TYT: Does College Football Need A Playoff System?

[ihavenobias]

Cenk and Jayar Jackson of The Young Turks explain their position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74H_HeEaUWk

It makes sense to me, but honestly I'm a huge NFL fan (sadly in light of the Bears season). At any rate, this comment left under the video sounds about right:

"There is too much money and power tied up into the current bowl system. Plus, with conference tie ins to certain bowls. college presidents and athletic directors in the major conference don't necessarily want to see that gravy train disappear if a legitimate playoff were to come into place. It's all about money and politics."

[trumad]

1. I believe they will move to a playoff system.

I would love to see teams like Boise and Cinci get a chance to be a Cinderella team.

[joeybee12]

2. "It's all about money and politics"

...yup.

[madinmaryland]

3. Absolutely. It will probably be another five years of fiascos until

they realize there is even more money to be made with a playoff series for the national championship.

[ihavenobias]

27. That's a huge part of the equation. Some would say it's 100% of the equation.

Can they make more money with playoffs?

[LisaM]

4. It's about the towns and venues that host those bowl games

and 31, count 'em, 31 schools who will end their season on a winning note - versus just ONE.

This winner take all mentality never fails to disgust me. I love bowl season! Something for everyone! Lots of winners. Good times.

Why people want to take all that away mystifies me. It truly does.

Most disgusting slogan in sports? Win or go home. It's just so - so - unsporting.

Of course I like my teams to win games. And many sports lend themselves to playoffs. I particularly like the seven-game series they have in baseball and hockey. But college football, so much fun just the way it is. I'm tired of mean people trying to change it.

[Upton]

5. Do you feel the same way about March Madness?

it's win or go home...maybe we should scrap it, huh?

[BulletproofLandshark]

7. So why not keep the bowls and still have playoffs?

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

[JonLP24]

8. I was thinking the same thing

I'm thinking of 8 teams or maybe less you know to keep it to where the regular season matters a lot (I don't mind the BCS formula, just two teams is too inclusive) and maybe shorten the regular season 1-2 games just enough to keep all the Conference games and to continue the rivalries from out of conference teams such as Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, USC-Notre Dame, to New Mexico-New Mexico State. It's not a perfect idea at this point but it's a starting point. And keep the rest of the bowls.

[madinmaryland]

9. Lisa, Every college conference and college sport has a championship series.

Even high school and pee wee football has state and national championships.

I suppose if you want the top college football division to look like junior peewees then the BCS is for you.

[LisaM]

11. I like tradition.

Some don't.

I don't think it's the same as a college basketball playoff. The logistics of hosting a football game are far, far different.

Be that as it may, I just liked the old way. I don't like the BCS - it's stupid. But I liked it the way it was because it was the tradition my father and grandfathers and great-grandfathers grew up with (grandmothers, too, for that matter). It was fun.

A playoff would take the fun out of it.

We're Wyoming fans. Wyoming had a surprise 6-win season this year and they get to go to a bowl game. It makes a lot of people happy. A school like Wyoming with a 6-6 season would get completely shut out by any proposed system.

And I think it's patently unfair to keep the current bowls as a playoff. You're going to tell Michigan and Ohio State they have to play all their playoff games on the road? Home field would have to be factored in.

It's just a fundamental difference between people. You'll never convince me that the old way wasn't good. It was a lot of fun. I loved it. It's already been taken away from me, like so much else. Why not just drive the knife in a little further?

[JonLP24]

12. The BCS certainly improved on the old way

They have far more smaller Conference teams in major bowl games since the BCS then they did in the past and that is a good thing. Before the BCS the Sugar Bowl faced the #1 and #2 poll teams but since the Rose Bowl must have Big 10 vs Pac 10 even if one is ranked 1 or 2 created a mess and it didn't matter if one of those teams went undefeated because coaches were required to vote for the Sugar Bowl winner. If you recall an undefeated Michigan team beat Washington State in the Rose Bowl and an undefeated Nebraska team beat somebody and that was a mess since they should have played each other based on Poll rankings.

Same with 1996 but there is less of an argument here #1 Florida State already beat Florida in the regular season but since #2 undefeated Arizona State had to go to the Rose Bowl and play #4 Ohio State(they lost by a late TD by Boston) and #3 Florida beat #1 Florida State(rematch) and they won the NC when it should have been ASU-FSU. ----------Hypothetically I wanted to point out. If #2ASU won they could only get the AP Championship because coaches were tied to the Sugar Bowl thus giving 1 loss Florida the NC instead of a hypothetical undefeated ASU team.

I also recall a Colorado State team in the 90's that went 8-3 but they didn't go to a bowl game because they didn't have any wins that we're considered impressive so Wyoming would have been shunned to. In my proposed fictional system you keep all the bowls and slot the 1-4 teams based on closest to regional or something like that. Very rarely you have home field in the basketball. It is flawed but it's better then the mess Divison 1 is compared to II, III.

I will say what is not fun is the prospect of having 3 undefeated teams at the end of the season and only 1 will be awarded National Champs. (It was far more BS the way they awarded NC before the BCS).

[LisaM]

13. I didn't mind a shared national championship

What's wrong with co-champs? Michigan - Nebraska, Washington - Miami come to mind. I am a Michigan fan and the fact that Nebraska also went undefeated and it was considered a shared national championship did not bother me in the least. I was sad that it was the last true Rose Bowl, though.

But, I am not going to persuade anyone and no one's going to persuade me.

[JonLP24]

16. I'll just answer your question and give it a rest

I know being a fan of team with several championships you may not mind if a few was shared especially considering it was an undefeated team. :)

The thing I was trying to point out #1 and #2 is supposed to go to the Sugar Bowl unless #1 or #2 was in the Rose Bowl(the 10 schools). The problem with that is the coaches are required to vote for the Sugar Bowl winner. I hate to use my team because I have no argument because they lost so look at this way. #1 (ACC) is (11-0) #2 (Pac 10) is (11-0) #3 (SEC) is (10-1) #4 (Big 10) is (10-1).

So Sugar Bowl is #1 (11-0) vs #3(10-1) #3 wins.
Rose Bowl #2(11-0) vs #4(10-1) #2 wins.

Coaches award National Championship to a (11-1) team because they are forced to.
Media award NC to a (12-0) team.

That means a 1 loss team got a share with an undefeated team. I felt that was a messed up way of determining things so in a way the BCS was created because of issues such as that and having a Nebraska and Michigan.

Also I'm straying away from your question but since the BCS there have been more smaller conference schools in major bowls then ever before. That is also a factor I like that I feel is an improvement to how they were represented in the past. I'm not trying to persuade but answering your question. :)

[LisaM]

17. Michigan has only had one championship in my lifetime

their previous one was in 1948!

There didn't used to be a requirement to vote for the Sugar Bowl winner.

[JonLP24]

18. Oh sorry I didn't know that!

I remember reading somewhere that Michigan is up there with Notre Dame, Texas and I forgot who else as having the most wins of all time and I thought that may have equated for a lot of Championships for Michigan. :)

[LisaM]

19. They went 30-2-1 for a three-year streak and never went to a bowl game

It changed the way the Big Ten handled their bowls (they'd had a no-repeat rule until sometime in the 70s). So you can see why I think the more bowls the better!!!!


http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/nov/11-18-98/news/news1.html

[madinmaryland]

23. Are you a Wyoming fan or a Michigan fan?

I am confused now.

BTW. Ohio State --> 1968 and 2002.

[LisaM]

25. I am a Michigan fan

We root for Wyoming too, ever since we adopted a dog from there. But we went to Michigan.

[caraher]

21. Not on the old, old way...

To me it's just this simple: there are only 2 systems, a true playoff and bowls. We have bowls.

There are traditionalists like LisaM who like bowls and then there are others who want clear-cut champions. Short of a genuine playoff, BCS and its ancestors equate reduction in the amount of argument over who deserves to be ranked 1-2 and meet at the end of the year with improvement. But it's not for two reasons:

1. It will never be remotely fair. Eligibility for "championships" determined not on the field but by statistical formulas and opinion surveys? By chance, there may be years with 2 undefeated schools entering the bowls; pretty much every other scenario leads to someone shut out not because someone beat them on the field but because of conference reputation, school reputation, and other factors at best tenuously related to merit.

2. Absent a true champion, arguments are good for interest in college football. We can entertain ourselves with partisan debates about the superiority of one's favorite school, conference, etc. and it all just leaves us itching to see games.

Part of the fun of the bowl system before people tried to manufacture an annual 1 vs. 2 game was that the mythical title was up for grabs in unpredictable ways. January 1 was a day of intrigue from after the Rose Parade to well past the excesses of the Orange Bowl halftime show - a marathon of top-notch action and controversy. BCS has utterly dissipated this energy, sucking the life out of New Year's Day as an annual high point in sports. On Jan. 1 I watch the bowls, and then I go back to work. Watching the mythical national title game really feels like an anticlimax to me.

Sure, the old system was unfair and left more questions unresolved than it solved. But making the last bowl matchup conform to a formula for #1 vs. #2 no more creates a true champion than a choice of coke or pepsi means you've exhausted the choices of nonalcoholic beverages. We now have most of the unfairness and far less of the drama and debate - and the debate is more about the system than the teams.

Having said all that, I'd prefer a playoff system to the BCS charade so long as it was big enough. I think 8 teams would do it - we definitely want the undefeated teams, since shutting any of them out means they did not lose their shot at a title on the field. Otherwise I'm with Lisa and would prefer a return to delicious chaos...

[JonLP24]

22. Ah you make good points

Especially your perspective on the major bowls though I do like the BCS matchups this year.

I agree with pretty much everything except for that the arguments about who has a better team/conference, they drive me mad. :)

[joeybee12]

24. What, what, WHAT???!@!!!!

WHAT???!!!!!!!

[madinmaryland]

14. I am glad that you enjoy tradition and I am not suggesting that that is bad.

What I would like to say, is that what they have now in this ONE division of college football is seriously flawed.

If what you want is a series of exhibition games with no real meaning, then that is what you have now.

Would a playoff take the fun out of it??

As an example, imagine if Wyoming won their conference with a 7-5 record after winning a surprise upset of the heavily favored team in their league. (TCU??) In the current scenario they might make an appearance in the astro-blue-bonnet bowl against the fourth ranked team in the Mid American Conference (not Notre Dame, at least not yet). OTOH, they might just have gotten an invitation to THE BIG DANCE! I would be excited as hell to be going to the BIG DANCE! Once you get there, anything can happen. Just ask Appalachian State!

:hi:

BTW, I'll have to look into when they started playing bowl games that Penn State might have been eligible for or actually played in. My g-grandfather would have been a Penn State Fan (if he actually cared about football) in the 1890's. I honestly think he was too busy trying to survive to be worried about football. Just sayin.

[Upton]

6. We'll get a playoff system someday

if nothing else, these greedy antiquated old fogies that run things now will die off eventually..

[madinmaryland]

10. They will eventually realize they can make even MORE cash than they

are now.

It's got to happen. Unfortunately it will take another five or so years.

[insanity]

15. We can retain all of the bowl games

And make the playoff for the top 16 teams. That way everyone wins and losses. Who wouldn't want to spend a week watching some good bowl match-ups and then spend a Saturday watching the titans clash for the championship. Think of some of the great matches we could of seen this year:
Oregon vs. Texas
Oregon State vs. Boise State
Cincy vs. Florida
TCU vs. Texas

These games would settle the best conference debate.

[LisaM]

20. Right, and all the northern teams would have to come south for the playoffs?

I don't think so. I suppose, God forbid, we'll have to go to a playoff some day and on that day, I look forward to some SEC team coming and playing in the snow.

[BOSSHOG]

26. I agree Lisa, but

if an SEC team is involved they would most likely have the better record thus the home field. But a win in Baton Rouge or Columbus is a win.