1-A football playoff? No thanks.

[el Tigre]

I disagree with this. In any tourney system, I assume the polls would be kept intact, a la College Hockey and Bball. The intensity was due to the fact that a #1 team was coming into an opponents' house, always a cause for intensity for the home team. When Duke visits Wake Forest, with Duke being #1 and WF being unranked, there is no doubt an intensity, although a loss for Duke would not knock them out of title contention. I think intense games would remain intense due to the ranking and the rivalry aspects. Also, who's to say a loss wouldn't knock USC out of playoff contention rather than championship? Is that not as important?

It would be much less likely that a loss to an unranked opponent would knock them out of a playoff. As long as they won their conference they would be in,in most playoff models. The comparison to NCAA basketball is a good one. I don't want the football regular season to become like the basketball regular season. With the exception of rivalry games,unless you are a hardcore basketball fan it's pretty boring.We're all just waiting for the tournament. Because of the pressure to win every week the intensity of the NCAA regular season in unmatched.

[Andrew in CA]

It would be much less likely that a loss to an unranked opponent would knock them out of a playoff. As long as they won their conference they would be in,in most playoff models. The comparison to NCAA basketball is a good one. I don't want the football regular season to become like the basketball regular season. With the exception of rivalry games,unless you are a hardcore basketball fan it's pretty boring.We're all just waiting for the tournament. Because of the pressure to win every week the intensity of the NCAA regular season in unmatched.

I see your point, but the paucity of regular season college football games necessitates a crapload of rivalry games, no? Going by BC's schedule, there are 12 games in the season, 8 of which are conference games. 75% of games would be rivalry games, and if we were to get rid of one out of conference game to make room for the playoffs, then there would be only 3 boring games per year.

Also, you are correct that it would be much less likely an unranked would knock USC, or any big team, out of a playoff, but it would also ratchet up every conference game thereafter- USC would not be able to afford to lose another conference game, lest they miss out on a conference title, therefore keeping them out of the playoffs.

In my mind, the issue for a playoff is that it is the most equitable system when there are so few games played. I feel that the relationship between games and knowing which teams are the best is direct- ie, the fewer games played, the less we know which teams are the best. The more games played, the more we know which teams are the best. Since CFB is the sport with the fewest amount of games, I think it needs a playoff.

[el Tigre]

I see your point, but the paucity of regular season college football games necessitates a crapload of rivalry games, no? Going by BC's schedule, there are 12 games in the season, 8 of which are conference games. 75% of games would be rivalry games, and if we were to get rid of one out of conference game to make room for the playoffs, then there would be only 3 boring games per year.

Also, you are correct that it would be much less likely an unranked would knock USC, or any big team, out of a playoff, but it would also ratchet up every conference game thereafter- USC would not be able to afford to lose another conference game, lest they miss out on a conference title, therefore keeping them out of the playoffs.

In my mind, the issue for a playoff is that it is the most equitable system when there are so few games played. I feel that the relationship between games and knowing which teams are the best is direct- ie, the fewer games played, the less we know which teams are the best. The more games played, the more we know which teams are the best. Since CFB is the sport with the fewest amount of games, I think it needs a playoff.

You make good points.What do you think of a Plus One type system?

[Andrew in CA]

You make good points.What do you think of a Plus One type system?

I think a Plus One would be a good compromise for now, but I still prefer a playoff system that includes all the BCS conference championship winners- it think that system would leave the least amount of room for complaints, would be the most fair system, and increase the intensity of all conference games, which I agree with you is important. Seeing a Plus One in action, I believe, would be a step in the direction to a larger playoff. I think a Plus One should be instituted, though, if there is trepidation about revamping the whole system to an 8 team playoff.

[el Tigre]

I think a Plus One would be a good compromise for now, but I still prefer a playoff system that includes all the BCS conference championship winners- it think that system would leave the least amount of room for complaints, would be the most fair system, and increase the intensity of all conference games, which I agree with you is important. Seeing a Plus One in action, I believe, would be a step in the direction to a larger playoff. I think a Plus One should be instituted, though, if there is trepidation about revamping the whole system to an 8 team playoff.

I don't like the 8 team playoff in most examples I've seen because of the at large bids. A team like USC could lose their conference,possibly have even 2 losses and still make the tournament over,say, the WAC champ. Just to throw an idea out there,why not every 1-A conference champ automatically gets into the tournament? In addition there could be 1 or 2 at large bids. I imagine the problem would be the amount of games that would have to be played. Could anybody come up with way to make that work?

[Andrew in CA]

I don't like the 8 team playoff in most examples I've seen because of the at large bids. A team like USC could lose their conference,possibly have even 2 losses and still make the tournament over,say, the WAC champ. Just to throw an idea out there,why not every 1-A conference champ automatically gets into the tournament? In addition there could be 1 or 2 at large bids. I imagine the problem would be the amount of games that would have to be played. Could anybody come up with way to make that work?

You're right that the 8 team leaves room for more complaining, especially by the non big conference teams. If they could even drop two ooc games, then I think you're idea of including all champs plus 2 at large's would be the best. Now, I don't know about the $ aspect or feasibility in terms of students' academic schedules , but I think it would be the most fair and most exciting.

[bills_fan]

I do like the Plus One idea, take the top 4 teams, use the current major bowls and rotate. Yes, you will have arguments about who is in that top 4, but less than who is in the top 2. The system has worked ok the last couple of years, but remember undefeated Auburn a couple years back, or having to watch Oklahoma get pounded by USC when LSU-USC was the game everyone wanted to see? Plus One deals with that problem pretty nicely.