BCS Playoffs?

[pcgd]

I'll point out that they can somehow get the networks to buy a package that doesn't even guarantee one traditional power will be playing for the title...

*whistles*

What makes you think it would be so hard for them to sign on to such a playoff?

There's no guarantee that you get a power in the Final Four either. In 2006 there was a 2 seed, a 3, a 4, and an 11. But you're right, its usually major powers and I don't see why it'd be any different in a Football playoff. But at least it'd be more legit IMO.

[infrared41]

In this plan, You's have 8 first round games at the top seed's home field. Those are always going to be major stadiums that have an outstanding fan base. 105,000 people showed up to see Ohio State put a smack down on Youngstown State. It was Something like the 18th largest crowd ever at the horseshoe. I don't think you'd have any empty seats for a playoff game.

They'd be prime time games. 4 Friday, 4 Saturday. (or 2 Friday, 6 Saturday) ESPN and ABC could partner up, all night games or Saturday afternoon games. 2 double headers. Switch back and forth at home.

Noon weekday games halfway across the country don't draw fans in in any sport. The St. Louis Cardinals had some trouble getting people to the opening home playoff game in 2004 that was noon on a tuesday. But when you plan once a week on a weekend night, that gets people to travel.

I'm sorry, if someone can't sell a college football playoff to advertisers and networks, they shouldn't be selling anything.

I'd also think in a season where we saw something 12 or 13 unranked teams beat top 5 opponents, we'd think twice in assuming every first round game in a system like this would be a layup.

I want to make it clear that my intent here isn't to argue against a playoff. I've done that plenty in the other thread. I am simply trying to point out why this particular playoff plan won't fly.

Yes 105,000 showed up for OSU-YSU but look at the TV ratings. That's the difference. Fans in the seats don't mean to TV. They want households tuned in. Troy vs. LSU isn't going to draw an audience outside Louisiana and Alabama. And the Alabama half of that won't care unless Auburn or Alabama is involved. The top 50 TV markets aren't watching a game like that. And you still keep looking at it like the number of people who go to the game actually matters. CBS doesn't care about who travels well. They care about who gets people to sit in front of a TV for three hours.

The playoff wouldn't be a tough sell at all. The games would be.

Here's the rub. Some network will lay out huge right fees for exclusivity on a football playoff. They need to get a return on their investment. Troy, CMU, UCF, etc. aren't going to give them that return. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, USC, etc. will. In Wetzel's plan we'll have 5 mid-majors in the playoff every season and 5 at large bids. Then there's the Big East which is, for TV purposes, somewhere in between. So every year 6 of 16 teams are risks when it comes to the ratings. The basketball tournament works because the top 25 is there most every year. Under Wetzel's plan you'd be eliminating a majority of the big draws before a game was even played.

Any playoff that has to guarantee a spot to mid-majors at the expense of traditional powers isn't going to fly. I don't say that as someone against a playoff. I say that as a person who has worked in TV and Radio for almost 20 years. My job is to program what sells. No offense but CMU and Troy don't sell. Texas and Michigan do.

If there is a playoff it will be much closer to the current BCS than it will ever be to the basketball tournament. ESPN would jump on Wetzel's playoff and half the games would be on ESPN2 and ESPN U. That's not exactly what the NCAA is hoping for.

Finally, a 12-5 upset in basketball is far more likely than a 16-1. So yes, the Troy-LSU matchup is going to be a blowout every year.

[Luigi74]

In this plan, You's have 8 first round games at the top seed's home field. Those are always going to be major stadiums that have an outstanding fan base. 105,000 people showed up to see Ohio State put a smack down on Youngstown State. It was Something like the 18th largest crowd ever at the horseshoe. I don't think you'd have any empty seats for a playoff game.

They'd be prime time games. 4 Friday, 4 Saturday. (or 2 Friday, 6 Saturday) ESPN and ABC could partner up, all night games or Saturday afternoon games. 2 double headers. Switch back and forth at home.

Noon weekday games halfway across the country don't draw fans in in any sport. The St. Louis Cardinals had some trouble getting people to the opening home playoff game in 2004 that was noon on a tuesday. But when you plan once a week on a weekend night, that gets people to travel.

I'm sorry, if someone can't sell a college football playoff to advertisers and networks, they shouldn't be selling anything.

I'd also think in a season where we saw something 12 or 13 unranked teams beat top 5 opponents, we'd think twice in assuming every first round game in a system like this would be a layup.

I want to make it clear that my intent here isn't to argue against a playoff. I've done that plenty in the other thread. I am simply trying to point out why this particular playoff plan won't fly.

Yes 105,000 showed up for OSU-YSU but look at the TV ratings. That's the difference. Fans in the seats don't mean to TV. They want households tuned in. Troy vs. LSU isn't going to draw an audience outside Louisiana and Alabama. And the Alabama half of that won't care unless Auburn or Alabama is involved. The top 50 TV markets aren't watching a game like that. And you still keep looking at it like the number of people who go to the game actually matters. CBS doesn't care about who travels well. They care about who gets people to sit in front of a TV for three hours.

The playoff wouldn't be a tough sell at all. The games would be.

Here's the rub. Some network will lay out huge right fees for exclusivity on a football playoff. They need to get a return on their investment. Troy, CMU, UCF, etc. aren't going to give them that return. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, USC, etc. will. In Wetzel's plan we'll have 5 mid-majors in the playoff every season and 5 at large bids. Then there's the Big East which is, for TV purposes, somewhere in between. So every year 6 of 16 teams are risks when it comes to the ratings. The basketball tournament works because the top 25 is there most every year. Under Wetzel's plan you'd be eliminating a majority of the big draws before a game was even played.

Any playoff that has to guarantee a spot to mid-majors at the expense of traditional powers isn't going to fly. I don't say that as someone against a playoff. I say that as a person who has worked in TV and Radio for almost 20 years. My job is to program what sells. No offense but CMU and Troy don't sell. Texas and Michigan do.

If there is a playoff it will be much closer to the current BCS than it will ever be to the basketball tournament. ESPN would jump on Wetzel's playoff and half the games would be on ESPN2 and ESPN U. That's not exactly what the NCAA is hoping for.

Finally, a 12-5 upset in basketball is far more likely than a 16-1. So yes, the Troy-LSU matchup is going to be a blowout every year.

With your thinking the NFL Playoffs would just feature teams like the Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, Pats, Bears, Eagles and Redskins, with teams like Jacksonville, Carolina, and Seattle and Indy never getting a shot since no one outside of those cities care about them.

A college football tourney would be set up the same way as the basketball one for the early rounds, everyone get's a game from their "region" for the first two rounds with the other one's part of a PPV package.

[infrared41]

With your thinking the NFL Playoffs would just feature teams like the Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, Pats, Bears, Eagles and Redskins, with teams like Jacksonville, Carolina, and Seattle and Indy never getting a shot since no one outside of those cities care about them.

A college football tourney would be set up the same way as the basketball one for the early rounds, everyone get's a games from their "region" for the first two rounds with the other one's part of a PPV package.

My "thinking" is that every year we hear how networks don't want a Jacksonville-Kansas City Super Bowl or a Cleveland- Colorado World Series or a Cleveland-San Antonio NBA Finals. The ratings tend to prove that line of thought. Yet for some reason you think NCAA football will be different?

Yes, the networks would prefer Dallas, Pittsburgh, Chicago and New York. If there were a way for the networks to make sure they got those teams over the small market teams they'd implement it tomorrow. That's the brutal truth of the business.

[Luigi74]

With your thinking the NFL Playoffs would just feature teams like the Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, Pats, Bears, Eagles and Redskins, with teams like Jacksonville, Carolina, and Seattle and Indy never getting a shot since no one outside of those cities care about them.

A college football tourney would be set up the same way as the basketball one for the early rounds, everyone get's a games from their "region" for the first two rounds with the other one's part of a PPV package.

My "thinking" is that every year we hear how networks don't want a Jacksonville-Kansas City Super Bowl or a Cleveland- Colorado World Series or a Cleveland-San Antonio NBA Finals. The ratings tend to prove that line of thought. Yet for some reason you think NCAA football will be different?

Yes, the networks would prefer Dallas, Pittsburgh, Chicago and New York. If there were a way for the networks to make sure they got those teams over the small market teams they'd implement it tomorrow. That's the brutal truth of the business.

The only people who talk about how the networks want big market teams are jackasses like Skip Bayles, Bill Simmons, Mike Francesa and so on. The day the networks have a problem with small market teams in the Super Bowl or World Series is the day they reduce the amout they pay for the rights to show them.

[BaltimoreFan]

I don't think this would work for the NCAA financially (something alot of people don't think about). Otherwise they probably would have already done it years ago. It's been talk about almost every season. I'm sure that the NCAA has explored many options to see if it would work. It's a great idea, but I don't think it will happen any time soon.

How could it NOT succeed financially? How much money does March Madness make?

think of the revenue from advertising! The schools get money from home games, sponsorship dollars from the semi-final bowls, sponsorship dollars from the first 'true' national championship, gate reciepts, playoff shirts.

The bowl lovers have come up with the "Every week is a playoff" arguement. This year proves that that's just not true. Because of having to go undefeated, you have to play the Youngstown States of the world to hope for the National Championship. Imagine if Ohio State vs. Texas was the norm instead of a rarity. Teams would want to prep for the playoffs and would start scheduling tough opponents. The effect of one loss would be reduced. But you better not lose again. With 16 there is some wiggle room, but not too much. You'd probably only get a couple 3 loss teams and most likely, those would be from the SEC or Pac-10's of the world.

Plus, all the ADs keep their bowls that give them the payday every year.

I didn't mean it would work financially. What I meant was "Would a playoff system equal or exceed the money made by the current bowl system". The NCAA could care less about having a "true" champion if they'll be making less money. I don't know what the financials look like now, but it could drastically change. Would FedEx still be a huge sponser if their Orange Bowl wasn't as important (whether you make it part of the playoffs or keep it seperate)? It would really matter if someone else was willing to put up the money, but I don't know if anyone would since FedEx is currently willing to pay the most. Would people care about the bowl games as much with a playoff system (given they are still intact)? Maybe not, bringing revenues down again.

Like I said, I'm sure the NCAA has looked into a playoff system. I don't think they are completely oblivious to all the talks year after year. There has to be some reason they aren't switching.

Just for the record, I'd love to see a playoff. I just don't think it will happen (or at least any time soon).

[infrared41]

The only people who talk about how the networks want big market teams are jackasses like Skip Bayles, Bill Simmons, Mike Francesa and so on. The day the networks have a problem with small market teams in the Super Bowl or World Series is the day they reduce the amout they pay for the rights to show them.

Hey, you're the expert. Whatever you say chief. All I've done is run radio and TV stations for almost 20 years. It's not like I have any actual knowledge on the subject or anything. For now I'll defer to your expertise. We'll resume this conversation when a playoff becomes a reality and see if the jackasses you mentioned were right or not.

By the way, have you ever heard of Don Ohlmeyer?

[slightly shotgunned]

In this plan, You's have 8 first round games at the top seed's home field. Those are always going to be major stadiums that have an outstanding fan base. 105,000 people showed up to see Ohio State put a smack down on Youngstown State. It was Something like the 18th largest crowd ever at the horseshoe. I don't think you'd have any empty seats for a playoff game.

They'd be prime time games. 4 Friday, 4 Saturday. (or 2 Friday, 6 Saturday) ESPN and ABC could partner up, all night games or Saturday afternoon games. 2 double headers. Switch back and forth at home.

Noon weekday games halfway across the country don't draw fans in in any sport. The St. Louis Cardinals had some trouble getting people to the opening home playoff game in 2004 that was noon on a tuesday. But when you plan once a week on a weekend night, that gets people to travel.

I'm sorry, if someone can't sell a college football playoff to advertisers and networks, they shouldn't be selling anything.

I'd also think in a season where we saw something 12 or 13 unranked teams beat top 5 opponents, we'd think twice in assuming every first round game in a system like this would be a layup.

I want to make it clear that my intent here isn't to argue against a playoff. I've done that plenty in the other thread. I am simply trying to point out why this particular playoff plan won't fly.

Yes 105,000 showed up for OSU-YSU but look at the TV ratings. That's the difference. Fans in the seats don't mean to TV. They want households tuned in. Troy vs. LSU isn't going to draw an audience outside Louisiana and Alabama. And the Alabama half of that won't care unless Auburn or Alabama is involved. The top 50 TV markets aren't watching a game like that. And you still keep looking at it like the number of people who go to the game actually matters. CBS doesn't care about who travels well. They care about who gets people to sit in front of a TV for three hours.

The playoff wouldn't be a tough sell at all. The games would be.

Here's the rub. Some network will lay out huge right fees for exclusivity on a football playoff. They need to get a return on their investment. Troy, CMU, UCF, etc. aren't going to give them that return. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, USC, etc. will. In Wetzel's plan we'll have 5 mid-majors in the playoff every season and 5 at large bids. Then there's the Big East which is, for TV purposes, somewhere in between. So every year 6 of 16 teams are risks when it comes to the ratings. The basketball tournament works because the top 25 is there most every year. Under Wetzel's plan you'd be eliminating a majority of the big draws before a game was even played.

Any playoff that has to guarantee a spot to mid-majors at the expense of traditional powers isn't going to fly. I don't say that as someone against a playoff. I say that as a person who has worked in TV and Radio for almost 20 years. My job is to program what sells. No offense but CMU and Troy don't sell. Texas and Michigan do.

If there is a playoff it will be much closer to the current BCS than it will ever be to the basketball tournament. ESPN would jump on Wetzel's playoff and half the games would be on ESPN2 and ESPN U. That's not exactly what the NCAA is hoping for.

Finally, a 12-5 upset in basketball is far more likely than a 16-1. So yes, the Troy-LSU matchup is going to be a blowout every year.

I think that you're forgetting that people are going to watch the troy lsu playoff game because,

It's a big game. Big football games don't need much to get people interested.

and yes, the troy-lsu matchup is going to be a blowout every year. ON PAPER. they still have to play the game on the field and there are no guarantees in sports. (get ready for the boise state story)on paper there was no way that oklahoma wasn't going to roll all over boise state last year. on paper the sooners were a much better team, had much better and bigger weapons, had that winning tradition, the experience, the facilities, the everything better than boise state. we all know the story now, but by your way of thinking it'd be a pretty good assumption that most people only saw the ending in the form of highlights on espn since nobody outside of boise and norman would care.

seriously guy, the reason people would watch that game and others like it is the same reason people watch the ncaa tournament when they have no real interest in the games. upsets. people love to see the tradition laden program go down in flames at the hands of an unknown. most people watching the tournament last year probably had never even heard of witchita state, or knew where george mason was, but they tuned in to see who they would beat next anyway. some even rooted for them.

...but hey, i don't know that a playoff would generate more money. i'm not in the business of tv or radio. wish there was a way to compare tv ratings for bowl games vs. playoff games, but as d1 doesn't have a playoff, that's not exactly possible.

[infrared41]

I think that you're forgetting that people are going to watch the troy lsu playoff game because,

It's a big game. Big football games don't need much to get people interested.

and yes, the troy-lsu matchup is going to be a blowout every year. ON PAPER. they still have to play the game on the field and there are no guarantees in sports. (get ready for the boise state story)on paper there was no way that oklahoma wasn't going to roll all over boise state last year. on paper the sooners were a much better team, had much better and bigger weapons, had that winning tradition, the experience, the facilities, the everything better than boise state. we all know the story now, but by your way of thinking it'd be a pretty good assumption that most people only saw the ending in the form of highlights on espn since nobody outside of boise and norman would care.

seriously guy, the reason people would watch that game and others like it is the same reason people watch the ncaa tournament when they have no real interest in the games. upsets. people love to see the tradition laden program go down in flames at the hands of an unknown. most people watching the tournament last year probably had never even heard of witchita state, or knew where george mason was, but they tuned in to see who they would beat next anyway. some even rooted for them.

...but hey, i don't know that a playoff would generate more money. i'm not in the business of tv or radio. wish there was a way to compare tv ratings for bowl games vs. playoff games, but as d1 doesn't have a playoff, that's not exactly possible.

First, Boise State was undefeated. Second, it was a BCS bowl game not the first round of a playoff. Third, Boise was a story before they even made the Fiesta Bowl. Apples are round. So are oranges. The similarities end there. LSU vs. 8-3 Troy in a first round game isn't quite the same as Boise State-Oklahoma in The Fiesta Bowl.

Want the perfect example of how it works? I'll leave you with this question. Why did 3-9 Notre Dame get ten times the coverage 11-0 Hawaii has so far? Your answer to that will be my argument on why the mid-majors are not going to get any kind of guaranteed bid to any Football playoff. It will take a Boise State type season to break through. Just like it does now.

And once again the only point I am trying to make is lost. It's not about what we as fans like or what people claim they love to see. It's about the -ing money and you know as well as I do that the money isn't in Troy or Central Michigan or UCF. It's in Michigan, Texas, Florida, Penn State, etc. The rest is just fodder for internet forums.

And once again I can't state this strongly enough, I am not arguing for or against a playoff in this thread. I am simply trying to point out why this particular model of a playoff is not going to happen. You all can throw the basketball and Boise State comparisons at me all day but it doesn't change the reality; anything short of a 32 team playoff is not going to guarantee a bid to 5 mid-majors at the expense of the big schools. 16 teams is the right idea but you can forget the conference champs making up 11 of the 16. Take the BCS formula and apply it to this playoff model and there's your starting point.

Didn't Oregon get screwed out of a BCS game a few years back? Why do you think that happened? Why do you think that, despite all your wishes to the contrary, FOX is praying to God every night that Oklahoma knocks off Missouri this week and Ohio State backs into the title game? Because they know that Ohio State will deliver 10 times the viewers Missouri will. Half of them will be rooting for OSU to lose but FOX won't care as long as they're watching. The perfect storm for FOX is if West Virginia loses too and opens a slot for an SEC school. Take five minutes and read the stories. Like it or not, it's how the business works.

[slightly shotgunned]

First, Boise State was undefeated. Second, it was a BCS bowl game not the first round of a playoff. Third, Boise was a story before they even made the Fiesta Bowl. Apples are round. So are oranges. The similarities end there. LSU vs. 8-3 Troy in a first round game isn't quite the same as Boise State-Oklahoma in The Fiesta Bowl.

Want the perfect example of how it works? I'll leave you with this question. Why did 3-9 Notre Dame get ten times the coverage 11-0 Hawaii has so far? Your answer to that will be my argument on why the mid-majors are not going to get any kind of guaranteed bid to any Football playoff. It will take a Boise State type season to break through. Just like it does now.

And once again the only point I am trying to make is lost. It's not about what we as fans like or what people claim they love to see. It's about the -ing money and you know as well as I do that the money isn't in Troy or Central Michigan or UCF. It's in Michigan, Texas, Florida, Penn State, etc. The rest is just fodder for internet forums.

And once again I can't state this strongly enough, I am not arguing for or against a playoff in this thread. I am simply trying to point out why this particular model of a playoff is not going to happen. You all can throw the basketball and Boise State comparisons at me all day but it doesn't change the reality; anything short of a 32 team playoff is not going to guarantee a bid to 5 mid-majors at the expense of the big schools. 16 teams is the right idea but you can forget the conference champs making up 11 of the 16. Take the BCS formula and apply it to this playoff model and there's your starting point.

Didn't Oregon get screwed out of a BCS game a few years back? Why do you think that happened? Why do you think that, despite all your wishes to the contrary, FOX is praying to God every night that Oklahoma knocks off Missouri this week and Ohio State backs into the title game? Because they know that Ohio State will deliver 10 times the viewers Missouri will. Half of them will be rooting for OSU to lose but FOX won't care as long as they're watching. The perfect storm for FOX is if West Virginia loses too and opens a slot for an SEC school. Take five minutes and read the stories. Like it or not, it's how the business works.

-a non title bcs game, one played for pride, tradition, prestige, and money, is not the same as a playoff game, which includes all those things, but is played for a national title. are you saying that people are going to watch a usc-michigan rose bowl outside of those teams fans because everyone cares about two powerhouses playing for tradition, prestige, pride, and money, but nobody outside of mount pleasant and colombia would watch a cmu-mizzou first round game because nobody cares about two virtual unknowns meeting for an actual shot at a title? not even oklahoma-usc fans providing that the two games aren't played at the same time? not the rest of the fans of the teams on the brackets? not the casual fan? not the die-hard college football fan? still nobody? really?

-why did 3-9 notre dame get more press than undefeated hawaii? what does that have to do with who would watch hawaii's playoff game? are you also implying that nobody would watch their bowl game this year should they stay undefeated?

-32 teams in a playoff is too much, we agree there. 16 is right, we agree there. mid-majors don't belong is the same as saying mid-majors can't beat power schools. ever. if you believe that, we will never agree there. not including them because they wouldn't generate enough money wouldn't be a relevant argument if the bcs is gone and third parties no longer received a share of the revenue. who cares who the networks want. the great thing about fox not wanting mizzou is that it doesn't matter. if mizzou wins, they're in. so fox doesn't make the projected number of billions that they were expecting to. i'm sure everyone'll listen to them cry about the billions they still made off mizzou-west virginia (should that happen).

-serious, non-rhetorical question: are you pointing out why conference champs getting automatic bids wouldn't work for you, or why the creators of the system wouldn't allow it to happen?

-teams get screwed out of big bowls all of the time. thing is, people still tune in to those lower bowls. the casual college football fan, the hardcore college football fan, the fans of the teams, the people who can't find anything better to watch. and if the network doesn't get the ratings it wants, they'll just pump out some reality show or game show to make up for it. bottom line is, the idea that people wouldn't tune in to watch playoff games because the teams in them aren't household names is just wrong. you have to remember that the mid-major team's important games would receive more press outside of their regional areas because those games would actually be relevant to more than just those regional areas so people would know more than nothing about these teams heading into the playoffs. besides all of that, i ask you to remember what you said about big games and stop acting the first round of a 16 team playoff is comparable to the first round of a 64 team playoff. (which, by the way, had a bigger viewer audience in its first round than 20 of the 24 non bcs bowls. thanks for that tip about reading the stories)

:edit:

-where exactly did i accuse you of being against a playoff in general?

[infrared41]

-serious, non-rhetorical question: are you pointing out why conference champs getting automatic bids wouldn't work for you, or why the creators of the system wouldn't allow it to happen?

My point all along has been that the system won't allow it. I think it would be bull- but it's the reality. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that. Other than that, I think the 16 team playoff is an OK idea.

-where exactly did i accuse you of being against a playoff in general?

I am against a playoff in general. Mostly because I just don't see how it could work without decimating the Bowls and I don't know how to make it fair for everyone. Then there's the fact that I am old and just don't want to change things.

If it were up to me a playoff would be this. 8 teams. The Bigger Bowls (Outback, Capital One etc.) and rotating BCS sites would serve as the first round. Then there would be two finals that rotated between the BCS sites that weren't in the year before. The National Championship game would be awarded just like the Super Bowl is. Cities could apply of whatever they do and that's how it would be chosen.

The criteria for choosing the 8 teams would be simple. It would be very similar to the current BCS system. The only stipulation would be that top seeds would have to be conference winners. If the conference winner stipulation can't be met then we simply base it on rankings after the conference winner slots are filled. Teams would be re-seeded every round so the highest remaining seed is always playing the lowest.

That's my plan. I think it could work.

Sorry Notre Dame (like we even have to worry about it anyway) but you need to join a conference or you'll never be seeded higher than 5th.

[Viper]

I reached the conclusion long ago (i.e. when the Rose Bowl stopped being Big Ten champ vs. Pac-10 champ every year) that the traditional bowls simply cannot coexist with a national championship scheme, even an unofficial one like the BCS, and maintain their tradition. Dan Wetzel's plan is the best one I've seen yet, but it does not change my position.

If the NCAA wants a playoff, it should be a clean break: Scrap the bowls altogether, or at least relegate them to NIT status and make them entirely separate from the playoffs. Rotate the title game (and the semifinals) among different sites each year, including non-Sun Belt cities (for the semis at least) and non-BCS bowl stadiums. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy, for example, would be a great site for a playoff game. So would Qwest Field in Seattle, even though it's outdoors.

Otherwise, go back to the pre-BCS way of deciding the national championship: Play the traditional bowl-game matchups and let the polls decide.

[infrared41]

Otherwise, go back to the pre-BCS way of deciding the national championship: Play the traditional bowl-game matchups and let the polls decide.

There's the best suggestion yet. It's a nice idea to try to produce an actual champion but no matter what we end up with, it's never going to make even simple majority of fans happy. If they can't get it right then don't bother. May as well go back the old way and make everyone equally unhappy.

[HedleyLamarr]

The only way I could see a playoff-bowl co-existance is limiting the playoff to 4 teams. (If anyone argues that the #5 team deserves to have a shot at the National Championship, they're an idiot for thinking that in the first place.) Hell, Georgia's #4 in most polls, and I don't think they deserve to play for the National Championship.

First off, the top 4 would be decided by the BCS (no limitations on who the top 4 are, in relation to the conference they're in). The big bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) would be on a rotation basis: two of these getting the semifinal matchups, and one getting the National Championship game. The BCS bowl that's left out of the BCS Playoffs would get to select any two schools they want, as compensation for not getting part of the playoff action. The remaining bowl games keep their conference affiliations and playing dates, and make their selections after the BCS slots are filled.

The semifinal playoff games get played on New Year's Day, and the NC game gets played a week later. You keep the bowls happy, you satisfy (some of) the pro-playoff crowd, you don't diminish the value of the regular season dramatically, you don't increase the length of the football season, and you don't interfere with the academic aspect.

[infrared41]

The only way I could see a playoff-bowl co-existance is limiting the playoff to 4 teams. (If anyone argues that the #5 team deserves to have a shot at the National Championship, they're an idiot for thinking that in the first place.) Hell, Georgia's #4 in most polls, and I don't think they deserve to play for the National Championship.

First off, the top 4 would be decided by the BCS (no limitations on who the top 4 are, in relation to the conference they're in). The big bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) would be on a rotation basis: two of these getting the semifinal matchups, and one getting the National Championship game. The BCS bowl that's left out of the BCS Playoffs would get to select any two schools they want, as compensation for not getting part of the playoff action. The remaining bowl games keep their conference affiliations and playing dates, and make their selections after the BCS slots are filled.

The semifinal playoff games get played on New Year's Day, and the NC game gets played a week later. You keep the bowls happy, you satisfy (some of) the pro-playoff crowd, you don't diminish the value of the regular season dramatically, you don't increase the length of the football season, and you don't interfere with the academic aspect.

I'm in.

[broncoempire]

I just find it funny that with all the bright minds in the world, no one has ever figured out a way to turn the current bowl system into some kind of a playoff. Given all that goes on, it makes me wish they'd scrap the BCS completely and go back to the old system, based on the old traditional tie-ins. You'd have some pretty compelling matchups this year:

Orange Bowl: Big XII Champ (the former Big Eight) vs At-Large, probably Oklahoma/Missouri vs Virginia Tech this year

Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs At-Large, LSU/Tennessee vs West Virginia this year

Rose Bowl: Big Ten Champ vs Pac Ten Champ, Ohio State vs USC

Fiesta Bowl: Two At-Large Teams, Georgia or Arizona State vs Big XII Championship game Loser?

Cotton Bowl Big XII team (to replace defunct Southwest Conference) vs At-large, Kansas/Missouri/Oklahoma vs Florida or Illinois?

Under the old system, you'd have 5 games between teams that are in the top 12 at the worst. It still wouldn't give us a true champion, but at least you'd bring back the relevance that seems to be lacking in the majority of the bowl games. Not to mention it'd be entertaining, and everyone would still have to play hard, because they still did have a chance, with a big performance, of being voted champion. Remember: teams used to jump over others on New Year's Day and wound up champion all the time due to upsets.

[Viper]

I just find it funny that with all the bright minds in the world, no one has ever figured out a way to turn the current bowl system into some kind of a playoff.

Oh, plenty of people have come up with plenty of ways. That's not the problem. The problem is all the university officials who don't want to mess with the status quo, because they don't want to risk losing any of the money they make off of the current system.

[illwauk]

Here's a thought... why not have the playoffs AND the bowl games? The BCS Championship can become the playoff championship, but we can still have the bowl games and view them as exhibitions like they were originally intended. So regardless of what happens in the playoffs, we can still have the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions meeting in the Rose Bowl on New Year's (or whatever they moved it to now).

[BaltimoreFan]

I'm thinking the best think to do would be to go back to how the bowls use to before the BCS.

Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs. Pac-10

Orange Bowl: ACC vs. Big East

Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. At-large

Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 vs. At-large

Or what every it was. Then pick the best two teams after these bowls to play in BCS National Championship game. It should work most years as there is usually only two teams debated as champions (maybe not this year since it is esecially crazy).

[slightly shotgunned]

-i don't see how any fan of competitive sports could support a system like the bcs. how they could hear 'well, now its down to the polls' and say 'oooh, i hope they favor my team. PLEASE favor my team' instead of 'the polls what the ?! polls? what is this, my high school prom?' you do not, and can not select who you want to be a champion. we found out this season just how hard it is to line up every week and beat the team across from you. so if you're a smaller school and you happen to be undefeated, in the bcs, it doesn't matter. 'but wait, you get to go to a bcs bowl if you're ranked high enough, doesn't that mean something?' sure. it means that you get a little more exposure this year. next year, once you lose a game, people are going to talk about how much of a fluke it was for you to be ranked that high in the first place and you'll be right back to where you started with nothing to look forward to because now, no higher ranked teams are going to play you (look where it got oklahoma) during the regular season if they think you have any shot at all at beating them. lets not kid ourselves. if nothing else, ohio state in a championship game is an illustration that you don't have to have quality non-conference wins in order to be considered championship material by the bcs and all but eliminates the argument that teams wouldn't shoot for quality wins if the bcs were phased out in favor of a playoff system. you don't have to get quality wins now, and you don't have to beat all of those 'inferior' teams in order to be championship material.