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!

The Current "Situation" at UGA

As many of you know, UGA is in an interesting spot with its football team. For the first time in what seems like a lifetime, UGA is at 4-4 and the upcoming schedule isn't looking too favorable.

I've heard many critics of the coaching staff and many supporters of the coaching staff. I can agree with both sides, but when it comes to the issue of "being a real dawg fan," this has nothing to do with criticism.

Far too many times have I seen people fall back to the ol "you're not a true fan!" defense of the coaches. I have to disagree fully here. I understand the loyalty that you have to the coaches that put in so much effort, but if the job's not getting done, what else can we do? Like it or not, college football is a business and there are expectations to fulfill and jobs that have to be done. Like any other job in the world, if you're not producing, you're under scrutiny.

Of course, the players have to execute, but it's the coaches jobs to put these players not only in the best situation for them to succeed, but to demand that they succeed. If a player is making dumb mistakes, be it penalties, blown coverages, not knowing the playbook, that player should be benched or cut PERIOD. I can understand the respect that certain players have earned by being a hard worker, but you should not be allowed a starting role by just being "committed." Yes, give these guys playing time, heck let them start a few games, but when they begin to show holes in their talent, they HAVE to be pulled.

I'm trying not to use any specific examples of players because I don't think that's fair. I also think it has applied to so many cases, that it would be a waste to try to point out every instance. Any dawg fan knows a time or two where this has happened and I'm ready for it to be a little more cutthroat around the field.

I appreciate all comments and thanks for reading.