Playoffs!!!!!!!

[theredshark]

Its really not that complicated and probably will draw more interest to the bowl games as a whole.

- use the bcs standings to get the top 6 teams, let a committee of experts pick two more and reseed the top 8

-use the Rose, orange, sugar, fiesta, peach, motor city, vegas bowls in a rotation to serve as playoff games and assign teams to the best sites geogrphically (the dates would have to be changed)

- 2 vs 7 and 3 vs 6 on dec. 20th , 1 vs 8 and 4 vs 5 on dec. 21st , final four dec 27th Championship game a week later

(i would also just have teams above .500 bowl eligible for the non-playoff bowl games)

I don't see what the problem is with this setup. If you can find one please let me know

[KingInExile]

No playoff system is valid unless it includes a minimum of 12 teams (champ from each D-1 conference plus the top independent team). Using the same corrupt ranking system to determine who earns the right to go to the playoffs puts the WAC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West at an automatic disadvantage because they get zero respect.

[craig01]

The problem with any playoff format is that somebody is always going to be left out.

I don't mind the BCS for it's use, but I hate the automatic invites for the 6 BCS conferences, and hate the use of the geeky computer rankings. Let's dump the computer rankings altogether and get the AP Poll back in.

There are several teams every year on the cusp that are just as good or better than a couple of automatic invites.

[theredshark]

No playoff system is valid unless it includes a minimum of 12 teams (champ from each D-1 conference plus the top independent team). Using the same corrupt ranking system to determine who earns the right to go to the playoffs puts the WAC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West at an automatic disadvantage because they get zero respect.

not everyone makes the playoffs thats why they call it playoffs. you have to earn it. You are fooling yourself if you think CUSA is equal to the SEC. I have no problem with rankings because no one can argue that the best team most yrs is not somewhere in the top 8 of the rankings.

12 teams would be too many games (it would cut into finals) I personally don't think the number 12 team has a valid arguement anyway.

[KingInExile]

No playoff system is valid unless it includes a minimum of 12 teams (champ from each D-1 conference plus the top independent team). Using the same corrupt ranking system to determine who earns the right to go to the playoffs puts the WAC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West at an automatic disadvantage because they get zero respect.

not everyone makes the playoffs thats why they call it playoffs. you have to earn it. You are fooling yourself if you think CUSA is equal to the SEC. I have no problem with rankings because no one can argue that the best team most yrs is not somewhere in the top 8 of the rankings.

12 teams would be too many games (it would cut into finals) I personally don't think the number 12 team has a valid arguement anyway.

Thanks for perpetuating the elitist attitude that makes the current BCS system a corrupt mockery of a "championship". The BCS is a sham and the BCS champion is nothing but an anointed paper doll who earned that right because they are privileged to play in on of the special conferences that belong to the BCS system (oh...and those happen to be the ones with the butt-loads of money). Any team that wins a D-1 conference must qualify to compete for a national title...period. Anything less just means a perpetuation of the same anointed sham that there currently is.

I want to see the opportunity for some "Cinderella Upsets". Of course the arrogant supporters of the major conferences who automatically believe that they are the best because someone says they are a major conference don't want a full playoff because they might get some egg on their face if a CUSA just happens to beat a SEC team. As a football fan I don't want stats and polls to determine a "champion". I want want that champion to be determined on the field. And picking and choosing which D-1 conferences have the honor to complete in the playoffs based on the perception that "some conferences are just obviously weaker" runs contrary to goal of having a real champion determined on the field.

[theredshark]

you cant honestly believe that every team can be the champion do you??? that is insane. The reason you have playoffs is to narrow it down so they can play it out on the field. You cant just go by record and not everyone plays the same teams. you will never have a perfect system and in every other sport there are teams that come to the realization that they are not the best even if they just miss the playoffs. The justice in it all is that with my proposed system you would give teams in weaker conferences a shot if they have an exceptional season and beat good teams. You dont just put teams in because they participate they need to make a case regardless of conference. That is common sense.

No playoff system is valid unless it includes a minimum of 12 teams (champ from each D-1 conference plus the top independent team). Using the same corrupt ranking system to determine who earns the right to go to the playoffs puts the WAC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, and Mountain West at an automatic disadvantage because they get zero respect.

not everyone makes the playoffs thats why they call it playoffs. you have to earn it. You are fooling yourself if you think CUSA is equal to the SEC. I have no problem with rankings because no one can argue that the best team most yrs is not somewhere in the top 8 of the rankings.

12 teams would be too many games (it would cut into finals) I personally don't think the number 12 team has a valid arguement anyway.

Thanks for perpetuating the elitist attitude that makes the current BCS system a corrupt mockery of a "championship". The BCS is a sham and the BCS champion is nothing but an anointed paper doll who earned that right because they are privileged to play in on of the special conferences that belong to the BCS system (oh...and those happen to be the ones with the butt-loads of money). Any team that wins a D-1 conference must qualify to compete for a national title...period. Anything less just means a perpetuation of the same anointed sham that there currently is.

I want to see the opportunity for some "Cinderella Upsets". Of course the arrogant supporters of the major conferences who automatically believe that they are the best because someone says they are a major conference don't want a full playoff because they might get some egg on their face if a CUSA just happens to beat a SEC team. As a football fan I don't want stats and polls to determine a "champion". I want want that champion to be determined on the field. And picking and choosing which D-1 conferences have the honor to complete in the playoffs based on the perception that "some conferences are just obviously weaker" runs contrary to goal of having a real champion determined on the field.

[KingInExile]

There are currently 34 bowl games scheduled between Dec. 20th and Jan 8th (that encompasses 3 weekends and a half week). Explain to me how a playoff that allows all conferences to participate would take more time or be more complicated.

There can easily be a playoff system with up to 16 teams (one from each conference, one independent and 4 at-large teams) that would easily fit in with the current bowl schedule. We're talking 15 games that can occur over the same period as the current bowls. Work with the committees running the current bowls to realign some of them to support the playoff system. The other 19 bowl can still exist with games run for non-playoff teams similar to how they already exist.

I don't see why you're so afraid of a legitimate playoff system that guarantees a birth for all D-1 conferences. Any team that wins their conference deserves a chance to play for a national championship.

[freakazoid]

Undefeated teams get an automatic shot at the title.

Wait, that makes too much sense. Forget it.


Undefeated teams only count if they are one of the 8-10 biggest schools in the country.


Other than that, they must be disqualified in order for the suckier, bigger schools to keep their unfair place in the pecking order.


On second thought- Fire everyone involved in coming up with the current system and replace them with theredshark.....Or any 14 year old kid who could figure out a better system.

(No offense to theredshark, but much offense to the idiots responsible for the BCS)

[theredshark]

Undefeated teams get an automatic shot at the title.

Wait, that makes too much sense. Forget it.


Undefeated teams only count if they are one of the 8-10 biggest schools in the country.


Other than that, they must be disqualified in order for the suckier, bigger schools to keep their unfair place in the pecking order.


On second thought- Fire everyone involved in coming up with the current system and replace them with theredshark.....Or any 14 year old kid who could figure out a better system.

(No offense to theredshark, but much offense to the idiots responsible for the BCS)

I'll take the job!!!!! it will take me five minutes to fix the system, I just need the authority.

[Icness]

Stop watching the Bowls and stop attending the Bowls and they will go away quickly. If the NCAA and school presidents feel a championship tournament would make them more money, we'd have one already. But the bowls are too lucrative--because everyone watches them and goes to them and sponsors them.

The one area that I will defend the BCS, or rather poo-poo a tournament: just as much as everyone complains about the BCS ratings and polls now, you'll hear more of the same in terms of tournament seedings and who gets in, who gets left on the bubble, who draws easier early-round matchups. I can hear all the whining already. Would Texas fans really accept USC as the national tournament champ if Texas has to play the Big Ten champ and then the ACC champ while USC plays the Sun Belt champ and the #2 SEC team en route to the semis, then Texas draws the #1 team (say, Florida) while USC gets an upset Cinderella (say, TCU). Y'all know darn well the arguments would be just as loud as they are for the flaws of the BCS. Just because there would be a more organized solution doesn't mean it won't strip the controversy or defuse the arguments.

[studcrackers]

they may goto the big time matchup bowls or the new years bowls but the 1st half of the bowls are always half empty and a waste of time

[craig01]

Its really not that complicated and probably will draw more interest to the bowl games as a whole.

- use the bcs standings to get the top 6 teams, let a committee of experts pick two more and reseed the top 8

-use the Rose, orange, sugar, fiesta, peach, motor city, vegas bowls in a rotation to serve as playoff games and assign teams to the best sites geogrphically (the dates would have to be changed)

- 2 vs 7 and 3 vs 6 on dec. 20th , 1 vs 8 and 4 vs 5 on dec. 21st , final four dec 27th Championship game a week later

(i would also just have teams above .500 bowl eligible for the non-playoff bowl games)

I don't see what the problem is with this setup. If you can find one please let me know

It's about logistics and revenue for every school.

I doubt that the revenue created by having seven playoff games would equal the disbursement of funds from 34 bowl games to individual teams and their conferences.

Second, playoff games would likely have to be held on a campus of the participants. People are not as likely to travel en masse to a site that might be hundreds of miles away on short notice, and definitely not more than once.

Fans have weeks to prepare travel plans for bowl games, which is one of the basic concepts that makes them successful. I think the general public fails to realize this when they talk about using bowls as playoff games.

It's not a simple as many think when you look at the big picture.

[warner28]

Did I really see a "it will cut into finals argument"


Seriously?


Someone actually buys that old tired bogus argument?


Seriously?


The college basketball tournament occurs during finals for every college on the quarter system (lots of those in the nation), college baseball and several other NCAA championships (including all the other football divisions) have games during finals week.


Give up that argument, it holds ZERO weight, the reality is that there are weeks during the football season where guys have 3-4 mid-terms, maybe even a paper or 2 to turn in yet they manage to play those weeks. Hell finals week was always one of the easiest weeks of college for me (all I had to do was study a little which you need to do every week and show up to a class once instead of 3 times a week, yeah brutal).



As to the rest of the argument, 8 teams is enough, you do need to include all BCS champs (with the ability for conferences to earn/lose auto-bids) and have clear guidelines for the other 2 spots that give independents and non-BCS champs advantages over 2nd place teams (including a guaranteed spot for the top non-BCS champ and a guarantee that if a 2nd non-BCS champ or independent is in the top 12 they get in), anything less than that and you might as well leave it as it is.

Also remember, just because you have an 8 team tournament does not mean the Bowl games disappear, they still very much have their place.

But the 'finals' argument, can't believe I saw that one.

[freakazoid]

I'll take the job!!!!! it will take me five minutes to fix the system, I just need the authority.

Deal.