10. You always insist that playoffs will ruin the importance and excitement of the regular season games, but NFL football has a very inclusive playoff system, and their regular season games get much higher TV ratings than college games. How do you explain that?
The NFL's ratings advantage over college football has nothing to do with their playoff format. College football gets lower ratings because its top teams are mostly located in small TV markets outside of the population-rich Northeast corridor.
9. You say that college football regular season games are do-or-die. Then how come a two-loss LSU team won the national championship last year?
In 35 of the last 50 years, the National Champion has been undefeated. One-loss champions are the exception, and LSU’s championship may end up being a singular event. College games are do-or-die relative to the NFL, where six and seven-loss teams regularly make the playoffs.
If it makes you happy, in the future I’ll say “do-or-probably-die.” That’ll be real snappy. Thanks a lot, Word Police.
8. In the BCS, the best teams don't play against each other.
In an eight-team playoff, there would be a total of seven playoff games to determine the champion. In this year's regular season, as of Week 10, we have already had six marquee matchups between teams ranked in the top eight. We may end the year with nine, more than in an eight-team playoff.
We’ve also already had 26 games between teams ranked in the top 25, already more than we would have in a 24-team playoff.
7. The National Championship should be settled on the field.
Traditionally, the National Champion is undefeated. If a team loses and doesn't make the NC game, it was settled on the field when they lost. In a playoff, if a team loses a single game, they’re eliminated too, right? Pete Carroll lost to Oregon State. He should stop crying and admit he got eliminated by a Cinderella for the second year in a row.
What’s different about the current system is that a one-loss team can actually get a second chance, provided there aren’t two undefeated teams at the end of the season. Rather than be grateful for a possibility at another shot, “left-outs” whine for a playoff.
I understand that many people get frustrated because they want to see all the one-loss teams play off against each other at the end of the season. They also want to make sure there is an undisputed champion every year. However, a limited playoff won’t work.
6. Why won’t it work? Don’t give me this exciting regular season nonsense. I only want a four- or eight-team playoff. The regular season games will be just as important.
- B/R Ticket Guide
That’s true. I would support an eight-team playoff, except it would create more problems than it would solve. The ongoing controversies will force it to expand. Playoffs are like government entitlements: Once you start them, they just keep growing and growing.
Div. I-AA football began their playoff with four teams and expanded to 16 within five years. Currently, they are at 18 and recently voted to expand to 20 teams in 2010.
Considering all the money and prestige associated with I-A football, I predict that once you introduce a playoff, it will be pressured to grow to 32 teams in less than five years.
5. I don’t believe you. Are you sure you’re not getting paid off by the evil money-grubbing Big Ten commissioner?
Here's the perfect playoff: the six BCS conference champs, plus two wild cards. You can even keep your stupid traditional bowl games, and it won’t interfere with the school’s academic schedules. What’s the problem with that?
You don’t have enough wild cards. For example, this year your playoff would have to leave out strong teams like Ohio State, Georgia, and Oklahoma, yet include weaker conference champions like Florida State and West Virginia.
What if Georgia’s left out and Georgia Tech wins the ACC? What happens when Georgia crushes Tech the last week of the season?
Seriously, you’re going to send Oklahoma to the Alamo Bowl, while North Carolina gets a shot at the NC in a playoff? The state of Oklahoma would secede from the Union.
The BCS will look like a monument to common sense and order compared to the chaos that would envelop college football every November.
4. Hmmm. OK, then we’ll have a 16-team playoff. That’ll give us 10 wild cards. That should shut everybody up.
Unfortunately, that won’t work either. Once you go to 16 teams, you will have to give an automatic berth to the five non-BCS conference champions. They will sue you if you don’t. The lawsuit is already prepared and pointed at the BCS like a loaded rifle.
To accommodate them, your playoff will have to have all 11 conference champions and five wild cards. That’s still not going to be enough wild cards, especially now that weaker non-BCS teams are participating.
For example, this year, quality teams like Ohio State and Oklahoma State would get left out in favor of non-BCS conference champions like Central Michigan and Troy. Nobody’s going to accept that for a minute.
Bottom line: A playoff won't even to come close to passing the absurdity test until there are 24 teams, with all 11 conference champions, plus 13 wild cards. That’s why the NCAA basketball tournament ended up with 65 teams after starting with just eight teams.
3. OK, OK, I admit it. We can’t have a limited playoff in a 119-team “league,” especially since the individual teams have the freedom to set their own schedules and there is no reverse-record order draft mechanism to enforce a balance of power.
But what’s so bad about a 24-team format? I still enjoy regular season college basketball games, despite their communist playoff system where practically every team in the country participates regardless of ability.
I'm happy you enjoy those games, comrade. As a Florida football fan, I "enjoy" watching their spring scrimmage game.
But if you can't feel the difference in intensity between a regular season college football game and a regular season college basketball game, you need to get your head examined. You may have deep-seated emotional problems.
Also, to make room in the calendar for a 24-team playoff, you’re going to have to cut the regular season in half, cancel Christmas, or move the Super Bowl to March. Good luck with all of those proposals
Oh, and by the way, the NCAA basketball regular season started this week. Please don’t pretend you noticed. Nobody else did.
2. Now I finally understand what you mean, but I still want a playoff. The BCS process just drives me crazy. It's not logical or linear, and there aren't those symmetrical bracket things I love so much.
For many of us, that's the fun of it. However, if you're the type of person who keeps his desk neat and has to have his sock drawer organized, I can understand your frustration. You're kind of like the fat Microsoft guy in the Apple commercials.
1. Hold on a second. You're making me out to be a paranoid, emotionally repressed, anal retentive Marxist, but I'm the normal one here. Answer this, smart aleck: Why is college football the only sport in the entire world that doesn't have a playoff to determine its champion?
Congratulations! You finally got it. College football is quirky. We love it for its eccentricities: the corny bowl parades, the rowdy student section, the marching bands, the weird mascots, and yes, even those goose-stepping drum major dudes.
I'm sorry it disturbs you that there's still one thing left in America that's unique. You're probably happy that no matter where you go, McDonald's and Starbucks are the only two restaurants you can find.
Now stop trying to turn college football's one-of-a-kind spine-tingling regular season into one more dull slog to answer the burning question: "Who's number 32?"
comments (21) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Agreed...the BCS needs some tweaking (i.e. no preseason rankings), but for the most part works. If it weren't for Fantasy Football, I'd see all of my NFL action on Monday morning.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Edmon.
Yes, rather than whining for a playoff, we should be discussing ways to improve the polling system. I'm not sure the preseason polls are that big an issue. As long as a team has a strong schedule, they can make it all the way to the top. Look at Alabama this year, they were ranked 24th preseason.
The NFL has a great playoff, but their regular season games lack drama. Even when two undefeated teams meet in November or December, they won't even show each other their whole playbook. It's like they are just scouting each other for the game in January that counts.
I like their playoffs, but it's a 17 week snoozefest before that, at least compared to college, where we have huge must watch games every week of the season.
about 1 month ago
Lou...you are really against the whole playoff system aren't you? haha.
I agree that a playoff system would be detrimental to the unique characteristics of college football.
But I want to pose a question...if you HAD to make a playoff system for college football, how would you set it up?
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Kent.
We already have a playoff system. It's just two teams. I would prefer to get rid of it. It created more problems than it solved.
You aren't going to solve people's complaints by expanding it to 4 or 8. You have to get rid of the polls, give automatic berths to all 11 conferences, then "invite" 13 wild cards. There's still going to be a lot of unhappiness - basketball had to expand to 64 teams to stop most of the whining.
So, 24 teams is the minimum number that at least won't shut out any big time programs that are having a decent year. That system would withstand expansion for quite a while. I would give it 5 or 10 years until they go to 32 teams.
I'm against this because the regular season would be like all the other sports.
I actually like playoffs, that's why I don't want one. Get it?
about 1 month ago
A well organized playoff would be better than the current system that annoints a mythical champion.
Playoffs work in high school football and in pro football.
from about 1 month ago
where's the rebuttal from Lou? Oh, he doesn't respond to posts that make sense and completely destroy his argument.
about 1 month ago
10. I agree, this is a dumb argument.
9. Imbalanced schedules mean that few undefeated teams truly leave no doubt. Just because undefeated Team A goes undefeated against a particular slate of opponents, it doesn't mean one-loss Team B couldn't either. And there's also no way to prove if Team A would have made it through Team B's schedule unbeaten either.
8. The fact that only one BCS game was competitive last year helps to prove this point. And seven games between top-eight teams in a span of three weeks (as opposed to over the course of ten) is what people are looking for, especially since most years none of them would be rematches. They're brand new games within the top eight, and more games of that caliber is always good.
7. Again, imbalanced schedules are the monkey wrench in the system. Imagine if Penn State had gone unbeaten this year. Do you think one-loss Texas, Florida, or Oklahoma could not have gone undefeated against the same group of teams? We'll never know, but it's possible.
6. If the commissioners and presidents can hold out indefinitely against a playoff, they can hold out indefinitely against playoff expansion. If they can do one, they can do the other.
5. Giving out auto bids to the six power conferences in an 8 team playoff is a dumb idea.
4. 16 teams is too many. Also, it is impossible to sue the BCS. The BCS is not a legal entity, just a system of contracts signed by the BCS bowl committees, the 11 conference commissioners, and the AD of Notre Dame.
3. 24 teams is also too many, but it would take 5 weeks to do. Start the week after the regular season ends, and that playoff ends at the same time the current BCS does. And cancel Christmas to make it work? What about the bowl games that are already played on Christmas Day?
Also, as a Charlottean living in the heart of ACC country, I had no way of NOT noticing that college basketball tipped off this week :)
2. Since when has any playoff been perfectly logical and linear?
1. None of that goes away with a plus one or a 6- or 8- team playoff. The bowls wouldn't even go away because they can still carry on as normal before the playoff in the same way they do now before the BCS.
from about 1 month ago
Dave,
9. I don't understand what you are saying.
8. It is common in traditional playoffs for many games to be lopsided. Does these mean we aren't watching the best teams play against each other?
7. You can ask as many "what if's" about a traditional playoff. We'll never know, for example, if Texas Tech can beat Penn State if one of them loses early to another team in an 8 team playoff.
6. No they can't. 10 years ago they caved in to pressure and formed the current 2 team playoff. No one's happy. The pressure will actually intensify when a 'reall" playoff is established. Everyone will want in. There is no example of a playoff that's been started that didn't expand.
4. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what entitiy they will sue, but the lawsuit is prepared. It's a fact. Google around. Here's one article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E3D9143FF930A15754C0A9659C8B63
3. Surely you will admit that there are practical issue with having the playoffs for 5 weeks over final exams and the holidays.
2. Pro leagues are set up logically and symmetrically from the outset and a draft is used to enforce a balance of power. This allows conference champions to legitimately compete against each other. It also allows wild cards to be selected solely on the basis of W-L records.
Bracket playoffs are linear. If you lose you go home. If you win you proceed to the next step. In the BCS you aren't can be "eliminated" in week 1 and get back in it by week 12.
1. A 6-8 team won't last. You will have to use polls to select your 6-8 teams. They will be chosen based on opinion, which can always be disputed. To have a stable, fair playoff system, you have to get rid of the polls. Because you have a 119 team "league", you are going to have to do what college basketball does, "invite" basically anybody with a prayer of winning. That's at least 24 teams in football, probably 32.
from about 1 month ago
9. The fewer the common opponents among the top teams, the less ability you have to fairly judge the difference between them. There almost is never more than one common opponent between any two given highly ranked teams, so there is very little to go on when comparing them. Reference this year's debate over the relative abilities of the offenses and defenses of the Big 12 and SEC.
8. Many of the blowouts occur because the playoffs create artificial divisions between teams (based on them being in different conferences, divisions, etc). Look at the NBA - up until last year, the Western Conference Finals were the de facto championship round. Or, they're too big and incorporate teams that shouldn't be there.
7. But at least both Penn State and Texas Tech had the ability to play for the championship with the same pool of common opponents at the end. The current system does not afford that.
6. The "they" that runs makes the contracts as I mentioned are the bowl committees, the 11 conference commissioners, and the AD of Notre Dame. The committees are along for the ride without much of any leverage. The rest answer to college presidents and only college presidents. If the college presidents don't want a change, there won't be a change no matter the public outcry.
4. That is a five-year-old story about small schools wanting to get more access into the BCS. The lawsuit would have been a group of universities against another group of universities, and it vanished with the expansion of the system from four to five games. There is no lawsuit currently sitting somewhere waiting to be filed against the BCS.
And since every conference commissioner is in on the BCS talks, no changes go through without everyone signing off on them. Therefore, there would be no lawsuit in the event of the end of auto bids.
3. The lower divisions of football hold playoffs during exams with no problems, and there are already bowls over the winter holidays. But as I said, 24 teams is too many.
2. They don't always line up the teams in the order of who is best. The NCAA basketball selection committee routinely overseeds and underseeds teams. Guaranteed top spots for division winners in pro sports give you situations where lower seeded teams have better records than higher seeded teams.
1. Using a mix of opinion polls and computer polls to select the 6 to 8 teams is fine. Or, make a selection committee like basketball has. The point is that having a pool of contestants larger than two is more fair because of imbalanced schedules. Once you get to about 9 in the rankings, you already have a duplicate or two from the best conferences, and the right to complain that the #9 team has is extremely small in comparison to what #3 has in the current system.
We will never see 9 undefeated teams, and in the vast majority of seasons the number of zero- and one-loss teams doesn't even add up to 8 without going into mid-majors who never played anyone of note. That is why 8 is an acceptable cutoff point, but 16 is too many.
from about 1 month ago
Dave, I'm not arguing whether or not an expanded playoff is a better way to choose a national champion. Obviously, it is.
You admit that a 24 team playoff is a bad idea. I assume that means you want to preserve, as I do, the dramatically increased relevance of the regular season games in college football as opposed to other sports.
You think you can have your cake and eat it too: a great regular season and a less disputed national champion. I don't. I'm willing to accept an occasional cloudy and dissatifying conclusion to the season in exchange for 13 weeks of playoff atmosphere football.
Our argument basically comes down to whether or not a mini playoff will be forced to expand to 24 teams.
I have presented to you the example of college basketball, which started with an 8 team playoff and now has 65 teams. I have also presented the example of 1-AA football which started with a 4 team and next year will have a 20 team. I have also presented numerous specific examples of why this pressure exists.
The same arguments you are making now to include teams 3-8 in the playoff are the same arguments teams no. 9-16 will be making when there is an 8 team playoff. Unlike basketball, it won't be tiny colleges ranked no 66 and 70 trying to get in. No, it will be large, rich influential programs like Georgia, Ohio State or whatever perennial power was unlucky enough to lose 2 games that year. You don't think their college presidents will break ranks and lobby for an expanded playoff? You don't think their alumni and media power bases won't activate to expand the system? That's exactly how basketball got to 65 teams. Even 1-AA football, where there is virtually no money or prestige on the line, can't stop expansion.
Sorry, but this is an fundamentally clear and obvious destiny of a 8 team playoff system. I am stunned that you are in such deep denial about it.
about 1 month ago
Very well thought out article! Enjoyed reading although I was disagreeing the whole way!
from about 1 month ago
Thanks a lot, Adam. Keep reading, I will bring you around to my point of view!!! haha
1) Think about all the huge games we've had this year. There wouldn't a fraction of the interest if there was a 24 team playoff.
2) Everyone wants the immediate gratification of seeing the top 4 or 8 play off at the end. But let's not be children. We adults have to consider the the law of unintended consequences, which is that a 4 or 8 team will lead directly to a 24 team playoff. That means we are throwing the baby (13 weeks of playoff atmosphere football) out with the bathwater (some controversy about who is most deserving at the end of the season)
about 1 month ago
I kind of view the Bowl Champion Series as the promised land for teams, more so than the National Championship Game itself. The games are well televised, against elite teams and have an excellent payout, regardless of which teams are matched.
But, I do feel as if some teams limp into the BCS. Illinois into the Rose Bowl? How about two playoff games played on Championship Saturday to determine two of those at-large spots?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/78116-college-football-already-has-a-playoff-and-no-its-not-the-regular-season
Georgia vs. Illinois
Kansas vs. Arizona State
Its a playoff that doesn't whittle down a bloc of teams into a champion, but it does put greater emphasis on winning/earning a trip into the BCS rather than on relying on Bowls and Polls to vote you in.
from about 1 month ago
Good point, Crayton. The conference tie ins for the BCS bowls don't seem to make much sense. But since they are basically exhibition games, I don't get to jacked up about the issue. Some teams catch a tough break on that every year, that's for sure.
Did you know that prior to 1966, both final polls were released at the end of the regular season. The National Champion was declared a month before the bowls. Nobody considered the bowl results meaningful because of the one month layoff.
I agree. I would like to see them move the NC game to early December. Then maybe the bowls could go back to what they were intended to be. Just fun games.
about 1 month ago
Eliminate the term "BCS Conference". Eliminate conference championship games. Hell, even eliminate mandatory conference scheduling. Then take top 8 (or 6 IMO) BCS rated teams into a playoff. Problems solved.
from 3 days ago
Conference championship games make conference play more exciting. You get rid of conference play, it gets rid of the one true competition for all conferences, and the make-believe National Title for mid-major conferences that do have a conference game (C-USA and MAC).
I'm just tired of all these BCS conferences, because outside of the Big 12 and the SEC, they are a big joke. MWC compares with each and every one of them.
3 days ago
First of all. ACC, Big East, PAC-10 and Big Ten all have auto-berths, yet the MWC does not. Explain that one, I don't get it.
Second of all here are all undefeated teams who did not either get a BCS bowl or a share of the national title while going undefeated:
Tulane - 1998
Marshall - 1999
Utah - 2004
Boise State - 2006
Utah - 2008
So you see, you go undefeated and have no shot, what is the point of the playing the season? Hey guys, if we go undefeated and even beat a storied program like Alabama or Oklahoma, we aren't even considered for the Championship. Woo! Now that's competition!
Sure, it's unique, but things are kicked out for a reason, especially in capitalism. A 32-team playoff would be the best thing possible, and it could just start the next week after the final week of the season.
The BCS is much better than the previous system, as noted by Mack Brown, but Iraq is a better country today than it was five years ago, doesn't make it a good country. BCS isn't good either, while Hawaii did not win their BCS contest, they were 12-0, and they got 1 (ONE!) first place vote. LSU had 2 losses and Ohio State lost to who.. Illinois?
Yeah.. makes a whole lot of sense.
from 3 days ago
Mark, if I was a fan of a non-BCS conference team, I would want a 32 team playoff also.
I enjoy 13 weeks of games that are do or die. I don't want to give that up for 3 weeks of playoffs and an undisputed champion, even if it is more fair to the non-BCS teams.
NCAA basketball ruined their regular season for that reason. They have been seeding 64 teams now for 30 years and still the lowest seed to win it all was 8th seeded Villanova in 84. That means that half of the teams that are allowed into the tournament have absolutely no chance of winning.
Uh, that's communism. Why not just everybody a trophy regardless of ability?
I would rather see Utah join the Pac 10 than ruin the sport by creating a mega playoff.
3 days ago
Lou I appreciate your article, though even as I sit here reading it, I am already hearing the SEC apologists explaining away Utah's dismantling of Bama last night. For the life of me I can't understand what more a team like Utah can do to get a shot at a title match other than a playoff system. They can't win for winning. I mean honestly, as a Utah alum, it boggles my mind to hear the arrogance of the SEC fans even after a thorough beat down in all phases of the game. They cannot, for the life of them, admit that they might just have been beaten by a better team. The excuses are laughable. If I honestly thought there was any chance a team like Utah could EVER get a shot at the title I would not be so apposed to the BCS, but the reality is, it is a system designed to create intriguing matchups, not necessarily deserving matchups, and the average fan knows nothing about Utah, thinks they play Hawaii ball, and doesn't want to see them in the title game. Most people were shocked to see how well they matched up physically with Bama, but they need to realize, Utah has an entire secondary that runs 4.3 - 4.4 40s and a D-Line that showed its speed. They can go toe-to-toe with ANYONE! including BAMA, Florida, and all the rest of the untouchable SEC.
I realize I sound like a homer, which I am, and a blind advocate for the little guy, which I'm not, but I do believe that if you look over their resume for the last five years, Utah has answered every criticism levied against non-BCS schools and is the real deal. How many times must they prove themselves before the system makes a place for them? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening and to me that is the definition of corruption at its finest. Below are a list of Utah's accomplishments over the past couple of years for all to consider. Good article, keep on writing man.
THE ONLY UNDEFEATED TEAM IN 2009
two wins over top-ten opponents
four wins over ranked opponents
14-game current winning streak (longest in the nation)
8-game current bowl winning streak, including two BCS games (longest in the nation)
Has won 21 of last 22 games dating back to last season.
2 undefeated seasons in the last five years (best in the nation)
2 BCS bowl victories in 5 years (equaling the total BCS victories of the ACC since its inception)
Best record of any non-BCS team vs BCS conferences since the inception of the BCS ten years ago.
from 3 days ago
Spencer,
I'm an SEC fan and I was very impressed with Utah's performance. While I don't think they would have gone undefeated in the SEC, they might have, and they certainly would have been competitive.
Unfortunately, the only way to be fair to the non-BCS teams is to have a 24 or 32 team mega-playoff, with all 11 conference champs plus enough additional wild cards to make sure a BYU or a TCU doesn't get pushed out by a Troy or Buffalo.
If I was you, I would be heavily in favor of that.
I'm not, because selfishly I want to keep what I think is the best thing about college football - the do or die regular season. I would rather see a Utah or Hawaii brought into the Pac 10. Just my point of view.
2 days ago
Lou,
I agree that Utah very likely would not have gone undefeated in the SEC, that really is a tough task for any team. But I disagree with your claim that an 8-team playoff would quickly turn into a 24 or 32 team playoff. I don't think anyone wants a watered down playoff system, even the "small-frys."
The reason a 64 team tournament is necessary for basketball is due in large part to the nature of the game, which is unique to basketball. There are, what, like 300-400 D-I teams in basketball now, unlike football. You need that many teams to make it fair. I think you can satisfy everyone in football with as few as 8, but certainly with 16.
Also, with only 5 guys on the court at a time, you can see how a small program like Gonzaga could make a splash by snagging up just a couple of good recruits. It is much more conducive towards Cinderella programs than is football.
Anyway, I believe that, with an eight team playoff, you can strike a balance between creating a fair and open system for all, and maintaining the excitement currently found in college football (See my other article for details). If you think about it, 8 teams would be two less than the current system allows, making it even more difficult to get in. Wouldn't you think that would help maintain the importance of the regular season? In my system, you would essentially need to win your conference to get in, making every week important.
The biggest reason I don't support a 32, 24, or even a 16 team playoff is that it really does turn into socialism and nobody wants that. What the smaller conferences want is equal access, not equal representation. If you stick with 8 teams and just open up the six auto bids each year to the top six conferences, whoever they may be that year, you create a free market where all the conferences can fight for those auto bids. Let the best teams win. I guarantee the smaller conferences would go for that.
write a new comment