The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
kenito001
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

College football needs a playoff system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,301 times Debate No: 1245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (19)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

As I am sitting here waiting for new debates to start, I am watching Hawai'i get pounded by Georgia.

This gives me all the more reason to advocate a 16-team playoff. It would provide 15 games and the other 17 current bowls could be used for the same reason they are now. It would make the same if not more money. A playoff system would also provide college football with a more clear champion. All other major college sports have a playoff. I don't see why college football doesn't. The benefits are numerous as are the costs of the status quo.
kenito001

Con

You are advocating a 16 team college playoff system that would feature 17 additional games played. The costs greatly outweigh the benefits of holding so many games. Such a playoff system would destroy a winning college football program with fatigue, increasing their number of games played from 11 to 12 up to 15 to 16, matching the length of a regular season college football game. College football, much like professional football, profits off the little number of games played to artificially raise the demand for ticket purchases. Instituting a playoff system would drastically increase the number of games played in only one year while giving little time of adjustment for the management and personell aspects of college football.

Consider the career of a Heisman trophy candidate or star player seeking entry into the NFL Draft. Adding 4 games onto their schedule would position the coach to take an NFL approach and sit them for final games of the regular season that "don't matter", or even force them to participate in a drastically increased number of games and increase the risk of injury.

Your intentions are driven by an outcry from college football fans who, in a very cocky manner, consider their team to be the best in the nation. UF, Michigan, Ohio State, Boise State, Hawaii, Georgia, Tennessee, OU, Kansas, Mizzou, USC, Illinois, VaTech, BC, Arizona State, Texas, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and other assorted college football teams may be considered qualified based on record, ranking, conference champions, strength of schedule, strength of conference, RPI, and other determinant statistics used to calculate the "deserving teams" for the 16 college playoff teams. Limiting the number of spots allotted to the best teams, like in the BCS Bowl system, allows a variety of qualified teams to compete one another for titles. Fans and college football programs will criticize the current system whether it is a BCS bowl system or a college playoff bracket.

Furthermore, the main reason that is overlooked by college football analysts on why the current system exists in relation to the pre-BCS bowl system is that it grants name recognition. Instead of a team being merely a finalist or semi-finalist in playoffs, they are declared the Sugar Bowl winner, Orange Bowl Winner, and so on. This awards prestige to winning college football programs, and is why the transition from pre-BCS into current BCS kept the names Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose to inspire the fans of college football. Merchandising won't sell by stating "UF: Playoff Semi-Finalist", but instead "UF: Sugar Bowl Champions".
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

I would first like to make it clear that the playoff system would have 15 games and leave 17 games for the bowl purposes they have now.

Your argument here is that extending a particular programs schedule increases the risk of injury and decreases ticket demand. The risk of injury is inherent in any game and the number of programs and players who experience this marginal increase would be minimal because the number of programs participating would be smaller each week. You make it sound like ALL programs would be playing a 16 game schedule. This is not the case. Only 16 programs would have one additional games, while the next sucessful 8 would have another additional game. Also, the programs who advance would truly be the best, having the best players and coaches, making them most apt to resist injury and fatigue.

The novelty of the games would not be affected. Making the top sixteen teams would still require a teams best effort every week. That is obvious in the system we have now. Also, ticket demand would do nothing but increase. The hype and hysteria of the playoffs is the most fan crazy time of the year in any sport, there is no reason to think that CF would be any different. Look at the ticket sales for March Madness versus college basketball's regular season.

Also, no one said we have to get rid of the bowl names. Have the sun bowl and the capital one bowl etc. be the preliminary rounds and the progressive rounds will have the more prestigious bowl names. This will keep your prestige and sponsorship high, while providing the benefits of the playoff system.

Every year we see this drama about a split championship. The playoff system would solve this. Yes, there would be "snubbed" teams in a playoff system. But the 17th team does not have the rights that a 3rd team has now to claim part of the championship. Ticket sales and fan appreciation would go through the roof while we can name a true CF champion. The costs of prolonging the season for only the best clubs is minimal compared to the benefits the entire CF community would experience.
kenito001

Con

"Your argument here is that extending a particular programs schedule increases the risk of injury and decreases ticket demand. The risk of injury is inherent in any game and the number of programs and players who experience this marginal increase would be minimal because the number of programs participating would be smaller each week."

The risk of injury can be shown in mathematical model as a power function. Depending on the players body, they have a certain "x" variable which is defined as their injury risk as a player, as some players tend to get injured more than others. The x is then raised to the power of y, which takes into account the number of games played. By playing additional games, that same player raises their risk injury because with each additional minute of play they have one additional minute where they may be injured. Now, as in the case of longer games, for example, a college football game that goes into 2OT, more injuries tend to inherently occur in the overtime periods because the players are fatigued and they naturally resort to unnatural body movement to ward off the fatigue. This will lead to more fractures, tendon injuries, and contusions. So, by adding additional games, especially playoff games, the players will have to play harder against tougher competition, and teams will then lose their players, risking not only a loss but their career in the NFLs. This matters, because, taking the top 16 teams in the nation, they tend to have the most highly touted prospects of that year. The longer schedule will be placing this injury risk on the lottery and first day selections. To show the impact of injury, former U of Miami RB Willis McGahee tore a knee tendon in the championship game loss against Ohio State. His draft stock dropped from top 5 to his draft position, late in the first round, costing him millions of dollars and an at least extra year in his rookie contract. While this was not the result of the college playoff system, the same losses would happen to hard working players more often under your system.

"You make it sound like ALL programs would be playing a 16 game schedule. This is not the case. Only 16 programs would have one additional games, while the next sucessful 8 would have another additional game."
As I stated above, the 16 "most" important programs in the nation will be playing longer, and the 2 best will be competing for the championship, adding four additional games to their schedule each.

"Also, no one said we have to get rid of the bowl names. Have the sun bowl and the capital one bowl etc. be the preliminary rounds and the progressive rounds will have the more prestigious bowl names. This will keep your prestige and sponsorship high, while providing the benefits of the playoff system."
This is an attempt to mask the importance of a bowl title. Your system either scraps the concept of giving bowl games to smaller schools who are not the best in the nation but do garner popularity, or it attempts to ruse fans by saying that "USC is the Capital One Bowl, Sun Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Cotton Bowl champions!!!" The market share is hurt for the smaller bowl games and especially for the NFL playoffs. Unless the college football schedule is adjusted to being bowl games before December 20th, the season would extend into at least Martin Luther King weekend in the thick of the NFL playoff race. Because of exclusive network rights, more overlaps of "more important and prestigious bowls" over lesser bowls would knock them out of televised slots. This is a disincentive for prospects and recruits to jump from high school to rebuilding programs. The college playoff system attempts to level the playing field, but it only gives exposure to those participating teams. Hawaii, Boise State and others were able to recruit players by winning lesser bowl titles and showing their playoff success to America. Giving more focus to fewer teams only perpetuates the dominance of a select few teams as seen throughout CFB history, reversing the fortune in 2007 that saw USF and BC each reach #2, and even Cal reach #1.

"Every year we see this drama about a split championship. The playoff system would solve this. Yes, there would be "snubbed" teams in a playoff system."
This is an error to the BCS system that can be fixed as follows:
1. Make college football teams schedule less games against Division 2 and Division 1-AA schools and instead expand their non-conference schedule to show the strength or weakness of each respective conference.
2. Do not allow teams that are not invited to play in the National Championship to win because of poll numbers. Once the top 2 teams have been named, narrow down the choices for BCS National Champion to those 2 teams.
3. Encourage all major conferences, regardless of size, to hold a conference championship game, specifically the Big Ten.

The college football playoff system is seemingly great because of the major flaws of the BCS, but many problems lie with the scheduling of football teams. Even extending the regular season schedule by just one game would give a greater difference in records. The key to the future of CFB is non-conference games within Division 1. SEC teams are applauded over all other conferences for having a tougher level of competition. In order to level the playing field, allowing Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, Big East, SEC, and others to play one another would help to show which conference in college football is actually the best, and then allow any conference bias to be justified.

Thanks,

The Colonel
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

I'm going to pull out the arguments you make and summarize.

1) Injury

The risk of injury is inherent in any football payers career. Countless practices and games since the age of eight make the possibility of a select few programs playing a few more games an insignificant increase in the injury risk, despite your mathematical formula. Also, you don't dive me a reason to value this possibility against any real consequences. If your mentality is taken, we shouldn't allow people to play the game at all.

2) Scheduling and the like

Taking televised slots away from rebuilding programs is a non-issue. We would still alocate 17 slots for these types of games instead of 22 or so. Also, a team winning the Meineke Car Care Bowl is hardly an incentive to choose that school over any other winning program. This isn't enough to sway players to those programs. This talent cycle would be unchanged.

As far as schedule overlap, why can't we use the schedule already in place? There was a full-month and a half of bowl competition now. Use that space to distance the playoff games and the scheduling remain the same. Only four weeks would be necessary.

3) Alternatives

The fact remains, we have been encouraging and urging for years now and nothign has changed. Only rooted, fundamental changes in the system will force and produce the kind of change that is needed. REQUIRING change is the only way it will be brought about in this situation because no single conference wants to take the plunge.

If we are ever going to have a true CFB champion, we have to install an institutional change that will make that happen. This playoff system would garuantee interesting games, something that the current system lacks. The status quo proves.
kenito001

Con

"The risk of injury is inherent in any football payers career. Countless practices and games since the age of eight make the possibility of a select few programs playing a few more games an insignificant increase in the injury risk, despite your mathematical formula. Also, you don't dive me a reason to value this possibility against any real consequences. If your mentality is taken, we shouldn't allow people to play the game at all."

My mentality is comparing the length of 12 games to 16 games, which is a 33% increase in games played.

College football fans are strongly in favor of the playoff system because it is the only mainstream proposition as an alternative to the BCS as it is today. My proposed system, however, of adding one game to the schedule, encouraging larger conferences without a championship game to have one, and forcing schools to choose non-conference D 1-A opponents over D 1-AA or D 2 opponents, adds 1 to 2 games to a team's schedule, gives a greater overall strength of schedule to the entire CFB nation, and helps to determine who the best teams in the nation are. The controversy of the BCS system derives when fans or players feel that their team is more qualified than another and was hindered from reaching a certain bowl game because of "unfair voting" or conference strength. The entire process of selecting the best teams in CFB is and always will be subjective, not objective. Expecting a system to be flawless is uncalled for and unrealistic. The current BCS system is much more flawed that your college football system. However, for the topic "College football needs a playoff system", I am choosing to negate your support of college football by proposing the previously mentioned changes to the current bowl system that would increase fairness without increasing any other negative variable factors.

"Taking televised slots away from rebuilding programs is a non-issue. We would still alocate 17 slots for these types of games instead of 22 or so. Also, a team winning the Meineke Car Care Bowl is hardly an incentive to choose that school over any other winning program. This isn't enough to sway players to those programs. This talent cycle would be unchanged.

As far as schedule overlap, why can't we use the schedule already in place? There was a full-month and a half of bowl competition now. Use that space to distance the playoff games and the scheduling remain the same. Only four weeks would be necessary."
The current schedule is 32 bowl games over 3 weeks, not 4. Spreading the playoff system, as required by the preparation and rest needed for a football team, would add at least another weekend to the season.
The reason that Boise State was able to build itself into a champion was not because it won any notable bowls prior to last year, but instead because it won 6 consecutive bowl games in relatively unknown bowls against relatively well-known opponents. By playing what the college football fan-base considered "tougher teams", Boise State was able to improve its reputation, improve its recruiting, and thereby become the great team that it was last year.

"The fact remains, we have been encouraging and urging for years now and nothign has changed. Only rooted, fundamental changes in the system will force and produce the kind of change that is needed. REQUIRING change is the only way it will be brought about in this situation because no single conference wants to take the plunge.

If we are ever going to have a true CFB champion, we have to install an institutional change that will make that happen. This playoff system would garuantee interesting games, something that the current system lacks. The status quo proves."
My proposed system would also require major changes. Not allowing teams to schedule against D1-AA and D2 opponents is a direct rule that can be implemented much easier and quicker than a playoff system. Offering promotional incentives to teams that performed well the previous year to play non-conference games against other teams that also played well the previous year would give CFB an opportunity to improve for not only the post-season but also the actual season. Imagine watching the Gators play the Sooners, the Auburn Tigers play Michigan, or even FSU play Texas. It's not like the teams would deny the special attention or opportunity to prove themselves; nearly every top-10 or highly ranked CFB team truly believes that it is the best team in the nation. Make them prove it so that the post-season becomes more exciting.

Unless changes are made to the regular season, regardless of the format in the post-season, it will be flawed. It's difficult to even choose the top 16 teams in the nation when many of them are from different conferences and don't play against one another or the other's regular conference opponents.

The best way to level the playing ground that is college football is to level the playing ground before it gets to the important games, not during the important games.

Thanks,

The Colonel
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mrjpb104 9 years ago
mrjpb104
The BCS sucked this year...flat out sucked. Playoff now so that Colt Brennan and the like don't have to suffer under the giant claws of the SEC.
Posted by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
everyone play the regular bowl schudele like now minus the champioship game, then coaches press etc vote on the top 2 teams and they play a championship game
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
PLAYOFF NOW! Just look at how pathetic these BCS games are/were.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenito001 7 years ago
kenito001
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DHStutzman 8 years ago
DHStutzman
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Copperhead 8 years ago
Copperhead
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1985 9 years ago
fightinirish1985
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by VoterBot 9 years ago
VoterBot
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1986 9 years ago
fightinirish1986
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrjpb104 9 years ago
mrjpb104
wingnut2280kenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30