A 10 Team College Football Playoff Proposal

[Steve_424]

Some basics:

- Every conference champion qualifies
- Seeds are based on the Coaches Poll Rankings
- Independents are left out (Sorry Notre Dame...pick a conference)

Playoff Teams

AA - UCF
ACC - Florida State
Big 12 - Baylor
Big 10 - Michigan State
C USA - Rice
MAC - Bowling Green
MWC - Fresno State
PAC 12 - Stanford
SEC - Auburn
Sun Belt - Louisiana-Lafayette

First Round

Byes: #1 Florida State, #2 Auburn, #3 Michigan State, #4 Baylor, #5 Stanford, #6 UCF

Game 1 - #7 Fresno State vs #10 Louisiana-Lafayette
Game 2 - #8 Rice vs #9 Bowling Green

Second Round

Game 3 - #1 Florida State vs Rice/BG Winner
Game 4 - #4 Baylor vs #5 Stanford

Game 5 - #2 Auburn vs Fresno State/Louisiana-Lafayette Winner
Game 6 - #3 Michigan State vs #6 UCF

Third Round

Game 7 - Game 3 Winner vs Game 4 Winner
Game 8 - Game 5 Winner vs Game 6 Winner

National Championship

Game 7 Winner vs Game 8 Winner


What It Accomplishes:

- Every team has a chance: Everyone from Florida State to Georgia State starts their season with a chance to win the National Championship. While that is obviously more realistic for some as opposed to others, every team has a shot in the preseason - just like NCAA basketball. For the 80 or so teams that currently don't have this shot, that means something. The biggest allure to March Madness are the stories like Butler, George Mason, Florida Gulf Coast, etc. It's time to let the football mid-majors dream about knocking off the top teams as well.
- Conference Championships mean more: I always thought it was silly when a team that didn't win its conference played in the National Title game. Still do.
- Less Focus on Rankings: Sure, the Coaches Poll would still be used for seeding but if you win your conference, it doesn't matter if you get a single vote in the polls - you get a shot in the playoffs. Imagine that - games deciding who moves on, not computers or voters.
- Better Non-Conference Regular Season Games: With rankings used for seeding and winning your conference a must to get in, major programs will be more inclined to schedule tougher non-conference opponents to A) Impress in the polls, B) Prepare themselves better for conference play.
- More Postseason Excitement: Aside from the National Championship and the (insert your favorite team's bowl game), do you really care that much about the other bowl games? Sure, many sports junkies will watch them...but even last night - aside from pride, did it really matter to OSU if they won or lost? In this tournament, every game matters and every win is a step closer to a shot at a National Title. Plus, you're getting great matchups like Baylor vs Stanford and Michigan State vs UCF for sure and (most likely) Florida State vs Baylor or Stanford and Auburn vs Michigan State or UCF...and that's before you even get to the National Championship.
- Bigger Ratings and More Money: Let's not forget the attention it would bring schools and the possibly money to be made on these games that matter.


It's not a perfect system and I'm not naive in thinking it will become a reality, but I'd sure love to see it in action.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

No one wants to see Rice or BGSU in this thing. The difference between this and March madness is that small programs can compete in college basketball. In college football they would get their doors blown off. I'd rather just see an 8 team playoff with the winners of the 6 major conferences and then the rest based on polls or committee sections. However, you can place a rule in there like the BCS where if a small school finished ahead of a major conference champion they are automatically in the playoff.

 

[Steve_424]

No one wants to see Rice or BGSU in this thing. The difference between this and March madness is that small programs can compete in college basketball. In college football they would get their doors blown off. I'd rather just see an 8 team playoff with the winners of the 6 major conferences and then the rest based on polls or committee sections. However, you can place a rule in there like the BCS where if a small school finished ahead of a major conference champion they are automatically in the playoff.

I disagree that no one wants to see smaller schools in it...I absolutely do, and fans of mid-majors everywhere would as well. The fact that 75% (or more) of the teams in college football have zero shot at the championship before they even play a game, even if they go undefeated really dampens interest. I also don't agree that they'd get their doors blown off. I'd put last year's Northern Illinois team up against most conference champions on a neutral field. Some of the "major" conference champions could absolutely be taken down.

The main issue is they know that too, which is why they don't want to invite the "little guys" to the party.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

I really couldn't disagree more. None of the best teams are scared of losing to a MAC school in a playoff. They won't do it because no one wants to see it. Didn't Northern Illinois get demolished against FSU last year? BGSU lost to Pitt and Fresno got demolished by USC, Every once in a while a small program has a special team that can compete like Boise or Utah had, but in my suggestion I already have the exception in place for a team like that to be in the playoff. No one wants a 3 loss MAC team in the playoff, and they really don't deserve to be. Now if one goes undefeated, then they probably deserve it.

 

[James]

Never understood why people want a playoff so bad.

Win your games, get to the BCS.

Done.

 

[Steve_424]

Never understood why people want a playoff so bad.

Win your games, get to the BCS.

Done.

Except if you're in a mid-major conference, you don't have a shot in hell at being top 4 even if you go undefeated.

 

[Steve_424]

I really couldn't disagree more. None of the best teams are scared of losing to a MAC school in a playoff. They won't do it because no one wants to see it. Didn't Northern Illinois get demolished against FSU last year? BGSU lost to Pitt and Fresno got demolished by USC, Every once in a while a small program has a special team that can compete like Boise or Utah had, but in my suggestion I already have the exception in place for a team like that to be in the playoff. No one wants a 3 loss MAC team in the playoff, and they really don't deserve to be. Now if one goes undefeated, then they probably deserve it.

We'll agree to disagree. I'd love to see it and I'm certain fans of mid-major schools across the country would love to see it as well. If your proposal didn't rely on polls (which historically favor BCS conference schools, deserving or not) I'd agree with it. Undefeated mid-major teams are lucky to be ranked in the top 15 and certainly would never be ranked higher than a "Big Six" champion.

 

[James]

I dont give two craps about mid major football programs. None in recent memory have done well enough to have the rules need to be rewritten.

 

[Steve_424]

I dont give two craps about mid major football programs. None in recent memory have done well enough to have the rules need to be rewritten.

A) That's clear

B) None have received the chance to

 

[Derek]

What does it matter if anyone cares about the mid-major schools or whether or not they can win? If they aren't good enough, they will lose and be out of the playoff leaving the rest of the conference champions to duke it out.

This is a simple solution. Take care of business in your conference and have a chance to win it all.

 

[Selby]

Maybe currently the mid-major schools don't have a chance, but about a decade ago teams like BG, Toledo, NIU, and Miami were fairly competitive. In 2003 alone, Toledo beat #9 Pitt. NIU beat #15 Maryland and #21 Bama, BG beat that NIU team and went to #4 Ohio St and lost by 7. That isn't including some of the other years where the top MAC schools would hold their own with the top Big Ten programs.

If there were a legitimate playoff system like this, the smaller schools deserve to be included.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

Maybe currently the mid-major schools don't have a chance, but about a decade ago teams like BG, Toledo, NIU, and Miami were fairly competitive. In 2003 alone, Toledo beat #9 Pitt. NIU beat #15 Maryland and #21 Bama, BG beat that NIU team and went to #4 Ohio St and lost by 7. That isn't including some of the other years where the top MAC schools would hold their own with the top Big Ten programs.

If there were a legitimate playoff system like this, the smaller schools deserve to be included.

First of all thats one year, and secondly, how did all of those bigger schools finish that year? There is no way mid majors could compete with the best teams. 90% of the games between them and powers are over in the first half, why would the NCAA want to waste the playoff games on a high percentage of blowouts? What if an undefeated or 1 loss SEC team losses in the conference championship game. You honestly think a 3 loss MAC team should go over them? The best teams should play in playoff.

 

[Selby]

I get what you're saying, I really do. But it isn't fair to leave the best team in a conference out of the playoffs, no matter how "irrelevant" they may be. If that one-loss SEC team gets screwed over...tough shit. South Carolina got screwed out of a BCS bowl game this year. As a fan, my mentally is "maybe we shouldn't have lost those two games." So I'd say the same thing to that one loss SEC team...shouldn't have lost that conference championship game if you wanted to win a national championship.

You have to draw a line somewhere. Let's say instead of including the mid-major schools, we let in four teams from the other BCS conferences. So...how do we decide that? Let's take this year for example. Bama lost one game. Does Bama get in? Or does Mizzou get in since they at least got to the SEC championship game? Do both of them get in? Which conferences get robbed of having an extra team? Does Duke get in since they lost the ACC championship game? Why not Clemson, they had a better overall record even before that game. But then what about South Carolina? They had the same record as Clemson AND beat them. Where do we draw the line?

I can get behind the OP's idea. It is simple: win your conference, you play to win it all.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

I get what you're saying, I really do. But it isn't fair to leave the best team in a conference out of the playoffs, no matter how "irrelevant" they may be. If that one-loss SEC team gets screwed over...tough shit. South Carolina got screwed out of a BCS bowl game this year. As a fan, my mentally is "maybe we shouldn't have lost those two games." So I'd say the same thing to that one loss SEC team...shouldn't have lost that conference championship game if you wanted to win a national championship.

You have to draw a line somewhere. Let's say instead of including the mid-major schools, we let in four teams from the other BCS conferences. So...how do we decide that? Let's take this year for example. Bama lost one game. Does Bama get in? Or does Mizzou get in since they at least got to the SEC championship game? Do both of them get in? Which conferences get robbed of having an extra team? Does Duke get in since they lost the ACC championship game? Why not Clemson, they had a better overall record even before that game. But then what about South Carolina? They had the same record as Clemson AND beat them. Where do we draw the line?

I can get behind the OP's idea. It is simple: win your conference, you play to win it all.

Except you won't have the best 8-10 teams in the playoff. Isn't the point of a playoff to have the best teams battle it out to determine, without a doubt, who the best team is? If the the op's idea was put in place, it would get overturned after a few years, because people would see how much of a joke it is to send these small schools to get slaughtered in the playoff every season. The best teams should play. You have the 6 major conference champions, and then have polls or a committee decide the 2 at large bids. Or if a small conference school goes undefeated, you have just have one at large.

 

[Selby]

Except you won't have the best 8-10 teams in the playoff. Isn't the point of a playoff to have the best teams battle it out to determine, without a doubt, who the best team is? If the the op's idea was put in place, it would get overturned after a few years, because people would see how much of a joke it is to send these small schools to get slaughtered in the playoff every season. The best teams should play. You have the 6 major conference champions, and then have polls or a committee decide the 2 at large bids. Or if a small conference school goes undefeated, you have just have one at large.

But if you have the 6 conference champs, plus two at large bids, people are still going to call this system a joke and there will still be tons of controversy. Let's go with this year again as an example. UCF won their conference, so naturally they go to the playoffs. They are ranked what? 15th? I would assume the other two teams to receive at large bids would be Bama and Ohio State. As a South Carolina fan, I'm pretty pissed. We are ranked higher than UCF AND we beat them on their own field. Why aren't we in it? The rest of the fan base will call it flawed all day long, and so will Mizzou, Oregon, Oklahoma, Clemson, Arizona State, and all the other teams that are ranked higher in the BCS poll.