How to Create the College Football Playoff
With a majority of college football fans clamoring for a college football playoff over the last several years, many proposals have been brought forth. They have ranged from a simple "plus-one" game, to a 16-team playoff involving automatic bids from all eleven Division 1 conferences. BCS proponents claim the need for the integrity of the regular season. Playoff proponents cite the need for fairness in determining a champion. Why not have both? The eight-team playoff produces a format that will take both into account, and make it a practical change for the NCAA and its BCS bowls to make. Firstly, we'll keep the bowl season intact as it is.
Bowl Season
Bowl games will take place, with continued corporate sponsorship if they desire, in late December, with a few in early January. College football has had a long tradition of bowl games and there is no such recommendation to do away with this change.
The Eight-Team Playoff Selection
We will take the six BCS conferences' champions, to be determined by those respective conferences however way they wish, to take six of the eight automatic bowl bids. It is unlikely that we can take away the automatic bid to a BCS bowl game for a Big 6 conference, and would likely result in controversy (in this year's case: the ACC and Big East). Then, an automatic bid will be awarded to the highest ranked team in the BCS rankings that is part of a mid-major conference, or is Notre Dame. Finally, the last bid is an at-large bid, given to the highest-ranked team in the BCS rankings that did not win their conference or get the automatic mid-major bid. While politicking remains, it is now much less likely to result in a school getting snubbed. The best mid-major in the country will now have a chance to play for a championship. In this year's case, the teams would be: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #5 USC, #6 Utah, #8 Penn State, #12 Cincinnati, and #19 Virginia Tech. While simply taking the top 8 teams seems more fair than simply taking automatic bids from weaker conferences, that proposal faces difficulty in being accepted because it does not allow BCS bowls to keep their matchups, and BCS proponents believe it is necessary to keep the regular season intact.
Playoffs, 1st Round:
The 1st round will be held on the same dates as the current BCS bowl matchups - at the beginning of January. The BCS bowls can continue to choose their matchups in their usual order, provided they choose within those eight teams previously mentioned. Examples of these playoffs in action:
2008:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma (Big-12 champion) vs. #6 Utah (Mid-major at-large)
Rose Bowl: #5 USC (Pac-10 champion) vs. #8 Penn State (Big-10 champion)
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida (SEC champion) vs. #3 Texas (At-large)
Orange Bowl: #12 Cincinnati vs. #19 Virginia Tech
No playoffs: #4 Alabama, #10 Ohio State
2007:
Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State (Big-10 champion) vs. #7 USC (Pac-10 champion)
Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU (SEC champion) vs. #10 Hawaii (Mid-major at-large)
Orange Bowl: #3 Virginia Tech (ACC champion) vs. #9 West Virginia (Big East champion)
Fiesta Bowl: #4 Oklahoma (Big-12 champion) vs. #5 Georgia (At-large)
Playoffs, Later Rounds:
The 2nd round will take place in the 2nd week of January, and there will be a reseeding of teams, based on rankings prior to the playoffs. Hence, teams that are higher ranked after having a better regular season still benefit. The best team will play the worst, in terms of rankings. The other two winners will play each other as well. They will each play at a BCS bowl venue again, with the choices being of those BCS bowls that do not host the title game. In this year's case, two of the following three BCS bowls will host a 2nd BCS game: Fiesta Bowl, the Rose Bowl, and the Sugar Bowl. They will get to pick the de facto 1 vs. 4 matchup, or the 2 vs. 3 matchup. The Orange Bowl hosts the championship game this year. While one BCS bowl only hosts one game, this will alternate every year so every three of four years, the BCS bowls get more than their share of revenue that they get now. The championship game will be held one week later, completing an eight-team playoff that is more fair and will generate more revenue for college football than ever before, yet is a plan the BCS bowls can accept.
FAQ:
The BCS preserves the excitement and intensity of the college football season.
This new BCS playoff system keeps it without teams getting snubbed. Conference regular season games matter more than ever, and out-of-conference games become important tests in preparation for conference play. Since only eight teams make the playoffs, every regular season game still counts. The BCS rankings still matter in determining two playoff spots as well as seeding in the playoffs, so style points still matter.
The out-of-conference games during the regular season become less important as conference championships are emphasized.
There will be more early season out-of-conference games between top mid-major and major teams, as the race for the playoffs heats up in mid-major conferences from the get go. Since there are two at-large spots, every regular season game for teams that barely fall short of a conference championship in a major conference still matter, as BCS pollsters will determine who gets in. Pollsters get to keep their jobs, even if they have somewhat less power than they do now. In the case of the Big 12 South, pollsters can still affect the outcome of the automatic bid as the champion is selected through BCS ranking. Additionally, the good teams who just want to win their major conference's automatic bid can schedule good out-of-conference teams to be adequately prepared for conference play, as all they have to do is win their conference. Additionally, the TV networks will have more high-profile games to show, due to early nonconference showdowns and the end-of-the year playoffs.
The college football season now extends two more weeks, and now more teams end the season with losses.
Yes, but this only applies to four other teams. Only three more teams will lose in the postseason - those who lose in the 2nd round and the championship game.
I represent Ohio State or Alabama and we deserve to be part of these BCS playoffs.
To preserve the regular season, we can't have either team in the BCS playoffs. Win your conference, or be the best at-large team in the country. Alabama has a good gripe, but winning your major conference will always get you into the BCS playoffs under this system.
The BCS bowls and conference presidents won't agree to this system.
I find it hard to believe they won't be persuaded to agree to this. Sure, the 1st round games lose a bit of importance. However, the BCS bowls will generate more revenue off of two games most years, than their usual one game a year. Plus, they can still choose their favored matchups - the Rose Bowl can retain their Pac-10 versus Big-10 matchup if they want to, provided they are the champions of both conferences. The Big Six conferences will therefore get more revenue going to their conferences. These six conferences are still free to select their conference winners no matter how they want, so this should not be a huge factor.
Why not a 4, 12, or 16-team playoff?
Four-team playoffs snub some major conferences, which means it won't pass. An "and-one" system does not solve the problem of fairness. Meanwhile a 12 or 16-team playoff opens up questions about the loss of excitement in the college football regular season, and the extended week of play makes it difficult for college administrators and presidents to accept. It would also be difficult to get the BCS bowls to agree to giving up so much power for such a playoff, as other bowls would be involved. We also need to keep the bowls intact.
Conclusion
This plan is ultimately about pragmatism, and this idea actually has a good chance of being accepted by most parts of the college football community. This is not a radical change of the system - it's one that is a reform of the current system. BCS bowls and the NCAA receive more revenue, and TV networks will have more exciting matchups. The college football season remains as exciting as it ever was because only eight teams get in. Eight teams, rather than two teams, get to play for the national championship. Mid-majors now have a legit shot at a national title. And most importantly, fans like you and me can finally enjoy a playoff that we have always wanted in college football.
Constructive criticism (and praise) towards this system is welcome. I may have neglected to consider various arguments that would make this system less than satisfactory, but I do believe that this is an effective playoff.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
My bad
The 2007 playoff list was cut off:
Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State (Big-10 champion) vs. #7 USC (Pac-10 champion)
Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU (SEC champion) vs. #10 Hawaii (Mid-major at-large)
Orange Bowl: #3 Virginia Tech (ACC champion) vs. #9 West Virginia (Big East champion)
Fiesta Bowl: #4 Oklahoma (Big-12 champion) vs. #5 Georgia (At-large)
I'm Bobby, a Bay Area Bruin.
by Yoyo on Dec 15, 2008 12:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I like this either
If you’re going to throw out the BCS, then you need to throw out the “BCS” conference concept with it.
If the objective is to determine the best team in the nation via a playoff, then you need to have the top teams play against each other. This year, neither the winner of the Big East nor of the ACC qualified as a “top team”. Should Virginia Tech get into the playoffs over, say, Boise State or Utah? I don’t think so, personally. And certainly not over Alabama. So you’d need a way to determine the top 8, 16, however many teams via some BCS-like ranking and have them play each other.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Dec 15, 2008 1:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If there's not 16 teams then it's a waste
every conference champion needs to be included in the field. What happens if two or three non-BCS conference teams go undefeated? They’re not going to get the at-large bids. Each team needs to have a way to get in the playoff simply by winning games and the way to do that is to include every conference champion. If you want to make regular season games matter more, they still will with 16 teams. This season the #1 seed would get a team like Troy in the first round. You’re playing for that matchup as opposed to the #5 seed which could get a team like Cincinnati in the first round. Plus, you bring the cinderella concept to college football for the first time. If every team cannot qualify simply by winning their 12 games, the playoff is still a fraud.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 15, 2008 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with both your sentiments
However, it is going to take some time for those who are in charge of this flawed BCS system to adjust to some smaller changes before they will accept bigger changes such as making it a playoff similar to the Division 1AA system. The people in charge appear to be very conservative, and it took them many long years to even establish a championship game in the first place. For this reason, we need to get everyone that has control over this to agree on a playoff first before we can implement a different system.
I'm Bobby, a Bay Area Bruin.
by Yoyo on Dec 15, 2008 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I like this either
I think there has to be 16 teams in the tourney.
The existing bowls can be accommodated by allowing them to “sponsor” the initial games of the play off. That is 15 games. If there are other bowls that aren’t included in the 15, let them invite whoever they want. Like the NIT. To be fair, you can rotate the bowls each year so they all get a chance to sponsor a tourney game every other year.
Then you let the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta handle the two semi finals and the final championship with each bowl rotating in each each year as the championship and then doing a quarter final game the following year.
That way the season isn’t extended beyond the current time frame, making the kids play more games which has been a concern raised.
It has to change. I just hope we see it in our life times.
by Bald Eagle on Dec 15, 2008 2:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If this big of a playoff, then the bowls go away
Plus there is way too much travel at a time of year when people don’t want to travel that much.
The NCAAs (basketball) work because at each site there are multiple schools (not just two) and they are filling a venue roughly a 1/4 of the size. And once you travel there, should your team play well, you get to see two games, not just one.
by Free the 16 on Dec 15, 2008 3:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's why most propose playing games at campus sites
until the championship or semi-final
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 15, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
But most folks seem to be pitching “but you can keep the bowls and have a playoff” line of thinking. The reality is, you can’t. It is an either/or proposition.
The only way the bowls exist is some kind of NCAA/NIT style structure where the playoff teams are the “NCAA” and the other bowls become an NIT.
by Free the 16 on Dec 18, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Why can’t you keep all the other ridiculous meaningless bowls? If there are 64 teams that currently play in bowls, I don’t see how those bowls are affected by a playoff. They’re already inconsequential.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Dec 18, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can keep the meaningless bowls
Ala the NIT, but what most are proposing is using the big bowls as playoff games to a bigger bowl. That I don’t think you can do. Asking fans to travel to a neutral site once would be fine, but three times over the winter holidays (or even into January), no way, no how.
by Free the 16 on Dec 19, 2008 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eight teams better than four better than two ...
but 16 teams would be better still. I agree with Rye that the early playoff games should be staged at on campus sites, preferably the home field of the higher seeded team. And I agree with Bald Eagle in that the season should not be extended beyond the current time frame.
Thus playoffs should begin early in December culminating in quarterfinal losers and semi-finalists playing in the January 1st BCS bowls and the championship game played on a following weekend (that is at least six days later). The BCS bowls would rotate through hosting the quarter final loser games, the semi-finals, and the championship game. First round playoff losers would become eligible for bids to other late December bowl games.
What’s not to like? :-)
by snorkeldorf on Dec 15, 2008 6:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A good idea that needs tweaking
I like: the eight-team makeup, preserving the BCS structure, making it easier to sell to the Big Powers, who really do control college football nowadays.
I don’t like: a quarterfinal that doesn’t seed 1-8. The top-ranked team should have the #1 seed, and so on.
I like: Bald Eagle’s idea of using the so-called major bowls as semifinal and final. Where is it written in stone that these four are the only acceptable sites, however? Once upon a time, the Cotton Bowl was one of the four majors.
I don’t like: the idiocy of giving Notre Dame a free ride. The Irish haven’t won a bowl game in 15 years, play a terrible schedule, and are living off a reputation that’s long since gone. They don’t even have the best Catholic program anymore—that would be Boston College, across the board.
The argument that’s always made against this system concerns academics: how long can you prolong a season without affecting class attendance for those teams that survive? I find that bogus. If there can be playoffs in every other division of football, and if basketball can extend its season into UCLA’s final exams, football can live with a few extra weeks.
Also, am I the only one who thinks there are too many bowls? That two 6-6 teams playing against one another in some obscure venue has no place in a postseason?
by Herodotus on Dec 16, 2008 5:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The too many bowls issue -
I found a solution, along with millions upon millions of others. Don’t go to the games, and don’t watch the games. Then afterwards, don’t bother to read about them. They will become the trees which fall in the forest when no one is around. I treat the bowl matchup of two mediocre teams the same way I treat rap music. I leave those games alone and they leave me alone.
Thought number 2 – If there is to be a playoff, it seems to me that we already have a model in terms of basketball. Have a selection committee, and instead of seeding 65 teams, have it seed 8 or 16 teams. Forget about BCS conferences, and computer rankings and all that. Just have some guys pick the playoff teams. Obviously, those guys should be selected from the denizens of the Bruins Nation in order to insure fairness, accuracy and total objectivity.
by Fox 71 on Dec 16, 2008 5:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your post
This is almost exactly the same format I have been talking about for the last year. The top conferences have their way of picking their champion. If you don’t win your conference oh well. Obviously they were not good enough when it counted. Alot of the time you get these coaches using politics to convince the media and other coaches why they should be in the championship game. In this format Texas and Alabama only have to go as far as their own conference to cry their sad story.
As far as having 16 teams, that is way too many games. We have to consider that these kids are increasing their chances of injury, and they don’t get paid for it (Suc excluded).
One thing that could probably be changed is having the conference with the worst record excluded, in order to make room for a conference with a better one. This would probably allow Boise St. to get a playoff spot.
by hval14 on Dec 17, 2008 8:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















