College Football: School Presidents talk Playoffs

[CBLCardinals]

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs...0362/-1/sports

[magnet]

dunno if it will go through, but I'm glad they are trying!

[Erik W.]

They can get rid of the stupid clock-starting-on-possession-change rule, too. Way too CFLesque for my taste.

[Cooleyvol]

Dear God........................please!

[Tribe Fan 24]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Dear God........................please!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

[Skipaway]

His points are all pretty weak though.

[CMH]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

His points are all pretty weak though.

I have to ask why.

He pretty much debunked the one myth that students will miss class time. He mentioned how much revenue will be made. The NCAA will love that. He also mentioned how another Ohio State-Michigan Game is not what most people want and that if Florida gets screwed out of the game it'll be another reason to push for the playoffs.

I think those are solid points. It backs up everything playoff pushers have been saying for years.

[rudel.dietrich]

This will do no good

I forsee in a few years arguments poping up about who should be the 8 or 16 teams to make it into the playoffs.

Should a one win Big East team make it in over a 2 loss SEC team?
etc


The fundanmental problem in college football is you have less than 14 games to determine who is the best team in the land.

Compared to every other sport that is a tiny amount of games.
In college basketball you have a ~35 game regular season and then 64 teams get asked to go to the playoffs.
You have a NIT for teams that fall short.

Will college football have a NIT tournement?

In college baseball you have a 40 game regular season
Then conference playoffs
Then regionals
Then super regionals
Then the CWS

Some teams end up playing 60 games, which gives you a really good idea if they are worthy of being called the best team.


So in short, you have too few games and too limited of a scope to truely get rid of all the problems in college football.

What about teams who start outside the top 25 and then go undefeated or have great seasons and lose a game?
They do not have enough time and games to make it into a 8 teams or 16 team playoff.
How about teams in the 5-10 ranking range who lose in the last week of the season.

Would they be bumped out of the playoffs?
Are we going to even use poll rankings?
If not, how are we to determine between the 20 something 1 loss teams?
Will strength of scedule still be used?


People think the playoff system will be the saviour of the sport.
It won't be
You are taking 119 teams and trying to get the best 8-16 of them in the course of 12-13 games.
It is just not possible to pick between the best fringe teams with that few of games.
Problems in the sport run alot deeper than simply not having a playoff.

[Cooleyvol]

He made some points (using existing bowls) that I've made since day 1. It CAN be done without losing class time.

[CMH]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Problems in the sport run alot deeper than simply not having a playoff.

Those same problems occur in all formats of football. The NFL suffers from the same fate as teams face a one-and-done scenario in the playoffs. Sometimes, the best team in the season doesn't win the playoffs.

You're also using the argument that every one-loss team is equal. That's far from the truth. There are rankings for a reason. Teams are ranked 1-25 to show which team is better in the eyes of voters.

It also needs to realized that teams like Boise State, for example, shouldn't get a shot at this just because they finish undefeated. The reason Michigan (even with one loss) is considered a better choice to play for the NC instead of an undefeated Boise State is because Michigan has been winning college football games over a longer period of time and most importantly over a recent period of time.

Rutgers is another example of a school that needs to establish the recognition of being a National contender over years of bullying teams. Look at every team in the top 8. Each one has been very good for a number of years up to this point.

So, while I can see what you are saying about one-loss teams, I have to disagree that it'll be difficult to see the difference. I doubt a majority of fans think a one-loss Rutgers team is as good as a 2-loss LSU team.

I look at the top 8 teams in the AP Poll and number 8/9 (we do have a situation with Oklahoma and Arkansas both tied at 8) is much better than number 10. Auburn and Notre Dame played their way out of NC contention.

Of course, I still think it should only be four teams in the playoffs anyway. Under that format we'd have Ohio State, USC, Michigan, and Florida. I really think that most college football fans will agree that those are the four most deserving teams to play for the championship.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

I have to ask why.

He pretty much debunked the one myth that students will miss class time. He mentioned how much revenue will be made. The NCAA will love that. He also mentioned how another Ohio State-Michigan Game is not what most people want and that if Florida gets screwed out of the game it'll be another reason to push for the playoffs.

I think those are solid points. It backs up everything playoff pushers have been saying for years.

Debunk? He claimed there wouldn't be missed time, but obviously there would need to be more games played. No explanation on his part. Also he used shaky terms while avoiding comparing apple to apple. For example, it's pointless claiming the total class time missed of a football playoff would only be similar to the time missed due to a basketball playoff, since what's important is total time missed.

Also his additional revenue comment is simply speculation. The truth is with a playoff system, all money would go to the playoff games, and all those additional bowls would lose their appeal. It's more about a re-distribution of wealth, not exactly wealth generating.

The "no Ohio-Michigan rematch" thing is pretty much just a biased opinion. At this moment, most of the country want to see USC, while most of the Big-10 area other than Ohio want to see Michigan, and the SEC area want to see Florida. It's really sad trying to change the system simply because the result doesn't go your way.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

What about teams who start outside the top 25 and then go undefeated or have great seasons and lose a game?
They do not have enough time and games to make it into a 8 teams or 16 team playoff.

Teams who started outside the top 25 this season: Arkansas, Wisconsin, Rutgers, Boston College, Boise State, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest.

They all had enough time and games to make it into a playoff; certainly a 16-team playoff.

How about teams in the 5-10 ranking range who lose in the last week of the season.

Would they be bumped out of the playoffs?

Yes, teams ranked around 8-10 who lose in the last week of the season could very well be bumped out of the playoffs. That's how it works in just about all sports, with the final playoff berths not decided until the final week/day. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Lucas718]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Also his additional revenue comment is simply speculation. The truth is with a playoff system, all money would go to the playoff games, and all those additional bowls would lose their appeal. It's more about a re-distribution of wealth, not exactly wealth generating.

Outside of the current BCS bowls, aren't the other bowls essentially just meaningless exhibitions anyway? What is the current appeal of the Independence bowl, or the Outback bowl ?

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by Lucas718

Outside of the current BCS bowls, aren't the other bowls essentially just meaningless exhibitions anyway? What is the current appeal of the Independence bowl, or the Outback bowl ?

For us? Not a whole lot. For the schools and cities involved? Cash, baby.

[Lucas718]

Originally Posted by Azamien

For us? Not a whole lot. For the schools and cities involved? Cash, baby.

Right, so why would a 4 team playoff change that?

[Raderick]

You have a 16-team playoff. With this happening, all conferences need to have a championship game, and the winners of those games get an automatic bid into the playoffs. You would still have the BCS system in place, so you would add the five best teams that didn't win their conference in the tournament, and then seed by win-loss and then strength of schedule.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by Lucas718

Right, so why would a 4 team playoff change that?

I see what you're saying, and it's a very good point.

[mgom27]

I'm all for a March Madness kind of type of thing.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by mgom27

I'm all for a March Madness kind of type of thing.

I agree.

With the exact same schedule, too.

[KILLERBS24]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

It also needs to realized that teams like Boise State, for example, shouldn't get a shot at this just because they finish undefeated. The reason Michigan (even with one loss) is considered a better choice to play for the NC instead of an undefeated Boise State is because Michigan has been winning college football games over a longer period of time and most importantly over a recent period of time.

Rutgers is another example of a school that needs to establish the recognition of being a National contender over years of bullying teams. Look at every team in the top 8. Each one has been very good for a number of years up to this point.

No you just explained the problem with the system. Some people vote teams because of who they are and what they did 50 years ago(Notre Dame). Its about who is the best team THIS season, not who is the all time better program. People would vote Michigan over Boise not because Michigan has won more games in the past, but because if the two teams played most people agree Michigan would win. And to suggest a team doesn't deserve a shot unless they "bully" teams for years is ridiculous, Typical big conference(SEC) argument.