News Post

Sound Off: Do you like the college football playoff plan?

11:10 AM - June 21, 2012 by RaychelSnr

The day has arrived, we now know that College Football's National Champion will definitely be decided by a playoff for the first time ever for the 2014 season. The format seems simple enough: the top four teams as chosen by a selection committee.

The question of by what criteria will the teams be selected has not been finalized. It sounds like, on the surface, that the days of computers and polls deciding the National Champion might be a thing of the past.

So what do you think about the new college football playoff plan? Do you like it? Are you worried about the selection committee aspect?

Sound off!

Member Comments

# 81 BigDofBA @ 06/25/12 08:48 PM

I'm a little late to this party but I laugh every time I see people say the regular season matters.

Every year says otherwise.

LSU beat Alabama during the regular season at Alabama and won the SEC. Alabama didn't win it's division, didn't win it's conference, and lost to LSU.

Alabama won the national title despite having the same record as LSU, losing to them head to head, and finishing second in LSU's division.

I'm pretty sure the LSU/Bama game in November was meaningless and I'm pretty sure the SEC championship game was meaningless.

How many examples do you guys need?

My team didn't win it's conference in 2003 and got to play for a championship over the Pac-10 champion (USC). Obviously that Big 12 title game we lost didn't matter.

You can go 13-0 in the SEC and not sniff the national title game or you can not even win your division or conference and play for a title like Bama did last year.

Boise and TCU can beat major BCS teams time and time again, go undefeated, and it doesn't matter. LSU can lose 2 games and get to play for a title in their home state.

It's really just a crap shoot voted on by people with agendas. The system is horrible. Saban gets to vote his team #1 last year but Gundy has not vote? WTF is that?

How can some coaches vote on who plays for a title and some can't? To play devils advocate, Stoops always helps out Spurrier and vice versa. There are so many agendas going on.

There was also won year that a voter leapfrogged Texas Tech above OU after OU blew them out. The voter later stated that he didn't watch the game and read the ticker wrong. LOL.

I like the idea of an 8 team playoff but I'll gladly take 4 as it is better than anything we currently have.

It's pretty sad that we have a more competent poll here at OS than what we use in real life.

# 82 Perfect Zero @ 06/25/12 09:16 PM

coogrfan, you make the assumption that college football is part of a socialist system when it really a business. Houston and the other schools that are mid-majors are not in the position to compete with the upper level of teams. It's just a fact of life. What these teams ought to do is create their own league and declare their own National Champion as they do in the other divisions. Otherwise, it's just going to be disappointment for you. Go where the money is.

# 83 bkrich83 @ 06/25/12 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDofBA


	I'm a little late to this party but I laugh every time I see people say the regular season matters. Every year says otherwise. LSU beat Alabama during the regular season at Alabama and won the SEC. Alabama didn't win it's division, didn't win it's conference, and lost to LSU. Alabama won the national title despite having the same record as LSU, losing to them head to head, and finishing second in LSU's division. I'm pretty sure the LSU/Bama game in November was meaningless and I'm pretty sure the SEC championship game was meaningless. How many examples do you guys need? My team didn't win it's conference in 2003 and got to play for a championship over the Pac-10 champion (USC). Obviously that Big 12 title game we lost didn't matter. You can go 13-0 in the SEC and not sniff the national title game or you can not even win your division or conference and play for a title like Bama did last year. Boise and TCU can beat major BCS teams time and time again, go undefeated, and it doesn't matter. LSU can lose 2 games and get to play for a title in their home state. It's really just a crap shoot voted on by people with agendas. The system is horrible. Saban gets to vote his team #1 last year but Gundy has not vote? WTF is that? How can some coaches vote on who plays for a title and some can't? To play devils advocate, Stoops always helps out Spurrier and vice versa. There are so many agendas going on. There was also won year that a voter leapfrogged Texas Tech above OU after OU blew them out. The voter later stated that he didn't watch the game and read the ticker wrong. LOL. I like the idea of an 8 team playoff but I'll gladly take 4 as it is better than anything we currently have. It's pretty sad that we have a more competent poll here at OS than what we use in real life.

Agreed on all counts. The regular season doesn't matter, because the title is decided the same way figure skating is.

# 84 lonewolf371 @ 06/25/12 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	In the NFL you're never going to see a 12-0 team have zero chance of playing for a title, nor are you going to see a team that didn't even win it's division get automatically lifted in to a title game without having to earn it. Those things right there debunk the idea the regular season means any more than any other sport. The current system is a money grab, nothing more. It's about ratings, not deciding true championships. It's a myth that people who haven't realized it's the 21st century desperately cling to.

I agree that the current system doesn't decide true championships, but it's a myth that it's a myth that the regular season doesn't matter. If Oklahoma State had gone 12-0, they would have been in the title game. The regular season matters in that they lost a game and Alabama had the same record with what were perceived to be more marquee wins.

And I honestly don't see how you can say that the NFL regular season matters more when it's a yearly ritual that teams rest starters at the end of the season. That boggles my mind.

# 85 bkrich83 @ 06/25/12 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf371


	I agree that the current system doesn't decide true championships, but it's a myth that it's a myth that the regular season doesn't matter. If Oklahoma State had gone 12-0, they would have been in the title game. The regular season matters in that they lost a game and Alabama had the same record with what were perceived to be more marquee wins. And I honestly don't see how you can say that the NFL regular season matters more when it's a yearly ritual that teams rest starters at the end of the season. That boggles my mind.

The rest their starters stuff is your base argument? How frequent does it happen in the NFL?

Marquee wins, that makes the season matter? Some nebulous definition? A 13-0 SEC team being left out makes the season matter more?

Are you arguing just to argue? Because you've abandoned logic. Any argument you can make about the NCAA season mattering more, can be countered by a stronger argument that disproves it, as myself and a multitude of others have shown. That argument is over. The myth has been busted.

The cat is out of the bag, which is exactly why the BCS after all these years is giving in. They finally understand that other than a few people who simply don't get the current system for what it is, the vast majority of the people have figured out how fraudulent their claims about the regular season being sacred were.

The playoffs will be 4 teams chosen from a field of 113. Saying that will make the regular season matter less is ridiculous. If anything it will matter more.

Championships should be decided on the field, not by voters with regional and conference related bias.

# 86 bkrich83 @ 06/25/12 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad_philanthropy


	This is definitely a step in the right direction. I think the interest this will generate will eventually lead to an expansion in the number of teams and the overall NCAA Football D-1A playoff property will be become a massive success. It's an overall good beginning to what should eventually be something that better resembles what we've really been dreaming of regarding a college football playoff.

It's a start and all things being equal I can live with it. 8 teams to me is ideal.

# 87 BigDofBA @ 06/25/12 10:56 PM

The current system sucks because there are only about 20 teams that have a shot at winning the title.

I love how people say teams like Boise State, TCU, and Utah (back in the day) weren't good enough.

All those teams have done is beat top 10 BCS teams on a consistent basis.

One year Alabama was #1 all season, then they lost to Florida in the SEC title game. I think they were like 12-1 and they got absolutely blown off the field by Utah in their bowl game. Didn't Utah win by like three touchdowns?

Point being, people would have said Utah had no chance had the two teams not played. You never know unless it's played out on the field.

Also, I hate how it's turned into who you lose to and not who you beat. You could beat 5 top 10 teams but if you lose a conference game on the road to a .500 team you're screwed. You're better off beating a bunch of mediocre teams and losing to a good team. It doesn't make sense.

It's hard to win conference road games against teams that see you every year.

I'm not sure why LSU got a pass in 2007 for losing on the road to a 6-6 Kentucky team and losing the last game of the year at home to Arkansas but Oklahoma State didn't get a pass for losing to a 7-6 Iowa State team in overtime.

People say it matters when you lose. IT DOESN'T.

LSU lost it's last game at home and still got into the title game. OU and Nebraska lost their last games and still got in.

People say it matters who you loses to. IT DOESN'T. Oklahoma State loses in overtime to a .500 Iowa State team and gets left out. LSU loses on the road in overtime to a .500 Kentucky team and gets in.

TCU, Utah, Auburn, USC, and Boise lose to no one and get left out

People say the regular season matters yet Bama loses to LSU and gets to play them again over a team that actually won their conference (OSU). Bama is sitting at home the final weekend. Oklahoma State is beating a top 10 team by 35 in prime time.

Pretty much every case people make for the BCS is BS.

# 88 lonewolf371 @ 06/25/12 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	The rest their starters stuff is your base argument? How frequent does it happen in the NFL? Marquee wins, that makes the season matter? Some nebulous definition? A 13-0 SEC team being left out makes the season matter more? Are you arguing just to argue? Because you've abandoned logic. Any argument you can make about the NCAA season mattering more, can be countered by a stronger argument that disproves it, as myself and a multitude of others have shown. That argument is over. The myth has been busted. The cat is out of the bag, which is exactly why the BCS after all these years is giving in. They finally understand that other than a few people who simply don't get the current system for what it is, the vast majority of the people have figured out how fraudulent their claims about the regular season being sacred were. The playoffs will be 4 teams chosen from a field of 113. Saying that will make the regular season matter less is ridiculous. If anything it will matter more. Championships should be decided on the field, not by voters with regional and conference related bias.

NFL starters resting happens pretty much every season at this point. The Colts alone kept the streak going for a number of years.

You haven't disproved anything. Auburn and Oklahoma State getting screwed over says that the poll system is broken, not that the regular season doesn't matter. The regular season mattered in both of those cases because it determined the candidate teams; a single loss eliminated a plethora of other teams from consideration in both cases. Every argument you make is a tangent on whether the regular season itself has mattered.

College football's regular season still matters more than the regular season in any other sport because of the perfection that it demands. It adds a level of drama around losses that other sports lack. I'm quite confident in that. That will continue under the new system, but it won't be as dramatic as the past system.

By the way I'm not supporting the BCS system at all, but the notion that the regular season didn't matter under it is just a matter of being angry and hating every aspect of the system regardless of the facts.

# 89 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf371


	NFL starters resting happens pretty much every season at this point. The Colts alone kept the streak going for a number of years. You haven't disproved anything. Auburn and Oklahoma State getting screwed over says that the poll system is broken, not that the regular season doesn't matter. The regular season mattered in both of those cases because it determined the candidate teams; a single loss eliminated a plethora of other teams from consideration in both cases. Every argument you make is a tangent on whether the regular season itself has mattered. College football's regular season still matters more than the regular season in any other sport because of the perfection that it demands. It adds a level of drama around losses that other sports lack. I'm quite confident in that. That will continue under the new system, but it won't be as dramatic as the past system. By the way I'm not supporting the BCS system at all, but the notion that the regular season didn't matter under it is just a matter of being angry and hating every aspect of the system regardless of the facts.

If a team goes 13-0 and has zero chance to play for a title, that regular season didn't matter. Why play 13 games if you're not ever gonna get an opportunity to play for a championship?

I am not sure where you're getting this level of perfection or drama. Nebraska went to the title game after losing by 30 points to Colorado while giving up 60 points and not even making the title game. How is that a level of perfection? Where was the extra drama there? The SEC and Big 12 title games were basically rendered moot last year.

You're telling me last years conference title games added more drama than a 4 team playoff?

The argument the season means more quite simply silly. This isn't figure skating, deciding championships like it, doesn't make it more dramatic or meaningful.

There were no tangents, just example of after example that debunk the theory.

# 90 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf371


	NFL starters resting happens pretty much every season at this point. The Colts alone kept the streak going for a number of years.

That's actually quite false. Hell the 2010 last week of the season, provided more last week drama than any recent NCAA regular season.

# 91 BigDofBA @ 06/26/12 12:15 AM

Auburn can go 13-0 and it doesn't matter.

LSU can go 10-2, lose to a .500 team, lose their last game at home to Arkansas, and still play for a title.

LSU beats Bama. LSU wins Bama's division. LSU wins Bama's conference. LSU has to play Bama again to win the national championship? Apparently nothing LSU did in the regular season mattered. Bama actually had the easier path as it's hard to beat a good team twice. While LSU was going on the road at WVU and playing Oregon on a neutral field, Bama was beating up on nobodies.

OU, Nebraksa, and Alabama don't win their conference but get to play for a title?

Auburn, Utah, TCU, and Boise State go undefeated and have no shot at a title?

Every game isn't meaningful. How many more examples do you need? I could go on all day.

I did love the year that OU lose to Texas, finished with the same record, and then we got to get in over them. That was pretty sweet. LOL.

# 92 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDofBA


	The current system sucks because there are only about 20 teams that have a shot at winning the title. I love how people say teams like Boise State, TCU, and Utah (back in the day) weren't good enough. All those teams have done is beat top 10 BCS teams on a consistent basis. One year Alabama was #1 all season, then they lost to Florida in the SEC title game. I think they were like 12-1 and they got absolutely blown off the field by Utah in their bowl game. Didn't Utah win by like three touchdowns? Point being, people would have said Utah had no chance had the two teams not played. You never know unless it's played out on the field. Also, I hate how it's turned into who you lose to and not who you beat. You could beat 5 top 10 teams but if you lose a conference game on the road to a .500 team you're screwed. You're better off beating a bunch of mediocre teams and losing to a good team. It doesn't make sense. It's hard to win conference road games against teams that see you every year. I'm not sure why LSU got a pass in 2007 for losing on the road to a 6-6 Kentucky team and losing the last game of the year at home to Arkansas but Oklahoma State didn't get a pass for losing to a 7-6 Iowa State team in overtime. People say it matters when you lose. IT DOESN'T. LSU lost it's last game at home and still got into the title game. OU and Nebraska lost their last games and still got in. People say it matters who you loses to. IT DOESN'T. Oklahoma State loses in overtime to a .500 Iowa State team and gets left out. LSU loses on the road in overtime to a .500 Kentucky team and gets in. TCU, Utah, Auburn, USC, and Boise lose to no one and get left out People say the regular season matters yet Bama loses to LSU and gets to play them again over a team that actually won their conference (OSU). Bama is sitting at home the final weekend. Oklahoma State is beating a top 10 team by 35 in prime time. Pretty much every case people make for the BCS is BS.

Absolutely. The quality of loss being more meaningful than quality of wins, is so utterly absurd, I can't even put it in to words.

# 93 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDofBA


	Auburn can go 13-0 and it doesn't matter. LSU can go 10-2, lose to a .500 team, lose their last game at home to Arkansas, and still play for a title. LSU beats Bama. LSU wins Bama's division. LSU wins Bama's conference. LSU has to play Bama again to win the national championship? Apparently nothing LSU did in the regular season mattered. Bama actually had the easier path as it's hard to beat a good team twice. While LSU was going on the road at WVU and playing Oregon on a neutral field, Bama was beating up on nobodies. OU, Nebraksa, and Alabama don't win their conference but get to play for a title? Auburn, Utah, TCU, and Boise State go undefeated and have no shot at a title? Every game isn't meaningful. How many more examples do you need? I could go on all day. I did love the year that OU lose to Texas, finished with the same record, and then we got to get in over them. That was pretty sweet. LOL.

Alabama essentially got a bye before the Title game, while LSU had to play the SEC title game, because they lost to LSU earlier in the season. Yup that game was real meaningful.

# 94 Rocky @ 06/26/12 12:27 AM

If done right, I think the selection committee would be the best part of this.

If I were in charge, I would pick a 11 person committee:
-2 former coaches who have coached multiple teams in large conferences
-2 former coaches who have spent the majority of there career in mid-major conferences
-2 esteemed members of the media who are chosen randomly
-3 NCAA representatives that are chosen randomly (can pulled from the athletic departments of all 120 Div-1A schools and no AD can be pulled twice from the same conference)

Lock them in a room on Saturday to watch games and Tuesday through Thursday to review game tape.

Give them a criteria in this general order:
W/L record
Overall Schedule
Road wins
Home wins
OOC Schedule
Impressiveness of victory

And all votes are public.

# 95 NYJets @ 06/26/12 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf371


	NFL starters resting happens pretty much every season at this point. The Colts alone kept the streak going for a number of years.

So? So in week 16 and 17 the Colts and Pats are playing meaningless games. You can just watch a bunch of other games that mean a lot. In college, there are a few teams where every game matters, but the vast majority of games mean nothing. I'll agree that there may be a game or 2 a season that is bigger than any NFL regular season game, but there is still way more games that matter in the NFL.

And is 1 or 2 teams resting starters for their last game any worse than all the big schools playing an FCS team, + a few cupcakes that there is no chance they will lose? I bet every good NCAA team ends up resting their starters more during the year than any NFL team does.

I don't think 4 is enough, 8 or 16 would be better. But 4 is definitely better than 2.

# 96 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYJets


	So? So in week 16 and 17 the Colts and Pats are playing meaningless games. You can just watch a bunch of other games that mean a lot. In college, there are a few teams where every game matters, but the vast majority of games mean nothing. I'll agree that there may be a game or 2 a season that is bigger than any NFL regular season game, but there is still way more games that matter in the NFL. And is 1 or 2 teams resting starters for their last game any worse than all the big schools playing an FCS team, + a few cupcakes that there is no chance they will lose? I bet every good NCAA team ends up resting their starters more during the year than any NFL team does.

Hell there are teams this year playing 2 FCS teams.

# 97 mercalnd @ 06/26/12 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Zero


	coogrfan, you make the assumption that college football is part of a socialist system when it really a business. Houston and the other schools that are mid-majors are not in the position to compete with the upper level of teams. It's just a fact of life. What these teams ought to do is create their own league and declare their own National Champion as they do in the other divisions. Otherwise, it's just going to be disappointment for you. Go where the money is.

You seem to have chosen to simply disregard his main argument so I'll ask this again:

How do you justify that what you are advocating leaves out strong programs such as FSU, Va Tech, Clemson, GT and Miami while it includes such weak programs as Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Vandy, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado?

Even if these strong programs get picked up by the "big four" conferences, there are still plenty of good programs in your scenario that would get locked out while the weak programs I listed get their shot.

IMO, the only way that what you are advocating could work is if the entire landscape changes and the "big four" not only expand but also drop some of their dead weight football programs. I don't think this will ever happen for reasons that have nothing to do with football.

Continued expansion will only lead to weaker in-conference schedules for everyone as it diminishes the frequecy of matchups between the top teams in opposite divisions of the same conference.

# 98 lonewolf371 @ 06/26/12 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYJets


	So? So in week 16 and 17 the Colts and Pats are playing meaningless games. You can just watch a bunch of other games that mean a lot. In college, there are a few teams where every game matters, but the vast majority of games mean nothing. I'll agree that there may be a game or 2 a season that is bigger than any NFL regular season game, but there is still way more games that matter in the NFL. And is 1 or 2 teams resting starters for their last game any worse than all the big schools playing an FCS team, + a few cupcakes that there is no chance they will lose? I bet every good NCAA team ends up resting their starters more during the year than any NFL team does. I don't think 4 is enough, 8 or 16 would be better. But 4 is definitely better than 2.

Yes resting the starters is definitely worse than scheduling FCS schools. The result of games against FCS schools doesn't have a positive effect, but a loss has a huge negative effect whereas a game where starters are rested is basically a big "eff you" to the entire concept of a regular season.

But sure, let's expand it to 16, 32 teams. I'll just tickle myself to death when a 8-4 team wins the title.

# 99 NYJets @ 06/26/12 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf371


	Yes resting the starters is definitely worse than scheduling FCS schools. The result of games against FCS schools doesn't have a positive effect, but a loss has a huge negative effect whereas a game where starters are rested is basically a big "eff you" to the entire concept of a regular season. But sure, let's expand it to 16, 32 teams. I'll just tickle myself to death when a 8-4 team wins the title.

Nobody is canceling their saturday plans to watch LSU vs. Northwestern State because if LSU loses their championship hopes are over. It never happens.

If a team goes 8-4 and then wins 4 or 5 games against elite teams to win the title, they deserve it much more than a team that goes 12-0 scheduling nobody and then wins one game.

# 100 Block M @ 06/26/12 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYJets


	Nobody is canceling their saturday plans to watch LSU vs. Northwestern State because if LSU loses their championship hopes are over. It never happens. If a team goes 8-4 and then wins 4 or 5 games against elite teams to win the title, they deserve it much more than a team that goes 12-0 scheduling nobody and then wins one game.

16 or 17 games for student athletes to play? You've obviously thought out this entire 16 team playoff idea.

« Previous 1 2 3 456 7 Next »

More Links

Sound Off: Do you like the college football playoff plan?