Listened to the recent podcast today. Bryan and Lou has a lengthy discussion on the playoff system and ideas for expansion/reform.
They went around for a while before they closed in on what could be best described as a +1 format. By that, I mean revert to the traditional Bowl system with bowl tie-ins to conferences. Play the bowls. Then have a committee pick the best 2 teams for a championship after the bowls are done.
I have 2 comments on that plan, which honestly I hate.
1) What is the point of +1?
How many years since say 1970 was there actually a big debate about the national champ? I don’t recall this being an issue often. To force another game seems to make a massive accomplishment much harder with an unnecessary extra game. Sure there have been true split champs a couple times, but that was rare.
2) The major issue in the old system and with a playoff expansion is the inequity of conferences. It’s not fair to compare teams with radically different schedules. Automatic tie-ins or playoff slots always lead to watered down non-conference schedules. As they discussed, it’s never going to change. Conferences make too much money.
I truly think the only “fair” solution is to have an overhead org, not the NCAA but a new entity for football only, that is responsible for governing the sport and the championships. They could set requirements for a wide range of things from recruiting to scheduling to a more fair playoff system, using an FCS model. This would also allow improved monitoring of programs and could be the body that helps provide some form of compensation to the athletes.
Punch a hole in that idea!
They went around for a while before they closed in on what could be best described as a +1 format. By that, I mean revert to the traditional Bowl system with bowl tie-ins to conferences. Play the bowls. Then have a committee pick the best 2 teams for a championship after the bowls are done.
I have 2 comments on that plan, which honestly I hate.
1) What is the point of +1?
How many years since say 1970 was there actually a big debate about the national champ? I don’t recall this being an issue often. To force another game seems to make a massive accomplishment much harder with an unnecessary extra game. Sure there have been true split champs a couple times, but that was rare.
2) The major issue in the old system and with a playoff expansion is the inequity of conferences. It’s not fair to compare teams with radically different schedules. Automatic tie-ins or playoff slots always lead to watered down non-conference schedules. As they discussed, it’s never going to change. Conferences make too much money.
I truly think the only “fair” solution is to have an overhead org, not the NCAA but a new entity for football only, that is responsible for governing the sport and the championships. They could set requirements for a wide range of things from recruiting to scheduling to a more fair playoff system, using an FCS model. This would also allow improved monitoring of programs and could be the body that helps provide some form of compensation to the athletes.
Punch a hole in that idea!
