Playoff thoughts while (trying) to watch Miami - VT

by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 13, 2008 8:30 PM CST Comment 31 comments

Pete Fiutak of College Football News is actively promoting his ideal 8 team playoff scenario. He wants the 6 BCS conference champs, plus the top ranked non-BCS conference champ, plus the highest ranked at-large team. My response: NO NO NO NO NO!

This year, putting a team from either the Big East or the ACC, much less one from each, would be a complete travesty. They have less business in a playoff than the top high school team from Texas. I tried, I really did, to watch some of the Miami -Virginia Tech game tonight. Folks, this is not football. Does anyone really believe that either of these teams would be ahead of Iowa State in the Big 12 North? Well, maybe I exaggerate, but you get the idea.

If we are going to get serious about a playoff, it has to be the best 8 teams, period. This year, that does not include any teams from the Big East or ACC. Some year, it might not include any teams from another of the BCS conferences. Let the best teams in, regardless of conference affiliation.

Of course, this is intended to benefit our grandchildren, who may be alive when a college football playoff is finally implemented. I don't expect to live that long.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

if we do not give the priority to the playoff to the conference champions, what are we doing for them? anything? they no longer have a BCS bowl as those bowls would be used to play the playoffs i’d assume. where are they to go? crap bowls?

by Displaced Longhorn on Nov 13, 2008 8:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a problem with conference champs getting a benefit

but if you look at the ACC and Big East this year, why should the champions of those conferences be given priority over the MAC (for example) champ?
If there is still time, go tune in the Miami – VT game. then tell me that one of those teams belongs in a playoff.

by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 13, 2008 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is it important that we

do something, anything, for conference champions?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 13, 2008 10:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A playoff isn't happening anytime soon anyway fella's....

And if it ever does, I am pretty sure we can guarantee that the people who make it will manage to royally screw it up. My guess is they will do a “Plus 1.”

by the1austin on Nov 13, 2008 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Let’s just declare the winner of the annual Notre Dame – USC game the national champ, and be done with it.

by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 13, 2008 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

12 teams

My preference for the last few years has been a 12 team playoff. If it is insisted, you can still give the conference winners of the BCS schools an auto berth, but then there are still 6 at large bids. Top 4 teams get a bye, and you could even use the BCS for seeding purposes.

Some people say that this could add up to 4 extra games for a team. Not likely, but possible as the 9-12 seeds would have to run the table to play a 4th extra game. I would cut the reg. season back down to 11 games from 12. Or, get rid of the conference championship game and go to the everyone in one division format like the big 10 or Pac 10. Basically, my point is that for those people who think the season would be too long, there are ways to trim it down. Furthermore, there would be VERY few teams that play an excessive amount of games. (Hell, Texas played 13 games in 2005, and that was BEFORE the 12th game was approved.)

What do y’all think?

by junglerules on Nov 13, 2008 8:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Whether it is 8, 12 or 16 teams

my point is that a team should not get in just because they belong to a conference that had some political power at one point.
However many teams get in, and however it is decided, someone will be mad. The more teams in, the less chance of a legitimate contender being left out. However, the more teams in, the harder it is to make it work logistically.
I will leave it to the best minds of the next generation to determine the actual workings of a playoff. Hell, by the time we get a playoff, the ACC and the Big East may actually have a football team again. For those of alive today, all we can do is argue about it, to no real result.

by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 13, 2008 9:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

32 is too many

8 team 12 max

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Nov 13, 2008 10:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 14, 2008 12:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A stunning argument

I’m swayed by your intellectual girth. Why do you disagree?

Living vicariously through Deon Beasley

by inVINCEable on Nov 14, 2008 8:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh no!

don’t get him started…it’ll be hard to to turn him off :)

by vy til i die on Nov 14, 2008 10:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If the "argument"

is “32 is too many” then why do I need an extensive response? What is there to disagree with besides a number?

Anyways, here goes:

1) One of the entire points, for me at least, of a playoff system is inclusivity. There are a lot of fans of teams that probably could never win a championship but who could make it a couple of rounds into a large tournament. March Madness is already one of the largest phenomenons in sport in no small part because many partisans for many schools get involved. 32 is not a ridiculous fraction of the 120 someodd BCS teams (something like ~25%). That’s selective enough for me, and I’d prefer the system that is as inclusive as possible without turning into a sideshow.

2) Selection is dealt with through 32 teams as well. We already rank top 25 and can get to 32 with very little alteration to the current system of ranking teams. The same is true of 16, of course, but the larger the pool of teams participating the less likely it is that arguments, from 17th or 18th ranked teams in a 16 team playoff, that they should participate will possibly be viewed as legitimate the larger the pool. The 33rd best team in the country looks far more ridiculous arguing that they deserved to participate than did the 17th best team, than did the 9th best team, than did the 5th best team, etc. Again, if the goal is eliminate precisely those kinds of claims, let’s create a system that takes as many of those arguments away without otherwise turning the playoffs into a sideshow where everyone gets a participation trophy.

3) The larger the playoff the more current bowl games can be incorporated. I don’t even know if that’s a good thing, though.

That will do for a start.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 14, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so why don't you go watch the NFL?

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Nov 15, 2008 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I do.

So what?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 15, 2008 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes CFB just like the NFL

being that the regular season is a lot lee imortant and you don’t have to be all that good to get into a playoff. Make em work for it and make a smaller playoff.

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Nov 15, 2008 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You should change your name

to “The Fifth Dentist”

It's Mean to Ween

by Bombilla on Nov 14, 2008 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

You simply have to do something for conference champs

Preserving the best regular season and all that. Maybe we could just include a clause where the top 4 ranked conference champs (any conference) get in automatically to an 8 team playoff, or the champs of the first four conferences with representatives appearing on the rankings. Example, this year’s BCS, right now, would have the champs of the SEC, Big 12, PAC-10, and MWC securing auto-bids to the tourney, with the top four remaining teams being Texas, Florida, OU, and Penn State. I think that would be interesting, as well as fair (happens to be the top 8 teams this year). If Missouri won the Big 12 CG, for example, they’d be automatically in because the Big 12 is basically guaranteed to have one of the top ranked reps. The result would be Penn State getting dumped for Missouri (if all the rankings remained the same), so it would make CCG’s important nationally beyond “if Tech/Texas/OU loses to Missouri, USC can sneak into the NC game.”

I’m just throwing that out there. I still support BZ’s flex system in some form or another, although that’s too complicated to ever explain to the BCS Presidential committee or whatever.

by Horn Brain on Nov 14, 2008 12:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Preserving the best regular season and all that.

What happens if conference champion doesn’t have best regular season?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 14, 2008 12:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just like...

Oregon State!!!

Perhaps the most recognizable mascot in sports, and certainly the toughest looking, Bevo is a fixture

by run Bevo run on Nov 14, 2008 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The conference champs get to print T-shirts

and baseball caps proclaiming themselves the conference champs. They can hang a cool banner in their stadium. But they shouldn’t necessarily get an automatic berth in a playoff.

I can see a situation this year where a Big-12 North team could beat Tech in the championship game and win the conference. That would not that make them the best team in the Big-12…it would mean they had one really great game or Tech had a really bad one. The playoff should be the best teams in the country. I would prefer to see the top 8 from the BCS rankings,

by jimjar on Nov 14, 2008 6:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Problem with this thinking

Is that the conference championships are already viewed as a sort of playoff game. And then to day you want a playoff with the best teams that is single loss elimination is exactly what losing in the conference championship to a Missouri team would be.

Living vicariously through Deon Beasley

by inVINCEable on Nov 14, 2008 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Control your won destiny

One of the main reasons that everyone wants a national playoff is that you want teams to control their own destiny. And this must extend into conference play. Therefore the champion of each conference must be given preference over the highest ranked team of a conference. Win your own games and you’re in. Lose a game in conference and you may have to hope to be one of the highest ranked at-large teams.

No preference should be given to any particular conference (BCS), but there should be system to pick the top six conference chamions and have them go into the playoff automatically. Then there will be a few spots available for the highest ranked at-large teams. This allows a strong WAC or MWC to send their champion over a ACC or Big East champion and also allows a conference with two outstanding teams to have both of them in the playoffs.

by drycreek on Nov 14, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

So Oregon State should be given preference over USC because USC failed to control their own destiny? But Oregon State didn’t failto control its own destiny against Penn State and Stanford?

Supposing Missouri loses to Iowa State but still sneaks into the Conference championship game against Texas. So controlling your own destiny would mean beating Texas in a CCG but somehow would ignore… losing to Texas earlier in the year and losing ot Oklahoma State and losing to Iowa State?

Suppose Florida loses to Citadel and to South Carolina and to Florida State but beats Alabama in the SEC Championship? Losing to Florida is a failure to control one’s own destiny, but losing to Ole Miss, Citadel, South Carolina, and Florida State isn’t?

There are already imbedded advantages to winning conference championship games and conference championships (where htere is no game) that will favor those teams. Psychologically, winning late always helps teams more with voters than does a loss in week 2 of the season that is long forgotten. I think at least one of the stupid computers ranks victories based on what the team is ranked WHEN YOU PLAY THEM (dumb dumb dumb) and ostensibly teams in conference championship games will be ranked high. Also I think another one of the computers puts extra emphasis on something like the last 3-4 weeks of games. If Oregon State wins out, even without a better resume than USC they wil be treated very well by voters for winning so many conference games late in the year.

In other words, because there exist practical benefits to winning Conference Championships, there’s no reason to institutionalize that benefit with some hard and fast rule that guarantees at some point a less deserving team will get in front of a more deserving team. We all love to have a good laugh at Oklahoma’s misery in 2003, and criticize voters who would put them ahead of Kansas State despite losing to that team a week prior. But K-State didn’t take care of business, either, and lost to #6 Ohio State. Would a 3 loss Kansas State made for a more compelling MNC game? Maybe, maybe not, but they wouldn’t have deserved it.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 14, 2008 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

because I support a 32 team playoff I don’t ever think this would be a problem. The conference champion of all the major BCS conferences will almost invariably be one of the top 32 teams in the country.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 14, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps that would be cool

Unfortunately, I don’t see how we can realistically do something like that. We have to think about the physical health of the players as well, who already find the current season grueling. Perhaps it is okay to expect as much from professionals, who are rewarded handsomely, but even then it is very taxing on their bodies. These are just college kids.

by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 14, 2008 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Really? 32?

That adds what…5 weeks to the year? That’s too much and will totally eliminate the bowls.

I like a 6 team playoff with teams #1 and #2 getting a bye. Adds only three weeks and limits teams. Then, you do have incentive. I would consider limiting it to conference champs only. Yeah, that leaves a few really good teams out of the mix, but in my mind if you can’t win your conference, you shouldn’t have the opportunity to play for the national title in football.

by Tech92 on Nov 14, 2008 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You make up time

by eliminating non-conference games, as many as you need to make it work. Take out 3, extend the season one more game, and you’ve got it. For many teams, Pac-10 and Big 10 for instance, it would amount to exactly one more game than they currently play… kind of like if they had a Conference Championship. Some people think they should already.

For many this would be a two birds one stone fix. CFB fans are highly critical of their team’s insistence on scheduling weak Non-Conference opponents, except for a small contingent that defends the practice exclusively in terms of end results (namely, they don’t mind a weak non-con schedule so long as it yields them the results they want, ie: No risk).

You and I have already discussed the failed reasoning of “if you can’t win your conference…” If you haven’t been convinced by now of why that is a bogus position, there isn’t anything I’m going to say to compel you otherwise.

So, we agree to disagree.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Nov 15, 2008 1:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If poking a wasp's nest with a stick isn't exciting enough for you

just post something about the BCS or a playoff.

By the way, I like drycreek’s idea. If, for example, you have an 8 team playoff, why not let the top 6 conference champs in? This sounds so much better to me than fixing the 6 conferences in stone. After all, if performance years ago is what counts, why not let Army and Notre Dame in each year? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. Please don’t answer that.

by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 14, 2008 3:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs