The Associated Press just shipped this story about a poll of fans wanting a playoff instead of the bowl system. Check it out here, and please comment on the blog.
Do you want to scrap the history of college football so it can be just like everyone else?
I’m old-school and like the bowls. I would rather everyone agree to have No. 1 vs. No. 2 get matched up in a predetermined rotating top-tier bowl and everyone else just to go a bowl game attached to your conference.
A merger of the AP and coaches poll should be made to created the only poll used. That way the chances of the Texas writers voting for Texas to boost its computer formula will be diluted.
Every Pac-10 team should strive for the Rose Bowl. That’s it. If the champ happens to be No. 1 or No. 2, then it goes to the title game in whatever bowl it’s in that year — Rose, Orange, Sugar or Fiesta.
The ousted teams from their regular bowl due to the title game fills in the openings of the vacated bowl. So if USC (Pac-10) goes to the Orange Bowl against Miami (ACC) in a No. 1 vs. No. 2 showdown, Cincy (Big East) goes to the Rose against Ohio State (Big Ten).
It’s really not that complicated. There’s no reason for the government to get involved. What the midmajors need to get a piece of the pie is a tie-in with one of the major bowls.
For example, the Fiesta Bowl takes the best MWC or WAC team out there. The top Mid-American or Conference USA team goes to the Sugar. Those regional conferences are fighting on the field with each other.
Heck, move the Cotton Bowl back to major bowl status and then you have 10 slots for 10 conference champions.
24 comments
Corvbeav says:
Dec 29, 2009
I Disagree big time. I have been a fan of College Football since I was a kid and love the history BUT things need to change. All sports change throughout time, and most of these changes are for the better.
Do you think it is really fair that TCU and Boise St. have NO shot at a national Championship? Both teams destroyed everybody they played. Now they get a glorified exhibition against each other? what a joke.
I can't stand the Polls have so much weight in determining who is in the National Championship
Corvbeav says:
Dec 29, 2009
We have all heard a lot of opinions on a playoff system but I think this one makes the most sense.
Top 8 teams (6 Conf champ and 2 Wildcards)
You have a total of 7 games all together. So you need to add 2 more bowls to the BCS so you will have 6 BCS Bowls PLUS the National Championship game. It would need to be bowls that have access to large stadiums and have warm weather. (Cotton and Capital one bowl maybe)
Quarterfinals are all played during Bowl week (Dec 26 – 3rd)
Semis are played (Jan 4th – 11)
Championship (Jan 12 – 19)
Current system has champ Jan 7th so we are only extending it a week to 12 days
BCS selection commitee and determine seeding and who plays where (regional pairings and venues as much as possible)
All other bowls stay in place. Crappy teams like UCLA can still play at 6-6 and pretend like they had a succesful season for recruiting.
What do you think?
beeverluv says:
Dec 29, 2009
It's fine to have the bowl system and all it… well… used to represent. But don't pretend we're getting #1 against #2 in the BCS championship. We'll never know who the best team is this year because there is no process to determine it. There never has been in the BCS era. Someone want to tell me that Miami was the true 'National Champion' after the 2002 Rose Bowl Fiasco? Or maybe #1 USC just wasn't good enough to play against #2 LSU or #3 Oklahoma in the 2004 Sugar Bowl… but they sure seemed good enough as #1 the following year against what many thought was a far superior #2 Oklahoma.
Then you have three years ago when USC's one loss meant that Michigan gets jumped by #4 Florida to go to the BCS Championship. Everyone thought Michigan and Ohio State were untouchable… then they had to play someone.
Two years ago we had a two loss LSU get into the game over a one loss team who might have been as good or better. In the end, there were a number of two loss teams who could have just as easily stomped Ohio State.
Then there was last year's stupidity. The only undefeated teams are just ignored for the sake of bad football and big money. The two teams that played weren't even the best one loss teams. One of them wasn't even the best one loss team in its own conference. What was that about every game during the season being important… BCS officials?
And this year the undefeated teams with the (by far) toughest schedules are rewarded by getting to watch two teams who have yet to be tested by anything more than a favorable rulebook interpretation due to those same schedules.
Yeah… gotta love the direction this system is headed. It's called the Coriolis Effect for those wanting to give the actual motion a name.
COBever04 says:
Dec 29, 2009
I would like to see a good playoff system. Everyone talks about how much they like to see the number one and number two team square off for the championship. I personally would like to see it so that a number 15 team has a shot at it. I draw ones attention to the superbowl when the Giant pulled a huge upset against the Pats. That superbowl had the highest ratings by the end of the game than any superbowl that has been played. I personally do not care about the national championship. I am sure that there are many fans outside the SEC and Big 12 that feel the same. A playoff system would bring a larger fan base and more money to the conferences. all of the other bowl games can still occur. The conference champs move on to the brackets and the other schools will pick up the other bowl games. It seems like everyone has a scenerio to pitch that would be better than the BCS. It will just time to put one into place.
kersting13 says:
Dec 30, 2009
I agree with COBever.
If we have a playoff, it needs to be a GOOD system.
The #1 vs #2 system is NOT good. Cliff, your idea isn’t really any different from what we have now.
I’d rather see us go back to the Old School system than have a BAD playoff system like we have now.
Including Bowls in the playoff system is a BAD idea. That is what is making it so tough for people to get a good system. Trying to incorporate the Bowls in the playoffs screws the whole thing up.
They do the tournament thing just fine at the other 3 levels of NCAA football. I have no idea why people try to make it so difficult. It’s easy: 16 teams seeded play for 3 weeks at the higher seeds house and then play the “little Super Bowl” at a neutral site.
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 30, 2009
My point is to get a No. 1 vs. No. 2 in the bowls, and get rid of that national championship game BS. If you are No. 3, you should be in a nice bowl anyway. The point is if USC is No. 3, and undefeated, it shouldn't be a shame it's in the Rose Bowl against a Big Ten team.
A 16-team playoff would mean shortening the 12-game schedule. That would be 5 homes games instead of 6 or 7. And that's where the money comes from for each school. That's not going to happen.
kersting13 says:
Dec 30, 2009
When they went to the permanent 12-game schedule, I pretty much figured that would be the end of the possibility for a real playoff.
There really isn't a reason to pit #1 vs #2. We all know the rankings are fallable. These are exhibition games. Why not just allow all the traditional match-ups happen as they used to and forget about attempting to crown an *undisupted* national champion?
DaMonkey says:
Dec 30, 2009
Keep bowls AND get a playoff in place… spread the wealth equally so the rich don't just get richer… and provide incentive for EVERYONE. Money will dilute everything though… the haves will stay the haves and the OSU's of the world will be shut out because of disadvantages they can't control… that's the cold hard truth…
Corvbeav says:
Dec 30, 2009
kersting,
no way that could ever happen. Way too much money in the bowls. The BCS is a cash machine. No way the BCS bowls would EVER allow a playoff system without them involved.
Money rules the world but in College Football it is even worse.
kersting13 says:
Dec 30, 2009
You're kidding, right?
The Bowls don't have any "real" power in this. If the NCAA wanted to, they could dump the bowls in a second.
There is SO much more money in a playoff than in the Bowls.
The only reason they continue with the Bowls is that the Big Money goes to the Big Conferences who get into the Big Games.
If they went to a playoff, the distribution would be more equitable. But, even with more equitable distribution, the Big Conferences might still get more because a playoff would generate more overall $$$ if the NCAA controlled it rather than the Bowls.
JuneauJim says:
Dec 30, 2009
A playoff is long overdue in College Football. Granted, it wouldn't be 64 teams, but think about how exciting and fun to watch the NCAA basketball tournament is. Why can't it be something similar?
If you win your conference, you're in. Non-conference games would be played to make teams better in fact, instead of better in the polls. Being the national champion now has more to do with scheduling to make an undefeated season a reality than it is about being the best team. Being the national champion now is all about the perception of who had the best season. Being the champion of every other sport is about being the best at the end of the season.
The only Bowls I'm watching this year are the Vegas and Rose. But come March, I'll be watching every NCAA basketball game I can to see who can bust the bracket. Basketball playoffs are way more interesting than Houston vs. Air Force, or Minnesota vs. Iowa State, or Arkansas vs. East Carolina….
osbeavs says:
Dec 30, 2009
I would hate college football if it turned into college basketball. In all reality who actually watches any NCAAM until March, football would be the same way as the season would lose so much meaning during the weeks. Each week is a playoff because of the potential for upsets. A playoff would be an absolutely terrible idea that ruins the tradition of college football. A playoff determines a "champion" but each game has the possibility for variable such as "bad refs".
Ultimately, college football fans like to debate about who is the best or who has the best conference and so on, nothing will change that. It is best to leave the polls and let individuals continue to argue about who is the best. It sounds like what everyone here is really saying is that we need to make strength of schedule a more significant factor in the computer formula, the BCS should just go back in and tweak that. Alabama, Florida, Texas and so on would just schedule harder teams to appease the computers, problem solved.
JuneauJim says:
Dec 30, 2009
Is there any other sport – high school, college, professional – that does what college football does? And yet somehow, fans turn out to watch games before the playoffs. More than 13,000 showed up in Seattle to watch Gonzaga play Davidson the other week.
As a college football fan, I hate to debate who is the best and who has the best conference because no one wins. Make a playoff and someone would at least be right…for the moment.
osbeavs says:
Dec 30, 2009
The real issue I have is that these mid-major conferences are coming out and saying how great they are on undefeated seasons when they have a joke of a season. OSU would be one loss with TCU or BSU's schedules. The mid-majors don't deserve a title shot any more or less than Alabama and Texas. Personally, I think BSU and TCU got what was coming to them. I am sick of mid-major teams beating one or two big squads a year and boasting about their ability, until they play tough games every week I don't wanna hear it. TCU would probably lose two games at least in Pac-10 scheduling simply due to the challenge of our conference. It is not that there are two teams better but the drain of playing tough each week would cause them to lose.
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 30, 2009
Midmajors want money. Getting them into a major bowl is what they want on a regular basis. The brings big money to their conference.If they happen to be undefeated with a quality schedule, then they have the opportunity to get into the No. 1 vs. No. 2 bowl game.
osbeavs says:
Dec 30, 2009
All of that said, if we were ever to do anything to deviate from the current system, a plus one is enough. Most years there are not more than four teams who could really claim to be good enough to be national champs. A playoff would totally ruin the bowl system, even if the lower tier bowls are kept. We are arguing about what is best for the fans, what about the best for the athletes? Sure one or two teams is hurt by this process but other smaller teams have players that get a vacation/gifts that they may not have otherwise received. I think that many of the players in this situation get a lot of reward that would not be given in a playoff. Only once this decade (argueably) would the beavs have made any of the playoff systems presented on the comments so far. I think our team and players have benefited more from the current system.
sdbeav says:
Dec 30, 2009
I've always liked the idea of the champs of each of the major conferences plus an at large or two in a playoff…the playoff games would still be the major bowl games as we currently know them (Orange, Fiesta, Rose, etc). The rest of the traditionally bowl eligible teams would still fill out the bowl schedule. It's a win-win…we get a true national champ decided by a playoff system while keeping the bowl system in tact and all other teams still have a chance to extend their season, play on national tv, get some extra money and extra practice too.
Andy Lasselle says:
Dec 29, 2009
Playoffs rarely give you the “best” team either, especially in a single elimination format. The Giants weren’t the best team when they beat the Patriots. Upsets capture the imagination, but that’s never the argument made by the playoff supporters.
I am probably going to get ripped for this, but if OSU runs the table next year and gets shipped to the Orange Bowl for a national championship game instead of Pasadena, I’d be severely disappointed.
Cliff: A football playoff? « Cliff Kirkpatrick | teste says:
Dec 29, 2009
[...] Read the rest here: Cliff: A football playoff? « Cliff Kirkpatrick [...]
beeverluv says:
Dec 30, 2009
Did someone ask if anybody actually watches NCAA b-ball before March? Or did I imagine this silliness?
I now know of one person who does not.
Even my 70 year old mother-in-law locks her doors and yells at the TV during her Ducks games. What planet do you live on?
Cliff: A football playoff? « Cliff Kirkpatrick N Zoo says:
Dec 30, 2009
[...] more here: Cliff: A football playoff? « Cliff Kirkpatrick By admin | category: football | tags: because-the-first, bowl, congress, [...]
ObjCritic says:
Dec 30, 2009
The issue I see with what you propose Cliff is that #1 and #2 would still be decided by votes instead of on the field as a true play-off system would represent. One could argue that we've NEVER known who the true champion is because its decided by votes as much or more than on the field. Sure, in some years there are teams so dominant we assume they are, but anything can happen in a game and that's why they need to be played. A true freshman RB could for example make a 19-point favorite look silly on national TV, and a the favorite could turn the ball over several times and end up losing a game they aren't supposed to.
The other problem with the current system is that its simply unequitable that all divsion I teams cannot compete for the championship. The BCS system reenforces that. If you're a D-I team, you deserve to compete for the national title in a play-off. If not, create separate divisions, but don't deny a division member the opportunity.
Why not scrap the preseason (3 games), go immediately into league play, and have the top one or two teams from each conference go to a play-off system that the extra 3 weeks provide? Other teams (e.g. 3rd and 4th place teams and no more) could play in the multitude of bowl games that don't mean anything anyway.
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 30, 2009
Colleges don't want to give up the gate and TV revenue of those early games.
Cliff: A football playoff? « Cliff Kirkpatrick | All Topics Blog says:
Jan 29, 2010
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today on  Here’s a quick excerpt  The only undefeated teams are just ignored for the sake of bad football and big money. The two teams that played weren’t even the best one loss teams. One of them wasn’t even the best one loss team in its own conference. … [...]