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

# 101 NYJets @ 06/26/12 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block M


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

Relax.

I was responding to the idea of an 8-4 team winning the title. Nothing more.

Let's focus on one ridiculous argument for no playoffs at a time.

# 102 phenom1990 @ 06/26/12 06:54 PM

I know the 16 team playoff idea is probably not realistic and would require major tweaks to accommodate it ( probably less out of conference games).

I like the 4 team playoff, ideally I would want 8. As the middle ground between maybe what I want and what the NCAA wants, I would make the BCS conference champions an auto- bid and have two at larges. Also, I would require the BCS conferences to have a conference championship games so that even if the 2nd or 3rd "best" team in a BCS conference felt they deserved to get it, you could cite their loss or lack of appearance in the conference championship game as a reason you didn't include them.

# 103 Block M @ 06/26/12 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYJets


	Relax. I was responding to the idea of an 8-4 team winning the title. Nothing more. Let's focus on one ridiculous argument for no playoffs at a time.

That last line is key, there are many VALID arguments against any playoff more than four teams that eight plus playoff backers do not even think about.

Luckily in the interviews I've seen from Jim Delany and Larry Scott the people in charge of making these decisions have the integrity of the regular season at the top of their priority list. People on here against the current system or JUST a four team playoff DO NOT.

# 104 Perfect Zero @ 06/26/12 07:37 PM

So a four team playoff with a selection committee is official. Good bye mid-majors; you don't have the BCS to save you now. When a one or two loss team jumps Boise State, we'll see about people complaining about the fifth team then.

# 105 GiantYankee @ 06/26/12 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by js3512


	Teams wouldnt play in two bowls. The two semifinal games are each bowl games but the final is the bcs national championship game, not a bowl.

Thanks for clarifying. I saw that reported and that makes more sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block M


	Luckily in the interviews I've seen from Jim Delany and Larry Scott the people in charge of making these decisions have the integrity of the regular season at the top of their priority list. People on here against the current system or JUST a four team playoff DO NOT.

I don't think those guys care too much about the integrity of the regular season. They are more concerned with the integrity of the potentially billions of dollars that can from this playoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Zero


	So a four team playoff with a selection committee is official. Good bye mid-majors; you don't have the BCS to save you now. When a one or two loss team jumps Boise State, we'll see about people complaining about the fifth team then.

Why do you hate the mid-majors so much?

# 106 GiantYankee @ 06/26/12 08:22 PM

I'm happier about the announcement much more than I thought I would. This is definitely progress. I'm sure we will still be arguing that certain teams should have earned the fourth spot, but that's sports. I'm starting the believe that the non-BCS power conferences should create their own league or at least their own playoff system. Whatever happens from 2014 on will be to exclude those conferences and keep the money to a select few.

# 107 D0GGERT D0G @ 06/26/12 08:34 PM

I would like to have had a plus-one to give more teams a shot, playing the #1 after the win. But this is a huge step in the right direction

# 108 Andrews85 @ 06/26/12 09:27 PM

So is the 4 team playoff (12 year deal) set in stone? Or can they expand the number of teams before 2025?

I'm glad they finally got around to a playoff system, but I think 4 teams just isn't going to satisfy fans. Selecting teams 3 and 4 is definitely going to be controversial.

# 109 bkrich83 @ 06/26/12 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Zero


	So a four team playoff with a selection committee is official. Good bye mid-majors; you don't have the BCS to save you now. When a one or two loss team jumps Boise State, we'll see about people complaining about the fifth team then.

Wtf are you talking about?

# 110 lonewolf371 @ 06/26/12 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrews85


	So is the 4 team playoff (12 year deal) set in stone? Or can they expand the number of teams before 2025? I'm glad they finally got around to a playoff system, but I think 4 teams just isn't going to satisfy fans. Selecting teams 3 and 4 is definitely going to be controversial.

The right number might be around 6-8. I'd like to see the major conference champions usually in plus some mid-majors. 16 is really too many.

# 111 BigDofBA @ 06/26/12 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Wtf are you talking about?

Yeah. That was kind of a head scratcher.

As of now, it's a two team playoff that involves agendas and a ton of bias. Why would mid-majors have "less" of a chance now that we have expanded to four? If anything, it increases the likelihood of an undefeated team getting a chance.

Utah, Boise, and TCU are all members of BCS conferences now so it's almost a moot point.

Also, I don't understand how anyone can complain about the 5th team getting left out.

How many times has the 5th team been championship worthy? I feel like an 8 team playoff would be ideal but I think a four team playoff is a great start.

When was the last time more than four teams went undefeated? It seems like it's usually a 3 team race.

It sucks that we're just now getting to this point. I've only been talking about a 4-8 team playoff since I joined this site my freshman year of college in 2002.

Why can't they have an 8 team playoffs incorporating the 4 BCS bowls? It would really only amount to two more games. Everyone would win.

Also, don't give me this BCS about how NCAA student athletes wouldn't be capable of playing 2 more games. Every other division does it and college basketball players are missing class as all the time as they play multiple games a week.

Being a division 1 athlete is pretty much a year around thing anyway. Anyway, as I've been saying, an 8 team playoff would be ideal but I'll gladly take a four team playoff in the time being.

# 112 ActLikeYouCrow @ 06/26/12 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDofBA


	Also, I hate how it's turned into who you lose to and not who you beat.

its both, everything is relative or subjective, its who you beat who you lost to and how. its not like the oklahoma st supporters last year didnt overstate their resume. comparing why a team from 2007 got into the title game and why a team from 2011 didnt is irrelevant if you dont bring up the competition their year. ill agree on the broader point that teams that teams can end up screwed no matter what.

# 113 BigDofBA @ 06/26/12 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ActLikeYouCrow


	its both, everything is relative or subjective, its who you beat who you lost to and how. its not like the oklahoma st supporters last year didnt overstate their resume. comparing why a team from 2007 got into the title game and why a team from 2011 didnt is irrelevant if you dont bring up the competition their year. ill agree on the broader point that teams that teams can end up screwed no matter what.

Alabama was a really good team but Oklahoma State deserved to be in the game because they won their conference and had more quality wins during the regular season.

I don't think it's fair that Bama didn't win their division, didn't win their conference, and still got a rematch.

While Bama was at home resting LSU and Oklahoma State had to play top 15 teams.

LSU got screwed because they beat Bama, won Bama's division, won Bama's conference and still had to play them again despite having also beat teams like WVU and Oregon away from home.

Obviously the regular season didn't matter because Bama only beat like three teams with a winning record yet was awarded a bye before the championship game.

I think we can both agree the system is severely flawed. Saban is voting his team up and voting Oklahoma State down and Oklahoma State's coach doesn't even have a vote. What is that?

# 114 Perfect Zero @ 06/27/12 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiantYankee


	Why do you hate the mid-majors so much?

I don't hate the mid-majors at all. But if anybody thinks that a non BCS team is going to make this playoff with a selection committee, they are only fooling themselves.

# 115 BigDofBA @ 06/27/12 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Zero


	I don't hate the mid-majors at all. But if anybody thinks that a non BCS team is going to make this playoff with a selection committee, they are only fooling themselves.

Aren't all of the good "mid-majors" now in BCS conferences?

# 116 WARRIORSx808 @ 06/27/12 03:59 AM

it gives teams like my Hawaii Warriors a slim to none chance to the playoff but getting into the other 4 BCS bowls would be an honor

# 117 Cardot @ 06/27/12 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block M


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

Looking at the graduation rates of many of the stronger football programs, it makes it pretty hard to take the "Student Athlete" argument seriously.

# 118 Perfect Zero @ 06/27/12 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDofBA


	Aren't all of the good "mid-majors" now in BCS conferences?

Depends if Boise State to the Big East is still happening. Over the past four years, Texas Christian was the team that was three and four in the BCS standings in the end of the year (Utah was third in 2009 if I remember right). Both these teams are in the big time conference now.

BCS conference status though doesn't mean anything if you have a "selection committee." I guarantee you that if an undefeated Big East team goes up against a one or two loss SEC team for the fourth spot, the SEC team is going to get preference. I'll grant you that there is still items to iron out, but travel base is going to be a big point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardot


	Looking at the graduation rates of many of the stronger football programs, it makes it pretty hard to take the "Student Athlete" argument seriously.

Not only that, but in Texas High School Football, teams can play up to sixteen games if they reach the Championship. It's amazing that they can do that, but in college they magically can't play more than thirteen or fourteen tops.

# 119 Block M @ 06/27/12 10:36 AM

I'll say this, every argument I've heard for a big playoff is weak.

The counter argument to a big playoff taking away from the regular season just focused on the resting players factor and someone actually brought up a game such as Florida playing Furman late in the season as their example? Well let me fill you in on something, that game does mean something because Florida still had to win. Plus, I find it funny that in your mind resting starters in Florida/Furman is the same thing as resting starters in an SEC CG between Georgia/LSU, or a #1/#2 mammoth late season matchup neither team needs to win cause they are in regardless in your monster playoff.

Kids playing 16 games in Texas HS, but "magically" not being able to in college. There are so many things you monster playoff advocates don't think about such as TV and revenue. Plus the fact that an uprising would occur when NFL-bound seniors start dropping with injuries late in your 15+ game schedules before they get to the riches of the NFL. In today's day and age there would probably be a lawsuit for every senior injury that happened if you forced every college team to play around 17 games a season to get anywhere close to a Championship.

I'm just glad you guys are not in charge of any decision making because the world would be a sad place. The intense late season rivalries would be dead, a whole lot of tradition that makes College Football what it is would be dead, College Football would be dead....I just hope you guys enjoy the next 14 years because it's 4-teams and it is not changing.

# 120 TDenverFan @ 06/27/12 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block M


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

High school players can play 15 games. D3 schools play 15-17 games, if they play for the title. Every other NCAA sport (That I know of) has a playoff. And many of those kids actually are student athletes. If every other sport (Including FCS, D2, and D3 football) can pull off a playoff, why can't the FCS?

And the student athlete idea is dead. Bowl games are week-week and a half long vacations often in the middle of a semester. Football powerhouses have such low graduation rates for athletes. (Duke, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc. as exceptions) A playoff will not harm the 'student' athletes. The early round games should take place ove rwinter break.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 Next »

More Links

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