My case for a sixteen team playoff

[gjn23]

a 16 team playoff is way too over-board and really makes most of the season really irrelevant (what would have been the interest for aub vs bama or sc???

and to include every conf champ is a waste of space

fla intnl.....why?

imho it has to be a 12-8-6 or 4 (plus one) team playoff (12 and 6 would include byes for the top teams which keeps the season and conf titles relevant)

and in the end, would any of us really miss the 9-16 teams NOT having a chance at the title???

 

[THE KOD]

anything that makes this much sense.....

we will probably never get it.

 

[Skipper]

a 16 team playoff is way too over-board and really makes most of the season really irrelevant (what would have been the interest for aub vs bama or sc???

and to include every conf champ is a waste of space

fla intnl.....why?

imho it has to be a 12-8-6 or 4 (plus one) team playoff (12 and 6 would include byes for the top teams which keeps the season and conf titles relevant)

and in the end, would any of us really miss the 9-16 teams NOT having a chance at the title???

I will take your questions in paragraph order with your points bolded:

Irrelevant? There would be FIVE at large bids. That is crazy to say the regular season is irrelevant. The Iron Bowl has been played many years when both teams were average. The house is packed. That is a crazy statement IMO.

I would agree that including every conference champ is PARTIALLY a waste of space, but you cannot sell this unless you include everyone. Money is what tickles people's taint, and these smaller conferences would benefit from this format.

FLA INTL? - See above

12-8-6-+1 - agree all better, but you have to sell it to everyone. 12 would have byes - why give a team a bye when you could make everyone happy and include the smaller conferences?

9-16? - You give a team like Va Tech who struggled early, but now by winning their conference, they are hot as hell. Oklahoma vs Auburn in the second rd? I would take Auburn but there is more(BETTER) football for all to watch, and for the powers that be to make money.

 

[layinwood]

a 16 team playoff is way too over-board and really makes most of the season really irrelevant (what would have been the interest for aub vs bama or sc???

I'm not sure the season would be irrelevant, to be honest would it really be any different? A lot of the "experts" were saying that win or lose in the SEC champ game that Auburn would be in the NC game. When you look at the bracket and the difference in how hard a road it would be for Auburn vs Oreg then I think you can see why that last game or two would really matter. The difference in who you would have to play is gigantic.

I would love this exact format and love the small guys being in. Not because the schools would have a chance to win but it gives them a tool in recruiting that they don't have now and it gives those kids that didn't get a shot at big D1 programs a chance to compete when it matters against the kids that did get that chance. IMO it's awesome seeing the kids that progress a little later show that they can play with anyone when it matters and not just on some random Sat.

 

[Skipper]

I'm not sure the season would be irrelevant, to be honest would it really be any different? A lot of the "experts" were saying that win or lose in the SEC champ game that Auburn would be in the NC game. When you look at the bracket and the difference in how hard a road it would be for Auburn vs Oreg then I think you can see why that last game or two would really matter. The difference in who you would have to play is gigantic.

I would love this exact format and love the small guys being in. Not because the schools would have a chance to win but it gives them a tool in recruiting that they don't have now and it gives those kids that didn't get a shot at big D1 programs a chance to compete when it matters against the kids that did get that chance. IMO it's awesome seeing the kids that progress a little later show that they can play with anyone when it matters and not just on some random Sat.

:0074 :toast: :0008 Exactly my point 100%

All the sudden - a Wed. night game between MTSU and Troy means a helluva lot more than it does now.

There would also be a year, albeit much less than in basketball, that a big upset will happen.

What teams or games do I really remember in the last 20 years of the NCAA basketball tourney?

1 - Watching the Vols advance to the Elite Eight for the first time ever with my seven year old son in St. Louis. For obvious reasons, but watching Northern Iowa after play Michigan St. and actually being scared of UNI winning that game.:mj07: I thought we matched up better with Mich. St.

2 - Valpo and watching Bryce and Homer Drew make their run.

3 - George Mason to the final 4

4 - Butler within three points of winning the NC game

5 - Gonzaga and their rise

6 - Rhode Island making their run in '98

7 - West Virginia and Pittsnoggle making their run before they became a contender

Sure - some of the final fours and final games have been great, but as a sports fan, you love an underdog and much more in college football because it is more rare.

Sorry, I will always remember UT winning the first BCS title, but #1 on my list is Appy St. beating Michigan. I would also believe that if you did a poll of 100 college football fans, what their favorite moment in college football was over the past 20 years - that game would win.

 

[gjn23]

sorry but a 16 team tournament doesnt excite me at all.

what was the point of a 13 game regular season and sec/big12/pac12/big10 conf title game????

and in most years......tell me what reason teams ranked 9-16 have any justification for a national title????

i'd love to see the top 4 matched up on new years day in two bcs bowl game semi-finals with the winners playing a week later (aub-stan, ore-tcu)

the rest of the bowlds; including the other bcs bowl games can be played as is.

16 teams just wont happen as it will kill the bowl system (and about 8 bowl games) and those in charge wont let that happen.

12 teams might still be too many, but at least is has some incentive for continuing to win and get a first round bye for those finishing in the top 4.

8 teams is also doable but takes the 8 best out of the bowls

6 teams? might as well just do 4 (and call it a + 1)

actually i'd even be more interested in a return to the old bowl system (big10/pac in rose, sec in sugar, big 12 in orange and all others being at-large invites......make the matchups as close to the best bcs rankings as possible and then have bcs 1-2 play a week later after the bowl games.....problem is you might get a 1-4 seeds in 4 different games vs weaker comp, but at least it makes new years day games fun and exciting again)

as for the sun belt, wac, mac, c-usa.......no chance or interest in those teams getting an auto bid into a playoff unless they are in the top of the bcs rankings..

 

[layinwood]

and in most years......tell me what reason teams ranked 9-16 have any justification for a national title????

Not much justification but I could say the same thing for the last team in the NFL to get in the Playoffs(or winner of a conf like NFC West), the number 8 seeds in the NBA, the number 64 team in college bball tourny. Really they don't have much of a chance but everyone seems to love to watch it just in case something does happen. This would be major motivation to finish higher just like everyone in College hoops wants the number 1 seed, it gives you an advantage over your future oppenents.

 

[gjn23]

Not much justification but I could say the same thing for the last team in the NFL to get in the Playoffs(or winner of a conf like NFC West), the number 8 seeds in the NBA, the number 64 team in college bball tourny. Really they don't have much of a chance but everyone seems to love to watch it just in case something does happen. This would be major motivation to finish higher just like everyone in College hoops wants the number 1 seed, it gives you an advantage over your future oppenents.

but most miss the point

football isnt basketball....and a college playoff isnt going to be like the ncaa tourney

and in the nfl.....6 teams make it per conf and the two best get rewarded with bye's and home games

a 16 team college football playoff is:
1) too many undeserving teams
2) doesnt reward the top 1-2-3 teams
3) forces those teams to play 4 games at neutral fields....good luck with travel
or
4) forces those teams to takes a HUGE step back and beat a mac team, at home, just to advance to a final 8.....when they've already proved in one of the best conf, that they are one of the best teams

if you think ooc schedules now are a joke, go to a 16 team playoff and see how much of a joke ooc schedules become and how many ooc road games bcs schools will schedule.

the more i think about it....from a competitive standpoint, 16 teams is definitely a no-go and
even 8 teams might be too diluted/unfair to the top teams (heck, didnt lsu get into the title game with 2 losses one year, can you imagine that watered down playoff???)

6 (with top 2 in bcs getting a bye) or 4 (bowls plus one) is the best alternative and would give us 5 or 3 playoff games that everyone would watch, get excited about and most importantly make money off of.

and honestly....knowing the ncaa and bcs and bowl system.....a plus one format is probably the next step in 3 years.....so i wouldnt get any hopes up for a 16 game "tournament" anytime soon

 

[Skipper]

but most miss the point

football isnt basketball....and a college playoff isnt going to be like the ncaa tourney

and in the nfl.....6 teams make it per conf and the two best get rewarded with bye's and home games

a 16 team college football playoff is:
1) too many undeserving teams
2) doesnt reward the top 1-2-3 teams
3) forces those teams to play 4 games at neutral fields....good luck with travel
or
4) forces those teams to takes a HUGE step back and beat a mac team, at home, just to advance to a final 8.....when they've already proved in one of the best conf, that they are one of the best teams

if you think ooc schedules now are a joke, go to a 16 team playoff and see how much of a joke ooc schedules become and how many ooc road games bcs schools will schedule.

the more i think about it....from a competitive standpoint, 16 teams is definitely a no-go and
even 8 teams might be too diluted/unfair to the top teams (heck, didnt lsu get into the title game with 2 losses one year, can you imagine that watered down playoff???)

6 (with top 2 in bcs getting a bye) or 4 (bowls plus one) is the best alternative and would give us 5 or 3 playoff games that everyone would watch, get excited about and most importantly make money off of.

and honestly....knowing the ncaa and bcs and bowl system.....a plus one format is probably the next step in 3 years.....so i wouldnt get any hopes up for a 16 game "tournament" anytime soon

Going back to the old bowl system:mj07:

Too many undeserving teams - How in the hell is that different than the #16 seeds in the NCAA tourney?

Doesn't reward the top 2-3 teams - Bullshit, they get to have home field advantage for the opening round.

Travel - Are you kidding me? With the money this would bring in, travel would not be a concern.

Forces teams to take a huge step back - Same thing the NCAA BB Tourney does. :shrug:

Plus one, 4, 6, or 8 will not be able to accept automatic qualifiers, and that would be the only way to sell it to each conference commish and the powers that be. To get, you have to give and make it worthwhile to everyone.

"Watered down playoff" - How in the hell is it different than any other playoff? Hell, St. Louis Rams lead their division at 6-6. They are in line to make the playoffs.

If you prefer to keep the bowls the way they are, then you are entitled to your opinion. I can't wait for the Little Caesars Bowl to watch FIU play Toledo:mj07:

I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that any true college football fan wouldn't want this to happen.

This thread was not to suggest that we should get our hopes up, as you suggest. I brought this up because it is practical, sellable, and provides a level of excitement that college football has never had.

If you think this system is not a better alternative to the BCS, then enjoy the Oklahoma-UConn matchup.

 

[gjn23]

Going back to the old bowl system:mj07:

Too many undeserving teams - How in the hell is that different than the #16 seeds in the NCAA tourney?

Doesn't reward the top 2-3 teams - Bullshit, they get to have home field advantage for the opening round.

Travel - Are you kidding me? With the money this would bring in, travel would not be a concern.

Forces teams to take a huge step back - Same thing the NCAA BB Tourney does. :shrug:

Plus one, 4, 6, or 8 will not be able to accept automatic qualifiers, and that would be the only way to sell it to each conference commish and the powers that be. To get, you have to give and make it worthwhile to everyone.

"Watered down playoff" - How in the hell is it different than any other playoff? Hell, St. Louis Rams lead their division at 6-6. They are in line to make the playoffs.

If you prefer to keep the bowls the way they are, then you are entitled to your opinion. I can't wait for the Little Caesars Bowl to watch FIU play Toledo:mj07:

I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that any true college football fan wouldn't want this to happen.

This thread was not to suggest that we should get our hopes up, as you suggest. I brought this up because it is practical, sellable, and provides a level of excitement that college football has never had.

If you think this system is not a better alternative to the BCS, then enjoy the Oklahoma-UConn matchup.

a few points of clarification for you

1) travel....as in, who the hell is going to travel for 4 tbd playoff games in dec/jan (or 2-3 neutral site games???)

2) old bowl system as in the bowl tie-in's from major conf to bcs bowl games with at-large bids being the opponent in 75% of them

rose: big10 vs pac 10
sugar: sec vs at large
orange: big 12 vs at large
fiesta: at large vs at large

leaves lots of room for setting up top 4 bcs in two seperate bowl games (eliminate the automatic bids by conf)

3) stop tying to make football the ncaa basketball tourney....it's not.....football's not basketball.

4) i dont know anyone in their right mind who would want the winners or the mac/wac/mwc/cusa/sun belt to receive auto qualifiying bids to any tournament.......if they're ranked high enough bcs top 4-6-8-12 they they're in.

5) i'll equate the little ceasears bowl to half your first round matchups.....any 1-4 seed vs those auto qualifiers

6) you still havent addressed the following
a) the worthless non conf regular season if you invite 16 teams
b) honestly, what's the incentive for auburn to win/play anybody vs alabama or south carolina this year, home field.....they'd have home field if they lost and would likely still be a top 4 bcs ranked team had they lost....and still play some crap team from the sun belt/mac/wac/cusa/etc....
c) the elimination of 16 teams and 8 bowl games from the landscape.....this likely wont happen

i'm all in favor of something different than what we have but 16 teams is not the answer (nor will the powers that be allow that type of format right off the bat)

when the contract is up in 3 years, my guess is you'll see a plus 1 game (which is what should be done) or a 6/8 team playoff with no auto-matic invites......and an 8 team playoff is essentially your's but just eliminating round 1....the worthless auto qualifiers and 3-4 at large teams that really dont deserve a bid.

 

[Skipper]

a few points of clarification for you

1) travel....as in, who the hell is going to travel for 4 tbd playoff games in dec/jan (or 2-3 neutral site games???)

2) old bowl system as in the bowl tie-in's from major conf to bcs bowl games with at-large bids being the opponent in 75% of them

rose: big10 vs pac 10
sugar: sec vs at large
orange: big 12 vs at large
fiesta: at large vs at large

leaves lots of room for setting up top 4 bcs in two seperate bowl games (eliminate the automatic bids by conf)

3) stop tying to make football the ncaa basketball tourney....it's not.....football's not basketball.

4) i dont know anyone in their right mind who would want the winners or the mac/wac/mwc/cusa/sun belt to receive auto qualifiying bids to any tournament.......if they're ranked high enough bcs top 4-6-8-12 they they're in.

5) i'll equate the little ceasears bowl to half your first round matchups.....any 1-4 seed vs those auto qualifiers

6) you still havent addressed the following
a) the worthless non conf regular season if you invite 16 teams
b) honestly, what's the incentive for auburn to win/play anybody vs alabama or south carolina this year, home field.....they'd have home field if they lost and would likely still be a top 4 bcs ranked team had they lost....and still play some crap team from the sun belt/mac/wac/cusa/etc....
c) the elimination of 16 teams and 8 bowl games from the landscape.....this likely wont happen

i'm all in favor of something different than what we have but 16 teams is not the answer (nor will the powers that be allow that type of format right off the bat)

when the contract is up in 3 years, my guess is you'll see a plus 1 game (which is what should be done) or a 6/8 team playoff with no auto-matic invites......and an 8 team playoff is essentially your's but just eliminating round 1....the worthless auto qualifiers and 3-4 at large teams that really dont deserve a bid.

Travel - Same as people do in basketball.

Football isn't basketball? Are you sure? That is a lame excuse because EVERY college sport other than FBS football, has a playoff.

Your fourth question - You would have to get every conference involved in order for it to sell. Anyway, since your argument is that those teams would get killed anyway, what is the harm?

Your 5th point - If you actually think that fans will not watch 10X more with it being a playoff than the Little Caesars Bowl, you need a grip on reality.

The worthless non-conference - are you kidding me? Is it not just as bad now?

If you think that Auburn would hold starters out of the Iron Bowl, then you have no idea about that game. They could lose that game, and if they lost to South Carolina, they would be out.

You don't eliminate 16 teams and 7 bowl games. You use them for the neutral site location on a rotating basis.

To your final point, I agree that anything is better than what we have now, but if you think the top 8 teams would advance every year, you are just making assumptions with no facts to back it up.

If you want a playoff, you have to include every conference or it won't sell. It is not about wanting to see those teams, it is about money and representation.

The rest of the bowls can continue as is. No one would be left out. In fact, you would probably get rid of some of these worthless bowls that no one gives a shit about anyway.

 

[Mr Rattler]

GREAT THREAD SKIPPER!!

GREAT THREAD SKIPPER!!

From my count there are 70 (SEVENTY) bowl teams this year!!:facepalm: Of which maybe a half dozen games will generate much excitement.

HOW ABOUT THIS?
How about the 11 Conference champs get automatic bids. The top 4 ranked teams out of this pool get a 1st round Bye .

1st Round: Bottom 7 teams from above plus 1 at large bid equals 8 schools. These 4 games get played at predetermined "bowls" sites the week before Christmas. (Since we would know by Dec 1st what teams they would be, it gives student body plenty of time to arrange travel)


2nd Round 4 winners from 1st round play top 4 seeds on New Years Eve / Day. Again 4 games at predetermined bowl sites (giving huge advantage to the top 4 seeds with the bye and the fact they are locked in on this site Dec 1st where as the School winning in the 1st round would have less than 2 weeks to arrange their travel)

3rd Round: THE FINAL 4. 2 Huge games played at predetermined Bowl sites. The 2nd Saturday in January.

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME Played on the 2nd Thursday or Saturday night after the final four.


This scenario ...
(1) Gives EVERY DIVISION I SCHOOL a chance to be National Champion at the beginning of the season.

(2) Greatly awards the top 4 seeds

(3) Keeps the pool from being too watered down,

(4) All games would be played between Fall/ Spring semesters.

(5) Gives the team, the fans and the student body plenty of time to arrange travel.

(6) Keeps the regular season meaningful. Since top 4 seeds get a huge advantage, the non-conference schedules would be very important as well as the conference games.


It would be a total of 11 Games/ Bowls (that can be rotated year to year) ELEVEN HIGHLY ANTICIPATED GAMES that would be HUGE draws for ratings and attendance.


The other 58 bowl eligible teams can still play in the Poulan Weedeater Pizza Toilet Bowls in December and during the week nights between the Playoffs so all of us degenerates can still bet on them.

But, unfortunately I don't even see a 4 team playoff happening anytime soon.

 

[gjn23]

Travel - Same as people do in basketball.

Football isn't basketball? Are you sure? That is a lame excuse because EVERY college sport other than FBS football, has a playoff.

Your fourth question - You would have to get every conference involved in order for it to sell. Anyway, since your argument is that those teams would get killed anyway, what is the harm?

Your 5th point - If you actually think that fans will not watch 10X more with it being a playoff than the Little Caesars Bowl, you need a grip on reality.

The worthless non-conference - are you kidding me? Is it not just as bad now?

If you think that Auburn would hold starters out of the Iron Bowl, then you have no idea about that game. They could lose that game, and if they lost to South Carolina, they would be out.

You don't eliminate 16 teams and 7 bowl games. You use them for the neutral site location on a rotating basis.

To your final point, I agree that anything is better than what we have now, but if you think the top 8 teams would advance every year, you are just making assumptions with no facts to back it up.

If you want a playoff, you have to include every conference or it won't sell. It is not about wanting to see those teams, it is about money and representation.

The rest of the bowls can continue as is. No one would be left out. In fact, you would probably get rid of some of these worthless bowls that no one gives a shit about anyway.

why do you think (and want) a football playoff that includes teams from non-bcs conf schools when they have already been eliminated from auto inclusion???

the bcs conf and bcs will never allow those conf to get 30% of the automatic bids to a 16 team playoff (and they shouldnt)

and if you think traveling to 3 or 4 bowl games (for 3 or 4 games) AFTER a trip to a conf title game in DECEMBER over the holidays is the same thing as traveling to 3 sites for 6 games in march is the same thing, you're completely wrong.

and if you think the bcs and bowl commissioners will easily allow for 8 bowl games to be eliminated that easily, youre wrong.

16 teams is too many and offers little reward for an undefeated #1 ranked regular season
auto bids from those conf is a non starter
just hope they move to a +1 in 3 years

quite honestly....in most years i've really never had the desire to see more than the top 4 or 6 go at it for the title.....never pondered how/why the 16th ranked team at 8-4 is getting screwed out of a chance at the title

 

[Skipper]

why do you think (and want) a football playoff that includes teams from non-bcs conf schools when they have already been eliminated from auto inclusion???

the bcs conf and bcs will never allow those conf to get 30% of the automatic bids to a 16 team playoff (and they shouldnt)

and if you think traveling to 3 or 4 bowl games (for 3 or 4 games) AFTER a trip to a conf title game in DECEMBER over the holidays is the same thing as traveling to 3 sites for 6 games in march is the same thing, you're completely wrong.

and if you think the bcs and bowl commissioners will easily allow for 8 bowl games to be eliminated that easily, youre wrong.

16 teams is too many and offers little reward for an undefeated #1 ranked regular season
auto bids from those conf is a non starter
just hope they move to a +1 in 3 years

quite honestly....in most years i've really never had the desire to see more than the top 4 or 6 go at it for the title.....never pondered how/why the 16th ranked team at 8-4 is getting screwed out of a chance at the title

I could care less about adding non-BCS schools, but it is not about I or YOU. It is about what is practical and sellable. The sooner YOU realize that, the sooner I will not have to explain the same things over and over and over.

You act like the BCS is a law. This would be an NCAA tournament, to get rid of the BCS and quite possibly, save the NCAA. It would get support from NON-BCS conference commissioners and that is KEY.

You keep saying "I" - this is not for you. Your opinion is noted, but from reading the thread, most think there has something to it. Sure, everything needs tweaking, but it is better than what we have.

When you go to recruit a kid and tell them that you can go undefeated, yet still have no chance at winning the title, what does that say? Here are the teams in your wonderful BCS era that have gone undefeated and had NO chance of winning a BCS title:
1998 - Tulane
1999 - Marshall
2004 - Utah, Boise, and Auburn
2006 - Boise
2007 - Hawaii
2008 - Utah, Boise, and Ball State
2009 - TCU, Boise, and Cincinnati
2010 - TCU

Would any of these teams have won it all? I could make a good case for at least two, maybe three.

Plus, you have had these instances happen:
2000-01 - A one loss Florida State team got in the title game to play Oklahoma, despite the fact that a one loss Miami team had beaten Florida State head to head.

2001-02 - Nebraska gets into the title game without having even played in the conference championship game! They were undefeated going into Colorado and lost 62-36. Oregon also had one loss and won the PAC-10, but didn't get the invite.

2003-04 - Three one-loss teams - LSU, USC, and Oklahoma. Even though USC was #1 in both polls, the computer left them out. (Which was great at the time because I hate USC)

2004-05 - Five undefeated teams.

Could go on, but the point is clear - When you go undefeated and have NO chance of at least playing for a championship; it makes COLLEGE FOOTBALL LOOK LIKE SOCCER.

Ties don't matter - only in college football and soccer:0corn

 

[gjn23]

I could care less about adding non-BCS schools, but it is not about I or YOU. It is about what is practical and sellable. The sooner YOU realize that, the sooner I will not have to explain the same things over and over and over.

You act like the BCS is a law. This would be an NCAA tournament, to get rid of the BCS and quite possibly, save the NCAA. It would get support from NON-BCS conference commissioners and that is KEY.

You keep saying "I" - this is not for you. Your opinion is noted, but from reading the thread, most think there has something to it. Sure, everything needs tweaking, but it is better than what we have.

When you go to recruit a kid and tell them that you can go undefeated, yet still have no chance at winning the title, what does that say? Here are the teams in your wonderful BCS era that have gone undefeated and had NO chance of winning a BCS title:
1998 - Tulane
1999 - Marshall
2004 - Utah, Boise, and Auburn
2006 - Boise
2007 - Hawaii
2008 - Utah, Boise, and Ball State
2009 - TCU, Boise, and Cincinnati
2010 - TCU

Would any of these teams have won it all? I could make a good case for at least two, maybe three.

Plus, you have had these instances happen:
2000-01 - A one loss Florida State team got in the title game to play Oklahoma, despite the fact that a one loss Miami team had beaten Florida State head to head.

2001-02 - Nebraska gets into the title game without having even played in the conference championship game! They were undefeated going into Colorado and lost 62-36. Oregon also had one loss and won the PAC-10, but didn't get the invite.

2003-04 - Three one-loss teams - LSU, USC, and Oklahoma. Even though USC was #1 in both polls, the computer left them out. (Which was great at the time because I hate USC)

2004-05 - Five undefeated teams.

Could go on, but the point is clear - When you go undefeated and have NO chance of at least playing for a championship; it makes COLLEGE FOOTBALL LOOK LIKE SOCCER.

Ties don't matter - only in college football and soccer:0corn

a 16 team playoff isnt practicable or sellable, esp when you include automatic bids from non bcs schools

who's in charge here? the presidents, of bcs schools......they are almost unaniomously in favor of the system the WAY IT IS.

do you really think it's practical that they're going to throw away that money, completely change the system to incorporat a 16 TEAM PLAYOFF, and give 30% of the bids to teams they've held out of the process forever......who's buying that????

that's practical? that's sellable?

ummmm, in a word. NO.

now, an 8 team playoff with NO auto-invites but alllows for the top 8 in the bcs standings? sure......but even that's a step i dont think they take for a while.

as for your list of teams above.......most would have fallen within the top 8 of the bcs standings and would have made an 8 team playoff, becasue they had a GREAT YEAR.....to award an auto bid to teams in those conf every year (esp when they are usually terrible)......NO WAY.

 

[IE]

Horrifying thought ? using the BCS to determine Super Bowl teams


Imagine what would happen if the NFL used something like the BCS to determine a champion.


The BCS uses the following garbage pick-up program to guess at a fictional national champ: It uses polls by humans who seldom see the teams who get their votes. And it uses a computer that ranks comparative results, which, as every gambler knows, means nothing.

Here's the way the PCS would work, the Pro Cheating Scam.

A human poll and a computer poll would rank the Steelers and Atlanta as the top two teams, and they would be appointed to play in the Super Bowl.

Sorry Jets, New England, San Diego and New Orleans.

Tough luck Baltimore, Eagles, Bears and Kansas City.

You guys can play in some nice consolation games in tropical settings, bring the family, enjoy a nice paid vacation, just like all the college bowls except the one.

Mob violence and lawsuits would ensue.

So how has college football sunk to the depths of meaninglessness?

The BCS bowl games have become ESPN playthings and moneymakers.

Average, or worse, college coaches, love the system because they can say they have been to a bowl 11 consecutive years, as, in its similarity to a 20-win hoop season, it
takes a real dog to miss a postseason game.

And big-school administrators love the system because they can bully their ways past smaller universities, and on to the vault.

Here's what the BCS really stands for: Bookmaker Collection Season.

 

[gjn23]

while i'm no fan of the bcs it's comical that everyone rails on this system coonsidering what college football had in place for 75 years prior to it which most people treasured.

a vote....from newspaper people....and for about 50 of those years none of those newspaper people ever saw anybody play expect the team they covered.....and then when television was invented, they still never saw much......but we still hold near and dear those "championship" years of alabama, usc, notre dame, etc, etc, etc

would a playoff be better than what we have now? sure, no doubt about it.

but 16 teams, 30% of which come from schools who have no business getting automatic bids??? no thanks.

4 (a +1), 6 or 8
no automatic bids, 4-6-8 best teams according to a modified bcs ranking system whose components are open and known.

then again, this is all a waste of time as the bcs is in place for 3 more years....most college presidents like the system and dont like change...and if the system is modified, i'd put the next step, a +1 game, as a 90% likelihood

 

[Skipper]

a 16 team playoff isnt practicable or sellable, esp when you include automatic bids from non bcs schools

who's in charge here? the presidents, of bcs schools......they are almost unaniomously in favor of the system the WAY IT IS.

do you really think it's practical that they're going to throw away that money, completely change the system to incorporat a 16 TEAM PLAYOFF, and give 30% of the bids to teams they've held out of the process forever......who's buying that????

that's practical? that's sellable?

ummmm, in a word. NO.

now, an 8 team playoff with NO auto-invites but alllows for the top 8 in the bcs standings? sure......but even that's a step i dont think they take for a while.

as for your list of teams above.......most would have fallen within the top 8 of the bcs standings and would have made an 8 team playoff, becasue they had a GREAT YEAR.....to award an auto bid to teams in those conf every year (esp when they are usually terrible)......NO WAY.

We never know will we? I think there are a couple of those teams that would have made a run, but it doesn't matter. They don't get a chance.

You have to have all conference commishes or presidents to agree, and giving each conference an automatic bid makes it sellable.

If you like it the way it is, with sometimes 3-4 teams being undefeated and not given a chance, then that is your opinion. To me, it is just like soccer where you can tie.

How many years will Boise and TCU have to go undefeated and not be given an opportunity before you rethink this system? TCU would compete with EVERY team in the country, but their SOS is not good enough.

WHY?
Because no one in the BCS wants to play them during the season. Hell, TCU can't get Texas to play them. Why? Because they are scared shitless.

Many are questioning why Cam Newton is still eligible, especially by the SEC bylaw. Because they don't want TCU's and the Boise State's of the world to get a sniff of the BCS title game. Case in point last year by matching up the two schools in the BCS bowl game. If they separated them, then they just both might have won.

But of course, you couldn't do a 16 team playoff, because it doesn't work in the FCS, DII, and DIII I guess.

Did you know on a poll last year, 73 our of 100 players wanted a playoff? Just curious

The BCS is great though as reported in this article where certain teams weren't factored in:mj07:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Ela9Xg?docId=cbcd387ff29b4db19b2d14506c44e4b2

I am sure those conferences without equal representation would not go for a playoff though.:facepalm:

 

[layinwood]

Looks like Mark Cuban is trying to make this happen. Before you come in and argue with me read up on it and like always don't kill the messenger. Mark is in the stages of seeing how viable this is and has decided instead of buying a baseball team to put the money towards a playoff. Once the BCS schools see the green things will start changing.

 

[Skipper]

Looks like Mark Cuban is trying to make this happen. Before you come in and argue with me read up on it and like always don't kill the messenger. Mark is in the stages of seeing how viable this is and has decided instead of buying a baseball team to put the money towards a playoff. Once the BCS schools see the green things will start changing.

At some point, it is inevitable. It makes too much sense and too much money.

For those that don't think this will ever happen - enjoy the New Orleans Bowl this weekend. I just don't see much value in a 9PM Eastern start for Ohio and Troy.:0002