College Football Playoff

Question

For those college football nutjobs like me who can

Comments

Once again, the only way you enhance the regular season is to encourage stronger OCC play. This gives a much clearer view of which teams are truly stronger. If Bama or LSU had played USCw, Oklahoma, Okie St, Oregon, Stanford..etc, you are telling me that would be bad for college football? Lets see..this season we get to start the season watching such exciting match ups as uf v bowling green, FSU v Murray St followed by that always exciting match up, FSU v Savannah St or other top games like bama v Western Kentucky and Bama v Fl Atlantic Owl. Truly must watch football. Also, make sure you dont miss LSU v North Texas Mean Green and LSU v Idaho Vandals...all exciting and making the regular season so much more exciting. Take the conference champions, put them in a playoff and decide the championship on the field. If Boise St makes it through then so be it. At least they had a chance...which has not been the case with Roy and the boys at the wheel. This year culminated in the absolute worst possible game. A rematch of 2 SEC teams...YEAH....that was exciting, while excluding not just other deserving teams but excluding ALL OTHER conferences....

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Tims_a_nole.

---

The flaw with the current BcS is its reliance on polls of which most voters neither have the time or take the time to actually watch the games/teams and rely on 30 second sound bites or the views of others (following the herd mentality). As long as the polls dominate who gets is college football suffers. No team is going to go out and schedule a tough OOC schedule when the risk of a loss is so great and will effectively remove them from the playoff. Even our coach is becoming less likely to schedule a tough OCC schedule as he is aware of the pitfall in doing so. Quite simply, winning your conference squarely puts the playoffs in your hand. If you lose to OU, it doesn't really matter as if you win your division and win you conference, you get in. And guess what? What ESPN, SI or any other voter thinks of you doesn't matter because you won the right on the field playing football game and winning them.
Of course, everyone wants to focus on the deviation from the norm rather than look at what happens in the norm. Yes, Bama would have been left out this year but they would have been left out due to their performance on the field and not included in because they won a beauty contest in the polls that saw one of the biggest campaigns put on by the SEC and ESPN to get them in. Maybe focus on getting a better place kicker or working with the one you have.

As long as the polls have a say in who gets in, we will continue to see weak OCC schedules and a bias towards the conferences that the TV folks have the most vested into.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Tims_a_nole.

---

You know, you have some strong points in there.

However, we're all guilty of being prisoners of the past. A Conf only playoff isn't seeded at the end of the year. It would be "scheduled" at the beginning of the year.

Again...a 10-team playoff using conf champs only.

Wk #1: (G1) WAC @ MWC
(G2) Sun Belt @ C-USA

Wk #2: (G3) Winner G1 @ PAC-12
(G4) Winner G2 @ SEC
(G5) Big10 @ Big 12
(G6) BE @ ACC

Wk #3: (G7) Winner G3 vs Winner G5 @ Designated Bowl Site
(G8) Winner G4 vs Winner G6 @ Designated Bowl Site

Wk #4: (G9) National Championship Game @ Designated Site

I don't understand what's so difficult about doing it this way.

Now you could put a bye week in between the quarter-finals and the semi's if somebody wanted, or one in between the Semi's and the Finals.

The Burden to win a NC would be on the 4 smaller leagues. They'd have to win 4 games. Everybody else, would just have to win 3.

It wouldn't settle for sure who is #2...But we'd all know who was #1 and I've always believed that was the purpose.

Regular season importance...If you don't win your league...you don't go. That takes care of the importance end of the regular season.

And everybody gets a shot...

Now, what we've haven't discussed is that with a playoff, the smaller leagues will get a bump in recruiting and the bottom-feeders or even middle-of-the-road programs of the 6 power leagues, will suffer a dip in recruiting.

If you're a 2-star or maybe some 3-star recruit and you wanted to play in the NCAA playoffs...where are you gonna go to school?

Kentucky or Boise State?

Baylor or Southern Miss?

Iowa State or Troy?

Washington State or Northern Illinois?

If I was one and I wanted to play in the NCAA Playoffs...I know what I would choose and it wouldn't be the formers...it would be the latters.

That, in a nutshell, is why the power conferences are oppossed to allowing the smaller schools any chance of winning a title.

It sure as hell made a difference in college basketball. Those smaller schools, athletically, would be fielding better teams than half of the teams in any of the power leagues.

I think the word is...parity.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

---

...unless they win.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by bigwalk.

---

The truly sad part of all this is there are FSU fans cheering the SEC on!

I will never figure that one out.

---

Take it another sentence...

FSU fans are supporting a system, that will one day screw us because of it.

Answer 1

Take it another sentence...

FSU fans are supporting a system, that will one day screw us because of it.


Actually, the poll system has already screwed FSU a few times already with the rematch against UF in 1996 the choice of Tenn over FSU even though both teams lost to Florida in 1997. FSU 32-29 and Tenn 33-20.

I believe that was when the arbitrary rule (most recent loss was in effect)

That of course was completely forgotten when Nebraska and Oklahoma were chosen in the last decade for the MNC game. LOL

Yes

According to some the "REGULAR SEASON IS THE PLAYOFF" mantra continues even though repeatedly regular season games are deemed meaningless if it doesn't serve the "agenda" of those who vote.

Answer 2

I'm on board.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by FromFLtoCA.

Answer 3

Hey Husker...

You need to adjust your dates.

Any 4-year starter, who entered school as an "EE" would be ineligible to play in the Championship Game if it was played after the Winter Semester started.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 4

Plus one will be plenty enough. Be in the top four and you have a shot for NC.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by UnconqueredNole10.

Answer 5

I would like to see the current BCS bowl system converted into playoff games. Play the BCS bowls first, then a semi-final, and a final. That gives 8 teams an opportunity to compete for an MNC. If you do not finish the regular season in the top 8, then who cares.

I would be against a 24 team playoff. Too many mediocre 3-loss teams would get a chance to win a MNC. The key to a CFB playoff is keeping the regular season in tact where every game is do-or-die. Once you water down the regular season, you water down college football. I do not want to see the CFB regular season become like basketball where nobody watches.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by NoleBlitz34.

Answer 6

@ PJD, That's a good point, thanks for bringing that to my attention! I'll take that in mind next year if I do something like this.

This post was edited on 2/21 1:13 PM by OrderRestored83

Originally posted on Football Message Board by OrderRestored83.

Answer 7

@ Noleblitz, I agree. If I had to vote on something in reality, the LARGEST playoff i would vote for would be 6 teams. Top 2 get byes, the next 4 pair up. Past 6 teams is just too much bracket creep for me. Thanks for checking it out!

Originally posted on Football Message Board by OrderRestored83.

Answer 8

I'm on board for a 4 team playoff.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Nolebra Kai.

Answer 9

Plus 1 pleez.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by 1BigNolesfan.

Answer 10

Plus 1 is too flawed. There are often 3 teams that are head and shoulders above all others. This past year we had Bama, LSU, and Oklahoma State. Nobody else was close. So would it be fair to have LSU and Bama play each other twice, while OSU gets to skate by with a 2-loss Michigan or VT?

As I said already, the easiest, most fair way by far would be just to convert the current BCS bowls into the playoff games. 8 teams would get a shot. Some years a team ranked 9 would get screwed and think they deserve to be #8 over someone else, but big deal.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by NoleBlitz34.

Answer 11

So 4 teams is too many because there were only 3 great teams last year, yet you want an 8 team playoff???? Talk about flawed! The other BCS bowl games currently take who they feel will sell the most tickets and hotel rooms, not the most deserving teams, so that is worse than what you said you didn't want above.

The plus 1 keeps it very exclusive and only adds 1 more game to the current schedule. That is very important when it comes to selling tickets/rooms.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by 1BigNolesfan.

Answer 12

Stanford would have been the 4th.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Nolebra Kai.

Answer 13

So we eliminate the PAC-12 Champion and put in the PAC-12 runner-up.

Yeah...there would be no flaws in the system.

Just bring in the Conf Champs and let them go at it.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 14

For years I have pleaded for a 4 team playoff with the inclusion of the current bowl system (not the BCS) however ALL bowl games must be played on or before Jan 1. No reason bowls can and should not start before Christmas for the lesser bowls and the mid bowls between Christmas and New Years with the Big 4 (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and/or Cotton) play the National Championship Game (highest bidder of those in a domed stadium with at least 85,000 seats and more if possible). Just for grins say Jerry's world hosts the NCG in Dallas.

Then take #1 will host #4 in the bowl they have a tie-in with. Then #2 hosts #3 in their tie bowl. The two winners would play in the NCG on Saturday following New Years but not less than 1 week so it could be 12 days if New Years is on Sunday as those games would be on Monday.

One small twist would be two teams would not play each other if they had met during the regular season with priority going in ranked order. So the past season #1 LSU would have hosted Stanford in the Sugar Bowl with Alabama as an at large team would have play OSU in the Fiesta Bowl but Alabama would have been the host team. Then the two winners play in Dallas on January 13th.

Had teams been ranked #1 LSU #2 OSU #3 Stanford #4 Alabama you actually would have had the same matchup as #1 had played #4 so they then play #3.

Had teams been ranked #1 LSU #2 OSU #3 BAMA #4 Stanford you still have the same matchups. At least we would have known whether or not LSU and Bama should have rematched.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Lanoles.

Answer 15

Conference champions is a terrible idea that would allow undeserving teams in. When was the last ime a team from the ACC or BE was considered a top 4-8 team???

Originally posted on Football Message Board by 1BigNolesfan.

Answer 16

So Stanford is a better idea than Oregon?

Oregon won the PAC-12. Oregon beat Stanford. Why in the hell do these guys have Stanford in a 4-team playoff?

There is ZERO uniformity in college football from conference to conference.

Very few teams venture outside their leagues vs top-notch competition from across the country. Besides the dogs in their own leagues, they are all scheduling dogs from outside their leagues.

There isn't a football team in this country playing 6 top-notch games a year.

Conference Champions MUST WIN on the field of play. I want the teams in a playoff that have earned their way into it...not selected.

I'm tired of the National Champion being another man's opinion.

We just finished a season and the only thing we know for a fact is NOTHING!

The Winner of the Title Game was beaten 2 months earlier by the Loser on the Winner's home field. AND, they are both, not only from the same league, but the same division of that league.

The only thing we can say with any certainty is...Two teams are tied for the Western Division of the SEC.

If Basketball was run like this...Marquette would upset Kentucky in the Elite 8, but Kentucky would advance because 100 guys "think" UK is better.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 17

So lets allow Uconn and Wake a chance to play fot it all this isn't basketball we are talking about.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by 1BigNolesfan.

Answer 18

If UCONN won the BE and Wake won the ACC and they were the teams that emerged from a playoff...then yeah...let them decide it.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 19

You are not serious are you? All folks are doing is taking the last ranking of the BCS. If you have another methodology of selecting the four top teams regardless of how you do it, just say so.

There will always be folks that do not agree with the last team or two or three (depending on how many teams make a playoff). Even in the NFL folks still think a division winner without a winning record should not be in the playoffs. Some think 64 teams in March madness is not enough so now we get 65 then 66 and on and on.

Who knows what the power brokers will do with the current BCS but the only thing certain is it will change. Maybe not in 2013 or 2014 but sooner or later the demand for more money will push the power brokers to want more and more. Thus, changes will be made. Just follow the money.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Lanoles.

Answer 20

I have said so.

Take the frickin' conf champions.

THAT puts a premium on League Games.

Now C-USA/MWC are merging...so we'll have to assume their Champ.

Here's what you could have.

Wk #1: (Game 1) La Tech (WAC) @ Boise St (C-USA/MWC)
(Game 2) Ark St (Sun Belt) @ No Ill (MAC)

Wk #2: (Game 3) Winner Game 1 @ Oregon (PAC-12)
(Game 4) Wisconsin (Big10) @ Okla St (Big12)
(Game 5) West Va (BE) @ Clemson (ACC)
(Game 6) Winner Game 2 @ LSU (SEC)

Wk #3: (Game 7) Winner Game 3 vs Winner Game 4 (at Bowl Site)
(Game 8) Winner Game 5 vs Winner Game 6 (at Bowl Site)

Wk #4: (Game 9) National Championship Game (at Bowl Site)

All of it down on the Football Field

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 21

This post is EXACTLY why taking all conference champs is a totally stupid idea. La Tech, Ark St, No IL have no business even being mentioned when discussing the 1a national championship and you know it!

While there will never be a perfect system, the plus 1 is the best we can hope for.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by 1BigNolesfan.

Answer 22

No way in hell CUSA, MAC and the other conferences should be playing for the title over teams that finish second in the bigger and better conferences. No way.

I would rather keep the current system than do something like that.

1 is all you need in my mind.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Nolebra Kai.

Answer 23

Well...The BCS is not gonna have a Plus 1. You can forget that.

And...they're not gonna have a playoff.

The NCAA might have a playoff one day, but the BCS will never have anything other than what they have right now.

Their next vote is to decide on only being responsible for selecting the 2 teams for the NC Game and Nothing else. Currently, they do not select which teams a "BCS-Level" Bowl can invite, BUT, they do have rules for selecting teams that those 4 Bowls have agreed on.

If the truth were known, the BCS is on its last legs.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 24

It's simple really and it can be a reality,just start the first round off with the bowl games as they are now and move forward as all playoffs do.with a little creative conference scheduling and a ten game season it'll work.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by gulfcoastnole.

Answer 25

No question about it.

But a playoff puts additional pressure on Coaches. That's why they aren't in favor of it.

As mentioned earlier...The Playoff must be completed before the Winter term begins or 4th year players, who were EE's won't be eligible to play in the game.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 26

There is no silver bullet for this arguement; there is always going to be a bias of some sort. I've heard a ton of different playoff scenarios from different fan bases in the past month and a few things stick out to me as attractive elements of a playoff. 1) The higher seeds should host atleast until the semifinal games. The NFL does it for a reason; consecutive neutral site games put the burden on two fan bases instead of one to travel. 2) A poster on a another site had a great idea of incorporating rewarding conference champions but also allowing teams like Alabama this year to secure a spot. Give the 5 major conference champions automatic spots if they are within the Top 12 of the BCS (notice I say 5 as the Big East has lost credibility with me). The other 3 spots are wild cards given to the next 3 best teams. Decide this using a committe of representatives from each conference. 3) Play the games so that the Championship will be decided on New Years Day. No need for Jan. 9th games. I thought this was a pretty slick idea, like I mentioned though; I don't think there is a silver bullet on this topic.

Link: Playoff

Originally posted on Football Message Board by OrderRestored83.

Answer 27

Every argument as to why there shouldn't be a playoff, always includes, it ruins the integrity of the regular season.

Any playoff that includes "at-large" teams is doing just that.

If there are NO at-large teams and only Conf Champs are selected...then you not only get a playoff, but you enhance the regular season. You put a major price tag on a Conf Championship.

Once you start "selecting" teams...bias is gonna set in.

A playoff isn't conducted to discover who is the 2nd best team in the country or the 3rd best or the 4th best. A playoff's only purpose is to determine a National Champion. Who's Number 1. It has no other purpose.

I don't care if the 6 best teams in the country are from the same league...that ain't what we're looking for.

The regular season, especially confernce games will carry more weight than they ever had in history. There will be ZERO room for error. Using the new matrix...the Conference races would eliminate 114 teams. The 10 left standing, play for all the marbles.

And nobody selects anybody...it is all done on the field...which is where it should be decided.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 28

I've long felt that this is the only fair way to do a playoff...

And if people don't like the Sunbelt or MAC champs being in the playoffs, then those conferences need to be moved down a level to be with teams they can compete against, b/c what we have now just doesn't work...

Originally posted on Football Message Board by jet06d.

Answer 29

EXACTLY.

And the big boys shouldn't be allowed to schedule them for cheap wins.

There is no parity in college football thus there is no true way to judge.

In 2013 we'll have 70 BCS-Level teams.

If you want parity...no problem. Then the schedule for all 70 teams will be made by the NCAA. And all games will be against the other 69 teams in that bracket. You'll get your conf games but your OOC games will be decided in Indy also.

The Green Bay Packers don't get to play 13 NFL teams and one team from Canada, one from Arena Football and another from Japan. All 16 are from the NFL.

You want more parity. No more recruiting. Instead we'll have a 25-round player draft on the first Wednesday in February. Duke is on the clock.

Take the 70 teams and put them in 8 leagues. The league Champs go plus a couple of at-large. No problem then, because everybody has had an equal shot.

Green Bay was the last wild card team in 2 years ago, yet won the title. Seattle won their division with a 7-9 record. They got to go instead of 10-6 Tampa Bay because They won their division and Tampa finished out of the wild card running. Ain't nobody cared. Because the system plays itself out on the field, and everything is equal

Seattle even got to host a game in the first round because they were a divisional champ. And they won, defeating the previous year Super Bowl Champ.

You want at-large teams...it won't be a problem if everything else is equal. If it isn't...then the next best option is a playoff between the 10 conf champs. I don't know if those are the 10 best teams...irrelevent. I'm looking for a National Champion and nothing else.

Somebody wins their league and then wins out in a playoff...That's your National Champion...Be it LSU, FSU or Northern Illinois.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 30

Great thoughts PJD3883 I agree completely.


There is a deathly fear among those that oppose such a thing that some 3 loss team would win the National Championship! Horrors!

Not that there is any relationship to the NFL which is a completely different animal, but there certainly aren't any complaints about NY winning the Super Bowl. Based on perception they had no chance! LOL

Originally posted on Football Message Board by WAR PAINT.

Answer 31

Im against a playoff.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by manleynumber1nole.

Answer 32

Yep.

The only time I ever try to compare the NFL to college is in these discussions about a playoff. Folks always want to point out that wild card teams have won them.

The difference is...those schedules are made at the league office. PLUS, the "ideal season" for the NFL would be all 32 teams going 8-8.

They're schedule is even influenced by that thinking. If you go 11-5 and somebody else goes 5-11, the next year the strength of schedule is gonna be flip-flopped. The 5-11 team is getting more games against other teams that had similar records and the 11-5 team is getting more tough games.

That's why they're making money hand over foot. Every fan base is energized. And all of them are just a year or two away.

College football could surpass that, if it was stronger at the top.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 33

"That's why they're making money hand over foot. Every fan base is energized. And all of them are just a year or two away.

College football could surpass that, if it was stronger at the top."

Again agree.. The season is captivating for the entire season as long as there is a chance. In contrast in CFB the season is over before it begins for any team ranked out of the Pre Season Top 30 unless of course you are in the SEC.

I agree if Division One actually had a playoff with the higher rated, ranked team hosting the games on their home field. Of course if more drama was needed have a coin flip to determine who has home field.

Every year when March Madness occurs they show the incredible excitement of being selected. Multiply that by at least 10 if it was done for who gets the home game in a playoff. All about marketing the product and I believe the NFL would actually have competition in December and January for viewers. The way the system is run today unless you are a graduate or attending a specific college the nation is pretty much turned off and it shows in the empty bowls and low Tv ratings.

I have yet to see a compelling argument for what Division One has today.
Other than I guess some just like their champions chosen for them by a select group of voters. Never have understood that.

Of course the only legitimate reason why the current system remains is for a few select individuals to get incredible holiday bonuses every year.
I still can't get over some of these Bowl officials making a half a million for hosting ONE game that is pretty much on autopilot every year.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by WAR PAINT.

Answer 34

Hell yes.

It is a gigantic racket.

We could literally write a book on how unbalanced college football really is.

Kids want to go to school in their home state. They want to play in front of family and friends. This is where they are most comfortable. Not all...but the vast majority.

Where are the majority of elite recruits living...in the deep south. If a Florida school struggles...you are looking at some piss poor coaching. Same in Alabama. Louisiana. Georgia. What an advantage.

Then top that off with how many BCS level schools are in each state. Louisiana has anywhere from 75-90 Div 1 athletes a year and only 1 BCS level school in the entire state. How bout Bama's HS talent with only 2 BCS level schools. I don't see how they ever lose except to each other.

The sport is getting all about "smoke-filled back rooms" and moving farther and farther away from the field of play.

You were correct. There are 120 teams in Div 1 football and when the season kicks off...100 are immediately eliminated from contention.

It's a waste of a great sport.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 35

the whole point of a playoff is to get away from the polls.

so any playoff system that uses the polls to seed teams is not very well though out. Nor is any playoff system that hasn't thought through whether USC would play a playoff game in the Rose Bowl, or Miami in the Orange, or LSU in the Sugar, or Ariz State in the Fiesta, etc.

leaving aside all of that, if we end up with 4 good conferences of 16 teams, you have a December Madness right there.

Round 1 of the playoffs is a game between the two halves of each 16-team conference. You can have a round zero if you want by slicing a 16-team conference into 4 divisions, but that won

Answer 36

Great points Lemon.

I think it is time for College Football to realign again.

We need a 3rd level. Currently there are 240 schools in Div 1. FBS and FCS are split almost equally.

We need 3 levels. Roughly 80 schools in each.

All with 8 10-team leagues. All with a playoff. Bowls can still exist, and actually would have better and more attractive match-ups.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 37

True... additional pressure it's my job = $2 million a year

Originally posted on Football Message Board by gulfcoastnole.

Answer 38

3 loss isn't so bad, but what happens when a 6-loss team wins it?

That is exactly the problem with a playoff system. It makes college more like the NFL, which is not a good thing. The college football regular season is the best thing in sports. By installing a playoff system, the more teams/rounds you add the more it waters down the regular season, thus each game means less. This is exactly the problem college basketball and college baseball has. Nobody wants to watch regular season games.

The quality of the product declines too because teams can sit players out to rest them once they lock up a playoff spot like the Colts do with Peyton Manning. Who the hell would want to watch a UF vs. FSU game when the starters are resting on the bench so they can stay healthy for round 1 of the playoffs? Beating UF and UM would be virtually insignificant since the primary goal is to stay healthy for the playoffs.

Another problem none of you guys considered is that a 25 team playoff means too many games. College teams are not built to play 18 games like they do in the NFL. College teams have scholarship limits and limited practices. They do not practice all day every day like the NFL does nor do they devote the same amount of time to film sessions.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by NoleBlitz34.

Answer 39

what happens when a 6-loss team wins it?

It becomes one of the greatest sports stories in CFB history!

Originally posted on Football Message Board by WAR PAINT.

Answer 40

I still think the polls could matter. As much as we all gripe, they're right more often then wrong at the top levels.

My playoff would be the 6 AQ champions (each would have to play a conference championship) and then 2 at large slots, allowing for Boise St or TCU or the second best SEC or Big 10 team or whomever. The polls would decide slots 7 & 8. Yes, # 9 would feel screwed, but hey, they shouldn't have lost that game to so and so.

We go back to an 11 game season for non-playoff teams.

So then the 4 BCS bowls, starting in mid-to late December, host the playoffs. Seeding based on poll numbers or rotation, or tradition, I don't care. The top 4 play their 2 games on new year's day; ten days later we play the championship.

It's not wrong to say this is no better than anything you guys have proposed and not as fair as some. But it does preserve the bowl system, it does preserve the greatness of quality out of conference games (since polls still matter), and it would definitely establish a champion.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Scottyar.

Answer 41

Did you read PJD's scenario?

It makes the regular season even more important, b/c it'd put even more emphasis on winning your conference. You don't win your conference, you're out...

Then you wouldn't have a team who couldn't even win its division going to the championship game...

Originally posted on Football Message Board by jet06d.

Answer 42

About the 6-loss team.

What does it matter? As long as they win their conf.

In HS, I saw either Sarasota Riverview or SHS...one of them from over there, win their District a few years back with a 4-6 record. Not only did they get to go to the playoffs, but I believe they advanced all the way to the semi-finals. Their overall record was like it was, because they were playing out of class. Playing larger HS's. Their League also is more balanced. Everybody can play.

As far as the college game being not built for a long playoff...I'd disagree. At the Div 1 level, you have the biggest squads found in the game of football. 85 scholarship Athletes. 20/30 walk-on's. In the NFL they are only allowed 43 players and 7 others on their practice squad.

Plus they play 16 regular season games, before they even get to the playoffs. You pointed out that they work all-day and you are correct, which makes their life more gruelling not easier. Some of those guys, if they've been nicked up, are at those facilities 10 or 11 hours a day. I bet they're worn down quite a bit at the end of a day...let alone a season.

Nah...Div 1 college football is better suited for a playoff than any of them. Hell, in Div III, they select 32 teams for their playoffs...24 in Div II and 20 @ the FCS level. Ain't none of them can approach the size of an FBS school.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 43

if you go with the CCG playoff format that i am predicting, a 6-loss champion is almost impossible. that's because to even get into the playoff you have to vie for your conference championship. If you have 4 major confs of 16 teams, then you basically have 64 teams in the tournament. you have 2 teams from each conf play the CCG, so you basically have 8 teams in teh playoff, 16 if you have divisional playoffs to determine who plays in the CCGs. I think a playoff among the 4 major conf winners strikes a good balance between emphasizing the regular season and the post season. the one thing it doesn't emphasize is the bowls, but frankly they are the cause of most of the problems to begin with. you dind't have 1 vs 2 becuase of who the bowls were inviting. if you go back 20 years ago, you had ND getting an invite in early November just because they sold a lot of tickets.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Lemon Thrower.

Answer 44

@ Lemon & PJD: You make a good point I haven't come across yet. The NCAA really does need to realign itself again into the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. I mean no slight by classifying teams as 'have-nots'; it is reality that the divide between the Ohio St's, USC's, Texas's of the world are great compared to the Bowling Green's, Tulsa's, and FIU's. Give the have-nots a chance at a title of their own in a lower division; take the Top 70 teams from D-1 and create an upper division. Great input guys, that's something that is rarely hit on in playoff discussions.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by OrderRestored83.

Answer 45

PJD3883-

We will agree to disagree. I have done tons of research on a playoff system and heard all of the arguments. While you certainly make lots of valid points, I still think college is best suited keeping a strong regular season in tact. Once you start adding more than 3 playoff rounds, it really waters down the regular season. I know you minimize this, but it is why college basketball and baseball are so unsuccessful.

I also do not want to see college become the NFL. I like the NFL, but not in the same way I like college. College needs to remain unique.

As I said before, I certainly would like to see a modified playoff system where the top 10 teams or top 6 teams advance to a 3-round playoff or maybe 4 rounds to determine a national champion. Anything more expansive than limiting it to the top 10 teams I disagree with.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by NoleBlitz34.

Answer 46

Exactly...It worked in 1978 when they installed 1-AA. Look at this year's 1-AA NC game between Sam Houston St and North Dakota State. Now, there wasn't 80K there, but the stadium was filled. It serves their purpose.

They have a NC. For their students, that's what they're striving for.

Another split could work also.

Personally, I think those schools would relish it PLUS, they could still have some other bowl games if they desired.

There is ZERO parity in college football. Idaho's facilities are not equal to Nebraska's facilities. I've never understood why we pretend they are.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 47

The regular season now doesn't matter. We saw that this year with Bama going to the Championship game without having even won their own division...

The format PJD supports makes the regular season the only thing that matters, not what some pollster or computer thinks, but what happens on the field...



And this is just an absurd statement... College basketball is hugely successful, almost entirely b/c of its playoff system...

Originally posted on Football Message Board by jet06d.

Answer 48

You just brought up another excellent point.

Basketball was going to go to 96 teams in the playoff and then backed off to 68.

The popularity of the tourney is because everybody and his Momma is filling out a bracket. Everybody is following it.

Now, there are many contests you can enter during bowl season, but if college football ever had a playoff system...there would be brackets for everybody in that also.

Because the NFL doesn't have a consistent bracket...(they advance teams according to seed, keeping the highest seeded team facing the lowest possible seed) It is hard for them to involve fans in a bracket-type contest.

80K are going to football games. Not basketball games. College Football popularity would grow with a playoff because a lot of folks would be filling out brackets.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by PJD3883.

Answer 49

if you want to know what is going to happen, you have to understand who the different players are and what they want.

the ncaa represents all schools, and they don't want to cut the little guys out.

if you look at teh big schools - teh ones who will be in teh final 4 conferences - these used to be the big boys. but with tv contracts and an infinite number of espn channels, every game that boise state or TCU or USF plays is televised. that plus scholarship limitations has eroded the advantage to the old line schools had. i mean, in the last decade, Oregon, Boise, TCU, and Okie State have had more success than Notre Dame and Michigan put together.

so a playoff format limited to the final 4 conferences will give the big boys the edge again. but the NCAA isn't going to faciliate it, especially when they don't own it like they do the hoops tourney.

it will happen eventually because the money it will create is like a powerful magnet. not saying its imminent, just inevitable.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Lemon Thrower.

Answer 50

and once the big boys have a tourney, the other confs can ahve their own tourney, sort of like an NIT. mountain west, big east, wac, conf usa, etc.

Originally posted on Football Message Board by Lemon Thrower.