Based on this article
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=tb-bracketbuster110906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


I'd Honestly prefer playoffs over BCS...your thoughts?

11/10/2006 2:05:38 PM

I would like the playoffs too. But its not going to change anytime soon. I think their is too much money in the BCS for them to change. Although this would be good by using the bowls as the playoff games.

11/10/2006 2:16:07 PM

we should come up with a computer model to determine if the BCS is better than the playoff

11/10/2006 2:28:26 PM

Quote :

"we should come up with a computer model to determine if the BCS is better than the playoff"

11/10/2006 2:30:08 PM

MOST fans will prefer the playoff

11/10/2006 2:31:21 PM

I certainly would prefer a playoff but I gotta say the BCS system passes my slow work days quickly. It makes for some damn good arguments on here...

11/10/2006 2:32:30 PM

i prefer the plus-one system

11/10/2006 2:33:57 PM

I prefer using the BCS system (starting the polls after week 5) to determine the top 4 or 6 teams that should be allowed into a playoff.

11/10/2006 2:41:59 PM

one way, probably not popular is a 12 team playoffs, involving an additional D-1A conference and all conferences to have 12 members and a eventual champion.

each conf. champ gets a spot 1-12 in the playoffs and it goes from there....

though that wouldn't be ideal

best would be 24 team playoff with each conf getting their respective champ in then 12 at large bids.

8 highest ranked would get first round byes

24 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1

buuuuut it would add 5 games to the season, which would be a lot.... boosting some teams game totals to 18.... which wouldn't be practical or fair for the student athletes (20 weeks lets say)

it would make for a much more interesting season though...


i can see a 4 - 8 team play off of the top 4 - 8 ranked spots happening realistically

or something of that nature....

11/28/2006 1:48:59 PM

So this year it would be, as of right now...

OSU #1 vs. Arkansas/Oklahoma #8
USC #2 vs. Wisconsin #7
UofM #3 vs. Louisville #6
Florida #4 vs. LSU #5

11/28/2006 1:56:09 PM

I like the BCS because it makes every regular season game important

If we had playoffs, we'd still have controversy on who gets in

11/28/2006 2:04:03 PM

Quote :

"each conf. champ gets a spot 1-12 in the playoffs and it goes from there...."

that fixes very little.

11/28/2006 2:05:47 PM

needs to hurry up and happen

i'm tired of fagass fake championbships

11/28/2006 2:12:49 PM

oh, and need to have 16 teams - 4 wildcards after 1-12 get their spots via conference championships

11/28/2006 2:13:30 PM

here is the biggest kicker

Quote :

"Once I put it down on paper, I was blown away at just how incredible this would be. Imagine two and a half weeks with seven of the most exciting games of the year, in which every game is huge for everybody. It makes the BCS system we have today – and the money it generates – look like a joke."

...the matchups this would create would be unbelievably exciting, and the dollars will follow.

i know there may be academic reasons, but i want from the powers that be, a net present value explanation for why we don't have playoffs already

11/28/2006 2:21:05 PM

you cannot possibly have a playoff only consisting of conference winners. it's even a waste of time to include every conference. they should just do a simple 6 or 8 team playoff w/ the people playing decided by a bcs-like system. maybe even just polls, i don't know.

11/28/2006 2:23:13 PM

BCS Playoff system... MAJOR CONFERENCE winners and a couple at large teams... no sun belt or mac-like teams, unless they are at large bids

top 8

1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

and play the games at the stadiums of the rose bowl, sugar bowl, fiesta bowl, orange bowl so they can have their money

11/28/2006 2:32:34 PM

how bout 12 teams: 6 major conf champs, 3 required from the mid majors, and 3 at large

need to have the little guys in there - it will bring theire level of play up, and will provide some more excitement like we see in March - - imagine a Fresno St or a Western Michigan on a stellar year knocking off a favored yet overrated Notre Dame - - big time excitement baby!

11/28/2006 2:37:04 PM

^ it's not a 65 team bracket, don't force midmajors in and force majors out just for the sake of diversity.

11/28/2006 2:40:08 PM

how about 1 or 2 mid majors plz?

11/28/2006 2:41:07 PM

if they're good. but not just b/c they're the best of the midmajors.

11/28/2006 2:44:26 PM

Quote :

"I like the BCS because it makes every regular season game important"

Just do a plus one.

11/28/2006 2:45:21 PM

yeah the teams would obviously have to be good - i think the best one or two of the mid majors could come in and knock off one of the big boys enough times to make it exciting...imagine seeing the next Tomlinson (TCU) run the ball down a Big 10 or SEC defensive line's throats

11/28/2006 2:53:14 PM

a playoff system would generate a shit-ton of additional revenue for media conglomerates, but it would actually take money away from the majority of the universitites. unless there were contracts set up to distribute a large chunk of money from those games to all of the respective universities in division I ball, then it's not going to be beneficial. the only people complaining about a lack of a playoff are the perennial powerhouses, and they realize the monetary implications of a playoff system.

11/28/2006 2:55:32 PM

^I LIKE YOUR IDEA OF 12 TEAMS!!

11/28/2006 2:57:55 PM

12 teams is to many, especially since there are now 12 regular season games. Screw the mid-majors, and it is not going to help their cause after boise gets waxed.

I'd like 4 teams, or 8 teams.

4 teams would be easy. 2 of the current bowls would seed the 1-4 according to the BCS, the other 2 bcs games would just be like they are now. Then the following week the winners of the 1-4 seeded games play. This is essentially similar to the plus one but with 1-4 seeding. This keeps everything as it is, and really shouldn't affect money in anyway. This also keeps the regular season important, because getting in the top 4 is not easy and probably not going to happen if you have more then 1 loss. This year would would get 1OSU vs. 4Florida, 2USC vs. 3 Mich. Winner plays on the 8th.

8 teams would be neat, especially if they played the games in Dec. 5 weeks off is to much, thats just rediculous. And I don't get the money arguement. Seems to me 7 great games would be better then 5.

11/28/2006 3:11:40 PM

^6 teams

if you can't make it into the top 6 in the BCS then you can't make a legit argument that you should have a shot at the national title

let the three vs. six play and four vs. five and then 3/6 winner plays 1 and the 4/5 winner plays 2 and then the winner of those games plays for it all; only three more games for the winner (unless the 1 and the 2, then 2 more wins) which is not that bad w/ a max of 15 total games

11/28/2006 3:15:18 PM

if you arent in favor of a playoff you are a pussy, a communist, and probably a whining little michigan bitch

11/28/2006 3:15:31 PM

11/28/2006 3:17:45 PM

^^OSU bitch, imagine if they had to put up with it this year. "BUT WE'VE ALREADY BEAT MICHIGAN AND MIGHT HAVE TO PLAY THEM AGAIN, OOHHH NOOO!!"

11/28/2006 3:25:07 PM

no, I actually dont like either one of them, and before all this whining by michigan I actually would have liked them a bit more than Ohio State, but now... no

11/28/2006 3:46:21 PM

by michigan fans^, dont you know anything?

11/28/2006 3:47:58 PM

no, carr was bitching about it too

11/28/2006 3:50:25 PM

GOOD OLE LLOYD!!! man he stepped up his coaching this year

11/28/2006 3:51:11 PM

consensus says Michigan is out....

11/28/2006 3:52:28 PM

6 teams is fine, i don't care, no more then 8 though.

And, I would have no problem with Michigan and OSU playing again if there was a playoff game buffer inbetween. The stupidest thing would be to have Michigan and OSU play, and then play again 5 friggin weeks later. Picture that happening in any other sport and it seems rediculous.

The Colts and the Bears end the season with the best records in the AFC and NFC. Then, nothing happens for 5 weeks and they play in the Super Bowl.

Yankees beat out the Redsox and have best record in American League, some National league team has best record, they play a series 5 weeks later.

College BBall would be even worse.. imagine if 1 and 2 in the polls at the end of season just sat around for 5 weeks then played 1 championship game.

The BCS and bowl system is ancient, there is nothing else similar to it in any sport and that doesn't make it unique, it makes it dated and idiotic.

11/28/2006 4:03:00 PM

Sticking to the topic, I'd have to say that I am a fan of an 8-team playoff. The 9 and 10 teams will just have to bitch and moan about being left out.

On a related note, here are some interesting projections:

doh! can a premie please imbed
<a href="http://gregdooley.com/archive%202003/1025BowlProjections.html"> Consolidated BCS Bowl Projections"</a>

http://gregdooley.com/archive%202003/1025BowlProjections.html

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ahh]

11/28/2006 4:51:01 PM

Someone (radio, blog, I dont recall) used Bowdens article as an example of why a playoff wouldnt work...what they didnt address was how poorly implemented his idea was, ignoring the fact that it COULD actually be done.

I think the Division I-AA model would work...even with 16 teams. First of all, though, the regular season, including conference championships, has to end by the last weekend of November. What would help this is reducing the regular season games back to 11, which is why this will probably never progress past this point...youve given all of these schools the extra revenue of another home game (or getting paid to go somewhere else), and taking that away isnt going to be easy to sell.

But anyhow, 16 teams -- 11 conference champs plus 5 at-large bids, higher seeds host and matchups are regionally based. BCS conference champs automatically host in the first round. Possibly add a stipulation that you must have at least an 8-4 record to earn the automatic bid (since the Sun Belt usually sucks, but for the purposes of this Ill ignore MTSUs record). So heres my proposed schedule for this years playoffs (with a guess at some conference champs):

December 3
Ohio (MAC Champ) at #1 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ)
Boise State (WAC Champ) at #2 USC (PAC-10 Champ)
Wisconsin (At-Large) at #3 Michigan (At-Large)
BYU (MWC Champ) at #4 Florida (SEC Champ)
Houston (C-USA Champ) at Oklahoma (Big XII Champ)
Middle Tennessee State (Sun Belt Champ) at Louisville (Big East Champ)
Notre Dame (At-Large) at Wake Forest (ACC Champ)
Arkansas (At-Large) at LSU (At-Large)

Then possibly for the second round on December 10
LSU at #1 Ohio State
Wake Forest at #2 USC
Louisville at #3 Michigan
Oklahoma at #4 Florida

Now, bowl games: The bowl system stays in place, all of the qualifying teams not in the playoffs will get their bowl game opportunity as well, BUT also the teams losing in the first two rounds will get bowl bids as well (theres money to be made here, plus a team like Boise State shouldnt have to chose between a bowl game or a shot at USC). So in this scenario, a team like Oklahoma gets their shot at the title, but also still gets their BCS bowl.

Semifinals on December 17
#4 Florida at #1 Ohio State
Louisville at #2 USC

Semifinal losers could be done after this game, or one bowl could be saved for these two teams to meet. If the current "national championship played at the same site as one of the four BCS bowls" model is used, this could be that bowl game regardless of affiliation, allowing fans to at least know where they are going by the 10th. One might argue this reduces the BCS games to "consolation games", but how is that different than what we have now?

There is room for improvement, but I think this model would work. I think someone could easily argue that there only be 8 teams and no automatic bids for mid-majors, which is fair, since the chance of an upset is almost non-existent)...but the underdog factor will generate interest, which will generate ratings...I think a lot of people would tune in for a Boise State-USC game.

11/29/2006 9:12:27 AM

I would be happy if they would just keep the BCS system from last year in place & then just added a BCS championship game, which took the top 2 teams AFTER playing their bowl gamls (like when they're playing the title game now). It doesn't really do anything to the BCS & still sets the stage for a playoff-type system. When is there ever more than 2 teams with legit title hopes after playing one BCS bowl game?

By last years system, I don't mean 1v2 though. I mean just keep the 4 BCS bowl & let them take their traditional teams, like the Rose bowl still would probably get P10/B10, Orange gets ACC/BEast, Fiesta get B12, Sugar gets SEC. Although, there would need to be a measure in place that ensures 2 of the top 3 teams play each other, where the lower seeded team goes to the others bowl games.

The way it would work this year would be to have OSU & USC in the Rose & then Michigan & Florida in the Sugar. This way it keeps the numbers of games at a minimum.

11/29/2006 10:40:25 AM