I'd say 3 weeks and top eight teams. If that's making players play too many games, shorten the regular season by getting rid of cupcake OOC games.
EDIT: I realize that this wouldn't happen because of the money. But it would be nice.
I'd say 3 weeks and top eight teams. If that's making players play too many games, shorten the regular season by getting rid of cupcake OOC games.
EDIT: I realize that this wouldn't happen because of the money. But it would be nice.
ya it would be nice and it is a long shot and maybe something like just having the bcs games be the sponsored playoff games if that makes sense. you could keep all the bs bowl games for those that dont meet the criteria of the playoff, but this is all something that may never happen or wont for a long time imo.
A slight note about the money aspect -
Craig Thompson (Mountain West Commisioner) is touting a 16 team plan and claims that his plan would generate 3 times what the BCS generates in a year ($182 million versus his proposed plan $700 million).
The BCS contract expires in 2014 and the only way to attack the BCS will be from the economical angle. If a plan could be proven to put more money in everyone's pocket, you could gain some momentum.
True. I beleive that a playoff system would generate more money than the bowl system, but I also think that you would have to shorten the regular season to implement it. There are already concerns about the player's well-being from playing up to 14 games in a season, and imagine the toll an extra 4 games would have. I just don't see it happening, unless we shorten the regular season, which would take a bunch of revenue away from the schools themselves.
You are right about the player's well-being, they get a ton of time now to rest and heal before the bowl games. So you shorten the season and drop 1 or 2 cupcake games out. Taking the cupcake games out then presents a revenue problem for the cupcake schools. Any playoff solution would have to include proposals for issues such as these.
The other big problem would be the teams beyond the cutoff. At 8 teams the 9th and 10th teams would be bloody mad (probably even the 11th, 12th, and 13th schools for that matter). All of them holding claim to their right to be included in the final tournament. We know it is inevitable because even the NCAA tournament with 64 teams gets those 3 or 4 schools every year that feel they got the shaft. Subjectively placing these teams so that everyone could agree is also a nightmare that would have top be addressed. Look at the differences in the BCS to USA Today to AP rankings. The computers are even wackier yet.
IMO the 9th best team in the nation has less of a right to be mad about being left out than the 3rd best team in the nation. You gotta cut it off somewhere, and objectivity is already a problem.
True. I've heard some good arguments for Oklahoma State getting a crack at LSU. Oklahoma State's argument contains much more logic than say Oregon's argument.
I guess I've heard all the tired excuses for why we can't go to a playoff and am starting to regurgitate them myself. I really do hope that a solid plan can be presented and we can move away from the current BCS MNC game.
Right, but if a team is mad that they didn't get in at 9th, it's not because they think they should have a shot at the title, it's because they want the money that goes along with being in the tournament. They probably know that playing 3 of the top 7 teams is not likely going to happen, but getting money from the first and maybe second round is something to be pissed about.
I agree, 8 teams is just enough to include all the contenders, but not so many that you are stuck with 4 weeks of playoffs (which the fans would love, but too much on the players). 8 team playoff is the way of the future!!!
I wonder if a football equivalent of the NIT would arise. There would be so much good football on during tournament season.
What about all the d2 kids who play in playoffs?
Health is not a concern in this.
They play ten regular season games. You can remove two (or three) games from the I-A regular season schedule when you pry them from the cold dead hands of every AD in the country. Not a valid option.
be played at the higher seeds home fields. Start it in early December then take a couple weeks off for Finals and Xmas. Do the semi-finals at the big bowl sites on Jan 1 weekend and then do the championship game a week later at a rotating site.
Picking the top 8 would be the toughest part. One easy (but flawed) way is to choose the 5 major conf champs (sorry Big East) and the three highest rated at large teams based on BCS like formula with some tweaks. No conference can have more than 2 teams in the play-offs.
4 BCS bowl winners play each other, and the winner of that game plays in the national championship.
Keep current bowl system relatively the same...IMHO if you are #5 in the BCS you dont have nearly the gripe that umich had in '06 or Auburn in '03(?)...This year you would presumably get #1 LSU vs #4 Stanford winner vs. #2Alabama v #3 Ok. State winner.
I would feel like the winner of that would be a 'true' national champ...and wouldnt have to blow everything up.
At worst this is a 4-10 year stop gap before a full 6, 8, or 12 team playoff.
Top eight should suffice.
Just have them play around neutral sites, then meet in a NC game. There's a ton of time off between the end of the regular season and the championship game, which allows ample time for a brief playoff system.
However, a format with more than 8 teams, there likely isn't the time for that.
I would allow tweaked BCS to determine the final eight.
First round: Played at higher seeds stadium. Wouldn't you love to host some SEC teams in December?
1 vs 8:
4 vs 5:
2 vs 7
3 vs 6
The winner's move on to the Semi-Finals: Rose, Fiesta
The locations would rotate or could stay fixed. The problem is what do we do with the Sugar and other BCS qualifying bowls.
Of the higher seed hosting in the first round!... I've said this for years too! Finally an advantage for the cold weather teams!
The Sugar Bowl could be a consolation game. Loser of the Rose and Fiesta in your scenario. I think that should rotate obviously.
I love this idea.
Negative. People will not travel twice. You cannot just "use the bowls", it is the worst-possible idea ever conceived in the history of everyone's playoff idea ever. The amount of buy-in from so many different people that you'd have to get is too great. And if you think people will travel twice, check out that picture of the ACCCG in Jacksonville and see how many people from Boston College are there.
Sure, the game itself, but what about the semis? That's what I'm referring to. If one is in New Orleans and the other is in Miami and then the championship is in Pasadena, people aren't going to go to all that.
Even assuming you're right and that corporate interests will gobble up every ticket.....please, that sounds hideous. I can't believe people would be actively trying to get a system where nobody but BIG IMPORTANT CLIENTS of BIG IMPORTANT FIRMS will get to actually see the game in person and it costs $5,000 just to get inside.
16 teams with conf champs and 5 at large, selected by committee. On campus until East/West semifinals and a championship game.
16 team NIT for next group of 16.
Additional tournaments ok if teams approve it.
But I don't play college football. Whatever the players want is what we should do.
Ideally, I want a 4 team playoff with the 4 super-conference champions, but that's unlikely. I would prefer a 6 team playoff, where the top two seeds, determined by record, and/or some other simple factors, get a bye. Only conference winners make it, putting a premium on conference title games, and really forcing the Boise States and Houstons of the world to join a conference. I am very flexible on my ideas, also.
I also like the idea of the BCS just controlling the championship game, and letting the other BCS bowls be determined by conference champions and the bowls themselves.
Excellent questions, my man.
1) Yes. Conference champions would be the ones in the playoffs. No at-larges (that brings in too much schedule padding, opinions, corruption etc.). It really creates a 12 team playoff if you think about it, since 2 teams from each conference (1 from each division) will be playing for a spot in the National Playoffs. I don't care if they get mad about it. Win your conference games. Earn your way. This isn't 'Nam.
2) BSU and Houston are not in the AQ conferences. That is what I meant. This would force them to man up and join an AQ conference and play real opponents. I don't care if Boise State wins every game 100-0. Join a real conference, or don't play for the national title.
3) This is what I am flexible on. You could have some sort of committee determine the top two teams if there is a huge tie for records and whatnot. Location is something that can be worked on as well. You could have two of the current BCS bowls be the first round, and the other two current BCS bowls be the other two if you wanted. I am open to logistical ideas here. This is obviously devaluing the top bowl games (which face it, that's what all playoff proposals do, and that's what's preventing this from ever happening).
Or the simple route is take the BCS away completely except for the championship game. That might be the best way to do it within reason.
8 team playoff: Michigan, Western, Eastern, S.D.State, Minnesota, N'western, Purdue, Illinois
16 would be ideal but likely we will have to do it in steps anyway. Right now, just get them up to 4 with a +1 deal and then once everybody gets a sniff of the money, 8 is inevitable.
Eight team playoff. Six AQ conferences get automatic bid. Last two spots go to at large bids based on entire body of work over the season with no more than two teams going from a conference.
This would place a huge premium on winning your conference. Win your conference and you have a shot at a national title. More importantly it changes the focus of non conference games. Now you would have teams looking for big games to pad their resume, more importantly they don't have worry about losing a big non conference game so they're more likely to take the risk.
Besides that rank the teams from 1 to 8 with the at large schools always being 7 & 8. First two rounds home games for high seed, held preferably first two weeks of December. Championship game at bowl game. And all eliminated teams guaranteed separate bowl game during bowl week.
I personally think you need to look no further than the Big East to realize that we need to get rid of automatic qualifiers.
but you have to look no further than the NCAA basketball and hockey tournaments to realize sometimes those autobids prove they belong. Besides it's hard to tell how good any one conference is when usually you just see them playing against each other.
Is a 3 or 4 loss (or, if Louisville somehow manages to win the conference, FIVE loss) team really in the conversation for the national championship? By your logic, yes, because they won their conference. By any other objective measure, no frickin' way. When the top-ranked BE team (8-3 WVU) is losing to 7-5 Louisville and 5-6 Syracuse, that is NOT a national championship team. Ditto 8-3 Cincy (losses to WVU, 8-4 Rutgers, and CRUSHED by 5-7 Tennessee). Sorry, but the BE this year is case-in-point that AQ bids don't work.
If team is not good enough to win they will lose. So will 7 other teams, 4 in the first round. And most years the top 4 teams will win the first round. However the problem with college football is that most teams don't play anyone of note outside of their conference so there is no way to know how good a conference really is compared to other conferences. The only reason Arkansas and Alabama are ranked as high as they are is because they play in the SEC between them their best win is against Penn State. So how good is the SEC compared to any other conference this year. We can assume but honestly nobody really knows. The only way to account for this is with automatic bids for major conferences. And as of this moment the Big East is a major conference, and their champion deserve a shot to play just in case one year a conference is drastically underrated.
I don't think a cinderella team getting to the Elite 8 means that college football should have autobids in an 8 team playoff format.
Since the tournament expanded to 32 teams in 1975 only one team seeded 8 or lower has won the tournament (Villanova 1985). The champion is predominantly a 1, 2, or 3 seed: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/finalfourseeds. You have to go back 15 years to find a national champion that was even a 4 seed.
In other words, if the team had any real likelihood of a national title, they would be ranked high anyway and wouldn't need some crutch of an auto-bid to make it into an 8 team tournament.
This is the same format that I favor. Top 8 teams with top seeds getting home games. Insures larger turnouts for the playoff games, puts emphasis on doing well during the season, and encourages better OOC scheduling.
I would say three weeks and Top 6 based on BCS ratings. I would consider some stipulation that any undefeated team ranked 7, 8, 9, or 10 would take the #6 team's place in the playoff.
The big question is how to fit three weeks into the schedule - ideally, you still want the players to have an opportunity to spend Christmas with families, study for and take final exams, and be in class for a new semester (granted, the current format and relatively recent changes to the system don't really seem to care about such considerations). Hopefully, the two teams with bye weeks in the first round would be playing in conference championship games anyway.
Round one (in this calendar year) would be December 12 - higher seed hosts
Round two December 19 - probably rotate these among the BCS bowl sites to take the place of the normal contest (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, Orange). It would be a challenge to pull this off though when there's a low likelihood of being able to keep the same conference tie-in's.
The championship game would be at its regularly scheduled time in January. I could also see moving week two to New Year's.
Welcome to finals week. No possible way any university president goes for that schedule.
I'm as ardently anti-playoff as it gets, but all the other football playoffs take place during finals week. I'd like to think that would be an obstacle, but it's not.
Before the BCS mess, "some" bowl games meant a lot. It was an opportunity for the Big 10 conference champion to play the Pac 10 champion, etc. I would like to see us re-establish the traditional bowl rivalries and have the winners of the Big 4 play each other in a two week playoff. The other crappy bowls can be kept for the sake of money and all that.
Agreed. I think using the big bowls the way they were before this mess would be the best way to start a playoff system.
its never gonna happen
Take the winners of the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 as autobids. Take the highest ranked conference champion from the rest of the conferences (MAC, Big Least, MWC, etc). Then take two at larges. That makes 8 teams.
It would be a mistake to do away with auto-bids. You've got to have conference championships mean something for the post season. Year-end games with high stakes have played a huge part in the popularity of college football over the years. Nebraska vs Oklahoma. Michigan vs Ohio State.
8 is ideal, but it won't be 8. It will be 16 at least. Guaranteed. It might start off at 8. Maybe even 4. But it will evolve to no less than 16 and it will probably happen fast. Too many teams will whine and bitch if they just barely miss getting in.
It would probably not be possible to do away with the bowls, so I would keep them for teams that don't make the tournament or that lose in the first round. For the tournament, I would put the semifinals and final at neutral sites but allow the higher seeded team to host earlier games.
My idea was basically the same as Hannibal's, so I'll just +1 it.
Right now there are 5 conferences worthy of autobids for their champs. Highest ranked winner of non-autobid conference also deserves a shot. 2 at-larges solves the issue of a great non-conference winner (e.g. Alabama and Stanford this year). At-larges get lowest seeds automatically (WIN YOUR CONFERENCE!).
First round should be at home sites of higher seeds.
Only real trouble I see is the following scenario: say Michigan and OSU go into The Game both 11-0. Michigan wins, then beats OSU in the rematch B1G title game. But 11-2 OSU is still ranked high enough to get an at-large. Michigan faces OSU again in the MNC game and loses - is OSU really the national champion for winning 1 out of 3? (Realistically though the chances of an 11-2 conference championship loser being in the top 8 are small).
That's a distinct possibility. When you determine your championship with a year end tournament and teams don't get home field or byes, the championship goes to the hot team, not the best team.
Give me Dan Wetzel's, it's perfect
I like his plan. I would take any playoff plan vs current system. My biggest issue with the current system is that the championship game is pretty much in February now. We have to wait a month and a half to watch a sloppy game because the teams haven't played in over a month.
8 teams. No auto bids. 1st round is two weeks after conference championship. 2nd round is January 1, both games rotating between Orange, Fiesta, Rose and Sugar Bowl. Championship game is a week later.
This is not exactly my dream scenario, but it what I think could be most realistic.
BCS only determines the final 4. One and two teams host a semifinal, championship site is bid for like the superbowl. After the final four are pulled, the bowl alliances kick in, allowing for bowls to replace final four teams with at large bids.
Love the idea of a national semifinal in the big house against an SEC team.
6 conference champions and 2 at large bids. Use BCS standing to decide 2 at large bids. Don't count conference championship games in BCS standings. Make independent teams ineligible for the playoff.
First round will be home games for the top 4 seeds.
semi-finals will be a double header at a pre determined site with the NC 6 days later.
is basically what I'm thinking too, except for the double header at a neutral site. Won't work unless there's 4 locker rooms will it? I guess, if the games were far enough apart, it could work. Nevermind, I've talked myself into it, i like it!
My idea is just to cut down on travel expenses for both universitys and fans. Have the NC at the same location as the semi-finals but 6 days later and the travel cost would be essentially the same as a bowl trip.
I treat the hope for a playoff the same as I do my desire to see Britney Spears in porn. Much as I want it, I just have to face that it's never gonna happen.
After the whole bald debacle my image of her is ruined.
Twelve teams with four 1st round byes. A dozen gets the net around anybody with a reasonable claim for inclusion, including the 12-0 Houstons of the world, while also rewarding top-performing teams with an off-week, and sneaking in a couple of provisional powerhouses from heavyweight conferences who couldn't win their division. I'd also whack the conference championship games because they tend to muddy the waters more than anything. Ranking and seeding is combination BCS style ranking (a la RPI) plus NCAA tournament style committee. All rounds but the championship at home sites, as in the NFL.
With the invention of the BCS championship game, all of the bowls are strictly exhibitions (as they always/never really were), and all but the bottom four to six or however many are affected by the loss of 12 bowl-eligible teams to the playoff can continue as exhibitions that people can continue to watch for compelling football, can continue to watch for rooting interests, can continue to watch because they just can't help themselves or can continue to ignore altogether. In hoops, the NIT coexists with the NCAA tournament. A playoff does not devalue the Weedeater Bowl.
A playoff is going to happen. How much bigger, and with more TV money on the table, is a national semifinal than an interestingly matched NYD bowl? I think we slowly expand from BCS game to plus-one, to eight teams, just as the NCAA tournament has expanded.
Going to 8 games over three weeks at neutral sites would make it tough to fill seats. How many of you go to every bowl game? Would you go to three post season games in one season?
If it goes to 6 or 8, I think you have some home games at least in the inital round.
Although it would seem good to have 4, 6, or 8 teams in the hunt at the end of the year because it is an improvement over what we have now, there will still be plenty of complaining from the bubble teams that just miss out. Not that a team that is ranked 9 really should have a shot at winning the national championship. But then again, look at basketball. We have 68 teams now and we still hear complaints from the bubble teams.
I know there are seasons where a championship game is needed, but looking back to pre-BCS is a playoff or the BCS even needed? LSU already beat Alabama on the road. I am not a fan of a rematch. It is not like the game as at LSU or was early in the season.
How often are there more then two teams that are undefeated or have legitimate claims to the national championship based on the polls? 6 or even 8 teams are not necessary as those extra 2 or 4 teams have no legitimate claim.
That's why you'd have to play as many rounds as possible on campus. You gotta start talking to universities about why their sending all this economic activity centered around their sports programs somewhere else for someone else to benefit from while they're losing money on the bowl proposition. At some point the idea of filling their own stadiums one or two or three extra times has to start gaining traction with ADs and uni presidents. No?
A three week with top 8 would be nice. During the first two weeks of this, all of the conferences could create some kind of cross-conference tournament(s) based on records up to that point so games can still be played outside of the playoffs. These games would be your second tier bowls now, everyone still makes money, they can be played on home fields to increase revenue over what second tier bowls can bring in currently, everyone still makes money, be televised as the bowls are now, everyone still makes money, the season is not shortened because of needing three weeks for a playoff, and everyone still makes money. After all...this will work as long as the importance of collegiate academics and the student athletes is featured, and everyone still makes money.
16-team playoff...the other divisions have them, why not D-IA.
First round of 8 games is Thanksgiving Weekend... pack in 4 games a day on Friday and on Saturday. That's like 12-14 hours of back-2-back-2-back-2-back football playoffs. Sites are the home stadiums of the higher-ranked team (or cites of their choosing, e.g. Northwestern can do Soldier Field if it wants, etc.).
Second round games the following weekend, usually 1st weekend of December. AGain at site of higher-ranked team.
WHY? Here's why....because on the day that currently the BCS bowls are selected (the first Sunday in December), we'll have only 4 teams left in the playoff (the winners of the 4 games the day before). Thus, EVERY BOWL can still exist... and can fill up on every team in college football, OTHER THAN the 4 left in the playoff.
The semifinals and finals are 10-14 days apart, in late december and very early January. These would be preselected, neutral sites... but NOT existing bowl games.
So, bascially, we fill up Turkey DAy weekend with wall to wall football, and essentially add three bowl games (Nat'l Semis, and Finals) on top of all the bowls.
We get MOAR football, not less.... and 16 teams means lots of teams invited... and everyone in the country can fill out their brackets!!!
Use the BCS Bowls as the first round of the playoffs (with scrapping the NCG). This way, we could even keep a B1G/PAC12 game in Rose if they decide to keep that aspect of the BSC tie ins.. Then It's just two more weeks for the winners of the four BCS games to play in a semi then final round, a true NCG.
Plus we can keep the other bowls in place and they will mean just as much now as they will with a playoff. Making a BCS game will carry even more weight in this playoff.
This is my idea...
Eight teams and you can use the major bowls to run the tournament.
For the first round, the higher ranked team (I guess we'd just use BCS rankings for the sake of this example) hosts the game. 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc.
The second round and championship game would rotate between the three most reputable bowls: Rose, Orange, and Sugar. You would play these games on New Years Day.
And then a week or two later, the bowl left over from those three hosts the national championship game.
I'm cool with a four team as well, scrapping the first round.
BIg Ten, SEC, PAC 12, Big 12, ACC, Big East champs get first round bye.
Round One, Dec. 10: (using this year's calendar) Four at-large teams as determined by BCS standings prior to conf. championship games play down to two teams at home college sites; home teams decided by BCS ranking. Two at-large victors added to pool of six conf. champions for final 8 contenders.
Round Two/Quarterfinals, Dec. 17: 8 teams play in four games at home college sites; home teams determined by BCS ranking. Four teams emerge for next round.
Round Three/Semifinals, Dec. 31/Jan 1: Four teams play in two bowl games; bowls rotate hosting year-to-year. Two teams emerge for Championship game.
Round Four/Finals, Jan. 7: Two finalists play in Championship game in bowl game; bowls rotate hosting of championship game
I agree that the regular season should be cut back to 11 games, although this seems unlikely for revenue reasons.
One main problem with this plan is that it's inevitable that there will be games played in lousy December conditions in Rounds One and Two. I think this is balanced by the advantage that selling tickets will be no problem since these games are on campus. If the NFL has no problem selling tickets to outdoor playoff games in December and January, then college football won't either, especially since there will probably be no more than two or three such games in any year.
NFL stadiums have provisions to endure the climate of December and January. I'm having fun flashbacks to the Vikings-Bears game last year played at TCF Bank Stadium in Minnesota. Footing was definately a problem as players couldn't plant their feet in the frozen turf. I believe that NFL outdoor stadiums have heat under the turf whereas TCF Bank Stadium did not. I know there was something mentioned about the vendors as well. The facilities for food and drinks were not equipped to handle the single digit weather. I do think it makes it fun and is the backdrop for a great story to tell some day, but I could be in the minority.
being an avid college football fan who absolutely loooovvvveeeessss Michigan football on top of that, my dream is a 16 team playoff over 4 weeks (obviously skipping the week of Christmas) because I have always hated waiting for the January 1 bowl games to start. Simply the top 16 BCS teams would play, no auto qualifiers or anything. I simply love college football too much and watching the NFL and lame ass bowl games early on in December doesn't really give me my weekly football fix in the Fall. I know it will never happen because they are college kids who get a 1 month Christmas break and they dare not take too much of that away. Plus for some reason we seem to think that 15-16 games is too many, even though High Schoolers have to play 15 games to win their championships. My solution is do away with one of those stupid early season games.... You could also call me crazy, but these conference championship games don't really solve anything either. It seems to cause more problems in the BCS. Just give the conference Title to the team with the best conferece record and use the tie-breaker system. This way we have no next week rematches against Ohio, and teams like UCLA don't have a chance at making the BCS.
I just never really liked how college football seemed to get really exciting around this point in the season when the National championship picture is shaping up, and then once all the bowls are announced it seems to just get kind of lame, and all the focus goes towards the 2 teams that the BCS magically selected. I would like to see a chance of winning the national championship be in the sights of 14 other teams as well. It would in general just add more excitement in this annual dead period in the college football season....1 month is too long to go without playing a game in a season. College football is literally the only sport league that does this.
Lastly in terms of bowls and money, it would be really easy to retain the crap bowl games for the 6-6 to 8-4 teams of the world and their fans to go travel. As far as the tournament would go, the first 8 games could be the Cotton, Peach, Outback, and Capital One, and whatever other bowl games. The next 4 could be the regular BCS bowls. The last 2 could be like the NCAA final 4 in Bball and be played in one BCS town each year. The only real issues I see with this are is the extensive traveling that might happen around finals period. But in my dream world, this is how college football would be. I still don't think it's too far from a possibility though.
Realistically speaking, lets just go with 8 teams, no auto qualifiers. Just the top 8 in the BCS. I would be satisfied with that as well.
12 team (I know it sounds like a weird number but let's look into it).
This would allow you to reward the regular season top teams. Allow for byes for Teams 1-4.
Then you have 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 8. These games would take place the first weekend in December. Then the worst ranked winner would play the #1 team, the highest ranked first round winner would play #4. Then you simply follow the 8 team system earlier discussed by many people.
There would be 7 Total more games an you could name them Rose. Fiesta, Sugar, etc and keep the Semi-final and National Championship game titles.
Edit: 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9
1) Timing--these are student athletes who have to take finals (so have to be careful going deep into December); going deep into January infringes on NFL playoff turf.
2) How do conference championships play a role? Even if you have a 11 game season--you could end up playing a 15 game schedule (conf championship plus quarters, semis, finals under 8 team playoff). This cannot happen.
I'd keep the BCS formula and bowl system generally. I'd implement a 4 team playoff (basically like the +1), and you'd have to be a conference champion to be eligible (we'd take the top 4 ranked champs) OR be top 4 in BCS and 4 champs aren't in top 10 (to exclude weak conf champs).
One semi is played in the Rose, the other in the Sugar on NYD. The final played one week later on a rotating site like the Super Bowl (could be any site, like Cowboy Stadium, Miami, LA's new NFL stadium, or one of the standard sites like Tempe).
Fiesta and Orange still get to have their bowls, and the Citrus and Cotton Bowl joins them as the new 4 bowl BCS, and are free to pick based on lottery in alternating fashion (remaining big conf champs must be picked)
This year would produce:
1) Rose: Oklahoma St. v. Oregon
2) Sugar: LSU v. Va Tech
In the new BCS, you'd have to pick from Bama, Stanford, Wisconsin, Michigan, Houston, Boise, etc. for awesome marquee matchups.
Your 1) comes up all the time, but I don't get it. Basketball, hockey, and every football division except FBS all play during December. The bowl eligible teams are practicing during that time. Why do FBS players (but no other NCAA athletes) turn into delicate flowers that can't balance academics and sports in December?
This year, the champions look something like this
LSU/UGA, OSU/OU, VaTech/Clemson, Houston, Oregon, MSU/Wisconsin
If UGA wins, Boise takes their spot, LSU takes Oregon's spot, Bama and Stanford are at-large picks.
If Clemson wins, SCAR takes their spot, at-larges are Stanford and VaTech.
If UGA wins and Clemson wins, Boise replaces UGA, SCAR replaces Clemson, LSU replaces Oregon, at-larges are Stanford and VaTech are the at-large picks.
If the higher ranked teams all win, then Bama and Stanford are the picks.
Let's say that Clemson beats VaTech again, this is how the bowls would look:
Rose - MSU/Wisconsin vs. Oregon
Sugar - LSU vs. Stanford/Houston (SCAR cannot play LSU)
Fiesta - OSU/OU vs. Stanford/Houston/SCAR (From Clemson)
Oranage - VaTech (at-large) vs. Stanford/Houston/SCAR (From Clemson)
Let's say that Oregon, LSU, Stanford, and SCAR all win their bowl games
LSU and SCAR can't play each other. Stanford and Oregon can't play each other.
Oregon @ LSU. SCAR @ Stanford.
The higher ranked winner of those two games hosts the lower ranked winner, e.g. Stanford @ LSU.
Stanford would take their spot, Bama, Boise State as at-large picks. Stanford plays MSU/Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
That would actually be one of the best scenarios as it would get 1-7 into the bowls with MSU/Wisconsin being the only outlier. If MSU/Wisc were not in the top 16, Oregon would be an At-Large because Arkansas can't be the at-large. If Oregon past them this weekend, that would be the top 8 in the bowl games.
EDIT: Actually, I see that your point that UCLA wasn't ranked, so Stanford wouldn't take their spot, but there would be 3 at-large picks so you would still get LSU, Stanford, and Boise as your additional teams.
Isn't this kinda like asking "if you were going to have sex with Angelina Jolie, which position would you use?"
Playoff is not happening. It is at least a decade away, if not more. Who cares what the format is for something that is not even a remote reality?
It's more like asking "If Michigan were to be BCS eligible, which bowl game should they go to?"
But when I do I prefer to hit it from behind and in front of a mirror!
How about this?
I wouldn't mind at least keeping something akin to the BCS ranking system (but not that system per se) and have the top twelve plus four play-in games from the next eight in those rankings, creating a field of sixteen to play it out to a title game.
I would imagine the play-ins as something akin to other sports' playoffs (i.e., 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 5th, etc...), and what intrigues me about that is the potential to see at least a couple "dark horse" candidates emerge and go into the actual tournament, if we can call it that.
Perhaps, although I am not entirely certain I would do it this way, the field of 16 could be a "1 plays 8, 2 plays 9, etc..." scenario. I would think there is the potential to see an interesting mix of contests each year this way, and it might even create a little less predictability in who can end up going deep into a playoff (because I am looking for football's Butler, right?)
Interesting exercise actually. Perhaps we can all come with a proposal by 2014 and MGoBlog can sponsor a game? This would be the answer to "???" in our path to riches perhaps.
nobody wants empty stadiums. The best way to ensure packed stadiums is to have the semi-finals and NC all at the same venue. Anything more then 4 teams will require home games for the higher seeds.
I'm in favor of a plus one system and just voting again after all the bowl games. It seems that many questions are answered after the New Years Day bowl games and it would restore the traditional bowl game rivalries like the Pac12 and Big10 in the Rose Bowl. For a quick example I think back to the 2007 bowl season where there was debate whether Michigan should play Ohio State again in the National Championship game. Turns out neither should have been there after the beatings Michigan and OSU took but I would have loved to have seen USC play Florida.
I just don't want to see college kids beat the hell out of each other for 16 weeks while trying to balance classes and life. That's asking a lot of 19-20 year old kid. After reading 3 and Out I doubt many college students would sign up for Denards day and adding a playoff would just make it worse. It's a lot of fun to watch but college football is just a game and I don't feel the players benefit from a prolonged playoff system and that's what this should be about. The other sports like hockey and basketball play much shorter seasons compared to their pro counterparts even with their playoffs and the physical toll is less. If you want an NFL season then pay the kids NFL money.
I'd like to see one of the major six conferences collapse. I know there's a ton of talk about 4 super conferences, but what if the BIG 12, SEC, BIG 10, PAC 12 all stood strong, and the ACC and BIG EAST combined. The rest could all go different places.
Then, every december, 5 bids would be granted to conference champions, and 3 would be granted to at large teams. These could go to the 2006 Michigans or the 2011 Alabamas or the hyperbolic Notre Dames and other independents, or even a Toledo that upset OSU and ran the table. Eight teams.
To put it in context of this year:
Dec 3 Conf Championships
Dec 10 Bye Week (Team Selections would be announced this gameday)
Dec 17 Quarterfinals
Dec 24 Semifinals
Dec 31 Bye Week (Just like the Super Bowl)
First Saturday Night in January: ROSE BOWL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
People say a playoff wouldn't work because there are so many teams, and you play so few games, but the ratio of games to D I teams in football is close to that of Baskteball.
Football = 12 guaranteed games to 119 teams (1 to 9.19)
Basketball = 30 guaranteed games to 342 teams (1 to 11.4)
And i think we all can agree that March Madness is a very exciting and worthwhile time.
The sheer scope and range of different playoff ideas in this thread only further cements my thinking that most people will be unhappy if and when a playoff does enter on the scene. Lots of people confuse "I want A playoff" with "I want MY playoff."
Honestly, I looked at each one of these and I could pick them all apart. Very few of them take reality into account. Most people start with what they want and build from there, and any objections raised are met with "well you could change this and this about the current system to make it work." The right way to do it is to remember who holds the pursestrings and what they want - and then see if there's something you like that matches up. Because the people who hold the cards now will never give them up - which they'd be required to do in half these scenarios. One's idea is hardly worth discussing if one thinks you can just "use the bowls" and play games all over the country like they do in basketball, or if it removes autobids from those who currently have BCS ones. Or if it assumes we can have a nice compact little six-teamer and have it never, ever expand. Those are no-gos from the very start.
If I were to have a basic idea, it would be a 16-teamer with eight autobids and an at-large pool of teams that a selection committee would choose from. It would use the Big East format, so the top eight get byes and the top four get two byes, and four games are played each week. All games are played at home sites until the semifinals, a Football Final Four to be held at a neutral site. All losers go to a bowl unless you lose in the Final Four. Minimum of 12 teams get to host a game. Bowls get to continue on as before. Everyone's happy, including and especially the money people.
If I can't have that playoff (and it's extremely unlikely I ever could) then I don't want any playoff.
I think you're extremely right and off a bit.
You hit the nail on the head when you said, in a nutshell, that no matter what the playoff format people will be unhappy. This is human nature.
However, you're criticizing people for giving their opinion of what playoff they would want, in a thread titled. "If A Playoff, What's Your Format"
However, you're criticizing people for giving their opinion of what playoff they would want, in a thread titled. "If A Playoff, What's Your Format"
Well....yes. And no. If I thought people were stupid for having and presenting ideas at all, I wouldn't have my own. What I'm trying to say is that most ideas cause discussions that go roughly like this:
- Guy with idea: "Here is my playoff plan."
- Me: "It wouldn't work because of X, Y, and Z."
- Guy with idea: "Well, college football should change X, Y, and Z, that would make it work and it would make college football better."
The discussion is always about wanting a square peg to go in a round hole and insisting that the hole should change. If your format requires changes in college football that require the people in charge of the money and influence to give up some of that money and influence, then it's a nonstarter. Instead of wishing the hole was different, find a different peg. That's where I tried to go with my format.
We keep saying the current system is broken, but really, it's the only sport that we still get to argue and debate for eternity.
College hoops, the big issue is which .500 bubble team got snubbed. Who cares? As fans, we currently have 12 or 13 weeks of "Do or Die," followed by years of revenge, and pay-backs for games that we wish were played.
I think it creates a pretty cool thing that no other sport has. I'd rather still argue that we would have crushed Nebraska in '97 than see a crappy 6 seed, or 3 loss football team hoist a trophy.
Plus ten billion.
I like playoffs. I don't like bowl games. I don't think I will ever marry my brain to something that cannot provide a definate result. That's what bowl games do. They leave you not knowing.
Stealing a line from Doug Gottlieb here - "during the NCAA basketball tournament you don't hear people clamoring for a bunch of bowl games do you?"
Change season to 11 games with no games against FCS opponents. Allow teams to play an FCS team a week or two before season opener. ACC, B1G, B12, P12, SEC get auto bids to playoff if they have 2 or fewer losses and are ranked in top 12 of ranking formula. Remaining schools and seeding selected by committee. First two rounds hosted by higher seeds, starting after a week off from championship week. New Year's weekend off and championship the following week at a neutral site. Keep the bowls how they are but subtract 4 games to account for playoff teams.
Okay, if I could waive a magic wand and set up my dream scenario, it would be five rounds, 32 teams, and I'd merge the FBS and FCS. All conferences would have autobids. Part of the fun of the basketball tourney is the sense that some small team can get it's shot to knock off one of the big powers. I would love to see that in college football's postseason.
Since that's never going to happen, I think a straight-up eight team tourney would be best. No autobids, and set up a committee (like the basketball tourney does) to pick the brackets. At this point the bowls have lost all their charm to me, so I'd say use campus sites for the first two rounds, and have a national championship in warm-weather or indoor locations.
First of all it would be beneficial to ND to never join a conference and teams like Texas to go independent. Secondly it would make conference championships moot.
With an 8 team format you can essentially have a 14 team playoff. 6 conference championship games are almost like an extra round.
I think Michigan should qualify for a BCS game if they win 9 games and are in the top14 in the BCS standings ....
oops, forgot that's how nd's BCS contract is .... oh, too bad they only won 8 games this season (and actually just 1 was over a team with a winning record).
I'd scrap the current fetid mess and start over with:
*Eight 15-team geographic divisions. The big challenge here is parity, but it can be done.
*Ten game regular season, with two non-division games (and no FCS games; though they could be played in exhibitions before the start of the regular season).
*Take the eight division winners and put them in a three round playoff, with the first two rounds located at higher seeded schools and the final round at a rotating neutral site. Seeding could be based on straight record and score differential (a la the Premiership).
*Those that don't make the "tournament" can still qualify for whatever bowl games are profitable enough to remain extant.
This will never happen. I understand that.
I'd have eight teams. Preserve the four historical BCS bowl games and make them the first round. It would still be every Big Ten team's dream to play in the Rose Bowl but now they would also still be in the running for the national championship game!
The Big East winner and two at-larges are added into the pool. If independents like Notre Dame or non-qualifying schools like Houston or Boise State want to make it into the tournament they'll have to schedule tough teams and still pull out 10-12 wins.
There will not be more than two teams from the same conference. The Big East champ chooses its bowl and the higher ranked BCS at-large chooses its bowl provided the game is not intraconference or otherwise a rematch.
Sample first round using today's BCS rankings and assuming favored teams win out:
Rose Bowl: 15 Wisconsin (Big Ten Champ) vs 9 Oregon (Pac 12 Champ)
Orange Bowl: 5 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) vs UR Cincinatti (Big East Champ, chooses to play in Orange)
Fiesta Bowl: 3 Oklahoma St (Big Twelve Champ) vs 2 Alabama (SEC at large, forbidden from playing in Sugar Bowl)
Sugar Bowl: 1 LSU (SEC champ) vs 4 Stanford (at large)
Matchups in the second round could fall into place by avoiding rematches and intraconference matchups. If not, a committee decides the matchup. Again assuming favored teams win out according to today's BCS rankings:
1 LSU vs 5 Virginia Tech
2 Alabama vs 9 Oregon (can't play LSU because it'd be a regular season rematch)
If LSU and Alabama are really the two best teams they'd have to go through the 4/5 and 3/9 teams respectively to prove it and deserve their rematch for the national title.
Saves me from having to type it up.
get rid of big east as a bcs.5 bcs conf champs and 3 at large
8 conference champions (ACC,Big 12, B1G, C-USA/MWC, MAC, Pac-12, SEC, SBC/WAC) get auto-bids. 4 at-large bids based on record & strength of schedule given out.
10 consolation bowls for the next best 20 teams in those at-large rankings of records & stength of schedule.
Fiesta Bowl 13 v 14
Citrus Bowl 15 v 16
Peach Bowl 17 v 18
Outback Bowl 19 v 20
Gator Bowl 21 v 22
Liberty Bowl 23 v 24
Sun Bowl 25 v 26
Holiday Bowl 27 v 28
Insight Bowl 29 v 30
Pizza Bowl 31 v 32
I really like your idea. I have always thought college football should bowls and a playoff.
but anyone who thinks the MAC champ should be in a playoff over the 3rd best team in a big 6 conference is crazy
6 teams. 2 play in games, which would lead to a final four style. Winners play eachother.
16 teams, 5 automatic bids (B1G, ACC, SEC, PAC-12, and Big 12). The rest of the slots will be at-large bids, selected by an committee.