My thoughts on D1 playoffs

[Dr. Pepper]

A lot of arguments are being made in the media about a D1 playoff. This, of course, has been going on for years, but a lot of talking heads seem to be pushing it more and more.

I for one am against it. There are a number of reasons. One of the reasons that I am against it that I have not heard before is the fact that if we have 8 teams competing for the title, then that means the top 2 teams will have to play 3 extra games to determine the championship. Certainly, the players could handle that, but the fans could not. How many of us could afford to criss cross about the country in December and January to fill up a stadium in three times? The stadiums would have to rely on local people to fill them and I suspect that they would be no where near full.

I heard today a better idea which keeps the importance on the regular season and makes each game important. The requirement for a team wanting to be in a BCS game would have to play at least three non-conference D1 teams with at least one of the games being on the road. I really like that. Instead of scheduling Wofford or SC State or Citadel, we would be looking for Penn State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC-West, etc.

That would make for much more interesting football IMO.

[GatorNation]

A lot of arguments are being made in the media about a D1 playoff. This, of course, has been going on for years, but a lot of talking heads seem to be pushing it more and more.

I for one am against it. There are a number of reasons. One of the reasons that I am against it that I have not heard before is the fact that if we have 8 teams competing for the title, then that means the top 2 teams will have to play 3 extra games to determine the championship. Certainly, the players could handle that, but the fans could not. How many of us could afford to criss cross about the country in December and January to fill up a stadium in three times? The stadiums would have to rely on local people to fill them and I suspect that they would be no where near full.

I heard today a better idea which keeps the importance on the regular season and makes each game important. The requirement for a team wanting to be in a BCS game would have to play at least three non-conference D1 teams with at least one of the games being on the road. I really like that. Instead of scheduling Wofford or SC State or Citadel, we would be looking for Penn State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC-West, etc.

That would make for much more interesting football IMO.


Why would the fans have to criss-cross? Hold the games in the home/away stadiums (just like the NFL) and use the "bowl" games as the final game(s) within the losers' bracket. Have one (or no) non-conference game(s) and 8 conference games, let the BCS (or whatever) decide the top 16--which brings us right back to the poll controvery issue--and plug those teams into the playoff system:

The final 16 play in the best 16 bowls with the "final four," the semi-final, and final games taking up the BCS bowls. It would be like going to a few away games, since the regular season is "shortened"....only a playoff is worth much more and (I think) would draw more people out to the games. The only problem I see with that is sizeable: the "major" bowls would come before the lesser bowls (e.g., loser of the Fiesta Bowl would subsequently play in a "lesser" bowl).

Not good. And/or if that's too much travelling, maybe the bowls don't start until after the elimination games have begun. So, the loser between, say, #16 Michigan and #1 UF :) , which would be Meeeechigan, lol, will tie-in to "bowl game X" against another loser in the bracket.....consolation bowl prize for the losers, advancement toward the MNC for the winners. The farther you advance, the better your bowl (assuming you lose).

Definitely workable and probably more $$$ involved.

[Dr. Pepper]

So I assume with your scenario that Michigan plays UF in Gainesville. Then when they beat the Gators, they have to play the winner of SoCal and Texas, which means a trip to Texas or California, then they have to play the winner of USCocks and Notre Dame which would mean a trip to Columbia. Sounds like a lot of criss crossing the country to me.

[GatorNation]

So I assume with your scenario that Michigan plays UF in Gainesville. Then when they beat the Gators, they have to play the winner of SoCal and Texas, which means a trip to Texas or California, then they have to play the winner of USCocks and Notre Dame which would mean a trip to Columbia. Sounds like a lot of criss crossing the country to me.

No more than a normal away game....and the losing team plays only one more game (in the bowl). The AP bracket would look like this:

1. USC
16. Florida

2. Texass
15. Louisville

3. Penn State
14. TCU

4. Ohio State
13. Alabama

5. ND
12. Virginia Tech

6. Oregon
11. West Virginia

7. Auburn
10. LSU

8. UGA
9. scUM

Winners advance in the playoffs, and the losers--I guess, depending upon their ranking and conference affiliation?--matchup in various bowl games.

[Foxman]

Winners advance in the playoffs, and the losers--I guess, depending upon their ranking and conference affiliation?--matchup in various bowl games.

It'd be alot easier just to incorperate the present bowl system into the play-offs. If it was a 4 team, 3 game playoff, they could still have the rotation between the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange for the NC, and the leftover Bowl would go to the #5 and #6 team, posibly. Or with an 8 team 5 game playoff, it would be the same thing only have another Bowl be in the begging of the playoff. 16 team, 9 game playoff- Same thing. Keep lesser bowls in the beggining of the Playoff.

I mean, think if you we're in the 16 team playoff system, got to the final four, then lost. You would have played 3 games already in the post-season. Then go to Another Bowl? Football season would end in the spring.

[GatorNation]

It'd be alot easier just to incorperate the present bowl system into the play-offs. If it was a 4 team, 3 game playoff, they could still have the rotation between the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange for the final NC, and the leftover Bowl would go to the #5 and #6 team. Or a 8 team 5 game playoff, would be the same thing only have another Bowl be in the begging of the playoff. 16 team, 9 game playoff- Same thing. Keep lesser bowls in the beggining of the Playoff.

I mean, think if you we're in the 16 team playoff system, got to the final four, then lost. You would have played 3 games already in the post-season. Then go to Another Bowl? Football season would end in the spring.

Right....but that's why I suggested a shortened season in order to include more teams in the playoff. The season would end up being 12-13 games, which is just about the same. I just don't see much sense in a 4-team playoff....might as well just use the plus-one system.

In the end of the day, though, a playoff wouldn't work, because instead of arguing about who gets what BCS bid, we'll be arguing about who the polls leave out of the 4-, 8-, or 16-team bracket.

[Foxman]

Right....but that's why I suggested a shortened season in order to include more teams in the playoff. The season would end up being 12-13 games, which is just about the same. I just don't see much sense in a 4-team playoff....might as well just use the plus-one system.

In the end of the day, though, a playoff wouldn't work, because instead of arguing about who gets what BCS bid, we'll be arguing about who the polls leave out of the 4-, 8-, or 16-team bracket.

Very True. The only way to make sure their is 0 controversy is to have a 119 team play-off. And, guess what, we already have it, it's called the BCS. And still, their's controversy about it! Man alive.

But shortening the regular season? That would allow somewhere from 8-10 games per-season, and onlyaround 4 home games per season. The only teams that would finish the season with 12-13 games would be the ones that made it to the "Final Four". That, honestly, would suck, Especially if you are some small WAC or C-USA team. Definantly not good with Presidents, either. But in the positive note, you would have A TON of competition from Universities to get into that play-off spot.

But to make the 8 game season work, You'd almost have to make a 32-team bracket and allow teams to clinch home-field advantage. That would make only the top 25 caliber teams happy, and once again screw any lesser-conference team.

Wow, talk about a tough decision. You're right, the more I think about it, the harder it looks to use a playoff in D1 football.

[Jordan]

Right....but that's why I suggested a shortened season in order to include more teams in the playoff. The season would end up being 12-13 games, which is just about the same. I just don't see much sense in a 4-team playoff....might as well just use the plus-one system.

In the end of the day, though, a playoff wouldn't work, because instead of arguing about who gets what BCS bid, we'll be arguing about who the polls leave out of the 4-, 8-, or 16-team bracket.
While that statement might would be true for a 4-team playoff, or possibly even 8.... it would end up being a lot like other divisions and even NCAA basketball tournament if you're talking a 16-team playoff. Where the teams that don't get the #15 or #16 slot don't really complain, maybe disappointed a little, but not complaints about it. Because more times than not it will be teams in the top 4 or top 6 or so that will win the championship game anyhow. How often do you see the lowest seed in the championship game?

With a 4-team (i.e. +1) playoff, there would still be complaints a lot of years. They'd have to move to at least an 8-team playoff before the grumbles would die down a little.

No matter what our opinions are though, it will still be at least 4 years before we see any change in how the process works.

Next year solves ONE problem though, the one concerning BCS bids for the non-championship games. There will be the 4 regular BCS bowls with their tie-ins and at-large bids, and then a separate championship game. So in that system, there would have been a spot open for a team like LSU or some of the other #2 conference teams to go.

[Cianne]

The simplest solution is usually the best. Just take the top four BCS teams and play the +1 game. Easy. If people complain about not being in the top four, then they shouldn't have bungled it up during the season.

[GatorNation]

While that statement might would be true for a 4-team playoff, or possibly even 8.... it would end up being a lot like other divisions and even NCAA basketball tournament if you're talking a 16-team playoff. Where the teams that don't get the #15 or #16 slot don't really complain, maybe disappointed a little, but not complaints about it. Because more times than not it will be teams in the top 4 or top 6 or so that will win the championship game anyhow. How often do you see the lowest seed in the championship game?

With a 4-team (i.e. +1) playoff, there would still be complaints a lot of years. They'd have to move to at least an 8-team playoff before the grumbles would die down a little.

No matter what our opinions are though, it will still be at least 4 years before we see any change in how the process works.

Next year solves ONE problem though, the one concerning BCS bids for the non-championship games. There will be the 4 regular BCS bowls with their tie-ins and at-large bids, and then a separate championship game. So in that system, there would have been a spot open for a team like LSU or some of the other #2 conference teams to go.


Good points, Jordan. I guess the thing that bothers me is the BCS proponents who swear by the system and say that it worked to perfection this year. I just don't see how the only two undefeated teams in the country--USC and Texass--WOULDN'T have been paired for the title game even without the BCS.

I think it worked by default.

[thethrill]

Good points, Jordan. I guess the thing that bothers me is the BCS proponents who swear by the system and say that it worked to perfection this year. I just don't see how the only two undefeated teams in the country--USC and Texass--WOULDN'T have been paired for the title game even without the BCS.

I think it worked by default.

I am by no means a BCS proponent. I think they got lucky this year with having only 2 undefeated teams. I am for a playoff system all the way. But the BCS is better than what we used to have. In the old system USC would be playing the Big10 champ in the RoseBowl, and we would probaly have another split NC.

[GatorNation]

I am by no means a BCS proponent. I think they got lucky this year with having only 2 undefeated teams. I am for a playoff system all the way. But the BCS is better than what we used to have. In the old system USC would be playing the Big10 champ in the RoseBowl, and we would probaly have another split NC.

Well, that's certainly true.

[Bayou Bengal]

Good points, Jordan. I guess the thing that bothers me is the BCS proponents who swear by the system and say that it worked to perfection this year. I just don't see how the only two undefeated teams in the country--USC and Texass--WOULDN'T have been paired for the title game even without the BCS.

I think it worked by default.

Your memory is faulty. Before the BCS, USC would have played in the Rose Bowl against Penn State and Texas would be in the Fiesta Bowl.

So the BCS did work .... this year.

[Dr. Pepper]

See, even our brilliant minds cannot come up with an agreement on a playoff system.

Let' take a look at my original post. Three non-conference D1 games during the season. That makes for a much more exciting fall. If we have a playoff, everyone is just positioning themselves to get in with 2 or 3 creampuffs on their schedule. The 3 non-conference games are equivilent to the post season 3 game playoff scenario. If you win your conference and beat all 3 of the non-cons, then you are likely to be in a BCS bowl. Win all 13 (with the conference championship game) you are likely in the National Championship. It makes sense.