How is this playoff thing going to work?
So let's say that the BCS decides it's going to shut everybody up starting next season by implementing a playoff system. We've all heard the arguments for and against playoffs, so let's spare ourselves that trouble. Assume playoffs are in, for better or for worse.
The question at hand then, is how will these playoffs take shape? A 4-team plus one system is probably the easiest to implement, but Brian likes a 6-team system. Barack likes an 8-team playoff. Basketball does it with 64(/65) teams. There was even some heated discussion on this board about a 128-team, season long playoff. So what's the consensus? Further, is anyone/everyone married to their particular vision of playoffs or would you be happy to see anything over the current system?
January 5th, 2009 at 1:01 AM ^
Over ther current system. Even the old way with just a mythical champ is fine with me.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:22 AM ^
The Mt West, MAC, WAC and Conf USA get paired off to play each other in a "prelim" round which will result in the 2 winning teams joining the 6 other conference champions (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Big East, ACC, Pac 10). Those 8 teams will then be joined by the next 8 highest rated teams taken from the BCS rankings to give us a 16 team tournament. BCS rankings determine the seeding. Win your conference and you are in. Simple as that.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^
goblue700, that's the first I've heard of such a scenario. But, to be honest, that sounds great. The only problem I see is what if say the MtWest team is in the top 10 and lose the "play-in" game. Do they still make it by the BCS ranking? Or, would their loss eliminate them.
I really do like your playoff idea. I'm in favor of a 16 team over any other. I'd accept an 8 team, but nothing less.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:38 AM ^
i'd like it if every conference champ got into a bracket. past that, i'm not picky
January 5th, 2009 at 2:57 AM ^
I would much rather have winners (e.g. Boise State and Utah) play BCS teams rather than each other in a play-in game. If they get crushed, fine. Aside from their recent major bowl wins, what else can they do to show they deserve respect?
My issue is that I would have a hard time watching, say, the 4th best team in the SEC get rewarded with a bid, while a mid-major conference winner is rewarded with a matchup against one of the best teams in the country.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:14 AM ^
How is this playoff thing going to work....gosh, excellent question. Everyone's got their own perfect little ideas, which causes everyone to be in favor of a playoff, but I suspect everyone would be less in favor once a system got implemented, because there's problems with every single one.
Look at the NFL. Seems like a system that makes good sense, and yet every year someone is bitching about it. If they changed it there'd still be bitching about it.
You will never get a playoff that:
- Doesn't include all conference champs. The prez's won't go for it.
- isn't played on home fields and thus, ruins all the best bowls.
- isn't huge. $$$$$$$$!!!! The basketball tournament isn't 65 teams just because those are the 65 best teams in the land or because there are 65 teams with a legit shot. In other words, 4, 6, or 8 is a pipe dream. Think 12, and once the golden goose starts laying eggs, they're going to try and wring 16 out of it, and in later years it'll be 20, and any pretense of a meaningful regular season will be shot down.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:00 AM ^
I believe it was Beano Cook, that they would have to go to a Plus-1 system first and work into a playoff. The problem with all the playoff ideas is $$$. The bowls make way too much money for the NCAA and they don't want to lose out on it. The current matchups are not about competition as much as they are about money, who's a good draw. The big fiasco of the season is the Orange Bowl, putting Big East Champ v. ACC champ. Nobody cares about Cinci and VT. The Orange bowl should be some Big 12 team vs SEC or Big 10 team.
They need to put all the major bowls back on Jan 1 and then do a "NC game the following Saturday. After that they can work toward a playoff.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:26 AM ^
The Orange Bowl doesn't automatically take the Big East champ. It's only tied to the ACC. They just got last pick this year. Last year it was VT-Kansas and nobody complained about the quality of the game.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:42 AM ^
But a lot of that goes to the bowls. Wouldn't the NCAA stand to actually make more if they fully controlled the playoff system?
I am in favor of an 8 team playoff, 6 majors plus 2 at large, home games for higher ranked seed first two rounds, final rotates among major bowl sites. Regular season games (including conference championships) done by Dec 1, all games done by first Saturday in January after New Year's. The other bowl games (which have become nearly meaningless, anyway) can continue to exist by picking up teams that lose out of the playoff or are at large.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^
Questions for anyone who wants a small (4,6,8 teams) playoff:
- How would you feel about 16 teams? 20?
- What reason is there to believe a playoff would in real life be that small?
January 5th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^
personally i'm all for 32 teams because more teams = more football.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
Something like that might actually require less football to be played. Five rounds of playoffs would take forever, and would probably require the regular season to be shortened.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
I think the draw of a small playoff is that it keeps the regular season relevant. Given an 8 team playoff, the current BCS rankings would seed Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah, Texas Tech, and Penn State. There's no bubble, no play-in game, no playoff teams with more than 1 loss. I don't know that anyone can make an argument for any team outside of the BCS top 8 to be named NC (or even the top 6), but in that pool there's a lot of room for argument.
The draw of something as small as a 6 team playoff is that in addition to making the regular season relevant, finishing 1 and 2 also gives you a first round bye so being at the top of the polls still carries weight.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
How much of the regular season is relevant now? It is irrelevant for all the non-BCS schools (see Utah). It is essentially irrelevant after one loss for teams from the Pac 10, Big1T1en, ACC and Big East. And in the SEC and Big 12, once you're out of the conference championship game, the season is irrelevant.
16 team playoff, 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^
One loss makes a Big Ten team irrelevant? The last couple OSU teams might disagree with you.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
Their BCS losses have helped make it so the voters won't accept a one-loss BigTen team, ask Penn State.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
Penn State's loss to Iowa would have been irrelevant if there was a playoff because PSU still won the B10. The fact that one loss is crippling is what makes the regular season relevant.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
I suppose that theoretically, on a board all subjects are fair game. Ok granted. But Jesus, could this be more hypothetical? "Let's suppose the BCS decides to do a playoff".
Ok, how's this: let's suppose we decide to hire a coordinator that favors the 2-4-5 defense? What would it look like? And would Anthony Lalota be happy and productive playing outside linebacker?? Discuss.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
The 1-5-5 is far superior to the 2-4-5.
Also, a guy in our local paper repeatedly claimed in his column over the holiday that Rod wants to run the 3-5-5, which I am all for.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
a 9/7/8...the more people out there, the less chance we have of giving up yards
January 5th, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^
definitely, i dont know why rich rod wants to run the 3-3-5. thats totally weak against the run. i would favor something like a 10-3-5
January 5th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
No way. The 11-0-0 is where it's at. It's the Red Rover defense.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
We have players on scholarship. Use 'em: 85-0-0. Walk-ons get a shot if we have less than 85 on scholarship.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
You won't be very hard pressed to find someone that hates the BCS, especially after this bowl season plays out and a one-loss team is named NC after beating another one-loss team that isn't USC or Texas and certainly isn't undefeated Utah. You also won't be hard pressed to find someone that thinks playoffs are better.
I don't think that we'll see playoffs for a while, but I do know that the seemingly unified army against the BCS would probably be more fragmented if concrete playoff architecture was on the table. I think that the BCS is stupid and needs to go, but I probably wouldn't be behind a 32-team playoff.
Couple that logic with the fact that there's no fucking Michigan football to discuss aside from illogical speculation regarding 18 year old recruits and you get some sound reasoning for discussing playoffs.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:37 AM ^
I favor an eight team playoff similar to MMB 82's.
Once you start adding 16, 20 teams you are just adding 3rd or even 4th place major conference teams. You also increase the chance of rematches from conference play. I would rather see the best teams play eachother.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
"I favor an eight team playoff similar to MMB 82's.
Once you start adding 16, 20 teams you are just adding 3rd or even 4th place major conference teams. You also increase the chance of rematches from conference play. I would rather see the best teams play each other."
I agree with all this - smaller the better - the regular season would still be very meaningful and you'd have a better chance of good matchups.
But eight teams - it's just not realistic. Pretty much every other national championship tournament the NCAA holds includes autobids from every conference. Every conference. Except those that decline like the Ivy League (and even they aren't too hoity-toity for March Madness.)
There are 11 conferences, and nobody's going to think a playoff solved anything if it includes Troy but leaves out Texas and USC, which basically means we get 16 teams at a minimum. The conference commissioners aren't going to agree on one that doesn't give everyone a slice of the pie, and if you think Congress is involved now, wait til you see what happens when the non-BCS conferences file an anti-trust lawsuit because they're not getting autobids to the latest Big Dance.
I'd be all for a playoff if it could be kept to 8 teams. The regular season would still mean something, the playoff could be held in December with the losers still going to bowls, and all my concerns would be dealt with and we could have a happy little playoff. But I'm not naive enough to pretend it wouldn't get inflated later on. Not when the basketball tournament used to be 24 teams and they're still talking extra rounds. THAT is why I'm against the idea pretty wholesale.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
It's going to work the exact same way as the lower division playoffs... I'm not sure why people are in denial about that.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
Any playoff SHOULD:
Make as few changes as possible to the current season
Keep All Current Bowl Games In Place
Include 16 Teams
Limit Additional Games
Reduce Need/Desire for Teams to Schedule “Non-Competitive” Games
Retain most traditional bowl match ups
Virtually everyone agrees that 4 teams are not enough. Once you get to more than 4 teams, you have at least 3 rounds. And, since several conferences already have a conference championship, it is a no-brainer to expand this to 16 teams.
How the 16 teams are selected and where/when they play are details that can be worked out.