My Take on a College Playoff System

Alrighty, I've been in some good discussions lately about a college playoff system and I not only want to give this to my readers (as few as that might be), I also wanted to lay everything out for my benefit.

One of the biggest flaws most non-playoffers have about a playoff is the devaluing of the regular season. They like the "every game is incredibly important" and "out of the gate running" type importance that college football seasons have now. Here's a quote from a guy I've been talking to:

It is obviously easier to make a 4 team playoff than to make a two team playoff, because more slots equal more teams that get in. Am I right so far? And it would be easier to get into an 8 team playoff than a 4 team playoff, right? And it would be easier to get into a 16 team playoff than an 8 team playoff. Said another way, a team would have to be “less qualified” to get into a 16 team playoff than a two team playoff. Am I right at this point? Have I said anything that can possibly be debated?

Now, what does “less qualified” even mean? It means one’s resume would not have to be as impressive, no? What does the resume consist of? Wins and losses, and who those wins and losses came against. So if a team has a loss on their resume, it is less impressive than before, right? So am I still right at this point? Can any of this be debated?

All this put together, the larger a playoff becomes, the less impressive an entrant’s resume must be, meaning they can better afford a loss and still have a larger chance to get into the playoff than if it were smaller playoff. Thus, a loss in the current system (2 team playoff) has greater consequence than a loss in your 8 team proposal. Thus, a loss is less devestating. Thus, each games loses a degree of importance. Tus the regular season loses importance.

I conceded that what he said was true, but only to some extent was it true. Though the value of each loss is lessened, so is each win. There are too many teams and too little time for you to actually get a good feel for who's the best. Clearly going undefeated is more impressive in a powerhouse conference like the SEC or Big XII, but does that make you a better football team than an undefeated team in a non-powerhouse conference? Not necessarily. Everyone then jumps to the out of conference (OOC) games that were played.

I like to use SMU in this example because they went from 1-11 to 8-5 including a bowl victory over the top rushing team in the nation. Look at their OOC games: TCU and Stephen F. Austin. STEPHEN F.'in AUSTIN? Alright, not a well known team, but they do exist apparently. I would agree with anyone that this is not impressive OOC scheduling by the Mustangs and I wouldn't respect them if they had a 12-0 season compared to a 12-0 SEC team, however, that doesn't mean they're worse.

Here's the SMU Mustangs OOC for the next several years:

08/31/2013	Texas Tech
09/14/2013	Baylor
2013	at Texas A&M
09/28/2013	at TCU
08/30/2014	at Baylor
09/06/2014	at North Texas
09/13/2014	TCU
09/20/2014	Texas A&M
09/05/2015	Baylor
09/12/2015	North Texas
09/19/2015	at TCU
09/26/2015	at Navy
09/03/2016	at North Texas
09/10/2016	Navy
09/17/2016	at Baylor
09/24/2016	TCU
2017	at Navy
2017	North Texas
2017	at TCU
2018	Navy
2018	at North Texas

You can see how far in advanced these games are scheduled. The mustangs don't have an unscheduled game on their schedule until 2017. That's no different for a powerhouse team as well. LSU and NC State have scheduled a game back in 2007 to be played in 2020. That's 13 years you have to be looking ahead to schedule a game. So to say that college football requires some luck to get to the National Championship would be an understatement.

If SMU was able to get an OOC game scheduled with an SEC powerhouse, USC, Ohio St, someone that carries clout, you're probably looking 5+ years into the future. How quickly can a traditionally great program fall on it's face? Just ask USC and Notre Dame. USC had one off year this season, so that is probably less valuable, but if you had scheduled Notre Dame and they're down like they have been lately, you've made a bad bet. Not only would you have to get on that team's schedule, you have to hope that's a year you have a great year as well.So for the little guys, not only do you have to make sure you have a great team, you've also got to make sure you're playing great teams.

Was SMU looking at a potential National Championship run in 2010? Probably not. Is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely in the current system. Now, not only do they have to be great, hope their OOC games are against great teams, they've ALSO have to hope that other teams aren't great too. If Bama and Texas go undefeated again, they're not going to get a nod. Can they be a better football team? Yes. Will they get a chance to prove it? No.

Is this SMU's fault? No, they're victim to the system. If there were a playoff system of sorts, possibly involving all conference champions and perhaps an at large bid, SMU could then prove they're legit. In the current system, SMU can go undefeated and have nothing truly great to show for it.

That's all for now. There's too many angles for me to argue this all at once, so I'll make it a series. Comments are appreciated!

C'MON MAN!

This picture is from my least favorite year that the BCS has been around (they're all terrible though). At the end of this season, UGA and USC were definitely playing the best football. I 100% think that they should have been playing for the NC. However, they played two terribly overmatched teams and won easily, leaving many fans pissed and some others letting out a sigh of relief they didn't have to play either team. Missouri got the total shaft though, not playing in any BCS game. #5 and no "big game," yet Illinois comes in and stinks it up against USC? Would Missouri have won? No. Should they have had the chance to win though, yes.

Other than that little story, I haven't blogged in awhile, but this has got to be talked about.

Stupidest story I've ever read and contains almost no real facts and ridiculous speculation.

For the lazy man (or woman), it's an article about the BCS system with quotes from the new chief of the system.

How anyone can say the stuff he did and think he can get away with it is beyond me. Let me give you some examples:

Bill Hancock said a playoff at college football's highest level would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.

More injuries? Probably, but that's what more games gets you. You don't think they practice just as hard? Not as hard as you play in a game against another team that hates you for that 60 mins, but still damn hard.

Conflict with final exams? Does the 64 round basketball playoff that happens every spring around finals seem to conflict with finals? The games would only be once a week, no different than the normal schedules, just with more importance. They're perfectly able to take finals, or in the worst case, move them to another day. OH NO!!! You can't say you support academic rigor if students might have to move a day his final is on! I've done it, lots of "normal" students do it, get over it.

Kill the bowl system? Isn't that the point? Hell, the people that aren't in the top "however many rounds there are" can still play bowls. The CMU vs Troy game last night was a great one. Could you tell that they weren't top 25 teams? As long as you're not playing these games during the same time a playoff game is going on, people will watch it! Will they go to it? That's up to the fans. Fans still attend the NIT tourny, so what's your point?

And now my favorite: DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGULAR SEASON? HOW IS THIS EVEN AN ARGUMENT? You think people will expect to piddle around, be around .500 and make it to the playoff? Not happening. If anything, you make it more important. Yeah, I guess the top team in the country might be able to bench some players in the last game because they're probably going to get an invite even if they lose that last game, but isn't that what happens in the pros? Roger Goddell has stated he's looking at a way to fix this problem, so just implement a similar solution. Unbelievable what people will say these days.

Hancock said the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn't mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision. The second-tier of Division I football, the Championship Subdivision, has a 16-team playoff with all but the final played at home sites.

"It works at that level, I can't deny it, but if you look attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance," he said. "Many teams didn't draw as well as they did in the regular season."

You're telling me, that if Florida played USC in the Swamp, you don't think that game would be sold out? USC at Texas? Ohio St between the hedges? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you think Athens is wild during the regular season, bring in Ohio St during the playoffs and see if we don't cover the campus in feces (referencing the campus clean up that had to take place after the South Carolina night game where there was allegedly human waste in undesignated areas and 200 tons of garbage all across the campus). This is another INCREDIBLE IDIOTIC AND UNBELIEVABLE ARGUMENT!

Yes, I can understand how the BCS bumps up college football buzz, but it's for all the wrong reasons. People are pissed because they can't prove their team is the undisputed champion. Boise St is now, once again, undefeated and I'm sure they'll boohoo about not having a NC. Why can't you just let them have their playoff chance and let them see they're unable to compete with the likes of Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc. this year. I would love to see them get crushed so badly they have to disband their football program, ultimately killing that God awful blue field. And with that I say: "BRING ON THE PLAYOFF SYSTEM!"