"Playoffs!?!".....says the Jim Mora voice over - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

"Playoffs!?!".....says the Jim Mora voice over

Moderator: Football Moderators

"Playoffs!?!".....says the Jim Mora voice over

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:25 pm

Now that everything has played out this season, I'd like to have comments regarding playoffs consolidated. Many have posted their arguments for, against, and in between, but they're all in different threads.

My intent for the thread is to hear your opinions on why or why not a playoffs. If you're for a playoff, which I think most of us here are, what is your solution? What are the good and bad of your solution? Who knows maybe we can all come up with something that would actually work for everyone. :-? Not that it would matter of course. :-b

My initial bias against a playoff is the fact that the powers that be would screw it up, even if theoretically the system was a good one. Look at the way the BCS has been handled. I think the idea behind it is fantastic, but poorly executed. And everytime they try to change it, they screw it up even further. With that said if a fair solution to all teams is implemented, and done correctly, then I'm all for a playoff.

I have 2 possible solutions that I think are more fair than just taking the top 4, 8, or whatever number you want to throw in there thats based solely on rankings:

1. The Plus-One As Needed Model: This is the least fair of my two, imo. In this scenario, I'm figuring in a change to the current BCS rankings model to increase the weight of the strength of schedule component. This would force the "non-BCS" conferences to schedule ooc games against heavy hitters since, by and large, they will be hurt in conference by the increased strenght of the schedule component. To help facilitate this, there could be no 1-AA opponents scheduled. All teams play a conference championship, or none do. Keep the bowls the way they are and at the end of the bowls if there's still a question about who's the champ, a la '04 or '02, then a week or two later there can be a winner take all between the 2 teams in question. Unfortunately, this still does leave it in the hands of the voters, but hopefully, not as much as it is currently.

2. The SuperConference Model: Corrso kind of brought this up, but I thought of it before he first mentioned it last year, so I'm taking credit. One more team can be added to 1-A to make 120 teams. Divide them up by region into 10 superconferences. No ooc games are played. Each team plays every team in their conference for 11 games. The 10 winners of those conferences play in the playoff. Because byes would have to be part of a 10 team playoff, the most any 2 teams could play would be 16 games, and thats if the worst team of the 10 had to play with no byes. One could argue that a better team in say the NorthWest conference was better than the team that went from the NorthEast conference due to scheduling, but if that same team is able to run the playoff table, no one will question their validity as champs much like if a team wins a weaker division in the NFL, they still go to the playoffs regardless. The teams that didnt make the playoffs could still go bowling somewhere. The one thing that I havent fully decided upon is how the playoff sites will be logistically handled. Bowls for all playoff games, or just for the later ones with the higher seed hosting some games. For the sake of fairness I'd prefer they all be played as home games except the final game, but the bowls would never stand for that.

What are your ideas?
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby dgan » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:10 am

I like your SuperConference idea, but since it will never happen in my lifetime, or my children's, or my grandchildren's, I'm not going to give it too much thought. Even though I think you are right - it is more fair than what I'm proposing. ;-)

Any playoff system has to be constructed within the confines of the current conferences because they make the money and run the system. The NCAA doesn't have the authority to make the conferences do anything. So with that in mind, here is my argument for specifically the 8 team playoff:

1) Extra games - That's what the naysayers are always saying. You can't have these kids out of school playing all these extra games. Well, with an 8 game playoff, 4 of the teams would not play an extra game. They currently would be Bowling anyway, so playing a playoff game and losing would be the equivalent of what they're already doing. 4 teams would play one additional game - given that they currently have 6 weeks off, I'm sure they can fit it into their schedule. 2 teams would play two extra games. OK, now you might have a valid argument there, but since those 2 teams are playing for the undisputed National Championship, I think it is a sacrifice they would be willing to make. (Of course, this argument is screwy anyway...my college basketball team played 6 games during this "critical" period when the football teams have off.)

2) Bowl games - OH! You can't destroy the Bowl games! Right now there are about 183 Bowls. I'm sure we can find 6 of them to participate as part of the playoff system, and then have the National Championship be a separate game or rotate in the 4 "major" bowls like it does now.

3) Controversy - Now instead of their being an argument over who should be in the CG, you'll just have an argument over who deserves to be in the playoffs. Yes, that is correct. But if someone is ranked 9th at the end of the season instead of 8th, do you really think they have room to complain? They obviously didn't take care of their own business. A playoff would allow teams like Boise State who did everything they were asked to do to at least have a chance on the field. If voters think their schedule was SO weak that it was almost unavoidable to for them to go undefeated, then keep them out. That will encourage teams to schedule tougher out of conference games instead of now where teams look for the biggest creampuffs they can find.

4) Major Conferences - They want their guaranteed bowl money. Well, with an 8 team playoff (as opposed to a 4) each major conference can be guaranteed to have 1 team in the playoffs. Then, just like the NCAA basketball tourney (I know, people don't like the comparison...I'm just referring to the selection process) the voters basically must decide between putting in a midmajor or another team from one of the power conferences.

5) Popularity - The argument I HATE is that all the controversy increases ratings and popularity. The "any press is good press" argument. Bullpoop. College football is popular because of the play, the heart, and the passion of the players. If they actually had a fair postseason, the game would be incredibly more popular. There are a lot of games I just don't care to watch because the games have absolutely no meaning to anyone but their fans.

6) Truly, the BEST team - Not for one game. For 3 games. Anyone can win one game. But to go undefeated for 3 straight games against the best teams in the country? That is an accomplishment and truly awards the team that shows the ability to sustain good play and adapt to different styles of opponents over several consecutive games. The best team isn't the one that has one unbelievable game and then lays an egg. It is the team that plays well consistantly.

7) Storylines - Think of the rematches, the 1 vs. 8 seed upsets, etc... I can't even begin to imagine how exciting college football in December becomes.

16 games would be too much in many different ways, turning it into the "battle of attrition" that people don't like. 4 games is not inclusive enough and would inherently exclude major conferences who would cry and moan about it. 8 games is the perfect compromise that will appease both the fans and the Conference Presidents.

There it is. :-b
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Postby The Balanced Man » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:38 am

The Balanced Man wrote:I like the BCS. A playoff would be terrible for any school with longstanding tradtion.

Example: Ohio State and Michigan this year. If there was a playoff, they would probably sit thier starters. Terrible. Same thing for conference championships, and other rivalry games.


Not to mention, the BCS does exactly what it is supposed to do. Decide between teams with the same record to see which is better.

Not to mention, the minute there is a playoff, the same controversy happens for the last playoff spot.



I don't understand why we try to stuff college football into the NFL mold. College football is a unique creature. Steers on the field, homecoming, rivalries, student sections... Add a playoff, and most rivalries wither.

Let's let college football be college football. Tradition. ;-D
Image
The Balanced Man
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6209
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On my Ipod Touch

Postby flotsamnjetsam » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:25 am

A 4 or 8 (even better) team playoff is the only way I'd REALLY get into college football. I watch it casually just because it's football but I've hated every system of determining the NC for 30+ years. The most amazing thing to me is just how many people actually like this system. And what's even more amazing is that it seems like college football doesn't want to make more money by having a better more exciting product and more games that actually mean something. :-?
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for the awesome sig!
flotsamnjetsam
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17169
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New York State Of Mind: 18-1

Postby Metroid » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:31 am

The Balanced Man wrote:Let's let college football be college football. Tradition. ;-D


The BCS has already ruined much tradition in football. Traditional Rose Bowl games are Pac-10 vs. Big-10, every year that doesn't happen is a slap in the face of that great tradition. :-?
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Postby dgan » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:00 am

The Balanced Man wrote:
The Balanced Man wrote:I like the BCS. A playoff would be terrible for any school with longstanding tradtion.

Example: Ohio State and Michigan this year. If there was a playoff, they would probably sit thier starters. Terrible. Same thing for conference championships, and other rivalry games.


Not to mention, the BCS does exactly what it is supposed to do. Decide between teams with the same record to see which is better.

Not to mention, the minute there is a playoff, the same controversy happens for the last playoff spot.



I don't understand why we try to stuff college football into the NFL mold. College football is a unique creature. Steers on the field, homecoming, rivalries, student sections... Add a playoff, and most rivalries wither.

Let's let college football be college football. Tradition. ;-D


I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.

OSU/Mich would never sit their starters. There is still a huge rivalry regardless of record or national championship talk, there are 1 loss teams that would would miss the playoffs, and even if you think you're in no matter what you can still play for a higher seed.

Sure the BCS decided between OSU and Florida. But what about Boise State? If they're not allowed to play for a title, why are they in Div 1A? And in many years, it never did decide even the simplest of questions...LSU/USC ring a bell?

Playoffs are not an NFL thing. They are a sports thing. Tennis is essentially one giant bracket. Basketball, baseball, volleyball, soccer, hockey....chess....need I go on? If you want judges to determine a champion, why not hire the Olympic committee to decide the national champion. Put college football along with ice skating and synchronized swimming.

Steers on the field, homecoming, rivalries, student sections - how does a playoff remove any of these things? What rivalry would be ruined? They all play their conference schedules anyway, so those rivalries would still exist. And out of conference rivalries would happen more often in bigger games if they were both good enough to meet in the playoffs. Plus, you can always schedule an out of conference game with a rival.

I just don't understand that line of thinking that tradition is sacred. It used to be tradition for me to drive down the street shooting roman candles out the window of my car every 4th of July too...then I grew up and realized that a tradition that is stupid and irresponsible is not worth keeping. A playoff would not abolish any traditions worth keeping and will replace the stupid traditions with new ones.
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Postby HskrPwr13 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:19 am

dgan wrote:
The Balanced Man wrote:
The Balanced Man wrote:I like the BCS. A playoff would be terrible for any school with longstanding tradtion.

Example: Ohio State and Michigan this year. If there was a playoff, they would probably sit thier starters. Terrible. Same thing for conference championships, and other rivalry games.


Not to mention, the BCS does exactly what it is supposed to do. Decide between teams with the same record to see which is better.

Not to mention, the minute there is a playoff, the same controversy happens for the last playoff spot.



I don't understand why we try to stuff college football into the NFL mold. College football is a unique creature. Steers on the field, homecoming, rivalries, student sections... Add a playoff, and most rivalries wither.

Let's let college football be college football. Tradition. ;-D


I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.

OSU/Mich would never sit their starters. There is still a huge rivalry regardless of record or national championship talk, there are 1 loss teams that would would miss the playoffs, and even if you think you're in no matter what you can still play for a higher seed.

Sure the BCS decided between OSU and Florida. But what about Boise State? If they're not allowed to play for a title, why are they in Div 1A? And in many years, it never did decide even the simplest of questions...LSU/USC ring a bell?

Playoffs are not an NFL thing. They are a sports thing. Tennis is essentially one giant bracket. Basketball, baseball, volleyball, soccer, hockey....chess....need I go on? If you want judges to determine a champion, why not hire the Olympic committee to decide the national champion. Put college football along with ice skating and synchronized swimming.

Steers on the field, homecoming, rivalries, student sections - how does a playoff remove any of these things? What rivalry would be ruined? They all play their conference schedules anyway, so those rivalries would still exist. And out of conference rivalries would happen more often in bigger games if they were both good enough to meet in the playoffs. Plus, you can always schedule an out of conference game with a rival.

I just don't understand that line of thinking that tradition is sacred. It used to be tradition for me to drive down the street shooting roman candles out the window of my car every 4th of July too...then I grew up and realized that a tradition that is stupid and irresponsible is not worth keeping. A playoff would not abolish any traditions worth keeping and will replace the stupid traditions with new ones.


I disagree with you, dgan; especially the bolded part. :-b In the NFL, and other sports you mentioned, starters are sat all of the time in a meaningless game. If the potential is there to create a situation where a game becomes meaningless (both teams are guaranteed a spot/seed), then the "smart" thing to do is to just make sure that no one is injured. I dont think there's many fans of any school that would rather see a rivalry win than a NC win.

I will agree, with your take on tradition. If I can lose my NU/OU battle every year and the fight for the Orange Bowl, and still survive, then I'm sure everyone else can survive without their beloved Rose Bowl or any other rivalry. Keep in mind that nationally this rivalry was considered as big, if not bigger, than OSU/Michigan. "Tradition" doesnt mean right, just means been around for a long time. ;-)
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby HskrPwr13 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:40 am

dgan wrote:I like your SuperConference idea, but since it will never happen in my lifetime, or my children's, or my grandchildren's, I'm not going to give it too much thought. Even though I think you are right - it is more fair than what I'm proposing. ;-)

Any playoff system has to be constructed within the confines of the current conferences because they make the money and run the system. The NCAA doesn't have the authority to make the conferences do anything. So with that in mind, here is my argument for specifically the 8 team playoff:

1) Extra games - That's what the naysayers are always saying. You can't have these kids out of school playing all these extra games. Well, with an 8 game playoff, 4 of the teams would not play an extra game. They currently would be Bowling anyway, so playing a playoff game and losing would be the equivalent of what they're already doing. 4 teams would play one additional game - given that they currently have 6 weeks off, I'm sure they can fit it into their schedule. 2 teams would play two extra games. OK, now you might have a valid argument there, but since those 2 teams are playing for the undisputed National Championship, I think it is a sacrifice they would be willing to make. (Of course, this argument is screwy anyway...my college basketball team played 6 games during this "critical" period when the football teams have off.)

2) Bowl games - OH! You can't destroy the Bowl games! Right now there are about 183 Bowls. I'm sure we can find 6 of them to participate as part of the playoff system, and then have the National Championship be a separate game or rotate in the 4 "major" bowls like it does now.

3) Controversy - Now instead of their being an argument over who should be in the CG, you'll just have an argument over who deserves to be in the playoffs. Yes, that is correct. But if someone is ranked 9th at the end of the season instead of 8th, do you really think they have room to complain? They obviously didn't take care of their own business. A playoff would allow teams like Boise State who did everything they were asked to do to at least have a chance on the field. If voters think their schedule was SO weak that it was almost unavoidable to for them to go undefeated, then keep them out. That will encourage teams to schedule tougher out of conference games instead of now where teams look for the biggest creampuffs they can find.

4) Major Conferences - They want their guaranteed bowl money. Well, with an 8 team playoff (as opposed to a 4) each major conference can be guaranteed to have 1 team in the playoffs. Then, just like the NCAA basketball tourney (I know, people don't like the comparison...I'm just referring to the selection process) the voters basically must decide between putting in a midmajor or another team from one of the power conferences.

5) Popularity - The argument I HATE is that all the controversy increases ratings and popularity. The "any press is good press" argument. Bullpoop. College football is popular because of the play, the heart, and the passion of the players. If they actually had a fair postseason, the game would be incredibly more popular. There are a lot of games I just don't care to watch because the games have absolutely no meaning to anyone but their fans.

6) Truly, the BEST team - Not for one game. For 3 games. Anyone can win one game. But to go undefeated for 3 straight games against the best teams in the country? That is an accomplishment and truly awards the team that shows the ability to sustain good play and adapt to different styles of opponents over several consecutive games. The best team isn't the one that has one unbelievable game and then lays an egg. It is the team that plays well consistantly.

7) Storylines - Think of the rematches, the 1 vs. 8 seed upsets, etc... I can't even begin to imagine how exciting college football in December becomes.

16 games would be too much in many different ways, turning it into the "battle of attrition" that people don't like. 4 games is not inclusive enough and would inherently exclude major conferences who would cry and moan about it. 8 games is the perfect compromise that will appease both the fans and the Conference Presidents.

There it is. :-b


I can buy your argument, but the bolded part bothers me. The arguement with the voters is why the BCS was created in the first place. The collective group doesnt seem to do a good job in respect to SOS, among other reasons. Then in their wisdom, the powers that be took the SOS away from the BCS. Heres my thing, if a team like a 0-1 loss BSU can get into the playoffs with their sched (which wouldve happened this year with 0 losses), then I'll be the first to say, that I hope NU loads up on 1-AA teams for their ooc. Then I'll they have to worry about is 0-1 losses in 8 conf games. Easier said than done, but at least theyre not killing themselves early in the season, and no threat of a loss to derail any playoff plans. I'm not patronizing, I seriously would prefer NU did this if this is how playoffs would be determined. Just like BSU, if NU loaded up on patsies, but beat a high ranked OU/Tex, the big win is all the voters will remember, not the early season cream puffs.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby ShoelessJoe » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:30 pm

I'm guessing this is gonna be a long post so enjoy, but if you're going to comment... please read the entire thing and not just part of it, thank you.

Ok, so here's my idea that I think may be a bit more feasible than some of the earlier mentioned ideas. For whatever reason, it seems that a few people control what will happen with the BCS and college football, I think those people are University Presidents and Conference Commissioners, most notably those commissioners of the BCS conferences. As the situation stands, those conferences are set to be guaranteed at a minimum $17 million annually, with some making more depending on if they can get two teams into the BCS. Why would they turn that down? Let's say for example we had an 8 team playoff... it could be concluded that the further you make it the more money you get it (surely if you make it to the final four over elite eight you would be deserving of a higher paycheck). That means some conferences would make more and some would make less, but the guaranteed money would be less than the $17 million that is currently given. This would be a negative for the conferences because there is nothing better as far as these conferences can see from guaranteed money.

Now onto the tricky part, the University Presidents. Their main concern (the one they publically speak of at least), is finals. Someone mentioned earlier that their basketball team played during the time that the football team had off. I'd bet it wasn't actually during finals week though. I know at UF for the three years that I've been here the men's and women's team have each had one and a half week layoffs for finals week. No sport is played during the reading days we have here at UF or at anytime during finals week. The toughest part about the 8 team playoff idea is that the University system accross the country is not the same. Not all Universities finish their semester or have finals week at the same time. Thus, the logistics such that a playoff would miss all of these possible scenerios is unrealistic. That means you would have to push the games back even further (because as of now the first week in December is typically conference championship Saturday). So let's say for example you push the playoffs back around Christmas time, that means that you have three weeks of games from after Christmas and then you run into NFL playoffs. (Think about how many people here have even said they didn't care about the NC game because the NFL playoffs had already started. If an NCAA playoff were to be played at the same time you would also lose a bit of the audience.)

So... onto my idea. It's a hybrid system that would change from year to year depending on the teams and advice of a committee. A committee made up of conference commissioners, athletic directors, and other important people within college football… kind of like the basketball selection committee. That committee would decide the two teams to play in the NC game, or if need be propose a different idea. That idea however wouldn’t be set in stone, it could be a few things. Here’s a few possible scenerios… if you have this year’s example then the committee would have Michigan play Florida and OSU would play the winner. It’s a plus-one with an asterisk. Then there would also be the other BCS bowls for the other 5 teams to play in. I know what some may be thinking, that’s not fair that OSU gets a bye, well they get the bye because they performed better in the regular season. This may not always be the case. If we have last year’s teams in USC and Texas then they just play for the NC. It’s a system that is not set and stone, that changes from year to year depending on how the committee sees it to fit best that year to determine the champion. The committee would be given the utmost discretion as to determine what scenario they see fit.

So that’s my idea. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be put into effect? There’s probably about a 0.001% chance. But, I think it would be fair, it would allow us to determine it on the field more than we currently do, it would still give the conferences the money that they want, it would still allow for games to be bowl games, and it would allow the students to finish their classes and finals without interruption.

Okay, so who hates my idea? :-B
Go Gators
ShoelessJoe
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1621
Joined: 1 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gainesville, FL

Postby Munboy » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:56 pm

I'm all for playoffs. They can keep the BSC, but for rankings only. The top 6 or 8 teams in the BSC duke it out to earn the right in the championship game. After flordia handed OSU's cleats to them, and after Boise state stomped on OU, I wonder how BS would have faired against OSU. (you guys do realize BS was the only undefeated team, right?) Imagine if BS wasn't penalized for playing "weaker" teams and got the right to play in the championship game with OSU as the only undefeated teams left and BS won. 8-o

Alas! I don't see the BSC going away anytime soon. The powers that be seem to be too hard headed to listen to all the crys for change.
Image
Feel small yet?
Munboy
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1934
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Next

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 5:52 hours
(and 41 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact