I was talking about the Notre Dame president never voting for it.
I could see a +1 system be put in place some time in the next 10 years, but that may be the extent of it for a loooong time.
Oh yeah, I can see Notre Dame not voting for it........but Pete Carol has already lobbied for a playoff system......seems his team loses one game a year, and by the end of the season they are peaking......he feels his team should have a shot at the le game.....yet with the stunning loss, they usually aren't considered.
I am only going to speculate, but I don't think he is. I spend quite a bit of time on FCS messageboards (especially anygivensaturday). The people who post on those boards absolutely love FCS. The rip on teams that play for the mythical national championship, and trash former FCS-now FBS teams especially those in the 'lesser conferences'.
Thats cool.........either way, I think a playoff system is a no brainer.
What I don't get is that March Madness is my favorite sporting event of the year, and there's plenty others like me out there. Weighing the popularity of the two sports, there's no way a football playoff system - whether it be 4, 8, 12, or 16 teams - won't capture the public's attention. Max out the regular season at ten games, put a le game in every conference, have a seeding committee and selection Sunday, and get this show on the road! The maximum games a team can play in is 15 in this format. Just start the season a week earlier and own the entire month of December.
right.
All of your big time schools that are in the top 8 year in and year out of course want a playoff system (except for Notre Dame).
The schools that don't want it are your lower end teams that might miss out on getting into a bowl.
I know there shouldn't be, but there is a perception that a playoff system would wipe out many of the 30 some odd bowls. Sorry, no more Papajohns Bowl......
It doesn't have to wipe out any bowls, although I wouldn't mind that happening.
Use your big bowls for your playoff sites and use the other ones to reward teams for good seasons. Let your 6, 7 and 8 win teams go to the lesser bowls. It's still rewards teams for winning records, gives a nice trip for the alumni and adds money to the cities who host.
It will happen eventually. Once the +1 domino falls, it will expand to 16 relatively quickly thereafter.
There's too much money to be gained through a playoff. College basketball (which is nowhere near as popular as college football) has a TV contract for its postseason that is worth over 5x the currently television deal for college football. Once the powers that be pull their heads out of their asses and realize that they are leaving a gigantic pile of money in the corner, they'll adjust.
But it might take the next generation to do so.
And yes, to the other poster, there would have been great controversy as to who was #1-3 in many years pre-BCS.
i dont really know what to think. yes the bcs system is flawed, im not denying that, but will playoff really be that much better?
i know no one here probably likes nascar, and it is a completely different situation, but in my opnion the "playoff" theyve added to their system is ruinging nascar. i mean, i hate kyle busch and am glad he didnt end up winning, but they say no one has ever came back from over 400 pionts with 10 races remaining, which is how htey decided on the 10 race format and the 400 points or closer, or top 12. but jimmie went on a tear and would have beat kyle anyway, even if the opints wouldnt have been wiped out and that would have been one of the most dramatic comebacks in nascar history. instead it was kinda boring.
back to football, i guarantee you, that at least for the first couple years, taht no matter what college fb changes to people will complain just as bitterly. its human nature. i mean i can see arguing about who should be number 3-5 right now, but to give a team that is number 8, or even 16 if it expanded that far, a shot at winning the championsihp is kinda dumb. i mean obviously teams 10-16 right now would get demolished, if they were to end up playing a top 5 team after it all got sorted out. they dont deserve to even be there, with two losses.
Here's the solution:
16 Teams - Makes for a nice easy format
11 Conference Winners - That way every team has a realistic path to the le from the start of the year. You HAVE to give teams a shot. This year there will likely be 3 undefeated teams from "mid-major" conferences and only 1 will even play in a BCS game. This despite the fact that Utah is in the MWC, the third-best league. And Boise State is better than every team from the Big East and ACC by a wide margin. Ball State, BYU, and TCU are better than any Big East or ACC team too. Yet the ACC and/or Big East will have at least one each and possibly two (!)
5 At-Larges. In most years this will still skew the field towards deserving 2nd and 3rd place teams from so-called BCS conferences. However, a deserving league like the MWC this year might get in a second team.
The field (at this point) would shape up to be: Texas Tech, Alabama, Penn State, (ACC Champ - Maryland/Miami?), Cincinnati, Tulsa, Ball State, Alabama, Utah, Boise State, and Troy for the Conf. Champs.
At-Larges: Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Georgia (based on BCS Overall)
I, however, would base the at-larges on the computer rankings - using human polls that have serial influence is stupid - i.e. a pre-season poll based on nothing will end up keeping one team with similar performance above an unranked or lower-ranked team with the same or better performance.
This year that would lead to the same group, however. Happy coincidence!
D-1AA is going to a 20-team playoff, and a 20-game would add these four additional teams: Oklahoma State, Missouri, BYU, and TCU. Michigan State is right there on the bubble as well.
I'd rather have a tense selection show between the 16th and 17th or 20th and 21st teams than have an undefeated team left out of even playing in a BCS bowl, much less for a national le.
One tweak that I could allow - if a team's conference champion is below a certain level (30th maybe), they don't get in. I admit that Troy this year is awfully unworthy of playing for a le, BUT if Mississippi Valley State can play in the NCAA basketball tournament, I don't see the harm in letting Troy play.
the thing about using a bowl as a playoff game is that you are asking the fans to travel all over the country to watch their team play week after week during the playoffs. It would never fly.
Teams would absolutely cry for home field throughout some of the playoffs as it costs money to travel.
Look at Texas Tech, they actually lost money by going to the Gator Bowl last year.
This may be true...........but what I KNOW is true............the BCS doesnt work. Its cant work.......how can someone be called a true champ based on speculation? It just doesnt work. Maybe the teams can make the money up with TV. Also, dont you believe some of these bowl games that teams have to travel to will draw interest from the cities where the bowls are played?? Its alot different if its a one and done situation.
under a multi-tiered playoff system, you almost have to play 1 to 2 home games...at the very most, i don't think it would be fair to ask a higher ranked team to perhaps travel to a bowl game that may or may not provide a home field advantage to the lower ranked team...slippery slope...
for example in a 8 team playoff, current standings would have #3 texas play #6 usc. there would be at least a 1 in 5 chance that this could be the rose bowl game...now why should texas travel to the west coast if they are ranked higher?
this is a hypothetical but don't tell me it won't happen because if it can, it will. if your going to use the bowls in any playoff scenario, they will want to know before the season who gets which games regardless of teams involved. and there will be definitely unfair "nuetral" site draws because of the locations of these bowl games...anyone in the SEC is going to have an advantage in the sugar bowl.
it needs to be either a +1 system or a 4 team playoff. the thing with college football is that there are not as many games as in other sports. the nfl system works great but it's regular season is 5-6 games longer and there aren't as many teams...is the real problem the college conferences? or are there just too many teams and not enough games?
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
When the BCS functions properly, I must admit, the results are phenomenal. The main advantage of the BCS is it allows the #1 and #2 teams to get healthy and rested before the national championship. A playoff system or a +1 system would introduce the added frustration of, "well so-and-so got injured, so I guess we'll never know who was the best."
The 2005 season was a fantastic display of BCS awesomeness. Texas and USC were the top 2 teams the whole season. Both teams went undefeated. Both teams had plenty of time to get healthy and rested before the Rose Bowl. And then we were treated to the best college football game ever.
That said, I hate the BCS. On balance, a playoff or a +1 system would probably be better.
After the Michigan game, I'd say App State garners a lot of respect, as much as I hate them.
Also Grand Valley State? never heard of 'em. unless you mean Youngstown State.
and the more we get FCS on TV, the more people will see the games are just as good as the BCS.
-Mars
I don't go to AGS because it's basically CrApp State fans. I go to caazone.com and as I have said, FCS games are good, too. but I feel like the BCS should fashion themselves after the FCS.
-Mars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote