College football to have 4-team playoff by 2014

[PromoTheRobot]

Okay, it's not exactly Bills-related but it's big news and the Bills stuff is pretty slow right now. Not that this will solve the bitching but it's still better than just 2 teams vying.

 

LINK

 

PTR

[ajzepp]

I HATED the fact that college didn't have a playoff. I've always thought it was completely stupid how the figured a national champion and felt I'd become a much bigger fan of college ball with a playoff system in place. That being said, clearly this is not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction and I'm thrilled with the news. I'd much rather be wrong about the 5th place team than I would the 3rd place one...this gets us one step closer to truly deciding it on the field instead of letting some computer nerd figure out the best "formula". I don't really like that they're waiting until 2014, especially since they're using the existing bowl structure...don't see why they can't start it next year. Maybe in 2026 they can finally go to an 8-team playoff

[Malazan]

instead of letting some computer nerd figure out the best "formula".

 

Computer nerds didn't like it either.

[Mark Vader]

This is great news.

 

It's about time that college football got out of the prehistoric era.

 

Hopefully this is a first step to an even bigger college football playoff system.

[Hplarrm]

I love the pros because its great entertainment and these pros deserve to be paid well for the great work they do and the risks they take. However, I generally have given up on college balls (except paying some attention as it relates to whom the Bills might draft) as because quite frankly I would prefer for college to be about education.

 

The money ball around the contradictory phrase student/athlete just got even sillier.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

About time, 64 teams here we come!!!

[ajzepp]

I love the pros because its great entertainment and these pros deserve to be paid well for the great work they do and the risks they take. However, I generally have given up on college balls (except paying some attention as it relates to whom the Bills might draft) as because quite frankly I would prefer for college to be about education.

 

The money ball around the contradictory phrase student/athlete just got even sillier.

 

I'm not sure I understand how college football makes college NOT about education? People can go to school for whatever they want regardless of the fact that these major football programs exist, can't they? I honestly used to rarely pay any attention to college ball whatsoever but I've really come to enjoy it. I'm interested in the the point you're making, though, so maybe you can expound on it a bit? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

[Hplarrm]

I'm not sure I understand how college football makes college NOT about education? People can go to school for whatever they want regardless of the fact that these major football programs exist, can't they? I honestly used to rarely pay any attention to college ball whatsoever but I've really come to enjoy it. I'm interested in the the point you're making, though, so maybe you can expound on it a bit? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

Back in the day (perhaps 30 or so years ago in the distant past) when education was the priority, the football season was important but it had to fit around the class schedule of the kids. Bowl games were an extension of the season which were to some extent fought against by the academic schedule but generally the bowl games which previously were all played by January 1st did manage to expand out a bit since afterall what it first cost players was some family time during vacation.

 

However, this expansion was caused by a delivery of more and more $ to the participating schools and the academic schedule was forced to accomodate first 11 and then in some cases 12 games in the regular season and the bowl schedule expanded with sponsorship by the traditional 4 New Years Day (Orange, Rose, Cotton, and something else bowls) to an expanded schedule of Tostitos etc bowls. The bowls themselves with the advent of huge TV moneys allowed for enormous bribes to the participating schools and slowly but inevitably has moved to a playoff system where the colleges actually imitate the pros at finding one pretend winner per season (as I think Duane Thomas said when someone asked him if he upcoming SB was the most important day of his life he replied if it so important then why do they play it every year).

 

The establishmrnt of a playoff and likely inevitable expansion to something like a 64 team playoff of the huge moneymaker the NCAA basketball championship is actually a blip on our way to something like year around football. There is simply no way I can see to accomodate the needed regular season where you play for seeding and then the playoffs to advance in the tournament of this "game" which cannot be played 3 nights a week as in college but the needed healing mandates weekly games.

 

Spring practice used to be the ritual as players built their athletic time around the academic time of mid-terms and finals but when we go year around the tail of athletics will wag the dog of education.

 

The NFL side of this equation is quite interesting as it has unlike its competing major sports like baseball, basketball, and hockey has found a way to dump virtually all the training costs on college and not been forced into signing 16 year olds to contracts or paying for an enormous minor league system. However, though the NFL teams avoid this cost, the price they pay is that their athletes become adults before the teams buy their loyalty. Led by a talented tenth such as player Gene Upshaw these men have now forced the owners to not only split the pie but in fact guarantee them a majority of the gross receipts.

 

My sense is one of the next steps is going to be players looking at the $6 billion payout I have seen estimated as the cost of broadcasting the playoff games and we will see the student/athletes effectively organizing to demand their cut.

 

The illusion of the student/athlete will receed further into the distance of reality and who knows what will come of it.

 

At least the Ivys will still emphasize academics over athletics with no playoff system and a focus on education as the rational for teams working to play well together, but who knows where the balance between education and athletics will fall. The two are not necessarily opposed to each other but there is a balance which must be found between the two. The advent of the football playoff simply means that the balance is now going to go way over to the side of athletic entertainment.

[eball]

Gotta love the hypocrisy and corruption of college football:

 

In 2010, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "A playoff system would ruin the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic."

 

Tuesday, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "It's a great day for college football. We congratulate the conference commissioners and presidents for their diligent work to enhance the postseason."

[Luxy312]

Gotta love the hypocrisy and corruption of college football:

 

In 2010, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "A playoff system would ruin the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic."

 

Tuesday, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "It's a great day for college football. We congratulate the conference commissioners and presidents for their diligent work to enhance the postseason."

 

It's a joke. Unfortunately, it's one of those jokes that isn't funny....and about cancer.....and killing puppies.

[reddogblitz]

I suppose it is better than what we have now, but not much. You still got a beauty/popularity contest to see who gets one of the 4 spots.

 

I say put everyone in a conference. 8 or 16. Then let the conference champs play down to a winner. It's not complicated really.

[Simon]

So all they did was add two games to the schedule and they think that's going to fix one of the biggest ongoing jokes in all of sports?

I haven't bothered with college ball in a long time and this isn't likely to change that stance.

If they want me and many others back, then they can give me a call when they decide to stop embarrassing themselves and address this in a manner that doesn't make everybody look like a bunch of crap-throwing monkeys.

[Acantha]

I suppose it is better than what we have now, but not much. You still got a beauty/popularity contest to see who gets one of the 4 spots.

 

I say put everyone in a conference. 8 or 16. Then let the conference champs play down to a winner. It's not complicated really.

I very much agree, but I know a lot of people who don't.

[BRAWNDO]

Gotta love the hypocrisy and corruption of college football:

 

In 2010, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "A playoff system would ruin the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic."

 

Tuesday, Rick Baker, president of the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, said, "It's a great day for college football. We congratulate the conference commissioners and presidents for their diligent work to enhance the postseason."

 

Especially since Jerry Jones is going to bid for the National Championship Game every few years, making the Cotton Bowl the title game.

[Ramius]

I very much agree, but I know a lot of people who don't.

 

I'm with you guys. At least 8 teams, but 16 teams with all 11 conference winners getting a playoff spot would be ideal. Whats always the 1st rule/goal in college sports? Win your conference.

 

But, the 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction, and now it seems like only a matter of time before the bowls are rendered largely irrelevant and the playoff is expanding.

[The Senator]

I'm with you guys. At least 8 teams, but 16 teams with all 11 conference winners getting a playoff spot would be ideal. Whats always the 1st rule/goal in college sports? Win your conference.

 

But, the 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction, and now it seems like only a matter of time before the bowls are rendered largely irrelevant and the playoff is expanding.

 

It's good to see the NCAA powers-that-be are finally listening to...

 

 

Mike Leach

 

 

"I think it's tremendous progress," said Washington State coach Mike Leach, a playoff proponent. "Five years ago there wasn't even dialogue about a playoff. Instead of diving in the water, they dipped their toes in. I think it's going to be ridiculously exciting and it's going to generate a bunch of money. I wish they dived in. I want more than four; 16 is better. I'd like to have 64. I think it would be a lot of fun..."

 

.

[BillyBaroo]

I'm with you guys. At least 8 teams, but 16 teams with all 11 conference winners getting a playoff spot would be ideal. Whats always the 1st rule/goal in college sports? Win your conference.

 

But, the 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction, and now it seems like only a matter of time before the bowls are rendered largely irrelevant and the playoff is expanding.

It is a step - but I would be more for 8 teams- it would only take 3 weeks which the bowl season spans anyways and would give 7 games - enough for any major bowl to get in on if they wanted

[Steve O]

It is a step - but I would be more for 8 teams- it would only take 3 weeks which the bowl season spans anyways and would give 7 games - enough for any major bowl to get in on if they wanted

Here is my version of the 8 team playoff:

New Years day - Top 8 teams play (in my perfect scenario they would play in the bowl games of my childhood, Cotton, Orange, Sugar, and Rose)

This is followed by a 5-10 day break for the players before they start preparing for the semi finals, which will be held the day before the NFL championship games. So there would be semi-final Saturday for college followed by Championship Sunday for the NFL

College championship game will be held the following weekend, the bye week before the Super Bowl.

Never happen but if it did I would truly be footballed out and ready for a break from watching it.

[judman]

I have come to like college football more than in the past because of the atmosphere in those stadiums. My wife and I met at a small college with no football team. When we see those stadiums (sometimes filled with 100k+ fans) it is almost beyond comprehension. The bands are a nice touch too. And sometimes the crowd shots make it worth while...

[ajzepp]

It's good to see the NCAA powers-that-be are finally listening to...

 

 

Mike Leach

 

 

"I think it's tremendous progress," said Washington State coach Mike Leach, a playoff proponent. "Five years ago there wasn't even dialogue about a playoff. Instead of diving in the water, they dipped their toes in. I think it's going to be ridiculously exciting and it's going to generate a bunch of money. I wish they dived in. I want more than four; 16 is better. I'd like to have 64. I think it would be a lot of fun..."

 

.

 

I agree with the coach for sure. Would have been nice to have at least 8, but clearly it's moving things in the right direction.

[Mark Vader]

I'm with you guys. At least 8 teams, but 16 teams with all 11 conference winners getting a playoff spot would be ideal. Whats always the 1st rule/goal in college sports? Win your conference.

 

But, the 4 team playoff is a step in the right direction, and now it seems like only a matter of time before the bowls are rendered largely irrelevant and the playoff is expanding.

It is a step in the right direction.

 

Although, IMO, the bowl games have been irrelevant since the BCS started. Which was the unintended consequences of the BCS.

 

Yes the BCS is better than when the pollsters controlled everything. Yet at least back then many of the bowl games, especially the New Year's Day games, had a certain prestige to them. Heck, even the Gator, Liberty & Sun bowls were highly regarded. Now with the BCS all those games mean nothing. Who cares if you win the Cotton Bowl Classic, neither team is playing for the National Title, so big deal. All the bowl games have become glorified exhibition games.

 

Personally I would like to see a bigger playoff field, at least 16, maybe more. But it took a long time to get here, so, baby steps.

[eball]

It is a step in the right direction.

 

Although, IMO, the bowl games have been irrelevant since the BCS started. Which was the unintended consequences of the BCS.

 

Yes the BCS is better than when the pollsters controlled everything. Yet at least back then many of the bowl games, especially the New Year's Day games, had a certain prestige to them. Heck, even the Gator, Liberty & Sun bowls were highly regarded. Now with the BCS all those games mean nothing. Who cares if you win the Cotton Bowl Classic, neither team is playing for the National Title, so big deal. All the bowl games have become glorified exhibition games.

 

Personally I would like to see a bigger playoff field, at least 16, maybe more. But it took a long time to get here, so, baby steps.

There was nothing "unintended" about anything the BCS created -- they didn't care. The BCS completely ruined New Year's Day. There is, IMO, absolutely nothing good about what the BCS brought to the table. The only people who benefitted were promoters and BCS bowl directors, who made ungodly profits. BCS should stand for Bowl Corruption System. Give me pollsters and arguments over who should "really" have been #1 any day over the BCS b.s.

 

This first step is better, but it still allows the "big bowl" cronies to rake in the dough and it is not going far enough. There's too much money involved.

 

As for the lesser bowls -- they really are and should be about the kids. This is a chance for the athletes to be treated like VIPs for a week, take home some swag, and for fans to travel to (hopefully) a nice location to see the team one more time.

[Niagara Bill]

I HATED the fact that college didn't have a playoff. I've always thought it was completely stupid how the figured a national champion and felt I'd become a much bigger fan of college ball with a playoff system in place. That being said, clearly this is not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction and I'm thrilled with the news. I'd much rather be wrong about the 5th place team than I would the 3rd place one...this gets us one step closer to truly deciding it on the field instead of letting some computer nerd figure out the best "formula". I don't really like that they're waiting until 2014, especially since they're using the existing bowl structure...don't see why they can't start it next year. Maybe in 2026 they can finally go to an 8-team playoff

What good is any playoff, or bowl game for that matter that takes place 8 weeks after their last season game.

Always thought that everyone over hyped bowl games now playoffs.

It is all about which coach can get his team back into the mood to play...what a waste of time. The games should be played in early Dec, the he?? with school, these guys are semi pro anyway

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

So all they did was add two games to the schedule and they think that's going to fix one of the biggest ongoing jokes in all of sports?

I haven't bothered with college ball in a long time and this isn't likely to change that stance.

If they want me and many others back, then they can give me a call when they decide to stop embarrassing themselves and address this in a manner that doesn't make everybody look like a bunch of crap-throwing monkeys.

 

+1

 

I'm with you on this.

[Mark Vader]

So all they did was add two games to the schedule and they think that's going to fix one of the biggest ongoing jokes in all of sports?

I haven't bothered with college ball in a long time and this isn't likely to change that stance.

If they want me and many others back, then they can give me a call when they decide to stop embarrassing themselves and address this in a manner that doesn't make everybody look like a bunch of crap-throwing monkeys.

So what exactly would you do to fix the problem?

[eball]

So what exactly would you do to fix the problem?

I don't know what Simon would do, but I would institute a 16-team playoff and form a selection committee just as they do for basketball.

 

This adds one month onto the season. Remove one regular season game. Don't touch the existing bowls (maybe remove a few).

 

First two rounds of the playoffs are at campus sites. Semifinals and Championship at neutral sites, chosen in the same manner as how they decide who hosts the Final Four.

 

Teams who don't make the field of 16 still participate in the "regular" bowls, just like always.

 

Bottom line -- make it about the teams, their fans, their campuses, and the competition.

[The Senator]

I don't know what Simon would do, but I would institute a 16-team playoff and form a selection committee just as they do for basketball.

 

This adds one month onto the season. Remove one regular season game. Don't touch the existing bowls (maybe remove a few).

 

First two rounds of the playoffs are at campus sites. Semifinals and Championship at neutral sites, chosen in the same manner as how they decide who hosts the Final Four.

 

Teams who don't make the field of 16 still participate in the "regular" bowls, just like always.

 

Bottom line -- make it about the teams, their fans, their campuses, and the competition.

 

The always prescient "Mad Scientist of Football" - Mike Leach - laid out a perfectly logical and workable scenario for a 64-team playoff system over 3 years ago...

 

 

"The minimum should be 16 teams. I think 32 is better than 16, but I think 64 would be ideal. You could cut the regular season down to 10 games, but guarantee everybody 12 games. In the end, the champion would play 16 games.

 

Don't bring up school workload to him as an argument. "That's a bunch of foolishness," he chided, in a nice, polite tone. "The argument that players will miss too much school is not even relevant," says Leach. "Basketball players go to school, volleyball players go to school, baseball players go to school, and they play a lot more games than football players do." Link -Mike Leach wants a 64-team playoff

 

 

 

 

And to his critics who, at the time, called Leach's 64-team playoff idea "crazy", Leach opined...

 

"It's only crazy if you are in Division I football. There's nothing new about this playoff stuff. It would be like crediting me with inventing fire. I think 64 would be fun. You would cut the regular season back to 10. The champion is going to play 16 games. You would guarantee everybody 12 games for athletic budgets. Then, because it's fun, and it would be exciting to watch people from across the country play each other, you'd pick your 64.

 

"Then the arguments aren't who won the national championship. The arguments are about whether the 77th team is better than the 61st team. The one thing that would be indisputable is who ever did win it had legitimately and justifiably earned it. It's obviously workable. Any claims that its not workable because of this that and the other thing is ridiculous because they do it at every other level. The reason we don't do it like this is 'cause we choose not to. It's not because we can't. It's a bunch of bologna."

 

 

 

 

From 2009, bit of classic Leach arguing for his 64-team playoff...

 

(forward to the 2:50 mark)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Wm_vCbQEM

 

 

Edited June 28, 2012 by The Senator

[reddogblitz]

The always prescient "Mad Scientist of Football" - Mike Leach - laid out a perfectly logical and workable scenario for a 64-team playoff system over 3 years ago...

Put me in on the "Mad Scientist of Football" side. Sounds like a great plan to me.

[ajzepp]

When I think about a 64-team playoff, I think about March Madness. Most years, I don't want a SINGLE regular season college basketball game. But you know what? The minute I start seeing talk about brackets and seeding, I start getting fired up. I don't know a single player (most of the time), no clue about which match-up favors who, I don't know a damn thing. But the idea of a massive tourney gets me excited, and I pay attention. I almost always watch at least some of the Final Four games, and then I will typically always watch all or part of the championship game. And I know a LOT of people who are like me. Now if you apply this same 64-team bracket to college football, the excitement level will be off the charts. You'll have the entire country tuning in to watch that and EVERYONE will be talking about it. Not only that, but you'll have sixty-four teams with a chance to EARN the national championship, just like it's supposed to be.

 

Mike Leach is a genius.

[eball]

When I think about a 64-team playoff, I think about March Madness. Most years, I don't want a SINGLE regular season college basketball game. But you know what? The minute I start seeing talk about brackets and seeding, I start getting fired up. I don't know a single player (most of the time), no clue about which match-up favors who, I don't know a damn thing. But the idea of a massive tourney gets me excited, and I pay attention. I almost always watch at least some of the Final Four games, and then I will typically always watch all or part of the championship game. And I know a LOT of people who are like me. Now if you apply this same 64-team bracket to college football, the excitement level will be off the charts. You'll have the entire country tuning in to watch that and EVERYONE will be talking about it. Not only that, but you'll have sixty-four teams with a chance to EARN the national championship, just like it's supposed to be.

 

Mike Leach is a genius.

The Senator needs to change his underwear.

[Ramius]

I don't know what Simon would do, but I would institute a 16-team playoff and form a selection committee just as they do for basketball.

 

This adds one month onto the season. Remove one regular season game. Don't touch the existing bowls (maybe remove a few).

 

First two rounds of the playoffs are at campus sites. Semifinals and Championship at neutral sites, chosen in the same manner as how they decide who hosts the Final Four.

 

Teams who don't make the field of 16 still participate in the "regular" bowls, just like always.

 

Bottom line -- make it about the teams, their fans, their campuses, and the competition.

 

I have similar ideas as to my *ideal* playoff. Drop the regular season back to 11 games. The "big" conferences MUST have a conference championship game to qualify. All conference champs get a playoff spot, along with 5 wildcards. Wildcards are selected and teams are seeded based on a committee. Higher seeded teams host at least round 1, possibly the quarterfinals. Then money goes directly to the school, not some jackass "bowl executive" who does nothing all year and then cashes a fat paycheck. wildcards are decided mainly by record and strength of schedule. I'd take a 2-loss team with a high profile loss as opposed to a 1 loss team who beat up on 1-AA schools <cough> SEC <cough>. (minus alabama, the only SEC team who will play anyone)

 

All other bowl eligible teams not in the playoffs can then be selected to the bowl of their choice.

[billybrew1]

Hooray! That is big news. For some stupid reason things like this always go slowly. The important thing is that the door has been opened.....

 

It's just like any progressive change.... Like the one we had today.....sssssllllooooooowwwwww.......

[Gordio]

So all they did was add two games to the schedule and they think that's going to fix one of the biggest ongoing jokes in all of sports?

I haven't bothered with college ball in a long time and this isn't likely to change that stance.

If they want me and many others back, then they can give me a call when they decide to stop embarrassing themselves and address this in a manner that doesn't make everybody look like a bunch of crap-throwing monkeys.

 

 

It is a step in the right direction. With that being said if the true intent is to find the best team in college football & crown them NC 4 teams is sufficient. Very rarely is there more then 4 teams in a particular year that have a legit claim to be playing in the NC. It just does not happen. & with the emphasis now on strength of schedule as one of the factors your going to see more & more teams knocking each other out because the big conferences will be scheduling out of conference games against each other to boost their SOS my guess is in some years it is going to be tough to even find 4 teams that have unblemished resumes. For people that don't understand college football or don't watch it it is not that easy to just setup a 16 team playoff. There is alot of factors going into this. They wanted to keep the bowl structure in place. I know alot of people think bowls are stupid but there is a loyalty there & they have had a partnership & have made alot of money off the bowls for a very long time. Everybody is saying 8 teams but if you read Mandel's article in CNNSI if there were 8 teams last year the 8th team would of been Kansas State. They were 10-2 & had a nice year but in noway were they NC contender material. The other thing I think they want to avoid putting a 8 or 16 team field in place is the ambarrassment of playing in empty stadiums when a USC as a one seed plays Arkansas State as a 16 seed in the Colliseum opening round. This just was not going to fly. Also, they wanted to protect the importance of the regular season. The great thing about college football is for the most part every game in the regular season for national Title hopefulls is like a playoff game. This & the atmosphere of college gameday makes College Football superior to the NFL imo.

[BillyBaroo]

Here is my version of the 8 team playoff:

New Years day - Top 8 teams play (in my perfect scenario they would play in the bowl games of my childhood, Cotton, Orange, Sugar, and Rose)

This is followed by a 5-10 day break for the players before they start preparing for the semi finals, which will be held the day before the NFL championship games. So there would be semi-final Saturday for college followed by Championship Sunday for the NFL

College championship game will be held the following weekend, the bye week before the Super Bowl.

Never happen but if it did I would truly be footballed out and ready for a break from watching it.

I love this plan - I nominate you to be the next Big East Commissioner!

[ajzepp]

It is a step in the right direction. With that being said if the true intent is to find the best team in college football & crown them NC 4 teams is sufficient. Very rarely is there more then 4 teams in a particular year that have a legit claim to be playing in the NC.

 

See that's where I've had my biggest issue with the way college football has done things. I've always HATED the fact that you basically take out the underdog factor when you restrict the championship game to only the teams with unblemished regular season records. If you look at other sports, you'll often see teams that are seeded lower, but they rise to the occasion to win a championship. That's just more in-line with how I view a champion....a team who can rise up when it's all on the line and be the very best on that day. If the NFL used the collegiate system, there would be several super bowl champions that would have gone uncrowned just in the last 10 or 15 seasons. The story of the underdog is one of the biggest - maybe THE biggest - aspects of sports that I love.

 

I do feel this is a step in the right direction, and I really wish this was starting sooner rather than later, but I do hope they revisit this format earlier than 12 years from now and consider expanding the system just a bit more.

[Ramius]

It is a step in the right direction. With that being said if the true intent is to find the best team in college football & crown them NC 4 teams is sufficient. Very rarely is there more then 4 teams in a particular year that have a legit claim to be playing in the NC. It just does not happen. & with the emphasis now on strength of schedule as one of the factors your going to see more & more teams knocking each other out because the big conferences will be scheduling out of conference games against each other to boost their SOS my guess is in some years it is going to be tough to even find 4 teams that have unblemished resumes. For people that don't understand college football or don't watch it it is not that easy to just setup a 16 team playoff. There is alot of factors going into this. They wanted to keep the bowl structure in place. I know alot of people think bowls are stupid but there is a loyalty there & they have had a partnership & have made alot of money off the bowls for a very long time. Everybody is saying 8 teams but if you read Mandel's article in CNNSI if there were 8 teams last year the 8th team would of been Kansas State. They were 10-2 & had a nice year but in noway were they NC contender material. The other thing I think they want to avoid putting a 8 or 16 team field in place is the ambarrassment of playing in empty stadiums when a USC as a one seed plays Arkansas State as a 16 seed in the Colliseum opening round. This just was not going to fly. Also, they wanted to protect the importance of the regular season. The great thing about college football is for the most part every game in the regular season for national Title hopefulls is like a playoff game. This & the atmosphere of college gameday makes College Football superior to the NFL imo.

 

I have 2 big issues with this. First, who says that K-state wasn't "NC" material? You? Just because they aren't a traditional power? Any team that's in the top 8 in the nation deserves a shot at the title, to be determined on the field, not by some SEC-biased jackasses in a poll. K-state was playing some damn good football last season, and could have knocked off a top team. Going by the December BCS standings, the top 8 would have been LSU, 'bama, Ok St, Oregon, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise St, and K-state. All of those teams were playing great ball last year and its tough to argue that any of them didn't deserve a shot.

 

Second, as for the "protect the sanctity of the regular season" argument, that's traditionally one of the most asinine arguements out there. If the regular season is so important, then why was 'bama in the title game? They showed they couldn't beat LSU, so why'd they get a rematch? What about 2003 when there were 3 unbeatens? So much for Auburn's great regular season, huh? The regular season in college ball is a joke, because it has only mattered WHEN you lose, not WHO you lose to. If the "regular season is like a playoff" then every team that isn't unbeaten should not have a shot at the title.

[ajzepp]

I have 2 big issues with this. First, who says that K-state wasn't "NC" material? You? Just because they aren't a traditional power? Any team that's in the top 8 in the nation deserves a shot at the title, to be determined on the field, not by some SEC-biased jackasses in a poll. K-state was playing some damn good football last season, and could have knocked off a top team. Going by the December BCS standings, the top 8 would have been LSU, 'bama, Ok St, Oregon, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise St, and K-state. All of those teams were playing great ball last year and its tough to argue that any of them didn't deserve a shot.

 

Second, as for the "protect the sanctity of the regular season" argument, that's traditionally one of the most asinine arguements out there. If the regular season is so important, then why was 'bama in the title game? They showed they couldn't beat LSU, so why'd they get a rematch? What about 2003 when there were 3 unbeatens? So much for Auburn's great regular season, huh? The regular season in college ball is a joke, because it has only mattered WHEN you lose, not WHO you lose to. If the "regular season is like a playoff" then every team that isn't unbeaten should not have a shot at the title.

 

Even though I'm an SEC guy, I would have LOVED to see Okie St play for the title last season. I would have had no problem at all with Bama winning if they'd won it in a playoff system. But as you said, given the emphasis on the regular season, Bama shouldn't have had a 2nd shot at LSU, IMO.

[Mark Vader]

The always prescient "Mad Scientist of Football" - Mike Leach - laid out a perfectly logical and workable scenario for a 64-team playoff system over 3 years ago...

 

 

"The minimum should be 16 teams. I think 32 is better than 16, but I think 64 would be ideal. You could cut the regular season down to 10 games, but guarantee everybody 12 games. In the end, the champion would play 16 games.

 

Don't bring up school workload to him as an argument. "That's a bunch of foolishness," he chided, in a nice, polite tone. "The argument that players will miss too much school is not even relevant," says Leach. "Basketball players go to school, volleyball players go to school, baseball players go to school, and they play a lot more games than football players do." Link -Mike Leach wants a 64-team playoff

 

 

 

 

And to his critics who, at the time, called Leach's 64-team playoff idea "crazy", Leach opined...

 

"It's only crazy if you are in Division I football. There's nothing new about this playoff stuff. It would be like crediting me with inventing fire. I think 64 would be fun. You would cut the regular season back to 10. The champion is going to play 16 games. You would guarantee everybody 12 games for athletic budgets. Then, because it's fun, and it would be exciting to watch people from across the country play each other, you'd pick your 64.

 

"Then the arguments aren't who won the national championship. The arguments are about whether the 77th team is better than the 61st team. The one thing that would be indisputable is who ever did win it had legitimately and justifiably earned it. It's obviously workable. Any claims that its not workable because of this that and the other thing is ridiculous because they do it at every other level. The reason we don't do it like this is 'cause we choose not to. It's not because we can't. It's a bunch of bologna."

 

 

 

 

From 2009, bit of classic Leach arguing for his 64-team playoff...

 

(forward to the 2:50 mark)

 

youtube.com/watch?v=l5Wm_vCbQEM

 

 

I agree that a 64 team playoff would be a lot of fun, but I'd go with 32 teams instead.

 

64 teams is ideal for basketball, but too much for football. The talent level in basketball is more spread out across the country, simply because the rosters are not that big. Whereas with football some rosters reach close to 100 players. There is a big drop off in overall talent of football players on a national level, and a 64 team playoff would include a bunch of 7-5 & 6-6 teams. Not exactly high caliber teams.

[billsfan89]

Wow how bold a 4 team playoff in 2 years? How much of a pansy could the NCAA be? I took how many years to get this and its not that much of an improvement (Although its an improvement).

 

So sad that college football fears the best way to decide a national champ.

 

10 team playoff, top 6 teams get a bye while the bottom 4 play in for the bottom two seeds. Makes finishing a top seed important as you avoid a play in game, and it allows for little debate as to who the champ really is as if you can't get into the top 10, you didn't deserve a chance to be the national champ.

[ajzepp]

I agree that a 64 team playoff would be a lot of fun, but I'd go with 32 teams instead.

 

64 teams is ideal for basketball, but too much for football. The talent level in basketball is more spread out across the country, simply because the rosters are not that big. Whereas with football some rosters reach close to 100 players. There is a big drop off in overall talent of football players on a national level, and a 64 team playoff would include a bunch of 7-5 & 6-6 teams. Not exactly high caliber teams.

 

32 would be absolutely perfect, I agree. I would eat, sleep, and breathe college ball...no question about it.

Edited June 30, 2012 by ajzepp