My idea for a Division 1-A playoff system

[oochymp 2,393]

So, the biggest hitch in the idea of getting a playoff going (aside from money issues, which I don't know that any of us are qualified to speak on) seems to be creating a manageable system for who gets in. Well, here's my idea (note, all references to overall standings will refer to the BCS standings):

 

First of all, I'm looking at an 8 team playoff, maintaining the current bowl system for everyone outside of the tournament field. Right now there are six conferences that get an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, of those six conference champions, the top four get an automatic bid. After that, the top four teams in the overall BCS rankings get an automatic bid. From there, a tournament selection committee will fill out the field from the remaining two champions of the main six conferences and the teams ranked 5-8 and seeding will be based on BCS ranking. In addition to the 8 team field, there will be a runoff bowl that will be required to take the other major conference champions that don't make the 8 team field and will otherwise take the highest ranked teams left out of the playoffs.

 

Alright, now tell me why I'm an idiot, because I'm sure there are things I'm missing because I don't really pay much attention to college football.

Edited November 21, 2011 by oochymp

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

idk... How much of the headache would this take out of the equation? People would still be arguing about who should get in of those 3-4 teams, especially considering the fact that if I read your idea correctly teams with a easier schedule and weaker conferences would still probably get 'snubbed'... There are just too many conferences and schools to have it just be 8 teams imo.

 

Which would then mean adding more teams to the seeding system, which would also mean extending the postseason to 3-4 more weeks... Which would then mean the season would drag on even more after semesters for most students, which would not only effect those who are trying to leave to prepare for the draft in terms of prep time, but those who are graduating after the fall semester and will be looking for jobs, etc.

 

Really, I think the way the entire college football system is set up, from when it starts to when it ends, to the schedules, it is virtually impossible to have a playoff system. And aside from those 3-4 teams that occasionally surprise people and have a great season, it doesn't seem like many people outside of fans, some coaches, and some media outlets seriously want a playoff system.

 

the little bowls while they may not seem like much to the fans, reward a lot of student athletes who play for smaller schools/conferences for there hard work. I really do think the players, and the teams (for the most part) benefit more from the current system.

Edited November 21, 2011 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[oochymp 2,393]

idk... How much of the headache would this take out of the equation? People would still be arguing about who should get in of those 3-4 teams, especially considering the fact that if I read your idea correctly teams with a easier schedule and weaker conferences would still probably get 'snubbed'... There are just too many conferences and schools to have it just be 8 teams imo.

 

Which would then mean adding more teams to the seeding system, which would also mean extending the postseason to 3-4 more weeks... Which would then mean the season would drag on even more after semesters for most students, which would not only effect those who are trying to leave to prepare for the draft in terms of prep time, but those who are graduating after the fall semester and will be looking for jobs, etc.

 

Really, I think the way the entire college football system is set up, from when it starts to when it ends, to the schedules, it is virtually impossible to have a playoff system. And aside from those 3-4 teams that occasionally surprise people and have a great season, it doesn't seem like many people outside of fans, some coaches, and some media outlets seriously want a playoff system.

 

the little bowls while they may not seem like much to the fans, reward a lot of student athletes who play for smaller schools/conferences for there hard work. I really do think the players, and the teams (for the most part) benefit more from the current system.

I don't see how the timing is an issue, all it would do is fill in the month of dead time between the regular season and the national championship game, it's not like you'd start the playoffs on January 1.

 

As for teams from weaker conferences getting snubbed, you could add a stipulation that the top ranked undefeated team from an non-AQ conference gets a spot, but chances are if a team is undefeated and actually good then they'll be in the top four and would get a spot anyway, and I'd rather move the argument to who's 8/9 rather than who's 2/3, because chances are the team that gets the 8th spot is probably just going to get destroyed by the #1 team anyway

[Anthony 78]

idk... How much of the headache would this take out of the equation? People would still be arguing about who should get in of those 3-4 teams, especially considering the fact that if I read your idea correctly teams with a easier schedule and weaker conferences would still probably get 'snubbed'... There are just too many conferences and schools to have it just be 8 teams imo.

 

This is exactly why the NCAA doesn't recognize any national champions in football now, and still wouldn't in an 8-team playoff.

 

There are 120 division I programs, divided into 11 conferences and a small group of independents. To have an 8-team playoff format is to leave 3 conference champions out, and it wouldn't be full representation that the NCAA requires. As it is, the NFL has a 12-team playoff for a 32-team league, which works easily. Having 8 represent 120 schools doesn't come close to solving the problem.

 

The fix has been in motion over the past few years. It's conference realignment. If the conferences can continue to grow in size, and weaker league's are dissolved by it, it trims the number of representatives needed for full representation. Trim it to 8 Super conferences and the 8-team format is perfect, maybe extending to 10 to include two wildcards. But I think that movement is about to be slowed by the proposal that the BCS only focuses on the top two teams in the country, leaving all the other bowls up for grabs by anyone. Realignment was sparked by teams in lesser league's trying to get a piece of the BCS pie by moving into BCS leagues. Eliminate that pie and you eliminate the need to relocate.

 

Another fix would be a split in the upper division, which would lift the elite programs to the highest level and drop the lesser programs into a lower division of the NCAA. Right now you have FBS and FCS. Divide it again, and place that upper tier division (now with fewer schools) into a playoff.

 

The media can always opt to get rid of the BCS and move to an 8-team playoff, but it would still be a media award. It would still be considered a mythical championship, just as it is now, and as it will always be in any league that only has partial representation in the postseason.

[oochymp 2,393]

You bring up some interesting points, as I said I don't pay a whole lot of attention to college football, but with a better postseason I probably would. I suppose the NCAA would have to put all 11 conference champions in any proposed playoff, which probably means a 16 team format since everyone wants at large bids (seriously, if we're gonna put Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech in we can't shut Alabama and Arkansas out) but I will point out that division I-AA has a 20 team playoff format (out of 126 teams) so it's still very doable.

 

One point you made that I hadn't considered is that the NCAA doesn't endorse a National Champion, I hadn't really thought about it since everyone else does, but the National Champion is based on the BCS which is an entirely different entity and the AP voters, again completely separate from the NCAA, but that doesn't mean the NCAA can't (or shouldn't) step in.

Edited November 21, 2011 by oochymp

[Thanatos 2,847]

All right.

 

I don't really know all that much about NCAA basketball vs NCAA football.

 

So this may be a very dumb question.

 

How come the NCAA Basketball can have a sixty-four team, (I think it's 64), tournament, and NCAA football doesn't even have time for an eight to sixteen team playoff? Is the season for basketball that much shorter or something?

 

A sixteen-team playoff would only add one more week. 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 for a four-week playoff that would let us know who is the best in the country.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Thanatos19

[rzb+ 367]

Why not just base things off the computer rankings instead of a human poll?

[Anthony 78]

You bring up some interesting points, as I said I don't pay a whole lot of attention to college football, but with a better postseason I probably would. I suppose the NCAA would have to put all 11 conference champions in any proposed playoff, which probably means a 16 team format since everyone wants at large bids (seriously, if we're gonna put Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech in we can't shut Alabama and Arkansas out) but I will point out that division I-AA has a 20 team playoff format (out of 126 teams) so it's still very doable.

 

The postseason can be extended. The BCS has already done it, since all games used to be completed by New Year's day. The big cry from school presidents has been "preserving the integrity of the bowls". I guess they haven't looked at some of those bowl attendance figures lately.

 

 

Why not just base things off the computer rankings instead of a human poll?

 

Computer rankings stink. Have you seen them lately? After getting beat down by undefeated Iowa State, Oklahoma State is still ranked #2 in five of the seven computers, and #3 in the others.

 

The computers will give a high score for quality of opponents, which is fine when they are ranked, but they can't tell the difference between beating a 4-0 Mississippi State team and defeating a 4-0 Louisiana Tech.

 

 

don't really know all that much about NCAA basketball vs NCAA football.

 

So this may be a very dumb question.

 

How come the NCAA Basketball can have a sixty-four team, (I think it's 64), tournament, and NCAA football doesn't even have time for an eight to sixteen team playoff? Is the season for basketball that much shorter or something?

 

A football team can only play one game per week. Basketball can play as many as 2 or 3. The NCAA starts with 64 teams, but by the end of the first week, the number has already been trimmed to 16, with games played on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It takes about 3 weeks, after beginning with 64 teams, to crown a basketball champ.

[Thanatos 2,847]

A football team can only play one game per week. Basketball can play as many as 2 or 3. The NCAA starts with 64 teams, but by the end of the first week, the number has already been trimmed to 16, with games played on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It takes about 3 weeks, after beginning with 64 teams, to crown a basketball champ.

 

Thanks for the explanation, but an eight team playoff would still only take 3 weeks, and a sixteen team playoff would take four.

 

The exact same amount of time for the March Madness tourney. So why can't football do this? (The main argument I always hear against it is that there isn't enough time.)

[Anthony 78]

Thanks for the explanation, but an eight team playoff would still only take 3 weeks, and a sixteen team playoff would take four.

 

The exact same amount of time for the March Madness tourney. So why can't football do this? (The main argument I always hear against it is that there isn't enough time.)

 

The 64 teams in the NCAA tournament represent the whole of college basketball. 8 teams won't do the same for football.

 

Every league is guaranteed a representative for March Madness, because there is an automatic bid for winning the conference tournament(not the regular season champ). This means little known Santa Clara can win the WCC tournament, after posting a season record below .500, and receive and automatic bid to the big dance. In turn, it knocks one of the bigger programs out, even if it has a better record, because it didn't win its conference tournament. There's still the end of season debate about bubble teams and who should have got in, but no one can ever argue over conference tournament winners. That's set in stone. You win it, you're in it.

 

With an 8 team football playoff, 3 teams (and even more if bids are based on rankings) would play an entire season and have absolutely nothing to show for it. If the season ended today, and we took only the top 8 teams in the BCS, champions from the Pac 12, Big East, Big 10, MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, and all the independents are left out. Oregon beat Stanford, but it would be the loser of that game representing the Pac 12. 5 of the 11 conferences would go without representation. Can you imagine a football playoff with no teams from the Big 10?

[Thanatos 2,847]

The 64 teams in the NCAA tournament represent the whole of college basketball. 8 teams won't do the same for football.

 

Every league is guaranteed a representative for March Madness, because there is an automatic bid for winning the conference tournament(not the regular season champ). This means little known Santa Clara can win the WCC tournament, after posting a season record below .500, and receive and automatic bid to the big dance. In turn, it knocks one of the bigger programs out, even if it has a better record, because it didn't win its conference tournament. There's still the end of season debate about bubble teams and who should have got in, but no one can ever argue over conference tournament winners. That's set in stone. You win it, you're in it.

 

With an 8 team football playoff, 3 teams (and even more if bids are based on rankings) would play an entire season and have absolutely nothing to show for it. If the season ended today, and we took only the top 8 teams in the BCS, champions from the Pac 12, Big East, Big 10, MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, and all the independents are left out. Oregon beat Stanford, but it would be the loser of that game representing the Pac 12. 5 of the 11 conferences would go without representation. Can you imagine a football playoff with no teams from the Big 10?

 

So make it sixteen. Doesn't that cover it?

 

I'm not really concerned with getting every conference champion in, by the way. I am more concerned with attempting to stop the argument that the best team in the nation didn't even get a chance to play in the NCG. Obviously fans of the team who is #9, or #17 if they did sixteen teams, will still argue they should be in over #16, but it brings a lot more equality to the game than the current system.