http://chronicle.com/news/article/3720/u-o...ootball-playoff

Georgia's President now DOES want a playoff system. He says it's not because of the outcome of the BCS games, but ...uh, yeah... anyway, THIS is what needs to happen for a change to occur. Many of us will recall that Florida's president called for playoffs last year, too. Maddog is right, momentum IS gaining...

More from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-bl...battle_for.html

And, for good measure, an all out rant from Coaches Hot Seat, which is as accurate as it is strident:
http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/?p=36

The problem is that any playoff that doesn't include every conference champion will never be enough. Add a plus-one -- then people will want 8 teams, and the fights over which #3-#8 squads should be included will be even more contentious and unsolvable than what we currently have. With 8 teams -- then some lower-ranked champion with 1 loss and a good win over a BCS opponent might get left out. Will rankings be involved in any of these scenarios?

If the goal is to 'make it fair' and placate the media whiners, AT MINIMUM the system would need a 16-team playoff that includes all 11 conference champions and 5 at-large teams. This would destroy the meaning of the regular season and add four games of potential injury and missed class for the students (LOL, what a silly concept--as if Glenn Dorsey and Todd Boeckman actually do schoolwork) who play in the national championship.


I agree about the corporate whoredom, but that boat has long since sailed. Even the Rose Bowl has a sponsor. Schools have gotten used to that revenue stream and any future D-IA playoff isn't going to revert to non-sponsorship.

Just a comment on the missed classes golfer, that is a potential problem through about the second and third week of December, because that's when the majority of schools are going to have finals. Even basketball takes a break during those weeks, so as skeptical as you are about athletes and academics, I think it's unfair to expect a playoff system to encompass those weeks.

Still, a 16 team playoff would be fine with me, those four weeks could fit nicely inside of a winter break.

The regular season would have to max @ 10 games for each team. Otherwise, 16 teams for a playoff, plus more than 10 games would be a grueling season, imho.

Didn't UF's president cave in to his peers & retract his support for a playoff?

Since the UGa president is already catching flak from SECers, it remains to be seen whether he will still be in support of a playoff.



1. Not every conference champion in Division I is given an automatic berth in the NCAA basketball tournament.

2. People already argue over who should/shouldn't be included in the NCAA tourney. Yet no one is advocating ditching the Big Dance b/c there's some controversy.

3. The meaning of the regular season & the welfare of the players were already destroyed when TPTB decided to increase the regular season to 12 games.

Add in conference championship games, the argument against a playoff b/c it would destroy the meaning of the regular season & negatively affect the welfare of the players is questionable to say the least.



The 12-game regular season only began in '06, so it's not too late to roll it back to 11 games.

The FCS/Division I-AA teams play 11-game regular seasons w/ a 16-team playoff:

Only 16 teams play 12 games.
Only 8 teams play 13 games.
Only 4 teams play 14 games.
Only 2 teams play 15 games.

Under the current scenario, there already are teams that play 14-game seasons (Big 12, SEC, & MAC title game participants; Hawaii). Add in the fact that the other bowl teams played 13-game seasons, it doesn't seem to be much of a burden on the players if there were a 16-team playoff.

BTW SCT, what happened to the pandas?

I'm pretty sure they are, every conference tournament champion anyway.

Yes, every conference tournament champion gets an automatic bid. Ivy League IIRC is the only one that doesn't have a tournament.



Going from 11 to 12 games is a lot different than 11 to 15, and had it has had no appreciable effect on the meaning of the regular season. I agree that no one really gives a shit about the welfare of the players.


TXEX97>>

How would you structure a 16-team playoff? How would the teams be chosen? Would rankings be involved--computer and human? Or would it be a selection committee? Would existing bowls be used, or would you scrap the system altogether--the Rose Bowl's 94 previous games be damned? Would you have an NIT of sorts for teams that don't make the top 16?

Now this is the debate/discussion I've been looking for! Good questions and critical observations from everyone. I worry that the WAC, Mountain West, and Conference USA will get scrooged if a more creative playoff system isn't considered and devised, but ...heck, having said that, this issue has so cramped (crippled?) my brain, I can't think of anything creative myself. At least not right now.

The scheduling, costs, toll on student-athletes, all of it, need to be considered realistically, too.

Now, the SEC, Big Ten, and probably the ACC and maybe even the Pac-10 can probably maybe afford the 8 team playoff the Georgia president advocated. And therein lies "the rub." Only the big boys get to play, and I'm a sucker for the underdog. (Wait, that sounds ...oh, nevermind.)

Cloying allegiances to underdogs aside, we all know the Pac-10 will howl if the SEC or ACC or whomever get two teams into an 8 team playoff and they don't, or that we'll all want to throw yellow flags if a "weak" ACC or Big 10 team gets into the playoffs but a talented SEC team with a great record and tough loss(es) doesn't because they didn't win their conference, or whatever...

Or, maybe they'll just use the rankings and take the top 8 ranked teams and say to heck with it. Coaches will still vote with bias, and teams like Boise State or BYU, who might be undefeated?, will be shut out. That would kinda suck, right? We'd have a playoff, but not the result we want (at least not all of us...).

I babble. Good discussion here though.

One commentary regarding the statement by the Ga. Pres:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/stor...&id=3187106

And more on the "flawed system":
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls07/colu...&id=3186669

Just for vous!

BTW, I change avatars like I do seasonal fashion trends.

You're right about that. I had a brain glitch - I was thinking of the Division I-AA/FCS system. My bad.



1. See my earlier reply to SCT. Many teams (I had forgotten to add the ACC title game participants) already play 14-game schedules (MORE THAN TWICE as many as under a 16-team playoff). About 60 others play 13-game schedules. Only 2 would have to play a 15-game schedule. I'd bet you wouldn't have to twist the arms of the players to be on those 2 teams who would play the 15th game, or any of the other playoff-bound teams, for that matter.

2. Strength of schedule should be a big factor in selecting teams. Personally, I'd take a 9-2 team that had a close loss to a tough non-conference opponent over a 10-1 team that scheduled cupcakes in non-conference.

Too many teams as it is already water down their schedules for fear of getting knocked out of BCS contention. Now THAT'S diminishing the importance of the regular season.

Aren't you tired of seeing a college football power play 3-4 weak sisters in non-conference play?



1. There already is a system in place. Div. I-AA/FCS, Div. II, & Div. III already have 16-team playoffs.

The only thing keeping the NCAA from becoming involved are the BCS conferences. They want to keep the inequitable distribution of money that goes w/ the bowl system.

2. Outside of the fans of the participating teams & some really fanatic fans of college football in general, no one cares about the vast majority of the bowls as it is. There's too damn many of them. Many are located in places that aren't big tourist destinations. Many are poorly attended. Many feature very mediocre teams that are being rewarded (!) for mediocrity. Hell, TPTB even had to change the eligibility requirements (.500 teams are in; wins against Div. I-AA teams count w/o restriction) when they went to a 12-game regular season just to ensure that there'd be enough teams to go around.

The bowls could easily be incorporated into a playoff system. Which bowls? Open it up to bidding, just as the NCAA tourney does w/ host sites. Think of all the money (that's what college presidents/chancellors really care about anyway) that open bidding alone would bring in! Bidding for TV rights would be through the roof!

I seriously doubt the Rose Bowl or any other bowl would want to miss out.

The bowls that aren't awarded site hosting can continue on in an NIT-like manner. They already have NIT-like interest anyway.



Merci beaucoup (sp?)!

1. That's why I lean towards favoring a 12-team playoff over an 8-team playoff - to give the "little guys" a chance at the gold ring (unlike the bogus "opportunity" they get now).

2. Like I wrote in the reply to golfer, the selection process would be in the hands of the NCAA, not the coaches. That way the bias would be kept at a minimum.

3. Isn't, ahem, interesting that ABC/ESPN were such BIG advocates of the BCS system when ABC still had the rights to the BCS? But once Fox got the rights to the BCS games (minus the Rose Bowl), suddenly the talking heads at ABC/ESPN don't think the BCS is such a great idea anymore.

If you were in charge, what would the selection criteria be? Who would do the selecting? A committee, or rankings? Would you limit the number of teams from a given conference? All those questions I had earlier...

I'm pretty sure that the playoff teams in the lower divisions are selected by a committee, like the NCAA tourney. They use an RPI-like ratings system when selecting & seeding teams.

No, I wouldn't limit the number of teams from a given conference (I don't think the NCAA does either in the lower divisions). That way, the importance of the regular season is further maintained.

Using the 12/2 rankings, an 8 team playoff would have included

three Big 12 teams
4. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
8. Kansas

two SEC teams
2. LSU
5. Georgia

one ACC team
3. Virginia Tech

one Big 10 team
1. Ohio State

one Pac 10 team
7. USC

...a 12 team playoff would have included

three Big 12 teams
4. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
8. Kansas

three SEC teams
2. LSU
5. Georgia
12. Florida

two PAC 10 teams
7. USC
11. Arizona State

one ACC team
3. Virginia Tech

one Big 10 team
1. Ohio State

one Big East team
9. West Virginia

one WAC team
10. Hawaii

...a 16 team playoff would have included

four SEC teams
2. LSU
5. Georgia
12. Florida
16. Tennessee

three ACC teams
3. Virginia Tech
14. Boston College
15. Clemson

three Big 12 teams
4. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
8. Kansas

two Big 10 teams
1. Ohio State
13. Illinois

two PAC 10 teams
7. USC
11. Arizona State

one Big East team
9. West Virginia

one WAC team
10. Hawaii

Notes:
- BYU (Mountain West) and Wisconsin (Big Ten) were not far behind Tennessee in the BCS rankings that determined the BCS Bowl Selections - also, BYU placed 14 in the final season rankings.
- I might have screwed up and ommitted a school or over- or under- counted.

TXEX97, there are still precious few details of your magical, 'fair' playoff system.



Which "little guys" would get a chance? There are 11 conferences in FBS--how do you tell the champion of the WAC or Sun Belt that they just aren't good enough to make a playoff? How about independents?

If you start including as many as 12 schools, just go all the way and automatically qualify every conference champion. Then add five at-large teams selected by a committee. This is still grossly unfair to teams from power conferences that go 9-3 and fail to make the postseason in favor of some creampuff like Central Michigan, but at least it's consistent with the reasoning for having a playoff in the first place.

I think everyone will be gung-ho about a 16-team playoff system...until its actually in place....then in the first year, a team like BYU (with a lower ranking) will win the WAC and get picked for a playoff spot over a higher ranked 3rd place SEC team like Tennessee or Auburn and a ruckus will ensue......then the second year, a Clemson will get chosen over an Illinois and people will scream that there were too many ACC representatives on the selection committee.....and then the third year.....

basically, if you expand the playoffs to 8, teams #9 and #10 will say "we need a bigger draw!".....so you expand to 12 and then teams #13 and 14 will say "we need a bigger draw!".....think about it--the NCAA basketball bracket started with 8 teams, then 12, then 16, then 32, then 48, then 64, and now 65 (65??). Even the football 1-AA playoff system had issue with who was chosen this year and decided to expand from 16 to 18 teams. 18 teams ?!?! And are now considering upping that to 24.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...off-field_N.htm

http://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/tourney.htm?yr=1946

The BCS system IS a playoff system. Its A playoff final of 2 in the BCS title game. And the previous 12 games (the entire regular season) is the bracket.

*shakes head*

There's no winning you over, golfer. That's ok, this is a discussion board after all, not a courtroom.

There isn't anything "magical" about the playoff system. Like I keep saying, the lower divisions already do it. They have been doing it for decades. No wheel needs to be invented - it's already rolling, albeit on a different wagon.

I know that in I-AA, not every conference champion is given an automatic berth. Those that don't are considered for at-large spots. Sometimes they get awarded a spot, sometimes they don't, depending on their body of work & their schedule. Why would that rationale not be workable for the MAC, Sun Belt, etc.?

And as I stated before, strength of schedule would be a big factor.



1. Ok, so the NCAA tourney expanded the bracket. But did the membership in Division I expand as well? Maybe the NCAA was just keeping up w/ the size of the pool, sort of like inflation?

2a. I am suprised that I-AA decided to expand by 2. They've been at 16 for 2 decades.

Maybe they'll discover that 18 (or 24) is a better number. OTOH, maybe they'll find that it hurts their game & will scale back to 16. Who knows? But since a I-A playoff is waaaaaaay off in the distance (if it appears at all), I-AA could act as the guinea pig.

2b. I am for more stringent standards for I-A membership in order to keep the potential for a larger playoff bracket at a minimum. I'm not trying to be elitist, but some schools have no business fielding a team at the top level. Have you ever turned on the tv & saw a game involving the "mid-majors" where there was hardly anyone in the stands?

If a company produced a product that few people bought, it would go out of business. But in I-A, the little sisters loiter about so that:

i. The powerhouses can pack their schedules w/ gimmie home games (In essence, many of the BCS teams have to only worry about an 8-game schedule [or less if you include conference basement dwellers].) ; &
ii. The little sisters can pimp their "student-athletes" to fund their athletic programs.

How does this all not negatively affect the "integrity" of the regular season?

And how does it all not negatively affect the welfare of the "student-athletes," esp. those in the MAC, Sun Belt, etc.?

3. The BCS is NOT a playoff. If it were, LSU & OSU would not have met in the title game due to late season losses.

I'm sorry for the snark, but you have failed to include even basic things like the number of automatic qualifiers in your playoff ideas. It's easy to nitpick and trash someone else's system.


"They have been doing it for decades. No wheel needs to be invented - it's already rolling, albeit on a different wagon."

Again--if you were king of the NCAA, how would your ideal playoff be structured? How many total teams? How would they be selected? How many automatic qualifiers (with selection criteria--conference champions, rankings, etc.), and how many at-large bids? Laying this out would require maybe three sentences.

Yes, in the current system the regular season resembles a playoff in that only teams from the six BCS conferences are invited. If you're a D1A program that isn't in one of those conferences...sorry, not invited, regardless of record or schedule. You are simply not a playoff team.

Which is why LSU won the BCS Championship, not to be confused with an NCAA Division 1A Football Championship, which doesn't and never has existed. If that floats your boat, so be it. For those who don't like this system I propose this:

11 conference champions MUST be invited to make it a true National Championship playoff.

I'm going to go with a field of 20, nine at large bids. No limit on conference representation, but with only nine bids to spread amongst the six BCS conferences that will certainly receive them....big deal. So what if there is bickering for who is the last team in, that's part of the fun of such a system.

And in this system, the automatic bid for conferences keeps a regular season meaningful, throw in a postseason that's actually worth watching and now you have something.

The appeal of an 8 team playoff is that it lasts less than a month. 8 teams to 4 teams, then 4 to 2.
Once you get into 16 or more teams, that's more games with students out of classes (potentially, anyway) OR a shorter season, certainly more flights (expensive) and hotels, but more "parity." Maybe I'm wringing my hands too much, but I can't see how we can realistically DROP a game in the college season to accomodate a longer playoff system.

Consider the conferences in which you have 10 or 12 teams,:you play two or three out of conference games and you won't play each conference opponent every year, so your season can really REALLY suffer if you happen to get stuck with, I dunno, Syracuse (my alma mater) or NC State or Duke or Washington, etc. on your schedule. Even if you're an SEC powerhouse, getting to the playoffs is hard with a strength of schedule that is compromised by weak out of conference opponents and bad luck if you schedule sucky in-conference teams.

I don't know if I'm making my point well, but imagine if Kansas somehow ended up with the conference stinkers on its schedule, say, Baylor and Nebraska, and somehow actually didn't play Missouri, or didn't play Oklahoma or TX, because they can only realistically play 8 or 9 of thier conference opponents in any given season. We might end up with a "weak" conference champ, or with shared conference champions, and the dilemma of who to invite to the playoffs if we're prioritizing conference champs.

The Pac 10, for example, isn't interested in a conference championship game. But, I dunno, maybe if I were NCAA Commish, I'd move this direction...
1. Get sponsors for the conference championships, so instead of the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, it's be the Tostitos Pac-10 Conference Championship. Or, I dunno, maybe the Fiesta Bowl becomes the Pac 10 Championship.
2. I'd borrow from tennis AND college basketball. Some conferences would be regulated to the "world group" if less than half their teams manage .500 records, or if none of their teams went to a bowl the previous year. We'd had a play-in for those conferences and the independents based on THEIR RANKINGS (so, the Sun Belt, Mid American, and Independents may get no teams in one year, or only one team amongst all three, etc.).
3. This would allow for 12 teams, maybe the top 4 teams get "byes", and the conference champs for the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Conference USA, Mountain West, Pac 10, SEC, and WAC are in, and the play in teams come from either the best of the Sun Belt, Mid American, and Independents, and/or the highest ranked second best teams from the other conferences.

This is all making sense (well, not really) in my head, but I don't think I'm explaining it right.
I'd also move to site playoffs, which is actually something someone else mentioned months ago - have the games in a major city so it's accessible and affordable for travel and for direct flights, and have the games on college campuses, so that universities and colleges can benefit more from the playoffs.

What I can't figure out:
- How to make this last not much longer, or not longer at all, than the current system, without cutting the season short, which can hurt teams' strength of schedule and lead to confusion about who IS the best in a given confernece, but which DOES allow students to have breaks, study, complete finals, and which does also give coaches time to prepare and for athletes to heal and/or condition...
- How and when to shrink the Bowl Subdivision as described above. The goals here would be to balance the conferences represented in the BCS, to give some conferences a chance at the playoffs and also to limit the ability of "majors" to get "easy wins" by scheduling Temple or Middle TN or Louisana Campus We've Never Heard Of...
- Once we have the conference champs, how are they seeded? By their rankings? Or...? I dunno.

That should've read 16-team playoff. Oops!



You're nearly as vexing as Gym/wvderby.

For the umpteenth time:

1. I favor a 16-team playoff in Division I-A, structured similarly to that in Divisions I-AA, II, & III.

2. Since the NCAA would govern a playoff, the teams would be selected by a committee, as is the case w/ I-AA, II, & III.

3. Record & strength of schedule are the determining factors for selecting at-large teams.

Since the NCAA would govern a playoff, the NCAA decides how many automatic qualifiers there would be, as is the case w/ I-AA, II, & III.

Do you want me to include the criteria for selecting jock straps as well?

LOL this is funny. I am asking what YOU would do if you ran the NCAA. Again, you provide no specifics of how many or which conferences should get automatic qualifiers. Just make "similar to" the FCS system, and dump all the details onto the NCAA, that paragon of virtue. That way you can avoid specific criticisms. It took this long just to get a clear answer of how many total teams would be in this playoff, though, so maybe we'll get somewhere yet

This is a hypothetical situation in which I am asking your opinions of what would constitute the perfect college football postseason. Apparently you don't have any, other than "The BCS Sucks," and think Myles Brand is God so let him and his buddies take care of it. Whatever. It should be fun nit-picking over the details and coming up with a scenario that suits your eye and mind best, but I guess that's not in the cards here.


For example:

I would keep the current system largely intact. The four highest-ranked conference champions would play each other in a seeded, 4-team tournament, possibly at the #1 and #2 seeds' home stadiums for the semifinal round. Rankings would be made up half human polls, half computers. If an independent team finishes the season ranked ahead of one of those conference champions, then they would be invited instead. All bowls would revert to their previous conference affiliations. I would also magically remove all corporate sponsorships from the titles of bowl games, or at least bar the media from calling the Peach Bowl the Chick-Fil-A Bowl.

If forced to accept a playoff, I would invite 16 teams. All 11 conference champions would get automatic bids. Ideally, each conference would be cut down to 10 teams and championship games would be abolished--everything would be determined round-robin, in the regular season. This keeps the importance level high and means (almost) every game is a playoff game. This might necessitate increasing the number of conferences to 12 but I haven't crunched the numbers on that. The five at-large teams would be decided by a committee similar to the basketball tournament in which they look at the strength of schedule, quality wins, number of losses, etc. Not sure how I would treat independents--I guess they would just have to be selected by the committee.

The NCAA convention is in Nashville this year, and it started today, I think. Will be interesting this year to see whether the playoffs campaign dies or gathers steam. Some bloggers are already saying the push for playoffs is already done and won't get much further. Read somewhere online (can't find the link, grrrr) that the ACC commish and another commish were interested in some sort of playoff and read today that the Big 10 is not suprisingly still not into the playoff idea.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution is loving this story though, and recently surveyed college presidents to see where they stand. Interesting:
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/u...adams_0111.html

I'm not the NCAA. I don't see the point in indulging in some fanciful scenario where I was the decision-maker of the NCAA. If the FBS ever does go to a playoff, it won't matter one bit how you or I would like to see a playoff structured.

I never stated that I believe the NCAA or Brand are "God" or are perfect in any way. That's a grossly erroneous conclusion you made. Did someone associated w/ the NCAA pee in your cereal, or are you always so unpleasant when discussing the merits of a playoff over the current system?

Besides 1 post where I misspoke, in several posts in this thread I stated my support of the NCAA's playoff structure (i.e., 16-team playoff), as well as debunking the idea of how a 16-team playoff would add to the toll on the players. I can't help you if you have either selective reading of my posts or are unable to make the proper inferences.

Re: your accusation that I "nit-pick," this is a discussion board. When someone offers an argument in favor of a certain position, others are allowed to comment on it. For example, you & SCT made an argument of how much of a burden a 16-team playoff would have on the players. In response, I stated how a 16-team playoff compares to the number of games teams already play under the current system. It was just a point I was making. SCT seems to have understood that. But judging from the tone of your posts, you took it & my other responses to you as some sort of personal attack. That's not something I can help you w/, nor would I want to.