Design an NCAA D1 Football Playoff to suit my tastes

[albionmoonlight]

We need another college football playoff thread.

So let's say that I am king of the world, and I decide that there will be a D1 football playoff. Let's also say that I put you in charge of designing that playoff. Let's finally say that your final proposal must keep the two requirements in mind:

1.) Every team that goes undefeated during the "regular season" should have a chance to win the national championship.

2.) The "regular season" should be kept as meaningful as possible.

[ctmason]

Make the regular season the playoff by having all teams not on probation or suspension participate in a single elimination tournament.

Therefore the regular season is only the tournament, and every game is meaningful, and every team that goes undefeated is guaranteed to win the championship!

What do I win?

[wade moore]

Ok, let me try to model an "If I ruled the world" scenario... Note: I do not think this could actually happen by any sense or stretch of the means, but for this exercise this is my "perfect world" scenario.

A) All 120 (counting Western Kentucky who is in the process of moving from I-AA to I-A) teams are split up into 10 12-team conferences. In doing so, every effort is made to maintain successful rivalries.
B) Every team has an 11 game regular season schedule - their conference.
C) Each conference winner gets a bid to the playoffs - so that takes care of 10 spots.
D) At the end of the season, there is a BCS-Like Human/computer poll setup. I'd be fine with the same 2 Human Polls and set of computer polls we have now. However, these polls are not conducted until the END of the regular season.
E) The top 6 teams in the polls that is not a conferenc winner get bids - regardless of conference.
F) Seeding is done by the poll. If a conference winner is 16th in the combined poll, then they are the 16th seed.
G) The first round is played a the home stadium of the higher seed.
H) All of the following games are played at neutral sites, with the Semis and finals (and maybe the quarters even?) rotating amongst the better stadiums - like they do now for the BCS games.

[George]

I'd have a 16-team playoff, similar to the 1-AA. The number of regular season games would be reduced to 11.

-The first six slots go to the champions of the BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC). The remaining 10 slots are based on a poll, BCS-type ranking, or some sort of NCAA-basketball-tourney-type selection committee. The 10 top-ranked/selected teams who are not the conference winners get in, giving preference to undefeated teams.

-The 16 teams would them be ranked and the seeds set. The first round would be played at the home of the higher seed. After that, games would be played on neutral sites in the big (BCS) bowl games and rotated on an annual basis.

-Teams not in the playoff could still play in other bowl games as they do now.

[MJ4H]

6 team playoff. Top 6 BCS teams. This should make it pretty easy to get all the legitimate contenders in.

#1 and #2 are still rewarded in this system, here with a bye in the first round of the playoffs.

G1: #3 vs #6
G2: #4 vs #5
G3: #2 vs G1 winner
G4: #1 vs G2 winner
G5: G3 winner vs G4 winner

Note that we have a pretty similar number of games here as are currently in the BCS now. The games can be rotated through the major bowls from year to year.

Whenever I suggest this scenario, which I've long thought is the best solution, I've always been amazed at the number of people that argue that you will still have controversy about who gets into the playoffs. Sure, but that controversy is MUCH more manageable than the one that arises when a team does EVERYTHING they can do and still gets no chance at a national championship. I think this format gives everyone a chance while still keeping the regular season just as meaningful as it is now.

[wade moore]

Our systems are VERY similar except that I would change the conference makeups and have more autobids.

I would have no problems with the "still play other bowl games", but I think it's pointless.

[George]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Our systems are VERY similar except that I would change the conference makeups and have more autobids.

I would have no problems with the "still play other bowl games", but I think it's pointless.

I agree on the bowls.

I'd also approve of an eight or 12-team (with a bye for the top four teams) playoff if 16 teams is too many. Of course, that might leave out one or more undefeated teams.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by raf105

I agree on the bowls.

I'd also approve of an eight or 12-team (with a bye for the top four teams) playoff if 16 teams is too many. Of course, that might leave out one or more undefeated teams.

I like 16 teams.. it's clean... I don't like 12 team because it means that you are going to have bye weeks... 8 weeks would be clean too, but I don't think I like how many teams would be left out in that scenario.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ok, let me try to model an "If I ruled the world" scenario... Note: I do not think this could actually happen by any sense or stretch of the means, but for this exercise this is my "perfect world" scenario.

A) All 120 (counting Western Kentucky who is in the process of moving from I-AA to I-A) teams are split up into 10 12-team conferences. In doing so, every effort is made to maintain successful rivalries.
B) Every team has an 11 game regular season schedule - their conference.
C) Each conference winner gets a bid to the playoffs - so that takes care of 10 spots.
D) At the end of the season, there is a BCS-Like Human/computer poll setup. I'd be fine with the same 2 Human Polls and set of computer polls we have now. However, these polls are not conducted until the END of the regular season.
E) The top 6 teams in the polls that is not a conferenc winner get bids - regardless of conference.
F) Seeding is done by the poll. If a conference winner is 16th in the combined poll, then they are the 16th seed.
G) The first round is played a the home stadium of the higher seed.
H) All of the following games are played at neutral sites, with the Semis and finals (and maybe the quarters even?) rotating amongst the better stadiums - like they do now for the BCS games.

I really like this. I think there would be a problem with the rankings though. There's no out of conference matchups. Without common opponents it would be very difficult to create any meaningful rankings. There's no real way to gauge how strong a conference (and therefore strength of schedule) is.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Arctus

I really like this. I think there would be a problem with the rankings though. There's no out of conference matchups. Without common opponents it would be very difficult to create any meaningful rankings. There's no real way to gauge how strong a conference (and therefore strength of schedule) is.

I would aruge that you can't do this with 3-4 OOC games of which usually 2-3 are "guaranteed wins" for the teams that are involved in this discussion.

Unless you move to an NFL-like system where certain conferences play each other each year or something I just don't think that the 1 or 2 "meaningful" OOC games tell you much.

What this means is maybe the polls would only rely on Human Polls because the computers can't tell you much that records with 100% common opponents don't tell you. So we have humans judging by what they see on the field. This wouldn't really bother me much and no team can say that they have no hope for a playoff bid, because they just need to win their conference. No team is "at the mercy" of the voters.

[Passacaglia]

Add ten more schools to make the field 128, then have a 7-round tourney. Call it the "regular season."

EDIT: ctmason beat me to it!

[digamma]

I think we should go with Huckleberry's "championship belt" idea. We use this season to declare a national champion. Next season that champion starts off as the title holder. We revert to the old bowl system and we see who has the championship belt at the end of the season.

Seriously, I like the bowls.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I would aruge that you can't do this with 3-4 OOC games of which usually 2-3 are "guaranteed wins" for the teams that are involved in this discussion.

Unless you move to an NFL-like system where certain conferences play each other each year or something I just don't think that the 1 or 2 "meaningful" OOC games tell you much.

What this means is maybe the polls would only rely on Human Polls because the computers can't tell you much that records with 100% common opponents don't tell you. So we have humans judging by what they see on the field. This wouldn't really bother me much and no team can say that they have no hope for a playoff bid, because they just need to win their conference. No team is "at the mercy" of the voters.

I agree that the current system is flawed, and a handful of meaningful OOC games do not provide a desirable level of information regarding the relative values of individual teams.

However, I think that that the current system does provide enough data to determine the relative strengths of conferences as a whole. I can't see how a system with zero out of conference games possibly could.

I presume at the end of the day, the at large bids would go the "best" second place teams. With zero overlap in schedules, the at large bids would be entirely subjective and even more dependant on pre season poll rankings than what we have today.

Maybe do something like 12 ten team conferences? Run conference games in weeks 1-9 and let conference standings determine 12 automatic bids. Have week 10 and 11 matchups based on conference standings. You could have conference 2nd place finishers play each other in essentially preliminary tournament rounds. After two weeks, there would be three 2nd place teams remaining, making a field of 15. Make the 16th a true "at large" or give a 1st round bye to the team from the conference that won the tournament last year.

[digamma]

dola...

Not trying to be unhelpful. I just struggle with the play-off idea because college football is so different from any other sport, where success is easily defined by whether you made the play-offs or the tournament. In college football, you have some of that with whether you make a bowl, but you also have so much more that defines your season--how you did in your rivalry games, how you did in the conference, how you did if you played a meaningful non-conference game. I'd hate to lose all of that because we want a clean play-off.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Arctus

Maybe do something like 12 ten team conferences? Run conference games in weeks 1-9 and let conference standings determine 12 automatic bids. Have week 10 and 11 matchups based on conference standings. You could have conference 2nd place finishers play each other in essentially preliminary tournament rounds. After two weeks, there would be three 2nd place teams remaining, making a field of 15. Make the 16th a true "at large" or give a 1st round bye to the team from the conference that won the tournament last year.

But aren't you still running into essentially the same flaws here? What if the strong conferences play the strong conferences and the weak play the weak?

I guess my thought is that yes, you miss the whole "strength of conference" thing. But my thought is that you can see enough from play on the field that the 6 teams would be accurate enough that I'd be happy - since the 10 teams that won their conference would be in.

I just still see, even with what you're mentioning here, that there's still just not enough information. I think we have proven in many debates that I don't know that now we have even close to enough info to truely say which conferences are the strong conferences. I think it's smoke and mirrors as it is, why not call a spade a spade?

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by wade moore

But aren't you still running into essentially the same flaws here? What if the strong conferences play the strong conferences and the weak play the weak?

Not really, the logic is similar to the automatic bids for the conference champions. It pretty much amounts to three separate four team tourneys to determine which second place teams make it to the field of 16. Match ups could be made on a random or geographical basis.

Although all of this means that a second place team that makes it to the finals would end up playing 15 games, with at least the last 6 being against very good competition. This is probably not a good thing.

[BishopMVP]

D1 already has a playoff.

#16 Coastal Carolina (9-2) at No. #1 Appalachian St. (10-1)
#9 Furman (8-3) at #8 Montana State (7-4)

#12 Illinois State (8-3) at #5 Eastern Illinois (8-4)
#13 James Madison (9-2) at # 4 Youngstown State (9-2)

#14 Lafayette (6-5) at #3 Massachusetts (10-1), 12 PM
#11 New Hampshire (8-3) at #6 Hampton VA (10-1)

#10 Tennessee-Martin (9-2) at #7 Southern Illinois (8-3)
#15 McNeese State (7-4) at #2 Montana (10-1)

It's the Bowl Championship Sub-Division that needs to get a playoff.

Sorry, couldn't resist. (I like Arctus' modification of Wade's idea)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

D1 already has a playoff.It's the Bowl Championship Sub-Division that needs to get a playoff.

Sorry, couldn't resist. (I like Arctus' modification of Wade's idea)

BTW - I would not be supportive of home games being deteremined the way they are in I-AA. I need to make a rant in the I-AA thread that we have going.

[cthomer5000]

My first question would be, what is the max # of games we'd be willing to see a team play in a season?

[Icy]

All the undefeated teams are given a couple of craps. The captains shake them in their hand and throw them to the floor. The team with the highest score in the craps wins the championship. Fair uh?

Seriously now, why not to do it like the NCAAB? keep the BCS polls, select the best 16 teams and have a playoff system. It would add 4 games to the postseason so maybe they'll need to limit the regular season to 10 or 11 games. If you need it shorter, then just select the best 8 teams for the playoffs.

The system is unfair now because only 2 teams are given the chance to compete for the title, but if you have 16 teams, there are less chances of a good one not having a shoot for the title.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Icy

All the undefeated teams are given a couple of craps. The captains shake them in their hand and throw them to the floor. The team with the highest score in the craps wins the championship. Fair uh?

Seriously now, why not to do it like the NCAAB? keep the BCS polls, select the best 16 teams and have a playoff system. It would add 4 games to the postseason so maybe they'll need to limit the regular season to 10 or 11 games. If you need it shorter, then just select the best 8 teams for the playoffs.

The system is unfair now because only 2 teams are given the chance to compete for the title, but if you have 16 teams, there are less chances of a good one not having a shoot for the title.

So we're all good with a team that could be as good as the #7 team in the country not getting a chance to make the playoffs? That's the big issue i see there. Well, that and destroying the bowls.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

My first question would be, what is the max # of games we'd be willing to see a team play in a season?

14 seems like the most I would want teams to play.

I would even say a little less than that, but I think that you need at least 14 if you want to have a season with a reasonable sample size and enough time for a playoff.

[JS19]

You guys really think, using this yr as an example, that Ohio State should have to play playoff games to make it to the championship? I like in college football how the top teams get to play for the championship, just don't like how it's decided. I think a better approach would be a playoff system, again using this yr as as example, to decide between USC, Michigan, Florida and Arkansas, to play Ohio State. But that probably wouldn't be fair making those teams play multiple games just to get to Ohio State. If there can be some way to decide the top 2 contenders, than they should play a game to determine who will play Ohio State in the championship.

[Young Drachma]

I actually liked the way it was setup in BBCF, where the bowl games actually ended up as playoffs and the bowl brackets took place outside the regular bowl hierarchy. It'd be like more football for our money.

But realistically? I think an 8-team playoff would be a nice start, with the national championship the week before the super bowl. That way, the kids have all that time to relax, get way out of shape, go home, get their girlfriends pregnant and then can come back after the holidays, needing to get their "minds right" for a title game.

That's the idea college football title game, that date.

That said, I think it would obviously be better to have it opened up so that upstarts could get in and screw the whole deal up, which is of course..why all of this will never happen to begin with.

[rowech]

This is what I came up with about five years ago. Rank the conferences, count independents as a conference. (although I'd still like to see everyone in one conference) At the time I came up with this, I think there were 12 conferences. Award bids based upon the following:

1. Top conference - 4 teams
2. 2nd-4th conferences - 3 teams
3. 5th-7th conferences - 2 teams
4. 8th-12th conferences -- 1 team

I'm trying to do that from memory so I'm not totally sure it's right. Nonetheless, there are 24 teams into the tournament based solely on the standings in those conferences. The teams that are invited are then seeded by a committee 1-24. (Ideally, I would use something similar to the current BCS once the 24 teams have been selected) The top 8 teams will all receive byes. The other 16 will play a round with the game at the higher seed's home turf. The winners will all advance to play the next game at the higher seeded team that had the bye.

Once you reach the quarterfinals, the next seven games are played at bowl sites which rotate every seven years to have the title game.