there is a true national champ. Talk about a sport is good for it, but when the talk is contsantly, so and so got screwed, then that is not good for the sport.
Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws? Homer:U-sur-y? Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
Per the BCS, I already made my thoughts known there, and Battle already laid out the feasability problems that I see with the institution of a playoff system. However, I do have a word on the "lesser bowls." Rememmber, the playoff is for a national champion. Who's to say the rest of the bowls can't choose a team that's been eliminated from playoff contention? It's not like there's a shortage of good teams in college football; the quality wouldn't suffer. Matter of fact, it wouldn't be much different from what we have now, save for the last few bowls.
Melon' also brought up an important point (although somewhat unintentionally, I think): money from the conference championship games. The Big 4 (Big 10 doesn't have a conf. championship game, neither does the Pac-10) rake in serious cash during those games, to be distributed only throughout the conference; why give that up for a chance that your team/teams will get knocked out early, leaving you out a big payday when you have one sitting right there?
As for Notre Dame, they're always going to be mad, but they can take their exclusive NBC contract all the way to the bank, so I don't want to hear it.
(EDIT: Doc, I will remind you that Purdue thought Bowling Green was going to be easy, and see what happened. Those are the only cupcakes on their respective schedules, too.)
Originally posted by TheCowPer the BCS, I already made my thoughts known there, and Battle already laid out the feasability problems that I see with the institution of a playoff system. However, I do have a word on the "lesser bowls." Rememmber, the playoff is for a national champion. Who's to say the rest of the bowls can't choose a team that's been eliminated from playoff contention? It's not like there's a shortage of good teams in college football; the quality wouldn't suffer. Matter of fact, it wouldn't be much different from what we have now, save for the last few bowls.
Melon' also brought up an important point (although somewhat unintentionally, I think): money from the conference championship games. The Big 4 (Big 10 doesn't have a conf. championship game, neither does the Pac-10) rake in serious cash during those games, to be distributed only throughout the conference; why give that up for a chance that your team/teams will get knocked out early, leaving you out a big payday when you have one sitting right there?
As for Notre Dame, they're always going to be mad, but they can take their exclusive NBC contract all the way to the bank, so I don't want to hear it.
(EDIT: Doc, I will remind you that Purdue thought Bowling Green was going to be easy, and see what happened. Those are the only cupcakes on their respective schedules, too.)
(edited by TheCow on 7.9.03 1008)
Upsets happen, but usually a low ranked team will not beat a high ranked team.
Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws? Homer:U-sur-y? Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
When ALL of the other NCAA divisions play out their football seasons using playoffs and 11 game seasons, I think that pretty much blows up the idea that it can't be accomplished in Division I. The beautiful thing about March Madness is that all 300+ teams start the season with the same chance to win the national title due to automatic bids being given to all conference champions. I would (humbly) propose the following playoff system. (For simplicity's sake, I'm using the Sagarin/USA Today 2002 computer rankings for seeding purposes.)
JJD's TWENTY-TEAM PLAYOFF FORMULA Automatic bids to conference champions: ACC: Florida State (9-4) Big East: Miami, FL (12-0) Big 10: Ohio State (13-0) Big 12: Oklahoma (11-2)* Conference USA: Cincinnati (7-6) MAC: Marshall (9-2)* Mountain West: Colorado State (10-3) Pac-10: Washington State (10-2) SEC: Georgia (11-1)* Sun Belt: North Texas (7-5) WAC: Boise State (11-1)
AT-LARGE TEAMS: USC (10-2) Iowa (11-1) Notre Dame (10-2) Texas (10-2) Michigan (9-3) Maryland (10-3) Kansas State (10-2) Colorado (9-3) Penn State (9-3)
(* These teams won conference championship games. I would eliminate these and limit the season to 11 games. Besides if you had to win 15 or 16 games to win the title, why would you want to play more regular season games? Also, I have seeded the teams 1-20. Those are the numbers preceding them below, a la the NCAA basketball tourney.)
FIRST ROUND (Nov. 30, 2002): Game 1: #16 Boise State vs. #17 Colorado State Game 2: #15 Penn State vs. #18 Marshall Game 3: #14 Colorado vs. #19 Cincinnati Game 4: #13 Florida State vs. #20 North Texas
SECOND ROUND (Dec. 7, 2002): Game 5: #1 Miami, FL vs. Game 1 winner Game 6: #2 Ohio State vs. Game 2 winner Game 7: #3 Georgia vs. Game 3 winner Game 8: #4 USC vs. Game 4 winner Game 9: #5 Iowa vs. #12 Kansas State Game 10: #6 Washington State vs. #11 Maryland Game 11: #7 Notre Dame vs. #10 Michigan Game 12: #8 Oklahoma vs. #9 Texas
QUARTERFINALS (Dec. 14, 2002): Game 13: Game 5 winner vs. Game 12 winner Game 14: Game 6 winner vs. Game 11 winner Game 15: Game 7 winner vs. Game 10 winner Game 16: Game 8 winner vs. Game 9 winner
SEMIFINALS (Dec. 21, 2002): Game 17: Game 13 winner vs. Game 16 winner Game 18: Game 14 winner vs. Game 15 winner
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (Jan. 1, 2003): Game 19: Game 17 winner vs. Game 18 winner
We're 0-1, but the Huskies are still winning the Pac-10, and even if we don't at least we don't look like a bunch of frickin' yellow idiots like Oregon.
When ALL of the other NCAA divisions play out their football seasons using playoffs and 11 game seasons, I think that pretty much blows up the idea that it can't be accomplished in Division I. The beautiful thing about March Madness is that all 300+ teams start the season with the same chance to win the national title due to automatic bids being given to all conference champions.
Except that ALL of the other divisions aren't dealing with the type of money that we're talking about in D-1. Plus, all of the other divisions only play 8 or 9 games, not 12 or 13.
March Madness isn't perfect either. How many "bubble" teams from big conferences have we seen get bids over a mid-major that lost in the finals of their conference tournament? Happens all the time. Didn't North Carolina get in once with a losing ACC record once? What's the difference between that and a 9-2 Notre Dame going to a BCS bowl instead of a 11-0 TCU?
JJD, I like your playoff idea. I had a similar idea, except with sixteen teams (the 11 conferences and 5 at-large). What I *don't* like are the plans that include the BCS formula or an the top 8-ranked teams. Because that doesn't seem to solve the inherent problem most people have with the BCS. It's just now we're arguing who got screwed at #9, instead of #3.
One question. Where do you have your games being played? I originally thought it would be a good idea to have regional games played at the home stadium of that top ranked team, but I don't think the field could hold up for that number of games. It would take a BEATING.
Like I said before, I don't like using the bowls, if only because of the expense involved in traveling to up to five different sites (under your plan). Even in basketball, you're talking about three sites (the first and second rounds, the regional semis, and the Final Four).
I won't address the finals issue, just because I'm not sure how it works in the other divisions. But I'm sure it's an issue that needs to be taken into consideration.
"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
JJD, I like your playoff idea. I had a similar idea, except with sixteen teams (the 11 conferences and 5 at-large). What I *don't* like are the plans that include the BCS formula or an the top 8-ranked teams. Because that doesn't seem to solve the inherent problem most people have with the BCS. It's just now we're arguing who got screwed at #9, instead of #3.
While teams may get screwed out of being in the playoffs, at least the National Champion will be a team that has beaten all the other top-ranked teams in the country.
You can't do away with the Bowl system. Bowls have history and tradition. And college football IS tradition. (They do however have too many bowl games) And part of the fun of college football is the argument and debate. That fuels rivalries.
Use the existing bowl sites as playoff sites. Play the early-rounders in the minor (medium) bowl sites, the big ones in the New Year's bowls, etc. Nat'l championship game to be played in the "BCS" bowl site (one of the Big 3 or 4). Yeah, travel would suck, but there's got to be a way to organize the tourney so higher-ranked teams wouldn't have to travel as much (maybe home-field for the first round?)
I like having the 11 conf champs and a BCS-like selection to pick the other 5 at-large to create a 16 team playoff, or have a BCS-like selection for 13 at-large spots to make a 24 team playoff. 24 teams would quelch any arguments that deserving teams got snubbed (like people really argue that the #25 team should be above the #24 in the top 25 polls)
with a 16 team playoff, you have 4 games and use the march madness seeding (1 vs 16 and so on)
with a 24 team playoff, the BCS-like selection would give byes to the top 8 ranked conf champs (to further emphasis the importance of conf play, and not punish it. yes, my stance from last year has changed, but if North Texas has a week SOS and wins the conf, they shouldn't be punished because of the poor records of their fellow conf members)
then after the 16 team playoff, like above, the bye schools play the winners of the first round, but 5 weeks might be a bit much, unless the first and second rounds were done in one week (like a saturday game for round 1, then a wednesday game for round 2, and then saturday for round 3.)
with the current system of bowls, some schools go 5-6 weeks from their last game until their bowl game...that is way to long to be idle.
edit:
oh yeah, isn't there a rule where the season couldn't go longer than 20 (or was that 22?) weeks?
that has to be kept in mind when designing a playoff system.
i think ESPN has said that in the last few years, the season has gone an average of 18 weeks.
(edited by rikidozan on 7.9.03 2348)
Almost finished my 2002-2003 College Football raitings. Watch this space!!!
Originally posted by BattlezoneExcept that ALL of the other divisions aren't dealing with the type of money that we're talking about in D-1. Plus, all of the other divisions only play 8 or 9 games, not 12 or 13.
On the contrary, in 2001 Montana won the Division I-AA title with a 15-1 record, North Dakota won the Division II title with a 14-1 record, and Mount Union won with a 14-0 record. That's 12, 11, and 10 regular season games, respectively. Besides, I already said I'd cap the regular season at 11 games.
Originally posted by BattlezoneOne question. Where do you have your games being played? I originally thought it would be a good idea to have regional games played at the home stadium of that top ranked team, but I don't think the field could hold up for that number of games. It would take a BEATING.
I have two ideas on this.
Option #1: I'd play up through the quarterfinals at the higher seed's home field. I think it would be too tough to get the fans to travel to all of the neutral site games like in the NCAA basketball tourney, where you have four teams per site and only 20,000 seats max to fill. I'd then play the semifinals and finals at neutral sites, rotating like the BCS bowls do now between the Rose Bowl, Superdome, Orange Bowl, and Sun Devil Stadium.
Option #2: I'd play the first two rounds at home fields. I'd play the quarterfinals at four neutral sites that host current bowls, like San Diego, and also at the BCS bowl sites. I'd have one BCS bowl site be for the national title game, but I'd take New Orleans out of the rotation and make it the permanent home for a doubleheader of semifinal games.
(edited by JayJayDean on 7.9.03 2241) Washington Huskies, 1-1. USC didn't look THAT great after the first quarter, so I'm more optimistic that they'll be the 2003 Pac-10 champs.
I agree with Battlezone's list, except money should be reasons #1, #2, and #3 that there is not a playoff, and won't be a playoff anytime soon. While everything else stated is probably true, until the money issue is resolved none of the rest matters.
The current system gives power to the major conferences and to the bowl sponsors. They get the cash, and have control over who does and doesn't get a piece of the cash pie. The NCAA has little to do with the bowl system, and of oourse for the most part, minor conferences are locked out of BCS bowls. Thus, the major conferences and the school presidents within those conferences do not want a playoff and thus there will not be a playoff. A playoff not sponsored by the NCAA wouldn't seem legitimate, and they are going to want a piece of the money pie to sponsor a playoff.
But for conversation sake, if they do a playoff, it needs to be NCAA Basketball style. Anything that ties into the BCS wouldn't be legitimate in my eyes. Also, tying the bowls in would be pointless, as they would lose the tradition, and be bowls in name only. In fact, I hate the BCS because it's a half-assed way to determine a national champion. It's not legitimate like a playoff, but yet it has ruined the bowl system in my eyes. If they don't have a playoff, I would just assume they dump the BCS and just go back to the old ways of bowls, a free-for-all for bids, with only the traditional lock-ins, like SEC Champ to Sugar, and Big 10/Pac 10 Champ in the Rose. But most of the spots should be at-large to keep the matchups interesting.
Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Step 1. Tell the conferences that they have to have 11 or 12 teams to be a part of the tournament.
Big East will only have 6 teams now, so they will have to get five teams or fold. Pac-10 adds 2 teams. (They only HAVE to have one, but add two for the purposes of the numbers. Or they can just add one and the Big 10 can add Notre Dame for as a 12th team)
Step 2. Now out of the other five conferences and independents there are 55 teams left. Minus 7 for the Big East and Pac 10 teams leaves you with 48 teams. Split those teams up into for mid major conferences and fold the one that's left over.
Step 3. Every team has 11 or 12 teams so they can have two divisions, thus they all have a conference championship game. This also is the FIRST ROUND of the tournament. NObody can argue about being in it or not, because it's all based on standings. No BCS, no at large bids.
STEP 4. The winners of the big 6 have a first round match up (their conference championship) but get a bye in the second round.
Step 5. The four mid major conferences play each other in the second round of the tournament.
Step 6. The six major conferences and the two remaining mid majors have their conference champions play in a eight team tournament
Bowl Games Rose Bowl - When you get to the eight final teams the Pac 10 and Big 10 winners play. Sugar, Fiesta, Orange Bowls - rotates, one is the Championship game while the other two AREN'T a part of the tournament but get the best teams remaining (there will still be good teams left. I mean if Oklahoma and Michigan go, there's still teams like Texas, kansas State, Ohio State, etc) Two of the bigger non BCS bowls (Capital One?) get the semi finals of the tournament.
Likely won't happen, mainly because you have to phase out one conference, but that's how I would do it if I were in charge.
I don't think you need to phase conferences out or add teams to the Pac-10. The NCAA basketball tournament works just fine with the assortment of conference layouts around the country. Plus, you'd have too much in variance of schedules and no incentive for teams to schedule good out-of-conference matchups by placing all of the emphasis on conference play. Also, the variations in schedule could have great impact on who makes those championship games, especially if you enlarge the conferences so that two or three teams get skipped on each team's schedule.
Washington Huskies, 1-1. USC didn't look THAT great after the first quarter, so I'm more optimistic that they'll be the 2003 Pac-10 champs.
Well then cut the non conference games down to just one a year for big rivalries like Florida vs. FSU. This way the season would also end earlier so they have time for the tournament.
One of the big arguements against December playoffs is the fact that colleges do have finals in Mid to Late Decmeber. Schools have long argued that having games in Mid-December takes away from study times for student athletes.
WIENER OF THE DAY! July 6, 2002!
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
Originally posted by QuezzyWell then cut the non conference games down to just one a year for big rivalries like Florida vs. FSU. This way the season would also end earlier so they have time for the tournament.
But under that scenario, you'd NEVER have another Northern Illinois-Maryland-type upset. That'd suck. Besides, if Florida just played FSU, neither would play Miami. That'd suck too.
Originally posted by FfejOne of the big arguements against December playoffs is the fact that colleges do have finals in Mid to Late Decmeber. Schools have long argued that having games in Mid-December takes away from study times for student athletes.
So do the schools in Division I-AA, Divison II, and Division III care less about their student-athletes by forcing them to play football games during finals (which actually applies to the 4 schools that make the semi-finals, if that) OR is it POSSIBLE that these schools actually MANAGE to make it happen without the student-athletes having their educations compromised?
Washington Huskies, 1-1. USC didn't look THAT great after the first quarter, so I'm more optimistic that they'll be the 2003 Pac-10 champs.
No I wasn't saying that, I was simply stating that has always been a big argument from Division I schools. I personally think there should be a playoff system.
But I think when figuring a play off sytem the second or third Saturday in December should be left out for finals. In all the years of seeing Marshall, Eastern Ky, Western Ky, and Morehead St in the I-AA playoffs I do believe they take one Saturday in December off between the semifinals and finals. I think the playoffs start the last Saturday in November and then end the Last Saturday of December.
EDIT: I was right- First Round November 29, Second Round December 6, Semifinals December 13, I-AA Title Game December 27 on ESPN.
EDIT REDUX- I am an idiot, its December 20th on ESPN and I stand highly corrected. I am going back into my hole now.
(edited by Ffej on 10.9.03 1033)
(edited by Ffej on 10.9.03 1052) WIENER OF THE DAY! July 6, 2002!
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
Originally posted by JayJayDeanBut under that scenario, you'd NEVER have another Northern Illinois-Maryland-type upset. That'd suck. Besides, if Florida just played FSU, neither would play Miami. That'd suck too.
psst, Miami and FSU will both be in the ACC next year, but I'm sure you know that, and we did understand the point.
I like conf's either having 9 schools max, or having 12 and 2 divisions.
here's why, conference play. all the big conferences have 8 conference games, and 3-5 non conference games. (going from memory, correct me if i'm wrong)
ACC (currently) - 9 teams, all teams play the other 8 teams during the season (if there is no conf game after expansion, there would be 2 no-plays a year Big 12 - team plays all 5 division members, and 3 of other division, leaves 3 no-plays...possible to be made up in championship game Big East - 8 teams, all teams play the other 7 teams during the season Big Ten - 11 teams, 2 no-plays Pac-10 - 10 teams, 1 no-play SEC - 12 teams just like big 12, 3 no-plays
I like the ACC & Big East in their current incarnations because all the teams play each other, no no-plays like in that OSU-IOWA co-champ thing last year, and lots of non-con play. In the current incarnation of the BCS, non-conf play will help the SOS if you're in a weak conf.
Yes, in SEC and Big 12, there are 3 no-plays, but the goal is to win the division to make it to the title game and win the conf that way.
I don't know the bylaws of the other confs, but in the ACC, it's the conf winning % that determines the champ (or co-champs, head-to-head is not a tie breaker)
Does anyone know how the MAC works? there are 14 teams in 2 div's of 7. my guess would be 6 div games, and 2 other div games leaving 5 no-plays on a rotating basis.
EDIT: sorry, i had a point, but due to my faulty memory, and pressing time (gotta run to my night class) i lost my point in mid typing....if i find it, i'll re-edit, or just delete...
(edited by rikidozan on 10.9.03 1731)
Almost finished my 2002-2003 College Football raitings. Watch this space!!!
Pages: 1 2 Next
#
