Solving the NCAA Championship Playoff System

[Colorado1876]

You lost me.

How? Notre Dame (for example) would be de facto member of the Big 10 in lieu of full membership. Basically, all of their games scheduled against Big 10 teams would count towards the standings in the Big 10 even though they aren't full members.

[DenverBlood]

What logic is that based on? How can a team be the best in the entire nation if they aren't even the best in their own conference?

What logic is your argument based on? So 1 game defines a 14 game season?

I can't believe I'm arguing in Alabama favor but take their national title win over LSU for example.

They only lost one game that season. A home game to LSU in November. They dominated that game and outgained LSU by over 200 yards. But 4 missed field goals and some untimely turnovers caused them to lose a 9-6 game. Alabama didn't even play for their conference title let alone win it because they were in the same division as LSU.

Fast forward to January and again they absolutely pummel LSU. Even worse this time. But this time no missed field goals or turnovers. A 21-0 thumping.

Was LSU really the best team in their conference who won the SEC? Or just won the right game on the right day in November? And really weren't better than Alabama who didn't win their conference?

Now if you want to argue LSU should've been playing Okie st that's one thing. But LSU clearly was not the best team in their conference despite winning it.

Allowing runner ups to play as a wild card is no different than how any other sport works. And it's a lot more fair than putting in Boisie st.

Baltimore Ravens, N.Y. Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Denver Broncos. A long list of teams who didn't win their division yet were crowned the best team in football after winning the Super Bowl. But by your logic how can they be the best in football if they weren't even the best in their division?

College basketball. Duke loses their conference tournament. But wins the National title. By your logic they should not have been allowed to participate in the NCAA tournament because they didn't win their conference tournament.


I fail to see why college football should be treated any differently if enough teams are added.

Why make 8 conferences where 3-4 are going to be extremely weak? And put in their weak conference champion over an SEC, Pac 12 runner up who played in a much tougher conference and you can easily see is better?

[drgiggles]

Why is the discussion always 4-8-16 teams? How about 6? Top 2 seed receive a Bye.

Bracket this year would be:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon

Baylor vs. Florida State
TCU vs. Ohio State

Obviously it's a nice fit this year but I'd think 5 "Power Conference" Champions and an at-large bid would be a formula that could work just about any year. Perhaps have a clause that Conference Champions can't have more than 2-losses or something.

this would be a great system. Where do you draw the line though? Then #7 and #8 would be left out crying.....gods forbid it be a 1 or 2 loss SEC team. If I had any CP's to throw right now I would.

[Colorado1876]

What logic is your argument based on?

the logic that says the best team in the nation also must have been the best team in their conference.

So 1 game defines a 14 game season?

which one game? the team with the best recorder the end of the season in each conference should be the champion.

I can't believe I'm arguing in Alabama favor but take their national title win over LSU for example.

They only lost one game that season. A home game to LSU in November. They dominated that game and outgained LSU by over 200 yards. But 4 missed field goals and some untimely turnovers caused them to lose a 9-6 game. Alabama didn't even play for their conference title let alone win it because they were in the same division as LSU.

Alabama lost. There's no such thing as style points.

Fast forward to January and again they absolutely pummel LSU. Even worse this time. But this time no missed field goals or turnovers. A 21-0 thumping.

Was LSU really the best team in their conference who won the SEC? Or just won the right game on the right day in November? And really weren't better than Alabama who didn't win their conference?

If LSU had a better record over the course of the entire season, then they should've been ranked ahead of Alabama in the standings.

Now if you want to argue LSU should've been playing Okie st that's one thing. But LSU clearly was not the best team in their conference despite winning it.

so then what does that say about Alabama? they couldn't even beat LSU.

Allowing runner ups to play as a wild card is no different than how any other sport works. And it's a lot more fair than putting in Boisie st.

Baseball didn't allow runner up in the playoffs for the first 99 years. What's wrong with Boise State?

Baltimore Ravens, N.Y. Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Denver Broncos. A long list of teams who didn't win their division yet were crowned the best team in football after winning the Super Bowl. But by your logic how can they be the best in football if they weren't even the best in their division?

the NFL playoffs are a crap shoot. They hardly determine who the best team over the whole season was.

College basketball. Duke loses their conference tournament. But wins the National title. By your logic they should not have been allowed to participate in the NCAA tournament because they didn't win their conference tournament.

the regular season in college basketball is completely pointless. The entire college basketball season should be one big knockout tourney.

I fail to see why college football should be treated any differently if enough teams are added.

the one reason more teams will be added is so that more games can be played, thus padding the corporate pockets.

Why make 8 conferences where 3-4 are going to be extremely weak?

why are you assuming they'd be "weak"?

And put in their weak conference champion over an SEC, Pac 12 runner up who played in a much tougher conference and you can easily see is better?

how can a runner up be the best if there is at least one team whom is better than they are?

[Colorado1876]

this would be a great system. Where do you draw the line though? Then #7 and #8 would be left out crying.....gods forbid it be a 1 or 2 loss SEC team. If I had any CP's to throw right now I would.

There will be crying as long as the teams are determined off the field. Only conference champions should be eligible for the national championship. At-large teams are only there to pad ESPN's pockets.

[baphamet]

What logic is that based on? How can a team be the best in the entire nation if they aren't even the best in their own conference?

same way WC teams become NFL champions.......

[baphamet]

There will be crying as long as the teams are determined off the field. Only conference champions should be eligible for the national championship. At-large teams are only there to pad ESPN's pockets.

IMO there should be 8 teams, 3 at large bids that can be voted on in the polls similar to what they do now. there will be cases where second and possibly third place teams would be better than some conference champions.

or there might be a team outside of the 5 super conferences that is undefeated and people feel belong in the top 8 (unless you only allow teams in the power 5 in the playoffs).

i understand the logic of taking it out of the voters hands and winning your spot on the football field. but i do not understand the logic of saying only conferewnce champions belong in the playoffs.

the NFL doesn't just have division champs in their playoffs system, they have wild cards. it's the same thing as having 3 at large teams except they have to vote on who those teams will be.

or if you do not allow any teams outside those conferences to be in the playoffs, i am sure they could come up with a tie break system. so even those 3 at large bids would be earned on the field.

that's kind of why i think all non conference games in the power 5 should all be against teams in the other power 5 conference only. plus it would make the non conference games a lot more meaningful than they are now.

a lot of those non conference games are basically scrimmages and i hate those games with a passion.

[samparnell]

Right.

This year, every SEC team except Florida has an FCS team on its schedule. Half of the Big Ten schools have an FCS team on their schedule. Eight PAC-12 teams have an FCS team on their schedule. Every Big 12 team except Oklahoma and Texas has an FCS team on their schedule. Every school in the ACC has an FCS team on its schedule; Boston College and North Carolina have two.

That's just FCS. I agree that the SEC, Big Ten, PAC-12, Big 12 and ACC should either play more conference games, or have non-conference games against each other.

Texas' schedule this year is pretty good. Their non-conference games are Notre Dame, Rice and Cal. Stanford's non-conference schedule is Northwestern, UCF and Notre Dame.

Some states require intra-state football games to be on the schedule, but I'm not sure if those affect teams in the Big Five Conferences.

[DenverBlood]

I don't really agree with the notion that teams shouldn't play FCS. And I do'nt see why you guys have the problem with that scrimmage game.

It's a risk the teams take because in 2004 I watched the game against Citadel cost my Auburn Tigers a shot at the national title when they had 1 game against FCS while all 11 of Oklahomas wins were against FBS.

But it tends to be a get the rust out game. I know we as fans have waited through 8 tiresome months to have football back. But so many times I watch teams come out the gate against a top team only to watch their season go down in flames in week 1.

It doesn't even have to be like a Clemson and Georgia matchup. 2001 Colorado came out flat and rusty against a game Fresnoe st program in Boulder. Colorado only lost 1 other game all season to Texas which they revenged in the Big 12 title. Yet that Fresnoe st loss still cost them a shot at the national title. The reason I say rusty is Colorado got whooped first half. But made adjustments at halftime and nearly won the game. If Colorado was in midseason form they would've stomped Fresnoe.

So I have no problems with schools scheduling cupcakes week 1 to get players used to hitting and being hit again and get some rythm against a team where you don't know their playcalls.

SEC all schedules an FCS but I will say over the past couple of years no other conference schedules week 1 slates as well as the SEC.

This year Alabama against Wisconsin, and Auburn against Louisvile are easily top 5 matchups for week 1. While Oklahoma, TCU and Oregon play cupcakes. But that doesn't mean some SEC don't play cupcakes that week.

I personally do agree it shouldn't be FCS and can be very very low FBS teams to get that rust out. But it helps those programs earn money to improve their universities. So I'm ok with it.

I do hate how the SEC though schedules their FCS games in November though. Auburn and Bama used to have buys between their last game and the iron bowl. Now they both play their FCS game in that week to keep in rythm. I hate it. Just take the buy.

It is apart of every conferences strategy though. But if we are going away from using those games to get rust out week 1 like Bama and Auburn are doing now then I will change my mind and agree with you guys. Don't play FCS.

[baphamet]

I don't really agree with the notion that teams shouldn't play FCS. And I do'nt see why you guys have the problem with that scrimmage game.

because they are not a scrimmage game, they count in the win loss column. literally 90% or more of those games are not competitive, it's basically a free win.

have each team play one actual scrimmage game before the season starts that doesn't count in the win/loss column and i am okay with that. but then make the rest of the games more competitive, that's my issue with non conference games.

[DenverBlood]

because they are not a scrimmage game, they count in the win loss column. literally 90% or more of those games are not competitive, it's basically a free win.

have each team play one actual scrimmage game before the season starts that doesn't count in the win/loss column and i am okay with that. but then make the rest of the games more competitive, that's my issue with non conference games.

Injuries can happen in them though. It's not worth not making it count if you get injuries.

However like I said if it's not week 1 to get rust off then I agree I don't like them.

And honestly I don't get why schools do it even for rust when we have seen it cost schools a shot at the title. At least under the BCS


And I would think now the Committee would essentially dq a school that doesn't play 12 FBS games.

I only agree if everyone does it and it's all week 1

[Colorado1876]

same way WC teams become NFL champions.......

In other words: to get more TV and ticket revenue. There is no reason to have wildcards except to get more money for the owners.

[Colorado1876]

IMO there should be 8 teams, 3 at large bids that can be voted on in the polls similar to what they do now. there will be cases where second and possibly third place teams would be better than some conference champions.

who determines who's better than who? why can't that just be decided on the field?

or there might be a team outside of the 5 super conferences that is undefeated and people feel belong in the top 8 (unless you only allow teams in the power 5 in the playoffs).

the new system screw half of the Division 1 teams out of a chance to win the championship. No matter how good a "mid major"'s record is, a big and rich SEC team will always take precedence. It's not even about actually playing the game if football anymore; it's about which school has the most resources to recruit.

i understand the logic of taking it out of the voters hands and winning your spot on the football field. but i do not understand the logic of saying only conferewnce champions belong in the playoffs.

The logic is the true National Champion is the absolute, unequivocally best team in the entire country. If this is to be satisfied, then doesn't it serve to reason that this "absolute, unequivocally best team in the entire country", was also better than all of the other teams in their own conference?

the NFL doesn't just have division champs in their playoffs system, they have wild cards. it's the same thing as having 3 at large teams except they have to vote on who those teams will be.

I loath the NFL playoffs; especially the incision of wild card teams. Only 6 wild card teams have ever won the Super Bowl in 49 years. The only reason these inferior teams are allowed in the playoffs is to justify another week of TV revenue.

or if you do not allow any teams outside those conferences to be in the playoffs, i am sure they could come up with a tie break system. so even those 3 at large bids would be earned on the field.

I am advocating for a complete restructuring of College Football. There is virtually no parity in College Football whatsoever and games are routinely predictable; save for those against the biggest and wealthiest schools in the wealthy conferences. My beef is not only with these big schools, who are only acting as anyone would given their vast resources, but also with small schools who are protected from having to compete through the segregation of conferences and divisions. Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater are more that happy to preserve the status quo as they benefit from not having to compete with bigger schools and thus reap the financial benefits of dominating vastly inferior football teams year in and year out. I am also in favor of reinstating one platoon in order to increase parity and to promote all around skills, but that's a different issue.

that's kind of why i think all non conference games in the power 5 should all be against teams in the other power 5 conference only. plus it would make the non conference games a lot more meaningful than they are now.

either that, or abolish inter-conference play altogether, meaning each team in in any given conference plays the same schedule, ending the "strength of schedule" nonsense.

a lot of those non conference games are basically scrimmages and i hate those games with a passion.

i am fully, 100%, against non-conference games. I couldn't agree with you anymore.

[Colorado1876]

I don't really agree with the notion that teams shouldn't play FCS. And I do'nt see why you guys have the problem with that scrimmage game.

these games should not count in the standing then.

But it tends to be a get the rust out game. I know we as fans have waited through 8 tiresome months to have football back. But so many times I watch teams come out the gate against a top team only to watch their season go down in flames in week 1.

the best teams don't lose. If you lose in week one, then you don't deserve a shot a championship, regardless of how well you do later; unless of course you still have a better record than the other teams at the end of the season. The whole point is to determine which was the best over the course of the entire season, not just which team gets hot in November.

It doesn't even have to be like a Clemson and Georgia matchup. 2001 Colorado came out flat and rusty against a game Fresnoe st program in Boulder. Colorado only lost 1 other game all season to Texas which they revenged in the Big 12 title. Yet that Fresnoe st loss still cost them a shot at the national title. The reason I say rusty is Colorado got whooped first half. But made adjustments at halftime and nearly won the game. If Colorado was in midseason form they would've stomped Fresnoe.

to reiterate my last point: the whole point of keeping teams win-loss records is to determine which team was the best over whole course of the entire season. If the first game counts towards the win-loss record at the beginning, then it also does at the end.

So I have no problems with schools scheduling cupcakes week 1 to get players used to hitting and being hit again and get some rythm against a team where you don't know their playcalls.

these games should not count in the standings then.

SEC all schedules an FCS but I will say over the past couple of years no other conference schedules week 1 slates as well as the SEC.

the main problem with the SEC is their unbalanced scheduling.

I personally do agree it shouldn't be FCS and can be very very low FBS teams to get that rust out. But it helps those programs earn money to improve their universities. So I'm ok with it.

the top level universities don't need anymore money.

[Colorado1876]

Injuries can happen in them though. It's not worth not making it count if you get injuries.

then don't play them at all.

And I would think now the Committee would essentially dq a school that doesn't play 12 FBS games.

which would bury any last hope of introducing parity into college football.