Screw the bowls, let's have a play-off!

[BaltimoreFan]

(This is another idea I've kicked around but I'm not sure if it would work..If a team loses in a conference championship game then they are automatically out of the running for an at-large bid. People want the regular season to be "important" so let's make it really important. So I tried it out for three seasons. It works in this year's example but in 2008 it meant keeping out #6 Alabama at 11-1 and adding #10 Ohio State at 10-2

That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it give an unfair advantage to the teams that don't have a conference championship game? A better team may lose its spot because it was "forced" to play a championship game due to its conference. Then again, I don't know how the recent conference swapping has changed things. If all the BCS conferences have a championship, that point would be moot.

Personally, I'd just keep it simple and just invite the top 8 in the BCS standings. Each year there is really only 3 maybe 4 teams that can honestly say they deserve a shot at the national championship (this year Oregon, Auburn, and TCU). They should all should be in the top 8. The remaining 4 or 5 teams would just be added to make things interesting. You can argue that the BCS rankings don't accurately rank the teams, but too bad. They would only be controversial for the last few teams in. If the "last team(s) out" is unhappy, they should have played better.

[infrared41]

(This is another idea I've kicked around but I'm not sure if it would work..If a team loses in a conference championship game then they are automatically out of the running for an at-large bid. People want the regular season to be "important" so let's make it really important. So I tried it out for three seasons. It works in this year's example but in 2008 it meant keeping out #6 Alabama at 11-1 and adding #10 Ohio State at 10-2

That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it give an unfair advantage to the teams that don't have a conference championship game? A better team may lose its spot because it was "forced" to play a championship game due to its conference. Then again, I don't know how the recent conference swapping has changed things. If all the BCS conferences have a championship, that point would be moot.

Personally, I'd just keep it simple and just invite the top 8 in the BCS standings. Each year there is really only 3 maybe 4 teams that can honestly say they deserve a shot at the national championship (this year Oregon, Auburn, and TCU). They should all should be in the top 8. The remaining 4 or 5 teams would just be added to make things interesting. You can argue that the BCS rankings don't accurately rank the teams, but too bad. They would only be controversial for the last few teams in. If the "last team(s) out" is unhappy, they should have played better.

Yeah that's one of the major problems with that idea. But, a lot of people say the regular season would be diminished by a playoff. Well with that rule, the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and I'm assuming PAC-10 teams would be playing for their very lives each week. That ought to keep the regular season interesting right?

I thought about just making the playoff the top 8 teams but in a season like 2008 that would have meant three teams from the Big XII and two from the SEC or over half the field from two conferences. In a scenario like 2008 the regular season would have been pretty pointless. The idea behind the top ranked conference champs is that it really focuses on the regular season and it keeps the BCS bowl tie-ins. The whole idea behind my playoff was to answer the "problems" the naysayers use to argue against a playoff; the bowls, the regular season, etc. I think my playoff covers most of their objections.

If we just went with the top 8 each year we'd have...well pretty much what we have now. I should add that I'm not a strong advocate of a playoff. I'm fine with the current setup. My playoff is basically just a playoff I could live with.

[slightly shotgunned]

(This is another idea I've kicked around but I'm not sure if it would work..If a team loses in a conference championship game then they are automatically out of the running for an at-large bid. People want the regular season to be "important" so let's make it really important. So I tried it out for three seasons. It works in this year's example but in 2008 it meant keeping out #6 Alabama at 11-1 and adding #10 Ohio State at 10-2

That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it give an unfair advantage to the teams that don't have a conference championship game? A better team may lose its spot because it was "forced" to play a championship game due to its conference. Then again, I don't know how the recent conference swapping has changed things. If all the BCS conferences have a championship, that point would be moot.

Personally, I'd just keep it simple and just invite the top 8 in the BCS standings. Each year there is really only 3 maybe 4 teams that can honestly say they deserve a shot at the national championship (this year Oregon, Auburn, and TCU). They should all should be in the top 8. The remaining 4 or 5 teams would just be added to make things interesting. You can argue that the BCS rankings don't accurately rank the teams, but too bad. They would only be controversial for the last few teams in. If the "last team(s) out" is unhappy, they should have played better.

Yeah that's one of the major problems with that idea. But, a lot of people say the regular season would be diminished by a playoff. Well with that rule, the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and I'm assuming PAC-10 teams would be playing for their very lives each week. That ought to keep the regular season interesting right?

I thought about just making the playoff the top 8 teams but in a season like 2008 that would have meant three teams from the Big XII and two from the SEC or over half the field from two conferences. In a scenario like 2008 the regular season would have been pretty pointless. The idea behind the top ranked conference champs is that it really focuses on the regular season and it keeps the BCS bowl tie-ins. The whole idea behind my playoff was to answer the "problems" the naysayers use to argue against a playoff; the bowls, the regular season, etc. I think my playoff covers most of their objections.

If we just went with the top 8 each year we'd have...well pretty much what we have now. I should add that I'm not a strong advocate of a playoff. I'm fine with the current setup. My playoff is basically just a playoff I could live with.

What happens in the later rounds of your system? I've only ever seen you address the first round, but I haven't been paying much attention. If the final four is also at a bowl site, wouldn't fan travel become a concern since you're asking big 10 fans to make three trips if a team from that conference makes it to the championship?

You've got probably the best plan I've seen that includes the BCS rankings...For whatever that's worth coming from me

[infrared41]

What happens in the later rounds of your system? I've only ever seen you address the first round, but I haven't been paying much attention. If the final four is also at a bowl site, wouldn't fan travel become a concern since you're asking big 10 fans to make three trips if a team from that conference makes it to the championship?

You've got probably the best plan I've seen that includes the BCS rankings...For whatever that's worth coming from me

The second round games and championship are at predetermined sites. Those games would either be rotated among the BCS bowls or bid on like the Super Bowl. For example let's say that the semi-finals are in New Orleans and Glendale this year. The winners of the Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl playoffs play in Glendale. The winners of the Sugar and Orange play in New Orleans. The Championship could be at either the Orange or Rose. Simple. It wouldn't be difficult to set up a rotation system. It would be set up pretty much like the basketball tournament.

Fan travel is a concern with any playoff. That said, if a playoff is as big as everyone claims it would be then selling tickets to the semi-finals and championships shouldn't be a problem. The Final Four does OK and no one knows what teams are going to be there.

As I said, my playoff was designed to address the main concerns of the anti-playoff contingent (people like me for instance). It keeps the regular season relevant and the "big" bowls keep their "historical" tie-ins, remain relevant etc., and the other bowls all remain in existence. Think of it as a "plus three" instead of a "plus one."

[mania]

If there was in fact a playoff system, even one as many as 16, adding every conference champion would be really, really stupid.

You look at teams like 6-6 Florida International. Is it good for them to get crushed by Auburn? Is it good for Auburn? For college football in general? No... it's just kind of cruel. You take the conference champions of the current BCS schools, guarantee at-larges for... say any non-AQ team that finishes... say... in the Top 20 of the final BCS standings, and then fill out the rest with the highest ranking teams.

Basically...

1 Auburn vs. 16 Connecticut

2 Oregon vs. 15 Utah

3 TCU vs. 14 Nevada

4 Stanford vs. 13 Virginia Tech

5 Wisconsin vs. 12 Missouri

6 Ohio State vs. 11 Louisiana State

7 Oklahoma vs. 10 Boise State

8 Arkansas vs. 9 Michigan State

Treat the first two games as home games for the higher ranked team, re-seed after every round, and then use neutral sites/bowl locations for the final four.

[McCall]

- If you go the 8-team route, 6 BCS Conf champs and 2 at-larges (non-BCS conf champs anywhere from top 10-15 of rankings, Independents the same; otherwise next 2 highest ranked teams).

- 12 teams: Top 4 get bye first week.

- NO BOWLS for playoff rounds. Either they are consolation games AFTER the finals are set, or the playoff determines who plays for the championship and then the rest of the bowls are picked from those who didn't make it. Same as it is now except you have 2-3 playoff games deciding who plays for the championship instead of a computer.

[TBGKon]

I've been curious to think if the BCS expands it's list of bowls from 4 to whatever, which current bowls in your opinion would be added to the rotation?

In my opinion, a combo of some of the following could be considered:

- Chick-Fil-A Bowl, Atlanta

- Capital One Bowl, Orlando

- Cotton Bowl, Arlington

- Gator Bowl, Jacksonville

- Outback Bowl, Tampa

[McCall]

I've always heard that the Cotton Bowl would be the next one in. Makes sense, you just go across the South from LA (Rose) to Miami (Orange) and add a Texas bowl in there, especially now that its played at a big new stadium. After that, I guess Chick-Fil-A Bowl (change the name back to Peach Bowl though). I'd get those before adding a 2nd or 3rd BCS bowl in Florida.

[ElwoodCuse]

If there was in fact a playoff system, even one as many as 16, adding every conference champion would be really, really stupid.

You look at teams like 6-6 Florida International. Is it good for them to get crushed by Auburn? Is it good for Auburn? For college football in general? No... it's just kind of cruel.

And this is any different from those 1-16 games in the basketball tournament how?

[TalktoChuck]

If there was in fact a playoff system, even one as many as 16, adding every conference champion would be really, really stupid.

You look at teams like 6-6 Florida International. Is it good for them to get crushed by Auburn? Is it good for Auburn? For college football in general? No... it's just kind of cruel.

And this is any different from those 1-16 games in the basketball tournament how?

Those "cruel" games are all fine and well when you have a 64 team playoff (or however many teams they have in the NCAA basketball tourney now), but when there's only 8, 12, or 16 teams, it diminishes interest and kills ratings/ticket sales.

If you give every conference an automatic bid, what's stopping a Texas, USC or Oregon from jumping over to the WAC just to get an automatic bid into the playoff every year? If they do ever go to a playoff, I'd prefer a 16 team playoff and just take the top 16 ranked teams from the BCS (or whatever new name they'd decide to call the computer system).

Personally, I have no problem with the system as it is now. I love the Bowl Season, how else would you get to see Notre Dame take on Miami in El Paso on New Year's Eve with the MVP of the game driving off in a Hyundai?

[ElwoodCuse]

If you give every conference an automatic bid, what's stopping a Texas, USC or Oregon from jumping over to the WAC just to get an automatic bid into the playoff every year?

TV money

those conferences TV deals are super sweet

[omnivore]

A playoff will eventually happen, but never the 16-team variety that gets bandied about. Eventually there will be a 4 team playoff and people will clamor for 8 and get that...but like most things, it'll take time.

[WJMorris3]

You know, I still think the 11-team, all conference champions get in idea might be the best. It makes the regular season more important because if you lose a conference game, you're in danger of not making it into the playoffs. Besides, every one of the 116 real NCAA FBS teams can say that if they win all their games, they're going to be in the playoffs.

[philly97flyer]

Not to threadjack, but I've always wondered why we couldn't have a playoff AND keep the bowl games. And I don't mean the host one of the playoff games in Pasadena and call it the Rose Bowl idea that's been floated around plenty of times before. I mean playing the bowl games after the season in January just as they always have. The only difference is that they would go back to being exhibitions like they were before the 60s.

This argument always comes down to playoffs vs. bowl games... what's to say we can't have both?

Actually, one could have both by having the the playoff teams play on Saturdays at the home of the higher seed, while the bowls play during the week. The problem is that the bowl system is "outsourced" while all other NCAA championships are held by the NCAA. The distribution of money would have to be addressed, but in basketball it's not a problem since there are two Non-NCAA tournaments at season's end which nobody watches.

There are currently 36 days from between Dec. 4 (conference title games) and the BCS title game. At 16-team playoff could be held on the Saturdays while the bowl games are played during the week and teams could still have the additional practices.

Book Report: For those who want to know more on the sujbect, then over the holidays and prior to the BCS title game, they should try to pick up the book Death to the BCS and read how the bowl system does its best to keep a playoff from happening. It is very interesting, especially when men like Jim Tressel, who is a straight shooter, thinks a playoff is coming within the next five years.

Who said it had to be an NCAA sanctioned playoff? You could still have your bowls and then have a BCS-run playoff. The National Championship game isnt technically a "bowl" under the new configuration (Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc are their own games), it's its own game. So, in addition to the other bowls, cant there be a separate 8 team tournament?

[Magnus]

Yeah, this is nuts. I'm glad it's so much simpler in CIS football, not to mention practically every other league on the planet. 27 teams, 4 conferences, 4 shots at a national title. No "consolation bowls" or offers of swag for players. It seems so much less corrupt (barring the suspension of Waterloo's program at least) than a system supported by outside businesses.

[TBGKon]

You know, I still think the 11-team, all conference champions get in idea might be the best. It makes the regular season more important because if you lose a conference game, you're in danger of not making it into the playoffs. Besides, every one of the 116 real NCAA FBS teams can say that if they win all their games, they're going to be in the playoffs.

The only good idea about this is that it forces independent teams, mainly Notre Dame, to join conferences in football.

[Jahgee]

I think that this could work

Eliminate all bowl games save BCS bowls (excluding the NC) and other traditional bowls and make them exibitions

Then have playoff selection show and make conference champions guarenteed and top 3 seeds in each of the 4 division things. Then hold playoff. Boom serve hot and fresh

[WJMorris3]

You know, I still think the 11-team, all conference champions get in idea might be the best. It makes the regular season more important because if you lose a conference game, you're in danger of not making it into the playoffs. Besides, every one of the 116 real NCAA FBS teams can say that if they win all their games, they're going to be in the playoffs.

The only good idea about this is that it forces independent teams, mainly Notre Dame, to join conferences in football.

Not necessarily. They can stay independent. Who would complain if Notre Dame or Army or Navy went unbeaten and didn't get to go? None of those teams have any national following. They're simply not worthy if they don't join a conference.

[RyanB06]

You know, I still think the 11-team, all conference champions get in idea might be the best. It makes the regular season more important because if you lose a conference game, you're in danger of not making it into the playoffs. Besides, every one of the 116 real NCAA FBS teams can say that if they win all their games, they're going to be in the playoffs.

The only good idea about this is that it forces independent teams, mainly Notre Dame, to join conferences in football.

Not necessarily. They can stay independent. Who would complain if Notre Dame or Army or Navy went unbeaten and didn't get to go? None of those teams have any national following. They're simply not worthy if they don't join a conference.

You're an idiot. Stop posting.

[McCall]

I think that this could work

Eliminate all bowl games save BCS bowls (excluding the NC) and other traditional bowls and make them exibitions

Then have playoff selection show and make conference champions guarenteed and top 3 seeds in each of the 4 division things. Then hold playoff. Boom serve hot and fresh

That makes no sense.