PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Football Playoff Ideas



UTEopia
12-13-2013, 07:56 PM
12 Team Football Playoff

I could really accept an 8 team playoff, but I think this does the same thing and gets 4 more teams in the mix.


Highest rated 4 champions from AQ conferences with a championship game receive a bye into final 8. Big 12 has no championship game currently.


At-Large teams are up to two from the non-AQ who finish at least in top 14 of the final standings.


At large play-in begin Friday/Saturday second weekend of December at home of highest seeded teams. No more than 3 teams from any single conference although conferences could set up standards for determining top 3 teams.


ACC - Florida St. (1) would host Oregon at Orange Bowl
SEC - Auburn (2) would host Ohio St. at Sugar Bowl
Big 10 - Michigan St. (3) would host Baylor at Rose Bowl as highest rated of PAC 12/Big 10
PAC 12 - Stanford (4) would host Alabama at Fiesta Bowl


At-Large
1. Alabama 8. UCF (Non-AQ in top 16)
2. Baylor 7. Clemson
3. Ohio St. 6 - Oklahoma
4. Missouri 5 - Oregon (South Carolina would be replaced by Clemson as 4th team from SEC)


*Assume Alabama, Baylor, Ohio St. and Oregon win.


All Games would be played on Jan. 1.


ACC - Florida St. (1) would host Oregon at Orange Bowl
SEC - Auburn (2) would host Ohio St. at Sugar Bowl
Big 10 - Michigan St. (3) would host Baylor at Rose Bowl as highest rated of PAC 12/Big 10
PAC 12 - Stanford (4) would host Alabama at Fiesta Bowl

GarthUte
12-13-2013, 08:37 PM
Your scenario is no better than the fake championship that the BCS offers, as about half of the teams that play Division I football are eliminated before the season starts.

16 teams. 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids. Every team has a chance and it gets decided on the field rather than by computers and bias against teams from non-BCS conferences.

UTEopia
12-13-2013, 09:25 PM
I would agree with you if all conferences played approximately the same level of competition throughout the season. Maybe the best thing for the better conferences to do is stop the farce of being aligned in the same NCAA division as the other conferences.

MAC - Northern Illinois (12-1)
MWC - Fresno St. (12-1)
USA - Rice (10-3)
Sun Belt - La Laf. (8-4)

So the opening games would be:

La. Laf vs. Florida St.
Rice vs. Auburn
Michigan St. vs. Fresno St.
Stanford vs. Northern Ill.

I wouldn't mind seeing Fresno play Michigan St. or Northern Illinois play Stanford, but are those teams more deserving then South Carolina, Oklahoma St., Arizona St. and LSU?

GarthUte
12-13-2013, 11:31 PM
I would agree with you if all conferences played approximately the same level of competition throughout the season. Maybe the best thing for the better conferences to do is stop the farce of being aligned in the same NCAA division as the other conferences.

MAC - Northern Illinois (12-1)
MWC - Fresno St. (12-1)
USA - Rice (10-3)
Sun Belt - La Laf. (8-4)

So the opening games would be:

La. Laf vs. Florida St.
Rice vs. Auburn
Michigan St. vs. Fresno St.
Stanford vs. Northern Ill.

I wouldn't mind seeing Fresno play Michigan St. or Northern Illinois play Stanford, but are those teams more deserving then South Carolina, Oklahoma St., Arizona St. and LSU?

They are conference champions. S. Carolina, Oklahoma St., ASU and LSU are not.

SoCalPat
12-13-2013, 11:50 PM
Any talk about an 8-team (or more) playoff is akin to you and I talking about what we'd do with the money we'd win from a $400 million lottery. A total pipedream. It will never happen.

We're at 4. If you're ever to get to 8, it's only after you go to six, which I think is definitely doable, with a bye for 1 and 2, and the first two rounds being played on campus. The championship game would rotate among the four major bowls that currently host the national championship game.

Any playoff that significantly extends the season, reduces the impact of the bowls and/or incorporates auto bids for clearly inferior conferences is not going to happen. I would argue that the further the college season extends into January, the less value schools would get from TV because you'd be cheapening the regular season. Additionally, the only way you're going to get the season extended to a point where some teams are playing 15-17 games is by cutting back on the regular season -- something that would be universally rejected by the presidents and ADs.

SoCalPat
12-13-2013, 11:58 PM
They are conference champions. S. Carolina, Oklahoma St., ASU and LSU are not.

Sorry Garth, but this is the stupidest argument ever. Name me one major professional or collegiate sport that absolutely requires its overall champion to be a regular season champion of something (division, conference, etc.). Second- and third-place teams across all leagues at the pro and collegiate level are crowned postseason champions on a near-annual basis. There is value in say, winning the AFC East, but wild-card teams are appropriately handicapped (playing an extra game, not playing at home, etc.). Find a similar solution for college football. The idea that Bowling Green is more deserving than Alabama to be in a playoff of any format is absurd.

GarthUte
12-14-2013, 12:36 AM
Sorry Garth, but this is the stupidest argument ever. Name me one major professional or collegiate sport that absolutely requires its overall champion to be a regular season champion of something (division, conference, etc.). Second- and third-place teams across all leagues at the pro and collegiate level are crowned postseason champions on a near-annual basis. There is value in say, winning the AFC East, but wild-card teams are appropriately handicapped (playing an extra game, not playing at home, etc.). Find a similar solution for college football. The idea that Bowling Green is more deserving than Alabama to be in a playoff of any format is absurd.

Does the NFL not require that a team win it's division or be a wild card (at-large) in order to participate in the playoffs? How about the NBA? MLB? NHL? How is that any different than requiring a team win it's conference in order to get into college football playoffs?

Sorry Pat, but you'll never convince me that a conference champion doesn't deserve to be in the playoff. In my opinion, your argument is just as stupid as you think my argument is.

Now, if you want to amend your argument to say that a college football playoff should be about making as much money as possible and therefore, no Sun Belt teams deserve to be in the playoff, then I'll agree with you. But if a playoff is about finding the champion of Division I football, it isn't a championship if almost half of the teams are disqualified before the season starts. Uteopia's idea of BSC schools creating their own division of college football would be better in that regard.

SoCalPat
12-14-2013, 04:18 PM
Does the NFL not require that a team win it's division or be a wild card (at-large) in order to participate in the playoffs? How about the NBA? MLB? NHL? How is that any different than requiring a team win it's conference in order to get into college football playoffs?

Sorry Pat, but you'll never convince me that a conference champion doesn't deserve to be in the playoff. In my opinion, your argument is just as stupid as you think my argument is.

Now, if you want to amend your argument to say that a college football playoff should be about making as much money as possible and therefore, no Sun Belt teams deserve to be in the playoff, then I'll agree with you. But if a playoff is about finding the champion of Division I football, it isn't a championship if almost half of the teams are disqualified before the season starts. Uteopia's idea of BSC schools creating their own division of college football would be better in that regard.

There are simply way too many concessions that would have to be made to have a playoff that includes all 11 conference champions, most notably, the reduction of the regular season. Do you want a 10 game season instead of 12? As for your money argument, EVERY championship is all about the money first. Look no further than the Super Bowl (neutral site, warm weather, corporate domination of ticket sales that reduces the fan experience, etc.).

GarthUte
12-14-2013, 05:25 PM
There are simply way too many concessions that would have to be made to have a playoff that includes all 11 conference champions, most notably, the reduction of the regular season. Do you want a 10 game season instead of 12? As for your money argument, EVERY championship is all about the money first. Look no further than the Super Bowl (neutral site, warm weather, corporate domination of ticket sales that reduces the fan experience, etc.).

Why would there have to be a reduction of regular season games? Playoffs could start the week after the conference championship games and continue each week. With 16 teams, it would take 4 weeks and the championship game would be about the same time as the BCS championship game takes place, in the 2nd week of January.

It works for basketball. There's no reason it wouldn't work for football.

SoCalPat
12-15-2013, 12:18 AM
Why would there have to be a reduction of regular season games? Playoffs could start the week after the conference championship games and continue each week. With 16 teams, it would take 4 weeks and the championship game would be about the same time as the BCS championship game takes place, in the 2nd week of January.

It works for basketball. There's no reason it wouldn't work for football.

Your arguments need to be more nuanced than this. Find me the college president who has advocated for the NFL-style schedule you're proposing. Your 16-team playoff would have teams playing as many as 17 games. You have never addressed how you appease the bowl system by taking so many top teams away from their games. Finally, there's a reason why the college game (ie, the bowls) largely avoids December weekends and has stretched out the BCS games to the entire first week of January. It's called the NFL.

You want a 16-team playoff? Get the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status that bowls and athletic departments have. You might get a dozen bowls that survive, and you could afford to have a Rose Bowl featuring the No. 2 Big 10 team vs. the No. 3 Pac-12 team because the demand for college football is strong enough to support both a playoff and a reduced bowl slate.

UTEopia
12-15-2013, 08:59 AM
Pat, The 12 team scenario that I included adds a total of 7 additional games. Two teams would play in 3 or 4 of those games so it is possible that two schools could play in 16 or 17 games including conference championship games.

I would change the season so that the final regular season game is held the 4th weekend in November. The first round of the playoffs would be two weeks later. The quarter finals would be held at the Orange, Sugar, Rose and Fiesta on New Years Day. There would be 3 additional games after that.

I appreciate that some things would need to change in order for this to happen, but my guess is that as future years unfold and certain marquee schools miss the 4 team cutoff that the pressure to increase the number of schools goes up. I am not saying that it will happen this year or next, but I can see it happening in 10 years.

A playoff works for FCS schools so I don't see why it couldn't work with FBS schools. The main difference is that the FBS schools need to placate the bowls.

GarthUte
12-15-2013, 11:23 AM
Your arguments need to be more nuanced than this. Find me the college president who has advocated for the NFL-style schedule you're proposing. Your 16-team playoff would have teams playing as many as 17 games. You have never addressed how you appease the bowl system by taking so many top teams away from their games. Finally, there's a reason why the college game (ie, the bowls) largely avoids December weekends and has stretched out the BCS games to the entire first week of January. It's called the NFL.

You want a 16-team playoff? Get the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status that bowls and athletic departments have. You might get a dozen bowls that survive, and you could afford to have a Rose Bowl featuring the No. 2 Big 10 team vs. the No. 3 Pac-12 team because the demand for college football is strong enough to support both a playoff and a reduced bowl slate.

Nuance, schmuance; I prefer bludgeoning the point home. :)

The college presidents don't seem to have a problem with the basketball teams missing so much class time for the Big Dance and NIT, so it's on the hypocritical side for them to be against a playoff for that reason.

If the bigger bowls were incorporated into the playoff scenario - such as the 4 BCS bowls as quarter final games - that could work. The other bowl game could still exist for teams that didn't qualify for the playoff. It's really no different a situation for those games than what exists now, as the BCS bowls have declared themselves the only bowls that matter, while the other bowls still do their thing. Schools accept invites to those games and I don't really see why they wouldn't if there playoff existed.

I've no problem with getting rid of the tax-exempt status of bowls and athletic departments. They're all in it for the money, which is why they shouldn't be tax-exempt. It's not like any of the bowls are recognized as charitable organizations. If it reduced the number of bowl games, that's fine. I think there are too many these days and teams who go 6-6 shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl game. Just as in hoops, if a team wants to be playing in the postseason, they should win their conference title. If they're aren't conference champs, they should have been good enough to get an at-large bid.

SoCalPat
12-15-2013, 04:16 PM
Nuance, schmuance; I prefer bludgeoning the point home. :)

The college presidents don't seem to have a problem with the basketball teams missing so much class time for the Big Dance and NIT, so it's on the hypocritical side for them to be against a playoff for that reason.

If the bigger bowls were incorporated into the playoff scenario - such as the 4 BCS bowls as quarter final games - that could work. The other bowl game could still exist for teams that didn't qualify for the playoff. It's really no different a situation for those games than what exists now, as the BCS bowls have declared themselves the only bowls that matter, while the other bowls still do their thing. Schools accept invites to those games and I don't really see why they wouldn't if there playoff existed.

I've no problem with getting rid of the tax-exempt status of bowls and athletic departments. They're all in it for the money, which is why they shouldn't be tax-exempt. It's not like any of the bowls are recognized as charitable organizations. If it reduced the number of bowl games, that's fine. I think there are too many these days and teams who go 6-6 shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl game. Just as in hoops, if a team wants to be playing in the postseason, they should win their conference title. If they're aren't conference champs, they should have been good enough to get an at-large bid.

We don't want that, at least for athletic departments. Donations would dry up, facilities wouldn't be built and lowered salaries would drive coaches to the NFL. The long-term damage to collegiate sports would be enormous. I'm no expert in tax law or how the bowl lobbyists work, but I suspect that the tax-exempt status of these organizations will be in place for a very long time. The pro leagues also have an interest in the tax-exempt status remaining for the colleges, because it's closely related to the write-off businesses can take for entertaining clients, ie, club seats and suites that simply cannot afford to be filled by Average Joe.

I think the bowls are signing on for a four-team playoff because it's the biggest bowls that are operating on such little notice with regard to who's playing, and there are enough fans that can travel to two bowls instead of one. Any bowl that draws a semifinal spot in a 16-team playoff is doomed for good attendance if it has a team that has to travel 2,000 miles. I'm not sure there's a fanbase in America that has 40,000 fans that can travel on a whim to playoff games in four straight weeks, and I think the local draw just isn't there. Look at how many empty seats there are in the opening rounds of the NCAA Tournament.

I find it ironic that you view 6-6 teams as being not worthy of going to a bowl game, which in and of itself is not a huge deal, but a Sun Belt champ that goes 10-2 with an SOS of 100 is somehow deserving of a much bigger prize, ie, playing for a national championship. That's a pretty mamby-pamby liberal viewpoint, especially coming from a conservative such as yourself.

GarthUte
12-15-2013, 05:39 PM
I find it ironic that you view 6-6 teams as being not worthy of going to a bowl game, which in and of itself is not a huge deal, but a Sun Belt champ that goes 10-2 with an SOS of 100 is somehow deserving of a much bigger prize, ie, playing for a national championship. That's a pretty mamby-pamby liberal viewpoint, especially coming from a conservative such as yourself.

Again, you will never convince me that a conference champion doesn't belong in a playoff. And a 6-6 team has a shitty record. Why should a team that is .500 deserve to be in the playoffs? It doesn't.

You've got the liberal and conservative point of view backwards there. A liberal thinks that a team that accomplishes nothing deserves a reward, whereas a conservative thinks that a team that accomplishes something i.e. a conference championship has earned a reward. That wasn't even a good try.

Hot Lunch
12-15-2013, 06:09 PM
8 team playoff. Zero tie-ins via championship. Keep the BCS rankings or a modified version of the BCS rankings to determine those 8 teams. A ranking system is needed with such a large number of teams vying for a spot. Top 8 get in. No limitations on how many teams represent a conference.

SoCalPat
12-15-2013, 10:53 PM
Again, you will never convince me that a conference champion doesn't belong in a playoff. And a 6-6 team has a shitty record. Why should a team that is .500 deserve to be in the playoffs? It doesn't.

You've got the liberal and conservative point of view backwards there. A liberal thinks that a team that accomplishes nothing deserves a reward, whereas a conservative thinks that a team that accomplishes something i.e. a conference championship has earned a reward. That wasn't even a good try.

What if the 6-6 team is a conference champion? Sorry ... youre statements here simply don't jive with one another. Accomplishing nothing? That's your Sun Belt and MAC champs.

GarthUte
12-16-2013, 11:07 AM
What if the 6-6 team is a conference champion? Sorry ... youre statements here simply don't jive with one another. Accomplishing nothing? That's your Sun Belt and MAC champs.

My comments are consistent with what I've been saying all along. A 6-6 team that is a conference champion accomplished something - it won its conference. A 6-6 team that didn't win it's conference didn't accomplish anything. I know you're smart enough to see the difference and you know you're smart enough to see the difference.

SoCalPat
12-16-2013, 04:00 PM
My comments are consistent with what I've been saying all along. A 6-6 team that is a conference champion accomplished something - it won its conference. A 6-6 team that didn't win it's conference didn't accomplish anything. I know you're smart enough to see the difference and you know you're smart enough to see the difference.

From you two posts ago:

And a 6-6 team has a shitty record. Why should a team that is .500 deserve to be in the playoffs? It doesn't.

SoCalPat
12-16-2013, 04:02 PM
8 team playoff. Zero tie-ins via championship. Keep the BCS rankings or a modified version of the BCS rankings to determine those 8 teams. A ranking system is needed with such a large number of teams vying for a spot. Top 8 get in. No limitations on how many teams represent a conference.

I'd be fine with 8, but you're not going to go from 4 to 8. I think it will go 4 to 6, then maybe 8. No more than that, though. And anything more than 4 is going to have to involve on-campus games. That's where the bowls start getting nervous and reactionary.

sancho
12-16-2013, 04:25 PM
That's where the bowls start getting nervous and reactionary.

I'm for anything that takes money from the bowls and puts it in the universities.

GarthUte
12-16-2013, 11:10 PM
From you two posts ago:

And a 6-6 team has a shitty record. Why should a team that is .500 deserve to be in the playoffs? It doesn't.

And the sentence right before that was what? Take a look again and you'll see that I'm being consistent.

SoCalPat
12-18-2013, 10:17 PM
The college presidents don't seem to have a problem with the basketball teams missing so much class time for the Big Dance and NIT, so it's on the hypocritical side for them to be against a playoff for that reason.


Something I remembered just now: It is a bajillion times easier to monitor the academic progress of a basketball team and make accommodations for them than it is a football team. Anyone in the know, I would love to see the difference in academic advisers, tutors, etc. between what's needed for a football and basketball program.