Comments about ‘In our opinion: A football playoff’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 2 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Charliegirl
Huntsville, AL

The funny thing about the griping regarding this issue is that the SEC proposed YEARS ago to create a plus one module for playoffs and the other conferences refused to do so to protect their own interests, money and conferences. Now that the SEC has seen their teams win for the last several years, the other conferences are motivated to change because they see that they messed up in not going along with the previous proposal to attempt to create some balance.

The reality is that changing systems WILL take time, will never be perfect and will not automatically guarantee that every single team will get to be a champion. Sadly, some teams will NEVER be granted the Waterford Crystal because they are not ever going to make it to the top of the heap. But by changing the system to allow for more fairness, maybe the whining about having the opportunity can stop.

If the opportunity exists and your chosen team doesn't make it, it isn't because the door wasn't open, it is because they aren't good enough.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Very, very few college football fans have the means to travel to multiple bowl games, which would be required in a larger playoff, unless the bowl system itself is jettisoned, in favor of a NFL style home team playoff system.

As it stands, 30 teams end their season on a high note, and players and fans are motivated to travel to warmer cities as a reward for a good season. The history and tradition of the bowl system distinguishes college football from just another pro-style tournament format.

Do we really want to toss all that tradition aside for a 16 or - to be even more fair - 32 team playoff? Might as well start playing the players for their sacrifice, and lift the 85 scholarship limit, as playing that many games really stresses the depth of teams.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

Realize first that the NCAA has never officially recognized any FBS national title. Second, the BCS isn't about finding the national champion, its about making money. Lots of money. Mark Shurtleff's lawsuit isn't an altruistic attempt to help the little guy get access to a national title. It is about getting access to money.

If you are truly concerned about a national title, work with the NCAA to develop a system that has their blessing -- something that they'll record in their official record books. Follow the model set by basketball's March Madness. Form a committee, send out invitations, end with the presentation of the official title. Turn the BCS into the NIT. At first the "big teams" may not come -- they'll head to the big money bowls. But if the NCAA clamps down and doesn't let the BCS use the phrase "national champion", more teams will come.

Imagine if after the Alabama-LSU BCS rematch, there was a "real trophy" presentation to Boise State who participated in the official playoff... the big leagues would clamor to join next time.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

If they really wanted to be fair they would just give BYU Cougers the National Championship every year and let everyone else play for #2 and #last place for Utah.

Mountainman56
Alpine, UT

You hit the nail on the head when you said that a 4 team playoff is far too small to be effective or fair. Keeping it to four teams is a slight step in the right direction but is still designed to keep the elite few in position to control who gets into the club and who gets the money. Division II or the FCS has been holding a playoff for many years that works. Why can't their system be implemented by the FBS and then we can go back to calling it Division I and Division II and everyone in college football will have a chance at winning a championship? What a concept! Here's how the FCS does it:

"The FCS playoff format is 16 teams, with eight teams being automatic qualifiers as conference champions, and eight at-large berths are awarded. The tournament field is selected by a NCAA appointed committee made up of athletic directors from select FCS schools that represent each region of the country."

Sounds like a perfect plan to me.

Howard S.
Taylorsville, UT

I’m puzzled by the reference to Utah as the DN editorial board decries the inequity faced by college football players who suit up knowing they can never win a national title.

Utah has its place at the table of major college football, and as such its players will have a shot at the national title every year.

It’s BYU’s players whose shot at the national title is tenuous in the new order of college football. It is the players who suit up for Utah State who have tenuous access to the national title.

If the DN is concerned about players who work hard without a shot at the national title, why not reference Utah State?

My guess is that the bias of the DN editorial board is showing. They really don’t care about “players” with no shot at the national title.

It’s really “BYU players” without a shot at the title that stirs the angst of the DN editorial board.

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

The BCS oligarchy will still control which 4 teams get into such a tournament. So it will still not really be a national championship playoff. All the big money will still go to the BCS schools.

This whole thing is just a way to take some heat off of the oligarchy for their perceived self-serving policies -- this will be just a self-serving, but it won't be perceived as being quite as self-serving.

I think we should just go back to a few bowl games, where major teams get to entertain us during the holiday season, and realize that no team is going to be "crowned" as the national champion. I think I can enjoy the holiday season just fine this way.

eagle
Provo, UT

The only fair football playoff would involve at least 16 teams with every conference getting an automatic bid. See what happens, like UVU, when your conference is left out. Any conference that has Division I football deserves to have its champ in the tournament. Right now that is 11 conferences, take 5 at large to complete the tournament, run it over four weeks starting mid December and you're done at the same time you are now. Use other existing bowls for teams that didn't make the tournament like they have the NIT in basketball. Create match-ups that have some pizazz rather than tying bowls to conferences.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments