Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks

Donate To GopherHole


Interesting read.

I do think he's wrong in that the other bowl games would survive just fine. I think fanbases may not invest in traveling if they're left out of a tournament. I think he's underestimating the impact it would have on the rest of the bowls. But I also think he doesn't mind that.

I do like the idea of playing games at the high seed. Have always wanted to see SEC speed head up to a chewed up Penn State field in 20 degrees. My changes to that though would be:
A) The final four are played at BCS sites and not high seeds. When you get to the final four, neutral sites would probably be a bit more fair.
B) Alloted tickets: He proposed alloting the normal # of tickets. For an NCAA tournament game, I think the visiting team should get a few more than the number alloted.

I'm a fan of the bowls and have been more in the camp of a plus-one than a tournament. But it is rather unfair that a team like Cincinati, TCU & Boise State can do everything possible by winning every single game and still not have a shot at a title. I thought Auburn in 2004 was more of an exception, but there's no reason that you couldn't have every single BCS conference with a 0 loss team.

One hidden value I see: I see lower conferences getting better. I'd see more players going to the Sun Belt or the MAC with the possibility of playing in a playoff game like that if it exsited.
 

FireDaveLee said:
Interesting read.

I do think he's wrong in that the other bowl games would survive just fine. I think fanbases may not invest in traveling if they're left out of a tournament. I think he's underestimating the impact it would have on the rest of the bowls. But I also think he doesn't mind that.

I do like the idea of playing games at the high seed. Have always wanted to see SEC speed head up to a chewed up Penn State field in 20 degrees. My changes to that though would be:
A) The final four are played at BCS sites and not high seeds. When you get to the final four, neutral sites would probably be a bit more fair.
B) Alloted tickets: He proposed alloting the normal # of tickets. For an NCAA tournament game, I think the visiting team should get a few more than the number alloted.

I'm a fan of the bowls and have been more in the camp of a plus-one than a tournament. But it is rather unfair that a team like Cincinati, TCU & Boise State can do everything possible by winning every single game and still not have a shot at a title. I thought Auburn in 2004 was more of an exception, but there's no reason that you couldn't have every single BCS conference with a 0 loss team.

One hidden value I see: I see lower conferences getting better. I'd see more players going to the Sun Belt or the MAC with the possibility of playing in a playoff game like that if it exsited.
Click to expand...

Lots of good points. When I read the article, your point "A" jumped out at me too. I would rather have 2 rounds at campus sites and final 4 plus champ game at "neutral" sites. Not sure if making TCU or a Big 12 team play at Jerry World in Arlington really counts as neutral but I like the non-campus idea.
 

Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
 


Bo Darville said:
Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
Click to expand...

WHAT hundred years of tradition? Bowls used to be nothing but glorified exhibition games. The Rose Bowl was originally just an added attraction to the Tournament of Roses. We didn't even have a championship determined by poll until the 1930's. The bowls, being glorified exhibition games, were not even part of deciding a national champion until the 1960's. And the BCS is only 11 years old. How we decide a national champion, and the role of bowl games has changed many times.

Under the pre-BCS system, #3 and #4 still had a chance at a national title, if #1 and #2 both lost their bowl game.
 

There's no reason not to do it. You could incorporate 3 of the current BCS games to host the semi-finals and final. It might require moving the start of the regular season up a week so that the first two rounds could be played the first two weeks in December. Other then that, scheduling would not need to be greatly effected nor would it hurt the other Bowls.
 

Bo Darville said:
Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
Click to expand...

The only Bowl Game with that much tradition is the Rose Bowl. I admit that on some level if the Gophers ever actually do win the Big 10 and have to go play a road game at LSU in the first round of the play-offs instead of going to the Rose Bowl I will be disappointed. However, that by itself is not a reason to keep things the way they are.
 

A Reasonable Playoff Proposal

Moved
 



howeda7 said:
There's no reason not to do it. You could incorporate 3 of the current BCS games to host the semi-finals and final. It might require moving the start of the regular season up a week so that the first two rounds could be played the first two weeks in December. Other then that, scheduling would not need to be greatly effected nor would it hurt the other Bowls.
Click to expand...

I like that idea, plus you could realistically have the "round" of eight played at bowl games as well. I like the first round on-campus and that's it. Heck, the bowl season starts on December 19, so you make that the "Round of 16, " on-campus this year (as an example). On December 26, you play the "Round of 8" at the Capital One, Cotton, Fiesta, and Chick-fil-a. On January 2, you play the "Final Four" at the Orange and Sugar Bowls. National Championship at the Rose Bowl on January 11. Rotate the 4th BCS, Final 4 and Championship games.

You play the other Bowl games on other days around these dates, including January 1.

The only other change I would like to see in Wetzel's plan would be that only undefeated teams get first round seeding (so that they don't play each other) and the balance of teams (11 this year) get placed with a blind draw, with record and strength of schedule determining home team. Yea, you might get Florida at TCU the first round, but so what? They'd likely have to play each other eventually.
 

Bo Darville said:
Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
Click to expand...


Sing it, brother!

I would vomit on myself if college football ever went to a playoff.
I don't want our next postseason appearance in California to be a game against the #3 seed in the regional semifinal, I want it to be the Rose Bowl, and I want it to matter in-and-of itself.
 

Bo Darville said:
Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
Click to expand...
Football would be better if they wore leather helmets and the forward pass was illegal.
 




Bo Darville said:
Yeah, we need to throw away 100 years of history and tradition to satisfy people who want college sports to be more like the NFL.
Click to expand...

I think it's more "being like all the other sports (and divisions in football) in NCAA" rather than being like the NFL. It's the only one where people sit there and basically say, "We think A is better than B, so we rate them higher" and then that actually plays a huge role in who even has a shot at all at winning the title. Is there another NCAA sport where there isn't a tournament involving at least, say 16 teams, to determine a winner? I can't of one.

As I am in every year in the past when this is brought up, I am completely on board with a playoff in Division 1 college football. It would be exciting stuff to watch, and when there aren't playoff games being played, the other bowls still would be played and I don't think a playoff system would really make those games any less significant than they already are honestly.
 

PlayHosea said:
Football would be better if they wore leather helmets and the forward pass was illegal.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because this is the same thing.

There's a reason I love college football can barely watch the average NFL game. And it isn't the uniforms.
 

RedPoo said:
Yeah, because this is the same thing.

There's a reason I love college football can barely watch the average NFL game. And it isn't the uniforms.
Click to expand...

Are you saying then that you don't watch any other sport other than DI-A college football? Because pretty much every other sport/level has a playoff just like the NFL.
 

RedPoo said:
Yeah, because this is the same thing.

There's a reason I love college football can barely watch the average NFL game. And it isn't the uniforms.
Click to expand...
I promise you're in the minority. Sports shouldn't be subjective. Coaches and players should determine championships, not "journalists" who spend the majority of their time picking their boogers and wiping them underneath the tables in press row.
 

Monty519 said:
I think it's more "being like all the other sports (and divisions in football) in NCAA" rather than being like the NFL. It's the only one where people sit there and basically say, "We think A is better than B, so we rate them higher" - Not to mention the only big team sport where being one of the best regular season teams is the only way to a championship, and the single 'fairest' sport if measured by how close the average champion is to having the best regular-season recordand then that actually plays a huge role in who even has a shot at all at winning the title. Is there another NCAA sport where there isn't a tournament involving at least, say 16 teams, to determine a winner? and while we're on the topic, is there another team sport who's regular-season games are anywhere near as exciting? I can't of one.
Click to expand...

bah
 

I agree with most of the article, but as others have pointed out already, I'd probably go the first two rounds at the higher seed. Then when they get down to the final 4 teams, play those games in two of the BCS bowls around New Years, then the NC about a week or two later. Switch each year which bowls gets the semifinals. The four teams that lose in the 2nd round play each other in the other two BCS bowl games. The eight teams that lose the 1st round (and everyone else) can accept bids to go to other bowls.

Sure the two BCS bowls that include the four losing teams won't mean as much, but the other two will be huge. Plus all the added revenue for the schools that host the first two rounds.

Overall, I think a playoff system would add so much more excitement to the sport. Think of all the incredible match-ups we'd have (and wish we had during the regular season). Each semi-final game would have the same feel as the Florida-Alabama game did the other night.
 

PlayHosea said:
I promise you're in the minority. Sports shouldn't be subjective. Coaches and players should determine championships, not "journalists" who spend the majority of their time picking their boogers and wiping them underneath the tables in press row.
Click to expand...

I know I'm in the minority, and it frustrates the hell out of me that people can't enjoy a bowl game for what it is, and need to rely on some sort of playoff to tie the season in a nice little bow for them.

No, in a perfect world, journalists wouldn't decide who a champion is....but I can prove they're better at it than a playoff is. Unless of course you think Arizona was the best team in the NFC last season.
The playoffs create a 'second season' that instantly renders the actual season irrelevant. I, for one, prefer a sport in which every game for a title contender is a must win.
 

RedPoo said:
I know I'm in the minority, and it frustrates the hell out of me that people can't enjoy a bowl game for what it is, and need to rely on some sort of playoff to tie the season in a nice little bow for them.

No, in a perfect world, journalists wouldn't decide who a champion is....but I can prove they're better at it than a playoff is. Unless of course you think Arizona was the best team in the NFC last season.
The playoffs create a 'second season' that instantly renders the actual season irrelevant. I, for one, prefer a sport in which every game for a title contender is a must win.
Click to expand...

What do you say to the teams like TCU, Boise St, or Cinci this year? What about USC and Auburn from a few years ago? They did everything they could and still didn't get a chance at the National Championship.

And how does this format make the regular season irrelevant? Playing at home is a huge advantage in any sport, especially college football. Winning a conference championship would still be a big deal as well. As Gopher fans, most of us say our ultimate goal is to win the Big Ten championship. A playoff system won't change that.
 

RedPoo said:
I know I'm in the minority, and it frustrates the hell out of me that people can't enjoy a bowl game for what it is, and need to rely on some sort of playoff to tie the season in a nice little bow for them.

No, in a perfect world, journalists wouldn't decide who a champion is....but I can prove they're better at it than a playoff is. Unless of course you think Arizona was the best team in the NFC last season.
The playoffs create a 'second season' that instantly renders the actual season irrelevant. I, for one, prefer a sport in which every game for a title contender is a must win.
Click to expand...

Every playoff proposal starts with "we pick the "16,8,4 teams etc. It's always going to be subjective.

Any playoff system that allows a team with 3 or 4 losses to play for the National Championship isn't really an improvement. Any playoff system that tries to compare a team that fills it schedule with MAC, Mountain West or WAC schools versus teams that play a SEC, Pac 10, Big 12 or Big Ten schedule isn't much of an improvement. Any playoff system that compares a Florida team that plays up to 8 Home games and never plays more then 500 or so miles away from Home with a USC or Oregon team that plays 9 Conference games and travels tens of thousands of miles isn't much of an improvement.

Yeah, it's a minority opinion but " this is still America isn't it Danny?" I mean we haven't all joined al-Qaeda yet have we?
 

I would only support a playoff IF:
1) The regular season still mattered.
-An overwhelming % of teams invited were conference champions. At-large bids should be kept to a minimum (if at all)

2) The bowls were not going away.
-Schools that don't make the playoff should still be able to go to a bowl game. I'd also allow 1st round losers to play on Jan1 bowl games. Kind of like a mock-consolation bracket.

3) Everyone has a fair chance to make it.
-Must allow all 11 conference champions to make it. If you limit a playoff to 8 teams then the lower conferences will continue to get shut out.

IMHO this 16 team proposal is the closest you can come. All 11 conference champions with the 5 at-large berths being decided based on the BCS (or something comparable since the BCS would probably go away) standings.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
I would only support a playoff IF:
1) The regular season still mattered.
-An overwhelming % of teams invited were conference champions. At-large bids should be kept to a minimum (if at all)

2) The bowls were not going away.
-Schools that don't make the playoff should still be able to go to a bowl game. I'd also allow 1st round losers to play on Jan1 bowl games. Kind of like a mock-consolation bracket.

3) Everyone has a fair chance to make it.
-Must allow all 11 conference champions to make it. If you limit a playoff to 8 teams then the lower conferences will continue to get shut out.

IMHO this 16 team proposal is the closest you can come. All 11 conference champions with the 5 at-large berths being decided based on the BCS (or something comparable since the BCS would probably go away) standings.
Click to expand...

Wetzel's plan pretty much laid all that out perfectly.
 

RedPoo said:
I, for one, prefer a sport in which every game for a title contender is a must win.
Click to expand...

Oklahoma didn't beat Texas last year, but still got to play for the mythical national title. So much for a must win.

Cincinnati's/TCU's/Boise State's entire schedules were "must win" and they won them all and now have no chance to win a national title.
 

RedPoo said:
I know I'm in the minority, and it frustrates the hell out of me that people can't enjoy a bowl game for what it is, and need to rely on some sort of playoff to tie the season in a nice little bow for them.

No, in a perfect world, journalists wouldn't decide who a champion is....but I can prove they're better at it than a playoff is. Unless of course you think Arizona was the best team in the NFC last season.
The playoffs create a 'second season' that instantly renders the actual season irrelevant. I, for one, prefer a sport in which every game for a title contender is a must win.
Click to expand...

No, you can't prove any such thing. You can point to Arizona, and say they weren't the best team, but what does that prove? I can point to three undefeated teams this season that were shut out of playing for a national title.
 

Too many games for the top schools. Break down into 8 teams, not 16, and maintain current traditions. Something like this:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten Champ vs Pac 10 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs At-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 Champ vs At-large
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ vs Big East Champ

The four winners play in the "Final Four" - which like every other sport is a pre-bid neutral site for all the games. That way travel is to 2 places at most, and traditional rivalries are maintained, as well as offering at-large bids for smaller conferences and those overlooked undefeated teams. I should probably state that the higher record should get the nod, and no at-larges can come from a BCS conference, since they already are represented. This year would look like this:

Rose: Ohio St vs Oregon
Sugar: Alabama vs Boise St (WAC Champ, undefeated)
Fiesta: Texas vs TCU (MWC Champ, undefeated)
Orange: Georgia Tech vs Cincinnati

Winners go to Final Four. All other teams bowl as normal. At most, teams play 15 games, bowl teams in general play 13, all others play 12. That's fair.
 

The best system won't be perfect but just because perfection can't be attained doesn't mean it should be approached.

Right now as it stands, the BCS/Bowl Game system is so far away from perfection that it's mind-blowing.

Every excuse I've heard to keep the status quo is makes my head hurt by trying to understand the idiotic logic behind the argument. It makes no sense and should be ridiculed.

If our Gophers were 12-0 but were left out of the NC game because of the current system, I'd throw a fit and if you didn't have the same reaction, may God have mercy on your soul as it's lost.
 

I propose an 8-team playoff. It would be composed of the top 8 conference champions. I would do away with the concept of a "BCS Conference". Three conference champions would get shut out of the playoff, but they would still have a chance at the beginning of the year, all they would have to do is to be better than three other conference champions to get their shot. The opening round would be held at the higher-rated team's home field.

The sticky thing would be independents, and by that, of course, I mean Notre Dame. If I had my way, I would shut out independents altogether. Join the 21st century, join a conference. But that's probably not realistic. My compromize would be that an independent could make the tournament, but only if they were ranked more highly than the #5 ranked conference champion.

This preserves the importance of the regular season - you would have to win your conference to have a shot. Not only that, teams that had already clinched their conference title would have incentive to keep playing hard, as losing a regular season game could cost them home field in the playoffs.

It's small enough that the bowls could still be preserved. One possibility is that the semi-finals and championship games could be bowl games, with bowls bidding to host. You'd probably lose some of the bottom-tier bowls, but the other bowls could still be played.
 

RodentRampage said:
No, you can't prove any such thing. You can point to Arizona, and say they weren't the best team, but what does that prove? I can point to three undefeated teams this season that were shut out of playing for a national title.
Click to expand...


Actually, I can. But it takes an assumption that not everyone has, which is that the best system is the one in which the best regular-season team wins the championship as often as possible. The folks at realclearsports cooked up a thing they call the 'fairness index' to quantify it. Their number is a comparison of a league champion's record versus the best regular-season record in the league. College football runs away with it, and I think the reason is pretty self-explanatory, but if you want to read their take, it's at:
http://www.realclearsports.com/arti...a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html


BTW, yes, Boise State, TCU and Cincy all have good reason to be upset. I would be upset too if the Gophers went undefeated and didn't have a chance to play for the championship. But I'd be more upset if we went undefeated, then got eliminated the second round of the playoffs by a 3-loss Notre Dame. But I guess that's a matter of opinion. And if everyone decides mine is wrong, I look forward to winning or losing Floyd of Rosedale every year based on which team is resting people for the playoffs.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom