IF you were to replace the BCS with a playoff system how would you structure it?

5/28/2008 8:57:16 PM

I think this thread has been made before several times,

but whatever:

Everything stays as it is now, even keeping the bcs formula, except that the top 4 teams are seeded 1-4, and there is a 4 team playoff. Would be easy, still keeps all the other bowls(just pick 3 bcs bowls that rotate getting the 2 semi games and 1 gets the championship).

In my opinion a playoff really only needs to be big enough that your sample size gets all the teams that could deserve to be champion. Rarely have I ever thought to myself the team that is 5th in the BCS should be in the championship. However, there are times where teams 1-4 all deserve a shot. So 4 teams, done.

5/28/2008 9:01:04 PM

I think if you have a playoff, it has to go 8 teams deep. The way the current BCS formula is set up, there is no chance in hell a team not from the big 6 would get to play in the title game or even make the top 4. I think you could take a very good mid-major team and put them in one of the top 8 slots if need be.

For christ sakes, all the other football divisions have a playoff. Why can't the only division that matters have one too? Everyone gets more football. Everyone gets more money. It's win freakin' win. Why can't the BCS presidents see this? Well, I know why the OSU prez doesn't want it...

5/28/2008 9:04:58 PM

It really doesn't make any sense why I-AA can have a playoff and I-AA can't. Hell they can even keep some of the bowl sites as regional sites, that way it's similar to the NCAA Tournament in basketball where no one is playing at their home site.

5/28/2008 9:18:01 PM

8 team playoff with seeds set up by the current way BCS teams are ranked

the 9 and 10 teams left out can bitch and complain, but it will still make things less controversial among the top teams

5/28/2008 9:24:24 PM

5/28/2008 9:39:24 PM

^Ha ha.

5/28/2008 9:41:04 PM

^^to be honest, i'd actually prefer some type of 'Running Man' contest where the teams have traps and weapons based on their mascot.

5/28/2008 9:53:21 PM

Final 4

1 vs 4 (Orange Bowl)
2 vs 3 (Fiesta Bowl)

Loser of Game 1 vs. Loser of Game 2 (Sugar Bowl)
Winner of Game 1 vs. Winner of Game 2 (Rose Bowl)

5/28/2008 10:03:23 PM

I'd say the Pac-10 and Big 10 can't play for the National championship, they can play their rose bowl independent of the BCS, and the other top 8 can play for the national championship

5/28/2008 10:05:22 PM

^^i had said that before too

perfect, because it also maintains that bowl tradition

5/29/2008 12:33:33 PM

Get rid of the conferences altogether, divide them into four regions: East, South, Midwest, and West. Every Division I-A football team will be in one of these four regions with each region having roughly the same number of teams. Divide these regions into three tiers, with Tier I being the highest, Tier II being the middle, and Tier III being the lower. The winner of Tier I in each region will go into a 4-team playoff to determine the winner of the national championship. The winner of Tier II will switch places with the worst team in Tier I for the next year, and can then compete in Tier I. Same thing with worst team in Tier II/winner of Tier III. Based on the current makeup of Division I-A football, roughly each tier would have 10 teams.

Yes, only teams in Tier I have a chance at the national championship, but that's how it is now anyway. And plus we can get rid of this stupid notion of fans and coaches politicking for their schools and conferences.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : /]

5/29/2008 12:49:48 PM

too complicated, if you are just going to replace some bcs bowl games it should be a simple playoff. you are thinking too hard

5/29/2008 12:51:27 PM

^ My way has no controversy. Be the best team in your region and you're in a 4-way playoff. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if you're in the SEC or the Mountain West or if you're Southern Cal or Louisiana Tech, just win your region and you have a fair 25% shot at the national title.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : /]

5/29/2008 12:53:07 PM

Conference champs of all 6 BCS conferences + 2 at large bids.

8 team playoff. No computers. No mess.

5/29/2008 12:53:16 PM

i think we can all agree that the real solution is assign each team to a general area rather than a university, pay the players and change the name to the NFL.

5/29/2008 12:54:09 PM

Quote :

"Conference champs of all 6 BCS conferences + 2 at large bids. 8 team playoff. No computers. No mess."

Who decides the at-large bids?

5/29/2008 12:55:12 PM

Quote :

"Get rid of the conferences altogether"

I stopped taking you seriously after that.

5/29/2008 1:00:35 PM

^finally someone chimed in with me on that

5/29/2008 1:04:24 PM

If a non-BCS school is going to win a championship, they need to play quality non-conference games to justify playing the UL-Lafayettes of the world for their conference schedules.

B/c, FlyinRyan, conferences will never go away. Too much tradition.

5/29/2008 1:07:09 PM

I don't like Flyin' Ryan's idea b/c what happens when you have a team that isn't usually that good, but then jump up and are very good b/c they have the perfect storm of talent and experience (i.e. Kansas and Missouri last year) and end up being one of the best teams in the nation. Why should they stay out of the national championship picture just b/c they are in the second tier? Also there is just too much tradition in the conferences.

Why is everyone saying an 8 team playoff? Division I-AA has a 16 team playoff that works pretty well. I think it'd be good to have a 16 team playoff b/c imagine a scenario similar to 2005 where an FSU team with only 7 wins ended up beating a Virginia Tech team that only lost one game up to that point. This scenario is similar to the NCAA Tournament before expansion where some of the best teams in the nation were left out of the tournament only b/c they didn't win their conference tournament, and there have been a number of teams since expansion that have gone on to win the national championship in basketball.

5/29/2008 1:49:08 PM

Quote :

"Who decides the at-large bids?"

A selection committee. Same type as the one who decides at large NCAA tourney bids

5/29/2008 1:58:56 PM

The biggest reason why not:
People arguing and talking about this shit in May is the greatest free publicity ever. Are you ever going to stop watching college football because you don't like the BCS? Fuck no. But all of you and all of sports media talks about this for months every year.

5/29/2008 2:03:55 PM

im pretty sure you would get just as much talk about the playoffs and actually have an extra big game to talk about if you did a 4 team system. I think 16 is too much if you want to keep some ties to the bowl system now, 8 would be the max. Sure you could have a cinderalla fluke team below 8, but I think in general there arent many years that you hear ANYONE debating that a team who is ranked 9th (let alone 16th) in the rankings should be in that BCS title game, whereas within the top 4 easily, and even within the top 5-6 there are teams that are arguably deserving depending on how their schedule was (ie a team losing their last game and having 1 loss dropping to 4th compared to a team losing their first game and finishing 2nd).

5/29/2008 3:00:13 PM

^ we are on the same page.

5/29/2008 5:22:37 PM

5/29/2008 5:40:15 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

5/29/2008 6:56:47 PM

you son of a bitch!

5/29/2008 6:59:59 PM

Quote :

"Also there is just too much tradition in the conferences."

Yeah, and all that tradition has been watered down to b*tching about which one is better so the likes of Ole Miss and Duke and Northwestern can b*tch over which one of them can get a share of a $13 million check.

Just face it, with the current conference structure, there will never be a playoff. The only way there will ever be a playoff is to just destroy the conferences because you have to get rid of the current power structure that exists in college football.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM. Reason : /]

5/29/2008 7:38:34 PM

Quote :

"A selection committee. Same type as the one who decides at large NCAA tourney bids"

Fine, but that then means this following statement you said is untrue.

Quote :

"No computers. No mess."

5/29/2008 7:40:39 PM

I wouldn't have a problem so much with the current system if they would wait like 3 weeks into the season before putting out the first polls. It is STUPID to rank a team before they have played and have it count for something. Sure, have your pre-season polls for fun, but it shouldn't count. Michigan for example shouldn't have been #5 last year--there were several teams overrated and it does play a roll in deciding who goes where. If the polls are going to play a roll, they need to be more legit.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2008 10:01:49 PM

The whole thing about waiting for polls doesn't make any sense to me though, because ESPN, and other college magazines will always do their preseason rankings so no matter what it is going to be influenced even if you wait 3 weeks. Plus, 3 weeks in most of the top teams are still undefeated.

There was only 1 year that the preseason poll really made a huge deal and that was when Auburn got screwed. There are a ton of flaws, but just moving the polls back 3 weeks doesn't seem to fix them really.

5/30/2008 12:19:38 AM

Quote :

"Plus, 3 weeks in most of the top teams are still undefeated."

not michigan.

5/30/2008 6:51:20 AM

Quote :

"The whole thing about waiting for polls doesn't make any sense to me though, because ESPN, and other college magazines will always do their preseason rankings so no matter what it is going to be influenced even if you wait 3 weeks. Plus, 3 weeks in most of the top teams are still undefeated."

3 weeks in you've seen the teams play 3 times. You can make accurate assessments a lot easier than before they step on the field. It does make a big difference. It's hard to get ranked when you start outside--you have to rely on those above you to lose. Everyone should play their way in. As I said, pre-season polls are fine, but they should not be used and count as actual rankings until they have actually played a game. They should just be for fun and entertainment, which is all espn is.

[Edited on May 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2008 12:54:22 PM

All I am saying is those other poles are still going to influence the coaches that vote and the sportswriters. So going 3 weeks in, it isn't like people will go with a nice fresh clean slate, they are still seeing those other polls people are doing.

Last year Kansas and Mizzou both managed to climb the polls, they weren't up there to start. Again the only year that it really mattered was the year w/ Auburn. A 4 team playoff has Auburn in the mix so again, the polls do shake out by the end of the year.Michigan started high but dropped quickly once they lost then made their way back up. To say that just delaying a poll 3 weeks solves a problem is just wrong. I'd say that the people voting in these polls are more the problem. Coaches just have their assistants fill them out, they don't give a shit.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is stupid the way teams are moved around in the polls and that teams are ranked so early, I just don't think that delaying the poll 3 weeks solves much and by the end they generally shake out correctly.

5/30/2008 1:03:10 PM

Reduce the schedule back to 11 games.
Align all the schedules so the Big 10 can't get a month break, just to lose a championship (sorry, Dammit100)
16 team playoff
Rose Bowl, the BCS, and ABC stop sucking each other off, or go to I-AA
...
Profit

5/31/2008 4:16:38 PM