State of the FBS: Overpopulation

[Tide1986]

I am actually agreeable to using conference championship games as a +1 of sorts, but I doubt we'd ever meet my requirements.

First off, the #1 reason you can't have this as a sole playoff criteria is because it can leave the #2 team out. This happened in the NCAA basketball tournament and they changed the criteria later on to avoid this. While it's not so bad to have the idea of a conference champ #1 vs. a conference champ #3 for a championship game, it is a bad idea if you start saying you're going to put in the 9th ranked team (or lower) but exclude the #2 ranked team.

Generally speaking, I understand the notion of not letting a team lose one game then play for a championship in the next one. OU did this and people went nuts. The problem was SoS, OU played more games (with more difficulty) then USC, so logically speaking OU with 1 loss still had proven more than USC with 1 loss. However, one of the major issues there was no Pac-10 championship game (and you see this theme in every controversial year).

If you whittled things down to 8 or less conferences (depending on size it could be as few as 4), AND every single conference had a championship game I would be open to the notion of using that as an elimination game. However, I would then want it to go back to BCS criteria. The top two teams to win conference championship games play for the championship. This might be a bit redundant, but by setting the criteria you'd basically be forcing everyone into doing this.

In my opinion, the most legitimate playoff for college football would be one that used the BCS poll exclusively. For example, the top 8 teams would go into an 8-team playoff. As a result, conference championship games would become less relevant. But of course, a playoff styled in this manner would never be approved because of the revenue hit conferences could end up taking.

 

[CrimsonProf]

In my opinion, the most legitimate playoff for college football would be one that used the BCS poll exclusively. For example, the top 8 teams would go into an 8-team playoff. As a result, conference championship games would become less relevant. But of course, a playoff styled in this manner would never be approved because of the revenue hit conferences could end up taking.

A thousand times no!

While undefeated teams are rare, we typically have one or two one loss teams. The "outside looking in" teams are almost always mid-level teams. Situations like Auburn 04 and Texas/Texas Tech 08 are rare. If you have two teams with one-less records, there is no reason they should have to then play even just an eight team playoff.

 

[GrayTide]

I have said on here many times in the past that 120 teams in the FBS is ridiculous. IMO 4 or 5 12 team conferences should be enough for FBS membership. The remaining teams would have their own division and play for its NC. A BCS ranking system could be used for both divisions with a heavy emphasis on strength of schedule and awarding some premium for road wins. I would also be against sportswriters and the media having any input in the rankings.

The BCS rankings would rank each team weekly from 1-60 not just the top 25. By ranking each of the 60 teams a team's strength of schedule would not be static but change weekly based on the team they play that week and that team's ranking. There could also be some variable for a conference's power ranking. IMO there are any number of variables that could be used to accurately reflect a team's ranking. Sounds complicated and it would be and it would have to be totally reliant on a computer system. The schedule would be reduced to 11 games and a conference championship game. The bowls, however they would be structured would be each team's 12th game.

I would also propose a governing body with an overall hired commissioner and a board made up of each conference's commissioner.

 

[Tide1986]

A thousand times no!

While undefeated teams are rare, we typically have one or two one loss teams. The "outside looking in" teams are almost always mid-level teams. Situations like Auburn 04 and Texas/Texas Tech 08 are rare. If you have two teams with one-less records, there is no reason they should have to then play even just an eight team playoff.

FYI...I'm not a proponent of a playoff and have indicated such in numerous threads...I was simply commenting on the use of conference champions in a playoff, which in my opinion would lead to a seriously flawed playoff assuming a playoff actually existed.

 

[TideFan in AU]

A thousand times no!

While undefeated teams are rare, we typically have one or two one loss teams. The "outside looking in" teams are almost always mid-level teams. Situations like Auburn 04 and Texas/Texas Tech 08 are rare. If you have two teams with one-less records, there is no reason they should have to then play even just an eight team playoff.

Agreed. Just this last year, OSU, Michigan St, Arkansas, and OU would have played for a NC under a 8 team playoff format, and they clearly didn't belong.

The only playoff system that makes sense in CFB to me is possibly a 4 team playoff. There's never been controversy past 4 spots, and if there is a rare year with 5 undefeated teams, so be it. There will never be a controversy free system anyway. This system could be achieved using the Bowls as the playoff games. You could keep all the BCS bowls, but make 2 of them meaningful games on a rotating basis and have a predetermined site and date for the NCG. This would keep the universities and conferences happy with the big payouts, and the 2 "playoff" bowls would be bigger than they are now if it determined the NC teams. This would eliminate having to make plans on the fly as your favorite team advanced. Most fans would struggle to go to 3 or 4 playoff games with plans that sudden, especially if your team didn't have homefield advantage. The Bowl playoff system would eliminate home field advantage, and since playoff proponents are SO worried about the crowning a "true" champion, they should welcome this. This would eliminate the problems that happened in any year thus far in the BCS. This leaves the tradition and pagentry of the bowls intact. To me, this is only way to keep the emphasis on winning every game possible (yes, selma, it does exist)

 

[PalmBayBama]

Agree! Reinstitute SoS rankings within the BCS polls and I believe a lot of the Boises of the nation will fall out of the polls or at least out of the Top 15-20.

Every computer poll already factors in SoS, so the separate SoS component that was previously in the BCS formaula was redundant. Every human voter should also factor in SoS. The problem seems to be that some of the human voters are negligent in their duties and just look at record.

 

[TommyMac]

I havent read all of this yet, but just getting started into it...I dont subscribe to the logic that just because college football is really old and predates pro sports somehow means that everything is right with the current system. Hey, people used to believe the world was flat and the sun was a god. People believed these things were absolutely the truth. You shouldnt keep doing something just because its the way its always been done in the past.

Ridiculous analogies like this do little to advance your argument. :rolleye2:

 

[TommyMac]

This opening argument is rife with factual errors and appeals to carefully selected evidence. It thoroughly ignores Penn State's unbeaten seasons in 1968-69-73-94, and treats all national title claims as legitimate when they are not. Penn State did not win anything resembling a REAL title in 1994, so the claim of unbeatens is in error. Also, the claim that the BCS has always given us a champ ranked 1 or 2 is laughable on it's face since that game matches up 1 vs 2. Not near a big computer so may or may not respond in length. Too many D1 teams is agreed. Most of the rest of the argument is special pleading or twisted history (yes there was one Rose Bowl in 1902, but it wasn't annual until many years later. Baseball had champions on the field in 1876 and the Workd Series in 1903). Once again BAD arguments have no place at the table.

And it should for 68, 69 and 73. PSU's pitiful schedules for those years did not deserve recognition. They had a legitimate beef in 94.