College Football Bowl Discussion

[Andy]

Here's SI's 16 team playoff bracket:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/12/06/college.football.poll/index.html

 

I agree 16 is too many.

 

great first round matchup of iowa and ohio st.

 

And TCU-BYU

 

yeah i missed that one too.

 

i get that people like big tournaments and a 16-team tournament is what they have in i-aa, but as i've said before, i think one of the things that makes college football awesome and unique is that every game could be the difference between playing for a title and being left out. i think that goes away when you expand the field to 16 teams. i would favor the current broken system over a 16-team field. to me, the plus-one option was the way to go.

Me too.

[dew1679666265]

yeah i missed that one too.

 

i get that people like big tournaments and a 16-team tournament is what they have in i-aa, but as i've said before, i think one of the things that makes college football awesome and unique is that every game could be the difference between playing for a title and being left out. i think that goes away when you expand the field to 16 teams. i would favor the current broken system over a 16-team field. to me, the plus-one option was the way to go.

 

I'm not all that much more in favor of a 16 team playoff over a 4 team playoff, but I've never understood this argument. To me, this argument is favoring the importance of the regular season over the importance of having a good postseason setup. The current postseason system sucks, yet you don't want to change the postseason system to something better because it might make the regular season less important? I just don't get that.

 

I'd much rather have a great playoff system (be it 16 teams or 4 teams or anywhere in between) and have a slightly less exciting regular season. Keep in mind also that the regular season is only exciting this way to the teams that actually win out. Once a team loses twice, there's very little reason to follow as closely (other than simply being a fan). With a larger playoff, teams wouldn't lose excitement in their season after a loss or two.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah i missed that one too.

 

i get that people like big tournaments and a 16-team tournament is what they have in i-aa, but as i've said before, i think one of the things that makes college football awesome and unique is that every game could be the difference between playing for a title and being left out. i think that goes away when you expand the field to 16 teams. i would favor the current broken system over a 16-team field. to me, the plus-one option was the way to go.

 

I'm not all that much more in favor of a 16 team playoff over a 4 team playoff, but I've never understood this argument. To me, this argument is favoring the importance of the regular season over the importance of having a good postseason setup. The current postseason system sucks, yet you don't want to change the postseason system to something better because it might make the regular season less important? I just don't get that.

 

(1) it definitely WOULD make the regular season less important - all but two of those teams do not have a chance to win a title under the current format. games like Iowa-PSU, Iowa-OSU, Florida-Bama, Pitt-Cincy, etc. become less significant because one or both teams is definitely assured of playing for a title.

 

(2) it is your opinion that the 16-team format is better. it's better in that you're virtually assured of having a champion with no controversy, but look at the ways that things can be worse. again, i'm arguing that it makes every week of the regular season worse. i'd also say that it could make certain parts of the postseason worse. i mean, look at the sports illustrated bracket. you've got Ohio St-Iowa and TCU-BYU. would you prefer those rematch games, or Ohio St-Oregon, Iowa-Ga Tech, TCU-Boise St and BYU-Oregon St? To me it's not even close.

 

(3) Once you do something like shifting from the current broken format to a 16-team format, you're not going back. The NCAA isn't going to shift to a 16-team playoff and then shrink it to 8 or 4 or back to 2 if people don't like it. So I'd rather stick with the broken format and then get it right with the next step than shift to another bad system and be stuck with that.

[TruffleShuffle]

Once a team loses twice, there's very little reason to follow as closely (other than simply being a fan). With a larger playoff, teams wouldn't lose excitement in their season after a loss or two.

 

this isn't true either. just this year, i can think of two-loss ohio st playing psu, iowa and michigan and needing to win all three to make a high-prestige bowl (rose), and two-loss oregon had huge games at arizona and against oregon st to make the same bowl. if two-loss iowa beat minnesota in their last game, they had a good chance of going to the bcs and at very worst the capitol one; with a loss they could have ended up in the champs sports or outback bowls. penn state's last game (michigan st) possibly meant the difference between a champs sports trip and a bcs bowl. (as it is, they're playing in a very good non-bcs bowl). wisconsin and northwestern each had multiple losses but there was plenty of interest in that game; as a result of the upset, northwestern gets to play in the outback bowl while wisconsin was relegated to the champs sports.

 

if you're looking at things purely in terms of the national championship, sure - losing a game or two reduces the interest. but there is still plenty of interest among fan bases because of the desire to see your team play in a high-quality bowl game.

[dew1679666265]

(1) it definitely WOULD make the regular season less important - all but two of those teams do not have a chance to win a title under the current format. games like Iowa-PSU, Iowa-OSU, Florida-Bama, Pitt-Cincy, etc. become less significant because one or both teams is definitely assured of playing for a title.

 

Less exciting for some. Those games you just mentioned lose some meaning, but might still remain important for seeding purposes. However, there may have been games played in the final couple of weeks that determined who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Instead, they were played for the right to go to a meaningless bowl or a less meaningless bowl. And even then, the games didn't mean anything because bowl invites aren't given by who should go. They're determined on who will draw the most money for the bowl.

 

(2) it is your opinion that the 16-team format is better. it's better in that you're virtually assured of having a champion with no controversy, but look at the ways that things can be worse. again, i'm arguing that it makes every week of the regular season worse. i'd also say that it could make certain parts of the postseason worse. i mean, look at the sports illustrated bracket. you've got Ohio St-Iowa and TCU-BYU. would you prefer those rematch games, or Ohio St-Oregon, Iowa-Ga Tech, TCU-Boise St and BYU-Oregon St? To me it's not even close.

 

I said I don't necessarily think a 16-team format is better than a 4-team format. I'd have to look at the proposal and decide from there. Almost any playoff where teams aren't invited for reasons other than how well they do on the field of play would be better than the current system.

 

As for the matchups, those would be the first round matchups and they are always some of the worst. The SI playoff system also has the potential of a Texas-Oregon matchup and a Texas-TCU matchup. As well as Alabama-Ohio State. Those would be great games and probably better than anything currently set up. Especially since they'd mean more – i.e. every game would be played with the idea that any team playing could win a title.

 

If you get a bad matchup in a bowl, that's all you've got. There's no second round that might give an intriguing matchup.

 

(3) Once you do something like shifting from the current broken format to a 16-team format, you're not going back. The NCAA isn't going to shift to a 16-team playoff and then shrink it to 8 or 4 or back to 2 if people don't like it. So I'd rather stick with the broken format and then get it right with the next step than shift to another bad system and be stuck with that.

 

Again, I'd be fine with going to a 4-team or 8-team playoff. It's no guarantee that a 16-team playoff would be bad, though. You're right that the NCAA wouldn't shift back to a 4-team or 8-team after going to a 16-team, so it might be ideal to start at a plus-one and go from there. But the current system should be changed and a 16-team playoff is a legit possibility that would likely be better than one game with some meaning, a few with a little meaning and a whole bunch with none whatsoever.

[dew1679666265]

Once a team loses twice, there's very little reason to follow as closely (other than simply being a fan). With a larger playoff, teams wouldn't lose excitement in their season after a loss or two.

 

this isn't true either. just this year, i can think of two-loss ohio st playing psu, iowa and michigan and needing to win all three to make a high-prestige bowl (rose), and two-loss oregon had huge games at arizona and against oregon st to make the same bowl. if two-loss iowa beat minnesota in their last game, they had a good chance of going to the bcs and at very worst the capitol one; with a loss they could have ended up in the champs sports or outback bowls. penn state's last game (michigan st) possibly meant the difference between a champs sports trip and a bcs bowl. (as it is, they're playing in a very good non-bcs bowl). wisconsin and northwestern each had multiple losses but there was plenty of interest in that game; as a result of the upset, northwestern gets to play in the outback bowl while wisconsin was relegated to the champs sports.

 

if you're looking at things purely in terms of the national championship, sure - losing a game or two reduces the interest. but there is still plenty of interest among fan bases because of the desire to see your team play in a high-quality bowl game.

 

There's some interest, but not nearly as much as there would be if Ohio State, Iowa, Penn State and Oregon all still had a chance at winning a championship. National titles breed more excitement than anything else. If you can increase the number of teams who have a legit shot, then that will be more exciting for more people than fighting for a bowl that may pass over you because you don't draw well enough. Legit shot is important, by the way. I'm not arguing that a March Madness-style 64-team bracket would be a good idea. Any more than 8-16 teams and you're getting out of the realm of teams that legitimately could win their way to the title game.

 

And Wisconsin was passed over because they wouldn't draw as well as Northwestern. Not because of much of anything else.

[Guest]

(1) it definitely WOULD make the regular season less important - all but two of those teams do not have a chance to win a title under the current format. games like Iowa-PSU, Iowa-OSU, Florida-Bama, Pitt-Cincy, etc. become less significant because one or both teams is definitely assured of playing for a title.

 

Less exciting for some. Those games you just mentioned lose some meaning, but might still remain important for seeding purposes. However, there may have been games played in the final couple of weeks that determined who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Instead, they were played for the right to go to a meaningless bowl or a less meaningless bowl. And even then, the games didn't mean anything because bowl invites aren't given by who should go. They're determined on who will draw the most money for the bowl.

 

I think the number of exciting games that have meaning at the end of the regular season are going to be about the same regardless of what system you're using.

 

This year, games like the SEC title game and Big XII title game are of the utmost importance because they determine who goes to the national title game. But if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff, the SEC title game would have lost nearly all of its importance since both would be going to the playoffs. All that would matter, is where they're seeded, which is certainly important, but not nearly as important as the SEC title game was either of the last two years.

 

You're going to have play-in games at the end of the year regardless, whether or not its for the National Championship game and the other BCS bowls or whether its to get into the playoffs.

[abuck1220]

 

This year, games like the SEC title game and Big XII title game are of the utmost importance because they determine who goes to the national title game. But if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff, the SEC title game would have lost nearly all of its importance since both would be going to the playoffs.

 

and as it stands now, all but one of the postseason games have little or no importance.

 

the big 12 title game would lose some significance but the orange bowl (or whatever they would call the playoff-system semifinal game or whatever) would gain a TON of significance.

[Guest]

 

This year, games like the SEC title game and Big XII title game are of the utmost importance because they determine who goes to the national title game. But if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff, the SEC title game would have lost nearly all of its importance since both would be going to the playoffs.

 

and as it stands now, all but one of the postseason games have little or no importance.

 

the big 12 title game would lose some significance but the orange bowl (or whatever they would call the playoff-system semifinal game or whatever) would gain a TON of significance.

 

So Iowa's BCS game doesn't matter at all to you?

[Andy]

 

This year, games like the SEC title game and Big XII title game are of the utmost importance because they determine who goes to the national title game. But if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff, the SEC title game would have lost nearly all of its importance since both would be going to the playoffs.

 

and as it stands now, all but one of the postseason games have little or no importance.

 

the big 12 title game would lose some significance but the orange bowl (or whatever they would call the playoff-system semifinal game or whatever) would gain a TON of significance.

 

So Iowa's BCS game doesn't matter at all to you?

Probably not, since abuck likes Iowa State.

[Guest]

Well then his position is understandable. I thought he was rooting for Iowa during the season but I guess not.

 

And for the record, I'm completely in favor of a 4-team playoff with two BCS bowls hosting semis and having the final a week later. Anything more than that I wouldn't like.

[bukie]

Well then his position is understandable. I thought he was rooting for Iowa during the season but I guess not.

 

And for the record, I'm completely in favor of a 4-team playoff with two BCS bowls hosting semis and having the final a week later. Anything more than that I wouldn't like.

 

If there were a 4-team playoff this year, which undefeated team do you leave out? Or do you leave 2 out and include Florida?

 

The reason, to me, a 4-team playoff doesn't and won't ever work, is that there are 6 BCS conferences, and if they can't all be represented in a playoff, it'll never fly.

 

So, the minimum playoff would probably have to be 8 teams.

[Guest]

Well then his position is understandable. I thought he was rooting for Iowa during the season but I guess not.

 

And for the record, I'm completely in favor of a 4-team playoff with two BCS bowls hosting semis and having the final a week later. Anything more than that I wouldn't like.

 

If there were a 4-team playoff this year, which undefeated team do you leave out? Or do you leave 2 out and include Florida?

 

The reason, to me, a 4-team playoff doesn't and won't ever work, is that there are 6 BCS conferences, and if they can't all be represented in a playoff, it'll never fly.

 

So, the minimum playoff would probably have to be 8 teams.

 

And that's why I don't like the 8-team playoff ideas. I know it didn't happen this year (though this year is actually an outlier) but I hate it when a team ranked outside of the top-15 wins its conference and gets an autobid.

 

I can see the BCS conferences agreeing to a 4-team playoff. What I can't see is them agreeing to an 8-team playoff where the top-8 go and there are no autobids.

 

I'd also leave Boise State out because they have the weakest resume.

[TruffleShuffle]

Well then his position is understandable. I thought he was rooting for Iowa during the season but I guess not.

 

no, he definitely was. i guess he just roots for the entire state.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well then his position is understandable. I thought he was rooting for Iowa during the season but I guess not.

 

And for the record, I'm completely in favor of a 4-team playoff with two BCS bowls hosting semis and having the final a week later. Anything more than that I wouldn't like.

 

If there were a 4-team playoff this year, which undefeated team do you leave out? Or do you leave 2 out and include Florida?

 

The reason, to me, a 4-team playoff doesn't and won't ever work, is that there are 6 BCS conferences, and if they can't all be represented in a playoff, it'll never fly.

 

So, the minimum playoff would probably have to be 8 teams.

 

And that's why I don't like the 8-team playoff ideas. I know it didn't happen this year (though this year is actually an outlier) but I hate it when a team ranked outside of the top-15 wins its conference and gets an autobid.

 

I can see the BCS conferences agreeing to a 4-team playoff. What I can't see is them agreeing to an 8-team playoff where the top-8 go and there are no autobids.

 

I'd also leave Boise State out because they have the weakest resume.

 

Boise also has the 2nd best win. I'd leave out Texas.

[Derwood]

I hate it when a team ranked outside of the top-15 wins its conference and gets an autobid.

 

You must really, really hate the NCAA Basketball tournament

[XZero771679666304]

Yeah, I think a four team playoff is the best we can hope for. And really, it should be enough in most years.

[Guest]

I hate it when a team ranked outside of the top-15 wins its conference and gets an autobid.

 

You must really, really hate the NCAA Basketball tournament

 

That's completely different and a ridiculous comparison and you know it. On one hand its a team taking one of eight and now 10 spots versus a team taking one of 64/65 spots.

[Andy]

Yeah, I think a four team playoff is the best we can hope for. And really, it should be enough in most years.

It is enough IMO. This year is an extreme anomaly with five unbeatens at the end of the year and even then there is one unbeaten that is generally agreed to be a notch below the others (Boise).

 

There would definitely be controversy in picking the last team or last two teams in with the 4-team playoff, but for the most part I can't envision someone having a legitimate gripe with being left out.

[Derwood]

I hate it when a team ranked outside of the top-15 wins its conference and gets an autobid.

 

You must really, really hate the NCAA Basketball tournament

 

That's completely different and a ridiculous comparison and you know it. On one hand its a team taking one of eight and now 10 spots versus a team taking one of 64/65 spots.

 

It's not different if a team from the ACC/SEC/Big XII had the best regular season record but missed out on the playoffs because they were upset in the conference title game by a worse team. In the basketball tournament, regular season champs of the big conferences get in anyways, but not at the mid-majors

[Outshined_One]

The problem I have with the plus one is determining the four teams. Yeah, this year is an anomaly with five undefeated teams, but I'd be more concerned about years where there are one or two undefeated teams and a slew of teams with one or two losses. That seems to happen quite frequently, especially considering teams could get screwed over in the polls.

 

With a playoff that has eight or more teams, that problem continues to linger, but you'd be talking about leaving out teams that are substantially flawed and had multiple opportunities to climb in the rankings, but blew it for various reasons. Plus, as a fan, a playoff would mean more football. I mean, it's one thing if you're concerned about injuries, academics, and so on. However, could you imagine weekends where the NFL and NCAA both had playoff games? For example, with an eight team playoff in the first round, think of a schedule like...

 

Thursday night: NCAA Playoff Game

Friday night: NCAA Playoff Game

Saturday: Early afternoon NCAA Playoff Game, Late afternoon & Evening NFL Playoff Games

Sunday: Afternoon NFL Playoff Games, Evening NCAA Playoff Game

 

As a football fan, I'd absolutely love to see something like that.

[Guest]

With a playoff that has eight or more teams, that problem continues to linger, but you'd be talking about leaving out teams that are substantially flawed and had multiple opportunities to climb in the rankings, but blew it for various reasons.

 

Who would you have put in last year?

 

Obviously the conference winners would go, giving you Oklahoma, Florida, Penn St, USC, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. But after them you have (by BCS rankings) No. 3 Texas, No. 6 Utah, No. 7 Texas Tech and No. 9 Boise State.

 

If you let in the first two teams, Texas and Utah, then you're still leaving out an undefeated Boise State team. If you let in Utah and Boise State because they're unbeaten, then you're leaving out the No. 3 team.

[Outshined_One]

With a playoff that has eight or more teams, that problem continues to linger, but you'd be talking about leaving out teams that are substantially flawed and had multiple opportunities to climb in the rankings, but blew it for various reasons.

 

Who would you have put in last year?

 

Obviously the conference winners would go, giving you Oklahoma, Florida, Penn St, USC, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. But after them you have (by BCS rankings) No. 3 Texas, No. 6 Utah, No. 7 Texas Tech and No. 9 Boise State.

 

If you let in the first two teams, Texas and Utah, then you're still leaving out an undefeated Boise State team. If you let in Utah and Boise State because they're unbeaten, then you're leaving out the No. 3 team.

 

Texas Tech was ranked above Boise State, but had one loss against Oklahoma and played a substantially more difficult schedule than BSU. TCU played a more difficult schedule than BSU and had losses to Oklahoma and Utah. Ohio State also played a more difficult schedule than BSU and had losses to USC and Penn State. All of those teams had good arguments to be ranked above Boise State, yet were not. I wouldn't feel bad at all if any of them were shut out of an 8 team playoff. Each had opportunities to climb the rankings, win their conferences, or what have you, but they did not do so.

 

Saying "blew it for various reasons" may have been overstating my case a bit. My point is that I think an 8 team playoff would be more equitable to teams than the current system. In this case, Boise State did not have a particularly strong schedule, especially when compared to Texas and Utah. I think they represent more of an outlier than the norm.

 

Plus, I think shutting BSU out of the 8 team playoff is a better outcome than shutting out TCU and Cincy from the national championship game.

[Guest]

How does Boise State "represent more of an outlier than the norm"? They've gone undefeated in the regular season three out of the last four years, have never had a particularly hard schedule and this is the highest they've been ranked going into the bowls. There's very little difference in the 2006, 2008 and 2009 versions of Boise State. They didn't blow anything because they went undefeated each year and couldn't have done any more than they did, especially since it's widely known that BCS teams avoid scheduling them.

 

Which is my whole point. If you had an eight team playoff last year, there would be just as much controversy as there is this year because you're either holding out No. 3 Texas or an undefeated Boise State team that couldn't have done any more than they did.

 

You can make the same case in 2004 and 2006. In 2006, you had No. 3 Michigan (11-1), No. 4 LSU (10-2), No. 6 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 9 Boise (12-0) up for at-large bids. In 2004 you have No. 4 Texas (10-1), No. 5 Cal (10-1) and No. 6 Utah (11-0) for two spots. Somebody would have been ticked off in each of these years with an eight-team playoff.

[Outshined_One]

How does Boise State "represent more of an outlier than the norm"? They've gone undefeated in the regular season three out of the last four years, have never had a particularly hard schedule and this is the highest they've been ranked going into the bowls. There's very little difference in the 2006, 2008 and 2009 versions of Boise State. They didn't blow anything because they went undefeated each year and couldn't have done any more than they did, especially since it's widely known that BCS teams avoid scheduling them.

 

Which is my whole point. If you had an eight team playoff last year, there would be just as much controversy as there is this year because you're either holding out No. 3 Texas or an undefeated Boise State team that couldn't have done any more than they did.

 

You can make the same case in 2004 and 2006. In 2006, you had No. 3 Michigan (11-1), No. 4 LSU (10-2), No. 6 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 9 Boise (12-0) up for at-large bids. In 2004 you have No. 4 Texas (10-1), No. 5 Cal (10-1) and No. 6 Utah (11-0) for two spots. Somebody would have been ticked off in each of these years with an eight-team playoff.

 

Are you defending the current system, or are you arguing against an 8 team playoff?

 

Also, as a nitpick, Wisconsin was #7 and Boise State was #8 in 2006. Auburn (10-2) was #9.