It's Official: College Football Going to a Seeded 4 Team Playoff

HartselleTider said:

That's not the case in a sport like football where it's a one game scenario anyway. As long as these variables (questionable calls by the refs, fluke plays, a key injury, etc., etc., etc.) can play such a determining factor in the outcome, you'll never have a scenario where the best team always wins.

Click to expand...

True. BYU won the national championship one year back in the '80's because they were the only undefeated team in the nation at season's end. Had we had the BCS back then, instead of them playing a weak 4 or so loss Michigan in the Holiday bowl that season they would have had to play the second ranked team at the time to claim the championship. Had they won that game I don't think to many people would have had much complaint as them being the national champions.

HartselleTider said:

I just don't subscribe to the theory that in the sport of football inparticular, a playoff that begins a new season for everybody and gets to start from scratch, facilitates anything but parity and mediocrity. You're not going to get a more worthy champion. In fact, you're going to get the least worthy one you could've possibly gotten sometimes.

Click to expand...

Sometimes being the key word here. Most times the better team would prevail but not always and always is what everyone wants when crowning the national champs. Since it is ultimately impossible for always to occur in football, the BCS did just as good of job as any playoff will. Some years there will be a lot more parity in the nation than last season, like say in '10 when Auburn won it all. A 4 team playoff would probably have given us a truer champion that year, but last season there were 2 teams head and shoulders above all the rest all season long and they played for the championship. The BCS worked to perfection this past season.

HartselleTider said:

When you throw in the ridiculous criteria that this selection committee is required to be slanted towards in order to pick 4 teams for this playoff, it becomes even more unacceptable.

The BCS has it's flaws. However, the one thing it prevented above all else was the possibility of coming out in the end with the least worthy champion you could have. That's good enough for me. Especially in a sport whose one game nature makes it different from others.

Perhaps you could always debate which team was actually the best, but you could never say you got an unworthy champion on the field.

Having a playoff doesn't eliminate the debate of who was actually the best team, all it does is increase the odds that you crown one that isn't.

Click to expand...

True. The playoff will not produce any truer champion than the BCS did. Its physically impossible to play 7 game series in football to find out who is the absolute best team and thats why the regular season has to be the main proving grounds for who plays for the national championship. The problem most on here are having is the caveat of conference champions only being used in a playoff.

Some of the conferences have expressed that thought because of what happened this past season with the rematch but even they know it would not and can not work out that way. Mainly because all conference champions can not be included in just a 4 team playoff and all conferences are not equal. Its a great idea for the B1G because they have been left out or beaten in the BCS for so long but they will not get their wish, they can't, at least with just a 4 team playoff. I dare say there were several teams not in last years BCS game that could and probably would have beaten their champions, Wisconsin, last year.

So what in reality does this 4 team playoff mean? Money and a boat load of it! It also opens the door for more teams and a bigger playoff down the road! I read yesterday where Steve Spurrior said that 4 teams is better than 2 but 8 would be better, or something to that effect. 8 would still not satisfy the conference champions only crowd, well unless their champs were always included lol, but how fair would that be? You see, if the B1G and the Pac 12 had their way, the national championship would always be decided in the Rose bowl and between their 2 conferences!

Not going to happen, no way, nada, forget about it!!!

I wonder how some of y'all felt about the move to overtime in college football to resolve a tie game.

Both teams play 60 minutes and end the game even. Then, that entire format is thrown out and rendered meaningless for a completely different format. By all rights, the game should end in a tie. A completely different format likely favors one team over another. A team with great special teams (coverage, returns, punting) completely loses the ability for that component to affect the outcome of the game. Is this fair? Is it right? Does it reward the most "worthy" team?

BYU still gets ripped for their 1984 title. If it were as simple as everyone says I would agree. The problem is that the Orange Bowl offered to let OU or Washington play BYU in the Holiday Bowl. Both teams refused on the basis of money. That's fine - but don't complain about BYU when the so-called bigger boys refused to play them. And OU had no claim anyway. They had a tie with Texas (fine) and a loss to a Kansas team by the score of 28-11. And that KU team didn't win another game all year. That loss was worse than Okie St to Iowa St last year.

While BYU had a .500 Michigan team you cannot blame them since teams 2 and 3 were offered a shot.

TideEngineer08 said:

I wonder how some of y'all felt about the move to overtime in college football to resolve a tie game.

Both teams play 60 minutes and end the game even. Then, that entire format is thrown out and rendered meaningless for a completely different format. By all rights, the game should end in a tie. A completely different format likely favors one team over another. A team with great special teams (coverage, returns, punting) completely loses the ability for that component to affect the outcome of the game. Is this fair? Is it right? Does it reward the most "worthy" team?

Click to expand...

Why not? A 21 page thread has probably already been off topic several times anyway.

I HATE overtime! They may as well do like soccer and let 5 guys on each team attempt field goals to determine the winner. Wouldn't be much more stupid than what we have.

ALA2262 said:

Why not? A 21 page thread has probably already been off topic several times anyway.

I HATE overtime! They may as well do like soccer and let 5 guys on each team attempt field goals to determine the winner. Wouldn't be much more stupid than what we have.

Click to expand...

Not off topic. Playoffs and college football overtime are similar concepts.

I wanted to see if there was consistency from those who oppose a playoff and their feelings on overtime.

I've made the argument before, in comparing the NCAABB tournament and the BCS, that at least the BCS attempts to crown a season's champ. Whereas the NCAABB tourney crowns a tournament champion and calls them the season's champ.

Granted, that's what other sports do as well. Not every team, largely considered to be 'the best', wins their respective tournaments each year. Like has been mentioned...a 9-7 Giants team was the 'best' team in the NFL the year they won? But GENERALLY, most years each sport gets it right, or right enough.

SO there is my rub. I'm actually okay, I think, with a 4 team tourney. Considering there are so many FBS and only 4 teams in the 'playoff', I'd say that the tournament is by no means watered down like the NBA or the NHL. However, that phrase I used, 'right enough'......I guess that's the thing that we keep getting hung up on. Again, I am one that says "just pit #1 and #2 together and let them settle it on the field." But if #2 wins that one game and is 'the champ', am I okay with #2 being #1? I'm starting to feel like I've been making an argument for the BCS that is the same argument I use against a playoff.

Pretending the playoff will never expand, I think putting 1-4 on the field and letting them duke it out is a fair and reasonable way to sort out the champ. In general, I'd be willing to bet that most years, whichever of the 4 wins, we'll get to a point where we're okay calling them 'the champ'. Keep expanding, however, and that's going to change.

A playoff is fine if done right. I remember when the opening round of the NBA playoffs was best 2 of 3. I think each round is now 7 games. The NHL was always a joke. The only good thing is they kept it at 16 when they expanded.

Baseball once had a great one. They ruined it. In 1969, they went to division play. That meant they went from 2 to 4 pennant races. In 1994, their wildcard meant they went from 4 pennant races to none. Then they compounded that error this year with their "let's make sure we give the Yankees & Red Sox every chance to make the playoffs."

I'm not for dismantling the system, but we cannot have this "we think these are the. 2 best teams" as the method consistently, either.

bamanut_aj said:

SO there is my rub. I'm actually okay, I think, with a 4 team tourney. Considering there are so many FBS and only 4 teams in the 'playoff', I'd say that the tournament is by no means watered down like the NBA or the NHL. However, that phrase I used, 'right enough'......I guess that's the thing that we keep getting hung up on. Again, I am one that says "just pit #1 and #2 together and let them settle it on the field." But if #2 wins that one game and is 'the champ', am I okay with #2 being #1? I'm starting to feel like I've been making an argument for the BCS that is the same argument I use against a playoff.

Click to expand...

Bingo. I was staunchly anti-playoff for years until I came to this realization.

TideEngineer08 said:

I wonder how some of y'all felt about the move to overtime in college football to resolve a tie game.

Both teams play 60 minutes and end the game even. Then, that entire format is thrown out and rendered meaningless for a completely different format. By all rights, the game should end in a tie. A completely different format likely favors one team over another. A team with great special teams (coverage, returns, punting) completely loses the ability for that component to affect the outcome of the game. Is this fair? Is it right? Does it reward the most "worthy" team?

Click to expand...

I didn't like it then, especially the way its formatted, and still don't like it now. I understand it for a championship game but not for a regular season game and I had much rather it be like the pro overtime than what we have.

selmaborntidefan said:

BYU still gets ripped for their 1984 title. If it were as simple as everyone says I would agree. The problem is that the Orange Bowl offered to let OU or Washington play BYU in the Holiday Bowl. Both teams refused on the basis of money. That's fine - but don't complain about BYU when the so-called bigger boys refused to play them. And OU had no claim anyway. They had a tie with Texas (fine) and a loss to a Kansas team by the score of 28-11. And that KU team didn't win another game all year. That loss was worse than Okie St to Iowa St last year.

While BYU had a .500 Michigan team you cannot blame them since teams 2 and 3 were offered a shot.

Click to expand...

Money seems to be the common theme these days doesn't it? I never had a problem with BYU being crowned the national champs that season and really could have cared less. Back in those days my only concern was what was going on in Tuscaloosa! But do you honestly believe had the BCS been in play way back then and them "having" to play the #2 ranked team for the championship they would have won? If so then thats fine by me, but I do remember them struggling with Michigan in the Holiday bowl game! 28-24 or something? I can't recall for sure and sure don't care, but I do recall it being close.

bamanut_aj said:

Pretending the playoff will never expand, I think putting 1-4 on the field and letting them duke it out is a fair and reasonable way to sort out the champ. In general, I'd be willing to bet that most years, whichever of the 4 wins, we'll get to a point where we're okay calling them 'the champ'. Keep expanding, however, and that's going to change.

Click to expand...

I remember when the NCAA basketball tourney, NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB playoffs were not watered down. I have no real problem with a 4 team playoff for college football either, except what it will lead to one of these years down the road. I hope it don't but the track record for major sports is not good. Even NASCAR had to go stupid with a good thing.

Will a 4 team playoff lead to a truer champion than what the BCS did? Some years maybe but not last year. Bama is going to win championships regardless of what format they use so bring it on!!!

MOAN said:

Money seems to be the common theme these days doesn't it? I never had a problem with BYU being crowned the national champs that season and really could have cared less. Back in those days my only concern was what was going on in Tuscaloosa! But do you honestly believe had the BCS been in play way back then and them "having" to play the #2 ranked team for the championship they would have won?

Click to expand...

I don't know. After all, we could just as easily say that OU couldn't beat Kansas. Btw - I was wrong while ago. Kansas was something like 5-6 that year, not 1-10, which was a few years later. That said - it was still a monumental upset. Keep this in mind - for all the blah blah about how BYU played nobody, neither OU nor Washington BEAT ANY RANKED TEAMS THAT YEAR!!!! Was BYU's schedule soft? Sure. But it wasn't BYU's fault that Pitt imploded. And they beat Air Force, who beat Notre Dame four straight years (and nobody is going to suggest AFA had the better team).

We'll never know. But I remember a certain Alabama team that virtually nobody gave a chance to beat Miami, too.

MOAN said:

If so then thats fine by me, but I do remember them struggling with Michigan in the Holiday bowl game! 28-24 or something? I can't recall for sure and sure don't care, but I do recall it being close.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they won something like 24-17 or something and the game was on Christmas Eve. To top it off that was Bo's worst-ever Michigan team, and BYU needed a TD in the final two minutes to win.

That being said - the FACT is that Washington lost when they were ranked number one and (sound familiar?) didn't even with the Pac Ten, which is why they were in the Orange Bowl in the first place. OU won the Big Eight but had a tie with Texas (they even got jobbed on a bad call - today they would have won that game due to instant replay) and a loss to Kansas.

And the voters that year tried to give it to everyone but BYU. Nebraska went down twice as number one. Washington held the top the longest but lost (to USC IIRC).

Look - many of our passionate fans here need to remember that "the best team" is NOT synonymous with champion - not even in college football. That's the major flaw I keep seeing in the pro-BCS arguments - that and the constant moving of the goalposts (pardon the pun) on the argument.

That said - poor arguments by playoff partisans are also poor arguments. The fact everybody does it is not a sufficient reason.

TideEngineer08 said:

I wonder how some of y'all felt about the move to overtime in college football to resolve a tie game.

Both teams play 60 minutes and end the game even. Then, that entire format is thrown out and rendered meaningless for a completely different format. By all rights, the game should end in a tie. A completely different format likely favors one team over another. A team with great special teams (coverage, returns, punting) completely loses the ability for that component to affect the outcome of the game. Is this fair? Is it right? Does it reward the most "worthy" team?

Click to expand...

I have never been a supporter of the current overtime format.

The nature of football really doesn't allow for a perfect overtime format. I don't like the college system, but sudden death has its issues as well. I think the NFL has decided to expand their new playoff overtime format to the regular season. I'll have to see how that works out before I decide how I like it.

Crimson1967 said:

The nature of football really doesn't allow for a perfect overtime format. I don't like the college system, but sudden death has its issues as well. I think the NFL has decided to expand their new playoff overtime format to the regular season. I'll have to see how that works out before I decide how I like it.

Click to expand...

This is sort of my point in comparing the overtime format to a playoff format for the postseason.

The nature of football doesn't allow a full round robin. It doesn't allow for seven game series in the postseason. We decided in 1996 that ties were no longer acceptable endings to games. Now we've decided 2 teams aren't enough for the postseason.

TideEngineer08 said:

This is sort of my point in comparing the overtime format to a playoff format for the postseason.

The nature of football doesn't allow a full round robin. It doesn't allow for seven game series in the postseason. We decided in 1996 that ties were no longer acceptable endings to games. Now we've decided 2 teams aren't enough for the postseason.

Click to expand...

College football didn't like ties. So, they decided to do away with that by creating overtime and the BCS. In fact, they decided they disliked ties in the polls more than ties at the end of games, by creating the bowl coalition in 1992.

The point does not follow, they took two actions to end ties quite a while ago. This playoff has absolutely nothing to do with ties. Your point does show the pro-playoff logic though, which is the desire to fix something that's not broken. The BCS gives us a champion, which ironically I don't think I've seen questioned in this entire topic! I've asked several times, for someone to not give me their #2, but to give me their "legitimate" champion that the BCS did not crown and I have yet to see anyone do that! They already fixed it... but sure, let's go to town on it and hope it's not broken when we're done.

As to an earlier point about fighting a losing battle. We're fighting a lost battle. I just can't sit here and listen to arguments that are born of logic I find intolerable. Stop lying to us, just say it's about inclusion. Just say it's not about excellence, or being championship worthy. Just admit it's about letting more teams in because that's "fair". If I'm going to watch this go down, I'd at least like some intellectual honesty. Stop talking about #2, start talking about #1 and tell me where the BCS is wrong. Otherwise, you're conceding that the BCS was right. If all you really wanted was a playoff, brackets, more teams, what ever, just come out and say it please. At least that argument has validity in that the stated goal is achievable with a playoff.

KrAzY3 said:

College football didn't like ties. So, they decided to do away with that by creating overtime and the BCS. In fact, they decided they disliked ties in the polls more than ties at the end of games, by creating the bowl coalition in 1992.

The point does not follow, they took two actions to end ties quite a while ago. This playoff has absolutely nothing to do with ties. Your point does show the pro-playoff logic though, which is the desire to fix something that's not broken. The BCS gives us a champion, which ironically I don't think I've seen questioned in this entire topic! I've asked several times, for someone to not give me their #2, but to give me their "legitimate" champion that the BCS did not crown and I have yet to see anyone do that! They already fixed it... but sure, let's go to town on it and hope it's not broken when we're done.

As to an earlier point about fighting a losing battle. We're fighting a lost battle. I just can't sit here and listen to arguments that are born of logic I find intolerable. Stop lying to us, just say it's about inclusion. Just say it's not about excellence, or being championship worthy. Just admit it's about letting more teams in because that's "fair". If I'm going to watch this go down, I'd at least like some intellectual honesty. Stop talking about #2, start talking about #1 and tell me where the BCS is wrong. Otherwise, you're conceding that the BCS was right. If all you really wanted was a playoff, brackets, more teams, what ever, just come out and say it please. At least that argument has validity in that the stated goal is achievable with a playoff.

Click to expand...

The point does follow. I was comparing a game with a season. At the end of a game when there is a dispute as to who won, we used to allow it to end as a tie. At the end of the season we used to resolve dispute by polls and more than one team could win. So systems have evolved to better resolve those disputes. That was the point; that is how they are related. With overtime we completely change the format from the 60 minute game. I wondered if those of you who hate the notion of a playoff also hated the notion of college football overtime.

The rest of your post is a continuation of you refusing to accept the validity of an opposing viewpoint. I'll say again as I've said before. The BCS indeed crowned a champion every year without fail. But when just one of the participants of the championship game is in dispute, the the whole process is in dispute. And I gave several examples earlier of how that has happened under the BCS.

As you yourself said earlier, if the process isn't correct, the result won't be either.

KrAzY3 said:

The BCS gives us a champion, which ironically I don't think I've seen questioned in this entire topic!

Click to expand...

A four-team, 8-team, 12-team, 16-team - gee, for that matter a 96-team tournament will also give us a champion.

KrAzY3 said:

I've asked several times, for someone to not give me their #2, but to give me their "legitimate" champion that the BCS did not crown and I have yet to see anyone do that!

Click to expand...

Mostly - because as much as we all enjoy your passion and zeal - you will come back with a different argument for each team.

But let's turn the question around - give me one illegitimate champion EVER crowned at ANY level of any major sport. I don't mean the Seahawks winning the division.

Name me ONE unworthy Super Bowl winner. Or ONE unworthy NBA Finals winner. Or ONE unworthy World Series winner.

You can't do it, so this argument is pointless on this particular aspect.

KrAzY3 said:

They already fixed it... but sure, let's go to town on it and hope it's not broken when we're done.

Click to expand...

The process is too dependent upon:
a) pre-season ranking
b) name of team involved
c) bias of voters who never even watch the games

KrAzY3 said:

As to an earlier point about fighting a losing battle. We're fighting a lost battle. I just can't sit here and listen to arguments that are born of logic I find intolerable.

Click to expand...

BCS logic - unbeaten in the SEC means a whole lot unless you're Auburn
Four-team: unbeaten in the SEC means you're in

BCS logic - every game counts except when it doesn't
Four-team - every game may count but may not but isn't the end of the world either way

KrAzY3 said:

Stop lying to us, just say it's about inclusion. Just say it's not about excellence, or being championship worthy.

Click to expand...

This is rhetoric and nothing more. Your entire argument is based upon the naive assumption
that because a team starts the year number one based on nothing more than a hunch, it can
play a terrible schedule but so long as it wins, it doesn't matter.

KrAzY3 said:

Just admit it's about letting more teams in because that's "fair".

Click to expand...

What is "fair?" Is it "fair" that OK State played a tougher schedule than us but sat at home
despite the same record last year? Oh, but they lost to Iowa State, right? Funny - because
when OU lost to Texas Tech AT HOME...AT HOME....to a team Iowa State beat by THIRTY-FOUR
POINTS...yet for some reason OU was still ranked high in the BCS polls.

In other words - if you're OK State, the loss to Iowa State counts. But if you're OU, the loss
to Texas Tech DOES NOT COUNT, even though Iowa State was a TON better than Tech.

I"m sorry, but there is no amount of circumlocution to salvage that argument.

KrAzY3 said:

If I'm going to watch this go down, I'd at least like some intellectual honesty.

Click to expand...

You got it. In your world, SOS matters except when it doesn't. If SOS DOES matter, then
OK State should have played last year. If it DOES NOT MATTER, then you can't logically
argue that Alabama was any more worthy than Boise State.

And you can find years where the "BCS logic" was more intolerable than that. If SOS
DOES NOT MATTER, then unbeaten Boise should have played for the title over one-loss
Florida in 2006.

KrAzY3 said:

Stop talking about #2, start talking about #1 and tell me where the BCS is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, because, I don't buy into your closed methodology that assumes that a pre-season poll
is infallible.

KrAzY3 said:

Otherwise, you're conceding that the BCS was right. If all you really wanted was a playoff, brackets, more teams, what ever, just come out and say it please. At least that argument has validity in that the stated goal is achievable with a playoff.

Click to expand...

When you have five one-loss teams or five unbeatens - how do you choose?

Give me anything resembling a 'more objective/less objective' method than actually playing a game.

selmaborntidefan said:

I don't know. After all, we could just as easily say that OU couldn't beat Kansas. Btw - I was wrong while ago. Kansas was something like 5-6 that year, not 1-10, which was a few years later. That said - it was still a monumental upset. Keep this in mind - for all the blah blah about how BYU played nobody, neither OU nor Washington BEAT ANY RANKED TEAMS THAT YEAR!!!! Was BYU's schedule soft? Sure. But it wasn't BYU's fault that Pitt imploded. And they beat Air Force, who beat Notre Dame four straight years (and nobody is going to suggest AFA had the better team).

We'll never know. But I remember a certain Alabama team that virtually nobody gave a chance to beat Miami, too.



Yeah, they won something like 24-17 or something and the game was on Christmas Eve. To top it off that was Bo's worst-ever Michigan team, and BYU needed a TD in the final two minutes to win.

That being said - the FACT is that Washington lost when they were ranked number one and (sound familiar?) didn't even with the Pac Ten, which is why they were in the Orange Bowl in the first place. OU won the Big Eight but had a tie with Texas (they even got jobbed on a bad call - today they would have won that game due to instant replay) and a loss to Kansas.

And the voters that year tried to give it to everyone but BYU. Nebraska went down twice as number one. Washington held the top the longest but lost (to USC IIRC).

Look - many of our passionate fans here need to remember that "the best team" is NOT synonymous with champion - not even in college football. That's the major flaw I keep seeing in the pro-BCS arguments - that and the constant moving of the goalposts (pardon the pun) on the argument.

That said - poor arguments by playoff partisans are also poor arguments. The fact everybody does it is not a sufficient reason.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. In a one game championship BYU would have had a good chance to have won it all as we know Utah beat Bama in '08 to all of our horrors! I had no problem with them winning it that year but years like that were an anomaly unlike today in the day of NCAA mandated parity. For all we know Utah, (which was undefeated unlike Florida or Oklahoma) could have beaten either of those schools in a one game championship. Utah is in the PAC 12 and they have a chance to get to the championship game now though. BYU got lucky that year for the reasons you mentioned but unless they can beef up their schedule tremendously I wouldn't look for them back in the discussion anytime soon!

Oh, The Irony

bamanut_aj said:

the best thing that can happen, IMO, is for the first controversial pairings to come down to 2 teams from another conference other than the SEC.

By that, I mean that we've all talked about how this is designed to keep the SEC from monopolizing the NCG ever again. What if in 2014, it affects the Big 10, or Pac-whatever instead of the SEC. Will they suddenly change their criteria? Will be interesting to see.

Click to expand...

Not that I like bumping threads from years ago but......give the devil his due on this one.