With players opting out of Bowl games, is it time for an expanded playoff?

[YLGator]

...and so then the football season is essentially over for every team as soon as they lose a game. No chance for redemption, just "wait til next year," even if you lose in the opening weeks of the season. That's how you like it?

Yep, that’s exactly how I like it. I get it, they’ll eventually go to 8 teams. Just too much money to be made not too. However, that will change the dynamic of the regular season. Watching one of the pre-season favorites get upset in September is a blast. Those games were great, tons of intensity and drama because everyone knew the season was on the line. That completely goes away with an 8 team playoff. Just look at this year. We lost 3 games and are sitting at #7. Oklahoma is #6. We lost 3 games including a home game to a terrible LSU team. Oklahoma lost to 4-6 KState. Neither of us should be in a playoff with those performances.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Auburn 2004 (13-0), won SEC championship, were not selected by the BCS for the 1 vs 2 National Championship game. They won everything on the field. Their only loss was a popularity contest.

What I'm arguing is that USC and OU won the eye test over Auburn for the opportunity to play for the championship. So no, USC did not win it entirely on the field.


I don't believe that the "eye test" should have any place in sports championships.

Auburn played Citadel, Louisiana Monroe & LA Tech. They knew strength of schedule was a component of the system, along with a number of other factors. Nobody forced them to play that schedule. They could have swapped the pansies out for tougher competition, they chose not to. Yes, they had their chance to “win it on the field”. They didn’t do it. USC had their chance to win it on the field. They did do it.

Just because a team finishes undefeated, or wins their conference, it shouldn’t mean they automatically get a shot at the title (under any system). The idea above touting a 16 team playoff with UAB playing Alabama in Round 1 is ridiculously stupid for a number of reasons. Anybody that thinks that is good for college football and will bring more fans into the fold is nuts.

For what it’s worth, I never said the BCS system was flawless. You two keep harping on the 2004 Auburn season as your proof. I agree that season left some unanswered questions as to whether the system got the matchup correct, with the benefit of hindsight. Again, though, look back to the mid 90s until the start of the 4 team playoff & tell me how many seasons the #1 vs. #2 matchup was obviously flawed prior to the games being played and then with the benefit of hindsight. Most years they got it correct.

 

[rogdochar]

But the opinions of people in that boat shouldn't be considered when determining the direction of the CFP system, IMO.

Yeah, triple-G. They go overboard.

 

[gatorev12]

Leading off with the obvious: no system will be perfect and there's always going to be some controversy. March Madness is the largest playoff system in the NCAA DI sporting landscape...and even that has its controversies when you're trying to figure out who gets "in" at the bottom seeds and whether smaller programs get the nod over Power 5 midtable conference teams.

The regular season matters...rivalry games matter...and bowl games *should* matter. So how to revamp the system that protects all the above?

I hear the argument that the old-school formula of #1 vs #2 was the "best" at preserving the regular season and generally ensuring quality bowl games...but we aren't going backwards for two reasons: money and the media.

The money part is obvious; and the media exists to stir up controversy. In the BCS era, there was perpetual whining about the #3 team that was left out (Auburn's a good example); but also teams like Boise that were undefeated and "deserving of a chance." In the playoff era, that's switched to UCF, Cincinnati, and to an extent, BYU. I feel for those programs--and while I've no doubt they aren't even close to being able to compete for a national championship, who doesn't like the idea of an upset by one of those guys over a team like Ohio State or Clemson? I'd enjoy the hell out of it. They'd lose the next game--for sure, but it'd be a fun ride along the way.

Here's a workable solution for an 8 team playoff: take the top 8 ranked committee teams and have them duke it out. The cream generally rises to the crop and let's face it: the top 1-4 teams are usually undefeated every year anyway, so regular season will still matter. This rewards stronger conferences like the SEC too--since the committee factors in "the eye test" and strength of schedule. Sorry, I've seen enough of the Pac 12 getting hosed by an SEC team in a season opener, then go on to coast through that joke of a conference and be generating playoff "buzz" later on. There's plenty of in-season marquee games between the various conferences that establish the pecking order and that should matter. Ie: if Oregon loses to Auburn in week 1...Auburn loses to #3 LSU and then #1 Bama...why should a one-loss Oregon team be ranked above them when Auburn would have played 4-5 top 15 teams and Oregon only one (that they lost). Things like that have me against making it mandatory for all Power 5 conference champions to get a playoff bid.

Expanded playoff means more revenue--use that to increase the pot for the smaller bowls. Nothing ensures that coaches and players turn up more than more revenue at stake.

Opt-outs are tricky...but the main reason players do it is because there's a--valid--fear of injury. D'Eriq King got hurt yesterday; and so did Ehlinger. King's injury looked more serious. Two solutions immediately come to mind: immediately grant an extra year of eligibility to all seniors who get injured; and also: use part of the expanded playoff revenue to set up an insurance fund for players who get injured in a bowl game. Taking some of the risk out of the equation will cut down on this more than we have now.

The NCAA needs to throw some weight around and have the NFL get on-board with things too...ultimately, players opting out works for them and the NFL--but not for college football as a whole. Have the NCAA change its rules and say that players need to complete the season AND bowl game if they want to be draft-eligible. The NFL probably wouldn't like it...but they're completely dependent on the college game to send over players every year, so use that as leverage to ensure bowl games stay relevant.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

You're a Gator or you're Gator Bait.
Either you want what's best for Florida or.... F off.
You can watch shytty bowl games to get your fix.

 

[RocketCityGator]

Any championship process that involves voting or selection by a group for either the opportunity to play for said championship or to be awarded said championship, is not a championship process won entirely on the field. There are very good examples of midwest bias even bias in favor of the SEC. The process should be formulaic so that it does not matter who is running the process. If you can't understand the difference, you might think about moving out Georgia; your logic circuits may corroded.

For what it’s worth, I never said the BCS system was flawless. You two keep harping on the 2004 Auburn season as your proof. I agree that season left some unanswered questions as to whether the system got the matchup correct, with the benefit of hindsight. Again, though, look back to the mid 90s until the start of the 4 team playoff & tell me how many seasons the #1 vs. #2 matchup was obviously flawed prior to the games being played and then with the benefit of hindsight. Most years they got it correct.

For this quote you are making stuff up. They didn't try to match up #1 vs. #2. We were #3 as a matter of fact in the "97 Sugar Bowl. Many of the bowls then had automatic bids. Doesn't support your argument.

 

[TheDouglas78]

For this quote you are making stuff up. They didn't try to match up #1 vs. #2. We were #3 as a matter of fact in the "97 Sugar Bowl. Many of the bowls then had automatic bids. Doesn't support your argument.

Arizona state was number 2 going into bowl season, and lost to the Suckeyes the night before the Sugar Bowl, making our match up the defacto National Championship.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Any championship process that involves voting or selection by a group for either the opportunity to play for said championship or to be awarded said championship, is not a championship process won entirely on the field. There are very good examples of midwest bias even bias in favor of the SEC. The process should be formulaic so that it does not matter who is running the process. If you can't understand the difference, you might think about moving out Georgia; your logic circuits may corroded.



For this quote you are making stuff up. They didn't try to match up #1 vs. #2. We were #3 as a matter of fact in the "97 Sugar Bowl. Many of the bowls then had automatic bids. Doesn't support your argument.

Lay off the booze, day drinking doesn’t sit well with you. 1995, 1998 & 1999 seasons all had #1 vs #2 playing each other in the bowl game. I didn’t say every year had 1 vs 2, prior to the BCS, but it did happen. I didn’t make anything up nor say anything unsubstantiated.

Every championship determination process, including playoffs, has a human element to it that shapes & influences said process. If you don’t like that, maybe sports isn’t your thing. If you want to deny this to be the case, I can’t help you.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

This argument that the playoffs devalues the regular season doesn't hold. If you have an 8 team playoff based on the P5 champs and 3 at-large teams, I don't see how you win your conference or be ranked high enough to get an at-large bid if you don't place a value on winning the regular season. (Long sentence)

How are the 3 at-large teams determined in your 8 team playoff scenario?

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Any championship process that involves voting or selection by a group for either the opportunity to play for said championship or to be awarded said championship, is not a championship process won entirely on the field.

So the NCAA D-1A men’s basketball championship team isn’t really the true champion in your opinion because a selection committee made up of humans decides which teams are given at-large berths and which teams are left out of the tournament, right???

So, again, in your 8 team playoff with the 5 P-5 champs & the 3 at-large teams, how are the at-large teams selected?? Do tell.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Question wasn't for me but I remembered a caveat I forgot about the criteria I posted earlier. I had said, the five P5 champs, the highest-ranked G5 team, and then the next two highest-ranked teams not otherwise included.

But, due to the conference championships being decided by championship games rather than simply the best record, you could envision a fluke scenario where a 3-loss division winner pulls off a miraculous upset and becomes a conference champ. So then they're in the playoff, despite the fact that maybe they weren't even ranked in the top 15 or 20.

If we want to avoid that, then make it an 8-team playoff governed by the top 10 in the current CFP ranking system. Every PF conference champ gets in, plus the top G5 team, provided that they're ranked in the top 10 overall. If not, their place gets taken by whoever is the next highest-ranked team not already in.

Sorry, that won’t work according to some posters on here. A championship decided by any process where humans decide who gets invited into the playoffs isn’t a true championship. Go back to the drawing board & try again.

Or we can acknowledge that there is always a human element involved, which would tacitly acknowledge that an 8 team playoff isn’t necessary...which means we can go back to #1 vs. #2 for all the marbles and end this stupid playoff system that’s been a failure so far.

 

[no1g8r]

Sorry, that won’t work according to some posters on here. A championship decided by any process where humans decide who gets invited into the playoffs isn’t a true championship. Go back to the drawing board & try again.

Or we can acknowledge that there is always a human element involved, which would tacitly acknowledge that an 8 team playoff isn’t necessary...which means we can go back to #1 vs. #2 for all the marbles and end this stupid playoff system that’s been a failure so far.

If you give humans 8 chances to be right, they’ll be more likely to include the top 2 than if you only give them 2 chances to be right. And we get to watch additional meaningful games. It’s a win all around.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

If you give humans 8 chances to be right, they’ll be more likely to include the top 2 than if you only give them 2 chances to be right. And we get to watch additional meaningful games. It’s a win all around.

Alabama vs. UAB, Ohio State vs. Ball State & Clemson vs San Jose St. isn’t meaningful football. As far as reducing opt outs, if I’m Najee Harris and I’ve got to risk injury at the very end of my college career against a non-deserving UAB team just so the public can be happy that the “little guy” got his shot, I’d be inclined to say fcvk it, I’m opting out. And I nor any NFL scout would hold it against him. Same goes for an 8 team playoff. It’s just a watered down schyt show.

 

[t-gator]

You two fuchstards should try to get on the same page. Is going to an 8-team playoff changing the rules to make it easier for Florida to win, or is it a change that would NOT be best for Florida?

It's not all about making it easier for UF to win, as I said before. It's about making college football less boring and stagnant, and not having the same old teams in the CFP every damn year. That said, the net effect will create greater opportunity for teams like Florida to compete for national titles because top recruits are going to be better distributed.

I'd really love to hear how an 8-team playoff is not, "what's best for Florida."

The only way you could think the current system is better for Florida is if you imagine that we could somehow supplant Bama or Clemson to be a team where ALL the recruits want to go, and consequently be a team that plays for titles every year. If you are visualizing that happening at UF, with the administration we have, then you have one hell of an imagination and should probably go work for Disney.

What's best for Florida is for the administration to be as committed to winning football games as Clemson and Alabama. Outside of anm and Ohio state, nobody else spends and tries give their football program like those 2. It's absolute loser talk to hope we extend the playoffs in hopes someone else knocks em off.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

So your argument is, well if you're going to let humans determine the top eight, you might as well cut to the chase and let them determine the top two?

BAD ARGUMENT.

Uhhh, nooo, I wasn't the one saying anything like that nor is that my argument.

 

[MJMGator]

There are 125 Division 1 FCS football teams. It is asinine for anyone to say that an 8-team playoff will render the regular season meaningless, when the regular season is the process by which 125 teams are narrowed down to eight.

No one cares about 100 of them and you know it. Once again, the BCS got it right with the formulas they used.

 

[MJMGator]

Nobody was talking to you, shut up and pass me another beer.

I fart in your general direction.

 

[no1g8r]

Alabama vs. UAB, Ohio State vs. Ball State & Clemson vs San Jose St. isn’t meaningful football. As far as reducing opt outs, if I’m Najee Harris and I’ve got to risk injury at the very end of my college career against a non-deserving UAB team just so the public can be happy that the “little guy” got his shot, I’d be inclined to say fcvk it, I’m opting out. And I nor any NFL scout would hold it against him. Same goes for an 8 team playoff. It’s just a watered down schyt show.

If I were a Bama or Clemso, etc playing in one of those games, I’d make sure my 2’s and 3’s got the majority of the playing time. If a Harris told me he would prefer not to play in the game, I’d tell him that I would hold him out unless he was absolutely necessary to winning the game. It would be in both his best interest, and that of the team, to rest him up during the lightweight game so that he’s refreshed for the next round of games. It’s a benefit of being in the top 3 or 4 seeds that the other teams wouldn’t get.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

You two fuchstards should try to get on the same page. Is going to an 8-team playoff changing the rules to make it easier for Florida to win, or is it a change that would NOT be best for Florida?

It's not all about making it easier for UF to win, as I said before. It's about making college football less boring and stagnant, and not having the same old teams in the CFP every damn year. That said, the net effect will create greater opportunity for teams like Florida to compete for national titles because top recruits are going to be better distributed.

I'd really love to hear how an 8-team playoff is not, "what's best for Florida."

The only way you could think the current system is better for Florida is if you imagine that we could somehow supplant Bama or Clemson to be a team where ALL the recruits want to go, and consequently be a team that plays for titles every year. If you are visualizing that happening at UF, with the administration we have, then you have one hell of an imagination and should probably go work for Disney.

You are one dim light bulb. And low on reading comprehension.
Florida doesn't need an 8 team playoff. Hell we don't need a 4 team playoff. Winning the SEC will put us in the NC game almost every F U C K I N G year. Why in God's name and all that is holy would we want to play extra games to get there?

 

[no1g8r]

You are one dim light bulb. And low on reading comprehension.
Florida doesn't need an 8 team playoff. Hell we don't need a 4 team playoff. Winning the SEC will put us in the NC game almost every F U C K I N G year. Why in God's name and all that is holy would we want to play extra games to get there?

I remind you that Auburn went 13-0 and won the SEC, and still were left out of the 2004 NC game. I believe the decision makers would love the opportunity to stick it to Florida if the opportunity was there.