Articles like these legitimize the NCAA Division 1's broken playoff system. Every conference winning team must be able to play for a national championship via a playoff.
What we have instead are sad conversations, like this one, on which travesty to choose, rather than conversations about the conference champions and the excitement of looking ahead to their match-ups.
What we have instead are sad conversations, like this one, on which travesty to choose, rather than conversations about the conference champions and the excitement of looking ahead to their match-ups.
1
Let's start with your opening premise that the SEC is the strongest league. Last year, the committee clearly favored the SEC, rating one loss Alabama over unbeaten Florida State. How did that work out? Alabama was out in the first round, in a game not particularly close. The SEC, actually, was out in almost all bowl games with the Irish beating LSU (how quickly we forget) and SEC West foes Ole Miss and Mississippi State getting beaten. As a conference, the SEC is strong. But so is the Big Ten. So is the Pac 12.
Next, let's look at the Big 10 and Big 12. Ohio State is unbeaten and a defending national champion. They're in unless they lose. But what about Iowa? They don't have Kansas and three nonconference cupcakes on their schedule like Baylor and Oklahoma State do. I'm sorry. Northwestern is not Lamar (or Cental Arkansas or Texas San Antonio).
The Big 12 has a big problem. Its schedules are filled with teams ranked outside of the top 100 college football teams. Its 4 teams (TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) essentially play three games - against each other.
That leaves Notre Dame in charge of its destiny. If it wins, with the schedule it has (Clemson, USC, Temple, Navy, Pittsburgh) it moves to the next week. If it loses, perhaps the Big 12 gets there. But let's stop kidding ourselves: you can't have half your opponents - or more - be rated below number 125 and expect the committee to reward you with a playoff.
Next, let's look at the Big 10 and Big 12. Ohio State is unbeaten and a defending national champion. They're in unless they lose. But what about Iowa? They don't have Kansas and three nonconference cupcakes on their schedule like Baylor and Oklahoma State do. I'm sorry. Northwestern is not Lamar (or Cental Arkansas or Texas San Antonio).
The Big 12 has a big problem. Its schedules are filled with teams ranked outside of the top 100 college football teams. Its 4 teams (TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) essentially play three games - against each other.
That leaves Notre Dame in charge of its destiny. If it wins, with the schedule it has (Clemson, USC, Temple, Navy, Pittsburgh) it moves to the next week. If it loses, perhaps the Big 12 gets there. But let's stop kidding ourselves: you can't have half your opponents - or more - be rated below number 125 and expect the committee to reward you with a playoff.
The SEC has never proven and never will prove that they're the best conference until they agree to a playoff with all conference champions. Last year for the first time a #4 team was allowed to play for the championship and they won. They were not from the SEC.
Guess what will happen when the 5-8 teams are finally allowed to play for the national championship?
This college football playoff is an ongoing travesty, only fixed by allowing all conference champions to participate in a playoff.
Guess what will happen when the 5-8 teams are finally allowed to play for the national championship?
This college football playoff is an ongoing travesty, only fixed by allowing all conference champions to participate in a playoff.
1
No, a 4-team playoff isn't enough. Also, straight-up win-loss records? No. It's who's playing the best at the END of the season. Last year it was clear Ohio State was that team and we were fortunate the committee lucked out.
Plus, any Playoff Committee that sits Condoleeza Rice(!) can't be considered legitimate. How many female athletic directors are there in the US who deserve this position rather than a political appointee who still insists invading Iraq was a great idea? (Sorry, know it's sports but, aren't all sports political?)
Plus, any Playoff Committee that sits Condoleeza Rice(!) can't be considered legitimate. How many female athletic directors are there in the US who deserve this position rather than a political appointee who still insists invading Iraq was a great idea? (Sorry, know it's sports but, aren't all sports political?)
3
6 game seasons...128 team playoff. Only way to settle it.
That would leave you with 2 teams left!
4 teams simply isn't enough. Winning your division should get you into the playoff, as it does in the pros. that's 20 teams minimum. Set a minimum wins requirement to be playoff eligible, just as 6 wins makes you bowl eligible, 9 wins should make you playoff eligible. 32 teams, like D-3 does, is eminently doable. Get rid of the conference title games, every conference sends their 2 division winners, PROVIDED they win at least 9 games, or 9-3. If you don't win your division, but finish ranked in the top 25, you go as an at large, and are seeded based on your ranking 1-4=1 seed, 5-8=2 seed, etc, unranked division winners are seeded below the 25th ranked team, so a 7 or 8 seed. You start tournament play on the first Saturday of December, at the home sites of the higher seed. The next week, the 16 winners play off, again at the higher seeds stadium. Once you get to the regional final (West, Midwest, South and East, based as much on geography as possible), the major bowls are brought in. West final is played at Fiesta, Midwest at the Cotton, South at Sugar, and East at the Peach. Those are played between Dec 15 and 3rd Saturday of December. Take 2 weeks off after that to squeeze the 40 or so non-playoff bowls between 12-15 and 12-31. Semifinals are played on New Years Day. West vs Midwest in the Rose Bowl, South vs East in the Orange. The title game is played on or around Jan 15th, right about where it is now. I estimate a 32 team playoff could net 5B or more in revenue a year.
1
A better way to look at the college playoffs; it to have a real playoff.
Each conference in the so called College Bowl Championship division (what was called Division 1A) determines a champion to be sent to the playoff. As there are not 16 conferences, the remaining teams would come from the various conferences based upon record. Most likely, the losers in the conference championship. This will yield 16 teams, which will be seeded. Over two weeks, the number of teams will go from 16 to four and those four will play in the current playoff bowl arrangement. To satisfy the Bowls, the playoff will be conducted at various bowl sites (neutral fields).
This system is similar to what is use din the other divisions of college football, with the exception of using neutral sites.
The current system still is not a playoff, it still relies heavily on human guesswork and pools. Pitting conference champions, and some runners up, is a far better way of determining a champion. Also, it requires every school to be in a conference; Sorry BYU and Notre Dame.
For those who say, too many games. Well, the conference championship games, already start a playoff round. What is missing are two games which really determine a true final four.
Each conference in the so called College Bowl Championship division (what was called Division 1A) determines a champion to be sent to the playoff. As there are not 16 conferences, the remaining teams would come from the various conferences based upon record. Most likely, the losers in the conference championship. This will yield 16 teams, which will be seeded. Over two weeks, the number of teams will go from 16 to four and those four will play in the current playoff bowl arrangement. To satisfy the Bowls, the playoff will be conducted at various bowl sites (neutral fields).
This system is similar to what is use din the other divisions of college football, with the exception of using neutral sites.
The current system still is not a playoff, it still relies heavily on human guesswork and pools. Pitting conference champions, and some runners up, is a far better way of determining a champion. Also, it requires every school to be in a conference; Sorry BYU and Notre Dame.
For those who say, too many games. Well, the conference championship games, already start a playoff round. What is missing are two games which really determine a true final four.
2
And resurrect the "GE College Bowl" while we're at it!
"Pay-Off" system is a more apt term for what the College Football Play-Off system is all about. NCAA Football has been corrupted by money.
The Play-Off system is the ultimate Pay-Off for the universities and colleges in the NCAA.
The Play-Off system is the ultimate Pay-Off for the universities and colleges in the NCAA.
All the more reason for a playoff. Start with 16 or 8 and play until you have a national champion. Heck, if you started with 16 and did 2 games a week until the winner, the toughest team would be standing at the end for sure.
2
Absolutely correct Ben P. 16 teams minimum. Every other division of NCAA football has a 48 team playoff. It's time for the FBS (aka Division IA) to catch up with the rest of the world! Think of the TV money! "December dementia!" as opposed to March Madness.
All the teams mentioned in this article are professional sports franchises in every way. Oh, except they don't pay their players. But they do pay "Coach," and pay him handsomely.
Any college football program is simply a CTE proving ground. All the kids will have some form of CTE by the time they graduate. It's a gladiatorial exercise designed to put fannies in the seats for good ole' State on Saturdays.
Are you not entertained?
The smartest way to look at this sport? Don't watch and it will die.
Any college football program is simply a CTE proving ground. All the kids will have some form of CTE by the time they graduate. It's a gladiatorial exercise designed to put fannies in the seats for good ole' State on Saturdays.
Are you not entertained?
The smartest way to look at this sport? Don't watch and it will die.
1
This is very good, however you're overestimating the PAC 12. I'd move the 1 loss PAC-12 champ behind ND to 8th. Remember, if ND finishes with one loss it will have beaten Stanford so the PAC-12 champ will have to be Utah, who just got pummeled by USC a week after Notre Dame beat USC convincingly.
Also interesting that the Big 12 is so low. Gives my irish loving fan some hope.
Also interesting that the Big 12 is so low. Gives my irish loving fan some hope.
2
No comment on the role TV plays in the process. Would ESPN/CBS/NBC/ABC rather televise a possible championship game between an Ohio State caliber team, or one of the myriad of what I call 'joke' bowls, whose soul purpose is money, either for the NCAA of some smaller schools who just happen to be able to win at least six games between NCAA Division 1-A schools? It seems that even one loss dooms a team to one of those 'joke' bowls. Case in point is Cal, who after a 5-0 start is reeling after three straight losses, but with 4 weeks remaining COULD finish with a very respectable 9-3, (though those farmers about 45 miles away might have something to say about that.) Last time they were in the Rose Bowl was 1959, when I was young(er.) Even with a few decent records over the past decade or so ( a few 9-1, 8-2 records, they could not get into a 'major,' as (I feel) they are not among the favored teams, ya know the ones either in Southern California, or in the South.
The prospect of excluding Michigan State and Iowa from the playoffs simply for losing to Ohio State seems unfair; the NCAA should not penalize them for ambitious scheduling.
Schedules are set years in advance. Teams that were good when an AD scheduled them are not always still good when the game is played. All you can do is beat who is in front of you. I'm in favor of a rule that says only conference champions can make the playoffs. If Iowa finishes the B10 undefeated and wins the title game, they definitely belong in the playoffs.
Last year people were arguing that tOSU not be chosen because their league was garbage
The problem would be that they don't have ambitious scheduling. Iowa might be a good team, but the problem is that they're in the Big Ten West and don't play Ohio State, Michigan State, or Michigan during the regular season. As a result, the assumption is that they're only undefeated because they haven't really played the hard teams in the conference. Same goes for MSU. Again, they're a good team and they're undefeated, but they haven't played any ranked opponents besides Michigan, and as they article states, they only won that on a fluke. Plus, several of the games that they have won, have been a lot closer than they should be.
1
College football is a lot like the rest of America. It is not a meritocracy. Pedigree matters more than accomplishments on the field.
4
"the committee will be loath not to hand the top seed to an undefeated defending national champion."
Right now we are 1 for 1 on the committee doing precisely what the writer said they would be loath to do - they seeded an undefeated defending national champion 3rd last year. I'd be very interested to see if the writer's thought is that there was some other factor at play that caused the committee to act in that manner in 2014 that would not apply in 2015.
Right now we are 1 for 1 on the committee doing precisely what the writer said they would be loath to do - they seeded an undefeated defending national champion 3rd last year. I'd be very interested to see if the writer's thought is that there was some other factor at play that caused the committee to act in that manner in 2014 that would not apply in 2015.
1
Without a Pac-12 team, the playoff lacks merit. The Pac-12 is being penalized for its depth. Sorry East Coast folks, but no way does the A.C.C. come close to belonging in the Big 4 of conferences. The playoff committee should be dissolved and the four champions of the Big 4 (SEC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten) should move on. If the Pac-12 is left out (imagine the TV repercussions -- potentially no team west of the Mississippi; and imagine Clemson vs. T.C.U. in the Rose Bowl -- ugh!), the conference should withdraw from the BCS and use the Rose Bowl as its conference championship.
I suppose all this is leading to an eight-team playoff system, which is long overdue.
I suppose all this is leading to an eight-team playoff system, which is long overdue.
2
I'm a Pac 12 fan. Let's be real. Stanford lost to Northwestern. Their defense is not what it has been. And compared to last year's Oregon team its average margin of victory is not even close. As for Utah, its passing game is weak and its margin of victory is like Stanford's. Arizona, Arizona State and UCLA are disappointments. USC is a fiasco. It's a down year for the Pac 12. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.
1
Sweeney that's rich. The ACC has had more draft picks over the past five years than any conference with the exception of the SEC (and the difference has dwindled each year). The ACC's best teams—Clemson and FSU, this year—can go toe to toe with the best of any conference in the country. And, frankly, ACC defenses generally play on another level altogether from other conferences (with the exception of Alabama and Michigan).
John, nobody knows who the best teams or conferences are until there is a playoff. Part of the problem is that we're still comparing conferences and still trying to argue that one is better than another without having evidence of a game between them to go on.
They need to play on the same field. In a playoff.
They need to play on the same field. In a playoff.
Only publications and journalists out of touch with football in the past 3 years would agree with with the computer rankings that "overwhelmingly agree that the SEC remains the best conference". Out of conference games are the true measure, and the SEC gets destroyed in both in-season and bowl games. Keep in mind, the hyped Top 10 ranked SEC West went 2-5 in Bowl games last year!
So, only an idiot would say a 1-loss SEC team deserves it more than a 1-loss Pac12 or Big Ten team. Times have changed, coaches (and recruiters) move conferences every 2-3 years, and the talent level is not like it was in the SEC's heyday. It's an even playing field now - all conferences are about even with 1-2 competitive teams.
#2 should read "An undefeated SEC Champion". Advocating a 1-loss SEC team get into the playoff is based on false assumptions, and is relying on Tebow era data, which is clearly not relevant any more. All you have to do is look at the head to head out of conference records in season and in bowl games and playoffs, and the SEC's losing record speak for itself. The conference is a house of cards. All conferences are even these days.
So, only an idiot would say a 1-loss SEC team deserves it more than a 1-loss Pac12 or Big Ten team. Times have changed, coaches (and recruiters) move conferences every 2-3 years, and the talent level is not like it was in the SEC's heyday. It's an even playing field now - all conferences are about even with 1-2 competitive teams.
#2 should read "An undefeated SEC Champion". Advocating a 1-loss SEC team get into the playoff is based on false assumptions, and is relying on Tebow era data, which is clearly not relevant any more. All you have to do is look at the head to head out of conference records in season and in bowl games and playoffs, and the SEC's losing record speak for itself. The conference is a house of cards. All conferences are even these days.
6
Bowl games are a lousy measure. For 2014 SEC teams with playoff aspirations, they were a sorry consolation. The real way to measure the quality of a Conference is by the quality of football their teams play. You've got to talk about QB quality, the running game, line play, and defense. For 10 years in a row, the SEC has led all conferences in players drafted by the NFL. Your claim that the talent level is even is provably wrong. And I'm a Pac 12 fan.
1
Conferences need better metrics than the circular reasoning of "we play the best teams and they all happen to be in our conference so we're the best". Individual stats produce NFL players, but they do not prove that any conference is superior.
My point is that in the last 3 years the SEC has been anything but dominant. Parity exists now. The several years before that they were absolutely dominant, no question!
But based on facts over the past 3 years of regular season out of conferences and bowl game results, they are no stronger than other conferences. The reputation of Tebow era success and being overhyped in sports media is because Espn IS sports media, and they own the SEC Network. So, it's purely in their financial interest to champion the SEC because - $$$. ESPN has no reason to give the indication of parity, because that loses them money.
It is what it is - the SEC has been beat up in OOC regular season and in bowl games. The records speak for themselves, and you have to look past the hype and look at the actual head to head out of conferences results. That is the only way to truly measure it without bias.
An interesting aside is that Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are responsible for most of the championships in the past 10 years. That has more to say about conferences than anything else - it's about the coaches, and coaches now move conferences frequently.
My point is that in the last 3 years the SEC has been anything but dominant. Parity exists now. The several years before that they were absolutely dominant, no question!
But based on facts over the past 3 years of regular season out of conferences and bowl game results, they are no stronger than other conferences. The reputation of Tebow era success and being overhyped in sports media is because Espn IS sports media, and they own the SEC Network. So, it's purely in their financial interest to champion the SEC because - $$$. ESPN has no reason to give the indication of parity, because that loses them money.
It is what it is - the SEC has been beat up in OOC regular season and in bowl games. The records speak for themselves, and you have to look past the hype and look at the actual head to head out of conferences results. That is the only way to truly measure it without bias.
An interesting aside is that Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are responsible for most of the championships in the past 10 years. That has more to say about conferences than anything else - it's about the coaches, and coaches now move conferences frequently.
College football is fixed for the SEC. Most teams in the conference get a head start in the preseason polls with undeserved rankings. Then the conference schedules teams like Northeast Mississippi Teacher's College For the Deaf and run up the score. This just reinforces the false notion that the conference is superior. (Remember the hype an undeserving Tim Tebow got) As long as the rules remain the same, expect to see undeserving SEC teams in the playoffs and monopolizing ESPN "coverage".
5
Hey now, Plainfield Teachers is still undefeated. I read it in The Times!
http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/09/26/76883650.html?pa...
http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/09/26/76883650.html?pa...
1
College football desperately needs a real playoff. Expert analysis is an extremely flawed way to determine who deserves a shot at the national championship. An eight team playoff with the champion of each Power 5 conference automatically getting in and one of the eight spots reserved for a non Power 5 conference team would make the end of the season as thrilling as March Madness.
9
No. All conference champions. Nothing less.
Ohio State is probably the only team that could join the SEC and still come out with a winning record. The SEC has dominated the National Championship for several years. That is changing, but there is still a significant difference in the way other conferences compete. Defense wins games, yet it is clear that high scoring teams outside the SEC usually get shut down in head to head meetings. Look no further than the NFL for evidence.
Even as a long time fan of the SEC, I am happy about the gradual leveling of the field (goodness, the source of the phrase comes to light). It's more fun and makes for a less predictable outcome. Still, if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the SEC for at least the next five years. I'd probably be right 80% of the time.
Even as a long time fan of the SEC, I am happy about the gradual leveling of the field (goodness, the source of the phrase comes to light). It's more fun and makes for a less predictable outcome. Still, if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the SEC for at least the next five years. I'd probably be right 80% of the time.
The University of Texas is 7-1 against Alabama.
1
Ohio State's toughest game has been against its practice squad. Michigan State is the only one-loss undefeated team in history. Iowa? Iowa? The Big Ten has not earned a bucket. The real question should be whether the Big Ten champion goes to the Rose Bowl ahead of Toledo.
I have been an advocate for a playoff system for college football for a long time, at least twenty years.
How to make it better? Add one week and double the number of teams to eight. Four more feeder bowls will make the playoffs even more robust.
How to make it better? Add one week and double the number of teams to eight. Four more feeder bowls will make the playoffs even more robust.
4
And then when the 9th ranked team complains, we'll need 16 teams ... when the 17th-ranked team cries, we'll need 32 teams ... and so on. Where does it end?
And if you doubt me, look no further than the ncaa gold-standard tournament, the basketball tournament, where some team is always complaining they deserved to get in over some other team .. when 68 teams get in.
And if you doubt me, look no further than the ncaa gold-standard tournament, the basketball tournament, where some team is always complaining they deserved to get in over some other team .. when 68 teams get in.
12-3-4-b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
North Carolina should have had the ball at midfield with 1:08 remaining and three time outs. Disgraceful!