Why not run a D-1 football playoff?
Why doesn't the NCAA just schedule a sixteen-team playoff in November/December, just like every other division does, and determine the two slots for the National Championship that way?
They could seed a straight sixteen-team bracket with the higher seed getting the home game. This could be done during conference championship game week, either incorporating or superceding the CC games. The quarters and semis could be played the next two weeks.
Bowl selection weekend could start the same time it always does, with the major bowls getting their choice of the top ten teams as each is determined by their elimination. The Bowls would get the same teams, though in different combinations, and the NC game would get two teams that actually played their way in with no politics involved.
The same amount of teams would play bowls at the same time as now, but college football would have a legitimate national champion. Four teams would play one extra week, and four would play two extra weeks, but would still have time to study for finals, though they may miss Thanksgiving at home.
In essence, the NCAA could simply take the game back from the bowls and conferences by offering this tournament independently of the bowls, and teams and conferences that choose to participate can, and teams that choose not to can decline.
How many teams or conferences would turn down a chance to play for the National Championship?
The bowls were originally supposed to be exhibition games as rewards for a good season. Now, they have become inflated in their importance. The bowl nabobs know this, and have been pretty much running college football for about thirty years, now.
It is time for the NCAA to take football back from the bowls and crown a true National Champion. No longer would a Texas or a Auburn have a legitimate complaint that they were unfairly treated by the system. Other than those citing "striped incompetence," no team would have a legitimate complaint that they deserved the National Championship and got jobbed.
The money wouldn't be too bad, either.
Okay.
The majority of the commisioners, executives, presidents and other higher ups in college football DO NOT WANT TO ABOLISH THE BOWL SYSTEM. Here are some reasons:
1. The bowls give schools money and publicity (or at least school presidents think they do)
2. The bowls are considered by many higher ups to be a good experience/reward for teams and a valuable part of college football's tradition.
3. The bowls do not interfere with finals with ANY TEAMS AT ALL (with a few tiny exceptions here and there). Commissioners and presidents state that this is a valid concern for them. I question whether this actually IS a concern for them or there another underlying rea$on that they use this concern as an excuse. Nonetheless, that is their story and they are sticking to it.
4. Commissioners will always say "We have the most exciting regular season in all of sports." Would a playoff take away from the value regular season? Commissioners think so, and again, that is their story and they are sticking to it.
And there are prolly some reasons I couldn't think of. But there you have it, nobody whose opinion matters wants to change.
"It is time for the NCAA to take football back from the bowls and crown a true Playoff Champion."
Fixed.
I wish I could meet you in person and shake your hand.
There will ALWAYS be teams saying they got robbed. In a 16-team playoff let's say there's a 3-way tie for the Big Ten. Michigan beats OSU, OSU beats PSU, PSU beats Michigan. Now what if in all three cases, it is each of the team's only loss of the year (OSU obviously didn't play USC in this year). Who gets the bid from the Big 10? Or how would they even choose 2 from the Big 10?
There is ALWAYS going to be controversy whether there is a playoff or not and there will ALWAYS be teams saying they got robbed. If there is no playoff at least there will still be some pageantry and tradition.
Great point, but what I have noticed in my 14 years of being a sports fan (I am not 14 years old, but I have only followed sports in general for 14 years) is that for some reason that is kinda irrational, people don't care as much about the controversey when there is a playoff. Why don't they care? I'm not sure. But I think it is an odd occurrence that people will bitch about number 3 and 4 "not geting a chance" or "having and argument" and not bitch about why the NFL or MLB or *insert other sport with a kinda small playoff here* excludes some good teams.
Humans are irrational...
The difference is that in D-1 football there are SO many teams and quite a few big-time conferences. It can't be determined as easily because the records aren't so clear-cut and there can't be as many easy-to-see tiebreakers.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:25 PM ^
There are over 100 teams in D-1 and only 2 get a direct shot at the title. The other problem is pre-season rankings mean way too much in determining a national champion. If you start the season ranked in the 30's, you have to be the only undefeated team at the end from a big conference to have a shot at the title. That's what is unfair.
Well, I think there's a pretty significant difference between being the #3 team and getting left out of the BCS and being the #17 team and missing the playoffs. The latter is very unlikely to have won it all if it had gotten in. Similarly, teams like PSU that were the last left out know that realistically, they were hoping to just make the field and maybe win a game (as we were). Leaving out a team that legitimately might be the best in the country (like the #3 team in football) is a greater injustice IMO.
teams that argue that they should have gotten in, but they never make the case that they could have won it.
With the current BCS mess, the argument for teams left out of the championship game is that they could indeed, have been NCAA champions. These perceived slights are more significant than being left out of the tournament, IMO. In the event of a 16 team football tournament, it would be hard to argue that the 1st team left out really had a compelling case that they would run the table.
But as you state, there is always going to be controversy. I just think that the controversy involving the last to be left out of a tournament is less than those left out of a single championship game.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess when I look at the title game, I have ALWAYS thought that the two teams who got in were the two most deserving teams. That is why the HUGE controversey always confuses me and makes me ask "Why isn't there controversey in other sports?"
I have felt similarly at times. I loved the NC State run to the national championship in 1983, and Villanova in 1986. Both teams were 3rd in their conferences, IIRC. It could very easily be argued that Villanova was at best the 3rd best team in their conference, yet they ended up national champs. Again, the case that the NCAA tournament is crowning a playoff champion.
The present set-up in football essentially ensures that one of the best 4 or so teams actually ends up as national champion. That can be satisfying.
As for controversy, that always sparks interest. Something the NCAA doesn't have a problem with.
Does a playoff really make a "legitimate" champion?
Is Purdue the best basketball team in the Big Ten? What about USC in the Pac-10? Mississippi State in the SEC? Missouri in the Big 12?
Of the six BCS conferences, no #2 seeds won their conference championship and only one #1 seed, and in none did we have a #1 vs. #2 matchup. Instead we had:
#3 vs. #4 (ACC)
#1 vs. #6 (Big East)
#3 vs. #9 (Big 12)
#3 vs. #5 (Big Ten)
#4 vs. #6 (Pac-10)
#3 vs. #5 (SEC*)
#1 seeds won barely half of the conference tournaments. The #5 seed won the MAC, and the #4 seed took the A-10 and OVC. Despite the machinations of the Horizon League designed to practically guarantee a #1 vs. #2 matchup, the #3 seed won it. In fact, the lopsided setups of conference tournaments in the smaller leagues, designed to protect the top seed and give those conferences as good a shot as possible at winning a game or two in the Dance, should clue folks in to the idea that a playoff ends up with a lesser team on top often enough.
In short, co-sign on the idea that a playoff does not produce a national champion, it produces a playoff champion.
*does not seed 1-12; this is where they'd rank if they did.
I don't know if that produces a playoff champion or some kind of regular season/playoff hybrid type champion.
But you are right, whatever criteria is set for determining a champion, you get that flavor of champion.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
because you are putting teams in a must-win situation against another TOP opponent. If you can't win when it counts, then you don't deserve to be champion.
Last season you had Florida lose to Ole Miss at home, USC lost to Oregon State on the road, Texas lost to Tech on the road, Oklahoma lost to Texas, Utah undefeated, Alabama loses to Florida. Only 2 of those teams get a shot at the title. Florida beats Alabama to get into the championship game, but Texas beats Oklahoma and doesn't get into the championship game. A playoff would take care of this problem along with the countless others that have happened in season's past. Auburn
March 15th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
I used to think that there should be a playoff. My thinking was that the BCS would be able to make more money because there are more games. I thought the idea of an 8 team playoff would work best. The confrence champs plus 2 at large for the Utah's of the world but then I heard someone on ESPN say that it would still leave the same situation with #9 being left out so at that I began to think a little different. I then read an article about the BCS comissioner and he basically said if he felt that there was a way that they would make more money with more games he would do it. I would like to see a tourney as much as anyone but I think we just have to accept what we have.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:31 PM ^
The problem with "conference champs plus two at-large" would be that the non-BCS conferences would scream. They suck it up for now because the national championship technically offers the same guarantee to anyone: #1 or #2 and you're in, whether you're Oklahoma, Utah, or FIU. The rest is just expensive window dressing with a label that everyone hates.
Once you introduce autobids to the process, it's all or nothing. The MWC would complain, and rightly so, that how come the Southland Conference gets an autobid to the basketball championship but the MWC can't get an autobid to the football one?
Plus, two at-larges isn't enough to satisfy the "deserving teams get left out" complaint. How do you distribute them among Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech, and Utah?
March 15th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
Where would these games be played?
When would they be played?
What about the money? Bowls have established payouts, how would the playoff pay out?
The answers have to meet certain criteria.
1. They have to result in the NCAA making more money then they do now.
2. They have to result in the conferences making more money then they do now.
3. The games would have to be played at sites that ensures some type of competitive fairness and allows the fans to attend.
4. Oh yeah, the games can't be played during finals, blah blah blah, there can't be too many games blah blah blah. Just kidding about this one, academics and health of the student athlete, c'mon just worry about the money.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
Answers to your questions, based on the 16-teamer that I proposed earlier** (and that Tater seems to have borrowed some ideas from ;) )
1. Games would be played at home fields until the final four, at which point I'd suggest either a competitive bidding process to host much like the basketball one, or a permanent site similar to the CWS in Omaha. Home fields are an absolute must and non-negotiable. It's something I consider an unmovable requirement - the idea of "using the bowls" so that a team plays in three or four neutral locations, that is a farce. I'm skeptical of the idea that fans would travel even to two neutral site games, but I figure the hoopla surrounding the final four would be enough to fill a stadium for the three final four games.
2. Starting the week right after the conference championship games. No way you convince the conferences to lose these cash cows. That week and the four following weeks. That allows the three early rounds to be played early enough to let the losers still go to a bowl, for those of us who actually like the bowls and don't want to sacrifice them on the altar of the Most High Playoff.
3. However March Madness pays out the TV money, it'd likely end up doled out similarly. Bowls would still pay out. The highest bowls like the ex-BCS bowls might pay out a little less, but it'd be made up for by being in the playoff (you probably wouldn't end up in, say, the Orange Bowl, unless you went deep into the playoff.) Home teams would probably get to keep the revenue from hosting a game although different conferences might have rules about splitting that up. Since 12 teams would get to host a game the way I have it set up (Big East b-ball tourney style) the wealth would be nicely spread. The four visitors can suck it up, enjoy their cut of the TV money, and have a better regular season next time. Or, the commissioners can hash out a way for them to get paid a bit, since the big schools always seem to have a spare half-million lying around to buy a win from a podunk bottom-feeder.
4. As for finals, well, playoff proponents always like to advance the argument that that's a bogus concern. Basketball plays through it dontcha know. Truth be told, bowl season and bowl practices tend to overlap finals anyway.
**Can be found in the diaries. Proposed because even though I don't want to see a playoff and I barf whenever I see the self-righteous crusading laid on us by people like Dan Wetzel every year, I recognize that the tide is against me here. If we must have a playoff, that's the one I want based on what I think is realistic, not the fantasy-world one many people think they can have.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:18 PM ^
Go read the "Wetzel Plan". Best scenario for a 16 team playoff.
Here's the link for ya:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?prov=yhoo&slug=dw-playoff120…
March 16th, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
But still, what if there is a 3-way tie for the Big 10 and/or ties in other conferences for other at-large bids.
If Michigan, PSU, and OSU all only have 1 loss, to each other, and teams in other big conferences are up for at-large bids have ties with big time (or even just really good for the year) programs, there could easily be teams left out of the playoff that could contend.
Let's say, just for the sake of a simple argument, that Michigan goes 10-1 and does not get invited to the playoff after a loss to Penn St, who DOES get in, and a win against OSU. Michigan would be just a big a threat to run to potential table in the playoff as OSU and even PSU.
There might be a LITTLE less argument some years for some teams complaining but I don't think it's worth changing the system over. The BCS could be changed or whatever but I just hate the idea of raping the tradition & history of bowls just for the sake of....still having controversy and some people thinking more teams had a shot at it.
Obviously, the Big Ten and all conferences need to have a conference championship game. The deciding factor as to who gets in the game is left up to the conference. There needs to be some type of tiebreaker. The big ten uses the least amount of div I-AA teams played. I'm fine with that because it encourages better/tougher OOC scheduling.
That's another bonus to the playoff. Wouldn't you want to see UM play Florida, Texas, USC, and Notre Dame for their 4 OOC games instead of William and Mary, Bob and Claire, Lucy and Ricardo, and Notre Dame? UM would still be able to make the playoff by winning the Big Ten despite losing 3 or 4 games to top BCS opponents. Just think about the hype and craziness of those games.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
"I don't want to abolish the bowl system..."
Neither do I. This playoff would give the bowls the same amount of teams they always get, and the two NC game teams. The difference is that the NC game would have been determined ON THE FIELD instead of by computer.
"There will always be teams saying they got robbed..."
Yes, but unlike basketball, the 17th best team has no chance of winning the NC in a playoff unless the ratings are badly skewed. Until a number sixteen seed wins, there would really be no reason to gripe. I am guessing that nobody below eight would win, but letting sixteen teams in is a great way to make sure nobody with a legitimate chance is left out.
"Does a playoff really produce a legitimate champion?"
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, but at least the champion would be determined ON THE FIELD and the losers would only have themselves to blame.
"Where would these games be played?
When would they be played?"
That was covered in the post, at least for my "solution." The highest-seeded team gets a home game, just like D-II, etc, and they would start either on confernece championship weekend or one week later, depending on whether or not the CC games would be incorporated. Until the NC game, every game would be at the home of the highest-seeded team. The NC game would be played just like it is now, keeping the bowl system intact.
The reason I am in favor of home games is because of Wahoo's post a few weeks ago that had a system. Wahoo said he thought asking a team's fan base to travel three times in three weeks or four times in four weeks would be too much.
I didn't agree at the time, because, for example, each Final Four team's fanbase will have travelled three times in three weeks, but I realized that Wahoo really had a good point.
Home teams have an advantage, which is fine because it makes the regular season worth more, and it is highly unlikely that any team will win three straight road games to get to the NC game a few weeks later.
"This system borrowed from mine."
Yes, Wahoo, it did, a little; it combines a system I had been advocating for years with some tweaks inspired by your post. I saw that you had a couple of ideas that I hadn't considered, and adapted them into my original straight playoff idea. I liked your home game thing a lot. I also liked your concept that in-season performance should be rewarded by more than one home game. And, as mentioned, I liked your concept of not making fans travel more than neccessary.
However, yours had some play-ins and byes in a slightly more complicated structure, where mine is a straight, simple, sixteen-team, single-elimination bracket, just like every other football division plays.
I really, really hate byes. They are used as an excuse by whoever uses the next game. If the team with the bye wins, it was because the other team was "tired." If the other team wins, it was because the other team "lost their momentum during the week off." I am a big fan of the straight, single elimination format; I think it is the fairest way to decide a champion.
I wanted a system that keep the bowl system intact, without letting them run (more like "ruin") the game. This one gives the bowls access to the same teams as the current system, but they will have to wait for a few of them for a couple of weeks. In other words, the NCAA is dictating to the bowls, instead of vice-versa.
Anyway, thanks for the original ideas in your diary post and your response to my alternative system. They did open my eyes to a few things that I hadn't considered. I would have incorporated more bowls in my original single-elimination system, which was sixteen seeded teams on CC weekend, eight seeded teams in four major bowls, and a "plus three," with semis the week after the bowls, and the NC the next week, but you pointed out that it would make fans travel too much. Due to the probablility of home teams winning more games, this addresses that concern.
I also listened to the fact that you felt teams should be rewarded more for regular-season pefrormance than one home game, and agreed. My system would give the higher-seeded team up to three home games.
There is no "perfect system" as long as the bowls are around, and they aren't going away anytime soon. But my proposal would produce a National Champion on the field, with minimal room for controversy, other than a nine or ten saying they deserved the home game, or the normal incidences of "striped incompetence." And either of our systems would be tons better than the sham we currently have.
Okay but what about my hypothetical, and very possible nearly every year (in SOME conference or another), situation?
I think there CAN be a large number of teams capable of winning. I think there could be 3 equal teams from one conference (one of which could easily be left out of the playoff) who would all be capable of beating the same teams.
Also, let's say there's a MAC team (because if at least ONE MAC team didn't make the playoff, there'd be a frenzy saying they were robbed) who is obviously inferior but somehow pulls off an upset of a higher-ranked school. They may have played great one game but I don't think they're probably going to be able to pull off 3 more wins against top programs. It's POSSIBLE, but I think if they pulled off one upset it opens up the door to more possibilities of more schools getting further. It could potentially be one upset like that which makes the playoff more like the NFL playoffs where they can have a Cinderella Champion -- not necessarily (at all) the best team.
Well, if they wanted to give the championship to the best team, they would just give it to New England every year. No need to play any games.
The beauty of a playoff is that the TEAMS get to decide ON THE FIELD who the better team is. You have to win when it counts, and champions do.
Did Oklahoma and Florida not decide ON THE FIELD who was the better team?
Did UT, TT, and OU settle anything by what they did ON THE FIELD?
3 strong teams from one conference played out this year in the Big 12. Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech all finished with 1 loss to each other. The playoff scenario I like best would likely have included all 3 teams. 16 teams, all 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams chosen by committee. If you use the BCS the 5 teams would have been Texas (3), Alabama (4), Texas Tech (7), OSU(10) and TCU (11). First teams out would be Oklahoma St (13), Ga Tech(14), Georgia(15), BYU(16), Oregon(17), MSU(18). I really don't have any qualms leaving those 5 teams out.
Yep, that looks good to me too.
You say:
"The difference is that the NC game would have been determined ON THE FIELD instead of by computer. "
Reality says:
Harris Poll - 1/3rd
Coaches Poll - 1/3rd
SIX different CPU rankings split the remaining - 1/3rd
"Computers" aren't the problem here. Unless you find me a computer that willingly refused to watch Utah play a single football game this year. Because I can find you several pollsters who simply didn't see them play (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-utah010509&prov=yhoo…).
Or, perhaps by "computer" you meant "the calculator used to tally the scores".
Either way, I'm all in favor of a playoff since it means more quality football games between quality teams. But I don't like the "because the computers" reasoning, because it shows you aren't entirely clear what the system is in the first place. And if you aren't sure what system you are fixing, how can I give your fix any credibility?
I once had a teacher tell me that an entire paper I had written contained a lot, but said little. You do that a lot. You write lengthy posts that say little that is actually correct. Like this gem:
"Yes, but unlike basketball, the 17th best team has no chance of winning the NC in a playoff unless the ratings are badly skewed. Until a number sixteen seed wins, there would really be no reason to gripe. I am guessing that nobody below eight would win, but letting sixteen teams in is a great way to make sure nobody with a legitimate chance is left out."
That whole thing is just a paragraph of hot-garbage.
Actually, it says quite a bit about the importance of having 16 teams in a playoff over 4 or 8 teams. But thanks for your input, it's really contributed to this thread.
No it doesn't. He basically says that you need 16 teams to keep people from bitching. Not that they could actually win, which they could. He says that he'll put aside his logic (that no 8+ seed could win) to appease angry people. How is that better than the current system? How does he know a 17 seed has no right to gripe? 15-25 in rankings are not that different and going with that many teams makes it more objective. His whole argument is flawed and that paragraph should point that out.
That's fine, you can refute his OPINION, but calling it "hot garbage" is bullshit.
He's saying the likely hood of the #17 team actually winning 4 games (three of them on the road) if so remote that is shouldn't be considered. Of all the basketball tournaments in history, the lowest seed to ever win was #8 in 1985. The lowest seed to make the game but lose, was also #8 in 1980. The chance of a lower seed winning could then be said to be so remote that it is never considered.