I see that "Bowl Mania"...

[andrewjackson]

I see one problem with almost every possible playoff scenario.

The more games that teams play, the greater the possibility that players will face injuries. If key players for one team or another are hurt and can cannot play in the last "big" game, the outcome doesn't really have much to do with whichever team was the best during the regular season. Furthermore, outstanding players who will enter the pro draft will be less and less eager to play in the last games, and some might drop out of school to protect themselves (and prospects for their future. This already has happened to so-called Senior Bowls.) Injuries combined with non-playing standouts could mean that the playoff national championship would be determined by teams comprised of players less competent than opponents beaten earlier in the season.

This is a valid concern but it doesn't stop the NCAA from running a playoff tournament in every other sport and division, including football at the Division I-AA, II, and III level.

Teams that win tournaments are never necessarily the "best" teams. They are the teams that won the tournament. This is true in every sport.

This year Florida and Oklahoma will play 14 games.

Richmond won the 1-AA national title by playing 16 games in total. They started the season 4-3 but battled back to get a tournament invite and then won the national title. Were they the best team in the regular season? Maybe not but they get the title this year.

Minnesota-Duluth had to play 15 games to win the Division II national championship. And that's with a limit of 35 scholarships. I think that with 50 more scholarships the Division 1A teams can play a couple of extra games.

[silvercamaro]

Thanks, AJ. I did not know that the other football divisions had play-offs.










But now I do!

[lilclyde54]

I have got to weigh in with my opposition to any college playoff system. To me, it seems like most of the people clamoring for a playoff are media folks, not the actual fans of college football. I have two main reasons for this position. The first is that it would (despite some claims to the contrary) seriously damage the bowl games. I went to two different bowl games this year. (New Orleans Bowl to watch two guys at Southern Miss. that went to my elementary school) ( Cotton Bowl to watch my Rebels and who featured two more guys who went to my elementary school) I had a blast at both games and did not mind the drive time to either New Orleans or Dallas. I know how much fun bowl games are for the fans and the players. Anything that is likely to damage that system will never get my approval.

The other reason is that I think it would be bad for college football. There are 34 bowl games so there are 34 different teams that go into the offseason happy and with a feeling of accomplishment. The same can be said for their fan base. There is only one team happy after the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl losers become irrelevant and labeled as losers despite having outstanding seasons in most cases. In fact, most fans could not name the last 5 Super Bowl losers in a minute or less.

The only tangible thing that a system of playoffs does is determine one unanimously recognized champion. Even that is not a positive in my view. Once the NFL finishes their season, they become page 3 news until the next season except for a brief blip of interest at draft time. Often without a universally recognized champion, college fans argue and bicker over who was the best from the end of one season until the beginning of the next season. Of course, the media participates in these on-going debates quite a bit themselves. All of this serves to keep interest in college football a never ending thing. I think a playoff system to determine a "true" champion would undermine all of that.

[andrewjackson]

I would not want a playoff system to replace the bowls that currently exist.

My plan for a 16 team tournament plus the bowls:

12 game limit on the regular season. If you want to have a conference championship game it must be part of the 12 games.

Dec. 19 - Round 1 of playoffs - 11 conference winners and 5 wild-cards determined by something like the BCS. Seeding would be the same way. Games to be played at conference neutral sites. Example: The Big XII would host the #1 Oklahoma v. #16 Buffalo game at St. Louis or Houston.

Dec. 21-31 - Non-tournament bowl games. This year there were 72 bowl eligible teams. Take away the 16 playoff teams and you would have 56 teams. That means that 28 bowl games could be played among those teams.

Jan. 1 - Round 2 of the playoffs - the eight winners of Round 1 would meet in the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls.

Jan. 17 - Round 3 of the playoffs - the four winners meet in the national semi-finals

Jan. 31 - National championship game


This plan preserves 32 of the existing 34 bowl games and opens up three more potential games that cities could bid to host. The two teams in the final would play 16 games but with weeks off between each round of the playoffs. The season would be extended past January 1 for only four teams.

It won't happen but it could.

[SportsFan68]

It's not a playoff. A playoff is where teams play each other with the winners advancing. The +1 does not do that for all the winners. It is pretty much the same as the current BCS system matching #1 v. #2 but delayed until after New Year's Day. Teams do have to go through one more game before they get there but winning that "one more game" might not be enough if the voters don't like you. You also have teams disadvantaged by being put into weaker bowls because they are perceived to be less of a TV or attendance draw.

I don't trust the polls or the bowl selection committees. A true playoff system would mean that if you win, you advance. Nobody's "opinion" matters.

A +1 is, to me, no better than the BCS.

OK, it looks like a playoff. Everybody's assumed to be tied after the bowls, and the "top two" play it off. That's close enough for me and why I'm rooting for the new system.

SC's right, injuries or fear of injuries could create a meaningless final, but for all I know they're already meaningless. I know it happens -- my cousin was something like a fourth string safety at his school where he was on an academic scholarship. They started him his last game, which protected his team's defending starters and probably the opponent's offensive starters as well because he couldn't keep up with them. So I already don't trust bowl games. I just know they'll continue as long as they generate the money and enrollment they do.