Photo

It's Official! College Football Playoff to begin in 2014


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
113 replies to this topic

#1 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,577 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:15 PM

A four-team playoff for college football has been formally approved by a presidential oversight committee, a dramatic change for the sport that will begin in 2014. The four teams will be chosen by a selection committee, and the semifinals will be held at current bowl sites and the national championship game will be awarded to the highest bidder.

The deal will last 12 years, going through the 2025 season.


The group of presidents also endorsed a rotation of the semifinal games among six bowl sites and rotation of the championship game among neutral sites. The championship game will be managed by the conferences and will not be branded as a bowl game. The group also announced the creation of a selection committee that will rank the teams to play in the playoff, "giving all the teams an equal opportunity to participate." The committee will consider win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and whether a team is a conference champion.


http://espn.go.com/c... ... nning-2014

#2 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,187 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:17 PM

Beat me by a minute - and it probably does deserve it's own thread, I'll delete my previous post. This is great news, a huge step in the right direction by the NCAA.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#3 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 9,491 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:35 PM

Good, maybe I can finally get into college football...

I have a feeling once they see how successful this is, they'll bump it to eight teams.

#4 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,577 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:41 PM

Good, maybe I can finally get into college football...

I have a feeling once they see how successful this is, they'll bump it to eight teams.


Agreed on both of your points. I bet they'll be up to 8 teams in 5 years after implementation.

#5 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:54 PM

Still rooting for sixteen teams, but I'm certainly not going to complain about the implementation of the beginnings of a more-perfect system.

#6 Greg Pappas

Greg Pappas

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • LocationAbingdon, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 08:58 PM

Finally... This is a good thing, although it remains to be seen how the selection committee will determine whom the four schools will be. THAT will cause quite an uproar when it goes down in 2014.

Time comes and goes, like mist in the morning… the rays of dawn wane into twilight. Unaware on our journey, we often fail to realize that we are breathing… ALIVE in this wondrous gift called Life.

 


#7 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,577 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:00 PM

Finally... This is a good thing, although it remains to be seen how the selection committee will determine whom the four schools will be. THAT will cause quite an uproar when it goes down in 2014.


I read that there will be 15 people on the committee. So hopefully that will quell any bias/affiliation.

#8 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,420 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:42 AM

College football moves incrementally. Once they figure out the best way to monetize this, it will expand. 8 teams works for me. Read somewhere that the committee is supposed to give more weight to strength of schedule than the polls typically do. Hope this means more attractive non-conference games and fewer 1-AA snoozefests.

#9 Greg Pappas

Greg Pappas

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • LocationAbingdon, MD

Posted 27 June 2012 - 09:58 AM

I read that there will be 15 people on the committee. So hopefully that will quell any bias/affiliation.


Hadn't read that, I like it. The first four chosen will likely open the eyes of fans to what the committee values most. It will be very interesting.

College football moves incrementally. Once they figure out the best way to monetize this, it will expand. 8 teams works for me. Read somewhere that the committee is supposed to give more weight to strength of schedule than the polls typically do. Hope this means more attractive non-conference games and fewer 1-AA snoozefests.


I think 8 is best also, but don't expect them to move off of four for at least a few years. SoS should have a strong value attached to it, so that makes sense. Good post.

Time comes and goes, like mist in the morning… the rays of dawn wane into twilight. Unaware on our journey, we often fail to realize that we are breathing… ALIVE in this wondrous gift called Life.

 


#10 Flosman

Flosman
  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:20 PM

In less than ten years there will be a 24 team playoff, IMO. The dolts that run college football just found the mother lode and in essence did it by accident.
  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#11 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:46 PM

In less than ten years there will be a 24 team playoff, IMO. The dolts that run college football just found the mother lode and in essence did it by accident.


I can see it being 16 that quickly, but not 24. Most likely still eight. In another five or ten years beyond that, though, I can see 24.

Between money and concussions and playoffs, we are likely at the edge of a revolution that will move through the entire sport, even if not as fast as most revolutions, and we could come out the other side with an entirely different sport than what is in place now and basically for the past century.

#12 SammyBirdland

SammyBirdland

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,019 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 10:40 PM

I'd call four teams a "playoff", but not a ...playoff.


Know what I mean?

u5FgTwsUgiI
¡Hasta la vista, pelota!

#13 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

Still rooting for sixteen teams, but I'm certainly not going to complain about the implementation of the beginnings of a more-perfect system.

Well there's 12 games right now (you can play 13 if you play in Hawaii). Then add a conference game, that's possibly 14 games before bowls/playoffs. How many games exactly do you want to play?

16 is way too many, it's really devaluing the regular season IMO. I might have been in the minority, but I like the current system because of the every game counts mentality, but I don't think the new system will deter too much from this.
@levineps

#14 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:41 AM

I believe they signed off on this system for 12 years, so I don't think will see any playoff expansion between now and like 2026. You'll always see complaining from the "first" team out of any system, whether it's 2,4,8,16,etc just look at March Madness, team #69 feels shafted.
@levineps

#15 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:06 PM

Well there's 12 games right now (you can play 13 if you play in Hawaii). Then add a conference game, that's possibly 14 games before bowls/playoffs. How many games exactly do you want to play?

16 is way too many, it's really devaluing the regular season IMO. I might have been in the minority, but I like the current system because of the every game counts mentality, but I don't think the new system will deter too much from this.

Do you have a problem with the I-AA playoff system? North Dakota State played fifteen games last season to win the championship, and they had (I think) a first-round bye (there are 20 teams in that playoff).

That's been working fine for decades.

#16 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:40 PM

Do you have a problem with the I-AA playoff system? North Dakota State played fifteen games last season to win the championship, and they had (I think) a first-round bye (there are 20 teams in that playoff).

That's been working fine for decades.

I'd say that's too many games, but I don't follow I-AA football so sorry. Any studies about injuries with that? I guess you don't mind if the NFL went to an 18-game schedule since 16 is OK for I-AAers.

So to recap, you could potentially play 18 games with your 16-team format and that's OK with you?

My argument is more keeping the regular season meaningful than anything else and having every game count. Every game is a must-win in college football, if there's 16 teams, I could see teams resting starters like it's week 17 of the NFL season. I doubt will see 16 teams, maybe 6 or 8 if this goes well, but the Presidents/ADs specifically made this a 12-year deal so we wouldn't be revisiting this in a few years.
@levineps

#17 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:11 PM

I'd say that's too many games, but I don't follow I-AA football so sorry. Any studies about injuries with that? I guess you don't mind if the NFL went to an 18-game schedule since 16 is OK for I-AAers.

So to recap, you could potentially play 18 games with your 16-team format and that's OK with you?

My argument is more keeping the regular season meaningful than anything else and having every game count. Every game is a must-win in college football, if there's 16 teams, I could see teams resting starters like it's week 17 of the NFL season. I doubt will see 16 teams, maybe 6 or 8 if this goes well, but the Presidents/ADs specifically made this a 12-year deal so we wouldn't be revisiting this in a few years.

The idea that the regular season matters in college football is a lie. Any time you can win your games and not finish with a chance at a championship devalues the season more than a couple additional playoff games can.

And if that is so much of an issue, why do we have to play twelve regular-season games? Why must we require a conference championship game? There are reasons for those, but they have absolutely nothing to do with any concept of integrity for the regular season.

#18 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:27 PM

The idea that the regular season matters in college football is a lie. Any time you can win your games and not finish with a chance at a championship devalues the season more than a couple additional playoff games can.

And if that is so much of an issue, why do we have to play twelve regular-season games? Why must we require a conference championship game? There are reasons for those, but they have absolutely nothing to do with any concept of integrity for the regular season.

That's definitely a valid argument about winning all the games but not being able to compete for the national title. Every system is going to have it's problems. But is it better for an 8-4 team to win a title?

On the conference championship game... you are dead on. When the Big 12 was formed, the coaches voted 12-0 against the conference title game, then the ADs voted 12-0 for it. I would say the SEC definitely means something, it's a big deal, the other ones not so much. But most importantly... cha-ching and that's why I don't see them going away.

College football is really something unlike other sporting events, between the six-figure crowds, tailgating experience, etc. I know many say it's charade, but it's a pretty popular one.
@levineps

#19 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 30 July 2012 - 05:29 PM

That's definitely a valid argument about winning all the games but not being able to compete for the national title. Every system is going to have it's problems. But is it better for an 8-4 team to win a title?


Yes. Without a doubt. Because a system where an 8-4 team can win a national championship is one where every team has a legitimate chance to do so. They still have to win those games, and more importantly the 12-0 teams have to lose those games.

On the conference championship game... you are dead on. When the Big 12 was formed, the coaches voted 12-0 against the conference title game, then the ADs voted 12-0 for it. I would say the SEC definitely means something, it's a big deal, the other ones not so much. But most importantly... cha-ching and that's why I don't see them going away.

College football is really something unlike other sporting events, between the six-figure crowds, tailgating experience, etc. I know many say it's charade, but it's a pretty popular one.

I agree that it has its differences from other sports. However, it isn't THAT different, especially considering (in the example of playoffs) other levels within the sport run successful systems that the barons running the sport claim won't work.

I don't know if charade is the word I would use. I'm partial to hypocrisy, though. I do believe that much of what those within the sport claim is grounded in a real and honest belief in the purity of amateurism and the college experience that once existed and still does exist to a certain level throughout the sport. It is just far too often a smokescreen for a money-grab that, especially considering the public nature of so many of the universities, is just disgusting.

#20 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:51 PM

My problem with March Madness is even though I love the event, I don't think the champion is exactly reflective(or close to it) on who had the best season or is the most deserving. It's a great way to draw the casual fan with pools, who might not be so interested otherwise.

I think four teams is fair solution in football (maybe eventually 6 or 8, anything more is really pushing it with a meaningful regular season). Of course, number 5(and so on) are going to feel screwed over. But let's say you have three undefeated BCS-caliber teams, team #5 and so on, shouldn't feel so left out. As I already stated, no system is perfect and even under your 16 team proposition, I think it could get worse if a team that was supposed number 12 got left out but the committee saw otherwise.
@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners