Is the playoff system potentially wrecking college football?

[ClockworkOrange]

I used to clamor for a playoff. I wanted to see the best play the best every year. Four seemed like a good number, because in the old system(s) it always seemed like maybe one or -- at the most -- two teams would be left out from a crack at no. 1.

I don't think that anymore. Maybe it's because the playoff has coincided with the era of the "Saban effect," but things have seriously changed. Aside from a few fun matchups here and there, the bowls on the outside looking in no longer really matter. This leads to players opting out or seemingly not giving much of a damn. I know, it's still supposed to be a reward for a "successful" season. A chance to get extra reps, etc. But it just doesn't feel the same.

There have always been "haves" and "have nots" in college football. The "haves" usually totaled maybe 20 or 30 teams out of 130 every year with a few interchangeable slots -- say any team that had a reasonable shot that year of cracking the top ten or at least competing against the big boys. Now the "haves" seem to have been whittled down to maybe around 6 teams each year -- the ones that have a legit shot of making the playoffs. And usually a couple of those aren't the real powerhouses -- they played a weak schedule, rose to the top in a down conference, etc. Meanwhile the few at the very top get fatter and fatter, and the playoffs look like NFL games compared to the rest of college ball with little ever changing with respect to opponents. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: for these teams recruiting gets more and more top-heavy with frontrunners, loading up like Bama with pro talent all over the field or sucking up all the oxygen with respect to garnering absolute game changers (usually generational QBs or monsters on the DL, etc).

Yes, they could expand it to 8 or even 16, but I'm not so sure that is a good idea either. These days I kinda miss the old bowl-and-vote system, or, heck, even the BCS. Thoughts?

 

[vols 30]

Expand it or kill it, because 4 isn't working

Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, and random team with no chance

Seems like it's this set up every year.

 

[TJVol95]

Just because we suck?

 

[Cosmo]

I always felt that 4 was too small of a field. I think 8 would really help the system. I’d love to see the “have nots” get a shot.

 

[FBtime]

Absolutely disagree. The bowl games that were meaningful before are meaningful now. Which is generally to the fans/players of the two teams involved. There were a few big time match ups before and now we are guaranteed big time matchups thanks to the playoffs. People acted like everyone cared so much about all the bowl games before the playoffs. Really? Who was watching the Poulan weedeater bowl (or ANY other bowl) before that stopped watching after the playoffs started?

 

[TheDeeble]

Aside from a few fun matchups here and there, the bowls on the outside looking in no longer really matter. This leads to players opting out or seemingly not giving much of a damn.

The bowls have never mattered any more than they do now. Even in the traditional format before the BCS, there was only one, maybe two games that held implications for a NC. And that's if #1-#2 weren't matched up.

 

[Boca Vol]

The BCS essentially started this. It rendered all bowl games "meaningless" with the 1 vs. 2 for the national title. I say "meaningless" in terms of the national title. There were/ are still some very good match-ups year -n and year-out with the conference tie-ins.

Add to it the new popularity of players sitting out bowl games and it further hurts the bowl season. At least now with the playoffs we have 3 games that mean something.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Expand it or kill it, because 4 isn't working

Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, and random team with no chance

Seems like it's this set up every year.

If #4 "random team with no chance" is the problem, how will expanding the playoffs to #5, #6, #7, and #8 random teams with no chance help? I don't see what good that does other than simply giving us more football games to watch. The whole point of the playoffs is to get the best two teams in the country playing each other for the national championship and I think for the most part, it has succeeded in doing that. I think what you are actually getting at here is the frustration of seeing the same 3 or 4 programs winning it all year in and year out.

If the NCAA truly cared about parity in college football and wanted to break up the monotony of seeing the same perennial powerhouses in the playoffs every year, they would adopt some kind of NFL approach to try and "de-centivize" dominant programs from monopolizing the sport. How? Hell I don't know. Treat it like the NFL draft only instead of drafting players, the teams that finish the highest get a certain reduction of available scholarships for the next incoming signing class? Pass a rule where the top teams have to play a specific strength of schedule the following year? I don't know. None of this will ever happen. I'm just saying if you are truly tired of seeing the same teams win every year, simply expanding the playoff field doesn't really fix that. FCS has a much larger playoff but North Dakota State still dominates it.

 

[Volbrando]

Expand it or do away with it. Go to 8 or 10

 

[Notorious B.E.N]

Expand it or kill it, because 4 isn't working

Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, and random team with no chance

Seems like it's this set up every year.

So by killing it you'd prefer 2 of Bama/Clemson/OSU every year?

 

[Odiodin]

Kids want to play for teams with a shot at the playoff. There are 3 teams that you know will always be in it, and it shows in recruiting.

Then you add that those schools are getting extra games, extra practices, more opportunities.

The gap will continue to widen.

But honestly, it isn’t even the biggest problem with college football right now, and our Vols have a completely different set of problems unfortunately.

 

[TartanTurff]

The playoff breathed new life into the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl, much like the BCS put a bunch of money into the operation of the Fiesta Bowl in the late 90s,

Expansion of the playoff probably wouldn't add any venues to the mix other than possibly the Rams and Chargers new stadium in Inglewood

But a lot of bowls have been reduced in relevance and financial health, further complicated by the reduced TV money flowing out of the ESPN faucet, going forward a number of schools and players will simply take a pass as there is no financial or exposure upside to playing in Memphis, Charlotte, Birmingham, Shreveport, or Montgomery

 

[golfballs]

Doesnt really matter. They all have their pros and cons. In terms of deciding a national champion, this is probably the best format, but I wouldn’t expand the field. The best team is almost certainly going to come from one of the top 4.

 

[chad954ut]

It has already wrecked it.

 

[peerless98]

I always felt that 4 was too small of a field. I think 8 would really help the system. I’d love to see the “have nots” get a shot.

That would likely end up with several blowouts in the first round leading to the same end result. IMO, a larger playoff would diminish the regular season unless strict guidelines were put in place.

 

[rocytop2624]

This year Texas a&m should have played Cincinnati winner get in and then you have Oklahoma play Florida winner gets in then it would be

Alabubba
Clemson
Ohio State
ND
Texas A&m or Cincy
Oklahoma or FL

 

[volmoon]

I used to clamor for a playoff. I wanted to see the best play the best every year. Four seemed like a good number, because in the old system(s) it always seemed like maybe one or -- at the most -- two teams would be left out from a crack at no. 1.

I don't think that anymore. Maybe it's because the playoff has coincided with the era of the "Saban effect," but things have seriously changed. Aside from a few fun matchups here and there, the bowls on the outside looking in no longer really matter. This leads to players opting out or seemingly not giving much of a damn. I know, it's still supposed to be a reward for a "successful" season. A chance to get extra reps, etc. But it just doesn't feel the same.

There have always been "haves" and "have nots" in college football. The "haves" usually totaled maybe 20 or 30 teams out of 130 every year with a few interchangeable slots -- say any team that had a reasonable shot that year of cracking the top ten or at least competing against the big boys. Now the "haves" seem to have been whittled down to maybe around 6 teams each year -- the ones that have a legit shot of making the playoffs. And usually a couple of those aren't the real powerhouses -- they played a weak schedule, rose to the top in a down conference, etc. Meanwhile the few at the very top get fatter and fatter, and the playoffs look like NFL games compared to the rest of college ball with little ever changing with respect to opponents. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: for these teams recruiting gets more and more top-heavy with frontrunners, loading up like Bama with pro talent all over the field or sucking up all the oxygen with respect to garnering absolute game changers (usually generational QBs or monsters on the DL, etc).

Yes, they could expand it to 8 or even 16, but I'm not so sure that is a good idea either. These days I kinda miss the old bowl-and-vote system, or, heck, even the BCS. Thoughts?

Insightful evaluation.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

I wish there were eight slots so they could let the annual undefeated non P5 school in. After a few years of seeing them get their butts stomped, maybe people would stop whining about them being treated unfairly.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I wish there were eight slots so they could let the annual undefeated non P5 school in. After a few years of seeing them get their butts stomped, maybe people would stop whining about them being treated unfairly.

Exactly. Nobody wants to see Alabama VS Liberty.

 

[peerless98]

This year Texas a&m should have played Cincinnati winner get in and then you have Oklahoma play Florida winner gets in then it would be

Alabubba
Clemson
Ohio State
ND
Texas A&m or Cincy
Oklahoma or FL

That would create a problem as well. We would have 3 teams left after the first round.

 

[Chitlin&theDude]

There's no parity in college. We all knew at least 3/4 teams in playoffs. Same teams every year- AL, Clem, +OSU, +OK, add a ND, Sec team here and there. Same thing next year. Boring

 

[Brave Volunteer]

There's no parody in college. We all knew at least 3/4 teams in playoffs. Same teams every year- AL, Clem, +OSU, +OK, add a ND, Sec team here and there. Same thing next year. Boring

Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State

Every...damn... year. And then beyond those 3 you have a revolving door at the #4 spot of Oklahoma, LSU, and Notre Dame. Georgia might sneak in there once in a while as well. Every other college program in the country is fighting for the table scraps.

 

[N.ohio vol]

Clemson and ohio state are in nobody conferences. So you know them two will be in it at the end of year. So half your playoff teams are decided before season even really starts. If we were in that elite level we'd have to play bama 3 times just to win title..

 

[London Vol]

It should be 8 teams, Each Power 5 conference winner +Group 5 winner and 2 wild card choices (in case one conference has a couple of great teams).

This way the conference championships are meaningful games and if for instance, if Florida beat Alabama this year then Alabama could still be one of the two wild cards.

Even the Pac 12 would become relevant and recruiting would be spread more thinly.

Not a fan of a Group 5 team with its "soft" schedule qualifying but at least we will find out once and for all whether they are really one of the best 8 teams.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I used to clamor for a playoff. I wanted to see the best play the best every year. Four seemed like a good number, because in the old system(s) it always seemed like maybe one or -- at the most -- two teams would be left out from a crack at no. 1.

I don't think that anymore. Maybe it's because the playoff has coincided with the era of the "Saban effect," but things have seriously changed. Aside from a few fun matchups here and there, the bowls on the outside looking in no longer really matter. This leads to players opting out or seemingly not giving much of a damn. I know, it's still supposed to be a reward for a "successful" season. A chance to get extra reps, etc. But it just doesn't feel the same.

There have always been "haves" and "have nots" in college football. The "haves" usually totaled maybe 20 or 30 teams out of 130 every year with a few interchangeable slots -- say any team that had a reasonable shot that year of cracking the top ten or at least competing against the big boys. Now the "haves" seem to have been whittled down to maybe around 6 teams each year -- the ones that have a legit shot of making the playoffs. And usually a couple of those aren't the real powerhouses -- they played a weak schedule, rose to the top in a down conference, etc. Meanwhile the few at the very top get fatter and fatter, and the playoffs look like NFL games compared to the rest of college ball with little ever changing with respect to opponents. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: for these teams recruiting gets more and more top-heavy with frontrunners, loading up like Bama with pro talent all over the field or sucking up all the oxygen with respect to garnering absolute game changers (usually generational QBs or monsters on the DL, etc).

Yes, they could expand it to 8 or even 16, but I'm not so sure that is a good idea either. These days I kinda miss the old bowl-and-vote system, or, heck, even the BCS. Thoughts?

I think you're right, Clockwork.

We gained some clarity with the creation of the BCS and then CFP. But we lost some mystery, controversy and fun.

There always seem to be one or two coaches who are able to hold it together at the top of the sport over a long time span. Bobby Bowden at FSU (dominant from '87 to '00, with national titles in '93 and '99) ... Paterno at Penn State (dominant '68 to '86, with national crowns in '82 and '86) ... our own Robert Neyland and the Vols (dominant from '26 to '52, with titles in '38, '40, '50 and '51) ... and Bear Bryant (dominant '62 to '81, with titles in '64, '65, '73, and '78). Today, it's Saban. And maybe Swinney, time will tell.

So there are usually one or two guys who are pushing a decade+ run of excellence. They're always in that national discussion.

But in the old days, we could look beyond them at who ELSE is really good, and maybe--who knows, maybe--is actually even better than the dynastic leader of the time.

In other words, there was wiggle room. Room for discussion, and disagreement. Room for two, or three, or even five or six teams to all believe they're actually the cat's meow.

The playoffs, while giving us proof of who was right, took away all that wiggle room. It reduced several happy teams down to just one.

Billy Beane of the Oakland Athletics reportedly used to say that the only game that matters is the last one of the season. If you don't win the last game, you really haven't won anything.

I don't necessarily agree with that, 100%, but by that metric now, only one team gets to win anything in college football. Everyone else ends the season a loser. 97% because they didn't even get into the playoffs, and three finalists because they lost the last game of their season.

So the BCS and CFP gave us something, and they took something away. I could go with your argument that what we lost might be as big as what we gained.

Thanks for starting this thoughtful thread. It's interesting to consider.