Exactly why some did not want a playoff in college football

[Atlhogfan1]

GET OFF MY LAWN!  I love the "the playoff is about money" complaint.  What were/are the bowls about?  Hell, what is the entire season about?  I love that it is about money because that gives them incentive to create the best/most entertaining system possible.

Giving the conference champions automatic bids would suck if they keep conference championship games.  Take the SEC this year:  does anyone think Florida should get a bid over Alabama if hell freezes over and they win the SEC championship game?

First: eliminate the conference championship games.  Play a round robin conference schedule.  Crown the conference champion based on regular season. 
Make the playoff a 6 team playoff with the P5 champions plus one at large team.

I am not complaining.

It isn't about the best most entertaining system now.  It has more structure so you end up with a W Mich in the bigger bowls.  You end up with a number of forced and poor matchups.

I agree on the conference championship.  I don't think it should be emphasized.  I believe it only is now as a form of a tiebreaker to distinguish equally viewed teams.

You can't play a round robin schedule with 12 and 14 team conferences.  Have to break up the superconferences which is probably where college football is heading - 8 8-10 team conferences. 

[RME]

Think of the amount of extra practices that advancing teams would get in an 8-team playoff.

Would something be done to allow non-playoff teams to practice during that time as well? We've heard time and again how important it is to make a bowl game just for the extra practices alone.

The rich would only get richer.



Unless there's already some rule in place regarding that scenarios that I don't know about (which is very likely).

[hogsanity]

I just find it odd that a team can be one of the top 4 in the nation yet were not able to win their own league.

[Atlhogfan1]

I just find it odd that a team can be one of the top 4 in the nation yet were not able to win their own league.

One game upsets happen.  If they are viewed as one of the top 4, they should be in.  Bama would have been in that position last season if not for our 4th down play vs OM. 

[Atlhogfan1]

Think of the amount of extra practices that advancing teams would get in an 8-team playoff.

Would something be done to allow non-playoff teams to practice during that time as well? We've heard time and again how important it is to make a bowl game just for the extra practices alone.

The rich would only get richer.



Unless there's already some rule in place regarding that scenarios that I don't know about (which is very likely).

The postseason would be condensed.  Practice time wouldn't be extended.  Instead of Bama have 3 - 4 weeks to prepare for Washington, they would have 1-2 and then 1-2 for the next and 1-2 for the next. 

What this would do would be give the best recruiting programs an even bigger advantage due to their depth. 

[longpig]

If Penn State, Washington, and Clemson all win, they should be in the Final 4 win Bama. That would give you the Big 10 Champ, SEC Champ, ACC Champ, and the PAC12 Champ. The way it should be.

This is how I see it playing out, too.  Colorado might be capable of tripping Washington up and V Tech Clemson but not likely.  If Wisconsin slobberknocks Penn. State they could slip in depending on the showing Clemson and Washington have.

[EastexHawg]

What's the point though?  Why does an 8 team playoff tell us any more than a 4 team playoff?  You're just further devaluing the regular season.

No, you're not.  With an eight team playoff there would be even more "meaningful" regular season games.  For example, Oklahoma-Oklahoma State would be a de facto first round playoff game because the winner would be in.  So would the Pac-12 championship game.  As it stands now, if Colorado wins they probably get nothing.  In 2010 when we played LSU that would have amounted to a first round playoff game, too. 

Teams don't play the same schedules, so when a committee or voters try to differentiate between two similar teams from different conferences their decision amounts to little more than a guess. 

Five conference champs plus three at-large picks would not only give more teams a chance to get in and thus make more regular season games meaningful, but it would also increase the odds that the best team in the country proves its worth on the field and wins the championship.

[hogsanity]

One game upsets happen.  If they are viewed as one of the top 4, they should be in.  Bama would have been in that position last season if not for our 4th down play vs OM. 

But that gets back to why I did not like having a committee to start with. Ohio St is being viewed as top 4 because thy are Ohio St. I don't think they are top 4, but that's just my opinion.

Dont get me wrong, the playoffs will still be good entertaining matchups, I just do not think it is going to have the top 4 teams because I don't think you can be top 4 yet not do enough to win your own league.

[longpig]

I just find it odd that a team can be one of the top 4 in the nation yet were not able to win their own league.

As pointed out in the Arkansas beating OM example, winning your own league is often dependent on how other teams play.  Rankings are how you play.  Through the season look at how often conference standings and rankings don't line up. 

[Fatty McGee]

No, you're not.  With an eight team playoff there would be even more "meaningful" regular season games.  For example, Oklahoma-Oklahoma State would be a de facto first round playoff game because the winner would be in.  So would the Pac-12 championship game.  As it stands now, if Colorado wins they probably get nothing.  In 2010 when we played LSU that would have amounted to a first round playoff game, too. 

Teams don't play the same schedules, so when a committee or voters try to differentiate between two similar teams from different conferences their decision amounts to little more than a guess. 

Five conference champs plus three at-large picks would not only give more teams a chance to get in and thus make more regular season games meaningful, but it would also increase the odds that the best team in the country proves its worth on the field and wins the championship.

Why should either OU or OK State be in?  What have we lost if they're not?  Why should OK State get a shot at Alabama based on their regular season results?

And really, what was gained in College Football by going to the BCS, or a playoff?  I know what we lost in the pursuit of ever more dollars - traditional rivalries, the history of classic conferences, etc.

But did we really gain anything?  Other than an ever more looming argument for paying the players as more and more cash spills into the pockets of everyone but those we cheer for?

[Atlhogfan1]

But that gets back to why I did not like having a committee to start with. Ohio St is being viewed as top 4 because thy are Ohio St. I don't think they are top 4, but that's just my opinion.

Dont get me wrong, the playoffs will still be good entertaining matchups, I just do not think it is going to have the top 4 teams because I don't think you can be top 4 yet not do enough to win your own league.

If you want to go conference champions, the superconferences have to be blown up and college football sets up a larger version of the NFL. 

[longpig]

But that gets back to why I did not like having a committee to start with. Ohio St is being viewed as top 4 because thy are Ohio St. I don't think they are top 4, but that's just my opinion.

Dont get me wrong, the playoffs will still be good entertaining matchups, I just do not think it is going to have the top 4 teams because I don't think you can be top 4 yet not do enough to win your own league.

OMFG look at Ohio State's schedule.  They're viewed as top 4 because they have one very close loss to a top 10 team and have beaten Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, SMOKED Nebraska........  Why weren't they in it last year 'because they are who they are'?  Because they didn't play as well as this year.

[S.A.D.C]

I am not complaining.

It isn't about the best most entertaining system now.  It has more structure so you end up with a W Mich in the bigger bowls.  You end up with a number of forced and poor matchups.

I agree on the conference championship.  I don't think it should be emphasized.  I believe it only is now as a form of a tiebreaker to distinguish equally viewed teams.

You can't play a round robin schedule with 12 and 14 team conferences.  Have to break up the superconferences which is probably where college football is heading - 8 8-10 team conferences.

Sure you can, and it would be awesome because you eliminate the crappy games:  in a 14 team conference like the SEC each team plays 13 games.  They already play 12, you add a week to the schedule (which would be this week because the conference championship game would be eliminated).

[Jackrabbit Hog]

How's a team supposed to set the edge in the playoffs when it's fresh out of edge setters?

If you don't set the edge, you don't make the playoffs.  Simple as that.   

[EastexHawg]

Why should either OU or OK State be in?  What have we lost if they're not?  Why should OK State get a shot at Alabama based on their regular season results?

And really, what was gained in College Football by going to the BCS, or a playoff?  I know what we lost in the pursuit of ever more dollars - traditional rivalries, the history of classic conferences, etc.

But did we really gain anything?  Other than an ever more looming argument for paying the players as more and more cash spills into the pockets of everyone but those we cheer for?

Now you're changing the argument.  I merely said that if four more playoff spots were available there would be more truly meaningful regular season games, not fewer.  Playoff implications would make them so.

In a way, you could say Frank Broyles is as much to blame as anyone for the loss you lament.  Arkansas' move to the SEC blew up the SWC and its traditional rivalries.  Texas' subsequent move to the Big 12 eventually caused the dissolution of old Big 8 rivalries, mainly Oklahoma-Nebraska.  And so on...

[Atlhogfan1]

Sure you can, and it would be awesome because you eliminate the crappy games:  in a 14 team conference like the SEC each team plays 13 games.  They already play 12, you add a week to the schedule (which would be this week because the conference championship game would be eliminated).

See how beat to hell the SEC was this season?  You want us to play all 13 of the other teams every season?  Better expand scholarships back beyond 85. 

[Fatty McGee]

Now you're changing the argument.  I merely said that if four more playoff spots were available there would be more truly meaningful regular season games, not fewer.  Playoff implications would make them so.

In a way, you could say Frank Broyles is as much to blame as anyone for the loss you lament.  Arkansas' move to the SEC blew up the SWC and its traditional rivalries.  Texas' subsequent move to the Big 12 eventually caused the dissolution of old Big 8 rivalries, mainly Oklahoma-Nebraska.  And so on...

I don't see how making one game late in the season more meaningful changes the fact that now two games early in the season aren't.  OU has a loss to an unranked Houston team and a 21 point loss to Ohio State.  Why should beating Oklahoma State, who lost to an FCS team and 6-5 Baylor, get them into a playoff and another shot at Ohio State?

You just devalued the Houston loss and the earlier OSU loss.

[HF#1]

Keep expanding in pursuit of cash and moving further away from the educational mission and you're going to kill the golden goose.

I'd say the educational mission ship has sailed. Big time D1 athletes aren't going to school for school. They are going because it is their only path to the NFL. And currently, everything they do is based on cash despite what they say.

[Maximus Tusk]

There's a better chance of you winning a spelling bee.

That response is CLASSIC!

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

Go to 8 teams. 5 auto-bids and 3 at large. Top 2 get byes, higher seeds host games until the semifinals.

The math doesn't work for an eight-team playoff with two byes. A six-team playoff with byes to the top two would work. I wouldn't be for it though.  I would prefer 8 teams with 5 champs and three at-large with some formula to give a good chance to a non-power conference team.  And I wouldn't treat independents like Notre Dame or BYU any differently than a WMU in that regard.

EFBAB

[Fatty McGee]

I'd say the educational mission ship has sailed. Big time D1 athletes aren't going to school for school. They are going because it is their only path to the NFL. And currently, everything they do is based on cash despite what they say.

Can you blame them if that's true?

[longpig]

I don't see how making one game late in the season more meaningful changes the fact that now two games early in the season aren't.  OU has a loss to an unranked Houston team and a 21 point loss to Ohio State.  Why should beating Oklahoma State, who lost to an FCS team and 6-5 Baylor, get them into a playoff and another shot at Ohio State?

You just devalued the Houston loss and the earlier OSU loss.

You don't see some teams improving, some dimishing and some staying about the same through the season? 

[Fatty McGee]

You don't see some teams improving, some dimishing and some staying about the same through the season? 

It's a 12 game season - it's the nature of football, unlike hockey, basketball, baseball - you can't play multiple games to determine who is truly  the better team consistently.  I'm not sure why a team should get another shot when it wasn't prepared the first time. 

[hogsanity]

The one big drawback of the current setup is if a team that does not win its league gets in over that leagues conf champ, and the conf champ won the head to head. This year if Pn St wins the big10 but does not get in, then OSU gets in not only over its own conf champ but a team they lost to head to head.

[Fatty McGee]

The one big drawback of the current setup is if a team that does not win its league gets in over that leagues conf champ, and the conf champ won the head to head. This year if Pn St wins the big10 but does not get in, then OSU gets in not only over its own conf champ but a team they lost to head to head.

There was never going to be a perfect way to do this, because of the number of teams and the limits of games.  That's why leaving the old poll system was such a mistake. 

[mweston]

Ohio St eliminated Michigan.  Penn St. with a win holds the CC AND a win over Ohio St.  No way you put Ohio St. in over Penn St.

I say it'll be
1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Penn St.
4. Washington

[HighcountryHog]

I use to love college basketball but have really almost quit watching college hoops. Its a sewer. The Kentucky model tells you all you need to know. It's C league pro hoops. Football still maintains some veneer of being a college sport. 4 teams, then 8 teams, maybe 16 teams and the entire season matters not. Playoffs or we suck. Cheat, win, then glory bound with the big hardware. Yippie. I'll go float the Buffalo instead.

This guys get it.

[EastexHawg]

Ohio St eliminated Michigan.  Penn St. with a win holds the CC AND a win over Ohio St.  No way you put Ohio St. in over Penn St.

I say it'll be
1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Penn St.
4. Washington

There is absolutely no way Ohio State is going to be left out.  In fact, they will be the #2 seed.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

There is absolutely no way Ohio State is going to be left out.  In fact, they will be the #2 seed.

Totally agree.  The networks - or at least the one that matters - slobber over an Alabama vs. OSU championship game (or, perhaps a Saban vs. Meyer game).  Only way to do that is to keep OSU at #2 or #3.  Hide and watch.  It'll happen.

[PorkSoda]

All I wanted was there to be a defined way to get in, and one of those should be winning your conference. The committee in it's 1st year punished the big12 for not having a conf champ because they had no conf champ game. Yet this year they appear very likely to put in 1, maybe 2 big10 teams that did not win their conf.

On a personal level, I do not want to watch teams that could not even win there league just because they are Ohio St and/or Michigan. Do you think if the Ohio St was in the big10 cham game would there be any talk of putting in a 1 loss but not conf champ pac12 team over them, or even another 1 loss big10 team over them? Of course not. This is nothing but the committee probably putting in Ohio st and/or Mich just because of who they are. 

I agree, with 5 conference champions there is more than enough actual conference champions to fill the playoffs.

there was that year that alabama won the NC without winning the SEC but that was before the playoff system was even in place and should be exceedingly rare in the case of at least 2 of the the conference champions are sitting at like 3 losses.

[PorkSoda]

There was never going to be a perfect way to do this, because of the number of teams and the limits of games.  That's why leaving the old poll system was such a mistake. 

I don't agree that the poll system was a mistake, I do agree that there is no perfect system.  Personally I liked the BCS computer system because it blended objective computer analysis with human pollsters.

having a play off committee is another way, but they should favor conference champions over ratings.  making the conference championship game meaningless would be a big mistake.

[Fatty McGee]

I don't agree that the poll system was a mistake, I do agree that there is no perfect system.  Personally I liked the BCS computer system because it blended objective computer analysis with human pollsters.

having a play off committee is another way, but they should favor conference champions over ratings.  making the conference championship game meaningless would be a big mistake.

I understand that position.  I guess I just weight the cumulative history and tradition of college football higher that was lost in pursuit of dollars via the BCS, conference expansion, and now the playoffs more than I do caring about whether the AP or UPI crowned one champion or two. 

[hogsanity]

I understand that position.  I guess I just weight the cumulative history and tradition of college football higher that was lost in pursuit of dollars via the BCS, conference expansion, and now the playoffs more than I do caring about whether the AP or UPI crowned one champion or two. 

It was always great the games in Nov would have bowl reps from 3 4 5 bowls that all were interested in your team. Other than a very few for conf champs, there were no tie ins, a bowl could ask whoever they wanted. I think I dislike the tie ins more than I do the playoff.

[jethro]

A long time ago (when I was a boy up to and including the years after Ii got out of college), When each conference played for a destination bowl (Sugar, Orange, Cotton Rose), many teams were satisfied at the end of the season.  Argue all you want about the national champ.  One poll says team A, one says team B.  Many finished on a good note and fans were proud and pretty happy.

Then we decided we needed a "true" champ.  So we wind up with some series of information to get it down to teams to play for the championship.   Now one team's fans and administration is happy.  Everyone else feels like they are less than and have to do something to change it. 

Ah, progress...(yeah, yeah.  Get off my lawn.  I know.)

[PorkSoda]

It was always great the games in Nov would have bowl reps from 3 4 5 bowls that all were interested in your team. Other than a very few for conf champs, there were no tie ins, a bowl could ask whoever they wanted. I think I dislike the tie ins more than I do the playoff.

I don't think that was forced on the bowl committees.  They probably pushed for those contracts to ensure their bowl got the two best teams they could year in and year out, rather than having to compete for schools every year.

[hogsanity]

I don't think that was forced on the bowl committees.  They probably pushed for those contracts to ensure their bowl got the two best teams they could year in and year out, rather than having to compete for schools every year.

I am sure it was mutual on the part of the leagues and the bowls. The SEC wanted as many tie ins as possible so if they had 10 or 11 eligible teams they all got a seat at the table. Like this year, if it was just up to the bowls, no way that SC, Vandy and KY all get bowl invites. Conversely the bowsl are guaranteed not to have to take the over all dregs, just the sec dregs.

[Fatty McGee]

A long time ago (when I was a boy up to and including the years after Ii got out of college), When each conference played for a destination bowl (Sugar, Orange, Cotton Rose), many teams were satisfied at the end of the season.  Argue all you want about the national champ.  One poll says team A, one says team B.  Many finished on a good note and fans were proud and pretty happy.

Then we decided we needed a "true" champ.  So we wind up with some series of information to get it down to teams to play for the championship.   Now one team's fans and administration is happy.  Everyone else feels like they are less than and have to do something to change it. 

Ah, progress...(yeah, yeah.  Get off my lawn.  I know.)

Could not agree more.

[Pork Twain]

They generally taked Conferance Champions and should remain to do so.  Who cares where your ranked if you can't win your conferance.

Agreed and I do not think that the winner of OSU/Michigan should be there, it should be the winner of Penn St/Wisky.

[hogsanity]

A long time ago (when I was a boy up to and including the years after Ii got out of college), When each conference played for a destination bowl (Sugar, Orange, Cotton Rose), many teams were satisfied at the end of the season.  Argue all you want about the national champ.  One poll says team A, one says team B.  Many finished on a good note and fans were proud and pretty happy.

Then we decided we needed a "true" champ.  So we wind up with some series of information to get it down to teams to play for the championship.   Now one team's fans and administration is happy.  Everyone else feels like they are less than and have to do something to change it. 

Ah, progress...(yeah, yeah.  Get off my lawn.  I know.)

Yep. NYD used to be a great football day - Cotton, Rose, Orange & Sugar. Usually two or three teams could come out of that ranked #1 depending on what happened in the other games.

[PorkSoda]

Could not agree more.

I agree.  it used to be about getting to a bowl and beating another equally matched team, and it was viewed as a successful season.  the over amount of focus on the national championship game has led to the feeling that getting to and winning a bowl is failure instead of success.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Yep. NYD used to be a great football day - Cotton, Rose, Orange & Sugar. Usually two or three teams could come out of that ranked #1 depending on what happened in the other games.

1978, for example, when all hell broke loose on NYD and we had as good (if not better) an argument as anyone else for the #1 spot.

Yeah, NYD was a special day when I was a kid.  So special that my dad bought a small black-and-white portable TV to sit on top of the living room TV so we could watch the Sugar Bowl and Cotton Bowl at the same time.  (Wonder if anybody else did that?)

[bob slydell]

If Penn State, Washington, and Clemson all win, they should be in the Final 4 win Bama. That would give you the Big 10 Champ, SEC Champ, ACC Champ, and the PAC12 Champ. The way it should be.

I disagree that that is the way it should be. It's just obvious that Ohio St is a better team than Washington. I think it should always be about the 4 best teams. How you come to the conclusion of who those are is another matter. I just think that it shouldn't be just about conference champions. Does anyone really think that Florida or Virginia Tech deserve a spot? If you take the route that you are suggesting, that might actually happen.

[hogsanity]

1978, for example, when all hell broke loose on NYD and we had as good (if not better) an argument as anyone else for the #1 spot.

Yeah, NYD was a special day when I was a kid.  So special that my dad bought a small black-and-white portable TV to sit on top of the living room TV so we could watch the Sugar Bowl and Cotton Bowl at the same time.  (Wonder if anybody else did that?)

We did that too. Had the portable right by the main tv. For a few years the cotton had the early slot all alone on CBS, then I think another Fl bowl moved to early NYD on NBC, Rose had the afternoon, and then the Sugar and Orange were on ABC and NBC at the same time on NYD night.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

We did that too. Had the portable right by the main tv. For a few years the cotton had the early slot all alone on CBS, then I think another Fl bowl moved to early NYD on NBC, Rose had the afternoon, and then the Sugar and Orange were on ABC and NBC at the same time on NYD night.

When I was a kid the Sugar Bowl was the one that seemed to have trouble finding a permanent time.  The two years we played in it ('68 and '69), it was opposite the Cotton Bowl at noon or 1:00.  Then it actually moved to New Year's Eve night for a few years, then it moved back to New Year's Day but in the evening opposite the Orange Bowl.  The other three were always set in stone:  Cotton around lunchtime, Rose after that, and Orange to close out the night.

[hogsanity]

. It's just obvious that Ohio St is a better team than Washington.

Based on what, OSU beating MIch St by 1, NW by 4? Beating Neb, without their QB for most of the game ( a Neb team that lost 3 of its last 5 btw ). 

Washington wins this Sat over CO and their resume will look just as good.

[hogsanity]

When I was a kid the Sugar Bowl was the one that seemed to have trouble finding a permanent time.  The two years we played in it ('68 and '69), it was opposite the Cotton Bowl at noon or 1:00.  Then it actually moved to New Year's Eve night for a few years, then it moved back to New Year's Day but in the evening opposite the Orange Bowl.  The other three were always set in stone:  Cotton around lunchtime, Rose after that, and Orange to close out the night.

That was a product of 4 games and only 3 networks. ABC had Sugar and Rose, and the Rose sure as heck was not moving it's time. 11am is too early for a game in New Orleans after a New Years eve that did not end for most people under sunrise. NYE night was not great for ratings.

[Atlhogfan1]

A long time ago (when I was a boy up to and including the years after Ii got out of college), When each conference played for a destination bowl (Sugar, Orange, Cotton Rose), many teams were satisfied at the end of the season.  Argue all you want about the national champ.  One poll says team A, one says team B.  Many finished on a good note and fans were proud and pretty happy.

Then we decided we needed a "true" champ.  So we wind up with some series of information to get it down to teams to play for the championship.   Now one team's fans and administration is happy.  Everyone else feels like they are less than and have to do something to change it. 

Ah, progress...(yeah, yeah.  Get off my lawn.  I know.)

I am with you.  I would be fine with Wisc/PSU vs Wash/CU Rose, Bama - Oh St Sugar, Clemson-Michigan Orange, OU/OSU - PSU/Wisc loser Cotton, and so on.  Can't have it though.  Got to have that playoff to decide it on the field even though the playoff is still subjective. 

[mweston]

Totally agree.  The networks - or at least the one that matters - slobber over an Alabama vs. OSU championship game (or, perhaps a Saban vs. Meyer game).  Only way to do that is to keep OSU at #2 or #3.  Hide and watch.  It'll happen.

I understand and that's why I would say we need a bigger playoff with at least one at large berth.  However, the committee has shunned teams in the past that haven't won their conference championship.  If they want to commit to that line of thinking, then they can't put Ohio St. in the CFP.   I guess we will see what matters most this year, a CC or $$$ and good matchups.

[Atlhogfan1]

With what USC did to Washington, I wouldn't believe them to be in the same class as Oh St.  If Wash-Oh St was the 2 vs 3 seed game, I could see Petersen scheming well enough to compete though. 

[hawg66]

If you eliminate the divisions then yotu also can eliminate the conference championship games. The first round of an 8 team playoff would replace the CCG's. It would also eliminate situations where one division is punished for being so much stronger than the other. Conferences could keep their rivalry games without convoluting the divisions and rotating the schools would be easier. No more classes finishing their college career without ever playing some conference opponents.