PDA

View Full Version : How would you do a playoff in college football?



samikeyp
11-01-2005, 02:36 PM
1-A College Football needs a playoff...I think most of us agree on that.

How would you do it? This is not a bash thread. This is just if you could set up a playoff, what would you do.

This is how I would do it:

First, no independents. You're too good to join a conference? Screw you. Yes, you too Notre Dame. Join the Big 10 and shut the hell up.

Second, everyone has a conference championship game or no one does. Pac-10 becomes the Pac-12 and has Northern and Southern Divisions. Grab Boise State and Utah and deal with it.

Third the layout.

Its a 16-team playoff where each of the 11 D-1 Conferences sends its winner. Then the 12th-16th spots are wild cards based on record and strength of schedule much like March Madness.

You seed the teams 1-16. Hold the first round the week after the conference championships. This year that would be Dec. 8,9 and 10. The schools already play on Thursdays and Fridays anyway. The next week (this year Dec. 16 and 17) is the quarter finals, Dec. 24 would be the semis and Dec. 31 would be the National Championship game. The networks televising could work the games around their NFL schedules.

Fourth. The Bowls.
One of the biggest complaints is the tradition of the bowls. You can still use them. The NC game is the Rose, semis Orange and Sugar, quarters Fiesta, Cotton, Holiday and Peach. First round Alamo, Citrus, Sun, Independence, Gator, Liberty, Hawaii and Las Vegas.

Fifth. What about everyone else?
Use the rest of the bowls. For those teams that don't qualify, you still reward a decent season with a post-season trip. The playoff only uses 15, there is a total of 28 this season. Use the other 13. That is room for 26 more teams. You are a Baylor or a Nebraska that is bowl eligible you can still have a nice season.


What would you do?

Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2005, 02:43 PM
No. 1 plays No. 4
No. 2 plays No. 3

Winners play for championship
Maybe you could have a consolation game for the losers.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 02:49 PM
Sounds good...how do you determine the four spots?

Mr. Peabody
11-01-2005, 02:52 PM
Sounds good...how do you determine the four spots?

BCS rankings. At least they will be good for something.
________
How to roll a joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

SWC Bonfire
11-01-2005, 02:54 PM
Your back to the polls.

Playoffs consist of conference champions. Not a conference champion? You've been eliminated.

If you wanted to keep polls in it, there could be a play-in for a final spot chosen by a BCS-like system amongst the once-beatens/independents/Mid levels.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 02:58 PM
Playoffs consist of conference champions. Not a conference champion? You've been eliminated.

I am all for that but there are 11 conferences. How would you schedule the games?

Marcus Bryant
11-01-2005, 02:59 PM
You gotta start small. I think an 8 team playoff would be the max. The basic problem is integrating a playoff system with the traditional bowls. The objection to a playoff system as I understand it is that it would give certain schools the opportunity for multiple bowl game and payouts while at the same time denying other schools the opportunity to go to a bowl game.

Still, I would think that a 4 team playoff, using 3 bowls (rotate the title game among them) makes the most sense for now. That would take care of the #3 odd man out problem.

Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2005, 03:02 PM
I am all for that but there are 11 conferences. How would you schedule the games?


the title game would be played on Labor Day.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 03:03 PM
You gotta start small. I think an 8 team playoff would be the max

I could live with that. It would make scheduling easier. How do you determine who goes?

Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2005, 03:08 PM
I could live with that. It would make scheduling easier. How do you determine who goes?


the BCS polls

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 03:16 PM
Isn't the idea though to get away from the polls and settle it on the field?

SWC Bonfire
11-01-2005, 03:19 PM
I am all for that but there are 11 conferences. How would you schedule the games?

Make it SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC & Big East champs + a play-in for the Western US and Eastern US = 8 teams.:tu

j-6
11-01-2005, 03:20 PM
Weren't there a bunch of good suggestions a while back on this subject? I'll go look for the thread.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 03:21 PM
probably but its always good to rehash once in awhile. :)

j-6
11-01-2005, 03:21 PM
Make it SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC & Big East champs + a play-in for the Western US and Eastern US = 8 teams.:tu

Or a play-in game between the MWC-WAC champs for one bid and the CUSA-MAC champs for the other.

SWC Bonfire
11-01-2005, 03:24 PM
There has to be a way to incorporate the play-in with a conference that is doing poorly. Perhaps the two conf. champions with the worst record have to do the play-ins.

(Such if the Big East Champ is 6-5 and the MAAC champ is 10-1 :lol)

Extra Stout
11-01-2005, 03:30 PM
I like j-6's idea. The six major conferences get bids, and the four minors have a play-in game to qualify.

Of course, none of this will ever happen, because the universities in the major conferences make a ton of money off the current system, and money is more important than competitive integrity.

In order for anything to change, we have to stop watching BCS games and stop discussing the rankings so that they don't make as much money.

Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2005, 03:30 PM
Isn't the idea though to get away from the polls and settle it on the field?


no. the idea is to keep undefeated teams, usually the 3 and 4 spots, from getting screwed over.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 03:59 PM
right and the BCS screws over undefeated teams. Why not have all the undefeated teams meet in a playoff instead of letting a computer decide who plays for the title?

SWC Bonfire
11-01-2005, 04:00 PM
right and the BCS screws over undefeated teams. Why not have all the undefeated teams meet in a playoff instead of letting a computer decide who plays for the title?

What if there are no undefeated teams? It's happened recently, I think. Someone check.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 04:06 PM
It doesn't have to be just undefeated teams. The top 5 teams could all have one loss and none of those to each other.

My point is that in this current system, someone with a legit claim to play for the title will get screwed. A playoff prevents that.

SWC Bonfire
11-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Well, a playoff isn't going to happen unless it makes monetary sense to the schools involved.

If you make the Big Conferences automatics, you risk a power gap between the have and the have nots. If you make them automatic, but the last two have to take on a challenger before the 1st round, it becomes more equitable to the lower conferences.

samikeyp
11-01-2005, 04:19 PM
Very true. I do think that a lot of money can be made. Network execs would sell their houses, families and souls to land the rights.

tlongII
11-01-2005, 05:14 PM
I would take the top 8 teams in the BCS and build the playoff based on that. #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6, and #4 vs #5.

hicksi
11-01-2005, 08:14 PM
I would take the top 8 teams in the BCS and build the playoff based on that. #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6, and #4 vs #5.
Which raises the question...
What are the top 8?
If you leave it to AP, then USC will be in every year.
Whatever happened to the "Strength of Schedule" thing? Without THAT, teams can bash up the minnows and get to the top.

Dre_7
11-01-2005, 08:36 PM
Which raises the question...
What are the top 8?
If you leave it to AP, then USC will be in every year.
Whatever happened to the "Strength of Schedule" thing? Without THAT, teams can bash up the minnows and get to the top.

He said the top 8 in the BCS.

I think it should be the top 4. 1 v 4 & 2 v 3. Simple as that.

hicksi
11-01-2005, 09:34 PM
He said the top 8 in the BCS.

I think it should be the top 4. 1 v 4 & 2 v 3. Simple as that.

We have an "interesting" form of finals series in Australian Rugby League...
Week 1:
1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 with the bottom 2 losers falling out, and re-eanking 1 to 6 (winners above losers, which places 8 above 1 if they won but still below the winner of the other 3 games)
The top 2 winners have a week's rest
Week 2:
3v6, 4v5 and losers are out, and ranking remaining the same (ie, even if 6 wins, it's still below both of 4 or 5)
Week 3:
1v4, 2v3 and losers are out.
Week 4:
Grand Final, Winner vs Winner

It means that 1 and 2 ALWAYS get a second chance, and that 3, 4, 5 or 6 could scrape through to week 2 even if they lose in week 1.

scott
11-01-2005, 11:36 PM
16 teams? Jesus, not even the NFL has a 16 team playoff - they'd be playing until March.

I'd be for a Top 4, based on polls - Independents count. Maybe Top 8 after a few years, but I'd probably argue to keep it small. One of the things I really like about College Football is the importance of every single game. When you make the playoffs too expansive, you lose that because a couple of 2-loss teams could enter the fray.

Marcus Bryant
11-01-2005, 11:36 PM
While a playoff would seem logical, I think the bowls are too ingrained in the NCAA. A 4 team playoff would mean that only 2 teams would have the prospect of two bowls in any given year. I would guess that a system could be set up where the top 4 teams share the payouts of the 3 bowl games a 4 team playoff would require. At worst that would mean that a couple of teams are bumped out of the bowl picture altogether. I would think that the major conferences would have more pull than the Fresno States of the college football world. If a SEC team (ie Alabama) gets jobbed again you would think that the chorus for a change in the BCS would get louder.

King
11-02-2005, 12:21 AM
I'd go top four in the BCS system - and let 1/4 and 2/3 play. The BCS is usually pretty accurate as far as having the best teams at or near the top four - the arguments are on how those four are ranked. So, get the top four, and let them play it out.

Same bowl system. Two of the Orange/Sugar/Fiesta are the playoff games - and the one left over is the consolation game. Rose is the Championship. Then rotate the bowls.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:47 AM
If a SEC team (ie Alabama) gets jobbed again you would think that the chorus for a change in the BCS would get louder

as it should.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 01:11 AM
The problem is that none of the scenarios suggested work for every year. Some years you have two undefeated teams and it's logical for them to play each other for the title. Sometimes you have three, and one ends up screwed. Sometimes you have one, and then it's hard to decide who gets to play them. No matter how many teams you include in a playoff or whatever, someone's always going to barely miss out and feel jilted. You have a small playoff and everyone gets upset about the legitimate contenders (like a #5 team, are they inherently that much worse than a #4 team?) that get left out. You have a bigger playoff and the regular season games lose importance and you also lose the excitement of the "non-playoff" bowls.

I like the way it used to be. Let humans who know what they're doing pick the national champion. You keep the bowl system, no one gets totally screwed out of a chance at the title, and it lets people argue about who should be #1. The only change needed (and this has been somewhat rectified) is to make ballots public so that blatant favoritism is exposed.

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 01:37 AM
In the years in which you have one undefeated, well, they have the opportunity to prove they are the best. I do not see the problem in having a 4 team playoff in that scenario.

Plus I would say that a playoff system would be more exciting than seeing a team that got frozen out of the title game win a bowl game and then get the final #2 ranking.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 02:20 AM
In the years in which you have one undefeated, well, they have the opportunity to prove they are the best. I do not see the problem in having a 4 team playoff in that scenario.

Plus I would say that a playoff system would be more exciting than seeing a team that got frozen out of the title game win a bowl game and then get the final #2 ranking.

I never said anything about a title game. Having a title game only works well when you have two undefeated teams. I would rather see the pre-BCS system where at least every team has a shot to prove on the field they're worthy. And if you have only one undefeated team, why should they have to prove they are the best in multiple rounds of a playoff? They've already proved it in 11 games, every week of the season (12 counting the bowl).

I don't see college football going to a playoff system anytime soon anyhow. So, in the end, would you rather have thing the way they are now, or the way they were before the BCS?

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 02:23 AM
Perhaps because the undefeated team did not face as strong of a schedule as some of the teams with 1 loss. If they can't prove they're the best, do they deserve to be called the best?

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 02:53 AM
Perhaps because the undefeated team did not face as strong of a schedule as some of the teams with 1 loss. If they can't prove they're the best, do they deserve to be called the best?

Then voters have the right to vote a solid one loss team ahead of them. It's happened before, multiple times. And what happens if there's only one undefeated team and they played a tough schedule? Don't they deserve the title without having to play more games?

Also, one of the biggest pros of such a system would be a desire to play tougher schedules. With the BCS, we've seen pretty much the end of difficult non-conference games (Texas/OSU this year being a major exception). Big intersectional non-conference games are good for the sport and the fans.

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 02:56 AM
Well then we have the determination made off the field. Sure, a 4 team playoff within the bowls is imperfect, but it's better than the current or prior methods.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 03:07 AM
Well then we have the determination made off the field. Sure, a 4 team playoff within the bowls is imperfect, but it's better than the current or prior methods.

Then you end up with a lot of debate over who's #4 and who's #5. And if, God forbid, the #4 team should win it all you end up with crying from the #5 (who thinks they're just as good) and the #1 (who doesn't think the #4 belongs in the first place). Take last year. Did #4 Texas really belong in a playoff with USC, Auburn, and OU? Did #5 Cal deserve to be in it less than Texas? Especially with Mack Brown's stumping for votes, you'd have a lot of pissed off Bears.

Besides, if you have a playoff, you end up with a lot of debate about home field advantage. Say Texas ends up #1 and UCLA #4 and the first round is scheduled to be at the Rose Bowl. Is that fair for Texas? And do you guys really think fans will want to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for multiple rounds of a playoff? The director of the Orange Bowl is gonna be pissed as hell when he ends up with two teams from across the country playing in a semifinal game (or even a quarterfinal with an 8 team playoff) in his bowl. You really think that many people will travel cross-country for an early round playoff game?

Take the bowls out of the playoffs entirely, and all of a sudden bowls mean nothing. The NCAA will never let that happen. I don't see a playoff coming any time soon. Talk about it all you want, it's not happening. And I'd rather have the old system than this crap.

hicksi
11-02-2005, 03:08 AM
16 teams? Jesus, not even the NFL has a 16 team playoff - they'd be playing until March.

I'd be for a Top 4, based on polls - Independents count. Maybe Top 8 after a few years, but I'd probably argue to keep it small. One of the things I really like about College Football is the importance of every single game. When you make the playoffs too expansive, you lose that because a couple of 2-loss teams could enter the fray.
No, there's only 8...

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 03:11 AM
Then you end up with a lot of debate over who's #4 and who's #5. And if, God forbid, the #4 team should win it all you end up with crying from the #5 (who thinks they're just as good) and the #1 (who doesn't think the #4 belongs in the first place). Take last year. Did #4 Texas really belong in a playoff with USC, Auburn, and OU? Did #5 Cal deserve to be in it less than Texas? Especially with Mack Brown's stumping for votes, you'd have a lot of pissed off Bears.

Besides, if you have a playoff, you end up with a lot of debate about home field advantage. Say Texas ends up #1 and UCLA #4 and the first round is scheduled to be at the Rose Bowl. Is that fair for Texas? And do you guys really think fans will want to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for multiple rounds of a playoff? The director of the Orange Bowl is gonna be pissed as hell when he ends up with two teams from across the country playing in a semifinal game (or even a quarterfinal with an 8 team playoff) in his bowl. You really think that many people will travel cross-country for an early round playoff game?

Take the bowls out of the playoffs entirely, and all of a sudden bowls mean nothing. The NCAA will never let that happen. I don't see a playoff coming any time soon. Talk about it all you want, it's not happening. And I'd rather have the old system than this crap.


Again, the #5 team isn't as likely to be an undefeated team deserving of a shot at a national title game as is the #3 team in the current arrangement.

Sure, the bowl tradition complicates matters, but it's not hard to see some kind of limited playoff ending the rather glaring potential for gridiron injustice.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 03:12 AM
No, there's only 8...

There's 12 (8 division winners, 4 wild cards). And they'd be playing the same length of time, there just wouldn't be byes. The NFL doesn't do 16 because that's too many teams. I hate how 16 teams make the playoffs in basketball. A #8 seed has no chance of winning it all, they shouldn't be in it.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 03:19 AM
Again, the #5 team isn't as likely to be an undefeated team deserving of a shot at a national title game as is the #3 team in the current arrangement.

Sure, the bowl tradition complicates matters, but it's not hard to see some kind of limited playoff ending the rather glaring potential for gridiron injustice.

I'm not advocating the current arrangement. I never have. And explain to me how your four team playoff works for last year's final standings. Why does Texas deserve a shot at the national title and Cal doesn't? Texas would've only had to win two games, there's a decent shot it would've happened. Maybe I just don't see the glaring injustice you do. I think the polls do a pretty good job of voting the best team #1 by the end of the season. And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 08:14 AM
And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

See my first post.

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 08:33 AM
I'm not advocating the current arrangement. I never have. And explain to me how your four team playoff works for last year's final standings. Why does Texas deserve a shot at the national title and Cal doesn't? Texas would've only had to win two games, there's a decent shot it would've happened. Maybe I just don't see the glaring injustice you do. I think the polls do a pretty good job of voting the best team #1 by the end of the season. And I still maintain that a playoff is completely impossible to implement correctly without totally wrecking the bowl games.

It's not hard to understand that if you don't allow for at least the top 4 teams to have a playoff that you can have a team from a major conference who goes undefeated and is frozen out of having a shot at playing in the national title game (see Auburn).

Look at this season, you could have both Va Tech and Alabama undefeated at the end of the year and they'll be on the outside looking in if the current rankings don't change. Are the ACC and SEC really weaker conferences than the Pac-10 and Big 12?

You know, maybe we should see other collegiate and pro sports implement this voting system to determine a champion since it's so fair...

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 12:09 PM
See my first post.

I did. Read my posts if you want to know why I think it's impossible to do.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:16 PM
I did. I disagree.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 12:17 PM
It's not hard to understand that if you don't allow for at least the top 4 teams to have a playoff that you can have a team from a major conference who goes undefeated and is frozen out of having a shot at playing in the national title game (see Auburn).

That's why I don't agree with the BCS. No offense man, but do you even read before posting? I've never once said we should do things the way they are now.


Look at this season, you could have both Va Tech and Alabama undefeated at the end of the year and they'll be on the outside looking in if the current rankings don't change. Are the ACC and SEC really weaker conferences than the Pac-10 and Big 12?

No, they're better conferences (the ACC and SEC). Substantially. Again, I've never promoted the current system, so this is irrelevant. If they play well enough, I think the voters move them up. Besides, how often are you going to have four undefeated teams from major conferences? In addition, the likelihood of this would be reduced with the tougher non-conference schedules played without the BCS.


You know, maybe we should see other collegiate and pro sports implement this voting system to determine a champion since it's so fair...

I'm not saying it's the best possible scenario. Just that it's better than the BCS and the most equitable solution that has a chance of actually being implemented. And you've still never addressed any of the problems I've brought up with having a playoff.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 12:19 PM
I did. I disagree.

Care to explain? A playoff would destroy the bowl system (as I explained in numerous posts earlier), therefore the NCAA would never implement it. I gave plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work earlier, feel free to show me where I'm going wrong on them.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:24 PM
Its not a matter of right or wrong, its a difference of opinion. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying I don't agree with you. I explained how the bowls could work in harmony with a playoff. I stand by that. I started this thread to get opinions from everyone. Its not a thread for "I'm right, you're wrong" its a "what do you think" thread. I never said a playoff would happen, I said I think it should happen. I would even take a compromise...if after the BCS, USC and Va Tech are still undefeated...let them play an extra game to decide. My basic point was that I feel that championships should be decided on the field and not by a computer. As long as we have the BCS, that is not always guaranteed. Other sports and even other levels of college football can do, I feel the big boys can too.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:25 PM
That's why I don't agree with the BCS

I think the one thing we all agree on is that we don't agree with the BCS.

TexasAggie2005
11-02-2005, 12:40 PM
Its not a matter of right or wrong, its a difference of opinion. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying I don't agree with you. I explained how the bowls could work in harmony with a playoff. I stand by that. I started this thread to get opinions from everyone. Its not a thread for "I'm right, you're wrong" its a "what do you think" thread. I never said a playoff would happen, I said I think it should happen. I would even take a compromise...if after the BCS, USC and Va Tech are still undefeated...let them play an extra game to decide. My basic point was that I feel that championships should be decided on the field and not by a computer. As long as we have the BCS, that is not always guaranteed. Other sports and even other levels of college football can do, I feel the big boys can too.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound contentious. I realize it's just an opinion, but no one's offering a solid argument. Everyone keeps disagreeing (well, I guess just you, me, and MB) and no one's willing to actually discuss reasons. How do you deal with issues of home-field advantage? How do you keep bowls viable if they don't mean as much? How do you deal with final exams conflicting with three or four weeks of a playoff? Are regular season games still going to be as exciting when 4, 8, or even 16 teams get a playoff spot? I can handle you disagreeing with me, but explain to me why. I've brought up a number of concerns with the ideas outlined in your original posts. If you're going to disagree with me, explain why.

As an aside, your suggestion of a compromise of having the two final teams play an extra game to decide it is referred to as the +1 system. The big problem with that again, is that an extra game is not always warranted. What if there's a clear cut #1 after the bowls? And if you're going to only require it some years, who gets to decide when it's necessary?

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:50 PM
You have the right to express all your concern and they are valid ones. I explained my idea in detail in my first post, but I will in the interest of fairness, I will address the concerns you just mentioned....To be fair though.....just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their takes any less solid.

Most of these games will be held after exams are over, for those that aren't, arrangements are made for athletes who are traveling to do homework and take tests...those same measures can be implemented here. Homefield can be deterimined by a seeding process just like the NCAA basketball tourney or use neutral fields. The Basketball tourney will not put a team in their own area (for the regionals and final four) to ensure neutrality. The bowls are still important because you will have a bunch of teams who would not qualify for the playoff and who will still be overjoyed to go to a bowl game and will follow their teams to that specfic city.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 12:53 PM
As an aside, your suggestion of a compromise of having the two final teams play an extra game to decide it is referred to as the +1 system. The big problem with that again, is that an extra game is not always warranted. What if there's a clear cut #1 after the bowls? And if you're going to only require it some years, who gets to decide when it's necessary?

I agree with that...I just mentioned it because that has been mentioned by college football people as a compromise. One that I could live with.

Marcus Bryant
11-02-2005, 01:00 PM
That's why I don't agree with the BCS. No offense man, but do you even read before posting? I've never once said we should do things the way they are now.

Well going back to the old way does not address the fundamental problem, only the ranking method. Yes, I do read posts before I respond.




No, they're better conferences (the ACC and SEC). Substantially. Again, I've never promoted the current system, so this is irrelevant. If they play well enough, I think the voters move them up. Besides, how often are you going to have four undefeated teams from major conferences? In addition, the likelihood of this would be reduced with the tougher non-conference schedules played without the BCS.


They're better conferences but then you also have the problem of perhaps a great team (ie USC) being penalized because it plays in a less than great conference.




I'm not saying it's the best possible scenario. Just that it's better than the BCS and the most equitable solution that has a chance of actually being implemented. And you've still never addressed any of the problems I've brought up with having a playoff.

Yeah, the problem with a playoff is that some fans might have to make another trip to see their team compete for a national title. I really don't think that's a problem. Yes, the larger problem is the bowl system. No surprise there. I don't see why just because there will be some grumbling among bowl officials that means this is a horrible idea. I think a horrible idea is seeing deserving teams gets fucked over year after year and doing nothing about it.

Rotate the national title game among the bowls. Hardly a new concept.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 01:01 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a culling of some of the lesser bowls...I just think there are too many.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 01:02 PM
I think a horrible idea is seeing deserving teams gets fucked over year after year and doing nothing about it.

which is the worst travesty of all.

j-6
11-02-2005, 01:10 PM
I find it fair to put 16 teams in the NBA and NHL playoffs because they utilize more than one game in their playoff systems. The NFL, on the other hand, could drop to the eight division winners and eliminate the wild card round. I'd be all for that.

On the subject of putting eight teams versus four in a college football playoff, I feel it is a necessity. When 117 teams only play ten to twelve games a year, any of the top eight teams from around the country could hang with each other. And eight just works better from an absolute standpoint (conference winners advance, etc) or a selective (top eight BCS teams).
-----------------------------------
Exhibit One - BCS teams

1- USC (Pac-10), no losses
2- Texas (XII), no losses
3- Va Tech (ACC), no losses
4- Alabama (SEC), no losses
5- UCLA (Pac-10), no losses
6- Miami (ACC) 6-1, loss to #9 FSU
7- Penn State (B10) 8-1, loss to Michigan
8- LSU (SEC) 7-1, loss to Tennessee

Left in the cold: Florida St (9th, 7-1 w/ loss to Virginia), Ohio State (10th, 6-2, w/ losses to #2 Texas and #7 Penn State), UGA (11th, 7-1, w/ loss to Florida), Wisconsin (12th, 8-1, w/ loss to N'Western).

In a traditional 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 matchup, this is how things look:
R1: USC-LSU; UT-Penn St; Va Tech-Miami; Bama-UCLA (I know that VTech and Miami still have to face each other in the ACC, but bear with me for speculative purposes.) Every one of those games is a powerhouse matchup, and the lower seeds have a decent to good shot in each.

The problem is that Wisconsin, Florida State, and Georgia have at least as much right to be there as their counterparts in Penn State, Miami, and LSU.

-----------------------------------------

Exhibit Two: Playoffs w/ Conference Champions (all speculative with a note to Notre Dame: join a conference or pout to yourselves)

Seedings based on number of losses and relative conference strength.

ACC: Va Tech (2)
BEast: West Va (6)
Pac-10: USC (1)
XII: Texas (3)
B10: Wisconsin (4)
SEC: LSU (5)
MWC/WAC playin: TCU (7)
MAC/CUSA playin: Toledo (8)

Now a Toledo-USC game may not interest anyone, but TCU-Va Tech might be a thriller. UT-WVU and LSU-Wisconsin aren't anything to overlook either. The problem here are that someone like Miami or Penn State are much better teams than Toledo, and everyone knows it. We may never see a non-conference game between two powerhouse teams again as well.

This speculative bullshit is sorta fun, though.

samikeyp
11-02-2005, 01:18 PM
This speculative bullshit is sorta fun, though.

Very true.

Nice breakdown, bro.


note to Notre Dame: join a conference or pout to yourselves

:lol

scott
11-02-2005, 11:13 PM
BCS > "The Old Days"

At least with the BCS, teams know what they are getting themselves into. An option that teams haven't fully explored on how to avoid getting screwed is by scheduling harder non-conference games. Ohio State is the only team to my knowledge that has said they will consciously schedule tougher non Big 10 games. The BCS isn't any worse than the "old days," its just more transparent. I don't know why people think the old days were so great. Under the old system, we'd probably end up with 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and like the REALLY old days we'd have 4 different national champs from various polls. At least the BCS puts two top teams together instead of watching #1 USC play the #10 ranked Big 10 champ.

I still will say that an 8 team playoff cheapens the regular season too much. In both of the cases you outlined, j-6, I think there are teams that simply don't deserve to to be in the title game. In the first, those teams still have to play each other and usually you end up with a couple of 2 loss teams in the top 8. (For example, last year we had Iowa, Georgia, Michigan, LSU and Virginia Tech all with 2 losses going into Bowl Games and were legit picks for the top 8. Miami was up there as well with 3 losses).

In the second case, I don't think TCU or Toledo ever deserve a national title shot without scheduling 3 major D-I games in their non-conf. schedule. TCU lost to SMU for the love of Pete.

And even with an 8 team playoff, there will still be debate around who should be #8. Heck, there is always "controversy" around who is number #64 (actually, #65 with the play-in game) in the NCAA Hoops tourny. It is inescapable.

scott
11-02-2005, 11:14 PM
And PS, Independents should be allowed to compete. Notre Dame's schedule is usually as tough or tougher than any conference player.

samikeyp
11-03-2005, 08:21 AM
you are right....the BCS is better than the "old days" but it is still not the best way, IMO. You are also right about controversy, there will always be some but I think the BCS causes more than necessary.

TexasAggie2005
11-03-2005, 12:37 PM
BCS > "The Old Days"

At least with the BCS, teams know what they are getting themselves into. An option that teams haven't fully explored on how to avoid getting screwed is by scheduling harder non-conference games. Ohio State is the only team to my knowledge that has said they will consciously schedule tougher non Big 10 games. The BCS isn't any worse than the "old days," its just more transparent. I don't know why people think the old days were so great. Under the old system, we'd probably end up with 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and like the REALLY old days we'd have 4 different national champs from various polls. At least the BCS puts two top teams together instead of watching #1 USC play the #10 ranked Big 10 champ.



And even with an 8 team playoff, there will still be debate around who should be #8. Heck, there is always "controversy" around who is number #64 (actually, #65 with the play-in game) in the NCAA Hoops tourny. It is inescapable.

How many times were there four undefeated teams under the old system? There's rarely more than one or two (I'm talking recent history, not 1920 when there were only four decent football teams in the entire country). Besides, I'd rather have a couple of undefeated teams that never got a chance to play than a situation like last year where Auburn can run the table and never even get a shot at the title. At least with the old system, the voters could've put Auburn #1 if OU beat USC in an ugly game and Auburn looked dominant against a good team. I could deal with a "pseudo-BCS" system that pits the conference winners or highly ranked teams against each other in bowls, but none of this #1 vs. #2 crap. Because then, no matter what happens, you're screwing the #3 team.

What people don't understand is that college football's just different. You have polls/rankings. Other sports may rank teams, but none put as much stock in it as college football. You have a bowl system. Nobody else does that. Every game is exciting during the year because it's a de facto playoff game. Lose and you're as good as out of the national title race. I like college football like that and don't want to see it changed.

samikeyp
11-03-2005, 01:05 PM
I think this where we differ...I think D1 football relies too much on the polls. I feel it should be settled on the field where their is no question. Just my .02 though. Its all good. This is what makes message boards fun.

Marcus Bryant
11-03-2005, 03:10 PM
You use the polls to give you who should be among the top 4 to play off for a national title. That preserves the bowl system, that preserves the poll system and that introduces some fairness into the process.

j-6
11-03-2005, 03:18 PM
You use the polls to give you who should be among the top 4 to play off for a national title. That preserves the bowl system, that preserves the poll system and that introduces some fairness into the process.

I think the polls and a playoff have to be under a different system. The pollsters are too susceptible to bias, and that will really hinder the entire process. There should be something like a BCS selection committee in the same manner as the basketball tourney selection guys if the national title chase isn't going to be decided in a playoff.

hicksi
11-03-2005, 04:19 PM
I think the polls and a playoff have to be under a different system. The pollsters are too susceptible to bias, and that will really hinder the entire process. There should be something like a BCS selection committee in the same manner as the basketball tourney selection guys if the national title chase isn't going to be decided in a playoff.
OMG...
The media shows BIAS?
That sould never happen.

scott
11-03-2005, 08:51 PM
At least with the old system, the voters could've put Auburn #1 if OU beat USC in an ugly game and Auburn looked dominant against a good team.

They can still do that in the current system, see 2003 when USC won the AP National Title while LSU won the BCS title.

TexasAggie2005
11-04-2005, 01:09 AM
They can still do that in the current system, see 2003 when USC won the AP National Title while LSU won the BCS title.

That only gives a team half of a title. And with the supposed #1 playing the supposed #2, that makes it almost impossible for the #3 team to pass them. Auburn had next to no chance last year. The only reason USC did it in 2003 was because they were already #1 in both polls. With the changes in the BCS made since, that scenario will never happen again.

scott
11-04-2005, 07:06 PM
That only gives a team half of a title.

As did all the times there were split national champions in the "old days" you long for.


And with the supposed #1 playing the supposed #2, that makes it almost impossible for the #3 team to pass them. Auburn had next to no chance last year. The only reason USC did it in 2003 was because they were already #1 in both polls. With the changes in the BCS made since, that scenario will never happen again.

How is that any different than the old days? You are the one making up these scenarious, only to turn around and say they are unrealistic.

j-6
11-04-2005, 07:12 PM
At least in the old days everyone knew that the polls would decide which team(s) would be the champions. Not that it wasn't a flawed system by any means, but there weren't computers from the New York Times and Jeff Sagarin adding their pollution as well.

Question: Do you think a split national title is better than having a major conference team run the table like Auburn in '04 left out in the cold?

TexasAggie2005
11-04-2005, 08:00 PM
As did all the times there were split national champions in the "old days" you long for.

Split championships weren't that common. And if they do occur every once in a while, isn't that better than one deserving team getting completely screwed?


How is that any different than the old days? You are the one making up these scenarious, only to turn around and say they are unrealistic.

I'm not "making up" any scenarios, I'm using things that have happened the past couple years to illustrate my points. And it's unrealistic for things to happen now the way they did in the past because the BCS has changed. A situation like 2003 will never happen again, becuase of the altered formula, thus last year Auburn had no chance at winning a split title.

scott
11-04-2005, 10:35 PM
Split championships weren't that common. And if they do occur every once in a while, isn't that better than one deserving team getting completely screwed?

They were just as, if not more common than they are under the BCS system.


I'm not "making up" any scenarios, I'm using things that have happened the past couple years to illustrate my points. And it's unrealistic for things to happen now the way they did in the past because the BCS has changed. A situation like 2003 will never happen again, becuase of the altered formula, thus last year Auburn had no chance at winning a split title.

The AP could have voted for Auburn just as easily in the BCS system than they could have in the old system. To say Auburn had no chance at winning a split title is pure speculation - assuming someone who voted for USC would have changed their vote to Auburn had the Trojans beaten Michigan instead of Oklahoma.

In the new system, the chances of a split title are reduced, because typically there are two clear cut teams competing for the national title, and they play for it. You want to abandon that to mitigate against the occasions where there are more than 2 teams deserving (which, while becoming more common is still rare). So now, instead of an Auburn getting screwed every now and then, there would be arguing over at least 1 team getting screwed every year.

Old System Bowl Games:

#1 USC Plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl
#2 Oklahoma probably would have played Georgia from the SEC in the Cotton Bowl
#3 Auburn would have played ACC Champ Virginia Tech (which they did anyway) in the Sugar Bowl

Assume all 3 win... how is that situation any better than USC playing Oklahoma and Auburn still playing VT, other than now there are 3 teams with a gripe instead of just 1?

TexasAggie2005
11-05-2005, 12:02 AM
They were just as, if not more common than they are under the BCS system.

There's been one split title since the BCS started and it'll never happen again for reasons I explained before. Sure split titles would be more common under the old system, but I think that's a GOOD thing. Would you rather have a guaranteed non-split title (and one team guaranteed being screwed) or the possibility of two deserving teams sharing the title? I don't see what's so inherently bad about a split title.


The AP could have voted for Auburn just as easily in the BCS system than they could have in the old system. To say Auburn had no chance at winning a split title is pure speculation - assuming someone who voted for USC would have changed their vote to Auburn had the Trojans beaten Michigan instead of Oklahoma.

In the new system, the chances of a split title are reduced, because typically there are two clear cut teams competing for the national title, and they play for it. You want to abandon that to mitigate against the occasions where there are more than 2 teams deserving (which, while becoming more common is still rare). So now, instead of an Auburn getting screwed every now and then, there would be arguing over at least 1 team getting screwed every year.

Old System Bowl Games:

#1 USC Plays Michigan in the Rose Bowl
#2 Oklahoma probably would have played Georgia from the SEC in the Cotton Bowl
#3 Auburn would have played ACC Champ Virginia Tech (which they did anyway) in the Sugar Bowl

Assume all 3 win... how is that situation any better than USC playing Oklahoma and Auburn still playing VT, other than now there are 3 teams with a gripe instead of just 1?

If you'd read what I posted before, you would've seen where I explained that Auburn had no chance of winning the AP title precisely because of the BCS match-up. Whether Auburn deserved it or not, voters aren't going to put them ahead of a #1 team that beat a #2 team or a #2 team that beat a #1 team.

The scenario you outlined is possible, but the odds of having three undefeated teams after the bowls is extremely unlikely, especially with the harder non-conference schedule you'd see with a non-BCS system. Anyhow, I'd rather let the voters have the option of voting any deserving team national champion after the bowls than limit yourself to two teams, because then you're guaranteeing the #3 team has absolutely no chance at the title. With the old system, at least if they looked dominant in their bowl, there was a chance of passing the top two teams and/or the possibility of both top two teams losing since they wouldn't be playing each other.

hussker
11-05-2005, 12:20 AM
LATE: In 1997, I sent a letter to Grant Teaff and Vince Dooley who were on the NCAA Football commission. I aill copy that letter I received from Vince Dooley soon....


I see a 16 team playoff...more to follow.....

Hugz,
Hussker

scott
11-06-2005, 02:25 PM
And now that Va Tech has lost, with the "Old Days" we'd be looking at USC-Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Texas versus SEC #2 in the Cotton Bowl. But, because of the BCS, instead we will have the top 2 teams in the nation, Texas and USC, playing each other for the title.

Playoff > BCS > "Old Days"

TexasAggie2005
11-06-2005, 02:30 PM
And now that Va Tech has lost, with the "Old Days" we'd be looking at USC-Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Texas versus SEC #2 in the Cotton Bowl. But, because of the BCS, instead we will have the top 2 teams in the nation, Texas and USC, playing each other for the title.

Playoff > BCS > "Old Days"

And undefeated Alabama would still have a shot at the title. Not to say they're going to win out, it'll be tough. But if they do, I think they deserve a shot and under the BCS they have no shot whatsoever.

Playoff > "Old Days" > BCS

scott
11-06-2005, 09:33 PM
And undefeated Alabama would still have a shot at the title. Not to say they're going to win out, it'll be tough. But if they do, I think they deserve a shot and under the BCS they have no shot whatsoever.

Playoff > "Old Days" > BCS

You continue to overlook the fact that an undefeated Alabama team still has a shot at the AP title. The AP has awarded them a grand total of zero first place votes thus far... but I'm sure you are going to tell me that they'd be getting plenty of consideration if not for the BCS.

TexasAggie2005
11-06-2005, 11:51 PM
You continue to overlook the fact that an undefeated Alabama team still has a shot at the AP title. The AP has awarded them a grand total of zero first place votes thus far... but I'm sure you are going to tell me that they'd be getting plenty of consideration if not for the BCS.

You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP title if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind. You don't really expect voters to put a #3 'Bama team ahead of a #1 USC team that beats a #2 Texas team or ahead of a #2 Texas team that beat a #1 USC team do you?

The simple fact is, the BCS works in years when there are two and only two undefeated teams. That's probably going to happen this year, but it doesn't happen very often. And every time it doesn't happen (the majority of the time) somebody gets screwed. Teams getting screwed in the BCS happens way more often than split titles ever did.

scott
11-07-2005, 07:03 PM
You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP title if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind. You don't really expect voters to put a #3 'Bama team ahead of a #1 USC team that beats a #2 Texas team or ahead of a #2 Texas team that beat a #1 USC team do you?


Too bad you aren't catching on. Bama would have no shot at the AP title even if the BCS were never invented - because it's obvious the top 2 teams are USC and UT. No one in America thinks Alabama is ahead of either of those teams. The old way would do nothing to solve it, other than we'd have a split title between USC and Texas.


The simple fact is, the BCS works in years when there are two and only two undefeated teams.

Or when there are two clear cut teams at the top.


That's probably going to happen this year, but it doesn't happen very often. And every time it doesn't happen (the majority of the time) somebody gets screwed. Teams getting screwed in the BCS happens way more often than split titles ever did.

Quick, give me the number of times there has been more than 2 undefeated major conference schools under the BCS system... I can count a grand total of one.

On the other hand, there were 7 split national championships between 1970 and 1998. That's one out of every 4 years.

samikeyp
11-07-2005, 07:23 PM
You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP title if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind.

Which is why I have a problem with it. A playoff would give 'Bama their shot. You are right though...SC and UT win out..its over.

TexasAggie2005
11-08-2005, 12:45 AM
Which is why I have a problem with it. A playoff would give 'Bama their shot. You are right though...SC and UT win out..its over.

I think college football should have a playoff, don't get me wrong. I think there are merits to the old system, but a playoff would be more equitable. I just don't think college football will go for it anytime in the forseeable future. And it has to be done right. If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.

TexasAggie2005
11-08-2005, 01:19 AM
Too bad you aren't catching on. Bama would have no shot at the AP title even if the BCS were never invented - because it's obvious the top 2 teams are USC and UT. No one in America thinks Alabama is ahead of either of those teams. The old way would do nothing to solve it, other than we'd have a split title between USC and Texas.

Bama would have a shot at the title if both USC and Texas lost their bowl games. At least it gives them something to play for. I just hate telling an undefeated team from the SEC, arguably the best conference in football, that their title hopes are over in early December. And who says both USC and Texas win their bowl games? There's nothing guaranteeing a split title in there.


Or when there are two clear cut teams at the top.

Clear cut according to whom? Oklahoma was supposedly one of the clear cut teams at the top last year and they got spanked. Obviously we're not so good at deciding who's good and who's not (the point could be made here that this supports a playoff). That's too hard a call to make and even less likely than the probability of having two and only two undefeated teams.


Quick, give me the number of times there has been more than 2 undefeated major conference schools under the BCS system... I can count a grand total of one.

On the other hand, there were 7 split national championships between 1970 and 1998. That's one out of every 4 years.

There have only been ten split titles total. Of course, when you look at a smaller data set it looks worse. But is one split title even every four years that bad? At least the team getting "screwed" gets half a title. How often has the BCS "failed"?

Granted there have only been more than two undefeated teams once in the seven years of the BCS. But, give me the number of times there has been one undefeated team and multiple one loss teams. Give me the number of times there have been no undefeated teams and more than two one loss teams. The BCS has worked twice in the seven years of its existence (2000 and 2002). Every other year, someone got screwed. That's a success rate of 28.57%. I'll take a split title every now and then over that. I can understand you arguing for a playoff system, but the BCS?

samikeyp
11-08-2005, 08:29 AM
I think college football should have a playoff, don't get me wrong. I think there are merits to the old system, but a playoff would be more equitable. I just don't think college football will go for it anytime in the forseeable future. And it has to be done right. If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.

agreed.

scott
11-08-2005, 06:59 PM
Bama would have a shot at the title if both USC and Texas lost their bowl games. At least it gives them something to play for. I just hate telling an undefeated team from the SEC, arguably the best conference in football, that their title hopes are over in early December. And who says both USC and Texas win their bowl games? There's nothing guaranteeing a split title in there.

So your argument is that we should schedule the top 2 teams in the country against lesser competition so that there is the CHANCE they both lose, giving the #3 a chance to win the title? Um... okay.


Clear cut according to whom? Oklahoma was supposedly one of the clear cut teams at the top last year and they got spanked. Obviously we're not so good at deciding who's good and who's not (the point could be made here that this supports a playoff). That's too hard a call to make and even less likely than the probability of having two and only two undefeated teams.

It's pretty obvious that no one thinks Alabama isn't one of the top two teams in the nation. With or without the BCS, they'd have little to no chance at a national title this year granted that UT and USC win out. In the BCS, only 1 team will win out, the old days both probably would.


There have only been ten split titles total. Of course, when you look at a smaller data set it looks worse. But is one split title even every four years that bad? At least the team getting "screwed" gets half a title. How often has the BCS "failed"?

Not really sure what data you are looking at - because there have been 52 split titles since there was a recognized NCAA title in 1880. There were five alone in the 60's, which brings the 1960-98 total up to 12. The data set I picked actually makes the numbers look BETTER.

But hey, how great - we get people sharing titles. Everyone gets a gold star, no one gets a "C", and everyone is happy. Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Someone will always bitch about someone getting screwed. Teams bitch every year about getting screwed about not getting the #65 seed in the NCAA tourny. The BCS is a playoff... it's a two team playoff. So there is a #3 team getting screwed, I'd rather have that than the #2 team getting screwed or having endless split championships when the two splitting easily could have just played each other.

scott
11-08-2005, 06:59 PM
If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.

Why not just make it 117 teams, we don't anyone to feel like they are getting screwed afterall.

TexasAggie2005
11-08-2005, 10:23 PM
Why not just make it 117 teams, we don't anyone to feel like they are getting screwed afterall.

The idea is to include enough teams that you get everyone who has a reasonable shot at winning it. If the #4 team has a good chance, the #5 team probably does too. I'd say the #8 team doesn't have much of a chance, so excluding the #9 team wouldn't be a big deal. So that would settle us on an eight team playoff. Someone else might feel a sixteen team playoff would be better, but I think most people would agree four isn't really fair. Of course that's all conjecture, feel free to disagree with it. I won't scream at you and get all pissed off, I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion about football. Calm down.

And in response to your previous post, there were a billion split titles before the polls consolidated down to the two major ones, sometime around 1930-1940ish. Since then, there have been ten split titles, again with a large number occuring recently. That's where I got the number from, but I didn't bookmark the source and don't feel like searching for it again. Sorry. If you know something different, feel free to post a link.

I don't want to reward everyone, but do you really feel like Alabama deserves nothing if they win out? They'd be an undefeated team in the best conference in football. Like I said, I'd rather give them a shot. And I don't feel we know the top two teams well enough (ever, although this year we'd be closer than most) to just pit them against each other. Having the #1 and #2 teams end up playing other Top 10 teams doesn't necessarily mean they're playing inferior competition. And yes, that would give an undefeated #3 team a shot. I don't see what's so horrible about that. It's not perfect, it's not even as good as a playoff, but it's better than the BCS. But like I said, that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but don't take it so personally.

scott
11-08-2005, 11:00 PM
Here's a list of pre-BCS National Champions.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cfchamps.shtml

TexasAggie2005
11-08-2005, 11:36 PM
Ok, if you want to use four thousand different polls, I guess there have been a lot of split titles. Traditionally, people just refer to the writer's poll (AP) and the coaches' poll (UP/UPI -> AFCA -> USA/CNN -> USA/ESPN). And no one really counts anything from back when they played with leather helmets. Since 1952 (the closest I can tell from your website that the two major polls began), there have been 11 split titles counting the one under the BCS ('54, '57, '65, '70, '73, '74, '78, '90, '91, '97, and 2003). So, ten split titles in forty-six years under the traditional poll structure. My mistake. Most people tend to consider only really recent history and since I was born, there have only been three split titles (four if you count 2003).

Just for fun, check this out: NCAA Listing of National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html)

EDIT: The AP poll began in the early '30s, but the coaches' poll started in '52.

NoMoneyDown
11-10-2005, 10:26 AM
I actually saw an interesting idea on another forum awhile back, but I'd be hard-pressed to see it ever come to fruition. I don't remember the exact details, but basically here's how it went:

1. Dissolve all current Div. I-A conferences (this would be next to impossible already).

2. Create new conferences based on geographic region. Each conference would have two divisions, comprised of the same number of teams. Each conference would have the same total number of teams (sorry, Notre Dame, you'll HAVE to join a conference now). There would need to be 2^n number of conferences in order to produce balanced playoff pairings.

3. Teams play the majority of their games against conference opponents, but also play teams from other conferences to boost their ranking (note: this would need to be a subjective calculation based on opponent strength as powerhouses could schedule creampuffs to take advantage).

4. At the end of the regular season, division leaders in each conference would play one another for the conference championship. Winner takes all. Team and fan travel will be small since the conference is geographically located.

5. Conferences winners would then meet in a playoff system. First round opponents could be in geographies located adjacent to one another in order to limit travel time again. Or, the playoffs could institute a subjective ranking and use the #1/#16, #2, #15, or whatever pairings.

6. Semi-final games could use bowl nomenclatures (e.g., Fiesta Bowl would be the Southwest Regional playoff name), if that will appease people.

7.. The national championship would be held at a predefined location each year.

Again, I thought it was far-fetched, but definately a good stab at a hot topic.

samikeyp
11-10-2005, 10:47 AM
I like that...you were right...it won't happen. It is a good idea though.

NoMoneyDown
11-10-2005, 11:25 AM
I like that...you were right...it won't happen. It is a good idea though.

Me either. I can't remember the last time a Div I-AA moved up to I-A or vice-versa, but doing that one thing would cause nationwide reverberations. Plus, I don't think the number of Div I-A schools now would create a perfectly balanced situation across all conferences.

TexasAggie2005
11-11-2005, 12:40 AM
Me either. I can't remember the last time a Div I-AA moved up to I-A or vice-versa, but doing that one thing would cause nationwide reverberations. Plus, I don't think the number of Div I-A schools now would create a perfectly balanced situation across all conferences.

USF did it a couple years ago. I think there are actually two provisional teams right now. Moving I-AA teams up wouldn't cause nearly as much of a ruckus as tearing apart traditional conference structures. Decent idea, but like you said: It'll never happen.

hussker
12-02-2005, 10:09 PM
A pared down and condensed version of what I sent to Vince Dooley and Grant Teaff of the NCAA committee in 1997. I was prompted to do so personally because of the "SPLIT" NC between Nebraska-Michigan that year. I still think Nebraska would have killed them.

Until there is a decisive season where the teams play 10 games in their own conferences (No sallies/gimmees), 32 teams picked for a four region 1 vs 8 series...all the way to # 1, the DIV 1 sux.

PLAN:
Teams play 10 regular season games in their OWN CONFERENCES. No outside games or sallies. No Conference championship games. Teams are rated during the season by BCS and the top 32 get in. They are seeded 1-8 in one of four regions (N/S/E/W).

POST SEASON: (ratings based on BCS systems in place now)
1st week Region 1st round
North/South/East/West- 1v8; 2v7; 3v6; 4v5 Top seed gets home field each region

2nd week: Region semifinals
N/S/E/W winner 1v8 vs 4v5 Winner 2v7 vs 3v6 Top seed = home field each region

3rd week:
Region Finals
N/S/E/W championships Neutral site (bowl game)

4th week:

N champ vs W Champ (BIG BOWL)
S champ vs E Champ (BIG BOWL)

5th week (Games played the "off week" between the AFC/NFC Playoff Championships and Super Bowl)

Game 1 winner vs Game 2 winner (NC Game)
Game 1 Loser vs Game 2 Loser (BIG BOWL)

Remember, in college, BIG BOWLS = RECRUITING! Four BIG BOWLS still in play...ROSE/ORANGE/SUGAR/FIESTA

The eventual teams that meet in the NC game and Consolation game play in their 15th games...

This is a rough and very pared down version of what I sent to the NCAA in 1997. I had it broken into conferences as well. I think that team #33 would have a difficult time complaining about not getting in, since they would likely be with a sub .500 record).