College football playoff system..

[clyon81]

I often take note of how even people who dont watch college basketball on a regular season turn into the big tournaments, and wonder just how big it would be if the same thing was then applied to college football, im sure most people have thought about it, but I was wondering if a system would work(reguardless of if it will ever be implement or not) like the following,

32 team tournament, all conferences broken into regions. All conference champions get  automatic bids, then the rest of them could be broken down by conference record and strength of schedule)

Maybe even have 2 tournaments, aka NIT, and the 4 mainstay bowls could rotate their names on the championship game(s), and advertising from the start up to that championship round.

Just an idea, what do you guys think?

[NJTank]

32 Teams might be too much 16 will work much better I think

[habsfannova]

Break it all down to 8 12 team confrences.  Break those into 6 team divisions

Confrence Championships(16)-->Secondary(8)-->Tirtieary(4)-->Finals(2)

YOu would use bowl names for each playoff game, they would be held in reigonal locations.

[Breakwood]

A tournament wouldn't work IMO, cause remember they can only play one game a week so it would take way to long.  I say keep the bowl games but get rid of BCS.

[Discrim]

got an idea here...mathematically, i don't think 32 would be too much. i KNOW 8 is way too few, let alone 4.  maybe 28 would do the trick, though. as will be shown here...last season's Division 3 playoffs.

the seeding formula would use these(and also get rid of the BS Championship system):

1) winning percentage

2) win total

3) conference placing(conference champs would take first priority)

4)point differential

the four best teams, like in the d3 playoffs, would get first round byes, and all games except the championship game would be played at the high seed's home field. Title Game would rotate between these bowls:

Rose

Cotton

Orange

Sugar

Peach

(get rid of the damn Fiesta and return the Cotton and Peach to their past glory). Then keep the bowls for teams that get knocked out and others who missed the playoffs as a sort of NIT. The one thing I'd want is that the Rose Bowl, in seasons that it didn't host the NC, have Big Ten vs Pac 10 like it should be.

[jrh31584]

Here's my idea:

First of all, teams would not play any regular season or conference championship games after Thanksgiving weekend.  6 conference champions and 6 at-large teams, chosen by a selection commitee.  The BCS formula would be used in the same way that the RPI is used for college basketball.  Top 4 teams get first round byes.  First and second round games would be played at four bowl sites.  First round games would be played the first weekend of December, on Saturday and Monday.  Second round games would be played five days after the first round games.  The semifinals and finals would be played at another bowl site.  The semifinals would be played December 27, and the championship would be played New Year's Day.  Here's what it would look like as of this week's projected BCS:

Cotton Bowl Regional

December 8

Tennessee vs. Purdue

December 13

UT-Purdue winner vs. Oklahoma

Orange Bowl Regional

December 6

Michigan vs. Washington St.

December 11

UM-WaSU winner vs. LSU

Rose Bowl Regional

December 8

Georgia vs. Texas

December 13

UGA-Tex winner vs. Southern Cal.

Fiesta Bowl regional

December 6

TCU vs. Miami

December 11

TCU-Miami winner vs. Ohio St.

Final Four from New Orleans

December 27

Cotton Bowl winner vs. Orange Bowl winner

Rose Bowl winner vs. Fiesta Bowl winner

January 1

Semifinal winners.

[Notch Novelty]

You can only play one game a week......so if you do 32 thats, 5 weeks of play and maybe a bye week for the championship, so 6 weeks extra must remember NCAA only allows so many games per school plus you don't want to conflict basketball and football too often.

Here's my idea use BCS as seeding for the playoffs, top 8 teams make it, and use nuetral sites to determine the winner.

I think they will have a atlarge spot for BCS and the BCS will still be here after 2005, which I hope it isn't.

We need playoff all the other divisions do it.

[yh]

I think the BCS should be obligated to take one team out of a pool that includes each of the mid-major conferences (MAC, C-USA, MWC, WAC, and Sun Belt).  This to me makes more sense than inviting a team that couldn't even win its conference to a BCS game.  Frankly, I don't think any of the games' attendance figures or TV ratings will really suffer that much, if at all.

Using the bowls as a playoff system isn't going to happen.  The beauty of having bowls is that it represents the culmination of each of the participating teams' seasons, not a stepping stone to something else and thus of lesser significance in the grand scheme of things.  Using the bowls as a playoff will also drastically reduce the number of teams invited to post-season play and that will have a huge negative economic consequence.  It's simply not going to go down that way.

[RichardWitham]

here's an idea i had for a playoff system:

? 10 teams make playoffs-10 conf winners+top ind. Team if they outrank conference winner in top 25 pool, said conference winner is eliminated.

? season ends week before thanksgiving

? 2 pools of 5 teams, round robin style

============================

here's a mock of how it would go

============================

POOL A                          Pool B

============================

ACC                          BIG ten

WAC                         Big XII

SUN BELT               Conference USA

PAC 10                         Mid American Conference

BIG EAST                 Mountain west

============================

Knockout round

Semifinals                Finals            champion

ACC v PAC 10             Pac 10 v Big ten Pacific ten

Big ten v Big XII

[Notch Novelty]

Before I read this post, I thought New Coke was the worst idea ever. Haha jk, nick

Wouldn't work

[RichardWitham]

Before I read this post, I thought New Coke was the worst idea ever. Haha jk, nick

Wouldn't work

i think a NCAA champion should have won at least their confrence. it could be a "champion of champions" thing. hell if ya wanted to go to 11 teams, make the indapendants a psuedo-confrence. 10 teams is a nice round number. we could have a 10 team tournament if that would be better?

[RichardWitham]

A tournament wouldn't work IMO, cause remember they can only play one game a week so it would take way to long.  I say keep the bowl games but get rid of BCS.

the rugby world cup takes about 2 months to play. so a playoff in college football can be done, and the RWC has 20 teams........

[jrh31584]

Houston, we have a double post.

[jrh31584]

here's an idea i had for a playoff system:

? 10 teams make playoffs-10 conf winners+top ind. Team if they outrank conference winner in top 25 pool, said conference winner is eliminated.

? season ends week before thanksgiving

? 2 pools of 5 teams, round robin style

============================

here's a mock of how it would go

============================

POOL A Pool B

============================

ACC BIG ten

WAC Big XII

SUN BELT Conference USA

PAC 10 Mid American Conference

BIG EAST Mountain west

============================

Knockout round

Semifinals Finals champion

ACC v PAC 10 Pac 10 v Big ten Pacific ten

Big ten v Big XII

Slight problem...you seem to have forgotten the SEC.

[Discrim]

bro last time i checked rugby and football were different sports.

football players dont play more than once a week. period. and colleges wont allow the season to go on indefinatly into the spring. these are just kids remember?

different sports borne from the same mother, mind you.  it would work, i don't know how but it would work.

[Brian in Boston]

I can't believe that this issue continues to linger. The fact that Division 1-A college football is the the only NCAA-sanctioned sport not deciding their championship with a tournament is ASSENINE!

The reason for "big-time" NCCA football existing as the lone holdout boils down to the desire of Division 1-A coaches, administrators and boosters to delude themselves - and their fans - in to believing that their programs are better and more successful than they are. This leads to all sorts of ancillary benefits for the programs, most being financial. Think about it: if you determine a Division 1-A football champion on the field, in a tournament format, a SINGLE team emerges with the National Championship each year. A SINGLE team gains the bragging rights and ancillary revenue benefits that go with being the undisputed champ of "big time" college football. However, under the current system, you crown a BCS Champion... as well as the winners of 27 other NCAA Division 1-A Football Bowl Games. So, (if we're lucky) there's an undisputed "National Champion"... and 27 other Division 1-A football programs that are crowing about winning their respective bowl game. Hell, even the losing teams will crow about just getting to the game. I mean, you constantly hear Division 1-A football programs bragging about their streak of consecutive bowl appearances. Not wins, mind you... appearances! It's a self-delusional crock that allows once-proud - and formerly competitive - Division 1-A college football teams to grasp at the illusion of remaining viable as "big time" gridiron powers.

The schools aren't the only institutions protecting the status quo. Obviously, the local bowl committees will do everything in their power to fend off a bona fide Division 1-A football playoff. Why? Because East Podunk's "Salad Bowl" title would be rendered meaningless by the hoopla surrounding a Division 1-A title game. Meaning that "Hidden Valley Ranch Dressings" would pull their title sponsorship from the game. Meaning that the payout would be less. Meaning that the bowl committee would be hard-pressed to find a team willing to accept an invitation. Meaning that East Podunk would be bereft of drunken hordes of "State U" and "Eastern Tech" alumni willing to be parted from their cash over the course of a three-day weekend in January.

Believe me, the minute an entity with deep enough pockets steps forward to sponsor/finance a 16-to-32-team NCAA Division 1-A football playoff tournament, you will see the truly "major" football powers abandon the BCS and conventional bowl set-up in the "blink of an eye". What's truly ironic is that the BCS is actually a step TOWARDS a day when we'll see the true "giants" of "big-time" college football abandon their Mid-Major brethren for a playoff. Let's face facts: mid- sized and small conference programs are being marginalized like never before. There is a feeling that fewer and fewer schools are being given a shot at competing for the BCS title. So, the question we should ask ourselves is not IF a Division 1-A playoff should be implemented, but WHEN it is going to happen and WHAT format it is going to take. Should we continue to march towards a day when 10 to 15 perennial "mega-programs" call the shots in an exclusionary, BCS-like Division 1-A football? Or, do we implement a playoff system that at least tries to be a bit more equitable in regard to who gets invited to the "dance"?

And let's not say that a Division 1-A football playoff can't be done. That's ridiculous. The Division 1-AA, Division 2 and Division 3 programs manage to play a full schedule of games AND a playoff. Why is it that we don't here the NCAA... and the college presidents and chancellors... and the coaches, moaning about how taxing it is on the lower division football players to engage in a full-blown playoff? I mean, they have to take exams too, right? The message I'm taking away from this is that a double-standard exists: GASP! The powers-that-be are either saying that Division 1-A players aren't bright enough to take exams and engage in a playoff... or, that the Division 1-A football system is more advantageous to student-athletes, but the NCAA doesn't care enough about other students to implement it at the lower levels. So which is it? Either way, it's inconsistent.

Moving on... from the first weekend in September through the last weekend in November, there are 12 weeks in which to play games. If you were to start the Division 1-A college football season on the last weekend in August, as many programs have done, you increase the potential season to 13 weeks. Let's say that we start the season on the last weekend in August, and take the last weekend in November off for an "exam period" before the playoffs. That gives us 12 weeks of play in which the Division 1-A programs could contest regular season games. In order to get the season in, the bottom line is this: No more meaningless "open dates"... no more "cupcakes"... programs get to the "meat" of their conference schedule sooner. If your conference wants to play a title game at the conclusion of the season, regular season schedules are pared down accordingly.

You take the exam weekend at the end of November off. You then determine the top 16 Division 1-A football teams in the nation. You can use polls, conference champions, computer programs, a combination of all three... what have you. The first weekend in December, eight games take place. The field is pared from 16 to 8 teams. The second weekend in December, four quarter-final games reduce the field from 8 to 4 teams. The third weekend in December, 2 semi-final games produce the pair of squads that will contest the National Championship. The final weekend in December/ first week of January, a true Division 1-A football champion is crowned. Personally, I'd love to see a deal worked out where the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls rotate the Championship Game, the two semi-finals and a quarter-final game amongst themselves. The other eleven games could either go to cities that currently host bowl games, or be put out to bid.

Brian in Boston

[NJTank]

Yeah If Div 1AA 2 and 3 have playoffs then it is ridiculous.

The fact is the bowls and thgeir money is the only obsticle and the sad thing is the bowls are so unwatchable it anit funny. I mean does anybody care aboutthe New Orleans Bowl, the Silcon Valley Classic what a joke a playoff can be done and needs to done now.

[yh]

Unless there is a drastic change in economic sensibilities in the NCAA there is not going to be any type of a playoff system that will seriously alter or diminish the relevance of the bowl system.

Period.

Allow me to explain:

At present 56 Division I teams get to go to bowl games. In most cases this involves playing a game out of town which means university students and boosters travel to the games, pour millions of dollars into the communities where the games are played and invest millions of dollars for tickets. Some of that ticket money winds up being returned to the conferences of the participating teams. If the bowls get eliminated or become little more than preliminary "early round" playoff games, then a decent chunk of that money goes away because the significance of that particular game is greatly reduced. The communities, organizations and sponsors that host these games will exert the necessary pressure upon the NCAA to ensure that doesn't happen.

Also, employing a playoff system of even as few as 16 teams means the boosters from at least two schools are going to have to figure out a way to pay for 4 out of town trips instead of 1. I guarantee you that most college football boosters, especially the students who can travel to bowls and not miss classes due to the winter break, are going to be hard pressed to be able to have the funds and flexibility to make 2 post-season trips, no less 4. And we can't compare a proposed D1A playoff to March Madness because in most cases bowl games outdraw all but the Final Four at a ratio of about 4-1, so a bowl game's success at the gate is much more dependent on a huge draw from the participating schools.

Simply put, a college football playoff system for D1A is not going to happen.  I'm not endorsing the wisdom of the present system (in a sports vein, that is); it's just that it's a golden-egg laying goose that will not be sacrificed in the interest of quelling disputes as to who #1 really is.

[jrh31584]

Unless there is a drastic change in economic sensibilities in the NCAA there is not going to be any type of a playoff system that will seriously alter or diminish the relevance of the bowl system.

Period.

Allow me to explain:

At present 56 Division I teams get to go to bowl games. In most cases this involves playing a game out of town which means university students and boosters travel to the games, pour millions of dollars into the communities where the games are played and invest millions of dollars for tickets. Some of that ticket money winds up being returned to the conferences of the participating teams. If the bowls get eliminated or become little more than preliminary "early round" playoff games, then a decent chunk of that money goes away because the significance of that particular game is greatly reduced. The communities, organizations and sponsors that host these games will exert the necessary pressure upon the NCAA to ensure that doesn't happen.

Also, employing a playoff system of even as few as 16 teams means the boosters from at least two schools are going to have to figure out a way to pay for 4 out of town trips instead of 1. I guarantee you that most college football boosters, especially the students who can travel to bowls and not miss classes due to the winter break, are going to be hard pressed to be able to have the funds and flexibility to make 2 post-season trips, no less 4. And we can't compare a proposed D1A playoff to March Madness because in most cases bowl games outdraw all but the Final Four at a ratio of about 4-1, so a bowl game's success at the gate is much more dependent on a huge draw from the participating schools.

Simply put, a college football playoff system for D1A is not going to happen. I'm not endorsing the wisdom of the present system (in a sports vein, that is); it's just that it's a golden-egg laying goose that will not be sacrificed in the interest of quelling disputes as to who #1 really is.

My playoff plans address many of these concerns.  By having teams play 1st and 2nd round games in the same place, teams will make no more than 2 trips.  I placed a 2 week gap between the quarterfinals and semifinals to allow for exams.  The communities who want their bowls to be used for the playoffs would have to prove that they could pull it off.  The BCS bowls already account for over 80% of the payouts, and a playoff would likely have far greater TV revenue.

[Brian in Boston]

yhollander...

I'll readily admit that the schools and bowls have a vested interest in the current system. I addressed all of that in my post. It still doesn't make the current system any less self-serving for said schools and bowls. It still doesn't make the NCAA, CFA, BCS and Bowl committees any less hypocritical when they yammer on and on about the "welfare of the student athletes" being best served by the Division 1-A bowl games... only to allow Division 1-AA, 2 and 3 football players to participate in playoffs. What about the welfare of those players?

That's what really ticks me off about the current system: the blatant BS that the powers-that-be spew to cover their true reasons for maintaining the status quo. It's all about the MONEY!!! It's all about being able to tell the administration and boosters, "Hey... we went to a bowl game last year. So please continue to fund our program and let me keep my job even though we were 7 and 5 with a couple of wins against lower level opponents during the regular season. But hey... did I mention we went to bowl?"

So stop with the "we're looking out for the students" crap. Stop asking me to believe that the BCS crown is a true "National Championship" of Division 1-A college football. It's all a self-serving sham and that's why I'm not a big fan of the college game.

Brian in Boston