UF President to Push for Playoffs, FSU Supports

[Bobcat99]

Everyone understands that the season is what determines the NC contenders.  

The fact that Michigan very nearly found itself in the national championship game immediately after losing to Ohio State is proof that the regular season is not as important as anti-playoff advocates would have you think.

They play 16 team playoffs at all other levels of college football. I fail to see why that cannot be done for I-A. Any other solution fails to address the major issue with the bowl system, which is NOT that teams like Florida, et al get left out. They chose to be left out by LOSING. The major failure with the system is that UNDEFEATED TEAMS get left out. Boise State and Ohio State are the only two undefeated teams in the country. In any other sports division, conference, or league on EARTH those two teams would be facing each other for the championship. Alas, Boise State is denied a chance -- despite the fact they pay the same NCAA membership dues as Ohio State.

The idea that BCS Conference teams are somehow more deserving, simply because they have more money (owing mainly to them earning more BCS bowl money, which is simply a matter of widening the wage gap), is ludicrous. If you're going to exclude non-BCS teams, then completely exclude them and create a new division. But don't use non-BCS teams to bolster your record (*cough* Florida), claim they're legitimate wins, but then deny the Boise States (or Utahs, or Miamis, or any other non-BCS undefeated teams from the past three/four years) access to the money that keeps the rich schools rich.

Hence, a 16 team playoff that includes all 11 conference champions and 5 at-large teams. The "it keeps students out of school too long" argument is, of course, laughable, as it someone alleges I-A football players are somehow more studious than those at I-AA, II, or III who play 16-team playoffs yearly.

I realize that we are BCS now and have no reason to acknowledge the existence of non-BCS teams. Yet it was not all that long ago we WEREN'T BCS.

[bull2saintleo]

eliminating bye weeks fails to take into account conferences that have championship games like the ACC, Big 12, and SEC.

But like I said, all conferences would play their normal 12-game season from (comparing to this season) Sept. 2-Nov. 18.  The following Saturday (the 25th this year) would be designated as Conference Championship Saturday, in which any conference with a championship game must have their game scheduled sometime on or before that date (ie. like the MAC Championship yesterday, CUSA Championship tonight, and all others tomorrow)

[Jake_Ryan]

One of the things that makes college football so great is that every game counts, and a playoff system must not destroy that, or it will ruin the game.  Therfore, the playoff system cannot have 16 teams - that is too many and makes too many games meaningless.  

I have long favored an 8 team playoff system with 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams selected by a committee much like in basketball.  The non-BCS conferences would not be excluded, but their top teams (like Boise St) would be evaluated for merit by the committee against your 1 or 2 loss BCS teams like LSU.  It would not be left up to computers by using a committee, and they would seed teh teams.  Use the current bowl games to host 4 first round games on New Years Day.  Then play it out the following 2 weeks.   By limiting the automatic berths to conference champions it places a premium on conference play and even enhances the importance of some late season match ups.  

Here's how it would look this year (with my assumptions of who wins this weekend's games):

1 Ohio St vs. 8 Wake Forest

4 Arkansas vs 5 Louisville

2 USC vs 7 Boise St

3 Michigan vs 6 Nebraska

With that said, the major flaw I see is that the championship game leaks to mid-January.  So I can support a plus 1 type 4 team playoff using the bowls like someone proposed earlier.  

[BullsFanInTX]

With the plus one system using the BCS bowls, I wouldn't think there would be anything keeping them from implementing it immediately, unlike a playoff system.  Plus, all the schools in love with the bowls would get to keep going.  All of the bowls would remain unchanged.

[Bobcat99]

One of the things that makes college football so great is that every game counts, and a playoff system must not destroy that, or it will ruin the game.  Therfore, the playoff system cannot have 16 teams - that is too many and makes too many games meaningless.  

So you are saying, then, that the playoff system in I-AA, II, and III is too many games? Again, I point you toward the fact that Michigan is in the BCS, and under your system, would be in the 8-team playoff, despite the fact they LOST already, and if OSU wanted to win the championship, they'd have to beat Michigan TWICE. How, exactly, does that make the regular season meaningful?

I have long favored an 8 team playoff system with 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams selected by a committee much like in basketball.

Wow. The committee system has consistently proven to be a failure and slanted toward major-conference teams. In football, this would be even worse. You really think they'd let Boise State in over Florida or Arkansas or LSU or even Notre Dame (considering how often the NCAA bends over for ND)...

The biggest problem is everyone's willing assumption that the 6 BCS conferences are somehow superior to the other ones. National champions have and will come from non-BCS conferences.  It was only 20 years ago that the national champion was from the WAC. Of course, every year that goes by in which a Big 10 bottom-dweller like Northwestern earns more money in bowl revenue than the MAC Champion (CMU will struggle to break even, while Northwestern will reap $750,000 in cash for simply being terrible) this gap will widen and the likelihood will fade.

The non-BCS conferences would not be excluded, but their top teams (like Boise St) would be evaluated for merit by the committee against your 1 or 2 loss BCS teams like LSU.

Evaluated for merit? THEY WENT UNDEFEATED! What more do you want? The NCAA basketball tournament looks at Out-Of-Conference games for their main evaluation of at-larges. So let's take a look at OOC games for Boise State and currently-whining-about-being-left-out-of-the-game Florida:

Boise State

Sacramento State (crappy I-AA team)

Oregon State (beat USC, possibly bowl bound)

@ Wyoming (Mountain West, bowl bound)

@ Utah (Mountain West, bowl bound)

Florida

Western Carolina (crappy I-AA team)

Southern Miss (bowl bound)

UCF (4-8 CUSA team)

@ Florida State (6-6, laughable)

By limiting the automatic berths to conference champions it places a premium on conference play and even enhances the importance of some late season match ups.  

Okay, let's take it a step further:

8 teams. All must be conference champions. However, throw out this "BCS conference" ********. Take the TOP EIGHT CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS. Sure, human bias will mean the "BCS Conference" champions get in most of the time, but as far as I'm concerned, IF YOU DON'T WIN YOUR CONFERENCE, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. This isn't basketball.

Here's how it would look this year (with my assumptions of who wins this weekend's games):

1 Ohio St vs. 8 Wake Forest

4 Arkansas vs 5 Louisville

2 USC vs 7 Boise St

3 Michigan vs 6 Nebraska

I would be fine with that (assuming Nebraska beats Oklahoma and Arkansas beats Florida) except replace Michigan with BYU, the next best conference champion. Again, Michigan has no business competing for the national championship. THEY ALREADY LOST TO OHIO STATE. Once you lose, you have no case. For anything. Quit whining. If you wanted to be national champion, perhaps you shouldn't have lost to anyone.

[BullsFanInTX]

One of the things that makes college football so great is that every game counts, and a playoff system must not destroy that, or it will ruin the game.  Therfore, the playoff system cannot have 16 teams - that is too many and makes too many games meaningless.  

So you are saying, then, that the playoff system in I-AA, II, and III is too many games? Again, I point you toward the fact that Michigan is in the BCS, and under your system, would be in the 8-team playoff, despite the fact they LOST already, and if OSU wanted to win the championship, they'd have to beat Michigan TWICE. How, exactly, does that make the regular season meaningful?

I have long favored an 8 team playoff system with 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams selected by a committee much like in basketball.

Wow. The committee system has consistently proven to be a failure and slanted toward major-conference teams. In football, this would be even worse. You really think they'd let Boise State in over Florida or Arkansas or LSU or even Notre Dame (considering how often the NCAA bends over for ND)...

The biggest problem is everyone's willing assumption that the 6 BCS conferences are somehow superior to the other ones. National champions have and will come from non-BCS conferences.  It was only 20 years ago that the national champion was from the WAC. Of course, every year that goes by in which a Big 10 bottom-dweller like Northwestern earns more money in bowl revenue than the MAC Champion (CMU will struggle to break even, while Northwestern will reap $750,000 in cash for simply being terrible) this gap will widen and the likelihood will fade.

The non-BCS conferences would not be excluded, but their top teams (like Boise St) would be evaluated for merit by the committee against your 1 or 2 loss BCS teams like LSU.

Evaluated for merit? THEY WENT UNDEFEATED! What more do you want? The NCAA basketball tournament looks at Out-Of-Conference games for their main evaluation of at-larges. So let's take a look at OOC games for Boise State and currently-whining-about-being-left-out-of-the-game Florida:

Boise State

Sacramento State (crappy I-AA team)

Oregon State (beat USC, possibly bowl bound)

@ Wyoming (Mountain West, bowl bound)

@ Utah (Mountain West, bowl bound)

Florida

Western Carolina (crappy I-AA team)

Southern Miss (bowl bound)

UCF (4-8 CUSA team)

@ Florida State (6-6, laughable)

By limiting the automatic berths to conference champions it places a premium on conference play and even enhances the importance of some late season match ups.  

Okay, let's take it a step further:

8 teams. All must be conference champions. However, throw out this "BCS conference" ********. Take the TOP EIGHT CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS. Sure, human bias will mean the "BCS Conference" champions get in most of the time, but as far as I'm concerned, IF YOU DON'T WIN YOUR CONFERENCE, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. This isn't basketball.

Here's how it would look this year (with my assumptions of who wins this weekend's games):

1 Ohio St vs. 8 Wake Forest

4 Arkansas vs 5 Louisville

2 USC vs 7 Boise St

3 Michigan vs 6 Nebraska

I would be fine with that (assuming Nebraska beats Oklahoma and Arkansas beats Florida) except replace Michigan with BYU, the next best conference champion. Again, Michigan has no business competing for the national championship. THEY ALREADY LOST TO OHIO STATE. Once you lose, you have no case. For anything. Quit whining. If you wanted to be national champion, perhaps you shouldn't have lost to anyone.

I couldn't disagree more.  Are you telling us that Michigan the #2 or 3 team in the country, should be excluded for the Sun Belt champ, Wac champ, or CDOA champ, who may have played TERRIBLE conference schedules, but won their conference.  A TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WOULD TAKE THE TOP 8 TEAMS REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY FINISHED IN CONFERENCE.  The Sun belt champ might be the 80th best team in the country.

[Jake_Ryan]

I don't know how to do that fancy quote stuff, but Ohio, heres my response to you:

Of course there will be exceptions like the one you cited.  A four team playoff will still have Michigan in it.  The main point is that the playoff can't be too big to ruin the meaning of regular season games.

The committee works just fine in basketball.  There are a couple of decisions each year that can go either way, but at least people are making the decisions and not a computer.  I believe they would let Boise State in if BCS rank, poll rank, SOS, etc stacked up favorably, and they were deserving.

In 1985 BYU barely beat a mediocre 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl that year and won Championship by default.  And let me remind you how Georgia waxed Boise State a couple of years ago - exposing them for what they are - a good team in a non-BCS conference that would get smoked by the big boys if they had to play them every week.

And don't exclude the conference schedule when you evaluate Boise St and UF.  UF's OOC schedule is a joke, but the rest of their schedule was ridiculous.  Boise State's whole schedule was easy.  They lose at least 4 games in the SEC.  And I'm being kind.  See previous work against Georgia.

Michigan lost to the #1 team in the country on the road by 3 points in the best game of the year.  They deserve a chance to compete for the title on the field a heck of a lot more than BYU.  

[Bobcat99]

You all are failing to recognize the core flaw in all this.

Either Division I-A is one division, or it's not. Every university that belongs to DI-A pays the same dues to the NCAA. They all vote equally on TV contracts, et cetera. If you are going to exclude teams based entirely on their conference affiliation, you are instituting a de facto division separation. If this is what you want, fine. Let's make I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA. Realize, though, that means we'll rarely if ever have any undefeated teams, since I-A OOC schedules will have to consist of, well, "good" teams. If this is going to be fiated then so be it. The umbrella point, however, is that you have a system that is the only competitive sport on the face of the earth in which you tell teams before they've even played a game that they cannot be a champion -- a champion of the division to which they pay equal dues as the "big" teams.

Remember how we felt after we won nine games and didn't go to a bowl? That's how non-BCS teams feel BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS. I find it ludicrous that you argue Michigan deserves a chance at the title when they've already lost to OSU. OSU should have to beat them twice, while Michigan only has to beat this once? (mind you, I am not defending OSU, having hatred in my heart for them and no one else.)

That is the key. There is no argument to be made that can justify a system in which teams compete for one trophy, a trophy they all have equal membership to, yet a trophy which by design only half the teams of said membership have actual access to.

Teams are only allowed to use one I-AA win a season toward eligibility. Yet the current system creates an underclass that is, in effect, that second level. Why should Florida be able to use a win over UCF? UCF started the season without access to the championship. Why should Michigan have access? They barely beat Ball State, a team that began the season without access to the championship. It goes all the way down the line. If you're going to have a de facto underclass, then implement it so non-"BCS" teams have that access.

Oh, and do not commit the fallacy of buying into human rankings as warrant to team supremacy. The nature of the ranking system is broken and meaningless, as rankings are based entirely upon preseason rankings, which have ZERO merit as they are not based upon anything but SPECULATION. That's the problem with using human rankings in the BCS formula. Only in Division I-A football do we determine the postseason based upon what DOESN'T happen on the field, but rather the preseason conjecture of a handful of experts and a whole lot of amateurs (go ahead and take a look at your list of AP voters for a moment) -- not to mention the coaches' poll which has been consistently recognized as being flawed insofar as coaches admitting en masse that they rarely fill out the ballot, leaving that task to graduate students.

Certainly, that problem could be alleviated by not holding polling until week 3, but a better solution would be a computer formula that actually evaluates teams based on components that attest to their ability. The current computer rankings are highly inaccurate -- just ask Jeff Sagarin, whose name appears on the list of contributory rankings even though his "formula" used in the BCS has nothing whatsoever to do with Jeff Sagarin. It's the Elo formula, and it's been around longer than Jeff Sagarin has been alive. Sagarin's contribution to the field is the point predictor, which is highly accurate at predicting results of future games. The NCAA does not use this formula, of course, as it implements margin of victory aspects.

Feel free to make your bowl picks this year according to the Predictor. You'll find yourself office champion. "But that would result in teams running up the score, Bobcat99!" you say.

And that's why you need a playoff consisting of conference champions only. Wins and losses. No human interaction needed at all (save for the unlikely incident of three non-BCS teams going undefeated).

[Jake_Ryan]

I'm not saying non-BCS teams should be excluded.  There are 2 at large slots in my system.  IF a non-BCS team goes undefeated and is more deserving than a 1 or 2 loss BCS team, they should play for the national championship.  But let's not kid ourselves, generally speaking, the BCS and non-BCS conferences are not equal on the football field.  They have the appropriate opportunity to make the playoffs in my system, and an opportunity to be National Champion.

[HarveyGlass]

Awesome post, Bobcat99.  Well done.

Going back to the original topic, I just think it's funny that the SEC is now going to lead the charge into some sort of playoff when it was the SEC who created both the league championship game, and the BCS itself.  Their self-serving greed knows no rules or boundries.  The rich tradition of SEC cheating is forever a testament to that.