I have an idea. Just give Ohio State the national championship, and call the title game, the battle of the runner up.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not philosophically opposed to a playoff, but the love of all things holy they need to cap it at 4 teams.
To apply RJ’s example of the NCAA basketball tournament, already this season, the men’s #1 team has lost twice.
There has also been a top 5 matchup already (#1 Florida vs. #4 Kansas).
AND NO ONE CARED A WHIT.
[/quote]
That’s because everyone knows that the basketball polls mean nothing - it will be proven on the court in March.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Division I football is the only collegiate sport that is not decided on the field/court/ice/gym etc.[/quote]
This year it has been decided on the field. When teams like USC, ND, and Ark needed to win, they lost and were eliminated from title contention.
[quote]
Playoffs end the guessing, and takes the power away from the pen wielding press and less than objective coaches. [/quote]
Playoffs cheapen the regular season and give teams second chances. Playoffs give lesser teams a chance to get lucky and beat the better team on a fluke.[quote]
How many times has the #1 team in basketball been sent home without a trophy in the NCAA basketball tourney? More than I can remember. [/quote]
The NCAA basketball tournament has 65 teams competing and a team needs 6 wins (7 if you’re the 64th and 65th seed) the title. That’s six chances for a one game upset. Of course there are going to be many times the top seeds don’t make it.
[quote]
If a playoff system is good enough for all of the other sports - what is keeping football from joining them and decding a real champion? What they are doing now is a joke. [/quote]
Like I said before, I’m not against a playoff, I just don’t want the regular season cheapened. I don’t want regular season games to mean nothing. A regular season loss should weigh heavily against a team. I don’t want a bunch of two-loss teams getting a chance to knock off an undefeated team in the playoffs.
The only way I would support a playoff system is if it was kept to 4 teams or less, maybe 6. Because, really, if a team isn’t ranked in the top 4-6, do they have a realistic reason to think they should be thought of as a national championship caliber team?
At the same time, undefeated teams from the so-called “lesser” conferences need to be accommodated in a playoff system.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
The only way I would support a playoff system is if it was kept to 4 teams or less, maybe 6. Because, really, if a team isn’t ranked in the top 4-6, do they have a realistic reason to think they should be thought of as a national championship caliber team?
[/quote]
I don’t get this. You want to invite only the top 4-6 teams to the playoffs. Who decides the top 4? You rely too much on subjective judgement on the part of the press and coaches to arrive at who the best teams are.
You can take 16 teams, guarantee the conference champions of the major and mid major conferences a spot, and use an RPI rating to determine the rest of the field. This takes a lot of the power away from the subjective press. Why should a writer for the NYT get to tell me who plays for the National Champion?
That would only add 4 weeks to the end of the season, and makes the regular season very very important.
As it stands now - all you need is 7 wins and you go to a bowl. Why not make the bowls mean something and make them part of the playoffs?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I don’t get this. You want to invite only the top 4-6 teams to the playoffs. Who decides the top 4? You rely too much on subjective judgement on the part of the press and coaches to arrive at who the best teams are. [/quote]
I’m relying on what the teams have accomplished during the course of the season to decide the best teams. Six teams is plenty. If a team doesn’t find itself ranked at least 6th by the end of the season, how can it possibly believe it is title game worthy?
[quote]
You can take 16 teams, guarantee the conference champions of the major and mid major conferences a spot, and use an RPI rating to determine the rest of the field. This takes a lot of the power away from the subjective press. Why should a writer for the NYT get to tell me who plays for the National Champion? [/quote]
I Love March Madness, but don’t turn college football into it. Even in March Madness, there are bubble teams that complain about not getting into the tourney. The larger the inclusion, the more complicated it is, and there will be more teams complaining.
Also, the press doesn’t get to tell you who plays for the title. The AP poll is no longer used in the BCS formula.
As I’ve said, I’m not against a playoff, but it’s going to take more than just throwing together some random tournament to convince me.
By your own admission - Boise State would be left out of your playoff scenario since they are ranked 8th, and they went 12-0.
I think you should throw the rankings out the window, and choose the conference champions from the 4-5 major conferences, and then fill the field of 16 teams based on strength of schedule and records.
I gon’t care so much about the teams that get left out of March Madness - but I have a problem when you have 3 teams with one loss and a team that went undefeated not getting a chance to prove who the best is on the field.
I can understand you not wanting too many teams - but even the NFL takes 12 teams to the playoffs.
I just want the national championship to be something more than a popularity contest - which is all it really is right now anyhow.
The problem with college football is just tht the landscape changes every year. Sometimes a 2-team championship works out best, sometimes a 4-team would be best, sometimes an 8-team and so on.
I made a post about this earlier, looking at the BCS vs. a playoff system. My conclusioon was:
"So in 6 years, a 2-team championship was the best choice twice, a 4-team playoff would’ve been the best choice twice, an 8-team playoff would’ve been the best choice once, and one year was just an overall clusterfuck, and I think 1v2 was the best choice in that year.
And therein lies why I think the BCS is better than a playoff system. The BCS isn’t great by a long shot, but playoffs would definitly be worse, in my opinon."
And I think this is true. College football is unique in that to be a national champion, you have to have a pretty complete resume over the course of the year, it’s not just the best team at the end of the year, it’s the best team over the whole year.
College baksetball and college football are my two favorite sports, for two different reasons. I love the drama of college football, it’s almost more about mental toughness, which team can hang on to that winning record throughout the whole year. College basketball is all about getting hot at the right time. Florida was definitly not the best team last year… but they were the best team at the end of the year when it counted.
The sports are different and I think trying to recreate that March Madness with football is a bad idea.
However, I agree that the bowls are fucking ridicuous. No need to have 30-some or however many bowls we have now. Cut down the number and then they will mean something.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I just want the national championship to be something more than a popularity contest - which is all it really is right now anyhow. [/quote]
I don’t think we’re that far off in our disagreement. A playoff is fine with me as long as it doesn’t water down the regular season.
Is the championship a popularity contest? I will agree to a point. But it is also what they do with that popularity throughout the course of a full season.
I love college football because the regular season means so much. One loss against the wrong team at the wrong time can cost you a shot at the championship. I don’t want that to change.
I’ll admit, I don’t know how to fix it. Right now, I think the best solution is an “if necessary” playoff scenario. Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever happen. So, for now, and for this season, the BCS got it right by sending Florida to the title game.