Talk:College football playoff debate

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I plan to add the links and references to present the various views related to the playoff debate. Wikicoug (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BCS not a playoff system already? Two teams meet and the winner is crowned to be the national champion. In this sense, the BCS is a playoff, just a two team playoff. Mr2b (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

So, I do not know how to do all the fancy formatting and what-not, but I did manage to finagle this userbox:

BcS

This user wants a Division 1-A College Football playoff.

Here it is in code:
<div style="float: left; border:solid black 2px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: tan; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: white;" |<center> '''[[BCS_controversies|BcS]]''' | style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | <center>This user wants a Division 1-A '''[[College_football_playoff_debate|College Football playoff]]'''. |}</div>

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this, but I thought it was needed (as I could not find one previous).

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? --Qfl247 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is over now. This article needs updating.unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

This is an important issue that should be included, however the current version seems one-sided. The author begins with a conclusory statement: "Another issue that has been largely ignored by both sides of the playoff debate is attendance." Then cherry-picks a few examples to support his/her point: Delaware 2010 (vs. season avg.), Appalachian State 2010 (vs. season avg.), Villanova 2009 (in isolation- VU has next-to-no football culture, only averaging ~7,000 fans when school was in session and exam weren't happening).

For this section to be valid, it needs to contrast a wide gulf between FCS-wide season attendance and playoff attendance, rather than identifying a few examples which may or may not be representative. It should also explore other factors explaining this phenomenon (assuming it exists), such as those I added to the section.

Also, apparently the last FCS playoffs set an attendance record, so that throws an added wrinkle into this 'problem' (as the section is titled): http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/12/23/fcs-playoffs-set-attendance-record/ Lmeister (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Article

Since the playoff has already been approved and is going to happen in less than a year, is there really a need for this article anymore? I don't believe so, and I think it should be deleted. Any other opinions? Kobra98 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Prod. The debate went on for years, and is historically notable. In fact it's still debated if CFP is the best solution. There is actualy a lot more info that could be put into the article of the various proposals, and of alternatives to the current CFP. The info might be better off in another article, but it shouldn't just be deleted because there is aplayoff now. - BilCat (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it shouldn't be deleted; the debate is itself notable, and this article can serve to provide a detailed history as background to the College Football Playoff article, as well as general history of college football articles (including the main article).

That said, we should be careful to ensure there's no excessive redundancy of article and their content. The Plus one system article, for example, should likely be merged into here; it's merely one proposal that was considered, and the article contains many redundancies to this one, as well as too much regurgitation of sportswriters' opinions in lieu of a simple factual treatment. A single, more focused article would serve readers better. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as such a debate is largely waged in the sphere of sportswriting and those authors' opinions often frame and shape that debate, I'm unsure what you mean by a more "factual treatment" and what it would entail. Only direct quotes from coaches, ADs, BCS officials, fans, etc.? Something else? Woodshed (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant, looking back on it, was that we needed more material that was t taking part in the debate, but discussing the debate from the outside. But commentary on the topic of a college football playoff, but commentary about how much people debated it. A more meta-level, tertiary discussion. That's what I meant by a factual treatment. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this should be deleted, it should be rewritten to reflect the fact that the College Football Playoff is in fact in place, not one of several proposes formats. Wschart (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article I don't see it's current relevance, especially as it has not been updated to reflect today's current college football post season. Also, it relies heavily on sports news opinion articles to derive its subject matter. The information covered on this page is discussed on the CFP & Plus-One page. I'd advocate for it's deletion unless it is rewritten or kept up to date Quickone (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the Plus one system article should be merged here. It was one aspect of the debate, but it's still ultimately the debate as a whole that is notable. I'll say what I've said before: this article needs to be treated as a daughter article of the current article on the playoff, as a background article, linked by a section hatnote. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poorly written article that is out of date and adds nothing that isn't covered in sister articles. The debate I agree was notable. Perhaps it would be better to take the relevant information from this page and add it as a topic under College Football Playoff. Plus one system should probably be a topic there as well since it only talks about NCAA football. Quickone (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a surfeit of redundancies and parroted opinion pieces across all three articles. I do think it would prove to be too much for the main article, and a spin off article on the background/debate is inevitable, which is what this article should be, but if the excess of sports writers' columns quoted are removed then it would possibly be okay length-wise. oknazevad (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College football playoff debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014213854/http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12858012/obama-administration-considering-action-on-bcs to http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12858012/obama-administration-considering-action-on-bcs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]