Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks

[AhliBobwa]

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.

EXACTLY. What proponents of a giant playoff system don't understand is that college football has exactly One advantage over every other sport.

College football has the single most compelling regular season of any college or professional sport and it isn't even close.

Think about how important that is. If there were a sixteen team playoff the Tim Tebow could have hopped on the cameras after the game Saturday and talked about how this loss would make the Gators more prepared for a big run in the tournament. That would be a travesty.

Every single game in college football is a potential elimination game. THAT is why the regular season is so electric.

Note that I have my issues with the BCS. For instance I firmly believe that Utah was last year's true National Champion and that TCU is much better than Texas, and deserves a shot at the National Title. That said, college football should not consider anything more than a 4 team playoff. Anything more would devalue the regular season, thus robbing college football of its chief asset, a regular season where every single game can make or break your year.

 

[RedPoo]

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.

That's a brutally bad idea. It would turn 4 games a year, for every team, into exhibitions. Though I'm sure Michigan would have enjoyed getting a win against OSU's scrubs this season.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

What's worse:

1. An undefeated team with no chance at playing for the national title (5 undefeated teams this year)
2. Having a 2 or 3 loss team (like LSU) play for the chance to win the NC.

#1 is much, much more troubling than #2 in my mind and it's not even close. We need a system that ensures that every one of the D1 undefeated teams has a shot at winning the title. How it's accomplished it up for debate but in my mind a 4 team playoff doesn't cut it as BSU would be left out of the playoff. No fewer than 6 (ideally 8 or 16 IMO) would suffice.

 

[RedPoo]

What's worse:

1. An undefeated team with no chance at playing for the national title (5 undefeated teams this year)
2. Having a 2 or 3 loss team (like LSU) play for the chance to win the NC.

#1 is much, much more troubling than #2 in my mind and it's not even close. We need a system that ensures that every one of the D1 undefeated teams has a shot at winning the title. How it's accomplished it up for debate but in my mind a 4 team playoff doesn't cut it as BSU would be left out of the playoff. No fewer than 6 (ideally 8 or 16 IMO) would suffice.

That's where we disagree. I think #2 is worse, and would happen a lot more often.

The only 'playoff' options I would be even remotely ok with would be either:

1) Eliminating the BCS Championship Game in favor of a 'Plus One'

or

2) Undefeated teams must be matched up in BCS bowls. If there are multiple undefeated teams after the BCS games, they play each other at a pre-determined bowl site.

...and I'd mostly be in favor of that so people would stop talking about this all the time.

 

[RodentRampage]

That's a brutally bad idea. It would turn 4 games a year, for every team, into exhibitions. Though I'm sure Michigan would have enjoyed getting a win against OSU's scrubs this season.

No, it would not turn them in to exhibition games. It would in fact enchance them. You could win your conference but lose all your non-conference games. But because only 8 of 11 conference champions would get to go to the playoffs, such a team would most likely miss the playoffs. And even if they still made the playoffs, losses in non-conference games would mean a team got a poorer seeding, and could mean they played on the road instead of at home.

Dropping down from a #1 seed to a #5 seed would be the equivalent of dropping from a #1 seed to a #9 seed in basketball.

 

[Iceland12]

That's where we disagree. I think #2 is worse, and would happen a lot more often.

The only 'playoff' options I would be even remotely ok with would be either:

1) Eliminating the BCS Championship Game in favor of a 'Plus One'

or

2) Undefeated teams must be matched up in BCS bowls. If there are multiple undefeated teams after the BCS games, they play each other at a pre-determined bowl site.

...and I'd mostly be in favor of that so people would stop talking about this all the time.

The problem is it appears that not only are the majority of actual College Football fans, and a large majority of casual fans don't really care if a team with 3 or 4 losses becomes the National Champion as long as it's "settled on the field".

Most accept the fact that somehow, someway the teams will have to be "chosen". There will also always be an argument about the "fifth team", "ninth team" or "seventeenth team" but they are okay with that also.

College Hockey, a minor sport makes it's Champion win four games to be a Champion. Basketball six games. To correct the Football problem some people are happy with 2 or 3. Those other sports have had "champions" who have won only 2/3 of their regular season games and there isn't a lot of complaining about it.

There's no way to have a fair playoff without sacrificing the regular season, killing most bowls (though there ARE to many) extending the season or taking away home games.

I don't think it's worth it but a LOT of people do.

 

[GophersInIowa]

EXACTLY. What proponents of a giant playoff system don't understand is that college football has exactly One advantage over every other sport.

College football has the single most compelling regular season of any college or professional sport and it isn't even close.

Think about how important that is. If there were a sixteen team playoff the Tim Tebow could have hopped on the cameras after the game Saturday and talked about how this loss would make the Gators more prepared for a big run in the tournament. That would be a travesty.

Every single game in college football is a potential elimination game. THAT is why the regular season is so electric.

Note that I have my issues with the BCS. For instance I firmly believe that Utah was last year's true National Champion and that TCU is much better than Texas, and deserves a shot at the National Title. That said, college football should not consider anything more than a 4 team playoff. Anything more would devalue the regular season, thus robbing college football of its chief asset, a regular season where every single game can make or break your year.

That is true, but it would be made up (and then some) IMO when there are two semi-final playoff games. Instead of one game where the winner goes to the NC and loser is out, there will be two.

I would make sure conference champions get an auto bid, meaning only 5 at large bids. And I think some are forgetting how important it is to many teams to win their conference title. So, every game would still matter IMO.

 

[GophersInIowa]

That's where we disagree. I think #2 is worse, and would happen a lot more often.

Really? If Wetzel's playoff system was in tact this year, LSU would probably have to beat TCU, Florida, and Alabama on the road, then maybe Texas on a neutral field. If they could do that, then they deserve the National Championship. I think it would be extremely difficult for a low seed like LSU to win the NC and it will be very rare. However, having undefeated teams not get a chance at the NC happens pretty often.

 

[RedPoo]

Really? If Wetzel's playoff system was in tact this year, LSU would probably have to beat TCU, Florida, and Alabama on the road, then maybe Texas on a neutral field. If they could do that, then they deserve the National Championship. I think it would be extremely difficult for a low seed like LSU to win the NC and it will be very rare. However, having undefeated teams not get a chance at the NC happens pretty often.

Really. Having an undefeated with no shot at the official NC does happen fairly often. But if we had a playoff (beyond a plus-one or similar setup) a team that doesn't deserve a chance would get one EVERY SEASON. I say this as someone who likes college football because the regular season means nearly everything. You don't share my belief, and that's fine...but can't you just enjoy every other league (with all their big tournaments, 'official' champions, and meaningless regular-season games) and leave me and my ilk this one remaining sport??? Please?????


btw, LSU winning your championship would be no less likely than TCU beating all those teams themselves. I'd actually imagine they would be getting better odds than TCU, Cincy or Boise St.

 

[RedPoo]

...So, every game would still matter IMO.

I think that's pretty obviously incorrect. Sure, they would all matter a little bit, but many of them wouldn't matter nearly as much, and not at all to a national audience.

I know I wouldn't have cared half as much about the Big 12 championship game if it was just about Nebraska trying to earn a chance to lose to Alabama in the first round of the playoffs.

 

[Iceland12]

Really? If Wetzel's playoff system was in tact this year, LSU would probably have to beat TCU, Florida, and Alabama on the road, then maybe Texas on a neutral field. If they could do that, then they deserve the National Championship. I think it would be extremely difficult for a low seed like LSU to win the NC and it will be very rare. However, having undefeated teams not get a chance at the NC happens pretty often.

Actually GophersInIowa, it's a very recent phenomena.

Three teams this year. Two last year. Then from 2007 to 1995 there were a total of 7 undefeated teams who didn't get a chance at the title. Nearly all of them were "bounced" because of a weak schedule. Utah and Boise State account for 4 of the seasons.

Utah has scheduled some good Non-Conference teams but Boise State's offer to play anybody anywhere was contingent on getting $1,000,000. Better scheduling in the regular season would correct that but it would also take away their claim of "how come WE don't get a shot".

 

[howeda7]

That's a brutally bad idea. It would turn 4 games a year, for every team, into exhibitions. Though I'm sure Michigan would have enjoyed getting a win against OSU's scrubs this season.

That's where I think you're wrong. Non-conference games would still matter because

A) you want to be in position for an at-large bid if you don't win the conference and there are only 5. It might actually encourage teams to schedule other BCS teams non-conference. If you win, you're in even better position for an at-large and if you lose, you can still make it by winning your conference.

B) you want as high a seed as possible to ensure two home games and even losing game might knock you from the #3 seed to the #9. There's still huge value in that. Finally, you underestimate the power of rivalary. Even if the game did technically mean nothing, do you honestly think OSU would play thier scrubs and elt Michigan win? I can't fathom it.

One thing it would do is make the Big 10's system better for determining the conference champion IMO. Having a terrible team from the Big 12 North still have a shot just because everyone in thier Division stinks would not be ideal. Also, it would diminish a game like this year's SEC championship. But it wouldn't make it meaningless by any means, as Wetzel points out, the difference between a home game against Troy followed by two more, versus traveling to Penn State in round two are huge.

 

[RodentRampage]

I think that's pretty obviously incorrect. Sure, they would all matter a little bit, but many of them wouldn't matter nearly as much, and not at all to a national audience.

I know I wouldn't have cared half as much about the Big 12 championship game if it was just about Nebraska trying to earn a chance to lose to Alabama in the first round of the playoffs.

If neither Texas nor Nebraska had a shot at the national title, would the game then be meaningless?

 

[RedPoo]

If neither Texas nor Nebraska had a shot at the national title, would the game then be meaningless?

To me (and the average fan of a non-Big 12 team)?? Yeah, pretty close. I might have cared about one team or the other getting a BCS bowl, but definitely not as much.

 

[RodentRampage]

To me (and the average fan of a non-Big 12 team)?? Yeah, pretty close. I might have cared about one team or the other getting a BCS bowl, but definitely not as much.

So you're saying the BCS devalues the Big 12 title game?

If there were an 8-team playoff, and only the top 8 conference champions went to the playoff, this game would matter each and every year. It would enhance the appeal of this game.

 

[RedPoo]

So you're saying the BCS devalues the Big 12 title game?

If there were an 8-team playoff, and only the top 8 conference champions went to the playoff, this game would matter each and every year. It would enhance the appeal of this game.

No, I'm saying I would only care enough about a Texas/Nebraska game to watch it in its entirety if one of the team's championship aspirations are on the line. It's one of the perks of not having a playoff.


If only conference champs made this theoretical playoff system, I think Florida would have plenty of reason to be pissed that OSU gets a shot and they don't.

 

[mplsbadger]

This is a terrible idea. Why get rid of the bowls?

My idea:
- Eight team playoff (in current BCS bowls) with traditional alignments where seeding only occurs after the first week. That's right, B10 plays P10 in the Rose Bowl!!
- Automatic berths for 8 teams in 12 team conferences with a conference championship
- This makes it a de-facto 16 team playoff and...
- Encourages UND to join the Big Ten
- Encourages Utah and BYU to join the Pac-10
- Encourages the other conferences to expand, fold, or move down
- After first round play an east game and a west game at a neutral site (seeded by BCS ranking)
- Play championship at a neutral site

Neutral sites could include LA, SD, Pheonix, & Dallas in the west. Could include NO, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Tampa in the East.

Another great side effect. Teams would be induced to schedule tough OOC games becasue the conference schedule would be what really matters.

 

[RodentRampage]

No, I'm saying I would only care enough about a Texas/Nebraska game to watch it in its entirety if one of the team's championship aspirations are on the line. It's one of the perks of not having a playoff.


If only conference champs made this theoretical playoff system, I think Florida would have plenty of reason to be pissed that OSU gets a shot and they don't.

How is it a "perk" if the game is rendered meaningless if neither of the teams have a chance at the national title? I thought the idea was to preserve the value of the regular season, which an 8-team playoff preserves. You admit that the Big 12 title game is devalued if neither team is going to the championship game.

Florida had their chance to beat Alabama and get into the title game. Under an 8-team playoff, it would have been no different.

 

[RedPoo]

How is it a "perk" if the game is rendered meaningless if neither of the teams have a chance at the national title? I thought the idea was to preserve the value of the regular season, which an 8-team playoff preserves. You admit that the Big 12 title game is devalued if neither team is going to the championship game.

umm...for starters, there are a bunch of other games besides the Big 12 title game (my back-of-the-envelope calculations put the number at about 700).
And in the last week of the year, there are going to be two of them with championship implications.