Two Cents

by aorist9 on Oct 12, 2006 11:16 AM CDT in Texas Longhorns Football

Yesterday there was overwhelming consensus that a 1-loss SEC champion Florida makes it to Glendale in the aforementioned hypothetical. In a distant second comes tOSU, who lost only to Michigan and is in a three way tie for the Big 10 title with Michigan and Iowa.

I want to delve a little deeper today into an issue that was brought up yesterday, possible playoff formats and how they would affect scheduling. billyzane has the most ideal solution, a flexible playoff situation that can accomodate up to 4, but in years where two teams are clearly ahead of the rest, only two will play and likewise if there isn't a deserving 4th team to put in a playoff then #1 gets a bye. The problem with this is that it would seem arbitrary to many involved and would cause unpredictability for TV networks and bowl games, and we all know how they love unpredictability.

With 8 and 16 team playoffs you lose that mythical title feeling that we love in college football as Brooklynhorn says, and the regular season will be relatively meaningless like an NFL or college basketball regular season, as long as you stay in the top 8 or 16, you're in.

So what's the compromise? What do we do? +1 looks like the best option to me, what do y'all think?

Tweet Comment 60 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

a point of clarification

I didn't really mean that where there wasn't a fourth team that was deserving, the #1 team would get a bye. i thought that the #1 team should get a bye to the championship game where they are undefeated and everyone else has losses, like in 1998, 2000, and 2001 where Tennessee, OU, and Miami were the only undefeateds and ranked #1, in those respective years. They did their part during the regular season and no one else did so they automatically get to the MNC game.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 11:30 AM CDT reply actions

Arghhh

I just posted this to the other thread before this came up so I'll post it again here.

I could live with a 4 team playoff. But I fear that the financial incentive will compel the NCAA to include more teams, which is why I kind of feel like they just shouldn't go there at all. We bitch about the BCS (and believe me, nobody was more irritated than I was over OU's inclusion in 2003), but even in its worst years, the BCS champion doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the basketball winner does, who usually isn't even a #1 seed anymore. The football champion is always great. Whether or not you think they were specifically #1, you must concede that Texas, USC, LSU, etc. have all been great teams. Every once in a while the basketball and baseball crowns go to very pedestrian, sub-great teams. The BCS is set up so that, at worst, the second or third best team might sneak away with the title (and how often has that happened really? Once per decade?). That's good enough for me when you consider the consequences of the alternative.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 11:31 AM CDT reply actions

I don't get it

If Florida basketball beats everybody, why aren't they deserving of the national championship? They aren't as deserving as LSU, who may have lost to Auburn, who wasn't given a shot to play for the title? I just don't understand.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions

Its not...

a question of whether or not they deserve it. Different systems inherently produce different champions. We could produce 6 parallel systems, each with completely different parameters for choosing a champion, and in each case study, you could argue that the team that triumphed within those existing rules is deserving, because they won out under the rules and circumstances that they were presented with. And, of course they are deserving.

What I am after is the SYSTEM that produces the BEST possible champion. I feel like almost every year, the BCS produces a greater champion than the NCAA tournament.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't understand your comparison

I think comparing football and basketball is too much like apples and oranges.
A better comparison would be the NFL. What are your feeling towards the Superbowl champion?
Also, go ask Auburn if they feel the current system produces the BEST possible champion.

I think the current system leads to teams wanting to schedule weak oponents, and a variable system considering if teams are undefeated or not would produce even more weak schedules.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions

but the weakest schedules would be...

"go ask Auburn if they feel the current system produces the BEST possible champion."

you are pointing out the exception that I addressed in my argument. College football has extreme controversy over who the champion is far less frequently than people seem to remember. We go into every season expecting controversy because everyone hates the BCS, but how often does it actually happen? I still say about once a decade.

And I don't think its apples and oranges because my argument wasn't about the sport, it was about a systematic approach to choosing the champion. I feel like the NFL champion, while better than the college basketball champ, is still too arbitrary for my tastes. How long will it take before people have to be reminded that Pittsburgh won last years super bowl, especially considering that the exact same team with the very same players is like 1-5 this year.

And a playoff logically leads us to much poorer scehduling. As I noted earlier, if an undefeated season, regardless of how bad the opposition, will surely land you in the top 8 or 16 at the end of the year, what exactly is the incentive to schedule better teams? Nobody has answered that yet. But if West Virginia gets left out this year, you better believe we won't be scheduling Sam Houston St. again.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions

The incentive is to get better and more money

If you don't have to be #1 or #2, but in the top 8, you would schedule at least one top opponent for two reasons.
Money. Scheduling top teams equals big money for the schools. But the way the system is right now, there is a large deterrent because you basically have to be undefeated to make the big game. If this is not the case then big teams will be scheduled.
The other reason is to get better. If you know you have a good shot of being in the playoffs, then playing a better schedule will allow you to better prepare than playing Sam Houston St.
Even if WVU does not get into the MNC this year, the powder puffs will continue for UT, Mac and Delos have both they would never have scheduled OSU if they knew we were going to be in the hunt for a national championship.

As for the BEST possible champion, I don't buy your once a decade argument. Just looking at since the BCS, last year was the exception, not the rule. 2005, you got Auburn. 2004 USC. 2003 Ohio St was the luckiest team I have ever seen, Miami, USC and Georgia were all better. 2002, Miami may have been the best team, but their opponent was Nebraska, who had just gotten clobbered by Colorado. I think UT could also make an argument for being deserving of playing in that game, despite losing to CU. 2001 OU went undefeated, but Miami was probably the best team by the end of the year. I can't really remember what happened in 2000 and 1999.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Hmmm

You might be right. But how much more money would a team get by making the playoffs? Lets use this year as an example. If Texas knows that an undefeated or 1-loss season gets them in the playoffs, but a 2-loss season might not, do we schedule tOSU? I think no.

But I could be wrong. What is the payout for a game like tOSU compared to, say, a bowl game? Does anybody know?

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Hard to caculate

the rest rapped into one, compared to OSU which created better ticket revenue in that we could sell that game for more and our season tickets for more (you have to include donations in the season ticket sales) and the big 12 would have more bargaining power to get better TV deals if we could say that our marquee teams played at least one big time out of conference match up a year.

I think the odds of Texas playing OSU if the goal is just to insure they get in the top eight is much higher than the goal of going undefeated and hopefully getting in the top 2.

The money for the playoffs would be huge compared to the BCS payouts now.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions

BCS bowl is like a dozen million

bucks or so. I don't have any idea what we make from tOSU. And, yeah, the regular season might get really vanilla with a playoff system, but we're going that way now, too. Which brings back the issue of strength of schedule, which I agree is important, but it still worries me (look at Miami in 2000?).

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions

but..

I don't think the regular season is vanilla right now. Remember last year? Every single week was agonizing to me. I was afraid of Missouri, afraid of Texas Tech, Afraid of A&M. One loss and we would have blown it. But with a playoff, all of those games would have felt a lot less meaningful, and istead of 5 months of tension, we would get three weeks. Thats just how I feel about it.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions

But that tension is just for 2 or 3 teams

We lose last week and there is no tension for the rest of the season.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions

not as much tension

but we still want a BCS game, and if we do want that, we might not be able to lose the rest of the year. but with a playoff (especially a 16-team playoff), it doesn't matter we can lose again and no big deal. we still make the tournament.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions

If you link the tension

then would their not be much more if we had the 8 team playoff?

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions

during the playoff, yes...

but not during the regular season.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Not what I meant

The tension of weather or not you will be in the top 8 would be greater than weather or not you get to be in a BCS bowl or not.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

ah, i see

You're probably right because getting into the top 8 still holds out some hope of winning the championship. But I don't think the difference is that great. Remember how tense those last few weeks of 2004 were when we were battling Cal in the BCS standings?

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions

How long has the BCS been around?

Is it since '98? Because that's less than a decade ago, and I can think of way more than one controversy. Auburn and Miami come readily to mind. Funny how OU was involved in both of those. Conspiracy!

But, seriously, I don't know how you can say that champion coming out of a playoff is system is not the "better" champion. Well, Florida, you won all the games and beat all the teams, but, damn, you're just not sexy enough. Go home. Try again.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Its the system, not the team

As I said, its not about deserving. Imagine that we had mulitple parallel worlds: in one, we have 65 game tournament, in another, we have the top two play each other like in football, in another we have an 8 team tournament, etc., etc.

My argument is that in each world, you would likely get different champions based on factors such as fatigue, hype, emotions, pairings, etc. If you look at each of the champions those systems porduced, could you really say one "deserved" it more than another? To me, that is pointless debate. What we should be debating is the merits of the system, because in choosing the system, we are affecting the outcome of the champion. I have nothing agaisnt Florida, but I truly believe that 1) they were not the best team in the counrty last year, and 2) under most any other system it is unlikely they would be champs.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I see your point

but it still seems like the system that comes about from real teams playing in a real tournament makes more sense. For another parallel, I'm imagining Tiger Woods or Roger Federer automatically getting a bye all the way to the end of a tournament just because they're ranked number one. So in that system Jeff Ogilvy or whoever would never win and Tiger would win even more often than he does now.

Also, it seems more in line with the rules of the game. Fatigue, hype, emotions, etc. are all part of the game. But Joe AP Voter deciding that Team X is not good enough is not part of the game. Does that make sense?

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes...

That makes perfect sense. But there are so many intangibles in sports, things like how well a team matches up with another, or whether a team has a great starting 5 or is just really deep instead, etc. These different factors suit a team to different playoff formats.

Look at the Yankees. IMO, they are built to win a 162-game division race, but not a 7-game series, they just don't have the pitching.

Basically what I am saying is that large tournaments just don't produce a satisfying champion to me. They are very exciting, but that comes at a cost of not necessarily rewarding the greater teams. Maybe its just my sense of aesthetics getting in the way (which is ENTIRELY likely), but I feel like college football is the only system that gives us a great champion year in and year out. And my feeling is that would be ruined with a playoff.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions

but it's always good when the Yankees lose :-)

Well, like you said before, that leads to a different format and a different kind of team. The Yankees should try to build themselves to win a 7-game series. As we have it now, that's the only way they'll win another title.

I'm in SA and it reminds me of the Spurs. They're built to win in the playoffs. They don't win all the regular season games, and it does make the regular season less exciting, but I think it wouldn't be as bad in college football because there would still be less games.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions

I hate the Yankees too...

I am from Texas after all.

My stance on this is totally selfish. I'm extremely fearful that we WILL get a playoff system, and then 20 years from now we'll be looking back, nostalgically, on when football was an Autumn game, a game for October and November, not just a few rounds in January.

Be careful what you wish for. I think a playoff will change the VIBE of college football in all kinds of ways we can't predict. And maybe I'm conservative about this, but I love the game so much now, and I dread anything that might totally restructure the game and, far more importantly, the culture of the game.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions

that's my biggest fear

i'm sort of a reactionary when it comes to sports traditions. The last thing i want is for college football to start to look anything like the NFL in its structure.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

i agree

The baseball playoffs can be very exciting since the wild card came into play and everything and there may be many advantages to letting more teams in the playoffs, but no one can honestly say that it leads to the best team winning. The 2003 marlins were not the best team in baseball.

It really boils down to what we're looking for out of a postseason format: excitement or crowning the most deserving champion. Before the division system, baseball rewarded the two teams with the best records in their leagues over a 162 (or previously, 154) game season. Was it boring for teams that no longer had a shot at the pennant? I'm sure. But the best 2 teams undoubtedly made the world series. Throughout this and every other conversation I've heard on this topic in relation to college football, the desire for a playoff is not for excitement (or that's at least a distant second), but rather so that the "true" champion can be settled on the field instead of by computers or whatever. The flexible system i've been talking about attempts to ensure that the best two teams are in the MNC game every year. When there aren't only 2 that differentiate themselves, we have a 4-team tournament (alternatively titled BCS+1).

And while a larger playoff might create more excitement, it's not like in the old pre-division baseball system where there's nothing else to play for once you can't get into the world series. There are still bowl games and still a BCS to strive for. There's still excitement there. It's not like we're any less obsessed with talking about Texas football now that we have virtually no chance of playing in the MNC game.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions

It could work

I like the flexible format you've prescribed, but we live in a society that wants absolute rules, and so, unfortunately, I don't think it would ever be considered.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

it you structure the flexible system, it might...

Say if you set out specific standards, like if the top two teams in the BCS rankings are undefeated and there are no other undefeated teams in the top 5 of the BCS rankings, then there's no playoff.

And then if there are more than 2 undefeated teams in the top 5 of the BCS rankings, then the top 4 teams are seeded according to their BCS rankings and play.

And if there is only 1 undefeated team in the top 5 of the BCS rankings, then they play in the national championship game against the winner of a game between the #2 and #3 teams in the BCS rankings.

I don't know if those are the exact rules that I'd want, but if you structure it in a manner similar to this, I think people might accept it.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh...

And one more note about Auburn. I don't believe that Auburn would have beat USC that year anyway, that was the year of the big Orange Bowl thrashing. Auburn modestly won the Sugar Bowl that year. So you may scream injustice, and it definitely was, but the proper champion was crowned that year regardless. I feel like the last truly unjust college football champ goes way back to maybe Colorado in 1990 or so. Thats not bad, to me, thats a productive system. The NFL bats about .500 I think (with a "surprise" team winning about every other year or so) and the rest of the college sports world is very close to arbitrary.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions

also...

if we applied this flexible system we've been talking about here in 2004, then there are 3 undefeated teams from major conferences (and thus no one who deserves a bye to the championship game more than another). So we set up a 4-team playoff with the BCS ranking determining the seeds. So OU and Auburn (as #2 and #3 respectively) play each other and then you find some way to come up with a fourth team. That year, UT was #4 (barely over Cal), but Utah was also undefeated and ranked #6 in the BCS. Maybe you go with the undefeated team from the non-BCS conference, maybe you go with the 1-loss Texas team. Either way, you get a pretty good BCS+1 scenario in what was otherwise a terrible year for the BCS.

But in 2005, if we were forced to have a playoff (even a small 4-team one), then unbeaten USC is forced to play 1-loss Georgia and unbeaten Texas is forced to play 1-loss VaTech. Would each have won? Maybe. Probably. But should they have to play those games when they did their part by going undefeated during the season and VaTech and UGA didn't (and their BCS point scores were so much higher than the other 2)?

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

oops

I screwed up the teams in 2005 (i was looking at the first week of the BCS standings, not the last). USC would have played 2-loss Ohio State and Texas would have played 1-loss Penn State. The principle remains the same though.

There's no way Ohio State should have even been in the conversation for the national championship last year, especially after losses to Texas and Penn State, two of the 3 other teams that would have been in the "playoff."

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions

playoff

I don't think you would lose any of that feeling with an 8-team field (16 is way too many). I doubt there would ever be a year where the #8 seed in a football playoff would be unworthy of a title.

Go back to an 11-game season, eliminate conference championships (will never happen, I know, but I can dream can't I?) and start the playoff in late December.

by Jason Mayer on Oct 12, 2006 11:45 AM CDT reply actions

Agreed

That's probably the best playoff format I've seen. In years like last year, there was no need for a playoff, as UT and USC were clearly the two best teams in the country. But this does solve problems like '04, when there were three teams worthy of the title game. I seriously doubt there will be a season where there are five contenders- and if there is, well, you just have to draw the line somewhere. At least this is better than the ridiculous automatic bid ideas that would send the Sun Belt Champion to the playoffs.

by boomhauer25 on Oct 12, 2006 11:53 AM CDT reply actions

By the way

Is anyone an English Premier League fan? I think they have an interesting set-up. They have a champion based on points (so Chelsea wins the most games and gets the trophy based on points), but they also have a second trophy - the FA cup - which is a season-long tournament played in between league games. That gives you a solid, dominant champion, but it feeds the fix of wanting to watch an exciting tournament.

The key is that, culturally, the two trophies are considered separate but equal.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 2:24 PM CDT reply actions

Two trophies?

Apparently it works for them, but sounds stupid to me. It'd be like boxing with 7 different owners of title belts. It'd be like having a BCS Champion and an AP Champion.....oh, nevermind.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah...

its a cultural difference, you have to understand. Both trophies go way back, and both are very prestigious. It would be difficult to put such a system in place in a culture that is not used to it. But they seem to be very happy with it, because it produces no controversy, the best team nearly ALWAYS wins the Premier League, but the FA Cup generates a lot of excitement and chances for a surprise team to have a good season. It is a pragmatic approach that allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions

No playoff or 4-team at most

In my opinion, the only year there has been controversy is 2004 (Auburn). Any other year, we didn't have more than 2 undefeated teams. Auburn getting left out had a legitimate complaint with the BCS, but not to the extent they could've claimed they were better than OU or USC, regardless of what they'd like to believe.

In any other year, including 2003 where USC got left out of the NC game, the team that was left out had atleast 1 loss. I am a strong believer in if you lose 1 game in college football, you need to just sit down and shut up and start praying for help.

I agree with billyzane, too. In a 4 team playoff, last year we would've had to play Penn St, then the winner of USC/Oh St after already beating Oh St. That's just crap. Why have a playoff at all. In that case, you're giving (2) 1-loss or more teams a "get out of jail free" card. Let those teams suffer with the rest.

College football is better than the NFL because every game is a playoff. Whether you're playing Ohio State or Sam Houston State, you'd better win it. There's no preseason in college football and no sitting your starters in December. Imagine last year, an undefeated Texas sitting Vince Young vs Colorado in the Big XII game, knowing they clinched a playoff spot. Well, we probably would've scored 50 instead of 70, but that's not the point.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 2:47 PM CDT reply actions

The problem is that usally

there are not 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year, leading to my loss is better that your loss arguments.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

i know

But when we have the "my loss was to a much better team than your loss was", we go back to my argument of, "You lost, now sit down and shut up, and start rooting for spoilers."

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions

system

I like the idea of a four team format. I think there is frequently a meaningful difference between a team ranked 1-4 vs. 5-8. Furthermore, a four team format can be either integrated into or a complement to the current bowl system.

Whatever system is adopted, it must reward strength of schedule. Otherwise, the incentive is to schedule terrible out of conference teams, crush them, and then pray to go undefeated in conference -- a consequence that will remove any excitement from the first month of the season and make it impossible to judge the relative merits of top conferences insofar as no good BCS teams will schedule other good non-conference BCS teams. No more UT-tOSU, Tenn-Cal, USC-Ark, etc. and a lot more UT-SHS, Michingan-Central Michigan, etc.

by Allaha on Oct 12, 2006 2:49 PM CDT reply actions

I feel like everyone is forgetting

the strength of schedule debacle that caused the end of considering that part of the BCS formula. Miami beat Florida St., but FSU played OU in the MNC game and lost. Remember? And Miami fans were sure they could have beaten that OU team. I just really worry about adding strength of schedule because you can't control how good your conference is, and you schedule teams years in advance, so you can't control how good they will be, so a good team can get left out for reasons beyond their control.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Strength of Schedule

The thing is, you have to add strength of schedule back into the BCS formula. If not you end up having teams schedule 4 cupcake OOC schedules and then hoping they go undefeated in the conference.

Imagine Texas scheduling New Mexico State instead of Ohio State. We'd be a 6-0 team, in the Big XII, and only "difficult" games would be against Nebraska and possibly Missouri if they make it to the Championship game. We'd have 1 win vs a final top 10 opponent (and that's only IF Mizzou makes it to the Big XII championship undefeated). We'd be West Virginia. I dont want to be the team that gets to the NC game because they didnt play anybody.

Also, as far as the Miami year fiasco goes, they need to shut up. Miami's ONE loss was to Washington who also only had ONE loss that year. But you don't hear anybody saying, "Hey, we're Washington....we beat Miami, who beat FSU so we should've played in the NC game". Goes back to my argument, "you lose one game, you need to sit down and shut up and leave your destiny in the hands of the voters". Point is, they lost and OU still beat a really good FSU team in 2000. An FSU team that 'deserved' a #2 BCS ranking. Why, because FSU's Strength of Schedule was more difficult than Miami's.....apparently.

Of course you can't predict how good your conference will be, or how good an OOC team will be. But you know Middle Tennessee state is never gonna be any good, so try to schedule a team from a BCS conference instead of the Mountain West. My point is, if you schedule teams like Arkansas, Ohio State, or Florida (years in advance, which is usually 3 or 4 at the most) you have a much better chance at getting more respect from pollsters and computers than if you schedule Utah State, TCU, or Fresno State. Of course you have to give small schools a chance every now and then, but not just to have gauranteed W's.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Good Points

Hornbone makes good points: you cannot control the quality of your conference in a given year, nor the quality of opponents scheduled years in advance.

However, as noted above, I think the consequences of NOT including strength of schedule has a far worse impact on college football. Even Mack Brown said after the tOSU loss that he would be reluctant to schedule excellent out of conference opponents because the risks exceed the rewards. That position is disappointing because it removes so much excitement from the season, particularly in the first month.

My view is that a four team playoff is similar to Churchill's view of democracy, "the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

by Allaha on Oct 12, 2006 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions

thanks for the props

I agree that the consequences would be worse, but it's still hard to control. Some years you might just get screwed. So every team that happens to will be mad on the particular year, kind of like when teams get bumped out of the BCS.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions

balancing

Again you make good points, but the purpose of the four team playoff is to build in a hedge to protect excellent teams that through no fault of their own had comparatively weak schedules.

Please consider the following:

it is very unlikely that a team ranked 5 or lower has a legitimate claim to the MNC
if the playoff is a complement to the existing bowl structure, it guarantees that even teams with a weak regular season schedule will have a win against a good bowl opponent
perhaps (but I admit I am unsure) the uncertainty regarding the likely future quality of an opponent will motivate teams to schedule more than one historically strong OOC opponent in an effort to ensure they have at least one good win. . . . This motivation will likely apply more to teams in historically weak conferences, as teams in traditionally strong conferences can be reasonably confident that at least one conference team will be strong and/or the aggregate of conference opponents will be sufficiently good. (Although the Big 12 is down this year, wins over OU, Nebraska, and (maybe) Tech still are reasonably impressive.)
The current scheme, which makes it very possible for an undefeated Louisville or W.Va. (with at most one quality win) to play for the MNC instead of a once defeated UT, Tenn, FL, USC, Cal, tOSU, Mich. etc. is obscene.

No system is perfect, but I think a four team playoff provides the best opportunity for determining the best team.

by Allaha on Oct 12, 2006 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions

I get it

I like this idea. Keep the bowl system and have a 4 team playoff. Sounds good. I wish it could be agreed upon by the school presidents, but I doubt it.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Ok...

To play devils Advocate to my own arguments above, lets look at this from an economic standpoint. There is far less parity in college football than college basketball, partially because of the cost of running a big-time program and getting 25 good recruits every year, but also partially because the NCAA tournament introduces us to teams like Gonzaga, which helps their recruiting and thus their income as well.

What would be the economic impact on college football in general (and the Universities in particular), if we had a tournament that spread the attention to more develpoing programs like, say, Boston College? Would that help or hurt the bottom line in the long run?

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 3:26 PM CDT reply actions

one thing that has helped out with this

is the tuesday through friday night games. I mean, if I ever see Texas plan a non-bowl game on any day other than a Saturday, I'll pitch a hissy fit, but it's a great way for smaller programs to get on national television and a great way to help their recruiting.

It's slightly off topic, sort of, but I think the existence of these games helps to mitigate the need for exposure for smaller programs in a tournament.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions

I definitely think that...

Thursday and Friday night games have lead to more money for smaller schools, and so has the advent of satellite television. Most schools can now tell players they will be on national tv.

I'm wondering if the money grows bigger with more good teams, or does it grow bigger only for college football in general, and not for the particular schools. I think Texas loses money in the long run, because we're one of the elite 10 programs now, and we get tons of money for it. With more parity, we likely lose some income from merchandise as well as season ticket sales during the down periods that enevitably come with more parity.

If Texas and Florida USC lose more of their share, then we could have a difference not only in format, with a playoff, but in the poilitics and the culture of big time schools. Perhaps that is actually an argument for the fairness of a playoff system. The fairness lies not in the tournament itself, but in how the tournament will restructure the college football landscape to prevent th bigger teams from reloading so easily.

Any thoughts?

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions

agreed

I think with more parity, the money gets spread around more and, even if there's more to go around, Texas doesn't get as much. Which is probably more fair for the college football structure generally. And yes, the playoff would help that parity happen.

The question becomes whether a) parity is good for college football, and b) if so, is the method for determining the national champion the best mechanism for promoting parity?

As to (a), I'm not sure I have an answer that I really believe in. I'm just not sure. We can debate that too. But as to (b), I say emphatically no. Find some other way to promote parity if we decide that's what we want to do. But the method for determining the champion should be constructed ONLY on the best way to do just that.

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions

hmm

Id say anyone's answer to question a), is likely to depend on what school they've gone to. ITs hard to be objective when Texas has everything to lose.

You make a great point about question B) though.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I am not sure of the spread of the money

But the NCAA is leaving a ton of money on the table right now by not having a playoff. The ad revenues from the games leading up to the NC would be much greater than the revenues generated by the second and third teer bowls.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions

probably true

but remember that the 7 games in an 8-team tournament are basically just replacing the BCS games and a couple of new years day bowls, not the Independence Bowl. Arguably, if you separate the best teams from the regular bowl system, then the interest in the other bowls will be even less (comparable to that of the NIT).

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Interjection

This is a terrific thread. Great points from every direction. Please keep it up.

by Peter Bean on Oct 12, 2006 3:28 PM CDT reply actions

and another question

What if we had a tournament, so we could play a team like Boston College or a really good team like tOSU or whoever, and because we knew the tournament was coming up, the one loss wouldn't hurt as bad.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 3:30 PM CDT reply actions

tournament?

What type of tourney? I've never heard of a football tourney that wasnt a playoff. I've never played in one either. Not in pop-warner, YMCA, Middle School, high school...there's no tourney in division III, II, I or the NFL...none in NFL Europe either.

Matter of fact, the only time i've ever played in an extended tourney was flag football. 4 games in 4 days hurts in flag football too, let alone Div I NCAA. I dont ever see some type of Maui Invitational in college football.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions

yeah, playoff

I'm saying, if we had a playoff system, some have been saying the interest in the regular season would be lessened. But what if we played better teams? What if we played tOSU and Miami and Notre Dame? And if we lost some of those big games it wouldn't hurt us as much because we would still make the playoffs. So would there still be interest in the regular season, because you get to see big time schools play each other?

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions

no such thing

There's no such thing as a moral loss, a good loss, or a loss that doesnt hurt. This ideal that it's okay to lose is the rallying cry of ....well losers. My point all along is that in college football, it's not okay to lose.

We are fans of the University of Texas Longhorns, because we expect and accept only excellence. Sure we accept losses with as much class as you could, but the fact that we are so passionate and proud is what keeps our University among the elite.

I really think I got completely off subject with that last comment and really has nothing to do with my real argument, but I felt it should be left in.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 4:38 PM CDT reply actions

save the moral victories for the aggies

That's what you're saying, right? I totally agree. I'm just saying that having a harder schedule might be as damning if you have a playoff coming up rather than our current system. This would be more like the current NCAA basketball system.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions

might [not] be as damning. oops.

by hornbone on Oct 12, 2006 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions

'zactly

I think if the NCAA goes to a 4-team playoff, they need to add the Quality of Win (QW) bonus back into the mix. If not, nobody will ever schedule difficult OOC schedules because there's no reward for doing so.

As long as an undefeated or 1-loss season virtually secures a playoff spot, there's no reward for scheduling difficult OOC games.

The only way to counter that is to reward teams who have beaten any of the top 10 (or even 15) BCS teams with a bonus. Add extra points for QW bonus for teams who schedule and beat top opponents.

This will leave the West Virginia's of the world out of the mix. (btw- i have nothing against WVU, but i believe they couldve scheduled tougher OOC opponents since they are in the Big (l)east. They're are basically playing Louisville and a bunch of Middle Tennessee State's. (Louisville is doing the same so who knows what their record would be like if they played another top 25 team).

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 12, 2006 4:59 PM CDT reply actions