https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...es-history

Good read on the history of playoff proposals going back to 1960 and why they failed.

We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

People with the power to implement a playoff were in the pockets of the bowl folks.

Simple as that.

My favorite argument against a full-fledged playoff is that would take players out of class. Meanwhile, DII and DIII schools — where most players were more likely to be student-athletes — had multi-round football playoffs.

You couldn't make it up if you tried.

There is money in it now. Big money.

Also, the legitimacy of the old system before and into the 70's, even 80's, with no clear champion and a bunch claiming it is long gone. The Bowls were the prize, but now are ESPN program slot filling exhibitions for the most part. There thus isn't much of an alternative.

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

I don't miss the BCS that much and I won't miss the 4-team playoff setup.

What college football desperately needed was to take out the subjectivity of performance and establish objective metrics for post-season access. Nearly every sport has a post season, nearly every sport has a process of naming a champion. Very rarely do you see the organization (NCAA) completely foregoing its own ability to name a champion in place of interested outsiders (Bowls, ESPN, Polls, etc).

CFB is the only sport in the world where teams that are in the same division on paper have some disqualifier before a game is even played. Sorry, Western Kentucky you can be undefeated but that is irrelevant as a 2-3 loss P5 team will take your spot in the playoff. Objective access is critical. Teams like Western Kentucky need to know from the start of the season what to do win the championship and those steps should not require any reliance on the performance of other teams. That still isn't fixed in the new model, but it is at least improved. The monopoly on postseason access held by the top conferences has been a poison to the growth and development of the sport as a whole.

I only skimmed through the article, but want to give it a full read later. The best quote from what I saw was that they have been talking about the playoffs since the 1960s and a breakaway since the 1970s.

I had heard that another reason for the delay in establishing playoffs for FBS was faculty opposition for the reason PeteTheChop mentioned in the post above. The football season extends longer than other sports, and players having missed a lot of classes in the regular season. But now that there is a LOT of money in playoffs, and faculty have less influence, it was only a matter of time that we would have a 12/14/16 team playoff.

FWIW, I support a 12 team playoff, even if it goes against “tradition.” Besides, classes are usually done by playoff time.

(03-07-2024 03:03 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

I don't miss the BCS that much and I won't miss the 4-team playoff setup.

What college football desperately needed was to take out the subjectivity of performance and establish objective metrics for post-season access. Nearly every sport has a post season, nearly every sport has a process of naming a champion. Very rarely do you see the organization (NCAA) completely foregoing its own ability to name a champion in place of interested outsiders (Bowls, ESPN, Polls, etc).

CFB is the only sport in the world where teams that are in the same division on paper have some disqualifier before a game is even played. Sorry, Western Kentucky you can be undefeated but that is irrelevant as a 2-3 loss P5 team will take your spot in the playoff. Objective access is critical. Teams like Western Kentucky need to know from the start of the season what to do win the championship and those steps should not require any reliance on the performance of other teams. That still isn't fixed in the new model, but it is at least improved. The monopoly on postseason access held by the top conferences has been a poison to the growth and development of the sport as a whole.

The Power schools don't want the lesser schools to participate in the playoff because it hurts the ratings, as well as the branding that goes with it. The Power schools are the NFL's farm teams, and they don't want a USFL or XFL type team coming along and upsetting the apple cart.

(03-07-2024 03:04 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  I had heard that another reason for the delay in establishing playoffs for FBS was faculty opposition for the reason PeteTheChop mentioned in the post above. The football season extends longer than other sports, and players having missed a lot of classes in the regular season.

If they gave all faculty free tickets to playoff games to either use or sell, any opposition would've declined significantly.

I’ve often thought that the BCS was the perfect time to implement an 8 team playoff:

6 BCS champs + top 2 ranked at larges

SEC champ tied to Sugar Bowl

Big 10 and PAC 10 champs tied to Rose Bowl unless one of those leagues produces an at large team and placing that at large team in that bowl would result in more equitable seeding

Remaining teams assigned to the BCS bowls in order to create the most equitable seeding, avoiding pairing conference mates, and taking geography into consideration.

This set up would have worked out quite nicely and would probably still be in place today with some modifications.

The beauty of it is that it by and large leaves the bowl system in place, there’s just 4 bowls that have additional post season considerations on the line.

For me, a lot of it is the argument from that article that fans liked arguing about who was actually the best.

Like, yes I'm here, discussing realignment and other ancillary college issues, but none of my other CFB-loving friends are super interested in doing so. Years ago, we'd have been discussing who among the 6 or so teams was the "true" best team last season, up until next season starts. Now, there's just not much CFB talk from Feb-Aug.

(03-07-2024 04:20 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  For me, a lot of it is the argument from that article that fans liked arguing about who was actually the best.

Like, yes I'm here, discussing realignment and other ancillary college issues, but none of my other CFB-loving friends are super interested in doing so. Years ago, we'd have been discussing who among the 6 or so teams was the "true" best team last season, up until next season starts. Now, there's just not much CFB talk from Feb-Aug.

Exactly. CFB was great.

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

The height of the post season was the last iteration of the BCS which had Top 12/16 inclusion for non-AQ conference champions and objective computers.

Computers were taking a lot of flack of having biases built into their design. I never bought into that argument when there was 6 computer rankings averaged together.

Committee is moving teams up and down based on injuries and how their schedule performed. Cincinnati ranked in the Top 4 because they had ND on the schedule and beat them. Maybe they just got lucky as Alabama steamrolled them.

I'm now also missing the BCS bowl system and if I could go back to that I would add a +1 championship game which would give all BCS bowl games meaning, no more opt out insanity in the top bowls.

(03-07-2024 05:17 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I'm now also missing the BCS bowl system and if I could go back to that I would add a +1 championship game which would give all BCS bowl games meaning, no more opt out insanity in the top bowls.

That ship has sailed — at least until collective bargaining produces a collective agreement strong enough to disincentivize opt-outs.

A bowl game as the be-all and end-all has gone the way of the defunct King Orange Jamboree Parade.

Pictured below in happier times is Obie the mascot. The even rounder character is former KU coach Mark Mangino

(03-07-2024 02:43 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  People with the power to implement a playoff were in the pockets of the bowl folks.

Simple as that.

My favorite argument against a full-fledged playoff is that would take players out of class. Meanwhile, DII and DIII schools — where most players were more likely to be student-athletes — had multi-round football playoffs.

You couldn't make it up if you tried.

You couldn't make it up b/c it would take too much time away from class for everybody to spend that much brain power to figure out how to ditch the bowls and get us an actual playoff. Even now, the Bowls are still right in the mix with the CFP, and we saw what happened to FSU a couple months ago when it was determined that they wouldn't bring as many eyeballs as bama or Texas (allegedly).

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

you do know that the committee picked every single team the BCS formula would have except this year where the formula would have had FSU in and Texas out. Oops.

(03-07-2024 03:03 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

I don't miss the BCS that much and I won't miss the 4-team playoff setup.

What college football desperately needed was to take out the subjectivity of performance and establish objective metrics for post-season access. Nearly every sport has a post season, nearly every sport has a process of naming a champion. Very rarely do you see the organization (NCAA) completely foregoing its own ability to name a champion in place of interested outsiders (Bowls, ESPN, Polls, etc).

CFB is the only sport in the world where teams that are in the same division on paper have some disqualifier before a game is even played. Sorry, Western Kentucky you can be undefeated but that is irrelevant as a 2-3 loss P5 team will take your spot in the playoff. Objective access is critical. Teams like Western Kentucky need to know from the start of the season what to do win the championship and those steps should not require any reliance on the performance of other teams. That still isn't fixed in the new model, but it is at least improved. The monopoly on postseason access held by the top conferences has been a poison to the growth and development of the sport as a whole.

That argument cuts both ways though. It's reasonable to want objective metrics to determine playoff participants, but it's also reasonable for the biggest/best-funded schools to have their own division. That's why we have D1/2/3, and it's why we have a split in D1. A big reason for all the howling about a "breakaway" is that it's stupid for Western Kentucky and their $28m athletic budget to be in the same division as tOSU and their $250m athletic budget. Give us a top 32-64 school division with the biggest and best-funded schools, and it's easy to set up an 8-16 team playoff with the teams with the best records.

I would say that our current system has evolved out of the competing desires for smaller schools to have access to the top division and the demands that bigger schools have made to allow said access over time. It's not Western Kentucky's fault for wanting to be in the same division as Alabama, and it's not Alabama's fault for demanding some sort of accommodation to allow all these little guys to hang around.

(03-07-2024 05:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

you do know that the committee picked every single team the BCS formula would have except this year where the formula would have had FSU in and Texas out. Oops.

Ooops, indeed. The committee was that close to batting 1.000.

(03-07-2024 05:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 03:03 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  We'll see what the 12-team does to/for CFB, but, at least currently, I find myself pining for the days of bowls-and-polls more often these days.

Same. As flawed as the BCS was at times, the computers did a better job at picking the national championship teams, unlike the playoff committee. They're bought and paid for by the Alabama's and the Ohio State's in the FBS to make sure their team gets in, by hook or by crook.

I don't miss the BCS that much and I won't miss the 4-team playoff setup.

What college football desperately needed was to take out the subjectivity of performance and establish objective metrics for post-season access. Nearly every sport has a post season, nearly every sport has a process of naming a champion. Very rarely do you see the organization (NCAA) completely foregoing its own ability to name a champion in place of interested outsiders (Bowls, ESPN, Polls, etc).

CFB is the only sport in the world where teams that are in the same division on paper have some disqualifier before a game is even played. Sorry, Western Kentucky you can be undefeated but that is irrelevant as a 2-3 loss P5 team will take your spot in the playoff. Objective access is critical. Teams like Western Kentucky need to know from the start of the season what to do win the championship and those steps should not require any reliance on the performance of other teams. That still isn't fixed in the new model, but it is at least improved. The monopoly on postseason access held by the top conferences has been a poison to the growth and development of the sport as a whole.

That argument cuts both ways though. It's reasonable to want objective metrics to determine playoff participants, but it's also reasonable for the biggest/best-funded schools to have their own division. That's why we have D1/2/3, and it's why we have a split in D1. A big reason for all the howling about a "breakaway" is that it's stupid for Western Kentucky and their $28m athletic budget to be in the same division as tOSU and their $250m athletic budget. Give us a top 32-64 school division with the biggest and best-funded schools, and it's easy to set up an 8-16 team playoff with the teams with the best records.

I would say that our current system has evolved out of the competing desires for smaller schools to have access to the top division and the demands that bigger schools have made to allow said access over time. It's not Western Kentucky's fault for wanting to be in the same division as Alabama, and it's not Alabama's fault for demanding some sort of accommodation to allow all these little guys to hang around.

Who is Alabama to demand anything? They don't own FBS.