Current Format vs BCS Format?

[ACamp1900]

I stated earlier, you take the top two, off performance, but if you have more than two that are close enough in the polls then there's nothing wrong with a tie breaking playoff, because that's what playoffs are meant for, tiebreakers in the rare event of one ( this secenerio would be extremely rare btw)... My beef is using a playoff every year just for the sake of one... That's stupid, illegitimate, and about nothing more than money

 

[gkIrish]

How many seasons have eight teams finished with one loss or less? Never? We're already seeing the "any given Saturday" thing wither. Alabama loses to Ole Miss? No worries. The first comment out of everyone's mouth is "Alabama is still in this."

It was the same exact thing before the playoffs. See 2011? when Bama got a rematch with LSU...

 

[wizards8507]

It was the same exact thing before the playoffs. See 2011? when Bama got a rematch with LSU...

As Camp is articulating, I'm not advocating for the BCS.

 

[Blaise]

Totally disagree. If all teams made the playoffs then yes, this would hold true. If you have to win your conference or finish with an 11-1/12-0 record to advance then EVERY given Saturday matters.

If you put 16 teams.. Teams will cupcake their schedule with as many MAC teams as they could so they can increase their chances of going 10-2 and making the playoff..

 

[gkIrish]

As Camp is articulating, I'm not advocating for the BCS.

Ok--this thread is BCS vs. Current Format so I was confused.

 

[Monk]

I stated earlier, you take the top two, off performance, but if you have more than two that are close enough in the polls then there's nothing wrong with a tie breaking playoff, because that's what playoffs are meant for, tiebreakers in the rare event of one ( this secenerio would be extremely rare btw)... My beef is using a playoff every year just for the sake of one... That's stupid, illegitimate, and about nothing more than money

Without looking though the past post season bowls and National Champions I don't believe it is rare at all. Every year before the bowls there is normally one undefeated team, if any, and 5 or so one lose teams. Obviously schedule plays a huge part in your final record, but how can you determine who gets the shot without forcing those teams to play some top completion. This is where I really don't know because I haven't looked at the numbers, but how many undefeated teams and one lose teams are there after all the bowls were played. I would venture a guess of at least 3 most years. If that is the case then how do you pick between these teams for the title of National Champion.

As for having a playoff dependent on each years teams is interesting, but causes more problems in the long run I believe. Who is to say that rank 4 and 5 are not deserving of a shot in the playoff. Except for the extremely rare occurrence of 2 undefeated teams at one and two I believe you would need a playoff every year.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't think it's rocket science, and I don't feel that after the bowls there'd be much to figure out... How many times in cfb history has there been much in doubt AFTER the bowls... It happens, but very rarely

 

[wizards8507]

If you put 16 teams.. Teams will cupcake their schedule with as many MAC teams as they could so they can increase their chances of going 10-2 and making the playoff..

And then when a 9-3 sixteen seed beats 13-0 Alabama on a fake field goal in the first round, we're supposed to accept that they deserve to advance and Alabama doesn't when, based on the body of work, Alabama is still 13-1 and the upsetting team is 10-3. Head-to-head results should be a consideration but a bracket-style tournament eliminates everything else and head-to-head become the only thing that matters.

Ok--this thread is BCS vs. Current Format so I was confused.

Right, my answer to the question "playoff or BCS?" is "neither."

 

[Monk]

I don't think it's rocket science, and I don't feel that after the bowls there'd be much to figure out... How many times in cfb history has there been much in doubt AFTER the bowls... It happens, but very rarely

It happened quite a lot pre BCS. That's why they tried to come up with a system that forced number one to play number two.

 

[Monk]

And then when a 9-3 sixteen seed beats 13-0 Alabama on a fake field goal in the first round, we're supposed to accept that they deserve to advance and Alabama doesn't when, based on the body of work, Alabama is still 13-1 and the upsetting team is 10-3. Head-to-head results should be a consideration but a bracket-style tournament eliminates everything else and head-to-head become the only thing that matters.


Right, my answer to the question "playoff or BCS?" is "neither."

A sixteen team playoff would be the worst.

 

[gkIrish]

How does say, an 8 team playoff, not accomplish the same thing you guys are saying existed pre-BCS?

You claim the 4-5 big bowls mattered much more and were must watch TV. How does a playoff where we see 6-7 games not generate as much or more excitement?

FYI my preference is a 6 team playoff with byes to the top 2. Go back to something similar to the BCS rankings where it's mostly based on strength of schedule and various polls and computer models.

OR give the top 4 conference champions automatic bids and then 2 other at-large teams. The top 4 conferences are determined by a computer model that factors in the entire performance of the conference in its out-of-conference games. This incentivizes teams to schedule better opponents.

 

[wizards8507]

It happened quite a lot pre BCS.

That's part of it. Check out Grantland's series on The Argument and what it means to college football.

The Birth of ‘The Argument’ «

That's why they tried to come up with a system that forced number one to play number two.

No. That's not why. Money is why.

 

[Blaise]

8 team would work best... 5 power 5 conference champs, 1 best non power 5, and then 2 at large teams that will be decided by computer or comittee

 

[ACamp1900]

An 8 game playoff erodes the reg season, destroys the bowls forever which are a great part of Americana, and you are locked into it every freakin year, despite the fact that the number 8 team rarely has a legit claim to much of anything outside of their conference year to year... It also doesn't stop at eight as we've seen in every other sport...think that's stupid across the board... Just my two cents.

 

[Blaise]

That's part of it. Check out Grantland's series on The Argument and what it means to college football.

The Birth of ‘The Argument’ «


No. That's not why. Money is why.

You forget about beating FSU... losing to BC ending the year with one loss and watching FSU get crowned the national champ? No thanks to pre BCS era

 

[gkIrish]

An 8 game playoff erodes the reg season, destroys the bowls forever which are a great part of Americana, and you are locked into it every freakin year, despite the fact that the number 8 team rarely has a legit claim to much of anything outside of their conference year to year... I think that's stupid across the board... Just my two cents.

I don't understand this argument. Which bowls specifically are you talking about?

 

[wizards8507]

How does say, an 8 team playoff, not accomplish the same thing you guys are saying existed pre-BCS?

You claim the 4-5 big bowls mattered much more and were must watch TV. How does a playoff where we see 6-7 games not generate as much or more excitement?

FYI my preference is a 6 team playoff with byes to the top 2. Go back to something similar to the BCS rankings where it's mostly based on strength of schedule and various polls and computer models.

OR give the top 4 conference champions automatic bids and then 2 other at-large teams. The top 4 conferences are determined by a computer model that factors in the entire performance of the conference in its out-of-conference games. This incentivizes teams to schedule better opponents.

Because you're only considering end-of-season excitement. Yes, a playoff is "more exciting," strictly speaking, than a bunch of random bowl games. But when you have four, six, or eight teams that get into "the dance" at the end, September becomes worse. October matters less. November isn't as exciting. The thrill of "who's in" is toned way down when you can afford a loss (or two) and still have a shot at the national championship.

 

[Jackalope1977]

A sixteen team playoff would be the worst.

Agreed.

 

[Monk]

That's part of it. Check out Grantland's series on The Argument and what it means to college football.

The Birth of ‘The Argument’ «


No. That's not why. Money is why.

Money is the driving force behind everything. I believe they changed the system so one would play two and a "true" NC would be crowned. Money drove what type of system was put into place.

 

[koonja]

I think when discussing 4 vs 6 vs 8, it's helpful to look back the past ~3 years and see who, before the bowls, wold have made it and what their record and resume was... then you can knowledgeable say whether or not it makes sept/oct/Nov meaningleas.

 

[Monk]

You forget about beating FSU... losing to BC ending the year with one loss and watching FSU get crowned the national champ? No thanks to pre BCS era

Exactly the year I was thinking about. I was ten, but I remember that like it was yesterday.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't understand this argument. Which bowls specifically are you talking about?

Seriously? Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta.... Every cfb fan should be holding on to those for dear life, theyre historic and totally exclusive to cfb in what they are...

 

[wizards8507]

I don't understand this argument. Which bowls specifically are you talking about?

I won't speak for Camp, but it's a travesty that last year's Rose Bowl was Oregon - Florida State. The Rose Bowl is a cultural icon. Midwest versus West Coast. Rust versus glitter. Stanford - Nebraska. Ohio State - USC.

 

[gkIrish]

Because you're only considering end-of-season excitement. Yes, a playoff is "more exciting," strictly speaking, than a bunch of random bowl games. But when you have four, six, or eight teams that get into "the dance" at the end, September becomes worse. October matters less. November isn't as exciting. The thrill of "who's in" is toned way down when you can afford a loss (or two) and still have a shot at the national championship.

I know that's not true for me. If anything MORE people will watch regular season games because their team is not 100% out of it after 1 loss. So if the goal is to get people to stay invested in college football, the playoffs help.

If regular season games matter slightly less, I'm okay with it considering how exciting the playoffs are.

 

[ACamp1900]

A sixteen team playoff would be the worst.

And would absolutely happen if we move to eight, the playoffs are like politics, the progressives never stop progressing...

 

[ACamp1900]

I know that's not true for me. If anything MORE people will watch regular season games because their team is not 100% out of it after 1 loss. So if the goal is to get people to stay invested in college football, the playoffs help.

If regular season games matter slightly less, I'm okay with it considering how exciting the playoffs are.

Except every sport that has expanded playoffs proves otherwise...

 

[gkIrish]

Except every sport that has expanded playoffs proves otherwise...

Every other sport has 82+ games. The NFL is the only thing close and people watch every single week no matter what.

We aren't talking about expanding to 16 team playoffs with a best out of 3 series for each matchup.

We are talking about keeping 4-6 teams in the hunt for a shot at an undisputed natty.

 

[ACamp1900]

Here's a question, why must everything follow the same model? Playoffs are present in every other sport and has dummed down every other sport IMO... Diversity is good guys.

 

[wizards8507]

I know that's not true for me. If anything MORE people will watch regular season games because their team is not 100% out of it after 1 loss. So if the goal is to get people to stay invested in college football, the playoffs help.

If regular season games matter slightly less, I'm okay with it considering how exciting the playoffs are.

But excitement isn't the only thing that matters. There's also "is this the most legitimate way to recognize the best team in the country?" Take the NCAA basketball tournament as the extreme example. After a long season of 20+ games, it's plenty exciting if a 14-seed knocks off a 3-seed in the first round. But is that a true picture of which was the better team that season? Of course not. It's a picture of which was the better team for 40 minutes. I want my champion to be the best team over a season, not one of the top 64 teams of the season that got hot late and got some good bounces in a tournament.

 

[koonja]

I think when discussing 4 vs 6 vs 8, it's helpful to look back the past ~3 years and see who, before the bowls, wold have made it and what their record and resume was... then you can knowledgeable say whether or not it makes sept/oct/Nov meaningless.

Seriously I'd like to see this list of who'd be top 8 and what their Regular season would look like.