New playoff system won't be without controversy
Bill Koch, bkoch@enquirer.com 2:05 p.m. EDT August 20, 2014


Chris Fowler (second to left) and Kirk Herbstreit (far right) enthusiastically support the four-team playoff system. (Photo: Kevin Jairaj-USA TODAY Sports)

The four-team college football playoff system that will debut this season will not be without controversy, but ESPN analysts Kirk Herbstreit and Chris Fowler both are enthusiastic supporters of it.

"I think it's going to be more fun than ever," Fowler said. "It's going to make more regular-season games down the stretch meaningful and the games will be interconnected. Almost immediately people will want to see it expanded, at least some people. There will be growing pains but I think it's a huge improvement and will have a positive impact on the sport."

Herbstreit and Fowler shared their opinions on the playoff system in a one-hour national conference call Tuesday afternoon with reporters previewing the college football season.

Under the new system, which replaces the heavily criticized Bowl Championship Series format, the top four teams as selected by a 13-person committee, will meet in college football's version of basketball's Final Four.

But there will likely still be complaints about the schools that get left out, especially if a champion from one of the power five conferences is overlooked in favor of a school from another conference that did not win its league title.

"I don't really care about conference champions," said Herbstreit, a former Ohio State quarterback. "I want to see the best four teams regardless of where they play. If they've proven (that they belong in the final four) over 13 weeks of football, then put them in. Those are the kinds of decisions and arguments that in my mind are going to get very, very heated in that room."

Herbstreit played at Ohio State from 1989 to 1993 during an era when the champion of the Big Ten automatically played in the Rose Bowl against the Pac-10 champion, sometimes excluding those schools from having a legitimate shot at the national championship. That's why he was a supporter of the old BCS system that put all the teams from what were then six major conferences in the national championship picture.

But he believes the new system will be better.

"In this four-team playoff, it matters what you do through the whole year," Herbstreit said. "If the committee is doing their job right, we're going to get those four teams. Typically, that third and fourth team, you can make an argument in the old BCS system, that they can be in. Now we're going to have a chance to get those four teams on the field and play it out."

But you're still going to have arguments from the fifth and sixth best teams that they deserve to play for the national title.

"I believe in the integrity of the committee," Fowler said. "Fans find it impossible to believe that anyone can operate without bias and an agenda. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. We haven't seen it work yet in football. I think it works pretty well in basketball."

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/c.../14310877/

(08-20-2014 03:42 PM)ctipton Wrote:  "I think it works pretty well in basketball."

Because they let in 64 teams.

Scenario:

There are undefeated champions of the PAC-12, SEC and Big 12, each obviously earning a spot in the playoffs.

UC beats Ohio State during the season and runs the table. Ohio State also runs the table afterwards to be a one loss Big Ten champion.

Who gets the fourth playoff spot?

I know who Herbstreet will argue for every chance he gets on the air (which is an awful lot of air time).

Well, once I saw the pic of Nippert Beach (one year after my departure), I no longer cared about the playoff issue!

We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

(08-20-2014 09:01 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

My thoughts exactly. It's rare to have more than one undefeated team.

Assuming FSU runs the table again (in a relatively weak ACC), they're in. There's a good chance Alabama, Georgia, OSU, MSU, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, OU and Baylor all have one loss. Throw in a couple undefeated G5 schools with P5 OOC wins and it gets worse.

So which 3 from that list of 9 teams gets in? The conference champs? The 3 "best" teams? This controversy will drive expansion to 8-12 teams within 3 years...guaranteed.

(08-21-2014 06:54 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:01 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

My thoughts exactly. It's rare to have more than one undefeated team.

Assuming FSU runs the table again (in a relatively weak ACC), they're in. There's a good chance Alabama, Georgia, OSU, MSU, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, OU and Baylor all have one loss. Throw in a couple undefeated G5 schools with P5 OOC wins and it gets worse.

So which 3 from that list of 9 teams gets in? The conference champs? The 3 "best" teams? This controversy will drive expansion to 8-12 teams within 3 years...guaranteed.

Eventually I see an 8 team playoff where the power five conference champions receive automatics, the top G5 champion receives an automatic bids, and two at-large teams round out the field.

The other change that nobody talks about is the 13 game schedule. Right now its not a smart political move; however, once the student athletes receive some form of compensation the schools will once again look for another source of revenue. I predict we will see 10 game conference schedules in a 13 game season. In a 14 team league, a school will play everyone in their division once, three rotating cross-division games, and one annual cross-division rival. Mega programs will be playing at least 7 or 8 home games. Schools like Cincinnati will be 6 or 7 home games a year, while MAC level programs will be playing 5 or 6 home games.

(08-21-2014 06:54 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:01 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

My thoughts exactly. It's rare to have more than one undefeated team.

Assuming FSU runs the table again (in a relatively weak ACC), they're in. There's a good chance Alabama, Georgia, OSU, MSU, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, OU and Baylor all have one loss. Throw in a couple undefeated G5 schools with P5 OOC wins and it gets worse.

So which 3 from that list of 9 teams gets in? The conference champs? The 3 "best" teams? This controversy will drive expansion to 8-12 teams within 3 years...guaranteed.

The only thing that will drive expansion of the playoff system is MONEY. Same as any other adjustment or expansion in the NCAA. If they can make more MONEY, they will expand.

When the NCAA BB tournament expanded from 16 to 32 and then to 64, do you think they were just trying to get the marginal teams at each level into the tournament because it was the "right thing to do"? Nope....MONEY!

(08-20-2014 04:30 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:42 PM)ctipton Wrote:  "I think it works pretty well in basketball."

Because they let in 64 teams.

Not sure I follow. We still see a robust discussion every year about who is left out of the 64. I don't think the actual number matters that much with regard to what "works". It's more about the fact that it's a subjective process that leaves one or more teams in over one or more teams with similar credentials. It's inherent in the process regardless of the actual numbers.

Yeah, but at the end of that debate is a pretty simple answer: couldn't make the top 64? Should have won more.

A 4 team playoff is an automatic controversy. #4 and #5 will be nearly identical and they will both be great teams.

(08-21-2014 12:23 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Yeah, but at the end of that debate is a pretty simple answer: couldn't make the top 64? Should have won more.

A 4 team playoff is an automatic controversy. #4 and #5 will be nearly identical and they will both be great teams.

Well I'd amend the "simple answer" to that debate to something more along the lines of "should have won more and/or scheduled tougher games" but regardless it still applies to #5 or #65/#69. Wherever you put the line, the last one in and the top one out are likely to be nearly identical with pools this large and the limited sample sizes.

(08-21-2014 11:14 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 04:30 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:42 PM)ctipton Wrote:  "I think it works pretty well in basketball."

Because they let in 64 teams.

Not sure I follow. We still see a robust discussion every year about who is left out of the 64. I don't think the actual number matters that much with regard to what "works". It's more about the fact that it's a subjective process that leaves one or more teams in over one or more teams with similar credentials. It's inherent in the process regardless of the actual numbers.

Not sure I follow that logic. Based on your point, the NCAA Basketball tournament would have the same value, fan interest, marketability, if they reduced the entries down to just 4 teams.

My point was that Fowler said, "I believe in the integrity of the committee. Fans find it impossible to believe that anyone can operate without bias and an agenda. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. We haven't seen it work yet in football. I think it works pretty well in basketball."

By selecting 64 teams more fans are going to believe in the integrity of the selection committee because 60 more schools are going to get in. That's 60 more schools whose fans are satiated by their school being included. UK fans don't really get ticked off when Wright State gets left out.

(08-21-2014 03:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:14 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 04:30 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 03:42 PM)ctipton Wrote:  "I think it works pretty well in basketball."

Because they let in 64 teams.

Not sure I follow. We still see a robust discussion every year about who is left out of the 64. I don't think the actual number matters that much with regard to what "works". It's more about the fact that it's a subjective process that leaves one or more teams in over one or more teams with similar credentials. It's inherent in the process regardless of the actual numbers.

Not sure I follow that logic. Based on your point, the NCAA Basketball tournament would have the same value, fan interest, marketability, if they reduced the entries down to just 4 teams.

I don't see how you get that from my comments.

Quote:My point was that Fowler said, "I believe in the integrity of the committee. Fans find it impossible to believe that anyone can operate without bias and an agenda. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. We haven't seen it work yet in football. I think it works pretty well in basketball."

By selecting 64 teams more fans are going to believe in the integrity of the selection committee because 60 more schools are going to get in. That's 60 more schools whose fans are satiated by their school being included. UK fans don't really get ticked off when Wright State gets left out.

There's always discussion about the seeds and who did or didn't get in. I think that would happen whether you had 4 teams or 64 teams selected by a committee. The key issue that Fowler is addressing for both is the impartial validity of the committee, not the number of participants.

(08-21-2014 04:11 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  We still see a robust discussion every year about who is left out of the 64. I don't think the actual number matters that much with regard to what "works". It's more about the fact that it's a subjective process that leaves one or more teams in over one or more teams with similar credentials. It's inherent in the process regardless of the actual numbers.

I'm sure this won't satiate your desire for understanding, but one last try. The "robust discussion" of the NCAA basketball selection will seem like a whisper when the likes of OSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, LSU, etc get left out of this 4 game playoff. When the B1G, Big12, or Pac12 get snubbed out of the playoffs, all hell is going to break loose. It will be far more "robust" than when Wright State or Southern Miss get left out of March Madness.

(08-21-2014 10:49 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 04:11 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  We still see a robust discussion every year about who is left out of the 64. I don't think the actual number matters that much with regard to what "works". It's more about the fact that it's a subjective process that leaves one or more teams in over one or more teams with similar credentials. It's inherent in the process regardless of the actual numbers.

I'm sure this won't satiate your desire for understanding, but one last try. The "robust discussion" of the NCAA basketball selection will seem like a whisper when the likes of OSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, LSU, etc get left out of this 4 game playoff. When the B1G, Big12, or Pac12 get snubbed out of the playoffs, all hell is going to break loose. It will be far more "robust" than when Wright State or Southern Miss get left out of March Madness.

I guess I don't see that many non-Oregon fans getting upset if Oregon doesn't make the 4 team playoffs as long as the decision seems fair and impartial.

UK (did they invent the term "blue blood"?) was left out of the 68 team tourney in 2013 and "all hell didn't break loose". There's only 4 slots for the football tourney. It's obvious to everyone that means that at least one P5 conference won't have a rep in it. Some years the top 4 will be fairly clear cut. Others it won't be at all. There will be debate about the seeds and who is in and out for a few days after the tourney is announced for football just as it is for basketball and then the attention will shift to the games just as it does for basketball.

I do think there's a good chance they will eventually expand just like basketball did and the discussion after the announcement will again be about seeds and who made the field of 8 or whatever for a few days. Then on the games as usual regardless of the sport.

(08-21-2014 07:33 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 06:54 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:01 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

My thoughts exactly. It's rare to have more than one undefeated team.

Assuming FSU runs the table again (in a relatively weak ACC), they're in. There's a good chance Alabama, Georgia, OSU, MSU, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, OU and Baylor all have one loss. Throw in a couple undefeated G5 schools with P5 OOC wins and it gets worse.

So which 3 from that list of 9 teams gets in? The conference champs? The 3 "best" teams? This controversy will drive expansion to 8-12 teams within 3 years...guaranteed.

The only thing that will drive expansion of the playoff system is MONEY. Same as any other adjustment or expansion in the NCAA. If they can make more MONEY, they will expand.

When the NCAA BB tournament expanded from 16 to 32 and then to 64, do you think they were just trying to get the marginal teams at each level into the tournament because it was the "right thing to do"? Nope....MONEY!

My point exactly! A conference that doesn't make the top 4, gets a lower bowl game payout. If, say, the B1G is left out, the commissioner will scream bloody murder, but it will be all about the money. They'll meet in Feb 2015, and declare an expansion to 8-12 teams with conference champions getting automatic bids. More games - more money.

(08-22-2014 07:37 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 07:33 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 06:54 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:01 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  We're going to get a bunch of 1 loss teams with no clear way to choose who gets in and who's #5. Then they expand to 8.

My thoughts exactly. It's rare to have more than one undefeated team.

Assuming FSU runs the table again (in a relatively weak ACC), they're in. There's a good chance Alabama, Georgia, OSU, MSU, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, OU and Baylor all have one loss. Throw in a couple undefeated G5 schools with P5 OOC wins and it gets worse.

So which 3 from that list of 9 teams gets in? The conference champs? The 3 "best" teams? This controversy will drive expansion to 8-12 teams within 3 years...guaranteed.

The only thing that will drive expansion of the playoff system is MONEY. Same as any other adjustment or expansion in the NCAA. If they can make more MONEY, they will expand.

When the NCAA BB tournament expanded from 16 to 32 and then to 64, do you think they were just trying to get the marginal teams at each level into the tournament because it was the "right thing to do"? Nope....MONEY!

My point exactly! A conference that doesn't make the top 4, gets a lower bowl game payout. If, say, the B1G is left out, the commissioner will scream bloody murder, but it will be all about the money. They'll meet in Feb 2015, and declare an expansion to 8-12 teams with conference champions getting automatic bids. More games - more money.

Are you sure about the lower bowl payout? I'm guessing the P5 colluded to share equally in the playoff payoff, so they'll all be cash neutral if their conference goes unrepresented in a given year.

I think the 8 team playoff may be in the future, but for the final game it represents a three game postseason for those teams, likely following a conference championship game meaning four games beyond the regular season. That's a sea change for college football's traditional single bowl scenario.

I love Fowler's line at the end, discussing the "integrity" of the committe. Same guy who, along with Herbstreit, mocked and giggled the Big East a couple years ago on their stupid show. Perfect guy to ask about "integrity".

I am proud that I have not even tuned that crap in for over four years running now.

The difference between basketball and football is that the "best" team is virtually guaranteed to be in the field of 68. In football it seems too easy for the best team to be left out.