A Modest Playoff Proposal
Is college football better with a 4 team playoff than it was with the old bowl system? One of the great things about the old bowl system was the endless debates. Who is better? With conference tie ins, sometimes #1 and #2 wouldn’t meet. And that was ... okay? Maybe not, but if your team went 9-2 or 8-3 (back when 11 games were the norm) and won a bowl game (with few, if any, players sitting out), you felt good about your off-season. With the playoff, the bowls have been rendered as even more meaningless and it’s not unusual to see multiple starters on each team sit out, even in NY6 bowls. The only thing that seems to matter now is getting in the playoff. And that is .... okay?
Another of the great things about college football is - and has been - that the regular season matters. Each game matters. But the selection process for the playoff - while making the regular season matter even more - has also watered it down. Teams are dropping challenging non-conference matchups in favor of home games against cupcakes because, for all of the playoff committee’s talk of taking strength of schedule into consideration, they still award a team with no losses and a weak schedule over a team with a difficult schedule and 1 loss. And even if we were to take non-conference scheduling out of the equation and say that only conference champs can get selected, well with the advent of super conferences, schedule imbalance could still play a factor. If Wisconsin plays crossover games against Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan and loses 2 of those, and Iowa plays crossover games against Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana and wins all of those but loses to Wisconsin, Iowa would win the division (assuming both teams won all their other games). Fair? Of course not.
So what should we do? Should we leave things as they are or should we go back to the old days?
I have a modest proposal. It’s not a perfect proposal, but I think it would improve upon the current system.
A 12-team playoff, but with a twist. Even though conference champs can be distorted with unbalanced schedules (as mentioned above), I would say that all Power 5 champs are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. And the 4 best get byes. How do we determine the best? With a committee? With rankings? With a computer? No - I would choose the best 4, as well as the 7 at large teams with a point based system that rewards difficult schedules.
How would this point system work? I think it should look something like this (though I’d certainly be open to other suggestions):
Points are awarded prior to conference championship games, therefore each team counts only 12 games. I would be wide open to suggestions on how to award points, but here is my first crack at it:
*A road win against a P5 team with 11 wins: 5 points
*A home win against a P5 team with 11 wins: 4 points
*A road win against a P5 team with 10 wins: 4 points
*A home win against a P5 team with 10 wins: 3 points
*A road win against a P5 team with 9 wins: 3 points
*A home wins against a P5 team with 9 wins: 2 points
*A road win against a P5 team with 7/8 wins: 2 points
*All other wins against P5 teams and non-P5 teams: 1 point
*A road loss to a P5 team with 11/12 wins: 2 points
*A road loss to a P5 team with 9/10 wins: 1 point
*A home loss to a P5 team with 11/12 wins: 1 point
All other losses - no points
This format would actually reward tough schedules because it will even give you credit for losses to good teams to encourage those matchups. I think most people would prefer watching regular season matchups like LSU/Texas, Michigan/Notre Dame or Oregon/Auburn rather than Clemson/Wofford.
And interest would go right down to the last week to see if one of your opponents get another victory to add to your point total.
Now this would hurt the non-P5 schools. Not only would it be very difficult for them to accumulate enough points to make the playoff, but P5 schools would likely slow down or stop scheduling them since the reward is small (no credit for a loss to a non-P5 school although my point system gives 1 point for a win over any non-P5 school, same as a win vs any P5 school with 6 or fewer wins). But this is .... okay? I mean should Eastern Michigan or Arkansas State be competing for championships at the same level as Alabama, USC or Ohio State? Perhaps some of the bigger non-P5 schools (such as BYU or Cincinnati) could join a P5 conference. It’s possible each P5 conference could expand to 14-16 teams and the truly small time leagues (such as the MAC) would drop down to FCS status.
We could either incorporate the extra playoff games into the bowl structure, or, in a perfect world, have those first couple rounds at the home of the better seed. The bowls are still meaningless exhibitions in this scenario, but more teams have a shot at the end, so 2 losses - and maybe even 3 - won’t necessarily doom you to the Pinstripe Bowl before Halloween.
Perhaps it’s even possible that teams that lose in the first round (assuming those games are played the week after conference championship games) would still be eligible to be selected to a bowl. Then the quarterfinals can be bowl games on January 1, semis the next Saturday afterwards with the championship on the Monday 9 days after that.
This will probably never happen, but any plan that gives us great regular season matchups (like there are in college basketball now because strength of schedule is legitimately considered in the tournament selection) would be welcomed by me!
October 27th, 2019 at 3:48 PM ^
I would be happy to go back to the old system. It allowed several teams to end the season on a happy note, whereas now it is all about being the one team that wins the playoff. It also might create better competitive balance, as the current system seems to drive elite players to a handful of schools that have a better than even chance of being in the playoffs virtually every year, and certainly at least once every 3-4 years. I used to be an avid viewer of bowl games; lately, I only care about Michigan’s game and the playoff, unless there is an unusually compelling matchup somewhere.
October 27th, 2019 at 9:16 PM ^
It was much better before the playoff. The playoff might be better if it weren't the same 5 teams every year, but the regular season was more meaningful and the bowls were better 10 years ago
October 30th, 2019 at 11:50 AM ^
Agreed with both.
I have said for a while that if we're going to expand the playoffs, it should be played in December, done in a bracket that looks like basketball tournament brackets do these days (where the top four teams get a two or three round bye instead of playing the worst team right away) and the losers, as they drop out of the playoff, go to a bowl.
October 27th, 2019 at 3:53 PM ^
When it was 2, there were usually 2 teams that stood out (Texas and USC in 2005, for example) that you wanted to see play each other. And there were a lot of good matchups on Jan1.
When 4 came along, it seems like it really dominated the bowl season and diminished Jan 1 as must watch TV. With more and more players sitting out non playoff games, the rest of the bowls are less and less compelling. 8 teams means Michigan is still in the hunt and last night's game has huge implications i.e ND is probably out of the 8 team playoff.
Cant move to 8 soon enough, 16 would be better, especially with home field 1st round games.
October 28th, 2019 at 1:49 PM ^
Jan 1 used to be the best day of the year as I sat down to watch a full slate of compelling CFB matchups... really has lost its appeal since the playoffs came round.
October 27th, 2019 at 5:52 PM ^
I don't see the sense in punishing teams for playing G5 schools. Objectively, many of them are better than the weaker P5 teams. Several are ranked right now. There's just no reason to try to push them out of the picture. Why not just add them to your scale, but award one less point for beating the ones with winning records?
Saying they should just join P5 conferences ignores that many desperately want to now.
October 27th, 2019 at 6:34 PM ^
4 is without a doubt not enough. You can look this year and there are at least 8 teams that could win on a neutral field. Take the power 5 winner, if they have a certain number on wins, and then pick 3 at large teams. You'll get your best 8 every year that way.
October 27th, 2019 at 7:26 PM ^
I dislike the playoff system (and before it the BCS). More than ever, the college sport is becoming more like the pro sport - and to me, that sucks. It’s taken a lot of the joy out, and replaced it with pressure to have a perfect season.
A 9 or 10 win season translates to being a very good football team. The accomplishment should result in a bowl, and it would be a lot better if the bowl meant something more than a consolation prize.
But we are in an era of bullshit money grabs. I’m just howling at the moon. Very few people agree with me.
October 27th, 2019 at 9:23 PM ^
If college football was like the NFL...this wouldn't be a discussion. In the NFL...the division champs and wild card teams get in the playoffs based on their record. There is no ranking system/committee who determines who gets in the playoffs.
October 28th, 2019 at 10:20 AM ^
I dont understand why people want every bowl to mean something. You don't have to have a bowl game mean something to appreciate a season. There are rivalry wins, conference title game appearances/wins, making a New Year's 6 bowl game, making the playoff, making the championship. There are what 10 teams that can appear in a conference title game for a Power 5 conference? There, you are rewarding 15% of power 5 teams. There are 15 teams that can make a New Years 6 bowl game or the playoffs from a power 5 school (or ND). That's a full 1/4 of P5 schools. Beyond that, the other bowl games are completely meaningless to me. I didn't care about them before the playoff and I don't care about them after.
The goal for Michigan every year should be to be one of those top 25% of teams. Hopefully some years they are even better and can make the playoff, but I think if you are consistently making a NY6 game, you are having successful, mostly fulfilling seasons.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:44 PM ^
I seem to recall a lot of pressure to have a perfect season before the BCS. It was the only way to win an AP or Coaches Poll NC. It was also the reason ND was such a big rival: lose that game the first or second week of the season, and you were just playing for the Rose Bowl.
That said, the Rose Bowl was so much more meaningful, as were other January 1st bowl games that were played on - ahem - January 1st.
I agree the current system and the BCS sucks, and created monotony in teams playing for the championship. Given the lopsided talent issues, I am not sure there would be a lot of difference in the eventual top teams, but I do think expanding to 8 or 12 does gives teams like Oklahoma and Georgia, and maybe even us an outside shot to play their way back in after set backs.
October 27th, 2019 at 8:06 PM ^
Something has to be done to get to more than 4 teams. What is happening is that there are about 4-5 teams (Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Oklahoma, maybe LSU) that are there most of the time. This is a huge recruiting advantage. Top players want to go someplace where they can compete for national championship in their 3 years playing college ball. One of those schools give them a pretty good chance of playoffs for 2-3 years before going to NFL. Going to Michigan, Auburn, Oregon, Texas, etc and your chances of going to the playoffs in your 3 years are at best a maybe. This has to change or those 4-5 teams will continue to dominate.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:04 AM ^
Four teams is not the problem. The NCAA doing nothing to promote parity in college football is the problem. As long as the NCAA is willing to look the other way while the Alabama's and Clemson's of the world entice a disproportionate number of top recruits with bags of money, nothing is going to change. But nobody is going to do a thing until the golden goose is properly dead.
October 27th, 2019 at 10:05 PM ^
Something must be done to incorporate the major bowls into a playoff system. It's a shame that top tier bowls have lost some of their appeal.
October 28th, 2019 at 12:15 PM ^
I really don't think it has to be this complicated. An eight team playoff with all conference champions and wildcards is all that needs to happen. Have strength of schedule be once of the big factors that goes into selecting the wildcard teams and then that would create incentive for teams to schedule better in case they didn't win their conference. As usual the solution is not that complicated, but it will take a big controversy one of these years ( 5 undefeated teams, etc.) before the NCAA uses common sense.
October 28th, 2019 at 2:45 PM ^
I agree that having 3 wildcards and emphasizing strength of schedule would be a good fix. Last year the 3 wildcards would have been ND, Georgia, and Michigan (according to CFP rankings). In 2017, the wildcards would have been Alabama, Wisconsin, and Auburn. In 2016, the wildcards would have been Penn State, Michigan, and Wisconsin, although I doubt the CFP committee would have 4 teams from one conference in the playoff, so maybe you end up with USC or Florida State instead.
Interesting to think that in an 8-team playoff scenario Michigan would have been a frontrunner to get a wildcard with 2 losses in two of the past four seasons. Also interesting to think about some of the more surprising teams that would have made it (at least using the final CFP rankings from those seasons): Baylor, TCU, and Mississippi State in 2014, Iowa and Stanford in 2015, Penn State and Michigan in 2016, Wisconsin, Auburn, and USC in 2017, maybe UCF in 2018?
October 30th, 2019 at 12:44 PM ^
basically 8 teams, conference champs then 3 at large, make schools do2cross conference challenges like they do in basketball like acc vs big 10 based on where you finished last year so like clemson vs osu and work its way down from their, add more conference games, the bowls are crappy because there are too many and are not always the best matched no one was dying to see the idaho potato bowl with ul monroe vs ohio university
October 28th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^
When I saw "a modest proposal" I was hoping for a 128 team playoff
October 28th, 2019 at 12:23 PM ^
In general, I'm ok with the power points system. Although I think G5 teams should be included when they have 9+ wins. Maybe bonus points for league champs.
Also, I tend to be anti-playoff but I get that I am swimming against the tide. I think there's so much more to play for than a playoff spot. I am somewhat nostalgic for the bowls, and the playoff has diminished them but so too did the bowls themselves by multiplying. Bowl games themselves are tradition but aren't necessary, and it's ok if they die.
What I'd prefer is that the national championship was the Rose Bowl on January 1st, and if the other bowls want to continue to exist they can figure it out. If I can go further, there are 65 P5 schools? Split them into 6-7 conferences, have every one of them be "true champs" where everyone plays everyone (9-10 league games), and use this power points system to figure out 6 playoff teams that play on what's now conference championship weekend. Play it in a soulless NFL stadium if you must. Have your semifinals in mid December. Maybe the Sugar or the Orange can be the 3rd place game. Nobody cares about the Fiesta, Cotton or Peach, but I guess they can host the best also-rans.
Finish the season on January 1st at the Rose Bowl. League champions will still feel like they matter. Out of conference games still matter. And as always, rivalry games matter the most (I am definitely colored in that last statement by the realities of 2019 Michigan football circa November)
October 28th, 2019 at 1:45 PM ^
Love this post and have been thinking the same, well not exactly the same, but very similar things the last few weeks. I like a 6 team playoff instead of 12 (these are still students who aren't getting paid to take tremendous risks with their health after all) with the P5 conference champs getting a spot and 1 at large (your UCFs and Boise States) getting a playoff spot. Rankings are determined using a points system like the one you've laid out above. 1 and 2 team (as determined by points) get a first week by and then the playoff unfolds as it logically would from there. It's efficient and the requirements for making it in are pretty indisputable (no need for idiotic committees or eyeball tests etc.).
I was, and still am, sad to see the prominence of the Bowl games so greatly diminished and equally sad that the regular season has lost meaning for so many teams by October let alone November. Basically, the playoff is really good at making 1 fanbase ecstatic about their Championship and leaves every other fanbase depressed and maniacal about replacing their coach, AD, Starting lineup etc in the offseason. It creates such unrealistic expectations that your team should be historically great nearly every season or else they're trash and the coach is a no-nothing bafoon, etc. Look at ND for example: They made the playoffs after going undefeated LAST SEASON and after their absolute ass whopping they want BK's head... This is the madness brought about by a playoff system. I do not think it serves anyone (players, coaches, or fans) well... that said it does make a lot of money so it will never go away.
Final thought, the one flaw with the Bowl system was that their would occasionally be Split National Champions, which is easily the stupidest thing ever. That should never be brought back under any system.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:02 PM ^
The purpose of the playoff is to allow any teams that have a legitimate argument for being considered the #1 team in the nation a shot at settling the argument on the field. Given that, four is a sufficient number of teams from which to draw up a playoff at the end of each season to determine a National of Champion. There will always be a big debate over which team gets the #4 spot, but in most years, that #4 team is there to fill out the bracket, and not because it has any realistic argument for being considering the #1 team in the nation at that moment.
The only change I would like to see is to eliminate the Bowl Selection Committee and go back the the system that was used in selecting the teams to play in the BCS Championship game and take the top four teams from that.
Looking back over the BCS seasons, with credits to Phil Steele:
2001- One undefeated, two teams with 1 loss. A 2 loss team is #4.
2002- Two undefeated (Ohio St-Miami). No need for #3 or #4
2003- Three teams with 1 loss (split Nat’l Title). #4 team 2 losses.
2004- Unbeaten SEC champ Auburn #3. Utah unbeaten.
2005- Two undefeated teams in USC-Texas. GREAT Rose Bowl.
2006- Only debate Michigan or Florida for #3. #4 LSU 2 losses.
2007- Strange year. Could make a case against any team being in.
2008- Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and Alabama.
2009- 5 unbeatens but Alabama & Texas only ones that HAD to be in.
2010- Three unbeatens all in. Only debate is best 1 loss.
2011- The 3 legitimate 1 loss teams and undefeated LSU, a clear Top 4.
Adding any more teams would truly devalue the regular season. It would open up the playoff field to include 2-loss teams on a regular basis. Also, it would then make strategic sense to have a team throw a game with another undefeated divisional opponent simply to avoid having to play in a conference championship game, if it were to be clear they would still qualify for the CFP with only that one loss. Just consider LSU vs. Alabama in this current season... The loser of that game, provided it wins all other games, will probably be in the CFP. If the winner turns around and loses the SEC CG to a one or more loss SEC East champ, they're probably out of it.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:50 PM ^
So how do you answer the problem of the same four to six teams over and over because of "talent flocking", if no one else ever plays in a playoff?
October 29th, 2019 at 5:44 PM ^
Easy: Salary Caps.
October 28th, 2019 at 4:07 PM ^
I like it for a number of reasons - primarily because it takes the ranking - subjectivity out of the system. It is also conveniently large enough for a couple of each conference making the playoff and the rare time when there are 3 from one and only 1 from a weak conference (Clemson comes to mind) the 12 berths would accommodate.
Having said that, I'm done with the G5. A few teams need to join a P5 conference to balance them all at 14 (or 16) and the rest should go for a new G5 level CFP.
They've been consistently screwed over and won't ever get a fair shot at the big guys in the CFP.
Imagine, a "CFP-G5" with 8 teams with 7 games that outdraw/out-ratings the 4 team/3 game CFP farce that we have today... and all of the NY6 bowl games of P5 also-rans. It would force the CFP to expand to 6 or 8 quickly.
Now, one of you guys without a full time job go total up current points for the last couple years and give us the playoff bracket and predicted results.
(Also, imagine the schadenfreude of watching a team rooting a rival in a late season game, hoping for that extra point they get when the other team reaches 10 wins.)
October 28th, 2019 at 5:20 PM ^
My wish list for college football:
- kill conference divisions / title game #1 vs. #2
- all teams required to play 9 conference games
- limit of one FCS game per season
- expand playoffs to 8 teams / the P5 champs plus 3 at-large bids
October 29th, 2019 at 12:16 PM ^
So can you produce the results of 2014-2018 with your system? What would be the top 25 after conference championship games and before bowl games based on your system?
October 29th, 2019 at 1:28 PM ^
2018 - Bama had 14, Clemson had 15, ND had 19, OU had 14, UGA had 15, OSU had 15, and M had 15, UCF had 11 (and a cancelled game against UNC), UW had 13
I may have miscalculated and one point makes a world of difference, and this takes a long time so i'm stopping now.
Seems like we'd still be arguing a whole lot and it'd get tweaked to get rid of points for losing, and eventually we'd talk about quality of wins and go back to a committee five years later. it'd be fun i'd be game.
October 30th, 2019 at 9:27 AM ^
Most of the bowls were always pretty meaningless regardless of pre-BCS, BCS, or playoff
October 30th, 2019 at 9:45 AM ^
Here is the problem: everybody thinks there is a perfect number of teams, and will continue to insist that the current number of teams is wrong, as is every proposal with a different number of teams than their ideal.
What about a playoff that doesn't have a set number of teams?
* Every 12-0 team in the top 100 in strength of schedule is invited.
* Every 11-1 team in the top 50 in strength of schedule is invited.
* Every 10-2 team in the top 20 in strength of schedule is invited.
* One at large team in addition to the above is invited.
There you go. How many teams will that be? 6? 19? Who knows & who cares? Those teams deserve to be in, and everybody else deserves to be out.
I have some thoughts on the format, but the takeaway here is that we need to stop worrying about how many teams should be in the playoff and we need to start worrying about defining a "deserving" team.
October 30th, 2019 at 2:28 PM ^
I’m not a fan of giving a bye in a football playoff. The sport is so physical that a bye is a significant and unfair advantage.
October 30th, 2019 at 3:44 PM ^
There's always the Mike Leach style playoff with 64 teams. It'd definitely be fun.
October 31st, 2019 at 7:49 AM ^
I mainly want to see any format that guarantees conference champs a playoff appearance. Maybe it’s just the conspiracy theorist in me, but it sure seems like the teams with the best odds of getting into the playoffs tend to get a lot of help from the refs (OSU 2016, PSU 2019, Florida @ South Carolina 2019, etc.). Maybe it’s not done intentionally, but there sure is a ton of money for the conference if it can ensure it has a team in the playoffs.
October 31st, 2019 at 7:07 PM ^
This is very well thought out but, as others might have noted, it'll be tough to make any change that requires much detail in calculation.
It's like a QB rating: though intense fans know it, it's vague to most of the rest, and most articles that use it usually pause to explain what a good rating is. (~ 158.34159265359)
November 4th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
I say go to 8 teams.
P5 conference champs, Highest ranked G5, and 2 at large.
highest ranked G5 means every team in the country has a chance and it should make for some cinderella stories now and then. I'm ok with the highest ranked G5 over the 3rd at large, because by the time we get to the 3rd at large it is really just setting up a rematch
Comments