Looks like a fine idea to me. He advocates taking the top 3 conference champions and the top at-large team.
Mandel's sensible playoff compromise
You silly, silly person. The word “sensible” is code for “nevergoingtohappenbecause$$$.”
How do you consistently determine the top 3 conferences on a year-to-year basis? Doesn't sound like it would solve a lot of controversy.
You aren't determining or comparing overall conference strength at any point in his plan...you compare the ratings of all teams (using computers, polls, etc), and then the three highest-rated champions from any major conference are included. Then the next highest rated team out of everyone else is also included.
Aren't computers the thing everyone wants to get rid of?
Personally I think they should get rid of the coaches vote.
Some people don't like computers, some people don't like human polling, some people don't like the idea of a committee deciding...the point of changing to a playoff is that if more teams have a shot to prove they are the best, it's more likely that the team who is crowned champion actually deserves it. There is always going to be controversy, but hopefully the eventual winner is pretty clearly superior.
Whatever gets decided this month is merely a step on the way to the eventual 8 or 16 team playoff. The SEC/Big 12 want highest ranked teams - Big10/PAC 12 want conference champions - in order to get both the result will be more teams in a playoff.
The mindless decimation of the best regular season in sports will accelerate...
6 conference winners and 2 at large berths which would take care of everyone is likely where we are eventually headed given all the public posturing and other things going on. Would open up intersectional games (focus on winning conference instead of being 1 loss or undefeated) and if you make strength of schedule a big determinent for at large teams that would help as well.
I'd go with autbids for the top five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC) champions as long as they're in the top 12 of the rankings system used. If a conference champion from one of these conferences (such as ACC champion Clemson last year) doesn't rank in the top 12, then they're replaced by another at large team.
If we'd done this last year, the teams participating would have been LSU, Alabama, Arkansas (SEC), Oregon, Stanford (Pac 12), Wisconsin (Big Ten), Oklahoma State (Big XII) and Boise State.
The next question is seeding. If you do it based solely on a ranking system (like the BCS does), then the top four teams hosting games (assumedly at their own stadiums) would have been LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Stanford.
If you give the top three conference champions the 1-3 rankings, then the other two conference champions fill in from 4 through 8 along with the at large teams. If we did this, then this is how the first round games would have been set up:
#8 Wisconsin at #1 LSU
#5 Stanford at #4 Alabama
#7 Arkansas at #2 Oklahoma State
#6 Boise State at #3 Oregon
The regular season finishes get translated into the post season by ranking the first three conference champions over the first at large team.
Going to eight teams solves a lot of the access issues that the conference commissioners have been debating this past week. You likely get the top four teams (SEC, Big XII back this) along with conference champions (which the other conferences want to see). Instead of debating #4 v. #5, we push it back to #8 v. #9 and make that whole argument markedly less controversial.
Finally, with eight teams, there are plenty of other team in place to go to the major bowls. With the setup, for example, the Orange and Sugar Bowls could have kept their same opponents as they did last year (Michigan-Virginia Tech, Clemson-West Virginia). Kansas State goes to the Fiesta, Michigan State to the Rose (or maybe UM) and you get two other teams for those games.
This isn't rocket science.
So, after more than 100 years of football, how does finally determining a true champion on the field constitute "the mindless decimation of the best regular season in sports?"
If anything, turning the "BCS Championship" into a beauty contest has done more to invalidate the regular season and discourage games like Michigan vs Alabama than a playoff could ever do. If conference champions were guaranteed entry into a playoff, games like Michigan vs Alabama would happen a lot more often during the non-conference portion of the "best regular season in sports."
we should keep the current system, but make the BCS-Bowls play-in games for the playoff. We could have the the four winners from those games play each other, seeding based on BCS ranking(rankings probably would be the most supported, but I would rather have seeding decided based on margin of victory).
The problem with that is the games would run well into January, maybe even February. Please remember that these student-athletes should be STUDENTS first (I know right?) Taking an additional month, month and 1/2 of students time, especially when it's getting close to finals would not be a wise decision.
Find me one kid on the very few participating teams that wouldn't love the extra "burden" of being part of this. The simple solution is have a mandated no practice week leading up to finals. Most of this would take place during winter break when these teams are generally taking time off or prepping for some dopey bowl game anyways.
And also, how would it take an extra month? We're talking about 2 extra games, at most. It would probably be bowl game, first round, bye week, then championship week. That's three weeks after the current bowls, and I think 1 additional week after the current championship game. Not really much longer.
We're going to end with deadlock.
As I see it, we'd be better off with the +1 proposal. Just do the bowl games, then take the top two teams and have them play each other.
1. More fair than the BCS (makes everyone happy)
2. Only adds one extra game (makes U presidents happy)
3. Doesn't devalue the regular season or the bowl system (makes Big 10/Pac 10 happy)
4. Could end up with any two teams, based on quality and bowl wins (makes SEC happy)
Makes the most practical sense. NC in CFB is mythical anyways. It has never been without some level contraversey, so why stop now. Keep the pools, keep the bowls and add a plus one after new years.
Agreed. Force the bowls to finish on Jan 1, and you have the +1 on the next Saturday. The fans get screwed over a bit by the short notice, but not many team fans could afford those tickets anyway.
I'd like to see a slection committee do the final pick, though. The opaque and confusing BCS system just doesn't have the cred for that kind of decision, IMO.
I don't know why anyone would want the bowls to persist with their forced ticket sales and 500K payouts to their execs. They've abused their privelage and don't deserve a cut any longer. Oh, but I forgot - they're charitable organizations - bullshit.
Also - enough with the "sanctity of the regular season" crap - lamest excuse ever. Right up there with pot being a gateway drug on the are-you-really-making-that-argument scale. Someone please provide the rationale for that one (season).
(sorry - responding to some the of the comments, not the OP)
#1, you can't determine the top 3 conference...
#2, What happens when the top 4 is made up of teams from the 2 conferences?
Just say the top 4 teams in the country, if you want to add in "no conference can have more than 2 teams"...I'm okay with that.