Determining the College Football Champion

[soccer10k]

Also under that format, you could have major rematch issues bigger than what happened this year. In a conference that has a title game (SEC/ACC/Big 12) you could have Team A lose to Team B twice (once during the year and once in the conference title game) but still make the playoffs. What happens if Team A beats Team B in the national title game? Those first two games would be completely devalued.

[TruffleShuffle]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

 

Why?

 

How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title?

 

I'm not concerned about this. I just don't see the point of putting teams in like Rutgers, Arkansas, West Virginia, Va Tech and Notre Dame in there. They aren't going to win and it just prolongs the season unnecessarily.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

 

Why?

 

How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title? What do you do about the current schedule? Theoretically that could mean 17 games for a team like Florida this year who has already played 13.

 

This is one thing that ticks me off: people who just suggest a playoff system then give absolutely no insight as to how they would go about doing it. I have no problem voicing an opinion but back it up with

 

something.

 

Like Truffle said, you'd probably shorten the regular season to avoid playing a ton of games.

 

A team with 4 losses has a very, very slim chance of being in the top 16. But even then, whoever wins the title has to win 4 consecutive games against the top teams in the country to get the title. Would anyone have been pissed off if George Mason won the National Title in basketball last year? Of course not, because they would've earned it by playing the best. Whether the season is 8 or 12 games, it's not very long at all. If a team sweeps through a playoff system like that, I have no problem acknowledging they earned the championship and possibly(probably) were unlucky/not playing to their ability in previous losses.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

6 team playoff using the current BCS -- #1 and #2 get a bye. A total of 4 games played, therefore all current BCS locations will still host a BCS bowl with the championship game rotating as it does today.

[soccer10k]

16 game playoff sounds good.

 

Way too many teams.

 

Why?

 

How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title?

 

I'm not concerned about this. I just don't see the point of putting teams in like Rutgers, Arkansas, West Virginia, Va Tech and Notre Dame in there. They aren't going to win and it just prolongs the season unnecessarily.

 

That's why I wouldn't mind a 4 team playoff like you suggested. I think any more than that is unnecessary. The 4 team is also the most realistic because you don't have to appease all the conferences by having to take each major conference champion (like the current BCS or an 8 team playoff would force you to do). I like the BCS and don't really care if it's changed or not but if it is, I would support a 4 team playoff.

[Andy]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

[soccer10k]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

 

That's my other big issue. Every game matters in college football. If you lose one game your national championship dreams might be over. That's what makes college football different from the other sports and that's one aspect of college football that I love. Would the OSU-Michigan game have meant as much if both were assured of going to the playoffs? Of course not. It would still be OSU-UM but it wouldn't mean as much. The potential for one loss to end your title hopes adds that extra interest to the season.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I like a 16-team playoff.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

 

Why? Do you really think the difference between USC/LSU and Michigan/Florida is so great that they would be unworthy of a championship even if they won a playoff(and in turn beat at least 3 top 10 teams)?

[Andy]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

 

Why? Do you really think the difference between USC/LSU and Michigan/Florida is so great that they would be unworthy of a championship even if they won a playoff(and in turn beat at least 3 top 10 teams)?

Maybe, maybe not. But every other sport already has devalued the regular season to the point of near-irrelevance, especially in the NBA and NHL and pretty close to it in the NFL.

 

Would OSU/Michigan have been nearly as exciting if both teams knew they would get a shot at the championship anyway via a playoff? Probably not.

[Chocolate Milk]

I would like an 8 team playoff. I think a 16 team playoff would be too watered down and more of a crapshoot.

[Derwood]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

 

Why? Do you really think the difference between USC/LSU and Michigan/Florida is so great that they would be unworthy of a championship even if they won a playoff(and in turn beat at least 3 top 10 teams)?

 

An NFL team can be 9-7 and win the Super Bowl, so what's the difference?

[CubinNY]

12 conference champs

4 Alternates

 

All D-I school must be in a conference. All confernces must have a championship game. Alternates chosen by a selection committee (made up of the media and league officials).

 

All games played at the higher seeded team's field until the championship that is played at a neutral site the week before the superbowl.

 

The season starts later and there is only 10 games per team not counting the playoffs and championship game.

[TruffleShuffle]

I actually like that college FB's regular season matters. Any more than 4 teams in there and you have 2-loss teams winning it all, and I dunno about the rest of you, but that'd piss me off.

 

Why? Do you really think the difference between USC/LSU and Michigan/Florida is so great that they would be unworthy of a championship even if they won a playoff(and in turn beat at least 3 top 10 teams)?

 

An NFL team can be 9-7 and win the Super Bowl, so what's the difference?

 

The difference is that college football champions have always had a sparkling record, going back over a century. No two-loss team has ever won a title. It's part of the charm of college football, and what makes it different - every week means more than any a regular season in any other sport that I can think of. Just because other sports and other leagues devalue the regular season, doesn't mean that college football should do the same.

[goonys evil twin]

No two-loss team has ever won a title.

 

I didn't know that.

[TruffleShuffle]

No two-loss team has ever won a title.

 

I didn't know that.

 

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cfchamps.shtml

 

 

I guess I should have said that no two-loss team has ever won a title outright. Minnesota won a share of the title in 1960 with an 8-2 record. Every other year dating back to the 1870s, the champ or co-champ has had 0 or 1 loss.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Maybe, maybe not. But every other sport already has devalued the regular season to the point of near-irrelevance, especially in the NBA and NHL and pretty close to it in the NFL.

 

Would OSU/Michigan have been nearly as exciting if both teams knew they would get a shot at the championship anyway via a playoff? Probably not.

In my opinion, college football has completely devalued the postseason, and has made everyting entirely too opinion based. At least in the NFL, the best teams prove they're the best on the field. I hate how some teams get into bowl games over others simply because they'd bring in more money. Regardless whether they're better or not, they get that spot. Take the human polls out of it completely. Coaches, AP, whatever.

[Derwood]

 

The season starts later and there is only 10 games per team not counting the playoffs and championship game.

 

NO WAY do teams like PSU give up 1 or 2 home games and the millions in ticket sales that go with it.

[Andy]

Maybe, maybe not. But every other sport already has devalued the regular season to the point of near-irrelevance, especially in the NBA and NHL and pretty close to it in the NFL.

 

Would OSU/Michigan have been nearly as exciting if both teams knew they would get a shot at the championship anyway via a playoff? Probably not.

In my opinion, college football has completely devalued the postseason, and has made everyting entirely too opinion based. At least in the NFL, the best teams prove they're the best on the field. I hate how some teams get into bowl games over others simply because they'd bring in more money. Regardless whether they're better or not, they get that spot. Take the human polls out of it completely. Coaches, AP, whatever.

This is a valid point, but it has actually never happened that I can recall in the BCS.

 

In 2005, ND and Ohio State got BCS bids not because they'd bring in more money (although they did), but because both were in the BCS top 6, giving them automatic bids.

 

This year, West Virginia was the only alternative to ND for the final at-large spot, and even a horribly biased observer would admit that ND has earned that right more than WV.

 

Granted, I haven't paid much attention to the BCS selection process in non-ND years, but I don't remember hearing that flap in previous years either.