The BCS...

No, a later loss shouldn't matter more per se, but Florida had a play in for the NC and couldn't get it done. In some cases it has not hurt teams (NEB in the early 2000s, LSU a couple of years ago).

Ken, you wouldn't give FL the nod, so you'd skip them. Bama, Ore, OSU, Texas, Cincy, and GA Tech are in. I'd assume you'd give TCU and Boise the at large bids? What if NEB had won? Do you put a 9-4 team in the playoff?

I still like my system the best. 11 game seasons, one bye, and then a 4 or 6 team playoff between the end of the season and the bowls, with the final round being the NC game during the New Years bowl season (which is now meaningless). I still say my biggest gripe about college football is that you have 4-7 weeks between the end of the season and your title game. No other sport does this.

Under my system, Bama would play TCU this weekend and Cincy would play Texas. The winners would play in Pasadena for the title, and the losers could go to another BCS bowl. The bowl system is in place (unfortunately) and we have it settled on the field. Boise got left out and I can sleep just fine with that. They had their chance over the course of the season to prove themselves. If you did go six and include Boise, you're going to have to have a spot taken by a team who has already squandered a chance to get in the dance. Who do you give that to? A 2-loss Ore? OSU? Fl, who just lost the SEC title game? That would render that verdict meaningless practically. 4-6 teams are plenty (I have changed my mind about this over the years).

 

When I was a growing up in Texas in order to participate in the playoffs a team had to win its district. Otherwise, you stayed home. Some good teams got left out but they had their chance to win their district.

Of course now they allow several teams from each district to play in the playoffs which are split into two divisions for each classification based on student enrollment, e.g., Class 3A has a Division I state champion and a Division II state champion.

 

My preferred system would be no at large bids - just 8 conference champions(if Notre Dame wants to participate they would have to join the Big 11 or some conference in football).

 

Never happen. They have their cake. Why should they have to stop eating it too :laugh:

 

When did we start caring so much that things have to be "fair" anyway? I know that I've seen posts on this very board talking about the silliness of changing rules so that "everybody's a winner". Now, we hear complaints that things have to be "fair" and everybody deemed worthy enough has to have their fair chance.

If we had "December Madness", which we totally should, and Florida didn't get to play for the national championship because they lost to Alabama, what's unfair about saying, "they had their chance and they lost the game"?

They would have won the game, right? They should be in. What's the one thing we complain about with the current stupid system? That they don't settle it on the field. In this case, Nebraska did exactly what they were supposed to do, which is settle it on the field.

 

No way a 9-4 team should have a shot at a national title. No way. I appreciate the sentiment especially in light of the NCAABB, Baseball, etc., but in order to placate those who claim a playoff will make the reg season meaningless, we have to have a control over it to keep the 11-1, 12-0, types in there. If Ohio State, for instance, wants a chance to play for the national title, they should have beaten Purdue and/or USC. If Nebraska wanted to play with the big boys, they should've beaten some not so big boys

If the NCAAF could bear something like March Madness, fine. But they won't/can't. So we have to do what we can.

 

So, what if we had a playoff system and Nebraska had actually beaten Texas? Do you keep Nebraska out because they had 4 losses? Do you take Texas anyway, even though Nebraska beat them on the field? The #1 flaw in the BCS is that we don't get a champion decided on the field of play. So, how is this any better than what we have right now?

That's why you only have conference champions in the playoffs.

But Ohio State won the Big 10, right? The Big 10 is considered a power conference, right? Why are they undeserving of playing in the playoffs? Because the Big 10 is everybody's favorite whipping boy?

But in the scenario we're talking about, Nebraska did beat a big boy in Texas. And you're saying that beating Texas in the Big 12 championship game wouldn't matter. Nebraska doesn't have the sexy record, so they're out.

I fail to see how this is better than what we have now. We might as well keep the BCS in its current form.

 

I believe it was Pepper Martin, years ago came up with the system that would make most happy, except for the gamblers and school presidents.

10 game schedules. All games conference games. Take the top 8 conference champs, that would add only 3 more games and do them in 3 weeks. It has been the only one I have liked. But I guess I'm a little different. However I'm not sure the best team would be the champs, even if they won the game. Some times a team is taken out early and can't get back in.

 

Yes.

No. The title game would've given Texas their chance.

There's an even bigger flaw: the teams that deserve a shot don't get their shot. Putting a 7-5, 8-4 type team in doesn't solve it, it worsens it.

I don't disagree.

No. But the "meaningful regular season" (MRS) folks jump up and down at anything more than a two loss team getting in. Ask LSU of a couple years ago. They got to the title game with two losses, and they'll likely never be forgiven. (Did OSU win it outright or tie...I forget since they ended their reg season six months ago).

It's not about a sexy record or beating one big boy. It's about a good record over the whole body of work. 9-4 is not a good enough record to qualify you to be one of the top handful of teams in the country. 4 losses won't get you into the I-AA, II, III, or NAIA playoffs. Why should it get you into the I-A title hunt?

I believe the best teams should have the shot at a NC, who have proven themselves over the course of the whole year, not a team who happens to be 1-0 in December.

Because teams who deserve a shot would get their shot, and the MRS folks would get their portion too. There will never be a playoff without that. It's not perfect. But we'll never have "perfect." There are too many divergent agendas at play. We have to get the best possible system, and this is it. What we have now isn't going to settle anything on the field unless you're in the Mark May ("Well, they've been ranked high all year") camp.

Let's say NEB had won. Who would be in, under this proposal?
Bama would play Boise St & Cincy would play TCU. Four undefeated teams going at it. What's wrong with that playoff?

Phil Steele has proposed a similar system, I believe. Again, I'm not saying I prefer this to my previous plan. I don't think what we talk about above is the best system of all, but it beats what we have by letting deserving teams settle it on the field and preserve the bowl system now while letting the MRS stay in tact. We'll never see what you have in FCS, II, III, or NAIA.

I may have to go dig up Steele's playoff format.

 

Not a thing. Does this system work every year? Would it have worked in 2008, 2007, 2006, etc? For that matter, refresh me on what your system is because either I don't remember or never knew in the first place. There has to be some sort of structure to it so that teams know going into the season would it's going to take to get into the playoffs.

 

As I recall, you didn't think my system was perfect but you were ready to anoint me as the playoff czar! I'll have to find the link.

My system. Anything in parenthesis is an addition or editorial.
Start the last sat in Aug or first Sat in Sept. 11 games with one bye week. No one is allowed to play less or more, save the conference title game. After that, take the (and here's the part where I'm flexible) top four BCS teams who are conf champs (I'm willing to possibly go six, I used to go 8) and seed them. (for that matter, who's to say you have to have the same number every year? One year, four could be deserving, the next, you could have 8...but I digress). You have a playoff lasting two weekends, max, played at the home field of the higher seed. The "consolation games" and the NC game are played as now, Jan 1 or later in the big bowls. So you have a maximum of 14/15 games (with six or 8 teams). The playoff is combined with the bowl system, and the meaningful regular season folks get their bone because you have to be ranked highly and be a conf champ to get in. You have only one added game if that, and above all, you have no dead time in the midst of December when everyone forgets how to play and watch college football.
The NC is settled on the field. The MRS people get to still pound their chest. And the "Integrity of the Bowl" people..both of them....still get their way. And everyone....AND I MEAN EVERYONE...makes a ton of money.

Ten most common Objections:
1. The players miss too much class. Bull. First, No one cares. They really don't. Div 1-AA, II, III, and NAIA players miss the same amount and they'll actually be operating on me or doing my taxes or designing the roads my kids ride buses on. So what? And second, no one cares that bball, baseball, et.al. miss more class than football players ever dreamed of.
2. The season is too long. Oh? It's not one game longer under a four team playoff for conferences with playoff games.
3. Fans won't travel to a playoff. Well, they do for the lesser divisions, they do for other sports. The fans that travel to away games can probably afford it. If a team has a conf title game, you're talking (maximum) of three straight weekends of travel, with a later bowl. Teams travel three weeks in a row during the Reg seasons. They'll have it wrapped up by Christmas. No harm.
4. Fans won't go to a "consolation" bowl that have leftovers. Maybe they won't, and maybe this should be eliminated. But Bama fans went to Nawlunz last year, and FL fans will go this year. Give them a good game and one more chance to see their team, and I suspect they'll go, if it's a good bowl site. I can think of things to do in Miami and Pasadena when my team goes to a consolation bowl. And as for the leftover argument, the bowls are getting them now. Sugar gets the SEC runner up. The Orange gets the Big Ten runner up this year. All the bowls are getting leftovers, save the CITI NC game.
5.. The NFL won't like it. Why not? The NCAA playoffs/bowls won't go up against the playoffs. The reason the NFL plays on Sat in mid/late DEC is because CFB goes to sleep for a long winter's nap. Stop that, and the NFL goes back to an all Sunday schedule.
6. . Any kind of playoff hurts the lesser bowls. Schedule the "lesser bowls so they don't interfere with the playoffs. One or two Saturdays will be used. The first doesn't include any bowls anyway. The second only comes into play in a 6 or 8 team playoff, and so what? ESPN can figure this out. noon, 4 and 7 kickoffs will work just fine. The New Mexico Bowl and the St. Petersburg Bowl can work around the playoff. And if we lose a couple of bowls in the process, that simply puts the number of CFB teams in the "post season" back to an equal number of bball teams. I'll sleep just fine.
7. This would force a change in the recruiting rules/schedules. Yes it would. Thank God. No more coaches leaving before bowls. No more recruiting during HS finals and playoffs. This is the second best feature of this plan, IMHO.
8. The Rose Bowl and the traditional conf tie-ins to bowls (I.e., Sugar for SEC) will be ruined. Maybe, but not necessarily. Why can't the Big TEleveN and Pac-Ten teams meet in Pasadena for their consolation bowl? And if it does blow it up, so what? It's been done before. We all survived. The tie ins hurt us many times. Maybe it's time they died in peace.
9. The Big TEleveN and Pac 10 would not be treated fairly with their shared conference champions. Yep. Which is why they need to jettison this and figure out a way to crown a champion. The SEC and ACC have successfully added title games via expansion. They could do the same. Or they could come up with a better tie-breaker. I'm not in favor of giving them two slots just for having a shared winner just because they refuse to get with the program.
10. One bye week isn't enough. Okay, have two. Most of the time you still can make this work. Schools are in charge of their bye weeks. If they don't "work" it's because of their own pathetic scheduling. And the better teams will earn an additional week off in a 6/8 team playoff, and you could still wait and play the semis of a 4 team playoff on the 3rd Sat of Dec, and still have 2 or 3 weekends to get ready for the NC game.

Well, there you have it.

 

This is my only problem with everything you wrote. I think you have to have the same number of teams every year. The standard needs to be set for what it takes to make the playoffs and changing the number of teams in the playoffs doesn't exactly set the standard. I'd be interested to know how this system would have played out over the last few years. Maybe a research project for another day.

 

And as I said, this is not a plank, just one option. I don't like it, but you know the MRS folks are going to want some way to shut out "undesireables."

in 2008, Oklahoma would've played Utah with the winner playing the victor between Penn State and USC. Though Bama and TX were BCS higher than Utah and PSU, because they did not win their conf, they would be out. Some might not think that's fair.

2007: Ohio State would've played Oklahoma, and LSU would've played VA Tech (all four were 1-4 in BCS). Everyone but OSU had two losses, and Ohio St lost once.

2006: Ohio St vs Louisville, and FL vs USC in the semis. Two BCS teams higher than L'ville and USC (Michigan and LSU) would be left out (mich lost to OSU the last game of the reg season, and LSU lost the SEC title game). Undefeated Boise State also left out.

2005: USC vs. Oregon, and Ohio St Vs Texas. (USC/TX were undefeated, and Ore/OSU had one loss).

2004: USC vs Cal, Okla vs Auburn. Texas left out though ranked higher than Cal in the BCS. Utah (BCS 6) and Boise St (BCS 9) undefeated and also left out.

I should point out that Texas and Oklahoma are in the same divisions of the Big 12, so the loser is out of the hunt the day after the Red River Shootout, ostensibly.

Thoughts?

Later, for comparison, I'll post what it would look like if we expanded to the top six conf champs in the BCS rankings, or top 8, or what have you. That's where it gets hairy, but some would balk at the above since Boise and Utah got left out a couple of times.

 

Well, that would have been a real shame. Had they won their conference, they would have had nothing to complain about.

Fine with me. The regular season needs to count for something, doesn't it?


I guess I'm not as beholden to keeping the "undesirables" out as much as others. I haven't historically followed college football, nor do I have a team that I follow as closely as I do other sports. It doesn't matter to me one bit if a 9-4 Nebraska team were to play for the national championship.

 

Yes.

This just negates what you say about the regular season counting for something. Their regular season would not matter as much if they get a shot at a NC.

Which is why, if my plan is ever adopted, it would be the top four/six conference winners/Notre Dame, or you'd just have the top X number and ND if ND is at least Y in the BCS, similar to what they have now with BCS berths.

 

Ahh, but I don't care if a 4 loss team plays for a national championship. If a team can somehow lose 4 games in the regular season and still play their way into a chance at a Big 12, Big 10, SEC, etc. championship that leads to a NC shot, I'm think I'm Ok with that.

 

Well, that begs the question: did a four loss team play their way in just because the rest of their division stunk so bad that a four loss team got a chance to play for the conf title? Someday, it may not matter. That day is not today. The MRS folks have too much of a point here. The regular season has to count for something.

Of course, the wild card we skip around is this: is a one or two loss SEC/Big 12 team better than an undefeated WAC or MWC team?

Some have said that divisions should be eliminated and that the top two teams in each conf play each other for the title. Not sure how I feel about that. If someone goes through conf play 12-0 and the second best team in the conf is 9-3, we are right back where we started. But geography shouldn't mean a team that's 8-4 should get an advantage over a team that's 11-1.

Of course, the one factor in all this is obvious...the 9-3 team isn't getting into my playoff because there's no chance they'll have a high enough ranking in the BCS.

 

I think that the powers that run college football like having controversy over how to determine a national champion. It keeps people talking about college football.

 

Again we agree on something.