Four Team playoff format?

[StatTiger 3,188]

The topic of a playoff system surfaces every year in D1 football. Personally, I would like to see the championship decided on the field but would like to see something very simple that would satisfy the majority of fans across the country.

Looking back to the 1983 season, most controversial seasons would have been avoided by just having a 4-team playoff system. Selecting the top 4 teams in the AP poll prior to the bowl games would have made sure that every undefeated team from a major D1 conference would have been in the playoffs.

In 1983, Auburn would have played in the 4-team format but it would have left out #5 Miami, who was 10-1. The 1984 BYU Cougars would have competed against Washington, Oklahoma and Florida had the Gators not been on probation. Ga.Tech and Colorado could have decided #1 in 1990 on the field. In 1991, an undefeated Miami and Washington team could have met in the playoffs. This would have given the 1994 Penn State team an opportunity to play the 94 Cornhuskers. Michigan and Nebraska might have squared off in 1997 and Auburn would have made the 4-team format in 2004.

A 4-team format would have resolved every controversial finish since 1983. We could still have a BCS poll, which would decide the top 4 teams, leaving 3 games to decide the champion. If you think about it, how often do we hear how #5 was the best team in the country? Since 1983, the most undefeated teams from a major D1 conference before the bowl games were three. This happened in 1987, 1992, and 2004.

The system is already in place in terms of the so called Bowl Championship Series. Have #1 vs. #4 in one bowl game and #2 vs. #3 in a second bowl game. The winners meet in a third bowl game to decide the champion, which adds one extra game to the season for only 2 teams.

I realize there are flaws in any system but a 4-team format would have resolved every controversial finish except for the 1983 season if you were a Miami fan.

2 cents

[War Eagle 96 10]

Totally BCS +1.

[tigerfan1234 0]

Auburn would make it once every twenty-five years using a four team format. How is a four team playoff really any different than the BCS? If you don't start very high and are not popular with the media, you will have no shot at climbing to four or higher. I would prefer seeing a 16 team playoff. That way you are sure to get all the best teams from that year and you can lose once and still be in contention. Also, a sixteen team playoff allows the mid-majors a real shot to prove their meddle. I am in the corner of thought that their are several mid-majors who can hang with anybody in the country. It is not fair to shut those guys out because they work just as hard as the "big boys".

[TitanTiger 20,482]

16 teams loses all the specialness of college football. I don't want a 3 loss team getting a crack at the title. The format now makes every week a playoff game in college football. But it's too restrictive. I like Stat's idea. The most I might consider expanding it to would be 8 teams, but top 4 keeps the idea that even 1 loss could take you out of contention and makes every game important.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Auburn would make it once every twenty-five years using a four team format. How is a four team playoff really any different than the BCS? If you don't start very high and are not popular with the media, you will have no shot at climbing to four or higher. I would prefer seeing a 16 team playoff. That way you are sure to get all the best teams from that year and you can lose once and still be in contention. Also, a sixteen team playoff allows the mid-majors a real shot to prove their meddle. I am in the corner of thought that their are several mid-majors who can hang with anybody in the country. It is not fair to shut those guys out because they work just as hard as the "big boys".

As I stated before, just looking for something very simple that most fans would agree with. 9 out of 10 times, I would pick a 10-1 SEC team over and undefeated MAC team. Bottom line, over the past 25 years, can you think of a team ranked #5 or below that you truly felt was the best team in the country prior to the bowl games?

[tigerfan1234 0]

I love the way college basketball does their post season. That is why I like the 16 team idea for football. Obviously 64 and 32 teams would be stupid for a college football playoff, but in basketball, the Sweet Sixteen is where it starts to get interesting. I believe anyone in the top 15 of college football at the end is capable of beating anyone else in the top 15. I guess I would just love to see a Boise St., Fresno St., TCU, Utah, or a couple other mid-majors make it and have a chance to shake things up. Look at Thursday nights game between Boise St.-Oregon St. The Beavers got destroyed. A three loss team doesn't really deserve a national title, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Most of us want a playoff right? Yes. A playoff of 16 teams gets a great mixture of conferences and programs involved where every school feels they have a real shot to win it. With four, it will be very much like the BCS now. ESPN would ride Texas, UCS, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Michigan's jock hoping they don't lose so they can have the media games of the century. With a sixteen team format, it throws the bias out the window.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I understand that. But I still think 3 losses or more is too many to give someone a shot at the championship. The NFL can have their format where teams take regular season games off at the end to keep the players healthy for the playoffs and teams that lose 1/4th to 1/3rd of their games get to the Super Bowl. I want to see the truly elite teams that navigated a 11 or 12 game schedule undefeated or with one loss going at it for the crown.

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

One of the (many) faults of the BCS is that it virtually eliminates any chance of a good mid-major team from ever getting to the top two slots. Undefeated Utah made it to a BCS game in 2004 while undefeated BSU did not. Regardless, neither team had any chance of playing for the NC title because of the conference they were in. Totally bogus. It's only fair that for those years when the mid-major teams are good, they ought to at least be given a shot. We won't ever know if they can win it all unless they're given a chance. That's why I favor an 8-team playoff and one that makes it a requirement that you win your dang conference to earn a spot in the playoff. Call it the Tournament of Champions. With 11 conferences, that means 3 conferences will be left out each year. That's OK, it will force the those conferences left out each year to get better so they can get a representative in the tournament.

First round is played on the second weekend in December (the week after the conference championship games.) Match #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6, and #4 vs #5, at the home stadiums of the top four. Call it a bonus for being in the top four and having a pretty won loss record. Interest will be sky high for these games.

All eight teams are guaranteed a New Year's Day Bowl slot. The four winners are matched up in two Semi-Finals games in two of the BCS Bowls, and the four losers are matched up in the two remaining BCS Bowl games.

The National Championship game will match the two winners at least one week later with the +1 format. the BCS Bowls will rotate the NC game every year. Any team that survives that is worthy of being called the NC, regardless of their record.

And just so you know, there are plenty of teams out there that have gone undefeated (or maybe had 1 loss) and absolutely stunk up the joint in a conference championship or bowl game when it counted (e.g. recently: UT in 2001; OU in 2003 & 2004.) The 3-round format I propose will eliminate any such pretenders right quick. A pretty won/losss record doesn't tell me a thing about a team's desire/heart. A 3-loss team sometimes gels to the point of dominance at the end of the season. My favorite example is LSU in 2001. They ended up SEC Champs & destroyed Illinois in the Sugar Bowl that year even though they had 3-losses. Rohan Davie to Josh Reed was an unstoppable combination and I think they could have beaten anyone at the end of the season.