Best Playoff Proposal Yet

Thats a pretty good theory...wish it would be adopted


:tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye:

 

Sorry, but I disagree. No way a non-rated team should make the playoffs over a rated team. Under his scheme teams like Tennessee, Illinois and Arizona St. would be bypassed by Central Michigan, Troy and Central Florida just because they won their mid-level conference. The result would be a woeful mis-match that would only serve to weaken the credibility of the playoff system. This is the football version of political correctness, and I don't like it any more in football than I do in politics. They playoffs should be between the top 16 teams in the nation regardless of whether or not they won their conference. THAT is the only fair way to do it.

 

What role does the regular season play in eliminating teams from national championship contention. As a person who has come up with a formula to rate teams, I think there is a lot of data in the regular season to eliminate most teams from NC consideration.

Simply looking at direct competition leaves a lot of data unused. Also, not all conferences are equal and winning a conference championship doesn't necessarily mean a team deserves to play for a NC. The entire season should be considered and some conference champions back into it after having less than a NC caliber season. Conferences should not be guaranteed a chance to play for a NC, they should have to earn it.

I think you answered your question at the start of the second paragraph.

I agree that you can't use straight win/loss, but it should play a part. Again, we shouldn't reward teams based simply on potential.

Is an undefeated Hawaii better than LSU? When Boise St was given the opportunity to defeat Oklahoma, they did. Appalachian St beat Michigan. On the field, these nonBCS schools did what most thought they wouldn't be able to. I'd say that Hawaii doesn't have no chance of beating LSU and I could very realistically see LSU losing that game.

So, I agree that it should be decided on the field, but quite a lot has been decided on the field during the regular season and to ignore a lot of that data makes the regular season less important. WE DO NOT NEED A LARGE PLAYOFF. Using a combination of W/L, SoS, and comparative performance, a very efficient and manageable playoff can realistically exist that will determine a champion that very few grumble about.

We do not need to and should not guarantee any conference entrance. Winning a conference championship isn't necessarily relevant to the nature of the entire season on a national scale. And really, choosing teams based on a well thought out formula is far from random.

I do think conference champions deserve first dibs (well, second dibs - the #1 and possibly the #2 teams deserve first dibs).

 

I agree that conference champions shouldn't get in simply because they are conference champions. On the other hand, however, I think that highly rated nonBCS teams deserve special consideration because of the inherent bias in rating teams.

I base this special consideration argument on a few points.

• BCS teams would not leave BCS conferences to play in nonBCS conferences because it would be easier to play for a NC.
• NonBCS teams wouldn't think twice about joining BCS conferences if given the opportunity.
• NonBCS teams, because they play in nonBCS conferences, take a severe hit to SoS.

BCS teams that get left out may not like successful nonBCS teams getting in after beating up on a light SoS, which is why I'd propose fair but stringent limitations on team rating requirements for nonBCS (and BCS) teams.

I also believe that teams like Florida have had the opportunity to prove themselves during the course of the regular season and haven't maximized their potential. There is no question that Florida had chances on the field and blew it. On the other hand, through little fault of their own, Hawaii hasn't had those chances on the field. There is ambiguity over whether Hawaii could have won those games and no ambiguity when it comes to Florida. If Hawaii meets a minimum rating requirement, I believe they deserve to play for a NC ahead of Florida, especially if the NC is determined through a playoff consisting of more than two teams.

 

I haven't read the other threads yet. My thoughts are there is no way they will extend the CFS season by 4 games. Maybe if everyone cut back to a 10 game schedule without the conference championships this might be possible. But this all comes down to money. The SEC will not give up it's championship game because they make too much money. Although if 3 or 4 of the top 16 were from the SEC they might reconsider. It looks like with this plan only 5 at-large teams would get in.

 

That's an interesting point. Perhaps the SEC would go back to regular season championships if the playoffs guaranteed enough money and allowed multiple teams per conference to get in. Probably not, though. Still, a 16 team playoff would kill the bowls, which wouldn't be good for college football in the eyes of many.

 

If there is a playoff system the conference championships will have to be dropped regardless of what the powers-that-be want. Whatever they lose in the conference championships would likely be made up in the playoffs.

 

I don't think that's true unless a 16 team playoff is adopted.

 

Look at this filed and tell me one game you wouldn't want to see. 16 teams may be a stretch. But these 8 provide the best match-ups I have seen all year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ayoff.eliteeight/index.html?section=si_latest