Dorsey not if favor of playoff?

Re: Dorsey not in favor of playoff?

Here's my rebuttal to that argument - any increase in the number of teams in the championship picture decreases the chances of leaving out a deserving team.

For example, in 2003 most people thought that USC deserved a chance, but the BCS formula left them in 3rd place. Increasing to a 4-team playoff would have given them a chance. In 2004 Auburn was left out as the #3-ranked team. A 4-team playoff would have given them a chance. Now, I don't think a 4-team playoff solves all problems in every single year, but it certainly is better. So if it's more palatable to move from a 2-team system to a 4-team system, I advocate doing that, and then let's see what happens when we have a season when 4 teams are not deemed to be sufficient. I suspect a 6 or 8 team system would be tried next.

Now, what to do with the non-BCS teams that occasionally go undefeated (Tulane, Marshall, Boise State, Hawaii, etc.)? Well, they don't get in now with a 2-team system. I don't see them getting in (unless they play a tough OOC schedule) with a 4 or 6 team playoff (I would obviously want them in if they're ranked in the top 4 or 6, but if they are ranked lower I don't know if they'd automatically deserve a spot in a small playoff field). They would undoubtedly have a better chance with a 4, 6, or 8-team playoff though. That's one reason I like the 12 or 16 team playoff concept, because that's enough teams to guarantee a spot to any undefeated team.

So in summary, the BCS rankings are not perfect, but when the number of playoff teams increases, the chances of leaving out a team that most think are deserving goes down.

I don't think a 4-team playoff would be perfect, but it would be better than the 2-team system we have now. It may be "good enough", and if it's not, then we try 6, 8, 10, 12, or even 16 teams eventually.

 

Before the BCS, we had about 25 bowl games. Now that we have a 2-team playoff, we have 32 bowl games. So anyone who thinks that the bowl games will just all go away with a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff is wrong, in my opinion. Depending on the logistics involved, there's no reason why first-round playoff losers couldn't go to a bowl game (just like conference championship game losers go on to play in a bowl game). I personally think we have too many bowl games, so I wouldn't mind if 6 or so bowls DID go away, but that's for another debate.

 

I figured out a way to have a playoff that would almost never have more than 6 teams, almost always include deserving nonbCS teams (Hawaii this season, Boise St, Utah in years past). A small but efficient playoff would maintain the integrity of the bowls and the regular season but include all of the most deserving teams. This season Georgia would have been left out, as well as USC and W Virginia (based on faulty BCS rankings). Georgia didn't win their conference and USC and W Virginia was ranked relatively low for a top team. USC and W Virginia would have the best cases against my system in years, which really speaks to how much better my system is than the current system. Both USC and W Virginia had ample opportunity on the field to break into the top 6 and failed.

It is a myth that a playoff cannot exist. As a mere fan of the game, with no money and a little ingenuity and back and forth discussion, I was able to come up with a very workable playoff. NCAA 1a football is wealthy and could work out a playoff if they truly desired to. Why don't they?

Money, and possibly concerns about academics and the health of players. Of course, the two later concerns are put into question when the 12th game was approved. It really looks like the Big 10, the Pac 10, and the Rose Bowl are using their clout to block a playoff from happening. And really, what incentive do they have? They continue to and will continue to take in money hand over fist.

 

I am sure there are many ways to look at this. Remember, you have 11 Division I conferences plus the "major" independents. How can you really consider it a playoff if you don't let all 11 conference champions advance to the playoff?

If you leave any one of the conferences out and don't have a non human method of determining which, if any, independent would get in, you have nothing more than you have now. So unless you get all the conferences back in the playoff, all you are doing substituting a mythical national championship with a mythical playoff.

As for the bowls - once you have a mythical playoff, the money and sponsership for other bowls is going to dry up. The national sports press and sponsers will focus on the mythical playoff, the bowls will be nothing more than regional games with little or no chance of national interest - and ultimately not enough money to continue. I think a playoff = death to the other bowls because the money will dry up.

Oh well, it is all in how you look at it. The current system has favored my favorite team and school, LSU, so I'll stick with what works for us.
ldskule: ldskule: ldskule:

 

If it's an offically-sanctioned NCAA playoff, then you're right - it'd have to be, at a minimum, a 12-team playoff, and most likely a 16-team playoff. However, I do not believe that there are enough folks who comprise the NCAA for that to happen in the foreseeable future. So... that leaves us with the BCS system, which is a 2-team playoff of sorts, that leaves out all conferences/teams except the two that are in the championship game. Expanding that system to 4, 6, or 8 teams will have the effect of a margin of error on the current ranking system. Most agree that it's hard in some years, and impossible in others, to get the two best teams into the BCS title game. By doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the number of teams, the chances that one of the actual "best" teams will be left out go down - not down to a zero percent chance, but still a smaller chance than we have with the current system.

Look back at 2003 and 2004 - with a 4-team playoff, how much controversy would have been raised in those years? A team that is borderline #2/#3 and winds up #3 has a more convincing argument than a team that's borderline #8/#9 and winds up #9 (and left out of an 8-team playoff). Go back to the entire 10 years of the BCS, and figure out how many teams would be needed to include the teams most deserving of a spot. I would bet that it's not often that we'd need more than 4 teams, with 6 being adequate in those few years where 4 isn't enough. And also keep in mind the thing about the rankings... that final vote in the human polls (right after the conference championship games), where LSU jumped from #7 to #2 in the rankings. That happened because the voters knew that the magic number for the BCS system today is 2 - so they voted to make sure that the top 2 teams (in their collective opinion) were ranked in the top 2. Being ranked #3 is just as bad as being ranked #7 with the current system. But with a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff, the magic number changes, and the voters would undoubtedly make sure that the teams that they felt were the top 4, 6, or 8 would be ranked accordingly. So I would feel more confident that the voters would get things "right" if that magic number was larger.

I disagree, unless we're talking about a really large playoff. Going from 2 teams to 4 teams would not dramatically affect the bowl games. Maybe the weakest one or two may die off, but who's going to really miss them? We have 7 more bowls now than we did before the BCS was created, so I don't think the evidence supports your assertion.

 

Easy, they only have to put up with one camera man, and maybe 2 newspaper guys for each game. ESPN ain't following them around, Fox ain't hounding them, and for the most part, people outside of their individual classroom doesn't even recognize them. I's easier to deal with distractons when there ain't no distractions.