BCS playoff

[Old School]

Not sure everyone knows the polls are just polls and don't amount to or mean much of anything in the grand scheme. It's nice to be ranked high and be validated to the degree it does. The real numbers come out the end of this month from the Selection Committee and that's where the rubber meets the road. If we win the next two, look for the Cats to be top 10 when the first ranking is released.

It would be terrific to see that happen and be sustained into signing day.

[Old School]

Agreed. Auburn was penalized for losing in the SEC title game last year while the team they'd beaten the week before waltzed to the CFB Playoffs. Ohio State won the B10 and got left out. This system is better but 8 teams are needed, IMO.

In what years would you say more than four teams, or, heck, more than three teams really had as good a claim to having proved themselves #1 as the #1 ranked team had? In other words, in what year(s) did you really need a fifth, much less sixth or seventh, team in a playoff because there was a strong argument that #4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 was as good as #1, or had proven themselves through the season as much as #1 had?

I pose that not just to you, but to anyone. And we can open it not just to the playoff years, but going back 20 years or so even.

[Old School]

Quoted from another thread but relevant here. This my prefered playoff expansion but it is still not ideal.

I still think playing a conference championship and then a three-game playoff is too many unless the regular season were to go to back to 11 games. (which isn't happening) What needs to be avoided is someone not playing in their conference championship game and then getting into the playoff ala Ohio State. In my mind that is a tremendous advantage to the non-title game participant.

BTW UCF can go pound sand...

Would you automatically exclude Notre Dame from the playoff on that basis?

[Old School]

I agree but the difference is that in basketball, the teams that get left out never have a shot at the title.

This kind of goes back to what johnkyblue said earlier. Every week counts in college football. It sure doesn’t in, say, the NBA. With the NCAA tournament now 64 teams (68 now actually, I guess), in how many years does anyone think the best team in college basketball happened to be the one that won six games in a row to win that tournament? I get that winning those six is a great accomplishment, but many years, the winner (and also loser even) of that final tournament game is not a team anyone really thinks was the best team that year. Some years, yes, but other years, no.

In MLB it used to be that the two teams that won the AL and NL pennants went on to the World Series and that was that. That made the season much more exciting, riveting and important. After going to divisions and then even wildcards the regular season means so much less. Moving the college football playoff to eight teams would have the same effect.

[Old School]

OK, maybe I’ve posted enough on here tonight, but I want to add one last thought. This thread - different viewpoints from different posters, well articulated by intelligent people (I mean you guys, not me), talking civilly, respectfully - that’s what so great about this place. I’m glad you guys are around here to talk football - Kentucky football in particular, but also football in general.

[Spiritof96]

Would you automatically exclude Notre Dame from the playoff on that basis?

I think any team that plays 12 instead of 13 shouldn’t ever get the bye. It’s never happening though.

[johnkyblue]

Heard that before, seems to only be said in college football. So if by some miracle Alabama loses in the conference tourney they are no longer one of the top four teams even if another team has one loss also?

How many other sports have a twelve game regular season. OF COURSE football is different.

[Westtncat]

How many other sports have a twelve game regular season. OF COURSE football is different.

High school football has a playoff, Division III has a playoff, Division II has a playoff, Pro football has a playoff.

You know historically the only reason college football was like it was , was so the big wigs could control the money

[Westtncat]

OK, Old school I am going to address some of your points. Mainly because I love this debate

"Yes, I think it’s fair. They played a bunch of wimps all year and played well in their one game against a quality opponent. That doesn’t indicate that they’re anywhere near being the best team in college football. And what’s good for college football is giving major bowl bids to major conference teams that earned their way there by playing tough schedules, teams people want to watch, instead of setting aside a quota for some unqualified team to have a place at the table against a schedule that would’ve resulted in an undefeated record for at least a dozen major conference teams."

So what does a team like UCF do? There is no way they can create a schedule you want but what they can do is win every single game and their bowl game. Their last three games that year were against top 25 teams (including Auburn) I think Auburn beat Bama that year so anything is possible. Everyone cant be in a P5 conference. They were a good team period. Auburn should have taken care of business. UCF had a lot to do with that. So just kick them out of DI football?

"I also wonder why they should even be in division I football (or whatever three letters is used for it now). I don’t think they should be. They could drop to the next level or create a level between the P5 conferences and whatever the next level is currently called, but they don’t belong in the mix with the P5 conferences, IMO, and college football would be a better, more interesting, more balanced product without them, again IMO."

No offense but this is a really bad idea. If you followed this scenario it would repeat itself every few years until you had several divisions because you would either have teams that could compete for a national title or , if they cant , kick them out of division 1.

"In what years would you say more than four teams, or, heck, more than three teams really had as good a claim to having proved themselves #1 as the #1 ranked team had? In other words, in what year(s) did you really need a fifth, much less sixth or seventh, team in a playoff because there was a strong argument that #4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 was as good as #1, or had proven themselves through the season as much as #1 had?

I pose that not just to you, but to anyone. And we can open it not just to the playoff years, but going back 20 years or so even."

I only had to go back one year for UCF, also Ohio St. won the big ten last year and got left out. I could probably do this for every year but thats a lot of research. At the end of this year we will see how it plays out and maybe bring it up again. It seems to me that almost every year there is an argument for more teams.

"This kind of goes back to what johnkyblue said earlier. Every week counts in college football. It sure doesn’t in, say, the NBA. With the NCAA tournament now 64 teams (68 now actually, I guess), in how many years does anyone think the best team in college basketball happened to be the one that won six games in a row to win that tournament? I get that winning those six is a great accomplishment, but many years, the winner (and also loser even) of that final tournament game is not a team anyone really thinks was the best team that year. Some years, yes, but other years, no.

In MLB it used to be that the two teams that won the AL and NL pennants went on to the World Series and that was that. That made the season much more exciting, riveting and important. After going to divisions and then even wildcards the regular season means so much less. Moving the college football playoff to eight teams would have the same effect."

Ohio St.'s body of work was over looked last year so that kinda blows the every week counts argument up.

Believe me there are things I would love to see change in the basketball tourney too. However I dont have as much a problem with teams getting in as I do teams left out. That being said, if I could I would change the NFL playoff format too but thats another argument

[Dwight Schrute]

This kind of goes back to what johnkyblue said earlier. Every week counts in college football. It sure doesn’t in, say, the NBA. With the NCAA tournament now 64 teams (68 now actually, I guess), in how many years does anyone think the best team in college basketball happened to be the one that won six games in a row to win that tournament? I get that winning those six is a great accomplishment, but many years, the winner (and also loser even) of that final tournament game is not a team anyone really thinks was the best team that year. Some years, yes, but other years, no.

In MLB it used to be that the two teams that won the AL and NL pennants went on to the World Series and that was that. That made the season much more exciting, riveting and important. After going to divisions and then even wildcards the regular season means so much less. Moving the college football playoff to eight teams would have the same effect.

In football though, upsets happen much less rarely because of the physical nature of the sport, whereas in the NCAA tournament you can have a team that starts hitting 3's from the locker room and win. The NBA mitigates this with a 7 game playoff where the best team usually is the one that wins. Any team can win one game against Golden State, but winning 4 is a different story.

I understand the argument that the regular season in college football matters because of the structure of the playoffs, I just think its bunk and I don't care. The integrity of the regular season would have meant squat to me last year if the best team (Alabama) had been left out of the playoffs. The lesson of the current system is that you can lose, you just can't be the one that loses last.

[Westtncat]

"The lesson of the current system is that you can lose, you just can't be the one that loses last."

This is absolutely true and something I never understood with college football. an 11-1 team should just be an 11-1 team regardless of the time of year they lost.

[40bill]

"The lesson of the current system is that you can lose, you just can't be the one that loses last."

This is absolutely true and something I never understood with college football. an 11-1 team should just be an 11-1 team regardless of the time of year they lost.

I tend to agree but this isn't the case. Many Georgia's fans felt Alabama got an extra week to get healthy last year because of not being in the SEC championship. I have to say with all it's faults, the system gave us back to back instant classics last season with Ga/Oklahoma then the Alabama/Georgia game.

[Westtncat]

"I tend to agree but this isn't the case. Many Georgia's fans felt Alabama got an extra week to get healthy last year because of not being in the SEC championship."

Great point!

[RV]

"The lesson of the current system is that you can lose, you just can't be the one that loses last."

This is absolutely true and something I never understood with college football. an 11-1 team should just be an 11-1 team regardless of the time of year they lost.

It seems folks have been attempting to help with your understanding of things.

It's pretty much like anything else. Pick the sport and it's likely the team(s) that has gotten it together over the course of the season will win, or at least, go deep in their playoff system. Same with football. Although in football each game is magnified due to the limited number of games when compared to any other sport. As in any other sport, an early season loss won't hurt you all that much if you prove over the remaining 11 football games that you're worthy. Conversely, a late season loss is viewed and weighted such that it proves a lack of improvement and that you haven't really gotten things together.

Of course since the implementation of the Selection Committee, a late season loss is not as debilitating as shown by the inclusion of Alabama in the playoffs (albeit as #4 seed) of what was certainly the best team in the country last year, even though they lost the last game of their regular season on the road to a rival who happened to be ranked #6 at the time.

[Dwight Schrute]

It seems folks have been attempting to help with your understanding of things.

It's pretty much like anything else. Pick the sport and it's likely the team(s) that has gotten it together over the course of the season will win, or at least, go deep in their playoff system. Same with football. Although in football each game is magnified due to the limited number of games when compared to any other sport. As in any other sport, an early season loss won't hurt you all that much if you prove over the remaining 11 football games that you're worthy. Conversely, a late season loss is viewed and weighted such that it proves a lack of improvement and that you haven't really gotten things together.

Of course since the implementation of the Selection Committee, a late season loss is not as debilitating as shown by the inclusion of Alabama in the playoffs (albeit as #4 seed) of what was certainly the best team in the country last year, even though they lost the last game of their regular season on the road to a rival who happened to be ranked #6 at the time.

But Alabama only got in because Auburn lost. Had Auburn won that game it seems possible Georgia gets the 4th seed and Alabama gets left out.

I think the playoff committee got it exactly right last year, but mostly because the teams made it easy for them.