64 Team CFB Playoff

[ACamp1900]

Here are my thoughts, my first step would have been to go back to the system prior to the BCS... where every major bowl mattered...

The BCS effectively made bowls like the Orange bowl completely meaningless... prior to the BCS the Orange bowl really meant something... This would have made the New Years games massive again, added more teams to the discussion, brought more money to them, and still allowed for a meaningful ‘champion’ with the addition of:

I then would have added a plus one AFTER, or really just moved the title game back and picked the two participants after the bowls are played. This extra game would be used only for years when team records and polls are so close that no clear number one is present.

Of course this is fantasy because the powers that be would insist on a title game regardless even if you had an unbeaten FSU (just for example) and not one team in the country otherwise with less than two loses. If you have a team that has clearly separated themselves, why have a playoff when none is needed?

To be clear, every gripe about teams getting shut out, or not getting a legit shot, would have been taken care of in my method. Auburn, Utha, Boise, all of them, would have played in that final game.

Just my thoughts. To me the reg season should have more weight than just a play-in. I have gone around on this enough to know full well that some just insist on a playoff regardless like it’s ingrained in their DNA… I see an expanded playoff, like the basketball one going on right now, as great theater, but a horrible way to determine a real champion… I am of the school of I’m willing to trade some theater for legitimacy…

For the record a four team is not that bad so long as it stays at a low number, though I am a big bowl guy and I really don’t see how the bowls survive much longer with the expanded playoff sure to come at some point.

 

[wizards8507]

So you have shot down everyone elses ideas, but what would you do? Just have teams schedule each other for shits and gigs, and when the season is over, its just over?

Pretty much, yeah.

How do we decide who was best?

Who's "we"? You could decide for yourself who you think the best is. The AP can post a list of who THEY think the best is and you could either accept that or not. USA Today can do the same.

I'm not surprised that most people disagree with me, but I am surprised how shocked you all seem to be. This is the way it was done for something like 100 years.

 

[ACamp1900]

Sounds like wiz liked the pre BCS model just as it was....

??

Fair to say?

I honestly had for fewer problems with it than I did the BCS... for many the BCS' big issue was it insisted on crowning a lone champion and did a fairly poor job of it...

 

[TheRealLynch51]

Pretty much, yeah.


Who's "we"? You could decide for yourself who you think the best is. The AP can post a list of who THEY think the best is and you could either accept that or not. USA Today can do the same.

I'm not surprised that most people disagree with me, but I am surprised how shocked you all seem to be. This is the way it was done for something like 100 years.

There is a reason that teams keep score in a game. It shows who won. Taking your idea on not having a body of some sort crown a national champion, why keep score in games when we can just have the teams run plays and at the end people can decide who was "better" for themselves?
The national championship and bowl games are like a score for any sports game. Without it, there is no measure of progress for a program

 

[irishfan]

I know that the article is "just for fun" but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament is the dumbest possible way to select a national champion. MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are all reasonable because they incorporate a series structure that eliminates the potential for a fluke "any given Sunday" win by an inferior team. The NCAA tournament, College Football Playoff, and NFL Playoffs are affronts to the integrity of their respective sports and serve as nothing more than profit and hype generators.

What about a team like Mich State who has top-5 talent and had injury-problems all year and are finally healthy now. Should we just say "sorry, better luck next time" to a team like that as opposed to letting them prove in the tourney that their the best team in the country?

 

[irishfan]

Pretty much, yeah.


Who's "we"? You could decide for yourself who you think the best is. The AP can post a list of who THEY think the best is and you could either accept that or not. USA Today can do the same.

I'm not surprised that most people disagree with me, but I am surprised how shocked you all seem to be. This is the way it was done for something like 100 years.

So, you would be okay with a college football season ending with two 12-0 teams who are clearly 1-2 and not have them play one another?

 

[SaltyND24]

No championships, no best, everybody just takes their ribbons and participation badges and goes home...

 

[wizards8507]

Sounds like wiz liked the pre BCS model just as it was....

??

Fair to say?

Pretty much.

There is a reason that teams keep score in a game. It shows who won. Taking your idea on not having a body of some sort crown a national champion, why keep score in games when we can just have the teams run plays and at the end people can decide who was "better" for themselves?

Winning and losing matters. Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE for there to be a way to legitimately crown a national champion, but a 12-game season in a "league" with over 100+ teams makes it impossible. There are too many teams and too few teams to sort it all out. The only reason conference championships and bowl wins don't seem super important is because there's always the NCG looming over them. If I'm the #4 team in the country, I'd rather end on a Rose Bowl victory than a loss in "the first round of the CFB playoff." WTF is that?

Plus, think about how bad the bowl games are going to suck now. Do you really want to watch an Orange Bowl of ACC #2 versus Big 10 at-large?

 

[wizards8507]

So, you would be okay with a college football season ending with two 12-0 teams who are clearly 1-2 and not have them play one another?

Throw in conference championships and bowl games and the odds of two 14-0 teams in the same season are highly unlikely. Even if I accept your premise, two 12-0 teams who never play each other is less offensive to my sensibilities than a "selection committee" picking 11-2 Alabama for a playoff over 12-1 Clemson (and don't doubt that it will happen).

 

[gkIrish]

wizards:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sez8O6je0xk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bishop2b5]

I don't think there is a perfect way to select a national champion. No matter which system we use, somebody will cry foul. In my opinion, the one most fair and most likely to actually crown the best team as NC is an 8 team playoff or something similar to the NFL's playoff system. The absolute best team still won't win it about half the time. All a playoff determines most of the time is who was the hottest or luckiest team at playoff time, not the best team that season.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't think there is a perfect way to select a national champion .

This. I think it is important to understand that fully.

I will say this, the idea of teams sharing a title in college football sits better with me than the BCS or an expanded playoff...

 

[greyhammer90]

This. I think it is important to understand that fully.

I will say this, the idea of teams sharing a title in college football sits better with me than the BCS or an expanded playoff...

The idea of two teams claiming national championships is disgusting to me.

I also think a single elimination tournament in football is much more accurate than one in basketball due to the nature of the sports. I would say close to 90% of the time the team that wins a single game in football is truly the better team. Basketball is much more of a upset-prone sport because of the ability for one individual to get a "hot hand" that isn't game determining in football games because of the number of men and schemes on the field.

 

[IrishLion]

No way, Greyhammer. We all know that Mercer beats Duke 100 out of 100 times.

 

[wizards8507]

No way, Greyhammer. We all know that Mercer beats Duke 100 out of 100 times.

Exactly my point. A tournament format forces us to accept the notion that 2014 Mercer is better than 2014 Duke.

 

[greyhammer90]

Exactly my point. A tournament format forces us to accept the notion that 2014 Mercer is better than 2014 Duke.

That's as ridiculous as thinking football is the same sport as basketball.

 

[wizards8507]

That's as ridiculous as thinking football is the same sport as basketball.

...it's not?

 

[BGIF]

Throw in conference championships and bowl games and the odds of two 14-0 teams in the same season are highly unlikely. Even if I accept your premise, two 12-0 teams who never play each other is less offensive to my sensibilities than a "selection committee" picking 11-2 Alabama for a playoff over 12-1 Clemson (and don't doubt that it will happen).

Why play a conference championship (other than for money)? Your point was the season is what it is all about. No playoff, no BCS but you want contrived championship games that were formulated in the first place to manipulate voters and to squeeze out independents like ND which didn't play in an extra POSTseason game?

Bowls for most of "the century" of football you alluded to earlier were exhibition games contrived by local chambers of commerce to fill hotels and restaurants with one team local and the other someone to give a good game but lose most of the time to the local boys.

Championships were picked by a writer somewhere to create an article. Sometimes realistically; often pure homerism. The AP Poll started in 1936 and concluded when the season ended. It wasn't until the early 60's that the #2 poll, UPI switched to after the bowls to create a brand difference. Parshegian recognized the disadvantage ND had by the Administration not allowing bowl games because they were "only" exhibitions.

Suddenly bowls became a factor in deciding the championship. Instead of the typical matchup of #1 playing #15 the games (some of them) became more evenly matched. ND leaped from #5 to #1 one year because 3 of the 4 teams ahead lost. ND knocked off one of them while higher ranked Bama was playing a typical Sugar Bowl lower ranked opponent. Bama cried foul and has been crying about it for 40 years. But it wasn't until that situation that Bama would play ND, bowl or regular season.

Bama and ND played to of the most thrilling bowl games in history with Bama coming in barely coming in second both times. Roy Kramer, SEC Commissioner, created divisions to require a Champion$hip Game and late boost in the polls after ND, Miami, PSU and the other independents had finished their schedules. All Roy wanted was one unfair advantage. And he got it. A clever man Roy also pushed contracts between conferences and specific bowls to restrain trade, again against the independents. They argued about getting quality opponents but the point was to keep ND and other out of the Sugar Bowl, etc. It worked.

Kramer was the guy who created the BCS and just happened to become it's first czar. Strength of schedule was a critical factor until Auburn was the SEC frontrunner but got shutout of the big dance because they played purposely weak schedule. So, BCS Czar Kramer got the BSC formula changed downplaying strength of schedule and the impartial computers and directional schools were on every SEC schedule, and the good ole boys poll replaced the AP who refused to knuckle under to the coaches poll dictates.

Yeah, right, things were so much better.

There is no perfect way. The coaches today get bonuses for winning championships and getting into bowls. Conferences have distribution of pooled bowl revenues so even those members that go 0-12 get paid for being cannon fodder now. A coaches vote is inherently tainted because of those financial arrangements. Putting retired coaches on the selection committee is no better. Do you think a Bobby Bowden would vote ND any higher today than he did in '93?

 

[wizards8507]

Why play a conference championship (other than for money)? Your point was the season is what it is all about.

A championship among 12 teams that play 8 conference games is much more legitimate than a championship among 120 teams, most of which don't play each other at all.

 

[Bishop2b5]

My problem with a playoff is when you get something like what happened with the Giants & Patriots in the 2007 season. The Pats were 16-0 and the Giants 10-6. The Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that season, but the Giants got hot in the playoffs and upset the Pats in the Super Bowl. Did they deserve to win? Sure. Were they the best team in the NFL that year? Not even close. They were just the hottest team in the playoffs. I want a system that crowns the best team of the year as national champion, not a team that just got hot or lucky at the end.

 

[greyhammer90]

My problem with a playoff is when you get something like what happened with the Giants & Patriots in the 2007 season. The Pats were 16-0 and the Giants 10-6. The Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that season, but the Giants got hot in the playoffs and upset the Pats in the Super Bowl. Did they deserve to win? Sure. Were they the best team in the NFL that year? Not even close. They were just the hottest team in the playoffs. I want a system that crowns the best team of the year as national champion, not a team that just got hot or lucky at the end.

What do you suggest?

 

[nin05]

I don't post a lot... but I'm 100% with Wizards on this one.

 

[chicago51]

My problem with a playoff is when you get something like what happened with the Giants & Patriots in the 2007 season. The Pats were 16-0 and the Giants 10-6. The Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that season, but the Giants got hot in the playoffs and upset the Pats in the Super Bowl. Did they deserve to win? Sure. Were they the best team in the NFL that year? Not even close. They were just the hottest team in the playoffs. I want a system that crowns the best team of the year as national champion, not a team that just got hot or lucky at the end.

Here's my question and I have asked this regarding college basketball as well.

Do does the number #1 team and the champion have to be the same? or can they be mutally exclusive.

I mean the year UConn with Kemba Walker won the national championship in basketball they where not the best team heck ND kick their rear ends twice that year but they where the tournament champions.

Couldn't the pollsters have made Kansas #1 or some other top team that year number 1 and UConn still be the tournament champion.

People look at me like I'm nuts when I ask them this. Is it possible to have an award for the season's number one team and have an award for the end of the year tournament champion? Can they be they be mutally exclusive?

I know people are giving me the this guy is nuts look through their PCs.

 

[greyhammer90]

A championship among 12 teams that play 8 conference games is much more legitimate than a championship among 120 teams, most of which don't play each other at all.

So basically you're saying that there should just be no national champion in CFB?

 

[Bishop2b5]

ND leaped from #5 to #1 one year because 3 of the 4 teams ahead lost. ND knocked off one of them while higher ranked Bama was playing a typical Sugar Bowl lower ranked opponent. Bama cried foul and has been crying about it for 40 years.

Our issue with it was that we destroyed Big 10 co-champ and #8 Ohio State 35-6 in the Sugar Bowl and only moved up one spot from #3 to #2, while ND destroyed #1 Texas 38-10 and leapfrogged us from #5 to #1. We went into the bowls ranked #3, both teams ahead of us lost, and we won our bowl game convincingly against a top 10 team, so we were a little miffed at only moving up one spot. You can make a good argument for ND moving up 4 spots as you guys knocked off the #1 team, though. I'd have been happy with a split championship that year. Given that you guys had narrowly beaten us and cost us the NC twice just a few years before, 1977 was a bitter pill to swallow!

 

[wizards8507]

People look at me like I'm nuts when I ask them this. Is it possible to have an award for the season's number one team and have an award for the end of the year tournament champion? Can they be they be mutally exclusive?

Basketball conferences do this every year. Villanova was the Big East Regular Season champion, while Providence was the Big East Tournament Champion. This solves all the problems. It's pretty clear that Villanova was the best team in the conference, and they were honored as such. We still got the drama and upsets and everything else that people like about tournament play, it was just a distinct title.

So basically you're saying that there should just be no national champion in CFB?

More or less.

 

[ACamp1900]

Euro Soccer def does it better... though it's hard to think of all sports as a bucket of apples...

 

[GATTACA!]

You didn't see the Patriots in 07 nor will you see Duke this year complaining that they should be champions. The regular season is a device used to align teams for the playoffs, where the champion is crowned. It doesn't matter if you feel one team was better all season, all that counts is being able to win when it counts. Wiz's arguing for a regular season title, we have that with conference champions.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZG_xNbVMmIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>