The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

College Football should adopt a playoff system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,996 times Debate No: 15558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




To clarify, as Prp, I am advocating replacing the BCS Bowl system with a traditional playoff system.


Having a playoff system would eliminate the bias that is currently in place due to computer and human voting systems, therefore making sure every team is on equal ground, and allowing for the objective of winning and losing games. If a team loses one game, it is unlikely that they will be entered into the BCS title game, and if they lose two, they might not even get into a BCS game of any kind, taking out the intensity of the teams' remaining games. Implementing a playoff system would allow teams who lose one earlier in the season to have a chance at greatness later on. One-third of the standing is decided by coaches, who may not even have time to watch all the games while preparing their teams for the week. We cannot allow for a system that is so inherently biased to continue governing one of the nations most popular sports.

2. New system is wanted.
According to a 2007 Gallup poll, 85% of college football fans surveryed want a change in the system, with 65 percent advocating for a playoff system. This shows that people are tired of the tired BCS system, which is flawed and filled with bias. A huge argument when debating any issue is if the proposal is popular. Clearly, a playoff system being implemented in college football is very popular.


Implementing a playoff system would allow all conferences to receive revenue from playoff games. Under the current system, only BCS conferences are allowed to compete in BCS games, so conferences like the Mountain West are excluded, which has powerful teams such as TCU and BYU. Also, implementing a playoff system would allow more games to be played, overall increasing revenue.

For those three reasons, College Football should implement a Playoff system.


I thank my opponent for posting this debate and look forward to a fluid exchange of ideas. Good luck.


This alleged bias you speak up is simply making sure that only the best teams get to play. The system must be rigid to give teams more incentive to play better. To say that the system is unfair because it makes it hard to win is not really an argument. And what is inherently biased about the system? That people who know what they are talking about and who know more about college football than anyone.

2. New system is wanted.

College football is not a democracy. While popularity may be nice, it is not what decisions should be based off of. If college football were democratic then a fan could simply vote their favorite team in. Fans are hardly to be relied on with such a major issue at hand.


If playing more games brings in more revenue then why don't we simply add 20 or 30 games? How many games are we to add?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the challenge. I thought no one would for a second!

1. Fairness.
I bring up the bias argument because the people voting for the teams to get into the BCS are coaches, who I stated already could not really be knowledgable in their decision as they are preparing their team for the week ahead. Also, the media votes as well. Now this can lead to a bias. The way the NFL's playoff system is set up, one or two losses doesn't completely destroy your season like the current NCAA system. Looking to another NCAA sport, basketball, we see that that a playoff system is in place, which puts a lot of teams in and allows for a fair competition.

2.System is wanted
While I agree that College football is not a democracy, we have to look at popularity and the way it ties in with my third argument, revenue. First, if more people believe that their team has a chance at competing in a nationwide tournament, more people will want to watch. I am not advocating that people should be able to vote their team in, however, I do believe that is 85 percent of NCAA football fans want a playoff system implemented, then it should be. Implementing a playoff system will lead to increased competition, more people watching, and ultimately more fairness and revenue.

3. Revenue
Also, I am not advocating that we need to add more REGULAR season games, only implementing a playoff system. Implementing a playoff system will result in more postseason games being played, spurring on more drive for fans to attend their favorite teams' games, and allowing all conferences to have a part in the overall revenue.

So I firmly believe that college football should adopt a playoff system, for the reasons of fairness, popularity, and overall revenue. Thank you.



My opponent states that adopting a playoff system would prove beneficial because it would make it easier for teams to get in. Is this an argument? I already stated that it is hard to get in only so that the best of the best teams get in. This means that only teams who really deserve it have a chance at winning the championship. This makes every college football game as good as a playoff game. Because you're not getting in if you miss more than a game or two. It mixes all of the rigidness used to pick the best teams with the suspensefulness of being in a do or die position.

To respond that a playoff system would lead to more fairness, having experts decide who gets in is about as fair as it gets. The media who cover the games and obsess over stats more than any fan and coaches who are inside the industry. They're the people with real experience in college football. I'd say they're qualified.

2.System is wanted

"Implementing a playoff system will lead to increased competition, more people watching, and ultimately more fairness and revenue."

I already stated that competition is increased much more when teams are forced to play like they are already in the playoffs during the regular season. If you lose a gamae you're basically out. This is similar to implementing a playoff system but through the whole season. Every game is important. Also just because there is not a playoff system does not mean people will not watch. Humans can't naturally breathe underwater but that hasn't hindered the popularity of beaches as premiere travel destinations

I responded to your fairness contention earlier.


Your argument was that because more games would be being played, more revenue would stream in. Why not simply apply this to the regular season? The regular season is already as exciting as it gets with commpetition growing as teams cannot afford to lose any games. The regular season is similar to a playoff system in that basically, once you lose you're out. I believe that adding more regular season games would actually bring in more revenue than introducing a playoff system.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent misunderstood what I mean by the fairness argument. I am stating that putting in a playoff system would stop one loss from derailing your own system. I am not saying that great teams should not get their shot. In fact, a playoff system would allow for teams to truly prove themselves. I'll apply a NFL playoff example. A couple years ago, the New England Patriots did not lose a single regular season game, however, they lost the championship, proving they were not truly the best in the league. Also, the current system is unfair as it excludes certain conferences, as I've stated before. An example of this is BYU. They do fantastic every years, but seeing as they are in the Mountain West conference, they never get a shot. Implementing a playoff system eliminates that. Once again, I am not saying that the fans are supposed to be voting teams in. I'm stating that since coaches are half the decision making process, and they cannot 100% make the best decisions, that a playoff system would be in the leagues best interest.

2. Wanted

my opponent has stated that competition is fine as it is. However, that is simply not true, as losing one or two games early on impacts your season so much that basically there is not much left to fight for, and competition goes down. I never said that not having a playoff system would diminish popularity, I am saying that implementing one will INCREASE popularity, and how can that not be a good thing?


My opponent basically proposed a counter plan of adding more regular season games, however, that does not solve the problems of popularity and fairness like a playoff system does, and having playoff games can lead to just as much, if not more, revenue than adding regular season games.

So looking at the debate, the Pro side is clearly right because a playoff system is more just, it is wanted by an extraordinary margin, and overall revenue would increase, it is obvious that college football should implement a playoff system.



With a playoff system, what is the point of the regular season. I have already stated that the system in currently in place increases competition during the regular season so that only the best teams get into the championship. This means that teams have to play their heart out every game because once you lose it's over.


With the current system, the stakes are high enough to make every game matter. There have to be risks if the best team is to make it into the championship. The point of the current system is to properly assess who the best teams are during the regular seaon so that once the championship arrives only the best teams are left.


As my opponent has not brought any empirical evidence to support his claim that a playoff system would lead to more revenue I believe it may be discarded.

Vote con as my opponent has not shown that a playoff system would be fairer or would bring in more revenue than the current system in place.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
I think con will have to take a position about how it (financially) benefits college football. The topic is specific to what college football should do, not what would be most entertaining for the common viewer. I know there are a lot of people who say that bowl games make the NCAA a bunch of money. I disagree with that statistic but it's out there.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
I couldn't agree more kweef.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Heavily leaning on being devil's advocate. If I can find a decent response to finance I'll take it, even though I am an enormous supporter of the pro stance.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: i agree with pro but con seemed more convincing.