A Playoff Solution For College Football

[lastchance]

I envision a 4 team playoff this way:

1 vs. 4
2 vs. 3
Winners play one game, Losers play another. Obviously, sometimes, this system would suck for the bowl who gets shafted, but now there are 3 really interesting and important games for the title instead of 1, and with a rotation, you will get more of a draw at the big title game, and USC doesn't get shafted 2 years ago, Auburn doesn't get shafted last year.

Arguing over the 4 seed is a lot better than arguing over the 2 seed, IMHO. That's why I propose a 4 team-playoff.

[mblax10]

So in your proposed 4 team system, how are 4 teams determined? Last I checked, their are 6 major conferences. How does Notre Dame factor in? What if a small conferecne school goes undefeated?

So who makes your playoff in 2004? 5 teams finish the season undefeated, how are you going to tell an undefeated team they don't deserve a playoff spot?
USC 12-0
Oklahoma 12-0
Auburn 12-0
Utah 11-0
Boise State 11-0
Lousiville 10-1

Do you just forget the Big Ten, Big East & ACC because they all took turns beating each other up? What about Cal? You could argue that they deserve a shot with their only loss by 6 points to USC.

Your system is leaving out the most important details; how are teams selected and how is the money spread around?

[MyTurn2Raise]

Don't mess with college football. It already has a 12 game playoff. One loss teams can never complain. go undeafeted. The occasional times that there has happened to be 2 undefeateds could be handled by a conditional post bowl national title that goes into effect only with 2+ undefeateds from the big 5 conferences at the end of the year.

The national title in football has always been a deserving team thus far, don't cheapen it like college basketball where #1 and #2 have only met for the title twice in the last 20 some odd years.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
So in your proposed 4 team system, how are 4 teams determined? Last I checked, their are 6 major conferences. How does Notre Dame factor in? What if a small conferecne school goes undefeated?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in the op, the 4 teams would be determined using the same sort of BCS rankings which are used now. There would be 4 additional spots for teams from the other conferences to play in the 2 non-final 4 bowls, and a third major bowl could be added if you wanted 6 teams instead (I believe a fifth bowl is going to be added in the bcs anyways).

[ QUOTE ]
So who makes your playoff in 2004? 5 teams finish the season undefeated, how are you going to tell an undefeated team they don't deserve a playoff spot?
USC 12-0
Oklahoma 12-0
Auburn 12-0
Utah 11-0
Boise State 11-0
Lousiville 10-1

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy. USC, OU, Auburn, and Utah. Louisville had a loss and played a pretty weak schedule. If a team from a terrible conference like Boise St. wants to make it, they're going to have to play a tough non-conference schedule like they did this year to have a chance.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you just forget the Big Ten, Big East & ACC because they all took turns beating each other up? What about Cal? You could argue that they deserve a shot with their only loss by 6 points to USC.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, the biggest myth in college football is that the reason the Big 10 rarely has a team in the national championship because they beat each other up all season. The fact of the matter is, the Big 10 is the most overrated conference the last 25 years. Year in and year out, the SEC and Big 12 are significantly better, and the new ACC is going to be better than the Big 10 on a yearly basis too.

Take this year for instance. No team in the Big 10 would have a shot in hell of winning the SEC, Big 12, ACC, or PAC 10.

As I stated above, the league champions would get to play in the non-final 4 bowls, which should probably be expanded to 3 instead of 2 as I originally stated. So there would be 5 bowls which would rotate the national championship game. This way every major conference champion and a couple of at large teams would play in the major non-final 4 bowls.

[ QUOTE ]
Your system is leaving out the most important details; how are teams selected and how is the money spread around?

[/ QUOTE ]

The money would be spread around the same way. There would just be alot more of it. Teams who make the final 4 bowls would get X money. The two final 4 winners would also get Y money. The conference champs and at large teams in the non-final 4 bowls would get Z money. Also, you do realize that conference teams who play in these bowls share this revenue with there conferences?

A BCS type poll similar to what they're currently using would be used to select the final 4 teams, as I stated above.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The national title in football has always been a deserving team thus far, don't cheapen it like college basketball where #1 and #2 have only met for the title twice in the last 20 some odd years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, like the year BYU won it.

And did you ever consider that the reason there are so few #1 vs. #2 in BB is because those are poll rankings, just like FB is now? Prove it on the field/court.

And I can't ever recall hearing anybody think that the college NCAA BB tournament "cheapen"ed the title.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Let me be the first then....March Madness cheapens the national title and makes the regular season nearly irrelevant...think Syracuse for a recent example.

In football, you have to prove yourself road tough and letdown proof.

I enjoy college football much more on the whole. The champion is the champion and shows it 'on the field' the whole year, not just for a hot month.

[lastchance]

This is true.

You're not cheapening anything with a 4 team playoff, you're making sure that the #2 team in the country gets in, like SC 2 years ago. They deserved to play for the title, Auburn deserved to play for the title.

A 4 team playoff allows all of that to happen, while adding just one game, and two teams. The #4 team in the country is not going to be that much worse than the #2 team. There's not going to be a Syracuse that gets hot, or a Louisville or anything else.

There's just going to be undefeated and one-loss teams, maybe two-loss at most.

4-team playoff is definitely the way to go, IMHO. The simplest easiest to implement system that almost assures that the #2, and #3 team in the country get to play for the title, and I think that makes a lot of sense.

Having conflict over the #4 team is a lot better than conflict over the #2 team.

[holeplug]

One thing college football REALLY needs to do away with are preseason polls. In the USA Today poll this week Penn State is somehow ranked 1 notch lower than Ohio State even though they have 1 less loss and beat them.

Basically Auburn got screwed last year because most people thought they were not going to be as good as they turned out to be. Last year preseason USC was ranked #1, Oklahoma was #2 and Auburn was #17.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Maybe Auburn should've played someone other than UL Monroe, The Citadel, and La Tech in non-conference. They did it to themselves and gots what they deserved.

BTW-last year was the only year I think the BCS failed, because there were 3 undefeateds. But, who cares? Both Auburn and SC can claim national titles IMO. What's with this 1 winner take all mentality? The bowl games and the BCS are great, except that the Rose Bowl isn't always Big10vPac10. I'd prefer my team to be playing in the Rose Bowl than for a national title in some other bowl.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of college football fans want some sort of playoff, and for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rabid minority of college football fans and sports bettors (and sports books) want some kind of playoff. Most fans just want to enjoy the games and have a winning season.

College football got along just fine for a hundred years without the BCS. Both before and after the BCS, few people (except the partisans of that team) agreed on the "national champ", no matter how selected, or they didn't care.

Old traditions like the Big Ten winner playing in the Rose Bowl mean a lot more to the average fan than some mythical coronation as the Big Swinging D!ck of college football. The bowl games used to really mean something to the students and the alumni before they became orgies of corporate sponsorship and an integral part of the NFL farm system. The people with the biggest interest in a national championship are outside fans, not the students and alums. I lived in Nebraska when the Huskers were the national powerhouse. The most vocal fans were Nebraskans who had never gone to the U. They were the ones demanding unending national titles.

Root for the team and hope to go to a bowl game. It's just football.