BCS Playoff

[gangstaback]

I was looking at something on ESPN and many people gave different "solutions" to the Playoff business in the BCS. Now, I'm not claming to have the ultimate solution... BUT this took me about 3 minutes to think of (so its got its problems) and I think it makes a bit more sense than the current BCS. I was wondering what you guys could come up with in a few minutes... maybe we could figure out a good way to give legitimacy to the national champion...

here is my solution to the problem: ..... you keep the 32 bowl games. however, you take the winners of each conference (12 in total, granted that 1 of them will always be Notre Gay) and you pair them up in a playoff. Each of those 6 games (being there 12 conference winners) is a major bowl game (sugar, orange, cotton, rose, fiesta, and one in the north). The winners of these 6 bowl games (3 teams) and the previous years national champion (1 team) play in a "final four" situation (bracket). the addition of the previous national champion makes it even more legitimate and all the "what ifs" are gone because we would actually know what would happen if the previous years champion was matched up with the best teams of the year. this final four takes place in different universities each year rotating through, possibly, most universities or those with large enough stadiums (lets say 50,000 plus). The rest of the bowls (26 remaining) are played at-large. this would only add 2 more weeks.

What do YOU think?

(And yes, I know there is a huge problem if the previous national champion wins its conference again... sorry about that.)

[PIGINAPOKE]

Why worry about it?  When Dale is gone,I will put more than one - eye to it. 9 yrs have passed without a BCS bid in sight. Why start to look for a Snipe now?

[Ouachihog]

Good topic.  I am in favor of a playoff happening, so I enjoy reading different views on the topic.  Also, I'm certainly not sure what the perfect format is.  Here are a few obstacles to your suggested format IMO.

First, I don't believe the conference champions should be the feeder system in to the playoff.  If this were the case, you would have teams from the SunBelt, Mountain West, Mid-American, WAC, and CUSA playing for the title every year.  That is hardly a way to sell tickets or have high TV ratings.  Quite simply, you would not have the 12 best teams playing for the title, IMO. 

Another problem I have with it, is you are giving ND a free pass every year.  All they would have to do is finish with a better record than Army, Navy, and Temple....not a very difficult task.  ND could conceivably finish with 4 or 5 losses and be in the playoff. 

Also, I disagree with having the previous national champ be given an automatic bid to the playoff.  They have a 12 game regular season to prove they belong.  For example, if that format had been in place last season, Texass would have been placed in the final four coming off 2 straight losses (and 3 overall).  This would also dramatically reduce the importance of the regular season for the defending national champ.  Every team should have to earn their way to the playoff. 

Like I said, not sure what the best system would be, but I would base it around the top 8 rated teams in the BCS ratings.  Hope it happens soon.  +1 for the thread. 

[LJHOG]

A playoff is a bad idea in any form.  It would render most regular season games meaningless, be an incentive to NOT schedule tough intersectional games, and introduce even more money into the game when there's already too much.

[usnavyhogfan]

i am all for a playoff system. and agree take the top 8 teams put them in a playoff. the teams #9 on down would get the rest of the bowl games.

[Ouachihog]

A playoff is a bad idea in any form.  It would render most regular season games meaningless, be an incentive to NOT schedule tough intersectional games, and introduce even more money into the game when there's already too much.

How would it render regular season game meaningless if you took the top 8 teams?  If you lose 2 or more reg season games, you would have no chance at making the playoff. 

The only reason there is "too much" money is b/c college football's product is so good that people are buying tickets and watching on television. 

A playoff done correctly would allow deserving teams to settle it on the field every year. 

[PIGINAPOKE]

A playoff is a bad idea in any form.  It would render most regular season games meaningless, be an incentive to NOT schedule tough intersectional games, and introduce even more money into the game when there's already too much.

How would it render regular season game meaningless if you took the top 8 teams?  If you lose 2 or more reg season games, you would have no chance at making the playoff. 

The only reason there is "too much" money is b/c college football's product is so good that people are buying tickets and watching on television. 

A playoff done correctly would allow deserving teams to settle it on the field every year. 

I agree. But with this coach, This subject is like useless to even talk about. Why waste time on it?

[HogsRunWild]

Well, I think it's better if you choose the best 12 teams not just the champions.

[Ouachihog]

A playoff is a bad idea in any form.  It would render most regular season games meaningless, be an incentive to NOT schedule tough intersectional games, and introduce even more money into the game when there's already too much.

How would it render regular season game meaningless if you took the top 8 teams?  If you lose 2 or more reg season games, you would have no chance at making the playoff. 

The only reason there is "too much" money is b/c college football's product is so good that people are buying tickets and watching on television. 

A playoff done correctly would allow deserving teams to settle it on the field every year. 

I agree. But with this coach, This subject is like useless to even talk about. Why waste time on it?

I didn't know we were talking about the Razorbacks or their coach.  I thought we were talking about a playoff. 

[gangstaback]

well, the only reason i left notre dame in my scheme was because it has been so hard to deal with them that i think that if they go in there lets say 5 years in a row... make fools of themselves each time... then people would REALIZE they suck and thus, there wouldnt be a whole fight about it.

i agree that the 12 conference champs arent the best, but there is this whole idea of leveling the playing field all around and this would be the best way to measure if the playing field is level or not. also, it would give some "upset" chances - much smaller than in basketball, but still there. And about the ticket revenues... well i think that smaller conferences would be even more psyched about making it to a big bowl game and would try to fill it up everytime too.

an 8 team playoff sounds really good... but how would you choose the 8? if its by poll, then we're back to zero. and if its by major conferences (6) + Notre Dame + 1 more, there would still be problems... how would you choose them?

about the coach... i think if we dont start thinking that we can get there, we never will. i hope everyone can agree to that.

[Ouachihog]

well, the only reason i left notre dame in my scheme was because it has been so hard to deal with them that i think that if they go in there lets say 5 years in a row... make fools of themselves each time... then people would REALIZE they suck and thus, there wouldnt be a whole fight about it.

i agree that the 12 conference champs arent the best, but there is this whole idea of leveling the playing field all around and this would be the best way to measure if the playing field is level or not. also, it would give some "upset" chances - much smaller than in basketball, but still there. And about the ticket revenues... well i think that smaller conferences would be even more psyched about making it to a big bowl game and would try to fill it up everytime too.

an 8 team playoff sounds really good... but how would you choose the 8? if its by poll, then we're back to zero. and if its by major conferences (6) + Notre Dame + 1 more, there would still be problems... how would you choose them?

about the coach... i think if we dont start thinking that we can get there, we never will. i hope everyone can agree to that.

In my opinion, you would choose the 8 teams by BCS rankings.  I like the way the BCS rankings are measured, just not the format of the games.  Take the top 8 BCS teams and have a playoff set up for them. 

It would not be the same as it is now, b/c the best teams in the country could decide the championship on the field. 

[gangstaback]

yeah, it covers the legitimacy thing quite well.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I was looking at something on ESPN and many people gave different "solutions" to the Playoff business in the BCS. Now, I'm not claming to have the ultimate solution... BUT this took me about 3 minutes to think of (so its got its problems) and I think it makes a bit more sense than the current BCS. I was wondering what you guys could come up with in a few minutes... maybe we could figure out a good way to give legitimacy to the national champion...

here is my solution to the problem: ..... you keep the 32 bowl games. however, you take the winners of each conference (12 in total, granted that 1 of them will always be Notre Gay) and you pair them up in a playoff. Each of those 6 games (being there 12 conference winners) is a major bowl game (sugar, orange, cotton, rose, fiesta, and one in the north). The winners of these 6 bowl games (3 teams) and the previous years national champion (1 team) play in a "final four" situation (bracket). the addition of the previous national champion makes it even more legitimate and all the "what ifs" are gone because we would actually know what would happen if the previous years champion was matched up with the best teams of the year. this final four takes place in different universities each year rotating through, possibly, most universities or those with large enough stadiums (lets say 50,000 plus). The rest of the bowls (26 remaining) are played at-large. this would only add 2 more weeks.

What do YOU think?

(And yes, I know there is a huge problem if the previous national champion wins its conference again... sorry about that.)

Well, the idea to automatically include Notre Dame and the last season's National Champion is ridiculous for a number of reasons.  But excluding those knee-jerk inclusions, your idea is similar to something I came up with 25 years ago.  Since then, I've seen the general concept (include the minor bowls in the first round, moving to the more prestigious bowls for the survivors, etc.) thrown out in several articles over the years.  I don't know your age, but it may well be that you just weren't paying attention (too young at the time) to notice the prior versions.

Having said that, I'm now firmly AGAINST that model because I have had time to think about it and now understand some of the pitfalls that it has.  Actually, THE answer is much, much simpler than most think - more about that in a minute.

First, the reasons I'm against the system you propose - of ANY system that involves having two teams play 3 or 4 games to get to a championship game.

I believe that people lose sight - especially in the video game world today, where people play entire seasons in a day or two - of the fact that football is a collisions sport and that it takes a LOT of wear and tear on the athletes who play the sport.  Over the past 30 years (or so), the sport (college football) has already absorbed an increase from 10 games per season to 11 and now 12.  And that doesn't even count the Championship games that most of the BCS conferences now have.  If you have a system that now will add 3 to 5 games on top of that - well, that's just too many.  And that's just from the physical toll standpoint.  And if we're going to get a REAL championship game, I don't want to have one where most of the time some of the KEY players will be hurt and unable to participate.

One area I NEVER hear anyone talk about is the fan logistics and support of the games.  People don't really think about this – I suppose, they assume that since the model of not knowing who you're matched up with until the week of the game (and, WHERE the game will be played) works for the NCAA Basketball tournament, so why should it not for football?  Well, consider that for the typical basketball regional (first round), you have a venue that seats about 20K.  The site is know a couple of years in advance, and there is a great deal of effort by the hosting University (EVERY site is hosted by a local University – if it's in Dallas, then SMU "hosts" the regional, etc.) to sell packages that are available to folks in Dallas, or whoever wants to buy them.  Then, there are corporate sponsors, who get some "prime" seats (if you're paying $2 million to co-sponsor the tourney, you get some "perks"), and then the participating teams split up the rest.  For the first round, there are 8 teams – so that ends up being about 1,500 to 2,000 tickets per school.  Those are easily sold out by the fans of the participants, because you can find 2,000 fans with the resources to pay what it takes to travel and pay premium prices (if you don't think you will pay a lot for plane fare and lodging at one of these, you've never gone to one).  And, if you have a weak sister from across the country who cannot sell their full allotment of tickets, there is always a North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc. to buy up any extras.  For the second weekend, you are down to four teams per Regional (total of 16 teams), but those usually include at least 2 top teams, sometimes 3 – plus a "Cinderella".   Again, most Universities have enough "well heeled" boosters that can afford to go on a moment's notice to sell 3K – 4K tickets.  Even at the Final Four, each school gets no more than 5-6K tickets (for the larger venues, such as the SuperDome) because many of the tickets are sold by lottery the prior spring.

Now, consider how different things would be for football.  You would NOT have 8 teams to split tickets at the "first round"; you would just have 2.  Most of the Venues hold anywhere from 60 to 80K fans.  After allowing for some locals who just get tickets year after year no matter who plays, and corporate sponsors, that means each school would have to sell 20-25K tickets each.  That's a TREMENDOUS difference in comparison to "March Madness", where you only have to sell about 1/10th that amount.  Having said that, most of the "football schools" who would be likely to compete for a National Championship COULD and would support that – for one game.  But how many can continue to do it for 3 or 4 straight weeks?   I mean, who among us could and would pay for not only tickets, but airfare and hotel (plus "incidentals" that always accompany such a trip) to Orlando one week, Phoenix the next, and then Pasadena (just an example)  So, that means that the National Championship game would be attended by a relative handful of "true fans" of the participants, and 80% of the stadium would be there "for the event" – kind of like a mini-Super Bowl.  The "event" would be enough to generate demand among "non-fans' because it is such a major "place to be". 

Sorry – but College Football games, and MOST ESPECIALLY the National Championship game, should be played in front of the schools' fans.  And any process that removes them (by virtue of travel logistics and cost) is to be avoided (you will notice that even NFL teams do not have playoff games at "neutral" sites; they are at one team's home stadium, where sellouts are easy to come by - UNTIL the Super Bowl).

And then, you come to the simple solution.  Do what they are doing now (with a twist).  I don't care EXACTLY how the teams are chosen (there are a million ideas, most of which have one flaw or another), but use some combination of the various subjective (i.e., AP and USA Today) polls and computer rankings to come up with the top FOUR teams (as the BCS rankings do now).  Then, pit them #1 vs. #4 in one bowl (in a rotation), #2 vs. #3 in another, and have those games occur on or around New Year's Day (as they do it now, rotating the 3 "big" games among the 5 or 6 (add the new Cotton Bowl at Jerry World, perhaps another nice, new facility), along with the other Bowl games.  Then, have the winners of those 2 games play TWO weeks later (to allow for physical rest, logistics planning by the teams AND their fans, and play the Championship game in mid-January (usually, by the way, just BEFORE the time colleges resume classes after the Holiday break).

For those that squabble about four teams "not being enough", remember that this is College Football, and there is some tradition to uphold.  Through the years (and I've been following college football passionately for a little over 40 years now), there have been a handful of occasions when the end of a season arrived with more than 3 legitimate front-runners for the National Championship.  Normally, it's the undefeated, untied teams (from what we now call "BCS conferences") and a very few independents (Notre Dame, FSU and Miami back when they were not affiliated with conferences) – if there ARE any undefeated teams – and maybe one or two 1 loss teams.  Often, 2 or 3 of the top 6 or 7 have already played, and the winner of that game has essentially already "advanced" past the team they defeated.  In essence, the entire season has served as a "playoff" that has yielded 2, 3 or (rarely) 4 teams with significant support as the Champion.  Some say, well, what about so-and-so . . . they are "playing the best ball in the country right now".  To which I say "so what?"  If they've lost 2 games, and a couple of BCS teams are undefeated – it's a tough situation for them, but they had their chance and lost.  Good teams lose every year, often to teams less talented than themselves.  But Championships are awarded to teams that find a way to win when it matters, whether they are the more talented or not.  How many times have we seen an NFL team that "everyone" thinks is more talented lose on the field to some other team during the regular season, which ends up costing them home field advantage, which - in turn - leads to them losing a game that they might have won had they hosted instead of being the traveling team?  That happened because they LOST to a team that most thought they should beat - and there were consequences.

In college football, the consequences of losing to someone you "should" beat in the regular season is that they keep their hopes alive for the National Championship, while yours are dealt a fatal blow (95% of the time).  Many would say that Texas, in 1964, was the more talented team than Arkansas.  Had they played 20 times, perhaps UT would have prevailed in 13 or 15 of those games.  But, on the day the DID play, the Hogs outlasted defending National Champion Texas 14 to 13.  As a result, Arkansas (not Texas) went to the Cotton Bowl, and when Texas beat undefeated Alabama in the Orange Bowl, Arkansas (NOT Texas) was voted National Champions in the post-season votes that were taken.

Consider also, for example, LSU this past year.  I think that there is little doubt that at the end of the year, most would have agreed that the Tigers were playing better than anyone, including Florida.  However, the DID lose to Florida earlier in a great ballgame.  The fact that LSU might have beaten Florida had they played in December or January does not change the fact that when they DID play, Florida prevailed.  That is why the Gators were in the Championship game, not LSU.

So – I say just do the "plus one", but with the added twist of seeding the top four (not just the top 2) prior to the New Years Day bowls, and then taking the winners of the 2 games pitting those four against each other, 2 weeks later.  That's as good as it's going to get, it's relatively easy to do, and I would fully support that.

[gangstaback]

well... having read your reply (and it was quite long!!), i think you're right about the physical side of the whole thing and also about the fans pockets. its a huge expense to have to travel to one location already.

my idea, though now i realize it didnt come off clearly, was that the final four be played in one place (2 games... .lets say over 2 weeks) which would cut back on all those expenses. and it would be only 3 more games for a total of 4 games after the season. rather than 14 for a national champion, it would make for 16. however, it is true that the players would be tired or injured and you're absolutely right that everyone (including myself) forgets that they have to rest to play really well.

now, your idea about a 4 team playoff is very simple and to the point. however, it doesnt answer the question of legitimacy because this year, we could say that after the bowl games it was USC, LSU, and Florida that really "demanded" recognition. and boise state for the guys who love cinderella stories (aka: ESPN!!). it would be hard to pick from USC, LSU, and Florida because the only real match-up would be Florida and LSU. USC and the other teams could only be gauged, ironically, by their performance against Arkansas.

so just the legitimacy question would be left there... but its obviously pretty restricted because of what you said - not wearing out the players.

[macgyver hawg]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

[hogsanity]

A playoff faces 2 huge problems. 

1.  Anything more than 8 becomes cumbersome, and would keep most fans from following their team. 

2.  With only 8, and having to make an allowance for Notre Lame, picking th other 7 will result, almost certainly, in the smaller conferences suing for anit-trust violations. 

[gangstaback]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

well, that is if you take 8 at large. what i said originally (top of the page) was that you could take the 12 conference champs. That seems pretty legit. Again, except for Notre Dame cuz the Independents are not even close to being a conference.

AND ... yeah, adding 12 would also make the small conferences happy and might show them that they have to pick up the slack if they want to play for a championship. Just picture Boise State against any other BCS bowl winner... i know you're all grinning. i am too.

[hogsanity]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

well, that is if you take 8 at large. what i said originally (top of the page) was that you could take the 12 conference champs. That seems pretty legit. Again, except for Notre Dame cuz the Independents are not even close to being a conference.

AND ... yeah, adding 12 would also make the small conferences happy and might show them that they have to pick up the slack if they want to play for a championship. Just picture Boise State against any other BCS bowl winner... i know you're all grinning. i am too.

So the champ of the Big West is more deserving than the runner up in the SEC? 

[gangstaback]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

well, that is if you take 8 at large. what i said originally (top of the page) was that you could take the 12 conference champs. That seems pretty legit. Again, except for Notre Dame cuz the Independents are not even close to being a conference.

AND ... yeah, adding 12 would also make the small conferences happy and might show them that they have to pick up the slack if they want to play for a championship. Just picture Boise State against any other BCS bowl winner... i know you're all grinning. i am too.

So the champ of the Big West is more deserving than the runner up in the SEC? 

No way!! but yeah, in this case. its just one of those "leveling the playing field" things. the SEC will never get as many teams as it deserves into bowl games... i guess i'm just trying to go for legitimacy - you're right, its no contest whether the first 6 teams in the SEC can beat some conference champions.

[Ouachihog]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

There will always be controversy no matter how many you pick.  Right now, only 2 are picked for the title game.  The #3 team, in some years, could conceivably beat one of the top 2 teams, but by picking 8 you would include everyone with a realistic shot to win the title, IMO. 

In men's basketball, there are always cases made for the bubble teams that are left out (Syracuse this year).  A BCS playoff format would have some of the same issues, but I think you drastically limit the critics if you pick the top 8 teams and let them settle it, instead of just the top 2. 

[macgyver hawg]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

well, that is if you take 8 at large. what i said originally (top of the page) was that you could take the 12 conference champs. That seems pretty legit. Again, except for Notre Dame cuz the Independents are not even close to being a conference.

AND ... yeah, adding 12 would also make the small conferences happy and might show them that they have to pick up the slack if they want to play for a championship. Just picture Boise State against any other BCS bowl winner... i know you're all grinning. i am too.

So the champ of the Big West is more deserving than the runner up in the SEC? 

I didn't even think of that.  No way is that fair.  There would be cream puff games that wouldn't matter.  No way is the #1 seed getting upset in football the opening round.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

There will always be controversy no matter how many you pick.  Right now, only 2 are picked for the title game.  The #3 team, in some years, could conceivably beat one of the top 2 teams, but by picking 8 you would include everyone with a realistic shot to win the title, IMO. 

But 8 is too many! 

Consider the recent SEC Baseball Tournament.  Many felt Arkansas got hosed because of the format.  The Razorbacks were 3-0 and faced a Vandy team that had lost their opener.  In a normal double elimination situation, Vandy should have had to beat us twice to win the tournament; because the SEC had "sold out" to have ONE championship game, Vandy beat us once and got to claim the title - even though we both had identical records.  We all knew those were the rules, but it just didn't feel right.

Now, in the typical college football season, at the end of the year, there will be maybe one or two undefeated, untied teams (rarely, three; sometimes, none).  There will be between 2 and 4 teams with one loss; and then, 4 to 10 teams with 2 losses.  I believe that the tradition of College Football dictates that in years where there is at least one undefeated, untied "BCS" team at the end of the year, no one with more than one loss has ANY argument to be in the Championship Game.   How would you feel if Arkansas went 12-0, then won the SECC Game and was 13-0 and ranked #1 in the country going into the Bowl Season.  In an 8 game playoff, they would be paired with the #8 seed, which most years would be a 2 loss team.  A team you would think the undefeated, top ranked team would be favored to beat and likely would beat 7 or 8 times if they played 10 games, but a team that could beat anybody (including the top ranked team) on a given day.  If we were upset by such a team, you may say that we had our chance to beat them, but my argument is that we earned the right by not losing any games (while they were losing two) to be in the elite Championship bracket that they did not earn the right to be included among.  Now, if another undefeated team or the most highly ranked one-loss team beats us, at least they earned the right to play in the Championship class by virtue of their own supurb season. 

Some say "it's about who is playing the best at the end of the year"; I say college football has always been about who won the big games they had to win when they played them and survived to be ranked at the top at Season's end.  LSU is a good example.  This past year, they were solid throughout but finished paricularly strong.  I would not argue with anyone who claimed that LSU was playing the best ball in the country at the end of the year.  But, I would have a BIG problem with anyone who named them "National Champions" because when they had a chance to beat Florida on the field, they lost to them.  Had they won that game, they would have been in the SEC Championship game against Tennessee (I believe) and a win there would have had them in the National Title Game.  But they didn't.  Just like we outplayed Texas in the Big Shotout but lost the game.  It's unfortunate, but the outcome of the games in the regular season HAVE to matter.

And then, there is the entire logistics issue that I outlined above.  Having what amounts to ONE extra game involving fans of TWO teams (probably, once every several years AT MOST for each set of fans) is manageable;  Having three or four weeks of games involving 8 or (God forbid) 16 teams is not.

[Pyotr Tchaikhogsky]

Here's my solution.....

Do away with the automatic BCS bids.  Send the top 8 teams to the 4 BCS bowls.  Seed them 1 through 8.  Here's a hypothetical....

Rose Bowl: 1 vs. 8
Sugar Bowl: 2 vs. 7
Orange Bowl: 3 vs. 6
Fiesta Bowl: 4 vs. 5

The next weekend.....

Sugar Bowl: Sugar winner vs. Orange winner
Rose Bowl:  Rose winner vs. Fiesta winner

The next weekend....

Orange Bowl:  Winners from previous weekend (Title Game)
Fiesta Bowl: Losers from previous weekend (3rd place game)


Each BCS site hosts two games.  Boom.  There's your playoff format!

[Ouachihog]

Look at all the controversy today over the 1 and 2 ranked teams and how a team is left out.  You would have 4 times that many because teams ranked 9th and 10th in the BCS would have more legitimate reasons why they should be 8th.  The BCS rankings are suspect.

Right now one or two teams get hosed.  A playoff system leaves out a lot more teams, not just out of a BCS game, but playing for a national championship.

There will always be controversy no matter how many you pick.  Right now, only 2 are picked for the title game.  The #3 team, in some years, could conceivably beat one of the top 2 teams, but by picking 8 you would include everyone with a realistic shot to win the title, IMO. 

But 8 is too many! 

Consider the recent SEC Baseball Tournament.  Many felt Arkansas got hosed because of the format.  The Razorbacks were 3-0 and faced a Vandy team that had lost their opener.  In a normal double elimination situation, Vandy should have had to beat us twice to win the tournament; because the SEC had "sold out" to have ONE championship game, Vandy beat us once and got to claim the title - even though we both had identical records.  We all knew those were the rules, but it just didn't feel right.

Now, in the typical college football season, at the end of the year, there will be maybe one or two undefeated, untied teams (rarely, three; sometimes, none).  There will be between 2 and 4 teams with one loss; and then, 4 to 10 teams with 2 losses.  I believe that the tradition of College Football dictates that in years where there is at least one undefeated, untied "BCS" team at the end of the year, no one with more than one loss has ANY argument to be in the Championship Game.   How would you feel if Arkansas went 12-0, then won the SECC Game and was 13-0 and ranked #1 in the country going into the Bowl Season.  In an 8 game playoff, they would be paired with the #8 seed, which most years would be a 2 loss team.  A team you would think the undefeated, top ranked team would be favored to beat and likely would beat 7 or 8 times if they played 10 games, but a team that could beat anybody (including the top ranked team) on a given day.  If we were upset by such a team, you may say that we had our chance to beat them, but my argument is that we earned the right by not losing any games (while they were losing two) to be in the elite Championship bracket that they did not earn the right to be included among.  Now, if another undefeated team or the most highly ranked one-loss team beats us, at least they earned the right to play in the Championship class by virtue of their own supurb season. 

Some say "it's about who is playing the best at the end of the year"; I say college football has always been about who won the big games they had to win when they played them and survived to be ranked at the top at Season's end.  LSU is a good example.  This past year, they were solid throughout but finished paricularly strong.  I would not argue with anyone who claimed that LSU was playing the best ball in the country at the end of the year.  But, I would have a BIG problem with anyone who named them "National Champions" because when they had a chance to beat Florida on the field, they lost to them.  Had they won that game, they would have been in the SEC Championship game against Tennessee (I believe) and a win there would have had them in the National Title Game.  But they didn't.  Just like we outplayed Texas in the Big Shotout but lost the game.  It's unfortunate, but the outcome of the games in the regular season HAVE to matter.

And then, there is the entire logistics issue that I outlined above.  Having what amounts to ONE extra game involving fans of TWO teams (probably, once every several years AT MOST for each set of fans) is manageable;  Having three or four weeks of games involving 8 or (God forbid) 16 teams is not.

Well, it is an individual's preference rather they prefer a playoff or a regular season determined championship.  In the ncaa basketball tourney, several #2 seeds have lost to 15 seeds and MANY 3 seeds have lost to 14 seeds.  Did they earn the right to have some sort of a bye, or should they have to win the playoff?  They have to win the playoff. 

Higher seeds lose all the time to lower seeds in ncaa tournament play, but it doesn't mean the format is faulty.  In the NCAA baseball tournament on-going now, 9 of the 16 #1 seeds (including Arkansas) didn't make it out of their own regional.  I don't blame the playoff for Ark losing, I blame the team for not winning the most important games of the year.  I would feel the same in football. 

What about the NFL?  Should we just take the top 2 teams by power rankings and do away with the playoffs?  No. 

College football needs a playoff, and it is the only way a true champion can be determined IMO. 

[gangstaback]

Here's my solution.....

Do away with the automatic BCS bids.  Send the top 8 teams to the 4 BCS bowls.  Seed them 1 through 8.  Here's a hypothetical....

Rose Bowl: 1 vs. 8
Sugar Bowl: 2 vs. 7
Orange Bowl: 3 vs. 6
Fiesta Bowl: 4 vs. 5

The next weekend.....

Sugar Bowl: Sugar winner vs. Orange winner
Rose Bowl:  Rose winner vs. Fiesta winner

The next weekend....

Orange Bowl:  Winners from previous weekend (Title Game)
Fiesta Bowl: Losers from previous weekend (3rd place game)


Each BCS site hosts two games.  Boom.  There's your playoff format!

yeah, works well. kinda what i was thinking about. BUT, the 8 team would be based on the BCS polls and computers and all that still, right?

[RedSatinHog]

I don't see a reason in the world why they cannot just implement a 16 or 32 game playoff system.  Give out one automatic bid for each conference, make up the rest of the field with at-large bids based upon SOS, and start playing the weekend after the conference championships, and limit each school to 12 regular season games.  Seed it just like the NCAA hoops tourneys.

[Wayne Watson]

A playoff is a bad idea in any form.  It would render most regular season games meaningless, be an incentive to NOT schedule tough intersectional games, and introduce even more money into the game when there's already too much.

How would it render regular season game meaningless if you took the top 8 teams?  If you lose 2 or more reg season games, you would have no chance at making the playoff. 

The only reason there is "too much" money is b/c college football's product is so good that people are buying tickets and watching on television. 

A playoff done correctly would allow deserving teams to settle it on the field every year. 

Very well put.  I agree.    +1

[WizardofhOgZ]

I don't see a reason in the world why they cannot just implement a 16 or 32 game playoff system.  Give out one automatic bid for each conference, make up the rest of the field with at-large bids based upon SOS, and start playing the weekend after the conference championships, and limit each school to 12 regular season games.  Seed it just like the NCAA hoops tourneys.

AKHogs . . . read my first post in this thread (dated June 3rd) for a detailed explanation of why a 16 or 32 field playoff cannot work in D1 football.  In particular, look at the logistics side of my argument, and you'll see that there are considerations beyond the "we want a playoff" issue that render it not feasible.  Yes - I'll grant that my post is long; but if you'll take the 3 minutes or so it will take to read it, you will understand why we will never have a playoff of that size.