Poll: should college football have a playoff?

On the one hand, the current system pretty much stinks: rough estimate a perfectly deserving team is left stranded at 3rd in the polls, often undefeated, while two other teams play for the whole shebang, around half the time. On the other hand, given the scheduling limitations and the balkanized nature of the I-A conferences, I understand that nobody wants to lessen the importance of the “regular season.” I think a 4 team playoff will solve most of the dilemmas; only 1 extra game for the two who get in the finals, you can barely afford to screw up before January rolls around, and just about every truly deserving team will get their shot. If a crappy 4th team makes it and scores an upset, well I still think that’s better than what we have now.

Poll is public.

They get to tout 34 games and make it last for 2 weeks. It is a cash cow they will never let go of. Besides it is rare to actually have a national champ without a lot of people bitching. Cinci and Boise made a lot of noise for pretenders.

Even though I voted no, there is a playoff in Div I CFB. It just happens to be only two teams.

There should just be bowl games, like in the good old days. And the final bowl game of the season (not counting all-star bowls) would be the Orange Bowl on New Year’s night.

I hate the idea of a playoff. College football is one sport where the regular season rivalries are the main attraction. I’d say most fans can’t name the last ten national champions off the top of their head, but they can say who won their team’s rivalry game each of those years.

Where would the playoff games be played? Neutral site? If you think the attendance was bad at the other BCS bowls, think how bad attendance would be at a quarter final match up. If you play them at one of the school’s home field, you’re still looking at the possibility of low attendance if it is at a school which has a strong student fan base as the students will be gone. Also, the weather really starts to turn in most of the country as you move into late December. Snow games should be a novelty, not a yearly occurrence.

I think they should go back to the old system. If there’s a split national championship, well, who cares? That just means we get to argue about it. People generally don’t have a proper appreciation for ambiguity.

That said, I think a 4-team playoff would be superior to the current 2-team playoff.

Students first, athletes second.

I’d like to see a system where if you win your conference you’re in. 6 12 Team BCS conferences with a championship game each (which in essence adds a playoff round w/out really calling it that). 4 10 team ‘Minor Conferences’ - their champions play each other to get in. Thats 112 teams that have a shot at the national title.

First round is Orange, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta Bowls. You can seed teams, keep traditional conference matchups, or rotate conf matchups. Next round is 2 bowl games (these would be the only additional games added under this system). Championship game in the new Texas stadium (or you could rotate it).

I imagine they’d just use the current bowl structure for the playoff games.

I don’t think anyone thought the BCS games had bad attendance.

Nat’l Champ Game: 94,906 (capacity per wiki: 92,542)
Rose Bowl: 93,963 (capacity per wiki: 92,542)
Sugar Bowl: 65,207 (capacity per wiki: 72,968)
Fiesta Bowl: 73,227 (capacity per wiki: 72,200)
Orange Bowl: 66,131 (capacity per wiki: 76,500)

I’ve been resistant to a playoff system, but this argument doesn’t make a lick of sense. Adding 1-2 games to the schedule takes no appreciative tax on the student-aspect of a person’s life. Just ask a participant in any other NCAA sport.

A large percentage of athletes are there to showcase their talents to the pros. School is incidental and an annoyance. A football player risks injury and killing a big payday. More games would not be welcomed.

Yeah - what a terrible showcase a nationally televised playoff game would be. I can hear the uproar over the brighter spotlight in my head as we speak…

I’m generally not much of one to follow CFB, but I do take some interest in the Bowls. I think the BCS, as it stands, really doesn’t answer the question. I think it ended up working out this year since Alabama beat both Texas and Florida who were the only other real legitimate contenders, and though Boise State is also undefeated, I’ve heard that even they didn’t think they deserved a share of the title.

However, in a number of other years, there’s been 3 or 4 contenders, often all with undeafeted records, and if they match up 1-2 and it’s a blow out, there’s a lot of discussion about how the team that got blown out didn’t belong there and why one of the other teams deserved to be there.

I think a 4 team play-off pretty much fixes the problem with the fewest downsides. It should still has some hype surrounding it, much like final four for basketball, where having an extra round or two with 8 or 16 teams would be less interesting. In general, there just isn’t a lot of discussion about more than 3-4 teams legitimately deserving a shot at the national title, so I don’t see the point in having more than 4; the rare occassion of a 5th team getting snubbed is better than the regular occasion of the 3rd team getting snubbed. Yes, there’s a chance that an “undeserving” 4th team could score an upset over the #1 team, but really, that just means to me that the 1st seed probably didn’t deserve to be ranked first.

All they’d have to do to make this work is make sure that the two play-off games are played earlier than the normal BCS games to make sure that the teams have enough rest and preparation time. I think 2 weeks of time should be adequate.

I’d be happy with a reversion to the Good Old Days of traditional bowls, AP polls, and who gives a damn if there’s a disputed champion.

So of all the proposals I’ve heard to fix the BCS, the one I like the most is the “Plus One”. Play the traditional bowls, take another poll, and post-bowl #1 plays post-bowl #2.

I put that down as the “you forgot X” option.

I love the idea proposed by Dan Wetzel. Sixteen teams, automatic berth for conference winners and five at large berths selected by a selection committee. I would love to see something like that implemented. You can even keep the Bowls, which would serve as a NIT to the Playoffs.

Right now you are rewarded for what your conference was like 20 years ago. If you are in a premier league, you are rewarded for for playing teams like Charleston Southern. In a “mid-major” league even if you book Oklahoma and Florida State you are assumed to have a weak schedule, because New Mexico is in your conference. But for some reason Vanderbilt doesn’t count against the SEC. Name teams schedule 7-8 home games vs 4-5 on the road. The whole system kills tradition by forcing potential national championship teams, to stack their decks. Old rivalry games are forgotten and abandoned, so another Pioneer league team can be put on the schedule.

I’m not sure I could design a less equable, less interesting championship system than the BCS. And in order to “enjoy” the benefits of this system, the NCAA allows the third party bowls to pocket hundreds of millions of money that could being going directly to the NCAA schools. The whole system stinks, and should be dismantled… bring on the playoffs.

And I don’t think the student athlete argument holds any water. Football players have their studies interrupted vastly less than say basketball players. Adding a few games still wouldn’t be as much of a disruption than the BB players already have. The injury issue is a concern, but if the high school leagues, the lower college divisions, and the pros can all handle it, I’m sure the SEC teams can as well.

The old days are better than the BCS, but still leaves a fundamental problem. College football is the only major sport in which there are teams that cannot win the championship no matter how good they are. No performance by the players of Boise will get you a title.

I would love to see an 8 team playoff. I think with 8 teams you are going to be sure to include any undefeateds and still have a handful of powerhouse one loss teams (I don’t think a one-loss TCU or Boise would make it given their conference and out of conference opponents). You don’t make the 8, tough. This would require 7 games, over three weeks and therefore fit within the existing bowl schedule. I would propose taking the four BCS bowls and rotating them between national championship (no more “BCS Championship Bowl”) and semi-final with on as a first round game (perhaps the number 4, number 5 matchup). For the other three bowls, I would revive once great bowls (pick form the Cotton, Peach, Gator, Citrus). There would still be other non-tournament bowls, but less, if any, .500 teams in them. Had that happened this year, it would have looked like this

Round One:
Bama v. Ohio State
TCU v. Boise State (we know how that one ends)
Texas v. Oregon
Cinci v. UF (we know how that one ends, too)

Projected Round Two:
Bama v. Boise State (you want legitimacy Boise?)
Texas v. UF

Projected Final:
Bama v. UF or Texas

Who gets left out? Ga. Tech and Iowa - no great loss

This year that would result in a Bama/Texas rematch

If the super-conferences did away with conference championship games, we might well have had a Bama/Florida NCG, which would make the SEC fans wet their pants.

No, this year would have resulted in voters naming a different team #2 in order to set up the final match. Or to be more accurate, this year would have first seen Alabama v. TCU and Texas v. Cincinnati, the winners of that being voted #1 and #2, then matched up.