What would be your favorite playoff format?

[StatTiger 3,188]

A favorite topic among college football fans every year is the need for a “playoff” system. I’ve read some good concepts over the years but when you take each concept and apply real situations, they all have some type of flaw. Bottom line, you’re not going to satisfy everyone but clearly there is a better method than the current BCS system. The match up of Auburn and Oregon this past season did not draw much controversy unless you were a TCU fan. For the most part, the majority of college football fans were satisfied with the match up. The fear is having three undefeated teams from a BCS conference like 2004, which normally stirs up the most debate.

Here are some of the options, which are commonly discussed.

1) 16-team format: This sounds good and would insure that no “quality” team would be left out. In terms of practicality, it just would not be possible. By the end of the playoffs, the two teams in the championship game would have played 4 playoff games not to mention the 5th game to settle the actual championship. With 12-regular season games, we’re looking at 17 games. A SEC team would have a conference championship, making it an 18 game season. This would be way too many games, which would require a 10-game regular season and the dropping of conference championship game. Even then, we’re still looking at a 15-game season. I just don’t see a 16-team format being a realistic option.

2) 8-team format: This version would involve the 6 BCS conference champions along with 2 at large teams or the 2 most highly ranked teams. Looking at the 2010 season, here is how this format would have looked…

The 6 BCS conference winners would have been, No. 13 Virginia Tech (11-2), No. 6 Ohio State (11-1), No. 7 Oklahoma (11-2), No. 25 Connecticut (8-4), No. 2 Oregon (12-0) and No. 1 Auburn (13-0). The two at large teams would have been No. 3 TCU and No. 4 Wisconsin (11-1). On face value, this appears to be a great set of playoff teams and some great possible match ups except for the Big East winner, Connecticut with an 8-4 record. It becomes worse when you consider, No. 5 Stanford (11-1), No. 7 Michigan State (11-1) and No. 8 Arkansas (10-2) were left out. Also left out was No. 10 Boise State (11-1) and No. 13 Nevada (12-1). This is the primary flaw to giving an automatic bid to all 6 BCS conference winners.

3) 8-team format involving the highest ranked teams: Once again, looking at the 2010 season you would have a possible match up of… No. 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. No. 8 Arkansas. No. 2 Oregon (12-0) vs. No. 7 Oklahoma (11-2). No. 3 TCU vs. No. 6 Ohio State (11-1) and No. 4 Stanford vs. No. 5 Wisconsin (11-1). I would have rather seen this 8-team format than the previous 8-team format involving the 6 BCS conference winners. However, there are some quality teams left out, including No. 9 Michigan State (11-1), No. 10 Boise State (11-1), No. 11 LSU (10-2) and No. 13 Virginia Tech (11-2).

4) 4-team format or Plus One: This has always been my favorite mainly because it would only require one extra game and it could easily be implemented. Since 1970, there has only been six seasons where 3 teams from a major conference finished the regular season undefeated and untied. Though there would be a higher number of “quality” teams left out, the primary dispute is normally over the top 3-4 teams in terms of, “who is the best?” The 2010 4-team playoff picture would have been No. 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 2 Oregon (2) vs. No. 3 TCU (12-0). This format would eliminate the issue of having 3 undefeated teams from a BCS conference (2004) but would not address the issue of having multiple 1-loss teams left out of the playoff picture.

The 4-team format would be the simplest system to implement but an 8-team format would leave less controversy if it were formatted properly. If the NCAA went to an 8-team format I would not mind 6-BCS conference winners and 2 at large teams with a stipulation placed on the 6 BCS conference winners. The requirement would be that you earn a playoff slot as a BCS conference winner as long as you are ranked in the BCS top 15. This would eliminate conference winners with an 8-4 record and would permit a 3rd at large team, more highly ranked to participate in the playoffs. I believe most college football fans would rather see a 12-1 SEC or Big 12 team that lost the conference championship in the playoffs over an 8-4 Big East champion.

There is no perfect system but some of the possible formats have fewer flaws than others. I believe we are very close to a “plus one” format, which would be better than the current system in place. All 5 formats described above would still involve the current bowl system and an 8-team format would fit nicely in the BCS Bowl Games. Until a change is made, it does make for great discussion.

[RunInRed 16,994]

I think the 8-team format is the way to go. The question becomes, how do you structure this (or any) while still preserving the bowl system.

[RunInRed 16,994]

I think the 8-team format is the way to go. The question becomes, how do you structure this (or any) while still preserving the bowl system.

Another thought on the 8-team approach, what if the 2 at-large teams couldn't come from one of the 6 major conferences?

[buzzurd24 11]

Plus one is the most logical and is my hands down #1 choice.

The 8-team no automatic bid could work. I still want to preserve the urgency of the regular season, though. With either 8-team scenerio, the comeback against UA doesn't have to happen to keep NC hopes alive. Regular season feats start becoming discounted.

No system is perfect, and someone will always whine. I actually like the FORMULA part of the BCS. It's just the margin of error to filter down to two is too small compared to four.

[kingfish 73]

With a sixteen team playoff, the championship game would be the 4th game.

[Justin5 20]

Plus one is the most logical and is my hands down #1 choice.

The 8-team no automatic bid could work. I still want to preserve the urgency of the regular season, though. With either 8-team scenerio, the comeback against UA doesn't have to happen to keep NC hopes alive. Regular season feats start becoming discounted.

No system is perfect, and someone will always whine. I actually like the FORMULA part of the BCS. It's just the margin of error to filter down to two is too small compared to four.

but the comeback would have kept bama out of the top 8 - so it was meaningful.

I actually want a 10 team bracket. Teams 6-10 play in the first round, top 4 get byes. 6 conference champs, 4 best remaining teams.

[McWeagle 4]

6 teams:

My proposal would be a 6 team playoff where the top 2 seeds get a bye in the first round.

There would be 5 total games, so the BCS bowls could remain intact w/ their current rotation (maybe giving Fiesta the boot and inviting a slightly less criminal operation to the party).

The first round could be played in mid-December. The 2nd round could be played on New Year's Day. The championship could be played about the same time it currently is.

This could mean 2 extra games for up to 2 schools, or 1 extra game for up to 4 schools. 2 extra games is a lot, but I'd be curious what the players and coaches thought. The presidents already proved they don't think so when they voted for a 12 game season a few years ago.

The regular season would still matter just as much. Hell, it would matter just as much with an 8 team playoff. Do you seriously think that, in 120 team league, teams competing for 1 of 8 spots is going to take a Saturday off? Especially when they'd likely have to win their conference to get there???

And, like SouthLink02 said (good to see you back, btw), who cares if #7 is complaining? If there's a season where 7 major conference teams go undefeated... oh wait...

[aucanucktiger 1,818]

A 3 week playoff:

Week 1: teams ranked #1 & #2 get an off week during which #3 plays #6 & #4 plays #5 same day.

week 2: #1 plays the winner of #4 v #5 and #2 plays the winner of #3 v #6 same day.

week 3: championship game.

Avoids the BCS inconsistency of ignoring highly ranked teams if they're not from a strong conference (well then don't rank them highly if they have such a week schedule!)

In football it's hard to argue the best team will come from outside the final top 6. Those saying "there will always be controversy" should consider that.

[CheeseLover 0]

A 3 week playoff:

Week 1: teams ranked #1 & #2 get an off week during which #3 plays #6 & #4 plays #5 same day.

week 2: #1 plays the winner of #4 v #5 and #2 plays the winner of #3 v #6 same day.

week 3: championship game.

Avoids the BCS inconsistency of ignoring highly ranked teams if they're not from a strong conference (well then don't rank them highly if they have such a week schedule!)

In football it's hard to argue the best team will come from outside the final top 6. Those saying "there will always be controversy" should consider that.

I think the ultimate goal of a playoff is to determine the VERY BEST team rather than allow good teams a second chance (e.g. NCAA Tourney). Every recent undefeated team has always made it to the top 6 pre-bowl season. I devised a virtually identical 6 team, 3 week system in 2004 when I was in AU. Each BCS play-off round cap off the previous week of bowl games. As an example:

Dec. 12-18 is the first week of tier 1 bowl games with the BCS seeds #3 v #6 and #4 v #5 playing at different times on Dec 19th.

Dec. 19-26 is the second week of tier 2 bowl games with the BCS seeds #1 v (#4 or #5) and #2 v (#3 or #6) playing at different times on Dec 26.

Dec. 26-Jan 2 is the third week of tier 3 bowl games with the top two seeds remaining playing for it all on Jan 9th.

To preserve the major bowl games week 1 BCS games are the Sugar and Fiesta

Week 2 games are Rose and Orange

Last game is BCS National Championship as current.

Rotate the order of the four major bowls each year so no one has hurt feelings.

Bowl system intact, traditions maintained, the best team in the top 6 is unambiguously determined.

[tgr4lfe 220]

A 3 week playoff:

Week 1: teams ranked #1 & #2 get an off week during which #3 plays #6 & #4 plays #5 same day.

week 2: #1 plays the winner of #4 v #5 and #2 plays the winner of #3 v #6 same day.

week 3: championship game.

Avoids the BCS inconsistency of ignoring highly ranked teams if they're not from a strong conference (well then don't rank them highly if they have such a week schedule!)

In football it's hard to argue the best team will come from outside the final top 6. Those saying "there will always be controversy" should consider that.

I think the ultimate goal of a playoff is to determine the VERY BEST team rather than allow good teams a second chance (e.g. NCAA Tourney). Every recent undefeated team has always made it to the top 6 pre-bowl season. I devised a virtually identical 6 team, 3 week system in 2004 when I was in AU. Each BCS play-off round cap off the previous week of bowl games. As an example:

Dec. 12-18 is the first week of tier 1 bowl games with the BCS seeds #3 v #6 and #4 v #5 playing at different times on Dec 19th.

Dec. 19-26 is the second week of tier 2 bowl games with the BCS seeds #1 v (#4 or #5) and #2 v (#3 or #6) playing at different times on Dec 26.

Dec. 26-Jan 2 is the third week of tier 3 bowl games with the top two seeds remaining playing for it all on Jan 9th.

To preserve the major bowl games week 1 BCS games are the Sugar and Fiesta

Week 2 games are Rose and Orange

Last game is BCS National Championship as current.

Rotate the order of the four major bowls each year so no one has hurt feelings.

Bowl system intact, traditions maintained, the best team in the top 6 is unambiguously determined.

That sounds pretty good! I still like the idea of an 8 team playoff, but the absolute BIGGEST problem is still the ranking system. The BCS system is flawed, all it is is a different way to show the other 2 polls. The computer rankings that are used are insanely biased or slanted, as are other polls. I don't think any of the polls accurately reflect truly the order of how good teams are, much less if this can actually be done since everyone has their opinion about who is better than who. Case in point was UConn last year, who was ranked what #8? I think the majority of those watching college football knew they weren't that good, but voters only voted them high b/c they won the Big East. I think ALL of the BCS teams would have beaten UConn like VT did, plus a couple of others from top 12, like Boise St and LSu. Fix ranking system when doing playoff.

[CheeseLover 0]

A 3 week playoff:

Week 1: teams ranked #1 & #2 get an off week during which #3 plays #6 & #4 plays #5 same day.

week 2: #1 plays the winner of #4 v #5 and #2 plays the winner of #3 v #6 same day.

week 3: championship game.

Avoids the BCS inconsistency of ignoring highly ranked teams if they're not from a strong conference (well then don't rank them highly if they have such a week schedule!)

In football it's hard to argue the best team will come from outside the final top 6. Those saying "there will always be controversy" should consider that.

I think the ultimate goal of a playoff is to determine the VERY BEST team rather than allow good teams a second chance (e.g. NCAA Tourney). Every recent undefeated team has always made it to the top 6 pre-bowl season. I devised a virtually identical 6 team, 3 week system in 2004 when I was in AU. Each BCS play-off round cap off the previous week of bowl games. As an example:

Dec. 12-18 is the first week of tier 1 bowl games with the BCS seeds #3 v #6 and #4 v #5 playing at different times on Dec 19th.

Dec. 19-26 is the second week of tier 2 bowl games with the BCS seeds #1 v (#4 or #5) and #2 v (#3 or #6) playing at different times on Dec 26.

Dec. 26-Jan 2 is the third week of tier 3 bowl games with the top two seeds remaining playing for it all on Jan 9th.

To preserve the major bowl games week 1 BCS games are the Sugar and Fiesta

Week 2 games are Rose and Orange

Last game is BCS National Championship as current.

Rotate the order of the four major bowls each year so no one has hurt feelings.

Bowl system intact, traditions maintained, the best team in the top 6 is unambiguously determined.

That sounds pretty good! I still like the idea of an 8 team playoff, but the absolute BIGGEST problem is still the ranking system. The BCS system is flawed, all it is is a different way to show the other 2 polls. The computer rankings that are used are insanely biased or slanted, as are other polls. I don't think any of the polls accurately reflect truly the order of how good teams are, much less if this can actually be done since everyone has their opinion about who is better than who. Case in point was UConn last year, who was ranked what #8? I think the majority of those watching college football knew they weren't that good, but voters only voted them high b/c they won the Big East. I think ALL of the BCS teams would have beaten UConn like VT did, plus a couple of others from top 12, like Boise St and LSu. Fix ranking system when doing playoff.

Sure, sure the rankings are inherently subjective. Agreed. But even with the flawed system we have now, a true contender has always filtered into the top 6 pre-bowl week. Since the goal of this is to crown a clear champion, not to settle a perfect top 25, it will work as described within the top 6. The inherent problem is that unless all 120 odd teams enter, creating a season long tournament, there can always be some type of doubt (see NCAA BB tourney selection committee). Fact is I have high faith that any potential title contender will land in the top 6 pre-bowl season and the goal, to crown an undisputed champion, will be met.

How would you fix it though? I am OK with how it works now (but I liked the old formula in the early days better). The extreme computer scores are taken out and there will always be some subjectivity in voters. It's far from perfect, but I'm stumped for a better way to rank the teams.

[aubiematt 0]

I have the opinion that there will never be a fair playoff system unless every team played every team. Without that, there is no way to declare an undisputed champion. Controversy will always follow any playoff system that is introduced. I favor the current BCS system, even with it's downfalls, because it makes the whole season matter. Today, the whole season should be viewed as the playoffs. Sure Auburn got burned by the system in 2004, but it eventually worked out for us in 2010.

[AUgrad00 7]

Dan Wetzel's Death to the BCS suggestion. He spent two years researching it. A 16 team playoff with 11 conference champions and five at large bids played on home fields.

Since some love the bowl games we could still keep those to a degree much like the NCAA tourney has the NIT and it would bring in 4 times the current revenue, the NCAA would run it making it more equitable and limit the freeloaders who prosper off college football as well is decrease the controversy of the current system.

[CheeseLover 0]

I have the opinion that there will never be a fair playoff system unless every team played every team. Without that, there is no way to declare an undisputed champion. Controversy will always follow any playoff system that is introduced. I favor the current BCS system, even with it's downfalls, because it makes the whole season matter. Today, the whole season should be viewed as the playoffs. Sure Auburn got burned by the system in 2004, but it eventually worked out for us in 2010.

When will it work out for 2004 or 2008 Utah? 2006 Boise?

If OU and Ohio State remain undefeated in 2010, does AU get shafted again? Both were ranked pre-season higher than AU, both are historied teams in BCS conferences. This scenario causes 2010 Auburn to get the boot and play for the Sugar Bowl. Again.

The current system is not a playoff because teams can run the table and miss the championship. There is an element of luck and hope the team ranked above you lose in the future. This is inherently different from a playoff, viewing it as one is incorrect.

In the 6-team three week format above, 97% of the schools still use their regular season as the sole on-field determining factor for their bowl placement. The regular season is still the sole on-field determining factor for the six teams that enter the playoffs.

Theoretically, there will never be an absolute way to determine a champion. Even in a 120 school playoff, there will be subjective calls or ref errors (see Colorado 1990).

I refuse to believe that any playoff could be more controversial than the current BCS system. When three teams win every single game in their regular season, the kids deserve a shot at the title based on more than pure subjectivity.

There are more flaws in the current system for determining the champion than would be present in a playoff. Best of the top six would be determined in the playoff, but is not objectively determined in the BCS system. The primary flaw in a playoff is where to limit the number of teams for admission.

The creation of the BCS was the first step in fixing a broken system while maintaining traditions. A playoff is the next step.

[tgr4lfe 220]

A 3 week playoff:

Week 1: teams ranked #1 & #2 get an off week during which #3 plays #6 & #4 plays #5 same day.

week 2: #1 plays the winner of #4 v #5 and #2 plays the winner of #3 v #6 same day.

week 3: championship game.

Avoids the BCS inconsistency of ignoring highly ranked teams if they're not from a strong conference (well then don't rank them highly if they have such a week schedule!)

In football it's hard to argue the best team will come from outside the final top 6. Those saying "there will always be controversy" should consider that.

I think the ultimate goal of a playoff is to determine the VERY BEST team rather than allow good teams a second chance (e.g. NCAA Tourney). Every recent undefeated team has always made it to the top 6 pre-bowl season. I devised a virtually identical 6 team, 3 week system in 2004 when I was in AU. Each BCS play-off round cap off the previous week of bowl games. As an example:

Dec. 12-18 is the first week of tier 1 bowl games with the BCS seeds #3 v #6 and #4 v #5 playing at different times on Dec 19th.

Dec. 19-26 is the second week of tier 2 bowl games with the BCS seeds #1 v (#4 or #5) and #2 v (#3 or #6) playing at different times on Dec 26.

Dec. 26-Jan 2 is the third week of tier 3 bowl games with the top two seeds remaining playing for it all on Jan 9th.

To preserve the major bowl games week 1 BCS games are the Sugar and Fiesta

Week 2 games are Rose and Orange

Last game is BCS National Championship as current.

Rotate the order of the four major bowls each year so no one has hurt feelings.

Bowl system intact, traditions maintained, the best team in the top 6 is unambiguously determined.

That sounds pretty good! I still like the idea of an 8 team playoff, but the absolute BIGGEST problem is still the ranking system. The BCS system is flawed, all it is is a different way to show the other 2 polls. The computer rankings that are used are insanely biased or slanted, as are other polls. I don't think any of the polls accurately reflect truly the order of how good teams are, much less if this can actually be done since everyone has their opinion about who is better than who. Case in point was UConn last year, who was ranked what #8? I think the majority of those watching college football knew they weren't that good, but voters only voted them high b/c they won the Big East. I think ALL of the BCS teams would have beaten UConn like VT did, plus a couple of others from top 12, like Boise St and LSu. Fix ranking system when doing playoff.

Sure, sure the rankings are inherently subjective. Agreed. But even with the flawed system we have now, a true contender has always filtered into the top 6 pre-bowl week. Since the goal of this is to crown a clear champion, not to settle a perfect top 25, it will work as described within the top 6. The inherent problem is that unless all 120 odd teams enter, creating a season long tournament, there can always be some type of doubt (see NCAA BB tourney selection committee). Fact is I have high faith that any potential title contender will land in the top 6 pre-bowl season and the goal, to crown an undisputed champion, will be met.

How would you fix it though? I am OK with how it works now (but I liked the old formula in the early days better). The extreme computer scores are taken out and there will always be some subjectivity in voters. It's far from perfect, but I'm stumped for a better way to rank the teams.

IF I had a solution, I would be shouting about it and maybe get rich myself, but there in lies the problem with it now $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I don't know how to fix it the voting scheme. I haven't put a lot of thought into that component. I think somewhat of a realignment of conferences such as the Big East, MAC, etc. to put more power teams in and kind of move toward an automatic qualifier playoff I think would be a good way to start. I know the SEC system may not be the best as you only play 8 or the 11 other teams in conference play, but it is better than most. That 8 could be moved up to 9 like the Pac 12 will do? That would just be God awfully brutal in SEC though. Each conference with a championship, that champion then gets spot in NC playoff, then at large teams are selected, most likely conference champion runner ups? If it were based solely on a the ranking system, then conference champs might get let out, for instance UConn last year. UConn won the Big East with final record of 8-4, barely ranked inside the top 25 in AP and Coaches polls and didn't crack the BCS poll in week 15. The spanking they got in the BCS bowl game by Oklahoma just solidified it for everyone. I think most fans agreed with their ranking, but teams like Boise St, Michigan St, for instance had good records but everyone had a different opinion about where to rank them. Then uat just steam rolls Michigan St in the bowl game, Boise blasts Utah in the bowl. The ONLY way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that team X is the best is for them to win it on the field. I still think AU was the best last year, would they have made it through an 8 or 16 team playoff? IDK, but our first round game in either scenario baed on week 15 BCS rankings would have sucked!! Based on those rankings only it would have looked like this:

8 team playoff-------------------------16 team playoff

Round 1 - Opening games

#8 Arky @ #1 AU -------------------#16 Bama @ #1 AU

#7 Okie @ #2 Oregon ------------ #15 Nevada @ #2 Oregon

#6 OSU @ #3 TCU ---------------- #14 Okie St @ #3 TCU

#5 Wisky @ #4 Stanford --------- #13 VT @ #4 Stanford

-------------------------------------------#12 Mizzou @ #5 Wisky

-------------------------------------------#11 LSU @ #6 OSU

-------------------------------------------#10 BSU @ #7 Okie

-------------------------------------------#9 Mich. St @ #8 Arky