Since making a playoff scheme is the "in" thing to do!
My idea is that there should be an eight team playoff at the end of the season. The winner of every BCS conference gets a spot in the playoff. If there are conference co-champions, such as this year in the Big Ten, the team with the higher BCS rating gets the bid (this year it would be Penn State). The two remaining spots are at-large bids, reserved for schools from non-BCS conferences or independents (so Notre Dame won't cry). These spots are decided by BCS rating (the two highest rated non-BCS-conference teams who win their conference or independents) get the bid. If there aren't any ranked non-BCS-conference teams who win their conference, a selection panel gets to decide which team gets into the playoff.
Also, no conference can have more than one team represent that conference in the playoff. The teams are seated by BCS rank (the highest BCS ranked team would play the lowest BCS ranked team). The teams that do not make it to the championship game get distributed to various bowls. These bowls do not have to be BCS bowls (BCS bowls do not have to be forced to select #19 Virginia Tech).
The regular season would have to be pushed ahead at least one week. That means Championship Saturday would fall on November 29 this year, round 1 would fall on December 6, and round 2 would fall on December 13. The championship game would be played about a week after the bowl games (no change from when it's played now).
Since the majority of games are played against conference foes, the regular season will stay important and the bowl system will still be preserved. And think about the non-conference matchups we would see, since teams aren't as afraid to lose out of conference because the main priority is winning the conference championship to get that playoff spot. Also, the stereotype of which conference is best or worst can be done away with. Because every conference has its shot, we will know at the end of the playoff how strong conferences and teams really were.
This year's playoff teams would look something like this (based on BCS rank):
1. Oklahoma (Big-12)
2. Florida (SEC)
5. USC (Pac-10)
6. Utah (Mountain-West) [at-large]
8. Penn State (Big Ten)
9. Boise State (WAC) [at-large]
12. Cincinnati (Big East)
19. Virginia Tech (ACC)
The match ups would be:
1. Oklahoma (Big-12) vs. 19. Virginia Tech (ACC)
2. Florida (SEC) vs. 12. Cincinnati (Big East)
5. USC (Pac-10) vs. 9. Boise State (WAC) [at-large]
6. Utah (Mountain-West) [at-large] vs. 8. Penn State (Big Ten)
The only problem I see with this system is having to wait awhile before finding out who goes to bowl games. A season running this late would probably be hell for the bowl selection process. If Penn State makes it to round 2 of the playoffs, we would have to wait until December 13 to find out if they are going to the Rose Bowl or if Ohio State is going to the Rose Bowl.
What do you think?
December 24th, 2008 at 12:30 PM ^
I don't mean to insult your idea, but am I the only one getting tired of these playoff schemes?
And I think it's iffy that #19 VT gets a shot at the title over Texas or Alabama just for winning a crappy ACC.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:46 PM ^
a playoff system where polls are used as the main criteria and teams that dominate weaker conferences have a shot over teams that finish second in much stronger conferences. (See USC over Texas or Alabama or Cincinnati over Texas or Alabama).
Although I'm not a fan of a playoff (because a good one hasn't come up yet), I think all conferences would need a conference championship game and then figure out a very short playoff system that doesn't favor any one poll or conference and some how keep the major bowls in tact.
New Years Day should be College Football's showcase day, not spread over two or three weeks. Fans can't travel that much.
December 24th, 2008 at 1:03 PM ^
When baseball went to the current format, with a wild card (which would be analogous to an at-large bid to teams from the major conferences), I thought is was a great thing for two reasons.
The reason that is relevant to this proposal is that there is a decent chance that the 2nd best team in a conference is in the same division as the best team, thus getting frozen out of any playoffs lacking a wild card. This has happened a number of times in the past prior to instituting the wild card.
[Off the top of my head, I recall this happening in the '70's in the NL, when the east was weak and the Reds and Dodgers were the two best teams. I am sure that an inspection of the records in the 80's and 90's (prior to wild card) will bear this out.]
For example, when there were 2 divisions per conference, the odds that the 2 best teams were in the same division was close to 50:50; 3 divisions, 33:67.
An argument can be made that, for all intents and purposes, the best team is going to come from the SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, and Big Ten. Thus, there is a roughly 20% chance that the second-best team is also in the same conference as the best team.
I think a very strong argument can be made that this is indeed the case this year, that it is likely that the two (or even 3) best teams are in the Big 12.
Thus, I do not like a playoff system that will, too often (and I do think 20% of the time is too ofter), necessarily freeze out the 2nd best team in the country, while always including weaker teams.
[The reason irrelevant to this case, and that was that while division races often ended long before the season, the wild card race more often goes right down to the last game or two]
December 24th, 2008 at 1:06 PM ^
NCAA basketball tournament. There have been a number of times that the two teams in the finals were from the same conference.
Two come to quickly come to mind:
1976 Indiana def. Michigan
1985 Villanova def. Georgetown (the final 4 also included Big East St. Johns as well)
I am sure there are other cases as well.
December 24th, 2008 at 1:58 PM ^
think Brian's system is the best, and would take away most complaints for teams that think they deserve a shot. A 4 or a 6 team playoff keeps the importance of the regular season, keeps the bowl season intact, and keeps the playoffs small to include anyone that has an argument for a shot at the title. I'm not sure why people haven't embraced that more.
It seems like a true college football fan that wants to keep the tradition of the game largely intact should have wet-dreams about this playoff.
I feel the problem with the current system is that, like this year for example, teams like Texas, USC, and Penn State all have legitimate arguments for a shot at the title. 6 teams solves that, and the "no auto-bid" part keeps the teams out that are just there for winning a crappy conference. But, I guess if someone disagrees with that problem, or thinks there are more problems may not agree with my (and Brian's) logic.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:58 PM ^
The Wetzel Plan is by far the best plan I've read about to date.
December 25th, 2008 at 9:50 PM ^
If anyone needs any proof that a playoff would solve absolutely positively NOTHING, just look at the uproar and whining that goes on in the NFL playoffs whenever it's Week 17 and a 10-6 team in the AFC gets left out in favor of a mediocre one from the NFC.
Comments