What's the perfect playoff system?

[Yo Tee]

It's kind of like watching a car accident...you just can't forget how tragic it is.

Glad to see you can disagree respectfully...

 

[belcherboy]

Whoever decided they should be in the top 4 teams.

So four teams played for the championship last night?

 

[Old Lion]

So four teams played for the championship last night?

Big whoop. They each won a game. Why should some just give them the opportunity instead of making them earn it? Play your schedule. Win your conference. Play for championship. Just like every single other sport.

 

[belcherboy]

D1 football is the only major sport college or pro where opinion decides who plays for the championship.

By the way, this is simply not true. The NCAA tournament is largely determined by opinion as well, especially when determining many teams and their seeding. If you are saying that D-I football is the only sport that doesn't have automatic bids, then I agree with you, but I felt like these past two weeks have been the best football we've seen. I personally like the system.

 

[belcherboy]

Big whoop. They each won a game. Why should some just give them the opportunity instead of making them earn it? Play your schedule. Win your conference. Play for championship. Just like every single other sport.

But every other single sport's tournament isn't just for conference champions. So opinion still plays a big factor. I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.

 

[Old Lion]

By the way, this is simply not true. The NCAA tournament is largely determined by opinion as well, especially when determining many teams and their seeding. If you are saying that D-I football is the only sport that doesn't have automatic bids, then I agree with you, but I felt like these past two weeks have been the best football we've seen. I personally like the system.

Yes that is what I am saying. Teams win their conference and then someone tells them "sorry but in our opinion this other team is better".

 

[Old Lion]

But every other single sport's tournament isn't just for conference champions. So opinion still plays a big factor. I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.

See above

 

[belcherboy]

Yes that is what I am saying. Teams win their conference and then someone tells them "sorry but in our opinion this other team is better".

Why is that so bad? Are you saying we should show the same respect for the MAC champion as the SEC champion? Because, if you choose the SEC champion over the MAC, or even give them a higher seed, you are stating an opinion there too.

Every sport has an opinion mixed into it when determining a tournament. The only way around it is if every team plays every other team...obviously that is impossible, but even then there will still be a lack of clarity on whom is better when teams have multiple losses.

 

[batchaps4me]

This year it would've been either:

A) 3-Georgia vs 6-UCF & 4-Ohio State vs 5-USC
UGA/UCF winner vs 2-Oklahoma
OSU/USC winner vs 1-Clemson

B) 1-Clemson vs 8-UCF
2-Oklahoma vs 7-USC
3-Georgia vs 6-Wisconsin
4-Alabama vs 5-Ohio State

I like this with the caveat that the higher seed gets home field advantage on campus for the first round.

 

[Mike A. S.]

C) Leave the current system, but make some adjustments as needed.

It isn't just a 4 team playoff as it is. Since it uses a lot of information to make those final rankings it is a regular season and CCG playoff of sorts that leads to a final 4. You aren't blindly rewarding say Bama beating Mercer and treating it the same as Auburn beating Georgia (which anything based on record inherently does). You are making BOTH the quality of the match up and how they looked in the game matter just as much as final score. You would lose all perspective in any type of auto bid system.

Any form of auto anything would just screw with the system so badly it would make things quite worse IMO.

You cannot use current seasons and look at matchups under your proposed new playoffs to conclude any other system would be better because any change to an auto bid would entirely change how schools schedule OOC, and could potentially change how the conferences themselves make their schedules and/or CCG's. There is zero doubt it would bring sweeping and drastic changes.

I'm not saying I'm actually in favor of making any changes either. I think it is good now too. I even told some of my friends during conference championship week that that was kinda like the quarterfinals week. ACC & SEC were literal play-in games. Big Ten was close to it as well, and even the Big 12 had some chances at it as well. I agree it's good how it is. Just more so making conversation to see if there's any better ideas.

 

[Old Lion]

Why is that so bad? Are you saying we should show the same respect for the MAC champion as the SEC champion? Because, if you choose the SEC champion over the MAC, or even give them a higher seed, you are stating an opinion there too.

Every sport has an opinion mixed into it when determining a tournament. The only way around it is if every team plays every other team...even then there will still be a lack of clarity on whom is better when teams have multiple losses.

Not for at large bids no. MAC champion should still have the opportunity to play for the championship though. Teams in tougher conferences will cry about it. They can move to weaker conferences if it is that big a deal.. It will become a question for them of choosing between money and fame. I am not interested in their economics. Only in fairness.

 

[Deep Creek]

That's just not true. Bama proved that you don't have to be a conference champion to be the best team in the country...but again, your opinion is that Georgia is still the better team, and Bama shouldn't have even been in the playoffs to begin with. I just don't see the logic in your opinions.

March Madness?

 

[belcherboy]

Not for at large bids no. MAC champion should still have the opportunity to play for the championship though. Teams in tougher conferences will cry about it. They can move to weaker conferences if it is that big a deal.. It will become a question for them of choosing between money and fame. I am not interested in their economics. Only in fairness.

It would RADICALLY change the college football season IMO, if you open it up that big. It may not be a terrible thing, but I prefer the way it is now. Just my two cents.

 

[batchaps4me]

The downside is that right now, I believe, we have had the best 4 teams selected every playoff season. Let's keep the system that works, rather than try to force a system where a 3 loss team can sneak in the back door simply because they win their conference.

Even in a 6 or 8 team playoff...just pick the best teams. The committee deserves a lot of credit for the teams they have selected every year IMO. I know not everyone agrees with that though.

AND

They always get it right because it's easy as hell by the time it matters as most of these things work themselves out over the season.

And please tell me why a conference championship which only takes account that conference should have national implications? A team could lose every OOC game they play in a year, lose multiple conference games but then somehow make the conference championship game and win - and that is supposed to mean something nationally?

No. If your conference champion gets left out - then there is a reason for it.

Now there is an area that can be fixed that would help the playoffs and that's for the conferences to change how they decide their champions.

First of all, the CFP committee is a good system and I am well pleased considering what we had with the BCS. It's just that IMHO there needs to be subjective criteria in selecting playoff teams. Moving to 8 team playoff would add that with AQs for the CCs. It would also allow for the eye test to be applied to teams. The other thing is that it allows for the possibility of college campus playoff games.

 

[Deep Creek]

I'm not saying I'm actually in favor of making any changes either. I think it is good now too. I even told some of my friends during conference championship week that that was kinda like the quarterfinals week. ACC & SEC were literal play-in games. Big Ten was close to it as well, and even the Big 12 had some chances at it as well. I agree it's good how it is. Just more so making conversation to see if there's any better ideas.

Disagree. I can't see TCU getting in with a win over OU in the Big 12. Wisky or Ohio State would have taken OU's place.

 

[belcherboy]

AND



First of all, the CFP committee is a good system and I am well pleased considering what we had with the BCS. It's just that IMHO there needs to be subjective criteria in selecting playoff teams. Moving to 8 team playoff would add that with AQs for the CCs. It would also allow for the eye test to be applied to teams. The other thing is that it allows for the possibility of college campus playoff games.

Again, I think AQ's could hurt in determining who the best teams in the country are. Also, the bigger the playoff, the less significant the regular season becomes. It just opens the tournament up to 2-3 loss teams. Again, if they expanded the playoffs I'm still watching, and LOVING the fact that Michigan has a better chance at making the playoffs, but I'd rather just see the VERY best 4-6 teams in the playoffs every year, and I think the committee does a good job determining those teams as they do now.

By the way, I believe the BCS was a formulaic system, and most people complained about it (I thought there was some formula to it IIRC). I REALLY liked this past playoff season, and wouldn't change a thing. Again, just my two cents.

 

[belcherboy]

March Madness?

Ha ha...I guess we could extend the season into March. I'm not against that!

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm not saying I'm actually in favor of making any changes either. I think it is good now too. I even told some of my friends during conference championship week that that was kinda like the quarterfinals week. ACC & SEC were literal play-in games. Big Ten was close to it as well, and even the Big 12 had some chances at it as well. I agree it's good how it is. Just more so making conversation to see if there's any better ideas.

Fair enough.

I don't think this format is perfect myself, but I don't see any other options that would improve on it. At least not ideas that would ever be possible to actually implement.

Whether we like it or not the bowl system is the main obstacle for any real effective change. And that bowl system gives a big chunk of the money the non P5 conferences operate under so not sure they would agree it needs to end even if it gave one of their rank a better shot at a playoff berth.

So it starts with do we keep the bowl system and continue to try and crown a 'champ' within that structure, or blow it up and just go with a playoff and no bowls? If you could pull off the latter you might find a better formula for how to have a proper playoff format with more teams. Mind you, I'm not in favor of that, but just pointing out that's an option for some.

The out of conference schedules is another major problem for any real changes. So many want the conf champs to 'mean more' which perplexes me frankly, but those championships entirely ignore out of conf games as if they were never played. So we are asking to put this notion of who is best in the sport, but make every single game out of conf exhibition? I really can't understand how so many up here are for that. They want to bitch about teams being able to get into a playoff without even playing in a CCG where they get in based on their overall play in 12 games and instead promote a system where only 8-9 games count in any way at all and then those 8-9 win/loss records have so much variance in meaning from one conference to another. This somehow makes sense to people and it just baffles me.

 

[batchaps4me]

Again, I think AQ's could hurt in determining who the best teams in the country are. Also, the bigger the playoff, the less significant the regular season becomes. It just opens the tournament up to 2-3 loss teams. Again, if they expanded the playoffs I'm still watching, and LOVING the fact that Michigan has a better chance at making the playoffs, but I'd rather just see the VERY best 4-6 teams in the playoffs every year, and I think the committee does a good job determining those teams as they do now.

By the way, I believe the BCS was a formulaic system, and most people complained about it (I thought there was some formula to it IIRC). I REALLY liked this past playoff season, and wouldn't change a thing. Again, just my two cents.

I agree that adding teams dilute the field a bit but I hold conferences in the same regard as the NFL does its conferences. IMHO if you win any P5 conference, you have done enough to compete for a national championship.

 

[TheDayMan]

Determine a ranking system to be used, like, the AP or coaches poll, or assemble a ranking committee, take the top 4 teams, pick the biggest most respected bowls (rose, orange, etc) to take turns hosting the games, and they can revert to their traditional matchups in off years.

Sounds like a winning plan to me. If only...