Is anyone AGAINST a college football playoff?

[EKnight]

In terms of sports, that's the way the word meaningless is used.

...just like the NFL games are meaningless when both teams are out of the playoffs and have locked up their draft spots.

But, I'm still not hearing anyone stand up against a playoff.  Don't play contrarian.  Is anyone AGAINST a playoff?  You can't really be conditionally against it, because we don't know how those conditions will evolve.  Do you feel that a playoff is required to fix the system or do you prefer the current system?

Dave, WHY can't you be conditionally against it? You never know what conditions are ahead if change is proposed, but people can still have an opinion one way or the other. If it is because of the parameters you have set up for the thread, then I get that, and I am against it. I don't think it would absolutely necessarily "fix" anything, and the adding of so many bowl games already over the years is what I'm against; adding more games for a playoff compounds that problem. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

The playoff system would not ADD any new bowl games.  It would convert existing bowl games into a postseason.

Your argument about the excessive proliferation of bowl games is irrelevant to the discussion.  If you want to argue that there are too many bowl games, fine, but unless your point is that there should be less than 7 total bowls, reducing the number of bowls has nothing to do with a playoff system.

[Phishfan]

The playoff system would not ADD any new bowl games.  It would convert existing bowl games into a postseason.

You don't know that. There is no one scenario right now is what I keep trying to say. One scenario has them not adding games. One has them playing the bowls and then taking a playoff. There are many options and no one answer. That is why you cannot say you cannot be against the idea conditionally. You have to be against it (or for it) conditionally because there is no set option that has been selected.

[Spider-Dan]

One has them playing the bowls and then taking a playoff.

I challenge you to cite any example of someone proposing the creation of new games for the playoff system.

Literally every example I have seen has proposed the conversion of existing bowls into a tournament bracket.

[EKnight]

The entire concept of "+1" or "+3" means adding (thus the plus) games. How does that work with your argument Spider? According to collegefootball.procon. there's almost no way to accommodate a playoff system without adding at least three weeks to the current season because after the first game of a playoff (anything beyond +1, which would still add two weeks because the proposal is to have the extra game played with a "bye week" format between games) travel issues would cause massive upheaval for athletes and students. There's nearly no way to set up a playoff without extending the season- at least no way that will actually be accepted by the NCAA. -EK

[Phishfan]

I'm not going to sit and look up every possible option. All you need to know is that there are several (I have heard anything from 100 to a handful) and none of them have been decided on much less discussed in depth as every person involved has said in every article that this is in the conceptual stage still. Here is one link mentioning that.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-10/lsualabama/story/even-with-playoff-coming-sec-still-big-winner-lsu-alabama-national-title-game

This link shows multiple examples of adding games (anywhere from 1-3)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-01-08/bcs-future-discussions-begin/52459902/1

That is all I'm going to do because you can see in each story that the entire thing is premature and that is my point. There have been no serious discussions about what format there will be, only that there will be a new one.

[Dave Gray]

Dave, WHY can't you be conditionally against it?

Well, of course you CAN be conditionally against it, but that doesn't help with the situation, or move towards a resolution.

They are either going to make a move towards a playoff system to determine the championship or they are not.  From there, the fate of the bowls ....who knows what will happen.

The question I'm asking is "Are you in favor of moving the championship to a playoff system or not?"

[EKnight]

OKtwang- I swear I'm not being purposefully dense, but are you asking if there's a way to do it without changing anything else at all about the season, just convert Bowls to playoff rounds, am I for or against it? I still can't fathom trying to approach it in this manner. It won't happen in a vacuum- there's always a butterfly effect, especially with something this big. But if it could be done- no added time needed for travel or interruptions to students' schedules, then yes I'm OK with it. I don't really think it's necessary, but I'm not opposed to it. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

The entire concept of "+1" or "+3" means adding (thus the plus) games.

Given that the BCS National Championship already exists as a game, a +1 system would be net of zero.

Similarly, a +3 would technically result in three extra games, but two of those games would replace existing (meaningless) bowl games; net of zero.

How does that work with your argument Spider? According to collegefootball.procon. there's almost no way to accommodate a playoff system without adding at least three weeks to the current season because after the first game of a playoff (anything beyond +1, which would still add two weeks because the proposal is to have the extra game played with a "bye week" format between games) travel issues would cause massive upheaval for athletes and students.

The bowl season is already FOUR WEEKS LONG.  These teams play one game every week for the majority of the season, with plenty of travel included.  And now you're saying that a playoff system won't work because they need two weeks between each game?

The system obviously won't work if you're inventing ways to sabotage it.  If the NCAA really wants to know how to make a playoff system work, all they need to do is ask themselves what they do for Division I-AA and every other level of college football.

[EKnight]

No. You're wrong. The "+" options are not proposing to substitute. That's why they are "+". They are proposing to add games. What part of that do you not get? -EK

[Dave Gray]

EKnight, my whole point is that the decision to keep or rid the league of bowls will come later, independant of the playoff system.

What I would imagine would happen is this: The playoff "bowls" would be immensely popular.  The interest in the other bowls would dwindle.  Money would ultimately dictate which bowls would still exist and which wouldn't.  But whatever happens there would be determined years and years later, only after we saw what effect the playoffs had on the "meaningless" bowls.

[EKnight]

Ok Dave I get what you're going after. That makes sense -EK

[Spider-Dan]

No. You're wrong. The "+" options are not proposing to substitute. That's why they are "+". They are proposing to add games. What part of that do you not get?

Are you even thinking at all?

Tell me, in a "+1 system", which you claim means they must add one game, what happens to the game currently known as the BCS National Championship Game?  Do they just have two other random teams in that game instead, and then have the national championship in some other game?

A +1 system will not add a game because there is already a designated national championship game (added in 2007) that serves no other purpose.  Under the original BCS system, a +1 would have added a game, but under the system that exists now, that game already exists.   So in a "+1" system, either you have four teams in two existing bowls and the winners play in the already-existing BCS National Championship Game* (net games added: zero) or you create two new BCS Semifinal Games and have the winner of those play in the already-existing BCS National Championship Game (net games added: two).

There is no possible solution in which a "+1" system would result in one extra game from the status quo unless you kept the current "BCS National Championship Game" and had two non-contenders play in it.

*You could technically eliminate the BCS National Championship Game and "replace" it with, say, an NCAA National Championship Game, but the end result is still zero net games added.

[EKnight]

No. You need to take a step back from your personal vendetta against me and rethink this. First off, other people have already pointed out to you that there are several possibilities where extra games must be played under your scenario, but as always, you are taking issue with me, SOOOOOOOOO....

This is from USA Today's article on the very topic:
"One longstanding proposal is to expand the two-team, one-game national championship format to a four-team playoff, dubbed a plus-one. Semifinalists could be seeded into two BCS games, the winners meeting for the title."

This are not saying the number of games does not change. It is saying the bowls- including what we have seen as the BCS Title Bowl, will exist among teams ranked 1-4, and after those games are completed, ANOTHER game will be added to yield a national champion.

And from SI.com:
"One possibility is the four-team playoff, or the so-called plus-one approach, that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played one week later."

THAT championship game is the extra game. Get it now? 

 And from CNN.com, regarding the postential growth:
"A playoff system would have how many games, and who's to say it wouldn't keep expanding before expanding some more? While several athletics directors want a "plus one" approach featuring a championship game after the 35 bowl games, others want two semifinal games and then a championship game."

You seem to misunderstand what the "plus-one" concept is. Currently, #1 plays #2 in the BCS Title Bowl, and #3 plays #4. Under plus-one, these match-ups would still occur, only the "BCS Title Bowl" would be called something else (like it was previously- the Rose Bowl, if that's where it was played, or the Fiesta Bowl, or where ever it was designated to play). The winners of these games would then play eachother in an additional game, slated 2-3 weeks later, effectively extending the 13 week season to 15 or 16 weeks.

So is every major media report on this mistaken then about adding the game for a plus one? And what about a plus...more than one? You're flat wrong on this Dan. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

THERE IS ALREADY A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AFTER THE BOWL GAMES.  How can it be an "extra game added" when it ALREADY EXISTS?

You are the only one that cares about the net number of games added.  The quotes you have cited say NOTHING about net games.  The plus one quote from SI.com creates TWO (not one!) new games, and neither one of them is the championship game.  They are the semifinal games.

There is no plausible "plus one" scenario in which there is exactly one net game added.

Furthermore, didn't you just say that "+1" means "one more game"?  If so, why are you now citing articles with +1 scenarios that "add" three games?  Make up your mind.