The Fate of the Crystal Ball, or, Talkin' Bout Playoffs
by SMQ on Aug 7, 2008 11:26 AM EDT
52 comments
Part of SMQ's "Farewell Week."
- - -
Regular readers have been incessantly hammered with my criticism of the BCS as a soulless corporate cabal and unwavering advocacy for a true playoff, and within that argument my firm opinion that the sport has been defined over the last decade mainly by its acceleration toward that end: the Bowl Coalition beget the Bowl Alliance, which beget the Bowl Championship Series, an ostentatiously roped-off exercise that dramatically diminishes the relevance of every other bowl game -- the focus on the cushy confines of the BCS as much as "bowl glut" is responsible for rendering half of the postseason utterly meaningless -- and which itself has expanded to include a roped-off, corporately-dubbed "championship game" as a bridge to the inevitable "Plus One," a format that will either introduce a small playoff itself or soon evolve into one.
Ten years ago -- hell, two years ago -- no president, athletic director, commissioner or other establishment power broker would be caught dead considering the idea of a playoff in public. "They will never let it happen," yes? Now, in consecutive offseasons, a small insurgency of the men always said to be staunchly barricading the castle from the bracket-wielding barbarians has not only promoted the idea of a playoff on multiple occasions, in an official capacity, but declared a playoff an inevitability. Its time will come.
The specific format doesn’t matter much (it will almost certainly evolve and likely expand with time, anyway) but size, as in all matters, definitely does. It is not a legitimate argument that "the regular season is a playoff" -- that would make sense in baseball, basketball, or hockey, where teams play dozens of games against virtually identical schedules rather very few games against varying levels of competition, at least a third of which (for most championship contenders) can usually be ignored for failing to qualify as competition at all; that "regular season=playoff" argument goes out the window, too, when the last two and three of the last five BCS champions lost at least one game during the regular season, and the most recent winner lost twice to teams that finished outside of the final polls -- but it is a legitimate argument that a 12-team or 16-team tournament would devalue probably college football’s greatest asset, namely that there are no mulligans. Or very, very few, anyway, and only under certain, unlikely circumstances.
Six or eight teams is still exclusive enough to enhance the stakes of the regular season (probably two or three times as many reams would carry legitimate championship ambitions into the final weeks of the season as do now) without allowing a streaky fluke into the fray, a la the New York Giants, to use the most handy example, who finished three games behind the winner of their own four-team division and had no business competing for the same title as the far superior Patriots. The equivalent of a No. 5 seed winning the basketball tournament would permanently undermine the three-month marathon/battle royale that makes college football so fascinating now; a playoff is essential, but so is the necessity that it remain exclusive.
I haven’t always thought that, and I still lean towards a playoff of any feasible configuration over the arbitrary and overly-exclusive BCS "championship." When the day comes, though, it will be just as important to state certain objecives of the enterprise, and establish some kind of precedent for limiting expansion in the name of maintaining a tense, meaningful regular season. The best approach is a balancing act.
It’s also a fantasy, because this is America, and nothing is more American than the gusto of expansion -- in playoff terms, the college basketball and baseball tournaments, like the "second seasons" of the NHL and NBA, have pushed the velvet rope so far from the door that the bracket has become an end in itself, rather than serving the just purpose of crowning a deserving champion; chaos, drama, and undermining expectations based on prior performance is the point, and thus the prior performance is nearly irrelevant (as TV ratings in these sports can attest). The NFL, MLB, and lower divisions of NCAA football have more manageable formats but have all significantly expanded their postseason fields in the last three decades, too. Where money can be made, there are no bounds.
Along the same lines, another American tradition, sans intervention from above, is consolidation of power. The demise of the old Southwest Conference is still the only unmistakable step in the direction of the true "super conference," that long-imagined, NFL-style cabal of elite programs that further ropes itself off from the academically-oriented hangers-on and the directional rabble. Prognostications along these lines, though they briefly reared their head this offseason, are much farther off than the increasingly deafening calls for a playoff. But they are part of the same evolutionary branch, and the truly exclusive "super conference" also fits a long-term trend, begun by the split in Division I in the seventies and evident in the ever-swelling contracts for apparel, television, and especially the big money bowls; the Big Eight’s transition to the Big Twelve is the most unambiguous effort so far to cut the chaffe, but the ACC’s expansion at the apparent expense of the Big East four years ago was expected to be a similarly mortal wound to the Big East’s status as a major conference, and it might yet prove to be when Pat White graduates and West Virginia falls back into its historical pattern. One of the most interesting developments of the next decade will be the relative "ceilings" of Rutgers, South Florida, and Pittsburgh, the programs that seem best positioned to keep the league above water despite histories (or, in USF’s case, lack thereof) that suggest they’re more likely to sink it.
The point is, as the stakes and rewards increase -- and, as opposed to a decade ago, a playoff is now widely regarded as an unquestioned fount of lucre -- the number of legitimate aspirants inevitably shrinks. The college game can never compete with the NFL without retaining the elements that mark it as a unique animal. A playoff is not a threat to that distinction, as the huge swatch of sports on all levels thriving with a postseason tournament can attest (personally, I associate the exhilirating, unifying experience of advancing through a playoff with high school, not the pros, and this is a very key difference). But some of the trends that accompany the road to a bracket -- the growth and increased autonomy of athletic departments headed by sugar daddies/surrogate "owners" like Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens; the overwhelming media saturation, corporatization, and unstoppable commercial/logo creep; the never-ending facilities race and the further separation of the haves and have-nots -- do threaten the distinction. Progress on one front (a playoff) also requires deliberation and foresight to fend off the creeping corruption of the board rooms and marketing departments. They portend the wholescale commodification of tradition, and for a sport that thrives on organic loyalties, the shared experience of the campus, and simple, common bloodlust, nothing could be more fatal.
0 recs |
52 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Boy SMQ...
... that’s just about as comprehensive and cogent a recitation of the dangers of a playoff as I’ve encountered and it is especially compelling coming from so convinced and adamant an advocate of such as yourself. The last 20 and in particular the last 10 years have made excellent progress in devaluing the bowl season, including much of the activities on New Year’s day (and the subsequent 15 or so days on which bowl games seem to be held). There is certainly a very real danger that an excessively large bracket would do something similar to the regular season. While I’m sure it will never happend to quite the same extent (the rivalries, tradition and campus atmosphere wouldn’t, I don’t believe, allow for that) some dimunition of the exctiment of every Saturday in the fall is almost inevitable.
If the size and structure of the playoff could be left in the hands of an SMQ there would be much less to worry about. Unfortunately it won’t and many of the dire developments you anticipate might well come to pass (the bracket WILL grow, inexorably). Let’s just hope the ultimate result doesn’t eviscerate too much of what makes the sport distinctive and, in the minds of most reading this blog, superior to any other.
by marcillac on Aug 7, 2008 12:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I look at a college football playoff from a highschool perspective as well
Professional sports are distinctly different from their little brothers and sisters at the other levels in America, and for me college football sits a little closer to the high school end of the spectrum than the professional end.
Where college has advantages is that it’s freed somewhat from the severe geographical and population concerns that drive highschool sports (and do often lead to weird region arrangements and so on). Of course, the money helps it be different and the money as you note is a mixed bag itself.
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather
by peacedog on Aug 7, 2008 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe at the lower levels...
Maybe in D-1AA and lower, football is still closer to the high school experience. But when Florida is requiring a minumum donation of $4,200 in order to buy season tickets to fill up their 90,000 seat stadium…not sure how that has any relation to the HS football that I grew up with.
by Beatuofa on Aug 7, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm...
This is probably the one major debate in the sport where I take a different side from SMQ, as I am fundamentally anti-playoff. If Matt was the one making the decisions about it, I could maybe find a way to stomach it. But as marcillac said, if even a dedicated playoff proponent can come up with compelling, thoughtful, and realistic arguments against it - and the people who are in charge of making the decisions are anything but thoughtful and evenhanded in the way they do business - sorry, no thanks. I’m perfectly happy with things the way they are.
Wanna split a title? Go ahead, be my guest. Want to put a pair of 7-6 teams in a bowl game in Boise? I’ll set the DVR. I’m not interested in seeing my beloved college football become even more like the NFL. That IS the way the sport seems to be going, and adding a playoff would push it over that cliff irrevocably, IMO.
by Beatuofa on Aug 7, 2008 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is high school ball more like the NFL...
... because it has playoffs? Or lower-division college football? I’m confused.
by drothgery on Aug 7, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a completely terrible comparison to make. They aren’t like the NFL because the majority of people don’t care about them.
Sure, you can have I-AA playoff games broadcast on ESPN yet they barely draw viewers. No one cares if the sanctity of I-AA tradition is broken. The level of interest in D-1A, or whatever it’s now called, dwarfs every other form of football except for the NFL. If you remove the tradition then you kill the difference between the two.
If you had a D-I college playoff it would devalue the regular season as much or more than the NFL does. I shudder to think of the day where resting the starters against Michigan is the smart way to go so we can keep them fresh for the playoffs. That is what would kill college football. It is a slippery slope from a Plus One to a 8 team bracket to a 16 team bracket. That is SMQ’s entire point. Who is going to stop the expansion?
by gahnki on Aug 7, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Competing with the NFL
You say, “The college game can never compete with the NFL,” and I counter with, “Why should it?” CFB is superior to the NFL on just about every level as a spectator sport. There are at least a half-dozen quality games every weekend in CFB, sometimes more. The NFL is lucky to have that in an entire season. It’s a terrible product that I’m half-convinced exists solely for gambling and fantasy football. Therefore, if CFB wants to add a playoff it shouldn’t do it to be more like the NFL. It should do it because it would make the best sport in existence a little better. I’m not totally convinced we need anything more than a plus one, but I’m game. Of course, if we have a season like 2005, with two BCS undefeateds, we should also have the flexibility to put those 2 teams in the championship and eliminate any silly talk of a playoff.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 7, 2008 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Read this...
Flex Playoff System
See what you think.
by Horn Brain on Aug 7, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah....
If a playoff is the next step in college foot evolution, ultimately it is an undesirable genetic change that will lead to an evolutionary dead end by natural selection. I truly don’t understand why rationally, you cannot accept the argument that the season is a proxy for the playoff. Yes, in many years, teams with losses are the national champions, but why does that offset the notion that one is judged should be wholly judged by the regular season?
Why College football is so special in this world is that every other sport is some variation of a marathon. Regardless of where you finish at every stage, the only one that matters is at the end. I suggest that we compare the cf season like the decathlon. Every game is like a “sport” in the decathlon, while teams and decathloners (I know that it is not a real word, but stay with me) have their particular strengths and weaknesses, each game is a unique animal requiring a unique method of victory. And for each game, winning is recommended, but a certain level of competence must be demonstrated to be the overall victor. For instance, say you have a decathloner who excels at every sport, but runs the 100 meter dash in 60 seconds? If that person wins, is that the true spirit of decathlon, the person is who supposed to be the world’s greatest athlete? I say no, the person who demonstrates an overall badassness in everything should be tagged the “greatest athlete”.
Now, go back 9 months, I see these exact parallels with last year. USC’s loss to Stanford is akin to running the 100 yd dash in 60 seconds. OU was siimply a better decathloner than Missou (won both meetings), but given the losses to CU (running the 100 yd dash in 50 seconds) and TTech, these losses are, at best, similar to LSU, but LSU having far better wins than OU (Aub, Fla, and maybe Tenn are all better wins than Texas, if you think that Texas was better than Missou, and I do). All of this leads to LSU being the rightful contender to OSU. This is why, for this CF fan anyway, having a flawed LSU champion is far better than the possibility of a undeserving champion of USC.
Regarding the fairness of non-BCS team, I would agree that the system is unfair in the short term (what isn’t), but is overall fair in the long term. Branding is important in CF, and like deciding between an expensive Nike, or the cheaper and similar quality Asics, we are comforted by the promise of the stronger Nike brand, and purchase Nikes. But branding changes over time, and eventually, quality and price will win out over marketing and advertising. (even Nike does not live off of marketing alone) The same applies to CF, a consistent winner over BCS foes will eventually move a program into BCS levels, see Arizona State’s rise to the Pac 10 for evidence. Is this hard, yes, but these programs win out.
All in all, extending to a 6 to 8 team playoff would, in my view, would upend the greatness of College football. This extensive playoff would whole heartily change the DNA of the game, altering it from the successful specialization of sloth that we love and enjoy to something that mirrors everything else in our sports consuming world. An plus one would be undisruptive, but only under the parameters outlined by pantsfucious. For a plus one would have potentially ruined the greatness of 2005.
by meatybob on Aug 7, 2008 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not that smart but....
instead of waiting for college presidents and deep-pocketed bowl tycoons to ‘fix’ college football with a playoff, why isn’t there more pressure on ADs and pollsters. LSU got into big game because it flexed its muscles in a non-conference game and MURDERED non-conference heavy Virginia Tech. Ohio State rode in last year after beating Texas in Austin just as the ‘Horns did the year before in Columbus. USC traditionally takes on a number of tough non-conference games (though lately ND and Nebraska have been down). My point is only this: if voters hammered the Kansas’ and Texas Techs of the world for simply not losing, ADs would be forced to put more BIG non-conference games on the schedule.
To me its just that simple… beat somebody good or shut the hell up when you’re left out of the big dance
by adder30 on Aug 7, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm afraid it is ...
...inevitable, the wholescale commodification that is.
As for the consolidation of power among elite programs, that my friends is already simple fact. If anything, the BCS system serves to calcify it. Take a look at the list of BCS "national champions" since the institution of the system in 1998-
1998 Tennessee
1999 Florida State
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 LSU
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 LSU
If that isn’t a list of "elite" schools, I don’t know what is. Teams like, say Boise State, are effectively shut out from any chance at the wholly artificial "national championship" system we have now. And while you may think that fair, then how the hell is it fair that the teams listed above get to build their win records on the teams that aren’t remotely eligible? I would guess that roughly half of the current 119 top division teams are ineligible to win a BCS title due to this bias, regardless of what their final records might be. Let’s face it, the current system that allows about half the teams to serve as nothing more than record padding fodder for the elites is a joke in itself.
Here is also guessing that any final playoff system would be constructed to prevent the Hawaii’s and Boise State’s from competing – the elite teams simply have too much too lose.
by Mergz on Aug 7, 2008 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Straw man argument
So CFB is compromised because the elites get to beat up on the also-rans? Who do you think Boise State and Hawaii beat up on in their undefeated seasons? Sure, they each beat ONE Pac 10 team, but they also had the luxury of scheduling WAC nobodies Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State, and San Jose State. Throw in out of conference powerhouses like Sacramento State, Wyoming, and Northern Colorado and your argument loses steam.
Bottom line … there is no conspiracy. If Boise State and Hawaii want national respect then join a BCS conference and beat those teams regularly, not just once a year. Frankly, I’d love to see it. Boise State’s win over OU was a game for the ages. But, that game’s greatness doesn’t mean Hawaii’s loss to Georgia didn’t happen. And actually, no playoff was the best thing that could’ve happened to Boise State. Everything that could’ve gone right for the Broncos against the Sooners did and they got to finish their season with a fairy tale ending. However, does anyone in their right mind actually think the Broncos would’ve had everything go perfectly in a follow-up playoff game against a better opponent? If anything, that game is an argument AGAINST the playoff system.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 7, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BCS Conferences Are not Accepting Applications
If any BCS conference were to offer to take Boise State or Hawaii, they would have accepted yesterday.
All non-BCS teams would rather be in a BCS conference, but are locked out for whatever reason. It is silly to say, “[i]f Boise State and Hawaii want national respect then join a BCS conference and beat those teams regularly, not just once a year.” Boise State and Hawaii would love to join the Pac-10. So would Utah, BYU, and Fresno State. It is pretty hard to beat BCS teams more than a couple of times of year if they lock you out of their conference and will not play home-and-home games (which most of the SEC will not do).
by Ute in DC on Aug 7, 2008 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I think the Pac 10 expanding to include 2 of BSU, Utah, BYU, Fresno State, or Hawaii makes a lot of sense. The Pac 10 (and Big 10, for that matter) need to sack up and get to 12 schools so they can stage a conference championship. Their arguments for not doing so are not compelling. So yeah, I suppose the mid-majors are a bit stuck in this regard.
I can see your frustrations with the home-and-home situation, but being a fan of an SEC team, I see their side, too. Let’s say I’m Mal Moore at Bama. I know that I already have 5-6 losable games on my slate, not including Louisiana-Monroe. Just getting my pre-emptive strike in there. Anyway, why schedule a game against Utah, where if we win, the reaction is ho-hum, didn’t you get the memo Urban Meyer left 4 years ago, try scheduling a BCS team you puss. And if we lose, see ULM. That being the reality, why not shoot for a Clemson or Virginia Tech, so even if we lose, we lose to a conference favorite and everyone pats you on the back for having cojones. I guess you could schedule that game AND a game against the likes of Utah or Boise State, but that’s asking a lot for any program, not just the SEC.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 7, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pac 10 (and Big 10, for that matter) need to sack up and get to 12 schools so they can stage a conference championship. Their arguments for not doing so are not compelling. So yeah, I suppose the mid-majors are a bit stuck in this regard.
What is the compelling argument for doing one? So the best two teams can face off to determine a true champion? Is that why the supposed second best SEC team, Tennessee, was locked out of a BCS bowl yet Georgia went to the Sugar Bowl? So a team that isn’t even worthy enough of playing for their conference championship deserves to go to a bigger bowl game than the team that did?
Why should Oklahoma have had to play against Missouri again? They already beat them during the regular season.
The truth is that it’s all about money. There is no good reason to have a conference championship game. It usually proves nothing other than giving a team another unnecessary hurdle to jump over.
by gahnki on Aug 7, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said, not compelling
It’s all about money is not a compelling argument. That’s whining. Every SEC team entered last season like they enter this season, knowing that the team with the best conference record in their division will go to Atlanta, and in case of a tie, head-to-head trumps. Georgia lost to Tennessee. End of story. Georgia probably was the second best team in the conference at the end of the season, but that’s why they play the games. They settle the arguments. That’s why you don’t have an argument there. Georgia lost. Let’s move on.
Oklahoma, Missouri, and the other 10 Big 12 teams knew going into last season, like they know going into this season, that the teams with the best conference record in each division will meet for the conference championship. In case of tie, head-to-head trumps. Oklahoma didn’t whine about how they had to beat the same team twice. They simply took the Tigers to the woodshed. Unfortunately, that was the last time they visited the woodshed and, in fact, must’ve inadvertently sent the keys to Morgantown. Nevertheless, those were the rules, they sacked up, and got the job done. Stop with the whining about money and unfairness. EVERYTHING has a money component. And if you think conference championships prove nothing, then tell that to Kansas State in 2003, who took their opportunity, prepared sufficiently, and handed the Sooners the beatdown.
While Al Davis is defying death only with some sort of zombie cocktail and a series of iron lungs, he was onto something when he stated simply, “Just win, baby.” Takes care of everything.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 7, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That being said ...
I’ve already thought about the possibility of Georgia somehow running the crazy gauntlet that is their schedule this season and then losing in the SEC Championship Game by a score of 21-20. I’d actually feel bad for them, assuming that there were two undefeateds or some other scenario where the loss takes them out of the championship picture. If you thought the Georgia president was pro-playoff last year, this would drive him into aneurysm territory … and just thinking about my team losing in such fashion, I would probably join him. While this brings us back to the playoff discussion, I reiterate the primacy of winning. It doesn’t solve everything … obviously, see 2004 … but I’d rather operate from a position of victory than the opposite.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 7, 2008 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are confusing reasoning and reality.
The reality is that those teams are going to have to play conference championship games, because their conference makes money from it. That is why the teams are going to have to play. That has no bearing on the reasoning behind a conference championship game.
The reasoning behind it is to let the two best teams play to determine the very best team in the conference. That reason is a lie. If the two best teams were to play then why wasn’t Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl instead of Georgia? They were supposedly the second best SEC team.
Again, there is no sufficient reasoning behind a conference championship game. It exists solely for money. That is not whining…it is the truth.
by gahnki on Aug 7, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's East vs. West
I get what you’re saying, but it’s not about the two best teams in the conference. It’s about the winner of the West Division vs. the winner of the East Division and those winners are based on what happens on the field of play. If you’re a Georgia fan you shouldn’t be complaining about unfairness, you should be wondering why Richt and Bobo didn’t keep Moreno on the field for more plays during the South Carolina game. That’s what really cost them the East crown.
On a related note, the college football fanatic in me is wondering why anyone is complaining about more college football. We get another Saturday slate of games, these determining conference championships, and after 12-13 weeks of intense fandom, NOW you’re developing a conscience??? Seriously???
Also, I just don’t buy the money argument philosophically. It’s just sounds like a cop out. If the money really bothered you, then it would bother you that the games are advertised and broadcast at all. Many schools have contracts regarding athletic apparel, which is HUGE money. That compromises the purity of the scholar-athlete. At some point, you either accept that money is a necessary evil or you don’t, but you can’t have it both ways.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 8, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You misunderstand me. The money does not bother me. People being gullible enough to believe that money isn’t the reason there is a conference championship game bothers me.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s not about the two best teams in the conference. It’s about the winner of the West Division vs. the winner of the East Division and those winners are based on what happens on the field of play.
Tennessee was clearly the second most deserving SEC team, and they were better than Georgia as they demolished them during regular season play. Why weren’t they in the Sugar Bowl then? Why was Georgia rewarded above Tennessee?
What does a conference championship game prove if the postseason doesn’t reflect those results? Tennessee was supposed to be the most deserving team from the East yet they were punished because of OOC records. How does that validate a conference championship game?
by gahnki on Aug 8, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pac 10
Every Pac 10 team knows, going into the season, that the winner will be decided by a round robin of games against the other teams. Why should they expand to 12 and play a championship game? They already have an even more fair system for determining their conference champion.
by gtne91 on Aug 7, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I’m not sure it’s more fair, but I agree that it is fair and it clearly works. I do think the Pac 10 would benefit from adding 2 new teams, irrespective of any conf champ discussion. Obviously, there would be heated debate about such a thing, and some people would be viciously opposed, but why not inject some new blood into the mix??? I remember when the Arizona schools were added to the Pac 8 and the conference survived the change.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
--George Carlin
by pantsfucious on Aug 8, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm probably somewhat more pro-playoff than SMQ
I think the main criteria for playoffs are that it’s fair - which to me means that
virtually every team in FBS is able to make the playoffs regardless of the opinions of pollsters or computers, which means all conference champs are in
- every team in FBS is able to make the playoffs (which means there have to be some at-large spots)
- no byes (they grant a tremendous advantage in the NFL, and that’s with a talent field much closer to level than college ball)
... and I’m convinced that any 8-16 team playoff would bring in much more revenue than the BCS, and probably more than the BCS + all minor bowls, so I’m unmoved by financial arguments to preserve the bowls. And when there’s been all of one Rose Bowl since the introduction of the BCS that featured the Big Ten champion playing the Pac 10 champion - and that only came about because the BCS rating system of the time jobbed USC - I can’t buy the tradition argument for the bowls either. So I’m fine with getting rid of them.
That leads to a 16-team, 11 conference champ + 5 at-large playoff pretty directly. And while I suppose creeping playoff expansionism could hit eventually, I don’t see anyone making a compelling case any time soon (the number of at-large spots would have to drop below 3 before there’d be a good case for adding more spots). I like to break the 16 teams into an east and west bracket, play the first two rounds at the home site of the higher seed, the semis at regional sites (say, Phoenix and Atlanta) on New Year’s Day (or Dec 31 if New Year’s Eve is a Sunday), and the finals on the first Saturday at least one week after New Year’s Day.
Granted, the first-round games for the higher seeds may be a bit one-sided (last year’s playoff teams would have been Southern Cal, Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Hawaii, Central Michigan, Florida Atlantic*, and BYU won their conferences; Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, and Florida were the five top teams in the BCS rankings that failed to win their conference).
- won conference by virtue of head-to-head tiebreaker
- If we put a 2 team/conference limit on the playoffs, replace with BC and Illinois; I like the idea in theory, but last year’s Big 12 argues against it. If Kansas and/or Missouri had stunk up the joint in their bowl games then I’d have a better argument for eliminating 3-bid conferences.
by drothgery on Aug 7, 2008 6:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I made the exact same suggestion...
...a mere 5 hours later. I guess I should have read all the way down before posting. This is what bothers me about the 8 team suggestion, it guarantees that some teams are ineligible for the national title before the season starts. Would an undefeated Boise St, Utah or Tulane (or going way back, the undefeated MAC teams of the 70s) get into the top 8 playoff? All conference champions must be included. Who cares if the #1 team gets and easy first round game against the Sun Belt champion? No one complains that 1 seeds in the basketball tourney get the gimme game against the MEAC champion.
by gtne91 on Aug 7, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
16 teams
16 teams doesnt devalue the regular season IF (and its a big if) we give the 11 conference winners automatic bids. Much like with the hoops tourney, there will be a number of teams with no chance to win that are there anyway. After you eliminate the half dozen chaff, the top 10 real contenders are left. With 11 auto bids, that only leaves 5 at large bids, and those will all be within the realm of deserving.
Using last years final BCS standings, the 5 at larges would be:
#5 Georgia
#6 Mizzou
#8 Kansas
#11 Arizona St
#12 Florida
That lets one 9-3 at large team into the playoffs. Considering the national champ was 10-2 in the regular season, not exactly a big step down.
by gtne91 on Aug 7, 2008 11:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
16 is too many... Kansas didn't deserve it
This is my primary beef with a playoff system, especially if its as large as 16 teams.
Kansas’ biggest regular season win was against Oklahoma State (or Kansas State if you prefer). Their schedule left off all the big dogs (except Missouri who beat them much worse than the 36-28 score indicates). I think if we let ‘07 Kansas play for a shot at the title, all the big dogs in college football will schedule nothing but fluff for nonconference games. Goodbye Alabama / Clemson, goodbye OSU / Texas, goodbye OSU / USC. We’ll still see the Florida / FSU and ND / USC games because they’re rivalries, but the vast majority of big nonconference games will be gone forever.
If you let teams get a shot at the title by simply not losing, the buzz of the regular season won’t last
by adder30 on Aug 8, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
With an ‘all conference champs get in the playoffs + 5 at-large teams’ policy, I’d think big non-conference games are likely to happen more, not less. You can still make the playoffs by winning your conference, and if you don’t and played a cupcake schedule, you better have won those games vs. cupcakes convincingly because it’s not going to be all that much of an argument to pollsters.
Besides, even with a very favorable schedule breakdown in the Big 12, getting through a major conference schedule with only one loss is probably playoff-worthy. Except maybe in the ACC. And even the worst at-large team the system can come up with is likely to be better than the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC champions (and possibly the WAC and MWC champs, too).
by drothgery on Aug 8, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a legitimate concern.
His point is that a team like Kansas may schedule absolutely nothing just to ensure a chance at the playoffs. They may not win their division yet they have a nice and impressive 11-1 record. They could have been handled by the best team in their conference, but they beat up on the likes of FIU, FAU, and Baylor.
I really don’t think 16 teams is the answer. I was reading that Flex playoff plan mentioned above, and it sounds pretty good. There are going to be some years where it’s totally messed up, but there are going to be some years where any system is totally messed up.
by gahnki on Aug 8, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flex is not the answer
... because it makes it almost impossible for teams, fans, and administrators to plan in advance. And because it’s confusing; except in oddball corner cases, the process for making the playoffs should be obvious to the casual fan.
And I’m just not convinced that Kansas team that went 7-1 in the Big 12 (admittedly on pretty nearly the weakest possible Big 12 schedule) and 4-0 on a soft OOC schedule was unworthy of being considered one of the 5 best teams that failed to win their conference. Or that their schedule would produce a rash of imitators; usually a borderline playoff team from a BCS conference in my system is going to lose two conference games, and if they don’t have a marquee OOC win to offset it, they’re not getting in. The occasional Kansas getting in on a favorable conference schedule and running the table on a soft OOC schedule (and doing so in a dominant fashion; it’s not like they were winning Hawaii-style squeakers over bad teams) bothers me not at all.
by drothgery on Aug 11, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
divergence of opinion
I would agree that Kansas ‘07 SHOULD be on the list of top 5 “didn’t win their conference” teams but I DON’T think they should be on a list of “deserved a shot at the title” teams (in retrospect, their win over VaTech makes a much stronger argument, but at the time of playoff selection, the biggest feather in their cap would have been beating the 4th, 5th and 6th best teams in their conference).
I think with the current system there is at least a little bit of an incentive to go out and get a big non-conference game on the slate to prove you deserve one of the top two BCS slots. With a 16 team playoff, playing to be the14th or 15th best ranked team in the nation opens the door to a lot of teams that risk nothing (weak OOC schedules) but happen to be the beneficiaries of good luck (high ranked teams falling) and a favorable conference schedule.
Yes, its all really speculation on how ADs might change their scheduling habits for a playoff system, but judging by how timid they appear to be currently (very few schedule a big dog OOC and very, very few schedule more than one), I have a hard time believing they’d really risk anything if they could aim for a top 10 or top 15 finish and still have a shot at a title appearance.
I’d also like to point out that I dislike the idea of automatic bids for SunBelt / MAC / WAC etc conference winners in a 16 team playoff. Making teams like USC ‘05, OSU ‘06 and LSU ‘07 (that proved themselves all year against real competition) have to play a pipsqueak is unfair. Would you really like to see Vince Young risk an injury against Troy or watch the ‘05 Trojans go ultra-vanilla in their playcalling against Central Michigan because they have to march over a nobody just to get a crack at the title spot they already earned?
I realize that a playoff system is inevitable and I’m sure a 4, 6 (w/ byes) or even 8 team tourney could be pieced together fairly while preserving the excitement of bowl games and the intensity of the regular season, I would just hate to see the “PLAYOFFS NOW” uproar or the “but March Madness is so fun” mentality be the reason for an ill-conceived, poorly-implemented post season to appear.
by adder30 on Aug 11, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
non-BCS conferences
I’d rather have minor unfairness of the top 2-4 teams playing pipsqueaks than the major unfairness of a system that doesn’t allow almost all teams to make the playoffs purely by what they do on the field (independents have to earn an at-large bid, but since there are only 3 of them and my system has 5 at-large bids, I’m not worried) or of a playoff system with byes in it.
Besides, the MAC and CUSA have produced excellent teams in the not too distant past, the WAC and MWC have produced teams that have won BCS bowls, and the top Sun Belt teams (FAU and Troy) are getting better fast and gave a scare to upper-tier BCS conference schools last season.
by drothgery on Aug 11, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree to disagree I guess
Personally I don’t have interest in putting in lesser teams from lesser conferences and hoping for the March Madness-esque cinderella story… BUT I can understand why some people do.
In regards to “excellent” teams from the MAC and CUSA, I have a different standard. The 06-07 Tulsas and Central Michigans (or even the ‘03 Miami [OH] for that matter) were very good, but I don’t think they’d play at the level of the USCs, Oklahomas and LSUs of those years.
PS: in regards to WAC and MWC teams, you’ve got me there. some of them from recent years were fringe MNC good.
by adder30 on Aug 12, 2008 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
VT game proves the point
If a Kansas type team doesnt deserve the chance at the national title, then they will lose as soon as they meet a VT type team in the playoffs. The fact that they won that game shows that maybe they were deserving of the shot at the title. If the conf winners + 5 at large system was in place, every year there would be a team that people questioned. Like Kansas last year or Wisconsin in 2006. If they win there first 2 games and make the semis, the question has been answered – despite the schedule they deserved to be there. If they lose before then, then it doesnt matter. Same for an undefeated Boise St/Utah/Tulane type team.
I really dont see the negative.
WRT the injury question, I saw Michael Bush break his leg in a blowout of KY in week 1 of the 2006 “playoffs” (for the regular season is the playoffs people). That very well may have cost Louisville the BCS title that year (they dont blow the Rutgers game if Bush is there to run the ball in the 4th). How is that any different than Vince Young getting injured against Troy? Injuries happen, they are a part of football. Thats why you have 85 scholarships.
by gtne91 on Aug 12, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Kansas turned out to be good
But by this logic:
“If a Kansas type team doesnt deserve the chance at the national title, then they will lose as soon as they meet a VT type team in the playoffs.”
why not throw in everybody… or at least 64 teams? Sometimes bad teams get lucky or hot and you end up with the same problem you have now: you have a champion but know one really knows if they’re the “best”.
If I personally had the choice of a 16 team tourney or an 8-team tourney with an extra week of regular season games… I’d take the latter. ESPECIALLY if voters would incentivize big regular season games by boosting teams with big non-conference wins up the polls.
by adder30 on Aug 12, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Logisitics
A four-week playoff is about the biggest that’s manageable, while also being smallest that meets the criteria of ‘all conference champs get in’, ‘at least one at-large bid’, and ‘no byes’. Also, there’s pretty much never been a case where anyone outside of the conference champs and the 5 best others had anything even vaguely resembling a team that could make a run at #1 (win one playoff game, maybe).
64 teams would be more than half of I-A. Granted, the NBA and NHL playoffs do that (by taking 16 teams when there are 30-32), but that’s pros playing best-of-7 series. 16 of 120 teams is about 13%; 65 of 330 (Division I basketball) is a little less than 20%.
by drothgery on Aug 13, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a big gamble
Weak scheduling and hoping for 11-1 in order to make the playoffs is a heck of a gamble. 11-1 for a BCS team will get you in, but 10-2 is by no means a guarantee. In 2006, VT, Rutgers and WVU would have been left out with 10-2 records. Why, because 2 loss Auburn, ND and LSU played better schedules. The 11-1 weak OOC scheduling worked for Wisconsin that year, but if both Michigan and Ohio St had been on their schedule, they probably would have been out.
by gtne91 on Aug 11, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
that was supposed to be in reply to gahnki
oops
by gtne91 on Aug 11, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s much less of a gamble than playing tough opponents and losing.
by gahnki on Aug 11, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
help me out
one i thing i don’t get from all those who are opposed to a playoff:
we already have a playoff. it has two teams in it. the only remaining
debate is how many teams should participate.
by Genius on Aug 11, 2008 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
excellent point
so simply put yet so very very true
by adder30 on Aug 12, 2008 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alternative to the 16 team playoff drothgery and I mentioned
If you really want the regular season to be important-
An 11/12 team playoff. The 11 conference champions + the “best independent”* if said independent is ranked X or better in the BCS rankings.
The regular season matters. Or, at least, regular season conference games. Lose your conference, you go home (or to a bowl game, I would guess). Whether there are 4 or 5 byes depends on if Notre Dame makes it or not. Sure, OOC games dont matter, except for seeding purposes, but that may actually encourage good teams to play top other teams – a USC-Ohio St game doesnt eliminate the loser.
After the first round, you should be down to your 6 BCS conference champions plus whoever the good mid-major champions are (or Notre Dame).
I dont consider any playoff format the doesnt take the sun belt champion reasonable, even if they will just get pummelled in round 1.
*Notre Dame, but allows for Army/Navy
by gtne91 on Aug 12, 2008 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm probably alone on this, but...
“even if they will just get pummelled in round 1.”
To me, if they’re guaranteed (or overwhelming likely) to lose, why put them in? I keep mentioning March Madness because I’m apparently the only one in the world who doesn’t care about it… especially 16 seeds… ever. Since no 16 seed has ever won a single game, let alone the entire tournament… why include them?
I know, I know… 64 teams versus 16 and football versus basketball = apples and oranges. My point is only this: a tournament CAN be too big and letting in severe underdogs and hoping for miracles CAN be pointless.
To me, if its unreasonable to think a team might be the best in the country, they shouldn’t be in the tournament.
by adder30 on Aug 12, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is that the only time I care about college basketball is during March. To me, it barely even exists earlier in the year.
by gahnki on Aug 13, 2008 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because sometimes they win?
16s dont beat 1s in basketball, but 15s beat 2s. Usually because the 15s or 14s are underseeded.
Yeah, I dont really care much if the 7-5 Sun Belt champion gets in. But its the 11-1 Sun Belt champion that needs to be there. Im not 100% convinced that Bowden’s undefeated Tulane team wasnt deserving of the national championship. Ditto Boise/Utah from more recently. The current system gives them 0 chance. An 8 team playoff might let them in and it might not. If we let the conference winners in, it guarantees those teams a chance to prove themselves. I can put up with a few blowouts between #1 and #16 and #2 and #15 to get that. And if a #2 or #3 loses in a big upset, then they dont deserve the national title anyway. A 7-5 North Texas team wouldnt go 4-0 in the playoffs, so there is no worry of an undeserving champion.
And yeah, its possible for a tourney to be too big. What problems the 64 team hoops tourney has isnt from it being too big, but from it being single elimination. Football is fine as a single elimination sport. Basketball should be double. Baseball has a problem with the double elimination at each level, from what I can tell, but I dont know how to fix that.
by gtne91 on Aug 13, 2008 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last years Va Tech - LSU game
The VT fans on techsideline.com are discussing today how they shouldnt have scheduled LSU last year, how under the current system that game cost them their chance at the national title. If they had played some scrub, the theory goes, they would have been in the BCS title game with only 1 loss.
I cant imagine scheduling would get any worse with a playoff system. Teams would be willing to play good teams OOC because they know that a loss to a very good team wont keep them out of the playoffs and the win would help push them in if borderline.
by gtne91 on Aug 12, 2008 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you could argue either way I guess
Brand name teams like OSU, LSU, Florida, USC, Texas… would probably schedule fewer big OOC games because they can slide into the top 10 and nab a spot in the tourney without big OOC wins.
Teams that end up right near the cutoff (VaTech, BC, Wisconsin, Boise State, Auburn…) would probably schedule more big OOC games so they could get the bump in the polls and assure themselves a spot in a playoff.
call it a push
by adder30 on Aug 12, 2008 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The BCS Bowl/Playoff Hybrid is the easiest way to get this done
The whole reason why the bowl system exists is that the BCS conferences want to retain the lion’s share of the revenue and control. Thus, any proposed system that would reduce that (i.e. a 16-team playoff that invites all conference champs champs, BCS or non-BCS) is nice in theory, but absolutely dead in the water realistically. The simple solution is to take the 4 BCS bowls, keep the historic tie-ins with the BCS conferences getting automatic bids (i.e. Big Ten vs. Pac-10 always in the Rose Bowl) plus two at-large slots and make them into the quarterfinals of a playoff system. It’s not as perfect and pure as a straight 8-team seeded playoff, but it’s something that you could probably get the BCS conferences to agree to (specifically, the Big Ten and Pac-10, who understandably will never want to give up the Rose Bowl) while keeping much of the sanctity of the regular season (or even improve the relevance since all of the conference championship races become critical) and the tradition of the bowl games. There would certainly be arguments about who would deserve those two at-large bids, but it’s a whole lot better than having debates about who ought to be in the national championship game. If a non-BCS school can get one of those at-large spots, that’s all well and good, but I don’t believe that they deserve any type of automatic bid in a playoff system and a 16-team playoff is simply too unwieldy. I went into more detail on this in a post I wrote about this a couple of years ago:
The Best of Both Worlds: A Modest Proposal for a College Football Playoff That Keeps the Bowls
by Frank the Tank on Aug 13, 2008 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess my objection here
is that the Big Ten and Pac 10 have already effectively given up the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten champ played the Pac 10 champ in the Rose Bowl exactly once in the BCS era (also, a Big Ten co-champ played a Pac 10 co-champ in the Orange Bowl once). And that game was the result of USC being jobbed out of the BCS title game by computers which bizarrely favored Oklahoma and LSU (while I’m generally more partial to unfeeling, rational computers than to AP voters and coaches, in that case both sets of humans had the Trojans #1 going into the bowls… and the BCS rankings had them #3).
by drothgery on Aug 13, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, the new BCS setup almost guarantees a Big Ten vs. Pac-10 Rose Bowl every year again
That’s why the Big Ten and Pac-10 were perfectly fine with the addition of a separate national championship game in addition to the 4 BCS bowls. While the Big Ten champ vs. Pac-10 champ matchup will be tough as long as one or more teams from both of the conferences are in the national title picture, having a Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup in some shape or form is likely to occur more often than not from this point forward. So, I think the two conferences have essentially “reclaimed” the bowl with the current BCS system.
by Frank the Tank on Aug 13, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another option (Very wild)
Another option for college football would be the promotion/relegation system that Europe uses. Basically we divide FCS into tiers of teams. We could use average BCS rankings over the last 5 years or whatever to do this, doesn’t matter much. You have your top 26 teams, then the next 26, and so on.
Each would be divided into two halves of 13, based on geography as much as possible. Then every team plays a full round robin schedule, and the two champs play each other for the championship. [And the 2nds, and 3rds if you like]. Then, the bottom 2 or 3 teams from both halves [decided purely on standings, not polls or any other nonsense], would be “relegated” to the next tier down, and the top 4/6 teams from the next tier down would be bumped up, and would get a chance to play for the title the next year.
It’s pretty radical, but it seems to work in Europe. The major argument against it that I see, is that it would eliminate conferences, and perhaps rivalry games. For Rivalries I would say, if you’re in a different tier than your rival, schedule the game as an exhibition/pre season game like they do in NFL and college basketball.
by dethwing on Aug 13, 2008 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes….because rivalry games are always fun when they don’t matter.
by gahnki on Aug 13, 2008 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
