Finally a Playoff?

[GH2001]

No disrespect to PCT, but although it's not stupid, it's a one of a 100 similar variants I've heard.  Nothing new.  In fact, the fix (if you want to make CFB like the NFL) is incredibly simple, and there are many ways to do it.  But until EVERYBODY in D1 has a legit shot at winning it, it will never be completely fixed by any stretch of the imagination.  And, as I said, I've decided I don't want it "fixed" I want the old way back.

I don't like the Conf Champions playing for it all. Reason why is because we all know good and well that the 5th best team in the SEC is probably still better than the Big East champ. Its the same bullshit today in how they get an Auto BCS bid knowing that there are probably 15 teams more deserving and better. Just take the top 8 teams in the standings at year end regardless of conference and slap em in a 3 round playoff....PERIOD. I want the best 4/8 teams in the country squaring off, not the conference champs because the best 8 may not necessarily be all of the conf champs (Big Least, ACC).

[AUChizad]

I don't like the Conf Champions playing for it all. Reason why is because we all know good and well that the 5th best team in the SEC is probably still better than the Big East champ. Its the same bullshit today in how they get an Auto BCS bid knowing that there are probably 15 teams more deserving and better. Just take the top 8 teams in the standings at year end regardless of conference and slap em in a 3 round playoff....PERIOD. I want the best 4/8 teams in the country squaring off, not the conference champs because the best 8 may not necessarily be all of the conf champs (Big Least, ACC).

True, but if they made it to conference champs, the best team in the conference almost certainly beat the 2nd best team in that conference already on the field (definitely if everyone adapted the SEC's format). This would make it more of a true play off, and more of a true way of crowning a champion. The bullshit that happened last year should never happen again.

[AUChizad]

And by the way? I'm disagree with what seems to be the majority here that there just shouldn't be a champion. What's the point in playing the game if you don't have a goal to prove you're the best in the country, like every other sport at every other level? I don't want regression.

I want to look


 

[GH2001]

True, but if they made it to conference champs, the best team in the conference almost certainly beat the 2nd best team in that conference already on the field (definitely if everyone adapted the SEC's format). This would make it more of a true play off, and more of a true way of crowning a champion. The bullshit that happened last year should never happen again.

In an 8 team format, I would be ok with it, because it wouldn't necessarily be a rematch. The NCAA BB Tourney really doesn't consider if you've already played and it doesn't seem to affect the success of it in crowning a champ. I think Kentucky and Indiana got re matched in the either the final 4 or elite 8 this year, but it all turned out ok.

[JR4AU]

And by the way? I'm disagree with what seems to be the majority here that there just shouldn't be a champion. What's the point in playing the game if you don't have a goal to prove you're the best in the country, like every other sport at every other level? I don't want regression.

I want to look


 

There will never be a true "champion" until they take the fodder out of the mix like the Mtn West, MAC, WAC, etc.  They'd also need to make 6 or 8 super conferences out of about 60 teams, and everybody would need to play at least 3 non-conf. games to get a feel for strength of conference and schedule for seeding post season play.  If you really, and I mean really want a "true champion" then it will take a complete dismantling of CFB as we know it, and a complete rebuild.  Otherwise it's just a variant of a human picked 2, 4, or 6 teams to play for it all out of 120, and that's what we have now, and it's what caused 2004 and 2011 to happen.  If you model it like GH said and predetermine who sucks and who is worthy by their conference affiliation before the first game is played you'd get a shitload more 2011 type deals. 

[AUChizad]

In an 8 team format, I would be ok with it, because it wouldn't necessarily be a rematch. The NCAA BB Tourney really doesn't consider if you've already played and it doesn't seem to affect the success of it in crowning a champ. I think Kentucky and Indiana got re matched in the either the final 4 or elite 8 this year, but it all turned out ok.

I think there's an important distinction between what PCT said, which is that winning your conference is a prerequisite to making the tournament, and having winning your conference be an automatic bid, because of exactly what you said with the Big East Champions not necessarily being deserving every year. It's already a problem with the BCS format as it is.

[JR4AU]

BTDub, after the defections of WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse (although Syracuse could stay and not make it stronger) the Big East will have become one of the "mid major" conferences that should be relegated to a lower tier than D1/FBS in a true championship format.

[GH2001]

There will never be a true "champion" until they take the fodder out of the mix like the Mtn West, MAC, WAC, etc.  They'd also need to make 6 or 8 super conferences out of about 60 teams, and everybody would need to play at least 3 non-conf. games to get a feel for strength of conference and schedule for seeding post season play.  If you really, and I mean really want a "true champion" then it will take a complete dismantling of CFB as we know it, and a complete rebuild.  Otherwise it's just a variant of a human picked 2, 4, or 6 teams to play for it all out of 120, and that's what we have now, and it's what caused 2004 and 2011 to happen.  If you model it like GH said and predetermine who sucks and who is worthy by their conference affiliation before the first game is played you'd get a shitload more 2011 type deals.

Not predetermining who sucks, just pointing out a scenario. Saying that 8 conf champs will play no matter what before the season starts, regardless of who the best teams actually are in the standings - is more predetermining to me. The Big East champ COULD have an 8-4 record with West Virginia being that team (who may have also lost to Cincy and Louisville and is ranked 25th). Do I want to automatically commit to a team (Big East champ) that may or may not be very good? Why would the 25th ranked team deserve a spot at the table of the final 8? If you just take the top 8 teams regardless of ANYTHING else, you will get a clear winner.

The NCAA BB Tourney takes what they think are the Top 64 teams regardless and it has worked well. Of course you have the whining about the bubble teams at 65-70 in the RPI ratings that got "left out", but has any 65th rated RPI team on the bubble ever been a threat to go the distance? The crying over who didn't get that last spot is a minor thing to me. No one was saying this year after Kentucky won it all that "if Seton Hall had just gotten an invite instead of going to the NIT, things would have ended up different".

End of Regular Season Top 8
LSU
Bama
Oklahoma State
Stanford
Oregon
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State

Conference Winners of 8 Biggest Conferences
Clemson
Wisconsin
Southern Miss
Oregon
LSU
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
TCU

I know which group that I think is more representative of what the Playoff of 8 should be.

[Townhallsavoy]

No sport has a system that crowns the actual best team in the league.  Take the 2007 Patriots for example.

But sports aren't necessarily about crowning the best team.  It's about playing the game and succeeding in the system written for the sport. 

In the NFL for example, they play 16 games in order to determine who gets into the playoffs.  It doesn't matter what team is better than the other.  What matters is that you've won more games the other teams so that you get into the playoffs.  Once the playoffs start, it all pretty much starts over.  Whoever wins the tournament is crowned champion.  Is it the best system imaginable?  Maybe not.  But it at least has tangible goals that each team is striving to achieve. 

College football?  Nothing is tangible.  And as some have already said, it will never be tangible when you have 120 teams being voted on by humans.  The fact that there are preseason polls should disqualify any team from being considered a true champion. 

[GH2001]

No sport has a system that crowns the actual best team in the league.  Take the 2007 Patriots for example.

But sports aren't necessarily about crowning the best team.  It's about playing the game and succeeding in the system written for the sport. 

In the NFL for example, they play 16 games in order to determine who gets into the playoffs.  It doesn't matter what team is better than the other.  What matters is that you've won more games the other teams so that you get into the playoffs.  Once the playoffs start, it all pretty much starts over.  Whoever wins the tournament is crowned champion.  Is it the best system imaginable?  Maybe not.  But it at least has tangible goals that each team is striving to achieve. 

College football?  Nothing is tangible.  And as some have already said, it will never be tangible when you have 120 teams being voted on by humans.  The fact that there are preseason polls should disqualify any team from being considered a true champion.

CFB won't crown a true champion until they go to a College Basketball Tourney style playoff. Its one of the most exciting sporting events, gets crazy ratings and money, and people rarely dispute the outcome.

[JR4AU]

Not predetermining who sucks, just pointing out a scenario. Saying that 8 conf champs will play no matter what before the season starts, regardless of who the best teams actually are in the standings - is more predetermining to me. The Big East champ COULD have an 8-4 record with West Virginia being that team (who may have also lost to Cincy and Louisville and is ranked 25th). Do I want to automatically commit to a team (Big East champ) that may or may not be very good? Why would the 25th ranked team deserve a spot at the table of the final 8? If you just take the top 8 teams regardless of ANYTHING else, you will get a clear winner.

The NCAA BB Tourney takes what they think are the Top 64 teams regardless and it has worked well. Of course you have the whining about the bubble teams at 65-70 in the RPI ratings that got "left out", but has any 65th rated RPI team on the bubble ever been a threat to go the distance? The crying over who didn't get that last spot is a minor thing to me. No one was saying this year after Kentucky won it all that "if Seton Hall had just gotten an invite instead of going to the NIT, things would have ended up different".

End of Regular Season Top 8
LSU
Bama
Oklahoma State
Stanford
Oregon
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State

Conference Winners of 8 Biggest Conferences
Clemson
Wisconsin
Southern Miss
Oregon
LSU
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
TCU

I know which group that I think is more representative of what the Playoff of 8 should be.

Like THS said, its not always the best team.  Its the team that negotiates the obstacles and achieves the goals that are set out by the system in order to get to play for championship.  It's up to the ones that set up the system to make it so that every team has about the same opportunities and obstacles.  As long as you leave it up to humans to vote based on meeting the eye test it will never be a real champion.

[GH2001]

It's all subjective when you get down to it, but there will have to be some input by humans on who the cream of the crop is. At least on who gets to play. I think most people can agree who the best 4/8/16 teams are. Then, let them all control their destiny from that point on.....

If we were talking about the humans choosing the National Champion, just 1 team of all 120, I would be inclined to agree with you. But looking at wins, dominance, SOS, etc - it shouldn't be that big of a deal to choose X amount of teams to play for it all.

[Snaggletiger]

I've long been a proponent of an 8 team field. Easily done and you can still use the bowls to play them off.  But I'm not on the committee so....

[JR4AU]

It's all subjective when you get down to it, but there will have to be some input by humans on who the cream of the crop is. At least on who gets to play. I think most people can agree who the best 4/8/16 teams are. Then, let them all control their destiny from that point on.....

If we were talking about the humans choosing the National Champion, just 1 team of all 120, I would be inclined to agree with you. But looking at wins, dominance, SOS, etc - it shouldn't be that big of a deal to choose X amount of teams to play for it all.

The NFL has no human input to decide who plays for it all.

[Townhallsavoy]

The NFL has no human input to decide who plays for it all.

Neither does the NBA, the MLB, or the NHL.  Or college baseball. 

[JR4AU]

Neither does the NBA, the MLB, or the NHL.  Or college baseball.

Those that want to just expand the same shitty system to a few more teams, want the same shitty system with a new look.  Like they cant totally let go of the traditional uniqeness of CFB, but also want to feel like the right team gets the crystal ball, but using a system they know is flawed.

[Snaggletiger]

Question.  What is the reluctance of AD's and those in power about going to a real playoff system, whatever that may be?  College football has become a mega-giant at producing $$$ and will continue to do so.  And without a doubt, going to an expanded playoff system would generate untold amounts of money as well.  You could easily go to an 8 team playoff without putting undo burden on the players and fans and still keep the traditions and bowls etc. pretty much in tact. 

Personally, I don't care about the money generated because it's not going in my pocket...only coming out so I can enjoy the sport.  But why they wouldn't want to fill their own little piggy banks even fuller is beyond me. They could do that and I think the fans, for the most part, would feel a bit more satisfied that a more fair system is in place to decide a champion.  And...I constantly hear the argument...even from Mike Slive..that they don't want to mess with the integrity of the regular season..that it would somehow lose it's importance.  Balderdash!!!  You only make the regular season that much more exciting and important when you're coming down the stretch and about 20 teams are busting their asses to get in and hoping that things happen with the teams in front of them, as they do every year.   

[Townhallsavoy]

From what I've heard, a playoff would benefit all of college football much like the playoffs benefit the entire NFL. 

The BCS keeps the money centralized to select conferences and historically select teams.  It's hard to get presidents (with influence) to agree to a playoff if it means spreading the wealth. 

[GH2001]

The NFL has no human input to decide who plays for it all.

But they also have wild cards for those exceptions where a division is stacked and has more than 1 great team. I would be cool with that.

I hate to use the example of Bama here, but under the 8 conference champions format, Southern Miss would have made it over Bama. Objectively, I can say this probably isn't a good thing. BUT, add some wildcards in there and you can get a couple of teams in that didn't necessarily win the conference but may also still be one of the best 8 teams in the land (i.e. Bama). This happens all the time in the NFL, especially a division like the NFC East (Dallas, Wash, Philly, NY)  or the AFC North (Balt and Pitt). At least with that format someone who is deserving isn't getting left out just because they were in a stacked conference (SEC).

[GH2001]

Or college baseball.

College baseball tourney teams are selected by humans much like the College Basketball Tourney.