Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Playoffs? This team? PLAYOFFS!

[huskrthill]

To that last point I still say that D1A should be broken off into 2 divisions. Teams in the sunbelt, MAC, etc. play in a system where they cannot reach the ultimate goal...what sense does that make? If you play for Miami of Ohio your whole reason for existence is to provide non-conf. fodder for the big time conferences and then go play for what? The right to make a meaningless motor city bowl? I'm surprised more of the kinds of players that go to schools like that don't just go play at a D1AA program so they can actually play for supremacy in their sport. I guess scholarship $ comes into play but still...

I could get on board with this. I've said that the only way I could back a playoff would be if D1A was trimmed down. I've suggested eight conferences consisting of 10 teams each. The conferences would be re-aligned so that they are of relatively equal strength. The teams would play all 9 teams in their conference, plus three non-conference games. To ensure the schedules remain relatively equal, the NCAA would schedule the non-conference games rather than the individual universities. You could then take the conference champions (8 teams), plus maybe two "wild-card" teams... the teams would be seeded using a BCS-type formula, and the wild-card teams would consist of the two highest ranked teams that did not win their conference - regardless of conference affiliation. If that means that the same conference sends its champ plus two wild-cards, so be it. The wild-cards would play the first week after conference play ended, and the winner would play the #8 seed the following week. After that, the remaining 8 teams would play in a traditional bracket format... 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. I would find a way to make the schedule so that the championship game would land on New Year's Day. If that means the regular season starts a week early, ok. If that means that we may have to put an extra week between the semi-finals and the finals, ok.

Other teams with at least SEVEN wins could still go to bowl games, all played between Christmas and New Year's Eve.

This would be the least objectionable plan in my mind. It will, of course, never happen. Conferences wouldn't stand for it.

 

[redarmy]

Just my 2 cents but pre BCS bowl tie ins were beyond stupid. Seeing 1 play 7 because of a bowl tie was pointless and meaningless. Fast Forward to the BCS. Lots of whine and cheese over not much. Watching 1 vs 2 play for a title regardless of what #3, 4 or 5 ranked team got snubbed was still better than 1 playing 5 and 2 playing 7 because thats the way it was always done. I am not going to sit here and say that this 4 team playoff isnt going to grow into 8 or 16. Probably will. I will cross that bridge when we get there. I think College football will be best with a 4 team playoff, 8 teams is second best in my book and 16 will be a sad day for college football as we know it. i will sit back and see how this plays out. Hopefully we will stay with 4 teams, I can live with 8.

 

[unmartin]

I wasn't very clear. I was talking about resting players and such, which are decisions of the coaches. I don't expect that to actually happen with just a four team playoff, but probably with eight and certainly with 16.

well I will then ask:

Assuming at some point it goes beyond 4 than 1st round home games have to become part of the playoff equation OR 1st round byes may apply to teams, in either scenarion, given the advantage that comes with playing at home (particularly in college football) or the great advantage of receiving a bye in the 1st round. Would a team in the top half of a 8/16 team playoff really take a chance on losing their last game and losing the HUGE advantages listed simply to rest players? Would teams in the bottom half of an 8/16 team playoff take a chance on losing their last game simply to rest players if they knew a loss either sent them to Alabama as opposed to a TCUish team or eliminating them from the playoffs completely? I think not...again I point to IAA ball as an example where teams already know (top teams) that they are in but they continue to play out not only for seeding but for the best possible matchup...teams tanking it for the last game of the season will simply not happen because of the implications 1 loss can have on your playoff outlook

 

[Nebraska1]

Relax dude...you're telling me you would have hated seeing LSU/ Stanford and Bama/okie st to see who gets to the NCC? I would have liked it more than seeing LSU/Bama again.

Going back a few years and using the final rankings we would have had 2010 Auburn-Stanford, TCU-Oregon, 2009 Alabam-TCU, Cincy-Texas, 2008 Oklahoma-Alabama, Florida-Texas, 2007 Ohio State-Oklahoma, LSU-Virginia Tech, 2006 Ohio State-LSU, Florida-Michigan.

They look like good match-ups. I would prefer that the top two teams get to have the game on their home turf, like the pros do. Put the championship game in some sunny spot. Also not too sure about this committee thing. Your have rankings, computers etc, and this group could throw all that out and pick the 4 they want? I am guessing 1-4 will get it most times but could they drop the 4th place team for someone else for whatever reason? That won't cause too much of a controversy.

I think a plus 4 is good. Usually the quality of teams drop significantly from 1-5 compared to 6-10.

 

[Cardinal]

well I will then ask:

Assuming at some point it goes beyond 4 than 1st round home games have to become part of the playoff equation OR 1st round byes may apply to teams, in either scenarion, given the advantage that comes with playing at home (particularly in college football) or the great advantage of receiving a bye in the 1st round. Would a team in the top half of a 8/16 team playoff really take a chance on losing their last game and losing the HUGE advantages listed simply to rest players? Would teams in the bottom half of an 8/16 team playoff take a chance on losing their last game simply to rest players if they knew a loss either sent them to Alabama as opposed to a TCUish team or eliminating them from the playoffs completely? I think not...again I point to IAA ball as an example where teams already know (top teams) that they are in but they continue to play out not only for seeding but for the best possible matchup...teams tanking it for the last game of the season will simply not happen because of the implications 1 loss can have on your playoff outlook

Not only that, but think of what the last game of the year will be for the top 4 teams in the country in almost every circumstance: the conference championship game! Tanking or resting healthy players? Absolutely no way.

People who think the quality of games during the regular season will be in any way diminished if there is a playoff of 4 or 8 or 12 teams are simply grasping at straws.

 

[RunTheBallGuy]

It make a big difference, especially in a four team model.

In 1971, #1 Nebraska and #2 Oklahoma headed into the Thanksgiving classic. The Sooners lost, and Alabama beat Auburn in the Iron Bowl. Because of this shuffling, Oklahoma fell past the remaining unbeaten teams (#5) and the 'Tide jumped up to #2 in the next poll:

1. Nebraska
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma

The weekend of December 4th, Nebraska was granted permission to play a twelfth game (@ Hawaii). The Huskers remained unbeaten, but #4 Penn State got demolished by #11 Tennessee, opening the door for Oklahoma to creep back into the #4 slot. The Sooners finished the regular season with a victory over the Cowboys in the Bedlam Game, thus preserving their #4 status.

Now assume we had a playoff in 1971.

Because of the late season loss to Nebraska, Oklahoma was knocked out of the playoff. They were only saved by the last-week upset of Penn State, which still only got them back up to #4 overall. The difference between a #2 seed and a #4 seed is getting a first round home game against Michigan, versus traveling to Lincoln for a rematch. And in an 8-team model, a #2 slot would have meant a home game against #7 Georgia while a #4 slot would mean hosting #5 Auburn.

In any event, I think that Oklahoma trumps Michigan, Georgia or Auburn and wins out meaning a national title rematch with the Huskers. What better motivation for the Sooners than getting a second shot at the team who knocked you out of playoff consideration? Everyone had written off Oklahoma until Penn State caved against the Volunteers, opening the door for a second chance.

That's what college football is all about - controversy, last minute upsets and fighting until the last second. Of course 1971 played out nicely for Nebraska and I'd never change history, but a playoff would have ensured an epic finish to that year for sure.

If NU-OU met up again than the first game wouldnt have really mattered.

That is exactly how the first game between LSU and Bama was last year. It didnt' matter AT ALL. In fact, it could easily be argued that it was better to lose that game because then you don't have to win the conference championship game.

 

[Scrollsker]

Settling on the field through competition. Those who don't understand that concept likely never competed.

Really? Ok. All those fans of sports in general need to take a hike, the water is getting muddy over hear and your opinion doesn't matter.


That comment took longer than expected....4 pages but not surprising none the less. I still disagree. I would much rather a team have their bad game against #1 or 2 in the championship than to have some 2 loss team limp in and then beat the #1 team in some crap game. If this happens in the regular season then so be it. Its amazing how steadfast people are with their team and school traditions, yet are so quick to denounce the format which created it.


There are just as many sports in college that don't utilize playoffs but aren't as popular, lets try playoffs with some of those and see if they become more popular.

 

[Scrollsker]

The simplicity of college football is what makes it fun, not trying to figure out who needs to lose to whom and what a 1/2 game back means.

Playoffs may not ruin this sport but it will lose some fans, I know a lot of you in the corner for playoffs don't believe it but its going to. I look forward to seeing the same people complain when this system doesn't work how its supposed to. Then we can have a 16 team playoff and begin debating hindsight.

 

[Porkchopexpress]

There are just as many sports in college that don't utilize playoffs but aren't as popular, lets try playoffs with some of those and see if they become more popular.

What? I'm trying to think of a college sport, especially a team sport, that doesn't use a playoff format to determine their national champion.

 

[Scrollsker]

well I will then ask:

Assuming at some point it goes beyond 4 than 1st round home games have to become part of the playoff equation OR 1st round byes may apply to teams, in either scenarion, given the advantage that comes with playing at home (particularly in college football) or the great advantage of receiving a bye in the 1st round. Would a team in the top half of a 8/16 team playoff really take a chance on losing their last game and losing the HUGE advantages listed simply to rest players? Would teams in the bottom half of an 8/16 team playoff take a chance on losing their last game simply to rest players if they knew a loss either sent them to Alabama as opposed to a TCUish team or eliminating them from the playoffs completely? I think not...again I point to IAA ball as an example where teams already know (top teams) that they are in but they continue to play out not only for seeding but for the best possible matchup...teams tanking it for the last game of the season will simply not happen because of the implications 1 loss can have on your playoff outlook

First of all....this happens in Pro, not college football. Second, when have you ever seen a college team NOT play their stars for at least one full half? Last, it won't matter; my point isn't teams sandbagging in games, it is the simple fact that there won't be good OOC match-ups anymore because most power conference schedules are good enough to get you into the playoffs.

Playoffs won't replace an OU-NU match-up in the future or NU-Tennessee. We're scrapping the fun little things that also help the end result in order to justify a final winner that most won't agree upon to begin with.

 

[Scrollsker]

Track

 

[Scrollsker]

Gymnastics

 

[Scrollsker]

Swimming

 

[Scrollsker]

Whether I disagree or agree, it doesn't really matter. This game is going to change. No one is going to convince the people that don't want playoffs and the people who want playoffs won't be convinced otherwise either. I am surprised a little that the same people continue to come back and argue the same points over and over.....yet here I am sooooo something is fun about this.


Here, lets have a playoff debate where two posters square off bringing up main points and evidence from other sports and whatnot to support their case. The winner will be voted upon by huskermax members, we will cap this off at 16 members who are very adamant about their stance.

We will have a mediator and also a few questions from the audience. A playoff to decide whether a playoff should be used in college football.

Ironic that a playoff would be used to decide why playoffs should or should not be used in college football. Right?

 

[Porkchopexpress]

Well, Gymnastics does use a playoff format. They have regionals, then Super 6. Track and Swimming may not have a playoff per se, but they do have things like qualification times, and heats, which whittle the competitors down to the finals. Track and Swimming don't take coaches, media, and computer rankings, determine the top 2 in each competition and have those two competitors go at it.