Thread: I've said it before and I'll say it again: College Football Needs a playoff system

Originally Posted by Bruce

I think it would help tremendously if we played all sports all year long. And play-offs are a wonderful idea - we'd just have to squeeze them in on Wednesdays.

So, are you proposing doing away with playoffs altogether?

Just keep playing, and playing, and playing.............

Originally Posted by commiecat

16-teams is way too many IMO. I say the plus-one is sufficient where this year the winner of Texas/Alabama would play the winner of TCU/Boise to determine the champion. Sorry, Cinci.

Sorry Cinci? that's it? come on. that is still not fair. At least let it be an 8-team playoff

Originally Posted by commiecat

Adding 4 more games to any D1 schedule is pretty rough because then you're looking at an NFL season. D2 can get away with it because, generally, the talent level isn't as high and very few of those guys are playing for a job in the NFL. More games means higher injury risk, and there are plenty of potential NFL players on the top 16 college teams.

I'm sorry I'm not buying those arguments. D2 players are also trying to compete for the NFL. Joe Flacco, the QB for the Baltimore Ravens came out of D2. If D2 can 12 + 16-team playoffs, so can D1 . I would think playing the longer schedule would help them prepare for the NFL better. True, there is a greater chance of injury, I still do see that as justification for not having playoffs. I don't think the risk is that great. I don't here about loads of kids from the lower divisions getting hurt in the playoffs. Ask the players from Cincinnati, Boise State, and TCU, if they'd be willing to take the extra risk of injury in order to have a fair chance at the title game.

It would not be the length of an NFL season. An NFL season is 16 games + playoffs. It would only be the length of the NFL regular season for only the two teams that make it to the championship.

There needs to be a 16 team system with only the top two teams per conference. The only problem is the best two teams are Florida and Alabama so the SEC would have a huge advantage in that system. Every team needs to be in a conference, then you can make the playoffs bowl games and make a 10 game (8 Conference games +championship) schedule.

Originally Posted by Warbler

Sorry Cinci? that's it? come on. that is still not fair. At least let it be an 8-team playoff

And an 8-team playoff isn't fair for team #9. You also have to deal with the fact that there are two major polls which typically start to differ after the top 4 or so teams. Plus-one is the most accommodating option. Sorry for Cinci but they have to deal with the fact that they played the weakest schedule of 5 undefeated teams. It's not even worth arguing on their behalf unless they happen to beat Florida, which I don't expect to happen.

Originally Posted by Warbler

I'm sorry I'm not buying those arguments. D2 players are also trying to compete for the NFL. Joe Flacco, the QB for the Baltimore Ravens came out of D2. If D2 can 12 + 16-team playoffs, so can D1 . I would think playing the longer schedule would help them prepare for the NFL better. True, there is a greater chance of injury, I still do see that as justification for not having playoffs. I don't think the risk is that great. I don't here about loads of kids from the lower divisions getting hurt in the playoffs. Ask the players from Cincinnati, Boise State, and TCU, if they'd be willing to take the extra risk of injury in order to have a fair chance at the title game.

It would not be the length of an NFL season. An NFL season is 16 games + playoffs. It would only be the length of the NFL regular season for only the two teams that make it to the championship.

I was talking regular season but considering that some teams, including UF, Bama, Texas and Boise, have played 13 games already my statement still stands. If any of those teams made it to the title game they'd be playing a 17-game season which is more than most NFL teams.

Flacco is an exception who started at a D1 school but transferred for playing time.

yes, you are correct be it 2-team, 8-team, or 16-team playoff, there is always going to be team left out. But it doesn't need to be an undefeated team. It doesn't need be team that can make an argument that they are number 1. As for Cincinnati, it just simply isn't fair to eliminate a team that won all their games. You an only assume so much by evaluating their strength of schedule. The best that Alabama or Texas could do with Cincinnati's schedule is still 12-0. How you can call a system that leaves out an undefeated team accommodating is beyond me. It is unfair to eliminate a team based solely on the weakness of their opponents. Btw, The #9 schools in both polls have both lost 2 games and the #17 schools lost 3 games. Keep them out isn't anywhere near as unfair as keeping an undefeated team out.
I don't think 17 games is to long a schedule for D1 schools if 16 games isn't too long for D2 schools. Again, I don't buy the injury argument. I'm not sure why it matters that polls disagree after the top 4. We'd either be using the BCS system which takes both polls and computer rankings and molds them into one list, or we'd be using a committee like they do in college basket ball.