Is the playoff system potentially wrecking college football?

[VolsSportsFan]

Controversy about is Nebraska or Michigan the true national champion can be fun. Controversy about bubble teams is never fun and always annoying. Do you not see the difference.

Then people need to stop using the bubble team excuse as a reason for not expanding the playoffs.

As far as the discussion on who the "true" national champion is, maybe it's fun to you but to apparently a whole lot more people it was silly. When I was 6-7 and I asked my dad about why I didn't hear about a playoff and he expalined how Division IA decided their national champion, 6-7 year old me's response? "Well that's pretty stupid".

Also lol at the bold....again....to you maybe...to many others it is.

 

[Roustabout]

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?

It’s diminished the game. Too many bowls. Too much emphasis on NC. Coaches making too much money.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Need to return to the pre-BCS system of deciding national champs. You know, AP, UP, USA, and Coache's polls. This ensures annual controversy and heightened interest from all involved.

Or, as @Orangeslice13 has advocated numerous times, begin the playoffs with the CCGs and remove any type of selection committee. IMO, this would ensure all conferences get a seat at the table and a return of interest and purity to the game.

GIT'R DONE!

Lol....that's what lead to this. You go back to that and you're catering to the old school who liked that crap, who are also dying out. A good chunk of the college football fanbase never knew that "system" and if you went back to that you'd have a likely majority of the fanbase saying how stupid it was.

If for some stupid reason they did go back to the old "system", they might as well just end the concept of a national champion. Because there wouldn't really be one.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

More than I do now for sure. Again I’m not sure why people that never cared think they would be able to judge this effect.

I'm going to bet you actually didn't, but because it helps your argument at the moment. I've been watching college football for 40 years and in that time have interacted with probably hundreds of people. You know what I never heard from anyone in years that Tennessee wasn't in the Gator Bowl? "Man I can't wait to watch the Gator Bowl!"

 

[clau1997]

I read an article recently that provided a fascinating fact: over the course of the 4-game College Football Playoff, the semi-final games have rarely been close. The average score difference is 21 points.

And you might think, sure, that's because #1 pummels #4 every year. But the score difference is GREATER in the #2 vs #3 game. It's 24 points on average.

Even more fascinating, though, is that the #3 or #4 team was, a third of the time, the one who pummeled the other team. Four of the twelve semi-final games since 2014 went to the underdog. Granted, when the underdog won, the score differential was usually smaller than the average. Still.

I found that hugely interesting.

I mean it’s not a coincidence that in the six year period you are describing Alabama was a 1 or 4 seed four of those times. The narrow margin in 1 vs 4 semifinal is almost entirely an artifact of Alabama having been a late adopter of the spread offense and as such less likely to blow teams out. The two biggest margins in 1 vs 4 games occurred in games where Alabama was not playing. Indeed the second biggest margin overall in any semi final game was LSU’s win last year. And Clemson OU wasn’t close either.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I mean it’s not a coincidence that in the six year period you are describing Alabama was a 1 or 4 seed four of those times. The narrow margin in 1 vs 4 semifinal is almost entirely an artifact of Alabama having been a late adopter of the spread offense and as such less likely to blow teams out. The two biggest margins in 1 vs 4 games occurred in games where Alabama was not playing. Indeed the second biggest margin overall in any semi final game was LSU’s win last year. And Clemson OU wasn’t close either.

Yeah, it's fun to look into some of the more detailed dynamics of that factoid. There's some fascinating stuff there. And Bama's relatively stodgy offense is certainly a part of the equation.

 

[clau1997]

Then people need to stop using the bubble team excuse as a reason for not expanding the playoffs.

As far as the discussion on who the "true" national champion is, maybe it's fun to you but to apparently a whole lot more people it was silly. When I was 6-7 and I asked my dad about why I didn't hear about a playoff and he expalined how Division IA decided their national champion, 6-7 year old me's response? "Well that's pretty stupid".

Also lol at the bold....again....to you maybe...to many others it is.

Maybe during the Cuban missile crisis there were eight teams that could be considered plausible National champions. Not there aren’t even 4 and most years aren’t even two. Why on earth would you expand the pool if the quality of the applicants is already thread bare. My AM Princeton is still admitting as many people as it did 25 years ago despite 10 times the applications- that’s why people still really want to go to Princeton.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Maybe during the Cuban missile crisis there were eight teams that could be considered plausible National champions. Not there aren’t even 4 and most years aren’t even two. Why on earth would you expand the pool if the quality of the applicants is already thread bare. My AM Princeton is still admitting as many people as it did 25 years ago despite 10 times the applications- that’s why people still really want to go to Princeton.

Why do you care if they expand the playoff if you're so certain the new games will be blowouts? Why does it matter if they are? Does it somehow affect your life that an extra round of playoff is played and they aren't close? By that logic Tennessee should just forfeit against Alabama every season for the near future because we have and likely will for a while get our ass kicked.

 

[mercuryvol]

Sounds like you seriously need to stop watching then old man yelling at the clouds.

And the bold.....lol sounds like you care more about how it made you feel than whether it was actually a good way of doing things. It's quite hilarous to me to watch people, suddenly when it comes to college football (their holy grail) that they stop caring about making money, capitalism, and determining a real champion.

I'm sorry but the idea that instead of actually putting in a system of determining who is best you'd rather just let everyone have a say and argue and debate about it is seriously one of the most "participation trophy" things I've ever seen.

Well, I won’t see it but 66 is right. College football, except at small college level, is now nothing but a feeder system for the NFL and its own degeneration. JMO.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Maybe during the Cuban missile crisis there were eight teams that could be considered plausible National champions. Not there aren’t even 4 and most years aren’t even two. Why on earth would you expand the pool if the quality of the applicants is already thread bare. My AM Princeton is still admitting as many people as it did 25 years ago despite 10 times the applications- that’s why people still really want to go to Princeton.

Princeton received 13,400 applications in 1997.* Twenty-two years later, in 2019, 27,290 applications came in. That is an impressive increase, a little more than double, but it's not "10 times" as many.

Perhaps you meant to say "60 years ago." That would make the claim of a ten-fold increase more accurate, based on this chart:



* I went with 1997 rather than 1994 because a quick google search revealed the one but not the other. The chart included here shows there's not going to be a huge difference over those three years.


p.s. Saying that a high number of applicants compared to acceptances is "why people still want to go to Princeton," is incorrect. It's proof that people still want to go to Princeton, but does nothing to explain why.

 

[Firebirdparts]

I’m impressed with this thread. You guys actually figured it out. People hated the “mystery” of the old world where you didn’t know who was the best team. But now you miss it.

expanding the playoffs will just create more bad games, and occasionally the “wrong” team will knock I somebody out. Not really that great. Maybe someday there will be more parity and it’ll be a better time for that.

 

[GOVOLS 1]

It must be nice to be like Alabama, being able to compete for a National Championship year after year, after year, after year.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I’m impressed with this thread. You guys actually figured it out. People hated the “mystery” of the old world where you didn’t know who was the best team. But now you miss it.

expanding the playoffs will just create more bad games, and occasionally the “wrong” team will knock I somebody out. Not really that great. Maybe someday there will be more parity and it’ll be a better time for that.

Maybe, and yeah right now probably. But I'd rather have it than not. If I had the choice between a 10-2 Tennessee team getting an #8 seed and getting blitzed by the #1 seed in the playoffs vs. winning the Citrus Bowl over a mid-tier B10 team I'm taking the playoff blitzing every time. Just as in basketball I'd take an NCAAT First Round loss of 50 over winning the NIT.

I find it odd that many seem so against an extra round of playoffs because of bad games, but for some reason it's only because it's a playoff game. Have the same people been mad the past 15 years because an extra regular season game was added that is esstentially a creampuff game that just pads the wins? Are they mad that bowl games have doubled in the past 25-30 years? If yes then at least they are consistent, but I've seen plenty have the argument of "hey more football, don't complain." Which I agree with, but for some reason when it's adding a playoff round people are breaking into hives about maybe not having a great round of playoff games.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It must be nice to be like Alabama, being able to compete for a National Championship year after year, after year, after year.

Which this is the part I'm not getting. Those saying to go back to the BCS or the pre-BCS setup, the last 5-6 years would have been no different. It still would have been primarily Alabama/Clemson/Ohio St.. Hell in the old system, none of them would have played each other. Then when Alabama is awarded the NC, the same people would be spittin' mad that they didn't deserve it and a OSU/Clemson "woulda beat 'em!"

Which should tell them the problem isn't the playoff.

 

[GreveHaller]

you can cry all you want about too many bowls but make no mistake about it, bowls are about one thing. Its not match ups, not schools, not players. Its about money for cities. You can call that bowl boring all you want but that bartender putting money is her pocket during a normally dormant portion of the year doesnt think its "boring". She calls is rent or maybe dinner for the kids. Neither does that hotel housekeeper, the janitor, the Aramark worker in the stadium doesnt think its boring. And neither does the city raking in the tax dollars. Boring never enters their vocabulary. Cities welcome bowls just like Orlando welcomed Disney or Tunica welcomed the casinos. They create a reason for people to come to their cities and spend their money.

 

[Volfan76]

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?

Yes it is. It doesnt address the problem with the old system and adding more games to playoff will either. It will only diminish the importance and relevance of regular season games and that is a very bad thing for UT football. The problem with the system now is the same problem we had before. We don't know who deserves to be in the playoffs because strength of schedule does not carry enough weight in deciding who goes. Make strength of schedule weigh more and the teams are forced to schedule better games during the regular season. Coastal carolina was seriously crying about not being in the playoffs with their only "quality" win over BYU. CC would have lost at LEAST 4 games in the SEC. Adding more games just encourages teams to schedule less important games during the regular season. That is bad for the SEC and bad for UT.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Yes it is. It doesnt address the problem with the old system and adding more games to playoff will either. It will only diminish the importance and relevance of regular season games and that is a very bad thing for UT football. The problem with the system now is the same problem we had before. We don't know who deserves to be in the playoffs because strength of schedule does not carry enough weight in deciding who goes. Make strength of schedule weigh more and the teams are forced to schedule better games during the regular season. Coastal carolina was seriously crying about not being in the playoffs with their only "quality" win over BYU. CC would have lost at LEAST 4 games in the SEC. Adding more games just encourages teams to schedule less important games during the regular season. That is bad for the SEC and bad for UT.

Not if they they make 5 of the bids go to the conference champions and 3 at large bids, and the 4 higher seeds get to host the first game. That makes winning your conference extremely important and the better you do in the regular season, the better chance you get to host a first round game. And if you don't win your conference you're looking at probably only being able to lose 1 maybe 2 games tops. In an 8 team playoff with only 3 at large spots, you're not making the playoff at 9-3 in probably 99% of the years.

And the problem with SOS is most OOC matchups are made years in advance. What may look like a strong OOC opponent in 2021 may not be when you finally play them in 2026. The best bet is to have more of the opening week "bowl" matchups like the Kickoff Classic where they can throw together 2 bigger OOC opponents in a shorter time frame (I think it is at least). Even that isn't a sure fire way to do it though, as again someone who is a good preseason OOC matchup might end up being not as good.

 

[leon]

Go watch the NFL then. College football is more than one team winning it all. It is about tradition, rooting for your team to do well. " I will give my all for Tennessee" type behavior even if we aren't the best.

I don't see why you can't have all of that and still have a champion. You wouldn't even play the game if you didn't expect to win. Each game is a championship between two teams. They even voted on it under the old Bowl system.

 

[GreveHaller]

Not if they they make 5 of the bids go to the conference champions and 3 at large bids, and the 4 higher seeds get to host the first game. That makes winning your conference extremely important and the better you do in the regular season, the better chance you get to host a first round game. And if you don't win your conference you're looking at probably only being able to lose 1 maybe 2 games tops. In an 8 team playoff with only 3 at large spots, you're not making the playoff at 9-3 in probably 99% of the years.

And the problem with SOS is most OOC matchups are made years in advance. What may look like a strong OOC opponent in 2021 may not be when you finally play them in 2026. The best bet is to have more of the opening week "bowl" matchups like the Kickoff Classic where they can throw together 2 bigger OOC opponents in a shorter time frame (I think it is at least). Even that isn't a sure fire way to do it though, as again someone who is a good preseason OOC matchup might end up being not as good.

remove the at large bid and you are correct. adding at larges does only two things (1) as you said diminish the regular season games (you dont have to be the best to play for the best) and (2) only serves to make a bracket pretty.

answer is simple: only conference champions play for the NC. if you cant win your division and cant win your conference, you're not pretty enough to go to the next level. No participation trophies and everybody plays in the post season. Be an adult - win your conference and you can win the NC. This isnt Upward Bound football.

 

[Vol865]

The BCS was humans, too. Just it was a LOT of humans: all the pollsters in both the AP and Coaches' polls, plus the guys like Sagarin who wrote the programs used to weigh statistics against each other. It was all humans once you scratched the surface layer off.

So really, BCS --to--> CFP just traded ~140 humans for 14.

Not saying one is better than the other. Not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just saying it's all flawed humans doing their best, in both systems.

Fair enough but I'd rather more than 14 people decide it

 

[volsfan125]

Oh, the demand for a championship game and "deciding it on the field" came from a lot further back than just the '90 and '91 seasons. There has been talk of getting the best two teams together since at least as far back as the Press and Coaches have each had their own polls.* "Split national championship" can mean various things, but most commonly it refers to those years when the Coaches and the Press picked different champs. That happened in:

• '45 -- Army (AP) vs Oklahoma A&M (Coaches)
• '54 -- Ohio State (AP) vs UCLA (Coaches)
• '57 -- Auburn (AP) vs Ohio State (Coaches)
• '65 -- Bama (AP) vs Michigan State (Coaches)
• '70 -- Nebraska (AP) vs Texas (Coaches)
• '73 -- Notre Dame (AP) vs Bama (Coaches)
• '74 -- Oklahoma (AP) vs USC (Coaches)
• '78 -- Bama (AP) vs USC (Coaches)
• '90 -- Colorado (AP) vs Ga Tech (Coaches) ... here are the two games you mentioned
• '91 -- Miami (AP) vs Washington (Coaches)
• '97 -- Michigan (AP) vs Nebraska (Coaches)
• '03 -- USC (AP) vs LSU (Coaches) ... yes, even in the BCS era, it has happened once

* The Associated Press (AP) poll was started in 1936. The Coaches' poll has been through an evolution, starting with the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) poll in 1922, which the United Press (UP) began sponsoring in 1950, which then became the United Press International (UPI) in 1958, still a Coaches' poll, just run by a press organization; it was bought by USA Today and CNN in 1991, and has been associated with USA Today ever since.

True but the back to back split NC in 90 and 91 lead directly to the formation of the Bowl Alliance/Coalition (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and the Cotton), the predecessor to the BCS, with the only bowl not involved being the Rose. The Rose wanted to stay "traditional" with a Big 10 vs Pac 10 match up hence the 97 split NC and an undefeated Penn St not playing an undefeated Nebraska in 94.

 

[99gator]

More than I do now for sure. Again I’m not sure why people that never cared think they would be able to judge this effect.

I cared then. I care now.

If it's a good game, I'm watching.

Admittedly if Central Michigan is playing Boise State, I could care less. But, I usually watch every bowl game involving SEC teams.

 

[Volfan76]

Not if they they make 5 of the bids go to the conference champions and 3 at large bids, and the 4 higher seeds get to host the first game. That makes winning your conference extremely important and the better you do in the regular season, the better chance you get to host a first round game. And if you don't win your conference you're looking at probably only being able to lose 1 maybe 2 games tops. In an 8 team playoff with only 3 at large spots, you're not making the playoff at 9-3 in probably 99% of the years.

And the problem with SOS is most OOC matchups are made years in advance. What may look like a strong OOC opponent in 2021 may not be when you finally play them in 2026. The best bet is to have more of the opening week "bowl" matchups like the Kickoff Classic where they can throw together 2 bigger OOC opponents in a shorter time frame (I think it is at least). Even that isn't a sure fire way to do it though, as again someone who is a good preseason OOC matchup might end up being not as good.

So you think Coastal Carolina going undefeated in the sun belt conference is better than a 2 loss team in the SEC? No way. As far as not knowing how good your OOC opponent is, they need to quit relying on one game to bring them justification. Schedule multiple tough games and of them will be tough. Why is it fair for an SEC team to have to play a rigorous schedule against the toughest players and coaches in the country while the fun boys walk on conference plays a bunch of practice games and comes in fresh and healthy with half of the playbook unused to playoff games?? It's not. If these gravy conferences want to play big boy football, they need to make a commitment year in and year out..not just start crying because they happen to be the smartest kid on the short bus in any given year.

 

[Tnrdgerunr]

I'm probably one of the few that feel this way, but I wish they'd go back to the way it was before BCS.

Sometimes you didn't get the ideal matchup, but the overall bowl matchups were better.

Yeah that's what we need, let the sports writers and ESPN decide the NC. Do you know who this years NC would be? 9-0 Notre Dame. You know the team Bama had to shut down at half time to keep from embarrassing them even worse that they did.

 

[vols 30]

Yeah that's what we need, let the sports writers and ESPN decide the NC. Do you know who this years NC would be? 9-0 Notre Dame. You know the team Bama had to shut down at half time to keep from embarrassing them even worse that they did.

This makes zero sense. Bama would still be Nat champs. Bama would've crushed them in the Sugar Bowl