Really? Auburn/Texas? Florida/Oklahoma? LSU/Ohio St? Florida /Ohio St? USC/Oklahoma? Since 1999 there have been 14 NC games...9 of those have been won by 10 or more points.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Playoffs? This team? PLAYOFFS!
- Thread starter huskheartguy
- Start date
- Status
Really? Auburn/Texas? Florida/Oklahoma? LSU/Ohio St? Florida /Ohio St? USC/Oklahoma? Since 1999 there have been 14 NC games...9 of those have been won by 10 or more points.
I'm on board for a playoff, 4 teams is good, I think the larger playoff format works well at the fcs level, but for fbs lets start here and see how things go. Plus it still allows the minor bowls to operate as usual.
The committee makes me nervous because I'm a notre lame conspiracy theorist. If they limit their adjustments to consider whether to not invite a highly ranked, but non-conference champ to the ball, then I'm on board. But if ND finished the season ranked 5th, and you have, say, a boise st at 4, and they make their decision based on tv ratings, fan travel, etc, then we have a problem.
The committee makes me nervous because I'm a notre lame conspiracy theorist. If they limit their adjustments to consider whether to not invite a highly ranked, but non-conference champ to the ball, then I'm on board. But if ND finished the season ranked 5th, and you have, say, a boise st at 4, and they make their decision based on tv ratings, fan travel, etc, then we have a problem.
I saw a post yesterday where someone said that if they made it a 4 team playoff Nebraskas shot at ever winning another title was gone. I'm trying to figure out the logic. Is this a real concern people have been having based on the strength of the B1G or something or is this just a husker fan ranting?
Love it. Let a committee decide. Computers are just that...humans need to be involved. My definition of "human" does not include a coach or SID. Here's to the AP poll ( except for 1997)
I still like the requirement of conference championship...I hate that Alabama won it last year and didnt win their division...that made the regular season game less important.
They said winning your conference will play a roll...how much? That will be the interesting part
To all the worry warts who think the regular season will now become irrelevant, I humbly submit the following mathematical evidence:
College Football =/= College Basketball
First, we need to examine the length of the season and how a loss affects a team's chances. The college basketball season has 2.5x as many games as college football. Last year most teams played at least 30 games, with Kansas and Kentucky playing 39 by sailing through the tournament and reaching the Championship.
College football has 12 games; maybe up to 14 games for a dozen or so teams. That means a perfect (14-0) football squad would fall 7 percentage points with every loss. Lose a game and you're now (0.930) instead of (1.000). For basketball, a loss only drops a team by 2.5 percentage points, meaning that in terms of impact to the season a football loss is about 2.8x more deadly than in basketball.
Secondly, we need to look at the overall size of the tournament. In March Madness, 68 teams make the post-season (including the play-in games). With 345 schools currently participating in Division-I NCAA Basketball, this means that every single year 19.7% of the entire league makes the playoffs. Division-I FBS Football will have 124 teams next year. 4 teams equates to only 3.2% of the league. In fact, we would have to expand the college football playoffs to TWENTY-FOUR teams to have the same ratios as college basketball.
Compare these against other sports; football and CWS are the only major sports in the single-digit percentage range. All of the professional leagues allow at least one-third of the entire league into a playoff.
<tbody>
</tbody>
Will a playoff change college football? Yes. But will it kill the spirit of college football? Absolutely not. Let me restate: every single game still matters, until FBS starts playing 20 games a season or expands the playoff to 24 teams. There are just too few games in a season for a 4-loss team to even sniff the playoffs - not a chance. And sure, maybe some year a 2-loss team runs the table. But if they had to beat at least 2 other equal or better teams to get there, I don't see the problem.
There's another reason that the NCAA brass is considering a playoff. The fans want it. Overwhelmingly. And while I respect your right to disagree, if you favor a return to the old Bowl Alliance model you are in a slim minority.
College football has 12 games; maybe up to 14 games for a dozen or so teams. That means a perfect (14-0) football squad would fall 7 percentage points with every loss. Lose a game and you're now (0.930) instead of (1.000). For basketball, a loss only drops a team by 2.5 percentage points, meaning that in terms of impact to the season a football loss is about 2.8x more deadly than in basketball.
Secondly, we need to look at the overall size of the tournament. In March Madness, 68 teams make the post-season (including the play-in games). With 345 schools currently participating in Division-I NCAA Basketball, this means that every single year 19.7% of the entire league makes the playoffs. Division-I FBS Football will have 124 teams next year. 4 teams equates to only 3.2% of the league. In fact, we would have to expand the college football playoffs to TWENTY-FOUR teams to have the same ratios as college basketball.
Compare these against other sports; football and CWS are the only major sports in the single-digit percentage range. All of the professional leagues allow at least one-third of the entire league into a playoff.
| Sport | Teams In Post-Season* | Total Teams | % |
| NCAA-B | 68 | 345 | 19.7% |
| NCAA-F | 4 | 124 | 3.2% |
| CWS | 8 | 211 | 3.7% |
| NFL | 12 | 32 | 37.5% |
| MLB | 10 | 30 | 33.3% |
| NBA | 16 | 30 | 53.3% |
| NHL | 16 | 30 | 53.3% |
<tbody>
</tbody>
*includes all wild-card or play-in teams
Will a playoff change college football? Yes. But will it kill the spirit of college football? Absolutely not. Let me restate: every single game still matters, until FBS starts playing 20 games a season or expands the playoff to 24 teams. There are just too few games in a season for a 4-loss team to even sniff the playoffs - not a chance. And sure, maybe some year a 2-loss team runs the table. But if they had to beat at least 2 other equal or better teams to get there, I don't see the problem.
There's another reason that the NCAA brass is considering a playoff. The fans want it. Overwhelmingly. And while I respect your right to disagree, if you favor a return to the old Bowl Alliance model you are in a slim minority.
Last edited:
As long as they keep this thing as a plus 1 or 4 team playoff, it will have zero effect on the magnitude of the early season or regular season games. This is not even debatable unless you want to waste your time.
Most of the championship games over the life of the BCS have been against undefeateds or 1 loss teams period. 2 loss champions are the exception to the rule and will continue to be so under a 4 team playoff.
I think a 4 team playoff gives us the best of both worlds. 1) a great regular season to look forward to filled with urgency like b4 and 2) it allows us to widen the net slightly to include a possible 3rd or 4th team in the mix just to make sure we have the cream of the crop.
In all of the years I have been watching college football most years have produced the two best teams. Then some years have had a 3rd team with a great case to be in the final game. There have been a few years where it has been crowded at the top (see 2001). This new 4 team format really cleans the latter two scenarios up and should give us two great teams which most likely will be undefeated or 1 loss teams to play for the title.
Most of the championship games over the life of the BCS have been against undefeateds or 1 loss teams period. 2 loss champions are the exception to the rule and will continue to be so under a 4 team playoff.
I think a 4 team playoff gives us the best of both worlds. 1) a great regular season to look forward to filled with urgency like b4 and 2) it allows us to widen the net slightly to include a possible 3rd or 4th team in the mix just to make sure we have the cream of the crop.
In all of the years I have been watching college football most years have produced the two best teams. Then some years have had a 3rd team with a great case to be in the final game. There have been a few years where it has been crowded at the top (see 2001). This new 4 team format really cleans the latter two scenarios up and should give us two great teams which most likely will be undefeated or 1 loss teams to play for the title.
Once that playoff money starts rolling in, they're going to want to make it bigger. Plus like in other sports, schools will simply want to expand it so more teams can claim success. Call it the "participation ribbon effect". Pass a constitutional amendment the playoff can't be more than 4 teams and I'll reluctantly go along.
I think one thing playoff proponents aren't thinking about when they say 4 teams will cover it, is that once you implement it, the arguments will change. Now we will have things like, "Sure Alabama has two losses. But they're rated 5th! They only lost that game to Auburn because their quarterback was hurt, blah, blah, blah." The beauty of the current system is that all of those arguments can never be resolved, so teams do their best to bring it, every singe week.
Last edited:
When you open up this can of worms you end up changing things forever. Don't get me wrong, I'm for a playoff. However these kids are students. Students of higher education with finals and obligations to classes and tests. Granted there is that element of players that could care less as their only reason to be here is to get a shot in the show.
You can bet that eventually the playoff system expands to eight. Eight teams means at least three weeks of playing though finals. Throw in conference championship contests for the super conferences and you have another week of games. Either you shorten the regular season to accommodate the added games or you lengthen the season into winter. It would be advised not to start the season earlier with the heat and potential for that danger.
Now there is the problem of attrition and the number of scholarships and number of coaches involved. More games, more injuries. (more head injuries) That means teams may end up with different players finishing the season than for those who began the season, much like the NFL. Speaking of the NFL the networks would be in control of television and the competition of the NFL vs the NCAA for television time. You get into the basketball seasons if you lengthen the seasons. This will give those money grabbing networks full control of the schedule.
Four teams would work, but just like everything money dictates the final outcome of product. Eventually four is not enough. You end up with eight, nine maybe ten teams with one loss behind a couple of teams that are undefeated. Which ones get the opportunity? Eventually the discussion turns to eight teams. In my thinking everything gets changed eventually. You would end up paying the players as education gets put on the back burner. It may take six years to get a diploma. There is much to think about once the genie leaves the bottle. The universities may not give their powers up to ABC, CBS or ESPN. I see many complications down the road.
You can bet that eventually the playoff system expands to eight. Eight teams means at least three weeks of playing though finals. Throw in conference championship contests for the super conferences and you have another week of games. Either you shorten the regular season to accommodate the added games or you lengthen the season into winter. It would be advised not to start the season earlier with the heat and potential for that danger.
Now there is the problem of attrition and the number of scholarships and number of coaches involved. More games, more injuries. (more head injuries) That means teams may end up with different players finishing the season than for those who began the season, much like the NFL. Speaking of the NFL the networks would be in control of television and the competition of the NFL vs the NCAA for television time. You get into the basketball seasons if you lengthen the seasons. This will give those money grabbing networks full control of the schedule.
Four teams would work, but just like everything money dictates the final outcome of product. Eventually four is not enough. You end up with eight, nine maybe ten teams with one loss behind a couple of teams that are undefeated. Which ones get the opportunity? Eventually the discussion turns to eight teams. In my thinking everything gets changed eventually. You would end up paying the players as education gets put on the back burner. It may take six years to get a diploma. There is much to think about once the genie leaves the bottle. The universities may not give their powers up to ABC, CBS or ESPN. I see many complications down the road.
I love it that those teams used their regular seasons to get ready for the post season, where it really matters. Both showed guts and perseverance.
The seeding criteria will matter most of all. They need to get that right.
As far as a 2 loss making it in: not likely to happen with CFB, the way it's structured. Take it out to 8 teams, and maybe the 2 loss teams get in.
If it does, so what? If the seeding's done right, the complaining will be minimal.
Oregon, Stanford and USC all beat each other (all on the road), and all three ended the conference season with one loss. Oregon had one more loss overall than did Stanford, but it was at a neutral site in the south against LSU in a game that was much more competitive than the final score indicated, so it would have been tough to choose between Stanford and Oregon. Oregon's loss at home to USC was late in the year. The BCS point system had Stanford ahead.
Last edited:
This will inevitably expand to include more teams and water down what was once a great sport. This decision will change college football, and not for the better.
A committee of people will choose the participants? And why would they be any more unbiased than the votes of over one hundred people combined with several computer algorithms?
If the polls show a team at #3 or #4, but the committee bypasses them for someone else (maybe they didn't win the conference or whatever reason the committee comes up with), the howls will begin all over again.
There is no good way to do a playoff. If a major change is what people want, let's go back to the old bowl system in place prior to the BCS.
A committee of people will choose the participants? And why would they be any more unbiased than the votes of over one hundred people combined with several computer algorithms?
If the polls show a team at #3 or #4, but the committee bypasses them for someone else (maybe they didn't win the conference or whatever reason the committee comes up with), the howls will begin all over again.
There is no good way to do a playoff. If a major change is what people want, let's go back to the old bowl system in place prior to the BCS.
So last season, Oregon won the conference but had two losses. Stanford had only one loss, but it was to Oregon. What would the selection committe do? Would they take the conference champ? Or the one-loss team with the higher ranking?
In 2010, Stanford again finished with one loss and did not win their conference. They were rated higher than conference champions Oklahoma (which had 2 losses) and Wisconsin (also with one loss). Ohio State also had only one loss (to Wisconsin) and was ranked ahead of Oklahoma. Michigan State and Boise State also each had only one loss. Do you take the Sooners as conference champions? Or do you pick from one of the one-loss teams? If so, how does the committee choose between them?
In 2009, how do you pick undefeated TCU over undefeated Boise State? Are Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State really more deserving than a 1-loss Florida team? What about the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions? Are their accomplishments (2 losses each) worthy of inclusion over that of a team that went undefeated in the WAC?
What a fun mess this will be.
In 2010, Stanford again finished with one loss and did not win their conference. They were rated higher than conference champions Oklahoma (which had 2 losses) and Wisconsin (also with one loss). Ohio State also had only one loss (to Wisconsin) and was ranked ahead of Oklahoma. Michigan State and Boise State also each had only one loss. Do you take the Sooners as conference champions? Or do you pick from one of the one-loss teams? If so, how does the committee choose between them?
In 2009, how do you pick undefeated TCU over undefeated Boise State? Are Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State really more deserving than a 1-loss Florida team? What about the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions? Are their accomplishments (2 losses each) worthy of inclusion over that of a team that went undefeated in the WAC?
What a fun mess this will be.
- Status
