The DeLoss Dodds College Football Playoff Plan

Strong enthusiasm for at-large bids. Where I differ from the Dan Wetzels of the world is that none us need to see Louisiana-Lafayette, conference champion, in an opening round game against OU or USC. We’re smart enough to draw the line somewhere and I suppose the panel is means of doing that if we choose not to trust the BCS formulas.

Basically the selection committee would figure out which matchups would have the biggest TV draws and would lay those out.

It’s a great recipe for all hell to break loose. Boise and friends would continue getting screwed, IMO.

I’d be ok with computer formulas governing the 4 at-large spots. I don’t like the human part of the formula of the BCS though. It really bugs me that a 1 loss team that lost in week 2 is 10 spots better than a team that lost in week 11 when it comes time to see who gets to play in what bowl game.

I don’t even know that I buy into a playoff though. I still struggle with the idea that a team that lost twice in the regular season could theoretically have a chance to play for a title against a team that didn’t lose all year. Maybe the two loss team is the “best team” at the end of the season, but at some point down this road, the regular season loses its meaning…see 2011 NC Alabama for an example.

Maybe I just like complaining now that I think about it.

I am definitely for watching Louisiana Lafayette play USC in round one. This would drastically increase the quality of the lower leagues and give the little guys their shot. Anyone willing to bet that Boise State would have knocked off a big boy or two the last 5 or 6 years? You never know unless you let them play.

A four team playoff is a step in the right direction, but I am a huge fan of the Wetzel plan. And don’t give me the devalued regular season argument. If anything it would make the regular season much MORE enjoyable

I see it as the only way to make sure something like Alabama-LSU II doesn’t happen again. Even if the national consensus after the loss to LSU and before the NCG was still that Bama was the best team in the land, they didn’t do what they needed to do to earn a right to play for the NC, in my mind. It’s one thing to be a conference champion with one loss. It’s another to not even win your division, much less your conference. I don’t care how good you are supposed to be (or actually are). We lost to Tech in ‘08. Game over. OSU lost to ISU last year. Game over. Should’ve been game over for Alabama last year, too.

Take the champions of the 5 power conferences (Big East don’t count). Have 3 at large bids for either highly ranked 2nd place teams (like Alabama in 2011 or Texas in 2008) or independent/mid major teams (ND/Boise St). Determine the three at large via a transparent BCS poll. Play 1st two rounds at campus sites, with the final played at one of the traditional BCS bowls. I think it would preserve the purpose of the regular season while providing a true championship format.

BCS picks the top four not caring about conference champions.

it appears most of the bickering (on this site and in general) is about the format or methodology used to establish a playoff system and determine its participants but the real underpinnings of the debate is not about the methodology but about the objective. one camp prioritizes not screwing anyone with a “legitimate” case. another camp prioritizes having “deserving” champions versus teams on hot streaks. either camp can site various seasons/years to support their claims because every year of college football is different and presents new challenges regarding post season fairness. in 2002, 2005 and 2009, two was the number. in 2003, 2004, and 2006, four was the number. in 2007 and 2008, at least eight had a claim. hell, in 2011, i would argue one team had a claim after the regular season, LSU. unless we have a football czar (as my good friend the Stos has argued for and would like to nominate himself) that decides at the end of each regular season the appropriate format for a playoff given the body of work, we’re bound to have an “imperfect” recipe. obviously, the more teams included, the less chance of a worthy exclusion. obviously the less teams included, the less chance of an unworthy champion. however, looking to years past and trying to reverse engineer is a dangerous and flawed rationale given the certainty of uncertainty moving forward.

my personal bias lies on the side of inclusion. so what if a 2 loss big ten team runs all over an undefeated pac 12 team and one loss sec team to win it all? so what if lsu gets upset by houston in the first round. so what if vatech takes down okie state. i prefer settling it on the field. i know this leaves me open to logical extension and the argument “hey john galt, 12 is more inclusive than 8, do you want to go there? what about 16?” its all better than 2 and probably “fairer” than 4.