Should the NCAA convert from a Bowl System to a Playoff System?

[renaissance]

ACW, I agree with you on the playoff thing, but if you keep bringing up your GMU basketball argument I'm gonna start going Slacky on you

[Larry]

I like the idea of a playoff, but I'd only have 4 teams in it.

What I'd do is, after the conference championship games, have four teams play each other two weeks later. (IMO, the two week break would allow more pregame hype, and would allow the teams to be better rested and better prepared for the playoff game.)

Winners would play each other two weeks after that.

[isle-hawg]

I like the idea of a playoff, but I'd only have 4 teams in it.

What I'd do is, after the conference championship games, have four teams play each other two weeks later. (IMO, the two week break would allow more pregame hype, and would allow the teams to be better rested and better prepared for the playoff game.)

Winners would play each other two weeks after that.

Would you like to see only 4 NFL teams make the playoffs also? If not what is the difference to you?

[Larry]

Would you like to see only 4 NFL teams make the playoffs also? If not what is the difference to you?

1) The NFL has parity. As the NYG recently demonstrated, the sixth-best team in the NFC has a shot at running the table.

But look, say, at the NCAA basketball tourney. How many Final Four teams weren't ranked #8 or better, when the tournament was seeded in the first place.

Or, back to football: When was the last time you saw a legitimate argument that some team that was ranked #5 or lower was really the best team in the nation?

2) NFL players are paid. College athletes (supposedly) aren't. I do think that there's a legitimate interest in minimizing the number of games these volunteers are subjected to.

And, like I said. I think the games will be better (more competitive. More fun to watch) if the teams had two weeks to get ready.

[Ron78]

But look, say, at the NCAA basketball tourney. How many Final Four teams weren't ranked #8 or better, when the tournament was seeded in the first place.

I remember when my alma mater Southern Illinois University (a smaller program) was one win away from playing Maryland in the Final Four. The point is inclusion to give these smaller programs a shot at competing and an opportunity to earn additional revenue.

[Larry]

I remember when my alma mater Southern Illinois University (a smaller program) was one win away from playing Maryland in the Final Four. The point is inclusion to give these smaller programs a shot at competing and an opportunity to earn additional revenue.

Which is an excellent reason to have other "lesser" bowl games.

It's not a reason to have a 64-team championship playoff.

[mjah]

We already have a college football playoff. The only problem with it is the fact that it consists of only 2 teams and 1 game -- which is pretty stupid because the Rube Goldberg BCS rankings simply aren't accurate enough to narrow the field down to just 2 teams. There are great examples of the controversy illustrating this fact, as it happens regularly. BcS fans claim that with a playoff, the current controversy surrounding who's #2 vs. who's #3 would just turn into the same controversy over, say, who's #8 vs. who's #9. Which is silly when you think about it, as the "controversy" over that wouldn't be nearly the same magnitude.

But just to make sure this "problem" becomes a non-issue, there's a pretty simple and effective way to think about the playoff-size question: how many teams must be in the playoff pool to guarantee that the eventual champion -- the one team capable of running the table, given the opportunity -- will be in the mix 95% of the time?

That's the question you need to answer.

In college basketball, for instance, the answer to that question is 32. And you can see that by looking at the lowest seed (#8) to win the National Championship since 1975, when they first had 32 teams in the mix. Based on what we know about championship results over the past 35 years or so, there's a strong argument that you would only need to have 32 teams in March Madness to guarantee that the table-running winner was there virtually all the time.

So why do they have 65 teams in the mix instead? "Inclusiveness." It's about a lot of things, but it's really not about the realistic likelihood of the 65th best team in the nation winning it all.

College football seems to take the opposite tack and favor a postseason that favors "exclusiveness" in the championship hunt instead. You earn your way in to a tremendous degree by way of your regular-season play. And that's fine, as long as you don't hurt the sport's credibility with your vaunted exclusiveness -- as is happening now, with only 2 teams in the championship playoff.

So what's the right number for 1-A football? It obviously isn't 2. It might be 4, and most years that's probably enough. It might be 8, as once every 10 years I bet you'd find that 6th or 7th best team going all the way. It might be 12 or 16. Nobody knows! The current system refuses to do the experiment and find the answer -- yet that's the only way to get the answer and make the postseason credible. A good start for 1-A football would be to have a 4-team playoff and see how often the lowest seed wins it over the period of 10-15 years. If it's < 3 times, then 4 teams is probably the answer. If it's > 4 times, then thank God you did the experiment -- because you probably need 6 teams in your playoff to guarantee that the team that is capable of running the table virtually always has the opportunity to do so.

I don't ever buy this idea that a respectable playoff postseason would somehow make the regular season less important. It's pretty obvious to me that a 4-8 team playoff would do exactly the opposite. After all, for every team that makes a genuine run at a perfect season in the current system, there are 2-3 which drop one game or get a couple of unlucky bounces here or there, and now have almost zero shot at the championship. Losing one mid-to-late game is a pretty ridiculous reason to anticipate being completely shut out of the postseason months later -- yet very often these teams are. And any Florida fan of the past 10 years (or any fan of a team which has seen both sides of it) can tell you that the season just isn't the same after you know you won't be in the 2-team playoff. The excitement is taken down a notch for the entire duration of the season.

Giving these many very good teams something bigger than a dead-end bowl to play for will generate far more overall excitement during the regular season, not less. You still get your big games, you still get your bragging rights, you still get your tradition, you still get your "pageantry." What you don't get is a make-believe system funneling 120 football teams down to 2 before even a single postseason game is played.

Unlike virtually every other level of every other major sport in the USA, Division 1-A football is not a league so much as a loose confederacy of "have" leagues and "have-not" leagues, tied together by complex bowl invitation agreements and a pact to share precious revenue in a way that's compatible with those agreements. That wouldn't be such a problem if not for three things: football is an extremely expensive program to run, emphasizing the distance between "have" and "have-not"; the neurotic level of importance of a perfect regular season can make it notoriously difficult for a really good mid-major to schedule a big boy and vault themselves into the top of the rankings; and the championship postseason is far too tiny to weld the conferences together fairly enough to negate any show-stopping complaints about the system.

Some fans -- generally the "haves" -- like this situation because frankly, the unfairness benefits them. Huge multitudes of others -- especially the "have nots" -- hate the fact that the entire inaccurate Rube Goldberg system is constructed for the mutual benefits of six conferences to the detriment of all others.

But that playoff genie got out of the bottle in 1998 -- and now it's time to recognize that the playoff size is too small to be respectable. Be it 4 teams, 6, 8, 12, 16 -- whatever. Anything is better than the obviously wrong number of 2. It's time to figure it out and get this mess straightened up.

[Bang]

I remember when my alma mater Southern Illinois University (a smaller program) was one win away from playing Maryland in the Final Four. The point is inclusion to give these smaller programs a shot at competing and an opportunity to earn additional revenue.

I think if you pare down and streamline the conferences and make a playoff system you'd have a much better chance at having a Cinderella story. As it is now, there is absolutely no chance in hell a team that is not "pre-ranked" high enough is going to make it, no way no how, the BCS freezes out schools, no question about it.

Preseason rankings,, such an afront to the very ideal of sports anyway. Really, Because a bunch of sportswriters missed the boat on TCU or Boise St and didn't rank them high enough in JULY, they pay the price for that? Coaches polls are even worse. Who is the coach out there that has time to scout every team in the top ten every week and make an informed decision? None of them, that's who. They rank the teams they play high so they can get a favorable win when they beat them.

So by streamlining and consolidating, jettisoning the Temples and the Rices and the Louisiana Monroes from Division 1 and starting everyone at 0-0... then you have a real chance for some great stories. You could probably create a very good 48 team league. Divide it among the conferences as is sensible, keeping rivalries together like they did when they realigned the NFL.

The teams that get cut, hell form their own league. It's not like they'd be hurting for fans . If division 2 can't absorb them, create a division 1X or whatever and assign whatever bowls don't make the main playoff system to them.

I never understand when people tell me the money is what it's about.. I get it that the big schools don't want to give up the guarantees of money they get for being invited to big bowls.. but damn, if the games meant something, everyone would watch EVERY bowl. They would CLEAN UP financially.. the schools, the NCAA... everyone but the players, of course. But even they'd get more exposure and more opportunity to cash in on their talent.

~Bang

[isle-hawg]

Which is an excellent reason to have other "lesser" bowl games.

It's not a reason to have a 64-team championship playoff.

Why does it have to be either or? Have a legitimate playoff and keep all the bull**** ****y bowls to boot! It seems to always be posted as an either or. There is currently only one post season game that matters and for DIV 1 it is not even called a bowl.

Why not keep the playoffs in neutral sites call them "bowls" like Rose/Sugar/Orange and Cotton" AND keep the ALL important "who gives a **** no name bowls" at the same time??? The football version of the NIT? Which like it or not is what the above mentioned "premier" bowls are now.....

[Ron78]

Which is an excellent reason to have other "lesser" bowl games.

It's not a reason to have a 64-team championship playoff.

The "lesser" bowl games are worth very little from a revenue standpoint. A lot more people would be interested in seeing Florida beat up on Southern Illinois in a playoff game than see Southern Illinois play South Dakota State in some meaningless bowl game. I like the idea of a 32 team tournament.

[ixcuincle]

Should but won't

On a related note FCS does it right. I saw on the broadcast that they were adding another round to the FCS playoffs next year. So that's 5 weeks of football. And as I always say whenever this topic comes up, the FCS students have no problem with taking finals during this time, so why should major schools have that issue too? There is no conceivable reason why playoffs are omitted from NCAA, the only valid excuse is the devaluation of the regular season. And if the regular season isn't devalued by a playoff, the regular season therefore should best resemble a playoff, and what playoff do you know that allows teams to beat up on cupcakes that have no chance at postseason play? Therefore if the current system of the regular season is truly "College Football's Playoffs" then teams should schedule as difficult a schedule as possible and schedule outside their conference, something I have repeatedly criticized the SEC and Florida in particular for shying away from.

"But it doesn't matter, they're champions. They don't need to test themselves outside conference."

Yes they do. Just because you're a champ doesn't mean you can schedule ****ty cupcakes.

In conclusion **** NCAA football non-playoff system

[ixcuincle]

PS Jim Delaney is the arse who's responsible for the lack of a playoff system and if you want to point fingers point fingers at that bully

[mjah]

Current vote is 37-3 in favor of a playoff.

(Meaning, one assumes, a playoff larger than the existing 2-team version.)

[Fergasun]

I think the better solution is to merge the WAC and Mountain west conferences into a 3-tiered super conference with 6 teams in each tier who play against each other. You can probably do the same thing with the MAC, Sun Belt or other conferences. Unless there is some financial reason (such as travel distances) those conferences object, in that case they get no sympathy from anyone.

Then implement the BCS+1 (4-team playoff).

[SkinsBry]

I've been in favor of a playoff system for some time now. I don't feel that 16 spots are enough, either 32 or 24 with the top 8 getting a first round bye. There are 11 1-A conferences, so the conference champs all get a spot and then how they're ranked would fill out the rest of the spots.

[Hubbs]

Weird. I had no idea that all regular season games that don't affect national championship possibilities are meaningless. Somebody should tell all the fans at those games to go home.

[Ron78]

I've been in favor of a playoff system for some time now. I don't feel that 16 spots are enough, either 32 or 24 with the top 8 getting a first round bye. There are 11 1-A conferences, so the conference champs all get a spot and then how they're ranked would fill out the rest of the spots.

I absolutely agree. A 16 game (32 team) tournament is the only way to beat out the combined revenue generated by all of the bowl games. An 8 game (16 team) tournament probably would not be enough.

[Hubbs]

I absolutely agree. A 16 game (32 team) tournament is the only way to beat out the combined revenue generated by all of the bowl games. An 8 game (16 team) tournament probably would not be enough.

...except you could still have all the bowl games for teams that aren't in the playoffs. Nobody would stop it. The bowl committees could feel free to go nuts with their MPC Computers Bowls and their San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowls, just like they do now.

[HoustonSkin]

There have already been some responses that agree with my opinion, which is:

There should be a 16 team palyoff, which results in a total of 15 playoff games. Each game could be a bowl game. The dollars associated with each bowl game would increase per round. It just seems to me that there would actually be much more money generated with a playoff system.

Does an Alabama-Florida regular season game lose some meaning? Yes, but the overall benefits far outweigh the negatives.

If the 13-0 Colts and 13-0 Saints had happened to meet this week, would that game have been meaningless? Hell no. If it was flexed to primetime, it would have had a huge audience.

[Elessar78]

The issue is money. Not if it will be there if we go to a playoff system, but how will it be divided. What if 6 SEC teams make it, do they get the lions share of the money? Or does every "1-A" school get an equal cut (which to me wouldn't be fair)?

[Ron78]

The issue is money. Not if it will be there if we go to a playoff system, but how will it be divided. What if 6 SEC teams make it, do they get the lions share of the money? Or does every "1-A" school get an equal cut (which to me wouldn't be fair)?

Obviously, the further you go in the tournament, the more revenue you generate for your school. A tournament would simply create an "equal opportunity" situation.