Best top 4 (playoff) scenerio I've seen so far.

[FaytownHog]

I can't find the article to say who came up with it, it's been a few weeks since I saw it, but it still makes the most sense to me out of all of them so far.

Just keep everything in place the way it is. There's 4 BCS bowls. All the same rules to get into them (SEC can still get two teams in, and smaller schools with outstanding years can still sneak into them).

The 8 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls. The winner of the BCS bowls are in the 4 team playoff.
So it's almost like an 8 team playoff, but they don't have to sell it like that for the haters. And you're only adding 1 more game for 2 teams and 2 more games for the teams that make the NC game.

Thoughts?

[nwarazfan]

I can't find the article to say who came up with it, it's been a few weeks since I saw it, but it still makes the most sense to me out of all of them so far.

Just keep everything in place the way it is. There's 4 BCS bowls. All the same rules to get into them (SEC can still get two teams in, and smaller schools with outstanding years can still sneak into them).

The 8 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls. The winner of the BCS bowls are in the 4 team playoff.
So it's almost like an 8 team playoff, but they don't have to sell it like that for the haters. And you're only adding 1 more game for 2 teams and 2 more games for the teams that make the NC game.

Thoughts?

It would reduce the BCS spots by two, as right now, 10 teams get in.  8 into the BCS bowls and two into the BCS CG.  Last season, Bama and LSU would have taken spots away from probably VT and Michigan which would have certainly been justified.  It probably would have gone something like Clem-Bama, LSU-Stan(since LSU had already played WV), Ok St-WV and Oregon-Wisc.  Not bad.  I still don't like limits on how many teams from one conference can be in it. 

[TomballHog]

The problem that I see (not that I agree or disagree) is timing.  Heard an interview with Mike Slive the other day and he said part of the discussions that the Commissioners had revolved around timing of the games.  The BCS bowls are going to want to stay around the New Years Day time frame.  Adding two more games/weeks after them will cause some heartburn.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Call it what you will, rationalize it however you want to - it's an 8 team playoff.

No thanks.  Four is the right number.

I can't find the article to say who came up with it, it's been a few weeks since I saw it, but it still makes the most sense to me out of all of them so far.

Just keep everything in place the way it is. There's 4 BCS bowls. All the same rules to get into them (SEC can still get two teams in, and smaller schools with outstanding years can still sneak into them).

The 8 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls. The winner of the BCS bowls are in the 4 team playoff.
So it's almost like an 8 team playoff, but they don't have to sell it like that for the haters. And you're only adding 1 more game for 2 teams and 2 more games for the teams that make the NC game.

Thoughts?

[FaytownHog]

Call it what you will, rationalize it however you want to - it's an 8 team playoff.

No thanks.  Four is the right number.

I think 8 is the right number. A Boise or Utah if they go undefeated for a couple straight years, they could wind up in the final 8 and have a chance to prove themselves over 3 straight games against the big boys.

[FaytownHog]

It would reduce the BCS spots by two, as right now, 10 teams get in.  8 into the BCS bowls and two into the BCS CG.  Last season, Bama and LSU would have taken spots away from probably VT and Michigan which would have certainly been justified.  It probably would have gone something like Clem-Bama, LSU-Stan(since LSU had already played WV), Ok St-WV and Oregon-Wisc.  Not bad.  I still don't like limits on how many teams from one conference can be in it. 

true, but the right teams will be in the final 8.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I think 8 is the right number. A Boise or Utah if they go undefeated for a couple straight years, they could wind up in the final 8 and have a chance to prove themselves over 3 straight games against the big boys.

Again, all of you wanting any number greater than 8 are fantasizing about a PlayStation world when in the REAL world the logistics never have and likely never will accommodate anything beyond what is soon to be in place.

Go play NCAA12 or whatever if you want 32 team playoffs.  But on the field - in real life - 4 is fine and workable for all involved.

[jamie72921]

I can't find the article to say who came up with it, it's been a few weeks since I saw it, but it still makes the most sense to me out of all of them so far.

Just keep everything in place the way it is. There's 4 BCS bowls. All the same rules to get into them (SEC can still get two teams in, and smaller schools with outstanding years can still sneak into them).

The 8 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls. The winner of the BCS bowls are in the 4 team playoff.
So it's almost like an 8 team playoff, but they don't have to sell it like that for the haters. And you're only adding 1 more game for 2 teams and 2 more games for the teams that make the NC game.

Thoughts?

This is easy.

Did you see this year's BCS matchups?

Next.

[FaytownHog]

Again, all of you wanting any number greater than 8 are fantasizing about a PlayStation world when in the REAL world the logistics never have and likely never will accommodate anything beyond what is soon to be in place.

Go play NCAA12 or whatever if you want 32 team playoffs.  But on the field - in real life - 4 is fine and workable for all involved.

I don't want "above 8", I just want 8. It's totally reasonable. The BCS waits about a month or more to play their games after the regular season is over. Move them up to 2 or 3 weeks after the regular season is over and the NC game would still be around the same time.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I don't want "above 8", I just want 8. It's totally reasonable.

I wasn't just talking to you, and - no - it's not.  I know you think otherwise, but that doesn't change reality.  Not being a richard . . . just stating the facts as I know them.  What you propose will not happen.

[FaytownHog]

I wasn't just talking to you, and - no - it's not.  I know you think otherwise, but that doesn't change reality.  Not being a richard . . . just stating the facts as I know them.  What you propose will not happen.

It's not a fact. It's your opinion, just like mine. And you're entitled to it just like me. I think 8 is the right number, however they have to do it.

[Hogfaniam]

I don't want "above 8", I just want 8. It's totally reasonable. The BCS waits about a month or more to play their games after the regular season is over. Move them up to 2 or 3 weeks after the regular season is over and the NC game would still be around the same time.

They will start with four until the finalized income figures come in. Six or eight will be next.  Then twelve.  Then sixteen.  Then who knows.  It's human nature. 

"if we do _$$$$$$_  with this many teams, just think how much we can make with more".

Which is fine with me.  The more football the better.

[WizardofhOgZ]

It's not a fact. It's your opinion, just like mine. And you're entitled to it just like me. I think 8 is the right number, however they have to do it.

I'll put it this way, Fay - I'm right until they expand to 8.  I say they won't.  You say they will.  We'll see.

By the way - I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone.  I just happen to have a lot of information and a very developed opinion about this.  You and others are free to speculate and dream about larger playoff fields - but it's not going to happen in, say, the next 15-20 years.  I'd say longer but in this world, that IS forever.

[Wahls]

I'll put it this way, Fay - I'm right until they expand to 8.  I say they won't.  You say they will.  We'll see.

There is this absurd ideology that is being pushed by ESPN and other outlets that a 16 team playoff isn't possible and people are latching on to the stink bait.

Economists have estimated that the new 4 team playoff would bring in revenues between 600 million and 1.5 billion per year.

Expand it to 8 then you get an extra FOUR games. Expand it to 16, and you get 8 games on top of that. That's anywhere from 3 billion dollars up to 7.5 billion a year for a 16 team playoff. If you make the first two rounds of a 16 team playoff at a regional site and the third round at the higher seeds' house or at their regional, you've essentially made it the same as an 8 team playoff spending wise (from a fan or university prospective).

I've heard these lame-brained excuses of, "oh they'll have to take games out of the regular season," which is totally inaccurate if you follow D2's playoff schedule, and "oh it'll cost the colleges too much for travel and such," which is totally insane, or "fans won't be able to go" because apparently every major college and professional playoff is sparsly attended, or something. News to me.

Think the NCAA is going to sit out the possibility of a 16 team playoff when it has 3.5 to 7.5 BILLION sitting on the table for it? Totally ascinine.

EDIT: 6-7 years ago, it was considered crazy talk to get a playoff in college football. Now I just read a poster put a time table for 20 years for even an 8 team playoff. Hilarious.

[Hogfaniam]

There is this absurd ideology that is being pushed by ESPN and other outlets that a 16 team playoff isn't possible and people are latching on to the stink bait.

Economists have estimated that the new 4 team playoff would bring in revenues between 600 million and 1.5 billion per year.

Expand it to 8 then you get an extra FOUR games. Expand it to 16, and you get 8 games on top of that. That's anywhere from 3 billion dollars up to 7.5 billion a year for a 16 team playoff. If you make the first two rounds of a 16 team playoff at a regional site and the third round at the higher seeds' house or at their regional, you've essentially made it the same as an 8 team playoff spending wise (from a fan or university prospective).

I've heard these lame-brained excuses of, "oh they'll have to take games out of the regular season," which is totally inaccurate if you follow D2's playoff schedule, and "oh it'll cost the colleges too much for travel and such," which is totally insane, or "fans won't be able to go" because apparently every major college and professional playoff is sparsly attended, or something. News to me.

Think the NCAA is going to sit out the possibility of a 16 team playoff when it has 3.5 to 7.5 BILLION sitting on the table for it? Totally ascinine.

EDIT: 6-7 years ago, it was considered crazy talk to get a playoff in college football. Now I just read a poster put a time table for 20 years for even an 8 team playoff. Hilarious.

It happened to basketball, it will happen to football.

And i hope so.

[Wahls]

It happened to basketball, it will happen to football.

And i hope so.

There's just too much money not to.

[FaytownHog]

I'll put it this way, Fay - I'm right until they expand to 8.  I say they won't.  You say they will.  We'll see.

By the way - I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone.  I just happen to have a lot of information and a very developed opinion about this.  You and others are free to speculate and dream about larger playoff fields - but it's not going to happen in, say, the next 15-20 years.  I'd say longer but in this world, that IS forever.

didnt the "experts" say the same thing about a playoff even just a year ago? "never happen" "pipe dream"
There's no way it's 15-20 years down the road. If had any money to be able to bet, id lay it down on it being expanded in under 5 years.

Oh, and I didn't think you were trying to start a fight. Only that you're still just stating an opinion. We both know they're going to start with 4 teams. I think just about everyone knows & is right about that. You're opinion is they'll stick with that for a few decades, my opinion is they'll see the viewership & revenue & expand to 8 in some form or fashion relatively fast (within 5 years).

[Dumb ole famrboy]

I'll put it this way, Fay - I'm right until they expand to 8.  I say they won't.  You say they will.  We'll see.

By the way - I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone.  I just happen to have a lot of information and a very developed opinion about this.  You and others are free to speculate and dream about larger playoff fields - but it's not going to happen in, say, the next 15-20 years.  I'd say longer but in this world, that IS forever.

6 BCS conferences and 4 spots in a playoff brings forth many of political issues as each conference is going to vote for the plan that best protects their own self interest. Even if the 6 conferences can iron out a 4 team plan acceptable to all parties you then have the non-bcs schools and the anti-trust hurdle to get over. A 4 team playoff could end up being the death of the NCAA as we know it.

[hogsanity]

Regardless of the number, 4, 8, 12, 16, to me the important thing is HOW teams get in.  Take the OP, leave the current ways to qualify the same.  Well, that means that a horrible big least team would have made the playoff last year.  Were they really one of the top 8 teams in the country?  Not hardly, so why should they get a shot just because their league is bad.  Same for the non AQ teams. 

[fister]

The problem I see with the plan is a team is traveling to bowl games three weeks in a row to win the championship. How many fans can afford to travel all over the country three weeks in a row? And when I mention cost, I am not just speaking about money, but also time. I don't think 8 teams is happening soon, but when it does I hope they consider home field, or "regional match-ups" in the first round.

[Liveinthearea]

you don't need an 8 team playoff to determine a champion....champions are not determined by a playoff; they are determined by humans hand selecting the 2 teams that everyone agrees are probably the best two teams and letting them slug it out for the title. I will compromise and say we need 4 teams if it appeases those who need proof that the #3 and #4 teams can't hang with the top 2.

[hogsanity]

Currently there are 5 BCs bolws ( Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, BCSCG ) Why not just take the top 4 teams and in 2013 put them into the Rose & Sugar.  Those 2 winners play in the BCSCG.  Then in 2014 The top 4 go into the Fiesta and Orange, with the winners meeting in the BCSCG.  The 4 BCS bowls get the semi finals every other year.  No added games, and the eventual bcscg winner has to win twice.  Regualr season is still full of meaning, and only 2 teams have 1 extra game. 

[WizardofhOgZ]

didnt the "experts" say the same thing about a playoff even just a year ago? "never happen" "pipe dream"
There's no way it's 15-20 years down the road. If had any money to be able to bet, id lay it down on it being expanded in under 5 years.

Oh, and I didn't think you were trying to start a fight. Only that you're still just stating an opinion. We both know they're going to start with 4 teams. I think just about everyone knows & is right about that. You're opinion is they'll stick with that for a few decades, my opinion is they'll see the viewership & revenue & expand to 8 in some form or fashion relatively fast (within 5 years).

An opinion - yes; one could argue that everything that has not happened yet is "a prediction" until it happens, even if there is 100% certainty that it will occur.  But let's at least call it a very educated opinion, in this case.

For the record - and you may not care, but it is relevant in this discussion - I have been predicting for more than 15 years that we would not get a "playoff" in the sense that most people have been discussing for all these years (i.e., a 16 or 32 game "bracket" involving the Bowls, etc.), but we would get some variation of a "Final Four" (either a "plus one" after the Bowls, but more likely, what it seems we are about to get - Four teams selected after the regular season, with #1 vs. #4, #2 vs. #3 and then a game between the winners) as successor to the BCS system. 

There are two primary reasons why it willl NOT go further than this for at least 10-15 years, if ever (and as I said, 10 years is "forever" these days, as quickly as the world changes).  One of them is that the Bowls are entrenched with the coaches and AD's, who do not want them to go away. 

Think about it - aside from the elite 8 or 16, there are at least 20 other teams good enough (I know many more than that participate in Bowls; but most of us agree there are too many) to play in Bowls that match up, for example, a 8-4 and 18th ranked S. Carolina vs. 9-3 #17 Virgina (or whoever).  It is a fun trip for the players and fans, and does generate revenue as well.  Plus, a Bowl win puts a positive spin on the season as you head into recruiting.  In a playoff scenario, all but one team loses their last game, and Arkansas fans know from personal experience that the off-season is MUCH more enjoyable when you're coming off of a Bowl win.

But even larger than that is the logistics.  I've been harping on that here for 5+ years.  Fister touched upon this in his post in this thread, but I go into much greater detail here: http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=138749.msg2158852#msg2158852 .  Football is NOT basketball. Oranges and apples.  And, as mentioned, Coaches and AD's do not want home field games in the playoffs, as that would decimate the Bowl system.

The problem I see with the plan is a team is traveling to bowl games three weeks in a row to win the championship. How many fans can afford to travel all over the country three weeks in a row? And when I mention cost, I am not just speaking about money, but also time. I don't think 8 teams is happening soon, but when it does I hope they consider home field, or "regional match-ups" in the first round.

There would not be any support (among the "Power" conferences) at all for any type of playoff except for one thing: There is a specific "pain" threshold they want to avoid, and a four team playoff will do it - namely, there cannot be a situation where a team everyone agrees has to be considered for the Championship is left out (see 2004 Auburn).  It seems as often or not, there are 3 teams from which to select 2 for the BCS Championship game (Oklahoma State had an excellent case this past year to be selected ahead of Alabama).  By stretching the field to 4, you eliminate those problems.  Pain gone.

Sure, the 5th or 6th place teams will bitch a little; but that's more about "why is that team selected to be the "filler" team (#4) rather than us?", which is a whole different argument than "there can be no legitimate National Championship process that does not include this team", which has been the case a handful of times. 

If you really think about it - what do you want from a system to produce the National Champion?  Do you want the team that is really the best team - or, do you want a process that opens a "tournament" that diminishes what was accomplished on the field during the regular season and decreases the chances that the best team is crowned Champion?  Because this is a stone cold fact:  The greater the number of teams you include in a playoff, the lower the chances that the "best" team actually wins the playoff, regardless of how good they are.  It is a mathematical certainty that the above statement is correct.

I (and the powers that be in college football) opt for the "Final Four" to honor the significance of the results of the regular season "Playoff" games, keeping the Bowls in place and allowing fans to follow their team in all their significant games.

[FaytownHog]

The other bowls wouldn't go away. If you're in the playoff, you're in. If you're not, you continue to go to the bowls as you would have anyway. Idk why people even argue about teams not wanting to lose bowl games. lol.

[WizardofhOgZ]

The other bowls wouldn't go away. If you're in the playoff, you're in. If you're not, you continue to go to the bowls as you would have anyway. Idk why people even argue about teams not wanting to lose bowl games. lol.

In the soon-to-be "Final Four" - you're right.  However, in a larger playoff (as most propose), you soon get into a NCAA vs. NIT perception and the Bowls become much less prestigious and viable than they currently are.

[Hogfaniam]

I just want more football.  A 16 team playoff gets me that.

Leave the bowls alone.  Losers of the first 2 rounds go to bowls.

Who cares how much the fans have to travel.  The money in all this is television/cable.  Butts in the seat are just icing on the cake.  (mmmm, cake)

How anyone can argue against more college football beats me.  Go spend more time in Jump Ball. 

[Hog Wild Wolf]

The point of the playoff is to have the best teams! There should be no rule limiting the amount of teams from a specific conference. As long as that rule stands, then the best teams do not play in the games they deserve to play in. What is the point of having a BCS system in place that gives you a good idea who the best teams are. If your not gonna let them play over technical rules that are made up over money or conferences thinking they aren't treated fair.

[Wahls]

There are two primary reasons why it willl NOT go further than this for at least 10-15 years

And there are 3.5 to 7 Billion reasons why it will.

How many professional or college playoff systems don't have fans attending the games? It's a total myth that they couldn't draw crowds.

[Wahls]

If you really think about it - what do you want from a system to produce the National Champion?  Do you want the team that is really the best team - or, do you want a process that opens a "tournament" that diminishes what was accomplished on the field during the regular season and decreases the chances that the best team is crowned Champion?  Because this is a stone cold fact:  The greater the number of teams you include in a playoff, the lower the chances that the "best" team actually wins the playoff, regardless of how good they are.  It is a mathematical certainty that the above statement is correct.

I (and the powers that be in college football) opt for the "Final Four" to honor the significance of the results of the regular season "Playoff" games, keeping the Bowls in place and allowing fans to follow their team in all their significant games.

And the problem with this theory is that most of the teams in the playoff system wouldn't have played each other already in the season. You don't know who the "best" teams are because of the sheer number of teams in college football. It is all speculation as to who the "best" team is because you've limited the pool of teams to under 1% with a four team playoff and it isn't a fair point.

[rogersvillemohog]

This is simple. 4 team playoff. Place the four best teams in the playoff. Have the first two rounds hosted by the 4 BCS Bowls (Sugar, Orange, Rose, Fiesta). Have the National Title game hosted by the highest bidder. No "Conference Champions Only" rule. Nothing else to screw things up. The 4 best teams play for the National Title. That's the way it should be. Period.

[WizardofhOgZ]

And there are 3.5 to 7 Billion reasons why it will.

How many professional or college playoff systems don't have fans attending the games? It's a total myth that they couldn't draw crowds.

The Semi's (probably) and Championship (for sure) games would draw a crowd, all right.  It just wouldn't contain too many "real" fans of the two participating teams.  That's because they would be "events", just like the NFL Conference Championships and the Super Bowl sell out - but not to "common fans".  No, there would be "see and be seen" types buying tickets from scalpers for $1000 and more, and don't forget the corporate sponsors entertaining their clients.  "Real" fans?  Well, they'd have long since been tapped out by traveling across the country (until their pockets books have given out, probably in week 2) and would be watching from home.  All but a very select few.

Read this for a detailed explanation.  I know it's long, but read it all and see which points you can refute (w/regard to the logistical and $$$ challenges of an extended playoff): http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=138749.msg2158852#msg2158852 .

And the problem with this theory is that most of the teams in the playoff system wouldn't have played each other already in the season. You don't know who the "best" teams are because of the sheer number of teams in college football. It is all speculation as to who the "best" team is because you've limited the pool of teams to under 1% with a four team playoff and it isn't a fair point.

Need to sharpen your pencil there . . . if you had "under 1%" of the D1 teams involved in a playoff you'd have a single team playing itself (there are 120 or so of them).

And I disagree with your premise.  The fact is that if you could have every D1 team play every other D1 team, you'd still only have subjective proof because of the "any given sun(satur)day" factor.  Until and unless you have teams play a series against another team, you can't say for sure that they're better if they win the single game between them.  There will be upsets.  Over the course of a series, those things tend to take care of themselves. 

And then there are injuries - something else that will happen; and they can dramatically affect a team's performance (or, the performance of the team they are playing).  So if Team A beats Team B in their 15th game (remember - this is a discussion of "what if" all teams played all other teams, for the sake of discussion), and then Team A lost to Team C 5 games later, when two of their very best players were injured and could not play, you could NOT say that Team C is better than Team B because the two teams (C and B) played Team A at different points in terms of the personnel they were able to field.

My point - any ranking is subjective, regardless of how many teams have played each other.  I do think most fans (who really pay attention) have a pretty good feel for who the top handful of teams are by the end of the season.  And there's this; what happens on the field HAS to be factored in.  While you can't say for sure this team is better than that team, you CAN say that a 12-0 team in the Big 10, for example, has earned the right to be strongly considered over a 10-2 team from that same conference, even if the team with 2 loses is considered to have more talent.  Why?  Because they LOST 2 games on the field, while the other team did not.

So, at the end of the season, when there are typically 1,2 or 3 undefeated teams, those with that type of record and "good" competition (which is admittedly subjective, though there are good estimators of that parameter from various computer rankings) deserve to be in the championship process, whatever it is.  You needn't have played 50 or 100 games to determine that.

[Wahls]

So in order for it to be a "real" playoff every butt in every seat has to be a fan of one of the teams? What about the BCS National Championship game? When they scan over the audience, you don't see that many team colors sitting there. Should we do away with that too?

And FTR, I don't know why I put 1%. I still have the calculator up on my desktop from last night that says 3.3%.

Anyway, your second point you turn around and give an "any given Sunday" factor that the "best team" can't always emerge, then turn around and say that the "best teams" should be playing but then you turn around again and say that any ranking is subjective.

See the problem yet? Lets keep going to illustrate:

And there's this; what happens on the field HAS to be factored in.  While you can't say for sure this team is better than that team, you CAN say that a 12-0 team in the Big 10, for example, has earned the right to be strongly considered over a 10-2 team from that same conference, even if the team with 2 loses is considered to have more talent.

But based on your "any given sunday" idea, this isn't true because:

Until and unless you have teams play a series against another team, you can't say for sure that they're better if they win the single game between them

Now we could just go in circles and blame injury for the two losses. Congratulations, you've just opened Pandoras Box. You applied your injury theory to your playoff system but neglected to apply it to the regular season. You took something incredibly simple, the last team standing out of 16 is the champion, and made it retarded.

No one, in hindsight, turns around and says, "Man VCU wasn't better than Kansas and didn't deserve to be in the Final Four," they turn around and talk about how well VCU played. That's no different here.

So we have a bunch of rhetoric against a 16 team playoff system, and money supporting a 16 team playoff. Hmm, I wonder which will win out.

[Liveinthearea]

This is simple. 4 team playoff. Place the four best teams in the playoff. Have the first two rounds hosted by the 4 BCS Bowls (Sugar, Orange, Rose, Fiesta). Have the National Title game hosted by the highest bidder. No "Conference Champions Only" rule. Nothing else to screw things up. The 4 best teams play for the National Title. That's the way it should be. Period.

I agree, it really is that simple.

[WizardofhOgZ]

So in order for it to be a "real" playoff every butt in every seat has to be a fan of one of the teams? What about the BCS National Championship game? When they scan over the audience, you don't see that many team colors sitting there. Should we do away with that too?

We're talking oranges and apples, apparently.  You don't seem to care who is at the game; just that "it's packed".  I, on the other hand, am used to the passion in college sports (one of the main reasons I so strongly prefer it over the NFL), which is in large part due to the staunch fan support (students and alumni) in the stands.  When you start talking about even an 8 game playoff, you make it financially impossible (virtually) for over 90% of these fans to attend, which most of them would (and have) do for Bowl games.  That matters to me and others - maybe not-so-much to you.

Anyway, your second point you turn around and give an "any given Sunday" factor that the "best team" can't always emerge, then turn around and say that the "best teams" should be playing but then you turn around again and say that any ranking is subjective.

Nice attempt to subterfuge the salient point by selectively paraphrasing parts of my post and adding your own spin to them.  In summary, here is the point I was making (to counter YOUR point that polls were meaningless BECAUSE all the teams didn't play each other) - and that is that there is NO foolproof way to absolutely, without any doubt, rank the teams "properly".  ALL methods, even the most comprehensive (if impractical) ones we can come up with. 

That being the case, let's get back to reality and look at the viable options for the "real world" - a 12 game season and the associated post-season options that fit in the proper time frame and allow fans to attend and support their team. 

Also, you completely ignore another big point that I made in the post I linked to (of a prior discussion of the pros and cons of a playoff vs. a four team process) - the physical impact on the teams "left standing" at the end.  From that post:

"I believe that people lose sight - especially in the video game world of today, where people play entire seasons with their thumbs in a day or two - of the fact that football is a collision sport and that it puts a LOT of wear and tear on the athletes who play the sport.  Over the past 30 years (or so), the sport (college football) has already absorbed an increase from 10 games per season to 11 and now 12.  And that doesn't even count the Championship games that most of the BCS conferences now have.  If you have a system that now will add 3 to 5 games on top of that - well, that's just too many.  And that's just from the physical toll standpoint.  If we're going to get a REAL championship game, I don't want to have one where most of the time some of the KEY players will be hurt and unable to participate, or be limited in their contribution."

The odds of having both teams in reasonably good shape after 3 to 5 more games after already having gone through a tough 12 game season is exponentially lower than it is if you have them play ONE more game than they are now, after getting a month off between the season and the Bowls/Championship.

The bottom line is that a "Final Four" is coming.  Some think that's "just the beginning" of a larger playoff; I don't, UNLESS there is further re-structuring of conferences to the point where we get to four 20 team super conferences.  But folks that are clamoring for that (and there are many) better be careful what they wish for, because if it happens, there will be some sort of Championship game in each conference, then those four champions will have a "Final Four" - which is much like the "conference champions only" option being discussed now for the upcoming Final Four.  In other words, if you are in the 20 teams that includes the current SEC, and you come in second - you're out regardless of the fact that you may well be better than ANY of the champions from the other three super conferences.

[Wahls]

We're talking oranges and apples, apparently.  You don't seem to care who is at the game; just that "it's packed".  I, on the other hand, am used to the passion in college sports (one of the main reasons I so strongly prefer it over the NFL), which is in large part due to the staunch fan support (students and alumni) in the stands.  When you start talking about even an 8 game playoff, you make it financially impossible (virtually) for over 90% of these fans to attend, which most of them would (and have) do for Bowl games.  That matters to me and others - maybe not-so-much to you.

Then we should do away with the BCS National Championship then because you have the exact same problem there.

Nice attempt to subterfuge the salient point by selectively paraphrasing parts of my post and adding your own spin to them.  In summary, here is the point I was making (to counter YOUR point that polls were meaningless BECAUSE all the teams didn't play each other) - and that is that there is NO foolproof way to absolutely, without any doubt, rank the teams "properly".  ALL methods, even the most comprehensive (if impractical) ones we can come up with.

Your "any given sunday" theory is a total paradox. Don't pin that on me, I didn't say it.

That being the case, let's get back to reality and look at the viable options for the "real world" - a 12 game season and the associated post-season options that fit in the proper time frame and allow fans to attend and support their team. 

Also, you completely ignore another big point that I made in the post I linked to

I saw that it was a 3000 word essay containing little formatting and didn't even try. Excuse me.

"I believe that people lose sight - especially in the video game world of today, where people play entire seasons with their thumbs in a day or two - of the fact that football is a collision sport and that it puts a LOT of wear and tear on the athletes who play the sport.  Over the past 30 years (or so), the sport (college football) has already absorbed an increase from 10 games per season to 11 and now 12.  And that doesn't even count the Championship games that most of the BCS conferences now have.  If you have a system that now will add 3 to 5 games on top of that - well, that's just too many.  And that's just from the physical toll standpoint.  If we're going to get a REAL championship game, I don't want to have one where most of the time some of the KEY players will be hurt and unable to participate, or be limited in their contribution."

An NFL player can play, what, 20 games in a season? Not buying it that this is some huge unprecedented deal.

The odds of having both teams in reasonably good shape after 3 to 5 more games after already having gone through a tough 12 game season is exponentially lower than it is if you have them play ONE more game than they are now, after getting a month off between the season and the Bowls/Championship.

Lower, yes. Exponentially, I doubt it. Please see NFL playoffs where bigger and faster human beings collide for more games.

The bottom line is that a "Final Four" is coming.

No, no. We shouldn't even have a championship. We should just crown some team champs since most fans can't afford tickets, and the best team could lose.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I saw that it was a 3000 word essay containing little formatting and didn't even try. Excuse me.

That's weak.  Little formatting?  I count 12 paragraphs, as well as bolding of some key passages.  Just because you are unable to summon the energy and/or focus it takes (2 or 3 minutes) to read something written above the 6th grade level doesn't invalidate the content of the linked post in question.  It just means you're lazy. 

Moreover, it does nothing to detract from my argument and - in fact - tends to bolster it because it indicates that you'd rather avoid the substantive content in favor of weak jabs at non-existent formatting issues.

No, no. We shouldn't even have a championship. We should just crown some team champs since most fans can't afford tickets, and the best team could lose.

Odd and poorly chosen use of sarcasm; no one is saying that ONE additional game, for the National Championship - at a location and one a date known months in advance - forces undue hardship on a fan base and players.  That is dramatically different from FIFTEEN games (and up to FOUR additional games for 2 of the schools, assuming an 8 team playoff) at sites known only 6 days prior to said games.  And all of those games except one (the final one) are NOT for the championship; only the right to keep pursuing it.

[Wahls]

That's weak.  Little formatting?  I count 12 paragraphs, as well as bolding of some key passages.  Just because you are unable to summon the energy and/or focus it takes (2 or 3 minutes) to read something written above the 6th grade level doesn't invalidate the content of the linked post in question.  It just means you're lazy.

It is not that I am unable to summon the energy, I am dyslexic and cannot read walls upon walls of text 15 lines thick and didn't have my yellow filter.

Moreover, it does nothing to detract from my argument and - in fact - tends to bolster it because it indicates that you'd rather avoid the substantive content in favor of weak jabs at non-existent formatting issues.

Even if I was lazy and "avoided" your content, it doesn't make the content of it any stronger. That is a complete and total fallacy.

Odd and poorly chosen use of sarcasm; no one is saying that ONE additional game, for the National Championship - at a location and one a date known months in advance - forces undue hardship on a fan base and players.

But the price of the tickets are too expensive and it is full of mostly college football fans, not fans of the team. 90% of fans can't afford to do it. It is the exact same line of thinking you used to detract from an 8 or 16 team playoff.

That is dramatically different from FIFTEEN games (and up to FOUR additional games for 2 of the schools, assuming an 8 team playoff) at sites known only 6 days prior to said games.

If you hold regional sites, which I advocated earlier, it would cut down on this.

[WizardofhOgZ]

It is not that I am unable to summon the energy, I am dyslexic and cannot read walls upon walls of text 15 lines thick and didn't have my yellow filter.

If you had said "I am unable to read it because I am dyslexic" rather than to imply that the post I had linked was flawed on its face, that would have been a different matter.  To label it "not worth reading" without explaining why is misleading.  Regardless, the post and its content stand on their merit, whether or not you read it. 

Even if I was lazy and "avoided" your content, it doesn't make the content of it any stronger. That is a complete and total fallacy.

Sorry, but ANY argument that says "didn't read it, but . . . " will always be seen as a weak response, and the perception of the reader is that the poster's decision to avoid responding on point (impossible for someone who "doesn't read" the link) was made because they felt that they were arguing from an unfavorable position.  Ergo, it "bolsters" my argument in the eyes of the reader.

Truth.

But the price of the tickets are too expensive and it is full of mostly college football fans, not fans of the team. 90% of fans can't afford to do it. It is the exact same line of thinking you used to detract from an 8 or 16 team playoff.

Not exactly the truth.  In your typical 70-75K stadium, each school gets 17K, which they sell to their fans at face value.  It is just like any other Bowl in that respect.  For a game like this - on a one game basis - most schools would not satisfy demand with that size allocation and many of the "secondary market" tickets would find there way into the hands of "true" fans.  Obviously, the nature of the game makes the "secondary market" much higher - but that is not what my prior comments have been about.

Lets say that each of the three games (in a 16 team playoff) before the Championship game were Bowls handled in the same way - 15-20K tickets available through the schools involved.  While the tickets themselves might be affordable (although that is a relative term, because certainly some could not afford to purchase 4 sets of tickets at $75 to $200 for each ticket), the primary issue is the affordability of traveling and lodging - in particular, in a situation when they don't know where they are going until a week in advance. 

Even if you can drive to each venue, there's getting time off from work 4 weeks in a row to do so (the games are on Saturday, so you'd need to at least take one or two days off from work to drive).  Flying and/or getting hotel/motel on short notice, especially to a high profile event, puts you at the mercy of those providers and usually at a premium price.  And keep in mind this will occur during the "Holiday Season", when rates and availability are already difficult.

I just don't know of very many fans that can afford to do that.

If you hold regional sites, which I advocated earlier, it would cut down on this.

This is true, but extremely unlikely to happen because of the Bowl influence.  You may or may not like the Bowl system, but what you or I "like" is irrelevant.  I'm talking about what is going on in the real world, not in "my world".

[Pork Twain]

It happened to basketball, it will happen to football.

And i hope so. 

When it comes to playoffs, please never compare basketball and football again.  I think it funny that you guys want our players to end up with an NFL type season and timing and wear and tear be darned.

[Hogfaniam]

When it comes to playoffs, please never compare basketball and football again.  I think it funny that you guys want our players to end up with an NFL type season and timing and wear and tear be darned.

Look, i've read your posts, and they make sense in all points.  In a non greed inspired garden of eden, it is what would happen.

History is on my side.  First 6 games, then 8, then 10.  Some on here remember 10.  Then 11. Now 12. Bowl games were what? 7, 8? Now, 35?  All because of why?  More money.

Humans are hell bent on killing the golden goose in pursuit of more.  taller buildings.  Bigger boobs.  You name it.  So keep arguing against it.  Slow down the eventual slaughter.  Just realize you won't stop it.

Besides, ask the 2500 or so seniors that played their last truely competitive game  ever if they wouldn't want just one more game with the guys before the real world takes over.  If you've played, you already know the answer.

[dhornjr1]

No "Conference Champions Only" rule. Nothing else to screw things up. The 4 best teams play for the National Title. That's the way it should be. Period.

I can see it now.

"Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm Brent Musberger along with my broadcast partner Kirk Herbstreit, and with sideline reporters Erin Andrews and Tom Rinaldi.

Welcome to the SEC Invitational Football Tournament, also known as the NCAA Football Playoff!"

[hogsanity]

Lets say that each of the three games (in a 16 team playoff) before the Championship game were Bowls handled in the same way -

But then that really reduces the # of team going to the post season.  If you use the existing bowls for the playoffs, that means 14 bowl games get used prior to the NCG ( in a 16 team playoff ).  Those 14 bowls would normally host 28 teams.  In your plan, those 14 bowls would only 16 teams, and of those 16, 8 would play twice, and 4 would play 3 times.  The whole of fbs, all 120 or so teams, is not going to go for any plan that reduces the # of teams in the post season, no matter who crappy some of those teams really are.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Lets say that each of the three games (in a 16 team playoff) before the Championship game were Bowls handled in the same way

But then that really reduces the # of team going to the post season.  If you use the existing bowls for the playoffs, that means 14 bowl games get used prior to the NCG ( in a 16 team playoff ).  Those 14 bowls would normally host 28 teams.  In your plan, those 14 bowls would only 16 teams, and of those 16, 8 would play twice, and 4 would play 3 times.  The whole of fbs, all 120 or so teams, is not going to go for any plan that reduces the # of teams in the post season, no matter who crappy some of those teams really are.

You have taken something totally out of context and made one of the more confusing posts I've read lately, in terms of getting "B" from statement "A".

The text you quote from my prior post is all about how tickets would be allocated - how many of them, their cost, and how many could afford them - and the reference to Bowls is about how tickets are sold for existing Bowl games (the assumption being made is that they would be sold in some similar fashion for games in an expanded playoff system, be they occur in "Bowls" or not).  The issue of whether the playoff discussed in that theoretical scenario is in - or out - of the "Bowl system" is not really germane to the point being made.

Moreover, you seem to be upset because (apparently) you feel that I'm calling for a reduction in the number of Bowls.  But that is another subject, outside of the scope of this particular thread and conversation.  Beyond that, if you've read my posts in the thread, you know that I'm a strong advocate of the "Final Four" process being discussed now - not a larger playoff.  In the Final Four, none of the Bowls are eliminated; there is a simple, predetermined rotation among the major Bowls to host the semi's and Championship games, not unlike what the BCS has done.


So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

[bennyl08]

This is simple. 4 team playoff. Place the four best teams in the playoff. Have the first two rounds hosted by the 4 BCS Bowls (Sugar, Orange, Rose, Fiesta). Have the National Title game hosted by the highest bidder. No "Conference Champions Only" rule. Nothing else to screw things up. The 4 best teams play for the National Title. That's the way it should be. Period.

A bunch of people keep saying this, but are saying it wrong. What you are proposing is an 8 team playoff. Most people agree that it will begin with a 4 team playoff. Admittedly, I am a fan of the 8 team playoff. A four team playoff could only incorporate two BCS bowls and only be two rounds total. Just sayin'...

[bennyl08]

Wizard, I have read through your posts, including the linked one and accept your challenge. For one, I agree that we will start with a four team playoff as it is the easiest transition, but also feel like an 8 team playoff is the natural fit for college football.

1. Wear and tear on the players. Right now, teams in bowl games play anywhere from 13-14 games with about 3-5 weeks break b/w their last two games. A 4 team playoff adds an extra game for 2 teams as well as an extra week of practice and travel. An 8 team playoff adds an extra game for 4 teams and another game for 2 teams. Presumably, the two teams in the finals will have some of the better players in the country many, with NFL potential, and should be able to handle some of the added games. Now, how best to handle this? Start the "tournament" off on New Years. This gives teams time to rest, take finals, ect... A few players injured earlier in the season may have time to come back for this. Now, there will be added wear and tear by a factor of two weeks practice and two extra games for a few teams. However, players will be rested before the start of the tourney and any injuries that happen then are just as likely to have happened in a four game playoff or during spring, look at Colt McCoy in Texas vs. Bama. While you may lose a star player, that's part of the game and many people will root for the injured team.

2. Who to choose. Let's assume the 4 team and 8 team playoffs are determined in the same manner, say by the BCS rankings or what have you. The problem with a four team playoff is that it is too selective. You say corporate sponsorship and money from bowls makes too much money. How do you go to the Fiesta and Orange Bowls and say, you no longer exist, or if you do, you are now no better than the cotton bowl or capital one. Or, how do you go to the Sugar and Rose bowl and say, We can't get rid of the Fiesta and Orange, so, you will have to alternate years of being less than stellar bowls. You can't. Also, most years will have teams from only the Pac, Big 10, Big 12 and SEC. In effect, you will be relegating the ACC and Big East down to lower tier conferences with the "chance" that they squeak a team in once in a while, while the SEC may sneak in two teams every couple of years. While this may be true, financially, this will quickly be changed. With the 8 team, there is room for the 4 best teams and 4 wild cards per say. This will likely include at least 1 team from each major conference while allowing two more major sponsors to sponsor the semi finals.

3. Where to play. This becomes a bit trickier, but is not too bad. There are two options. The first is to have designated sites to play at, same as it is now. 4 team playoff requires no new sites, but again, diminishes two of the BCS bowls to a lower tier. 8 team playoff would require 2 new sites. This would not be difficult, but then how would people go? In the four team playoff, you are asking the two final schools fans to travel to two different games. In the 8 team, you are potentially asking for 3 games. Now, fans flock to see their favorite players final college games and to get one last glimpse of their team, while casual sports fans and locals fill in the rest. Take the sugar bowl Arkansas went to. We more than sold our allotted ticket amount as well as bought up many of the general seating tickets. In either system, you will have a few fans skip the first round in hopes that their team makes it to the next. However, most teams will sell their allotment for the first round. Also, probably half of the finals will be sold before the teams are decided with many fans excited to see their team play for it all along with casuals and locals filling in the rest. Now, for the 4 team playoff, this is it. Now, the 8 team playoff must worry about the semi's. Now, there will be a solid bundle of fans who will also want to see them as well as the standard locals and business attendees ect... However, they would likely have the lowest attendance of the 3 rounds on average, though this will all depend on the matchups. Some may think that the two best teams are playing each other right then, instead of the finals and this will boost sales there. The same can happen in the 4 team playoff as well.

Then there's the second option of location for the 8 team system. Now, keep the names of the 4 BCS bowls, but have them played at the stadium of the higher ranked team. This adds emphasis to the regular season as having a home field advantage in the first round would really help. There would be no worry of a shortage of ticket sales in this scenario. Now, you should argue, what if a smaller school becomes a higher seed and hosts. This would be an issue, but I imagine that every team would have to pay a set fee regardless of stadium size. Then each stadium could determine the prices for their games. The smaller stadium could raise ticket prices a bit more than the larger stadium to accommodate the fee and still make a similar profit as a larger school could. Then comes the second stage. This would likely feature fixed stadiums That I imagine might be the Rose bowl and Cowboy's Stadium. This provides two top notch facilities that are a reasonable drive for most fan bases. I.e. there aren't too many fans of college ball in the NE. Then you have two established sites that will host major games every year. More fans might be able to make these than in the above scenario as home stadium prices would likely be somewhere in between regular season and BCS bowl prices. Plus, many fans didn't have to pay for much travel in the previous round and more can afford to make the second round as it might be their last game. Also, you develop a loyal local group as it is hosted their annually. Finally, you have the finals. This will likely be a location decided by a bid 1-3 years ahead of time. You have no worries about ticket sales here either. First, it's the championship game an there will be a ton of people excited to see it regardless of who plays. Secondly, just as many fans will travel here as they would for the finals in a 4 team playoff as they would only be required to travel twice.

Overall, while a 4 team playoff has it's perks, it will alienate the ACC and Big East relegating them to the tier of the C-USA and such. You will lose two major bowls, their sponsors, and they money that they would provide by only having 4 teams. In favor of a 4 team, it is less strain on the players, but only by two games that only 4 teams would notice. The 8 team system lacks the disadvantages of the 4, though it does add two extra games for only 4 teams. Also, if all the games are held away from home universities, then the semifinals may not sell as many tickets and if the first round is hosted by the home university, then you run the risk of having an ill equipped stadium. However, financially, as it is only about money when it's all said and done, the 8 team system brings in two extra sponsors instead of losing two, for a 4 company swing in money sponsorship. It can also sell out games in all 3 rounds bringing in 2 extra games of revenue. It can be done in a way to still allow the athletes to be students as well, rest up any fatigue they encounter during the regular season while adding emphasis to the regular season in the benefit on home field advantage instead of risking a 4 seed having a home field advantage over a 1 seed due to being closer to the pre-designated site.

Boom goes the dynamite.

[hogsanity]

You have taken something totally out of context and made one of the more confusing posts I've read lately, in terms of getting "B" from statement "A".

The text you quote from my prior post is all about how tickets would be allocated - how many of them, their cost, and how many could afford them - and the reference to Bowls is about how tickets are sold for existing Bowl games (the assumption being made is that they would be sold in some similar fashion for games in an expanded playoff system, be they occur in "Bowls" or not).  The issue of whether the playoff discussed in that theoretical scenario is in - or out - of the "Bowl system" is not really germane to the point being made.

Moreover, you seem to be upset because (apparently) you feel that I'm calling for a reduction in the number of Bowls.  But that is another subject, outside of the scope of this particular thread and conversation.  Beyond that, if you've read my posts in the thread, you know that I'm a strong advocate of the "Final Four" process being discussed now - not a larger playoff.  In the Final Four, none of the Bowls are eliminated; there is a simple, predetermined rotation among the major Bowls to host the semi's and Championship games, not unlike what the BCS has done.


So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I could not care less if the number of bowls are reduced.  35 is too many really, and the meaning of making it to a bowl has been reduced in many cases to simply being able to schedule in a way that guarnatees 4 ooc wins, and win only 2 or 3 in conference.

My point on the # of teams in bowls was more to those who keep saying to use the existing bowls to play the playoff.  Doing that does reduce the # of teams going to the post season overall, even with some bowl system in place aside from the playffs.  Again, I don't care if that # drops, but people can not make the argument that a plan like that will not hurt the bowls.

[bennyl08]

I take it that the 8 team playoff is reasonable then?

[Theolesnort]

This will never work or do. It is to easy and makes to much sense, therefore it will never come up for vote.

[Hog Wild Wolf]

If the best teams don't get in, what's the point of the playoffs?

To much money and greed involved to ever get it right! IMO..........

One rule I can say as a fact is the two teams per conference rule. This rule IMO is because of money, not because it is or is not fair.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If the best teams don't get in, what's the point of the playoffs?

To much money and greed involved to ever get it right! IMO..........

One rule I can say as a fact is the two teams per conference rule. This rule IMO is because of money, not because it is or is not fair.

And this is precisely why it won't stay at 4 teams...too many schools want a piece of the pie. My guess is that once this goes to 4 best teams, regardless of conference affiliation/championships, that the pressure will be on to go to 8 teams, and that too is a manageable process.

Eight teams can include a combination of 6 conference champions that rank high enough to get in plus two "at large teams", or if there are only 5 conference champions that rank high enough, then 3 at-large teams. I'm not sure we will ever see a 16 team play-off, but 8 teams will satisfy the greed and arrogance of the larger BCS conferences.