Which postseason format would you prefer for college football?

[Kodos]

I favor an eight-team playoff. Poll to come.

[ISiddiqui]

8 team for me as well. It would take 3 weeks, which seems good timing.

[QuikSand]

Let's have every team play a full season of meaningless games, and then throw all their names into a hat and pick out 256 to play on neutral sites for a title. That way, we can extinguish every last bit of interest in the obsolete regular season.

[Arles]

I'd be OK with the current 4-team if there were schedule rules for qualification. IE, everyone plays the same # of conference games (ie, 9) and the three non-conferences are 2 rotating home-away power 5 non-conf opponents and then one wild card (can either be a tune up game for the big powers or an extra hard game for teams in lesser conferences).

But, given it is extremely doubtful that schedule setup would ever be adopted, I think you have to go 8-teams.

[Kodos]

I'd like to see either:

1. All 12-team conferences. You have to win your conference championship to make the playoff. Then an 8-team playoff feeding off of that.

or.

2. All 10-team conferences playing a round-robin schedule. This would avoid divisional imbalances like we see in the Big Ten. The 8-team playoff would include the major conference champs plus 2 or 3 at-large bids.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand;3224948...[U

we can extinguish every last bit of interest in the obsolete regular season[/u]...

Serious question, since I don't know the nuances outside of my part of the country, and I've seen this line of thinking mentioned by you before: are rivalries far less important outside of the South? I ask because I don't care *what* the system in place looks like, for Georgia fans, there will always be at least five games that matter *deeply." Two years ago, UGA was playing for basically nothing by the end of the year, but losing to Tech still *HURT.* It wasn't about whether you were headed to the Liberty Bowl or Music City Bowl, it was about a year of bragging rights in the neighborhood, at work, church, social media, and everywhere else. I wouldn't see that changing one iota if losing meant dropping from the #4 seed to the #8 seed.



And having 4-6 big games out of 12 may not sound like much, but when you consider that most of the others should always be mail-it-in laughers anyway, I'm not seeing the huge difference it'd make in my world, but perhaps the rivalries aren't as important elsewhere?

[QuikSand]

I think rivalries DO matter in college FB, more than most sports. And of course my comment is hyperbole.

But I do feel like it's a slippery slope. Rivalries matter in college basketball, too, on paper... but the reality is that once we yoke the "national championship" as the thing that matters, we inevitably end up lessening the importance of conference play/titles and individual regular season games.

Yes, I would personally be interested in watching Alabama play Washington (or whomever) in a first round game as part of an 8-team tourney. It would be exciting. But the harder-to-quantify cost of playoff expansion is meaningful, and I feel it gets drowned out nearly completely in every discussion like this. (See the calls for conference realignment to suite the whims of a national tournament... again, fine ideas, but there's a cost there IMO)

[JonInMiddleGA]

The current four is already two too many.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Let's have every team play a full season of meaningless games, and then throw all their names into a hat and pick out 256 to play on neutral sites for a title. That way, we can extinguish every last bit of interest in the obsolete regular season.

This seems to be what the goal is.

And I take it pretty damned personally to be honest.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But the harder-to-quantify cost of playoff expansion is meaningful, and I feel it gets drowned out nearly completely in every discussion like this. (See the calls for conference realignment to suite the whims of a national tournament... again, fine ideas, but there's a cost there IMO)

The cost isn't duly considered because those primarily calling for it neither understand nor care about college football. They're casuals looking for cheap entertainment, fuck the rest of the world or what makes sense.

[Ksyrup]

The number of teams is only half - maybe less than half - of the equation. How they are determines matters more to me. I'd prefer 8 teams, but I'd want some structure around how those are determined. Ideally, the 5 P5 champs automatically make it, unless one of them finishes the season ranked outside the AP top 10, plus 3 at-large. I'd prefer no committee at all, even for the 3 at-large selections.

If you want to go back to BCS, I'd go 4 or 8 teams decided by the numbers. Screw the committee stuff.

[CU Tiger]

What Id Ideally like, and who care what CU Tiger likes, right?


But Id call it a 12 team playoff. though it wouldnt really be.


Each P5 Conference Championship game is round 1. Conference gets to decide how to seed their conference champ game. The 5 winners of these games advance. (These are the first 10 playoff spots)



The 6th team is a wildcard game played same week as conference championship week.

1 team must be Group of 5. A P5 can not replace an undefeated Group of 5 in this game. If there are 1 or 0 undefeated Group of 5s then 1 team in the wildcard can be a P5 representative who didnt play in the conference championship game, provided that they have the same record as a conference champ game participant.
After this "round" the 6 teams are seeded.

1 and 2 get byes.
Then CFP as it is played now happens.

[molson]

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me. At least compared to the other "championships" that have been a part of college football - rivalry games, big bowl games based on conference tie-ins, conference championships. I personally kind of lose interest by the time the season gets to that point.

I found college football more interesting when it uniquely wasn't wrapped around this one game at the end. You could make a run in the Big 10, win the Rose Bowl, and your season was a huge success - absent all the consternation at the end of the year trying to compare various 1 and 2 loss teams who played completely differently schedules. I think say, "Washington, PAC-10 champion and Rose Bowl winner" is a more memorable and satisfying season outcome, than say, "Washington, lost in quarter-finals of championship tournament" - which would become a very common outcome for the big schools.

But, I only very casually follow college football to begin with.

[spleen1015]

My 2 cents concerning rivalries....

I don't think they matter at all to younger generations. I don't think younger people give a crap about anything but themselves.

Maybe I think that way because I'm not in one of the college football hot beds or something. I know in my experience around here, the younger generations don't care about rivalries. I don't see anyone say younger than 35 caring about Indiana versus Purdue in anything.

I ask my daughter about the kids in school are talking about sports wise. It's all NBA and NFL, Steph Curry & Lebron. No one cares about college any thing. She can't even remember the last time anyone mentioned MLB.

As far as the playoff goes, it will go to 8 teams because there will be more money to made from it. It's that simple.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Maybe I think that way because I'm not in one of the college football hot beds or something. I know in my experience around here, the younger generations don't care about rivalries. I don't see anyone say younger than 35 caring about Indiana versus Purdue in anything.

Considering how much some people care about them I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

[Logan]

I'd prefer an 8 team playoff because I'm a fan of a team who will need a miracle to appear in the playoff and because I don't really care if the best team ends up being crowned. It's more games without watering down the quality of play. Any expansion beyond that and I doubt I have much interest in most of those first round games.

But I agree with others that the way things are currently set up, there are very rarely 8 teams worthy of being in so it seems silly to expand it if your goal is simply to crown the best team.

[Capital]

I would prefer a 6 team system with the top 2 teams getting byes. That's how I run my fantasy football league. What this does is give the top 2 teams more incentive to keep going as getting a bye is important. Otherwise, a team like Alabama has a playoff spot locked walking out of the tunnel in week 1.

[Capital]

It also doesn't water down the regular season - something that has happened to college basketball.

[bronconick]

It's an interesting issue because most coaches want the bowl season to help keep boosters from wanting their heads on pikes but at the same time high quality players have figured out that bowl games that are not for a title are not worth risking their health over and that's only going to increase.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me.

This. We want to know who is objectively the best, but the season doesn't allow that to happen without a high margin of error. I'd be happy going back to bowl games and debates about who was the best team.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me. At least compared to the other "championships" that have been a part of college football - rivalry games, big bowl games based on conference tie-ins, conference championships. I personally kind of lose interest by the time the season gets to that point.

I found college football more interesting when it uniquely wasn't wrapped around this one game at the end. You could make a run in the Big 10, win the Rose Bowl, and your season was a huge success - absent all the consternation at the end of the year trying to compare various 1 and 2 loss teams who played completely differently schedules. I think say, "Washington, PAC-10 champion and Rose Bowl winner" is a more memorable and satisfying season outcome, than say, "Washington, lost in quarter-finals of championship tournament" - which would become a very common outcome for the big schools.

But, I only very casually follow college football to begin with.

That's probably the closest to my opinion.

Win your conference. Win your bowl. Let the sportswriters and fans argue over the "champion."

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me. At least compared to the other "championships" that have been a part of college football - rivalry games, big bowl games based on conference tie-ins, conference championships. I personally kind of lose interest by the time the season gets to that point.

I found college football more interesting when it uniquely wasn't wrapped around this one game at the end. You could make a run in the Big 10, win the Rose Bowl, and your season was a huge success - absent all the consternation at the end of the year trying to compare various 1 and 2 loss teams who played completely differently schedules. I think say, "Washington, PAC-10 champion and Rose Bowl winner" is a more memorable and satisfying season outcome, than say, "Washington, lost in quarter-finals of championship tournament" - which would become a very common outcome for the big schools.

But, I only very casually follow college football to begin with.

100% on the money.

You have 12 game schedules where some teams don't even play all of the teams in their conference and more than half of the P5 schools don't schedule other P5 schools in non-conference play.

Trying to cram a playoff into this format isn't trying to crown a champion. It's trying to force the excitement of March Madness into college football, which just doesn't work.

College basketball itself is essentially a 1 month sport right now. How many people gave a shit about the Duke/Kentucky game to open the season? The great thing about college football is #1 and #2 playing each other matters whether its the first game or last game of the season.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

My 2 cents concerning rivalries....

I don't think they matter at all to younger generations. I don't think younger people give a crap about anything but themselves.

Maybe I think that way because I'm not in one of the college football hot beds or something. I know in my experience around here, the younger generations don't care about rivalries. I don't see anyone say younger than 35 caring about Indiana versus Purdue in anything.

I ask my daughter about the kids in school are talking about sports wise. It's all NBA and NFL, Steph Curry & Lebron. No one cares about college any thing. She can't even remember the last time anyone mentioned MLB.

As far as the playoff goes, it will go to 8 teams because there will be more money to made from it. It's that simple.

What's the payoff, really? My kids didn't really pay much attention to sports at all. Wasn't their thing. But growing up in Maryland...why root for them? Especially when they jumped conferences, cutting any rivalries they may have had (which were all basketball, of course)?

I mean, I guess my son had some general state spirit and school spirit in HS. And he's building that now at Purdue, but that's because he's there.

If you're in Indiana and either aren't looking to go to Purdue/Indiana or don't have close relatives with ties there...why get worked up? (Especially for football.) After all, you have the Colts and Pacers if you need someone to root for. At least that's the big time.

(Growing up, yeah - I rooted nominally for Penn State, Temple, Villanova. Did I have any real animosity to other teams? Yeah ok, Georgetown. And Notre Dame out of general principle. Other than that, nahhhh.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me. At least compared to the other "championships" that have been a part of college football - rivalry games, big bowl games based on conference tie-ins, conference championships. I personally kind of lose interest by the time the season gets to that point.

I found college football more interesting when it uniquely wasn't wrapped around this one game at the end. You could make a run in the Big 10, win the Rose Bowl, and your season was a huge success - absent all the consternation at the end of the year trying to compare various 1 and 2 loss teams who played completely differently schedules. I think say, "Washington, PAC-10 champion and Rose Bowl winner" is a more memorable and satisfying season outcome, than say, "Washington, lost in quarter-finals of championship tournament" - which would become a very common outcome for the big schools.

But, I only very casually follow college football to begin with.

This is a great post.

I'd add that I think the problem with the current system is it's half-assed. It's trying to appeal to playoff fans while not really providing a legit playoff. Then simultaneously trying to keep traditionalists happy while devaluing the bowls by propping up the playoff (do people give a shit about the Rose Bowl like they used to?). I'm not arguing for either side, just saying I think trying to cater to both sides means neither one is happy.

If you want to crown a legitimate NC, you have to have a real playoff. 8-16 of the best teams battle it out. Especially with the unbalanced schedules and good schools loading up on OOC cupcakes to pad resumes. The 4-team playoff is a popularity contest where people who likely haven't watched these teams play every game have to decide which team is better. It's not legitimate.

And if you want to go back to the old system where the NC doesn't matter and is some running joke where any school can claim it by picking out an obscure poll or computer ranking, do that. You can try and make the bowl games special again. Maybe teams will start scheduling real competition during the regular season.

I don't care which route they go. Just that playing things down the middle just sucks.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Let's have every team play a full season of meaningless games, and then throw all their names into a hat and pick out 256 to play on neutral sites for a title. That way, we can extinguish every last bit of interest in the obsolete regular season.

I don't get this argument. You're saying that the national championship is the reason for playing the regular season. if that's the case, your argument doesn't make much sense.

First, the regular season is meaningless to all the schools outside of a P5 conference (besides Notre Dame) because they have no shot at a NC. Then it becomes meaningless to every P5 team upon their 2nd loss of the season. Your first loss if you didn't start the season in the top 15. So by your logic, practically none of the regular season games being played actually matter after the first few weeks.

And I'd argue the schools don't think the regular season means much either. Does Alabama feel that Arkansas State, Louisiana, and Citadel were "meaningful"? Or were they just quick cash grabs for the school?

The regular season matters argument in relation to a NC doesn't hold much water.

[Ksyrup]

The "if we have a playoff, the regular season becomes meaningless" argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the committee and talking heads often ignoring number of losses and head-to-head results.

[HerRealName]

Christian McCaffrey probably killed the old bowl system just as much as the playoff system.

[GoldenCrest Games]

This statement got me thinking:

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me.

What about eliminating the "national championship" all together? Just stop trying to determine the "winner" of college football and let it be what it is.

I liked the idea of a playoff, but now I'm thinking I'd rather have a league of rivalries without the need to crown a champion.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GoldenCrest Games

This statement got me thinking:

What about eliminating the "national championship" all together? Just stop trying to determine the "winner" of college football and let it be what it is.

I liked the idea of a playoff, but now I'm thinking I'd rather have a league of rivalries without the need to crown a champion.

Let's just start handing out participation trophies while we're at it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

After all, you have the Colts and Pacers if you need someone to root for. At least that's the big time.

This is the cultural difference right here that just can't be over come.
I guarantee you, if I ask my 17 year old son, you have to pick one option
A) full ride to Clemson, 3 year starter and win a national championship make an NFL team
Or
B) walk on to small school. Decent but unremarkable college career. 10 year NFL career with 3 super bowl wins, you start all of them.

If money isn't an option, he takes A every time.
He might take it anyway.

College IS the big time, NFL is just idle entertainment.

[cuervo72]

I mean, that's great. But, no. It's not the 1940s anymore.

(And money of course is a thing, and that's why the best players jump to the NFL as fast as they can.)

[bhlloy]

It might be sacrilege and make me a euro commie, but I actually think promotion/relegation would be a pretty cool concept in college football. Reserve 3 games for your traditional rivals, and the remaining games are in conference. 10 team conferences, top 2 get promoted and bottom 2 get relegated. Start teams out based on their final ranking over the last 5 years. Or maybe 20 team divisions split as geographically logically as you can and then the winners of each “conference” play at the end while the bottom two go down? Gives teams at every level something to play for which let’s face it, 95% of the teams in FBS currently don’t in a playoffs world.

Seems to make a lot more sense to me than these historically based conferences based loosely on geography plus the play whoever else you want and then we try to figure out which teams deserve to be in a narrow end of year playoff. The concept just doesn’t really work on any level.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Let's just start handing out participation trophies while we're at it.

That's how college football was for like 75 years.

[Edward64]

I like the 4 team playoff. You may have disagreement on #4 but when all is said and done, the NC will have to win 2 straight against at worst Top-5-6 and that's pretty good.

[GoldenCrest Games]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It might be sacrilege and make me a euro commie, but I actually think promotion/relegation would be a pretty cool concept in college football. .

I change my vote to this!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is the cultural difference right here that just can't be over come.
I guarantee you, if I ask my 17 year old son, you have to pick one option
A) full ride to Clemson, 3 year starter and win a national championship make an NFL team
Or
B) walk on to small school. Decent but unremarkable college career. 10 year NFL career with 3 super bowl wins, you start all of them.

If money isn't an option, he takes A every time.
He might take it anyway.

College IS the big time, NFL is just idle entertainment.

This is a true statement in many places in the south.

[Butter]

I wouldn't have minded the old Bowl System with a "plus one" championship game.

But I do appreciate the new system, because under it Clemson is playing places they never would've gotten under the old system, like the Fiesta, Sugar, and now Cotton Bowls.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It might be sacrilege and make me a euro commie, but I actually think promotion/relegation would be a pretty cool concept in college football. Reserve 3 games for your traditional rivals, and the remaining games are in conference. 10 team conferences, top 2 get promoted and bottom 2 get relegated. Start teams out based on their final ranking over the last 5 years. Or maybe 20 team divisions split as geographically logically as you can and then the winners of each “conference” play at the end while the bottom two go down? Gives teams at every level something to play for which let’s face it, 95% of the teams in FBS currently don’t in a playoffs world.

Seems to make a lot more sense to me than these historically based conferences based loosely on geography plus the play whoever else you want and then we try to figure out which teams deserve to be in a narrow end of year playoff. The concept just doesn’t really work on any level.

This would never ever work. (I also don't think Promotion/Relegation would ever work in American soccer, mind). No Conference is going to agree to this. Regardless of how bad one's rivals are, no team is going to want them relegated to a lower division.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It might be sacrilege and make me a euro commie, but I actually think promotion/relegation would be a pretty cool concept in college football. Reserve 3 games for your traditional rivals, and the remaining games are in conference. 10 team conferences, top 2 get promoted and bottom 2 get relegated. Start teams out based on their final ranking over the last 5 years. Or maybe 20 team divisions split as geographically logically as you can and then the winners of each “conference” play at the end while the bottom two go down? Gives teams at every level something to play for which let’s face it, 95% of the teams in FBS currently don’t in a playoffs world.

Seems to make a lot more sense to me than these historically based conferences based loosely on geography plus the play whoever else you want and then we try to figure out which teams deserve to be in a narrow end of year playoff. The concept just doesn’t really work on any level.

This falls apart because you forget that these are still, at least ostensibly, Universities. Conference ties come into play for research partnerships, grants etc. Not just athletics.

[corbes]

Originally Posted by molson

The concept of a championship in a "league" that has 130 teams who only play 12 games each, and whose schedules are based on conferences and opponents they arrange themselves always felt silly and artificial to me. At least compared to the other "championships" that have been a part of college football - rivalry games, big bowl games based on conference tie-ins, conference championships. I personally kind of lose interest by the time the season gets to that point.

I found college football more interesting when it uniquely wasn't wrapped around this one game at the end. You could make a run in the Big 10, win the Rose Bowl, and your season was a huge success - absent all the consternation at the end of the year trying to compare various 1 and 2 loss teams who played completely differently schedules. I think say, "Washington, PAC-10 champion and Rose Bowl winner" is a more memorable and satisfying season outcome, than say, "Washington, lost in quarter-finals of championship tournament" - which would become a very common outcome for the big schools.

But, I only very casually follow college football to begin with.

I was persuaded by this post to vote for the old system, even though it is now quaintly impossible. Perhaps there really was something lost in the rush to determine a "national champion." I will add that the bowl system worked much better, for conference tie-in purposes, when there were more conferences.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Capital

I would prefer a 6 team system with the top 2 teams getting byes. That's how I run my fantasy football league. What this does is give the top 2 teams more incentive to keep going as getting a bye is important. Otherwise, a team like Alabama has a playoff spot locked walking out of the tunnel in week 1.

This

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This falls apart because you forget that these are still, at least ostensibly, Universities. Conference ties come into play for research partnerships, grants etc. Not just athletics.

I agree with conference alignments, but you could adjust at least one thing competitively -- out of conference games. Similar to how the NFL schedules by having all the Nth place teams play all the other Nth place teams in their conference, schedule the OOC games by tiers.

If you're Kansas, or Rutgers, you're going to be playing Buffalo, or Nichols, or each other, until you get your shit together. And if you do have a break out year -- well, nice, but you still had three games against other traditionally weak opponents. Earn a harder schedule the next year to prove your worth.

If you're Alabama? Strictly P5 teams, and good ones, at that. You're on top of the mountain, you beat the best to stay there. No more Furman, or Army, or Ball State if you want to supplant Alabama. UCF? If you work your way up to an OOC of Georgia, Michigan, and Washington and are unscathed? Yeah, maybe you belong.

I know that will never happen as you will never get rid of OOC rivalries (well, maybe not never - Penn State had historical rivalries with Pitt, WVU, and Syracuse that are no more) and cupcakes, but that's what I'd want to see.

[bbgunn]

16-team playoff, or a 12-team playoff, or any system that guarantees the conference champion of EVERY conference a spot - just like the FCS and college basketball. You think the regular season means a lot now? Watch what happens in the Sun Belt when the league champion gets a potential shot at playing an Alabama or a Clemson.

Any playoff system that doesn't let every conference champion in is a fraud. Imagine a March Madness without Cinderella. There would be no Loyola-Chicagos, no Butlers pre-Big East, no VCUs, no George Masons.

If you do do a six-team playoff, they should set it up like they have in Australian rugby league. Have #1 play #2 in the first round, with the winner going to the national championship game. Then have a #3 play #6 and #4 play #5, then the two winners of those games play each other. The winner of that game would play the loser of the #1/#2 game, with the winner going on to the national championship game. It would make getting a top seed more important.

[RainMaker]

FCS games should not count toward bowl eligibility.