I agree. If the idea of a playoff is to determine the best team, then you include only the teams that might reasonably be argued to be the best in the land. And with that in mind, even 8 teams is a stretch. What you don't do is include the winner of the Sun Belt just because they are the winner of the Sun Belt.
I'm in the regular loses its importance the more teams that get in bandwagon. I don't even care for a 4 team playoff, but it seems inevitable. College football is the only sport where the regular is the overwhelmingly primary source of importance for determining it's champion. I love March Madness, but the Madness too often doesn't determine the best actual team throughout the season, it determines which team got hot at the right moment. The more teams MLB allows into its playoff system continues to sadden me. I hate seeing the regular season be considered just something to do to get to the playoffs.
Listen to kb. He is spot on. Maybe the most significant draw to college football is that every game has the potential to matter in the national and conference title races. Memphis/UT is important. Arkansas and Florida and Syracuse against UT are important. Alabama/LSU and Oklahoma St/Iowa St matter. And although they are interesting, none of those games have any impact on an 8 or 16 team playoff. They are simply exhibitions. Just look at the NFL. How important is one particular loss in September or October? How important is a late loss after a playoff spot has been secured? How important are conference or division championships? The goal is simply to make the cut for the playoffs, hopefully position yourself pretty well, and then play well in the tournament, and that is exactly what will happen in college football if you use the same system.
My point is that it is weighed more heavily towards week 14 than it is week 1. About the only way to get in the title game with a loss from week 12 or later is for all hell to break lose (2001, 2007). The other way is lobbying or large media bias towards team or conference (2003). Neither way is a good way to determine a national champion, IMO. Like I said, I would like 16 in my dream world, but I think a 4 team playoff of the highest ranked conference champs isn't an issue. Conference championships are still important, it doesn't really diminish the integrity of the regular season, and IMO it allows more equality of "when" a team loses versus early vs. late season.
I'm thinking they didn't anticipate some of the mid majors doing as well as they did when they made the rule. And yes, it needs to go.
Appears the conf champ plus model is picking up steam. Conf champ must be in top 6 in bcs poll. I think thats fair.
I think any proposed model needs to be experimentally applied to the last 100 years of football to see who gets screwed over and anticipate future problems.
i don't like it. i see how it's "fair" that if you don't win your conference you shouldn't have a NC chance, but it should be the best teams and if 2 of the top 4 teams are from the same conference than so be it.
If we're going under the model to make the regular season mean something, then I say the only criteria that can be put in place across the board is that the conferences are an elimination round. Essentially pool play where only one team can advance. Do I think Bama was the best team in the country last year? Yes. Do I think they should have been given a shot to play for the title? No. They blew it against LSU. And I know you can say the same for OK State, and I get it, but they still won their conference and Bama didn't.
If we're going under the model to make the regular season mean something, then I say the only criteria that can be put in place across the board is that the conferences are an elimination round. Essentially pool play where only one team can advance. Do I think Bama was the best team in the country last year? Yes. Do I think they should have been given a shot to play for the title? No. They blew it against LSU. And I know you can say the same for OK State, and I get it, but they still won their conference and Bama didn't.
I can imagine some BS scenarios like UGA-South Carolina last year causing some problems. Obviously neither team was an NC contender, but what if that scenario had happened with LSU? As in LSU beats Bama head to head, but loses to some SEC East team Bama didn't even play. Now LSU is potentially screwed out of the NC and the SEC. Actually I guess in that scenario the tie-breaker would go to LSU. I suppose that wouldn't be a huge issue.
you also have a stanford/oregon situation from last year where one team had two losses (albiet with a much harder nc schedule) and won the conference and the other had one loss and was ranked higher. personally i think the conference champion stipulation muddies the waters too much. it obviously [uck fay]s the sec as well.
My argument would be that we're dealing with a very flawed (and corrupt) system because the college presidents only care about the $$$$$ and appeasing the bowl people. Thus, crap like this is going to happen. In short - tough noogies.
You pretty much just laid out a great reason for an 8-16 playoff IMO. There are too many variables in scheduling currently, even within a conference.
Also, FWIW, I also think this is inevitably a step from the SEC, B1G, Pac 12, Big 12, ACC and ND to break away from the other conferences and do their own thing and that scheduling won't matter that much longer.
i don't have a problem with #5 being pissed. if you win out you will get your shot in this system. if you only have one loss you will have a good chance. it's fair. the problem with an 8 or 16 game playoff is the problem of the bcs currently. the bcs teams will surely expect automatic bids and you know we will get an nfl outcome with people thinking about resting their players when they have teh conference won and situations like vtech and uconn getting a chance because they play in a shitty conference. a plus one ends all legit gripes. i also like the bowl system (generally teams who rarely win over 8 games like the bowl system) and an 8 or 16 game playoff would torpedo that.
I chuckled at the bowl thing. I would axe about 10 of them, but I'd still keep some bowls for the 8 win teams. If I did a 16 team playoff, I would not have any AQ conference winners. Instead, I'd take the current BCS poll, and any conference champ ranked in the top 20 gets a birth. I think homefield advantage the first two rounds would alleviate resting players to a large extent. Since you are basing it on ranking and not records, you have never clinched anything. But, I do agree that is a legit concern, especially with the conference title games.
