T1B

I have a friend who is a fairly staunch opponent of a playoff. After years of arguing back and forth on the issue, we managed to come up with a plan that would incorporate the current bowl system with a playoff. I think this system would satisfy just about everyone, since it preserves the bowls and their history, gives the mid-majors a fair shake, and only extends the season by one week. Here's how it would work:

1. Add the Cotton Bowl as the fifth BCS site, and the NC game would rotate to each site every five years.

2. All conferences are included, but there are no guaranteed slots.

After the final BCS poll is released, the 6 highest-ranked conference champs and the 2 highest-ranked at large teams automatically earn BCS berths. Independent teams will essentially be considered as their own separate "conferences." So if an independent team is ranked higher than the 6th-highest conference champ, the independent team gets the auto bid and the conference champ is bumped out (although they would still be eligible for an at-large bid).

The first round of the playoff would incorporate the four BCS bowls not hosting the NC game. Bowls would still select their participants in a predetermined order as they do now. All current bowl tie-ins would still be honored unless a conference with a tie-in fails to produce one of the eight BCS teams. If a bowl loses one or both of its tie-ins, it gets first dibs after the other automatic tie-ins are fulfilled.

After the first four BCS bowls are played, the four winners are seeded according to their rank in the final BCS poll (the one from the previous week - no real need to conduct a new one). The highest remaining team hosts a semifinal game against the 4th highest remaining team, and the 2nd highest hosts the 3rd.

The two winners play in the fifth BCS bowl for the (no longer mythical) national championship.


Here's how it could've played out this year, assuming Florida beats Bama and OU beats Mizzou:

Final BCS standings
1. Florida
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Bama
6. Utah
7. Penn St.
8. Texas Tech
9. Boise St.
10. Ohio St.

Six highest conference champs: UF, OU, SC, Utah, PSU, BSU
Two at large: Texas, Bama

Rose Bowl is set with USC & PSU. OU goes to Fiesta, UF goes to Sugar. Orange gets first pick because ACC champ failed to qualify. Orange takes Texas. Fiesta takes Bama. Sugar takes Utah. Orange takes BSU.

USC beats PSU in Rose.
OU beats Bama in Fiesta.
UF beats Utah in Sugar.
Texas beats BSU in Orange.

Florida hosts USC. OU hosts Texas. The two winners play in the Cotton Bowl.

Teams with a potential gripe: Taco Tech and Ball St.

Thoughts?

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:
The first round of the playoff would incorporate the four BCS bowls not hosting the NC game. Bowls would still select their participants in a predetermined order as they do now. All current bowl tie-ins would still be honored unless a conference with a tie-in fails to produce one of the eight BCS teams. If a bowl loses one or both of its tie-ins, it gets first dibs after the other automatic tie-ins are fulfilled.

This is my only problem with this idea. If it's a playoff there should be seedings. The 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5, sites should be pre-determined. The bowls shouldn't get to choose in a true playoff. The fist round games should also rotate.

The semis at home fo the higher seeds? Sounds good and could bing some actual football weather into play.

WolverineSteve wrote: The semis at home fo the higher seeds? Sounds good and could bing some actual football weather into play.

Might also force some SEC AD’s to learn how to book a flight.

I'm all for the first round games being at the home fields of the higher seed...that's what they do in those silly rebelious lower levels of college football that use a playoff.

8 or 16 teams would be enough and just essentially eliminate the BCS bowls but keep their sites. I can live with the rest of bowls still existing...they'd be essentially the NIT for the non-qualifiers.

I say rotate the semifinal and final sites between a pool of sites like the basketball tournament seems to do...Pasadena, Glendale, Miami, New Orleans, Dallas, San Antonio, Atlanta, St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis...a mix of warm weather outdoor stadiums and domes in cooler climates.

the biggest problem is the fact that the BCS is totally fucked in the way they rank teams.

as long as national rankings determine who plays & who doesn't, a "playoff" will only create more controversy

better to cut the season back by a game and take the top 2 teams from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, & top 2 independents/minor conference wildcards and put them in tournament brackets to fight it out

Good structure, but I'd like seeing 16 teams there. You'd still get some griping, but it would be less if 16 teams were eligible.

Cuda wrote:better to cut the season back by a game and take the top 2 teams from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, & top 2 independents/minor conference wildcards and put them in tournament brackets to fight it out

Division II plays only 10 or 11 games in their regular season...I think that's helps their system work. They essentially play every team in their own conference with a couple non-conference games.

You know there is going to come a time when it happens and when it does it will then go into over kill.

We already have a system that gives us a 1 vs 2.

I can see a time when we get a +1 game that would give us basically a playoff of the top 4 teams.

After that it's only a matter of time before the presidents realize that if a top 4 playoff is good then a top 8 would be better, but then they will do the same for a top 16 and maybe even a top 32.

human nature is funny like that.

Steve,
I realize that the seedings wouldn't be perfect, but the whole point is to preserve some semblance of tradition. I don't think it's really necessary to do away with CFB institutions that have been around for more than a century just to follow a strict seeding guideline. Whoever wins the NC is going to have to beat three elite teams to do so. Is it really that important what order they play them in?

Cuda,
How is the BCS fucked in the way it ranks teams? Do you really think that the Top 10 teams in the BCS right now aren't the 10 best teams in the country? You might argue about the order they're in, which is why I think we need a system that includes more teams. But I think the BCS does a pretty good job of at least coming up with the Top 8-10 teams.

Mucho,
A 16-team playoff would without question diminish the importance of the regular season. 3-loss teams have no business playing for a national championship. I'd rather keep the system we have now than open it up to 16 teams.

Vito Corleone wrote:You know there is going to come a time when it happens and when it does it will then go into over kill.

We already have a system that gives us a 1 vs 2.

I can see a time when we get a +1 game that would give us basically a playoff of the top 4 teams.

After that it's only a matter of time before the presidents realize that if a top 4 playoff is good then a top 8 would be better, but then they will do the same for a top 16 and maybe even a top 32.

human nature is funny like that.

The whole idea of a plus-one concept is just another band-aid. Look at what we could have this year if you had the plus-one...

Take the winner of the "title game"...SEC champ vs. Oklahoma/Texas...which could possibly be a one-loss team unless it's Alabama, who would still be unbeaten.

The Rose Bowl...USC vs. Penn State...will produce a one-loss team.

The Fiesta Bowl...let's say Ohio State vs. Texas/Oklahoma...could produce a one-loss team if it is Texas.

In the Sugar Bowl...an unbeaten Utah vs. the loser of the SEC title game...could likely end up with a one loss team if Alabama lost to Florida but beats Utah or you could have Utah still unbeaten with a win over an SEC team.

There's four games there where you can take the winners of those games you produce another mess where you can't really make a strong distinction between four 1-loss teams. This case shoots numerous holes in a plus-one because you don't end up with a definitive #1 vs. #2 out of that situation.

Also with a plus-one...you play a #1 vs. #2 game and you expect that winner to have to beat the next best team after the bowls? Unless you intend on scrapping the #1 vs. #2 matchup in one of those bowls and go with the traditional matchups and then have a single game beyond that.

It takes a season like this to destroy the plus-one concept because the bowls wouldn't thin the herd down to just two top teams...there could be more.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote: How is the BCS fucked in the way it ranks teams?

Texas beat Oklahoma- yet Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas. how they did against common opponents should get less consideration to how they did head to head. Same shit happens every year and every year they promise to fix it- and never do.

Do you really think that the Top 10 teams in the BCS right now aren't the 10 best teams in the country? You might argue about the order they're in, which is why I think we need a system that includes more teams. But I think the BCS does a pretty good job of at least coming up with the Top 8-10 teams.

Yet the order teams are ranked is vital to your plan.

Cuda wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote: How is the BCS fucked in the way it ranks teams?

Texas beat Oklahoma- yet Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas.

Should Oregon State be ranked ahead of USC? Shouldn't Tech be ranked ahead of Tejas?

As for the plan, add three more BCS bowls for a grand total of seven. (Cotton, Gator, and other... fucking Liberty, I don't care...) Then play all of the games at BCS bowl sites. They make their money, they suddenly shut the fuck up about the kids having to play an extra week or whatever it is.

Week 1: Conference Championship Game Weekend... for those of us that have one.
Week 2 - Off (Finals Week)
Week 3 - Off (Finals Week)
Week 4 - Regular Bowl Games, capped on Monday of Week 5 by the BCS National Quarterfinals.
Week 5 - Regular Bowl Games, capped on Monday of Week 6 by the BCS National Semifinals.
Week 6 - Regular Bowl Games
Week 7 - The BCS Playoff National Championship

As the system currently stands, going off of last year's calendar, the conference championship games were played the weekend of December 1st, with the first bowl game taking place on December 20th. (Thank you, Poinsettia Bowl...) The last bowl, the Sugar Bowl, took place on January 7th.

The week of (Monday) December 17th starts Week 4. The following Monday (the 24th on last year's calendar) is the weekend for the BCS National Quarterfinals. Then that same Monday also starts Week 5, capped by the BCS National Semifinals, which, according to last year's calendar, would have aired December 31st. That same Monday, December 31st, would be Week 6, the last week of "regular" bowl games. Then, the following Monday, is the REAL National Championship. January 7th. This system has them playing for no longer than the current system. And, as long as all of the bowls rotate, the ones that aren't championship bowls at first will still get their due.

Flaws?

the_ouskull

the_ouskull wrote: Flaws?

the_ouskull

Just that it still fucks with tradition a little too much for the old-school folks. The only way the Rose Bowl is going to let go of the Pac10/Big10 matchup is if they're hosting the NC game.

Maybe the Rose Bowl waives its right to host semifinal games in exchange for being guaranteed the right to host the traditional match-up for the six years they don't host the NC game.

I'd say the best candidates if we went to seven BCS bowls would be Cotton (something tells me Jerry Jones won't disappoint), Holiday (San Diego is an obvious choice), and probably Capitol One (I'll defer to the Southeast people on this one. Tampa, Jacksonville or Orlando? I just went with Orlando because of DisneyWorld. heh).

See, man, that whole f*ckin' Rose Bowl thing is what bugs me about my idea too. Considering that, outside of the championship game, lately the parade has been at least as good as the game (and I, like Daniel Tosh, am NOT a parade guy) they're pretty full of themselves. The only way I could see it would be if the powers-that-be tried work the brackets to match Pac and Big 10 teams together in either the quarters or semis, but then I'm sure that there'd be a mountain of crying over the fact that, sometimes, they had to play the almighty fucking Rose Bowl before New Year's Day. Some things are bigger than the Rose Bowl. I think a playoff is one of them.

the_ouskull

the_ouskull wrote: Should Oregon State be ranked ahead of USC? Shouldn't Tech be ranked ahead of Tejas?

who had the better overall record, U&L State or USC- Texas or Taco Tech ?

you can't put common opponents ahead of head-to head competition.

by your own argument, dumbass, since texas tech beat texas, and texas beat Norman College, tech should be ranked ahead of BOTH of them.

I'm a totally impartial observer here- i have no warm, fuzzy feelings for any of the teams involved.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Cuda wrote:

the_ouskull wrote: Should Oregon State be ranked ahead of USC? Shouldn't Tech be ranked ahead of Tejas?

who had the better overall record, Texas or Taco Tech ?

Neither. Hence "three-way tie."

I think the term "three-way" distracted him, much like a shiny nickel might.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Mucho,
A 16-team playoff would without question diminish the importance of the regular season. 3-loss teams have no business playing for a national championship. I'd rather keep the system we have now than open it up to 16 teams.

I agree with you. I just think 8 teams will still leave as much uproar as the current system.

Maybe going with 12 teams and giving the Top 4 a first round bye would work better.

A 16-team playoff would without question diminish the importance of the regular season.

Whatever. The way I see it is the BCS has diminished the importance of the post season, which is a much greater crime.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

A 16-team playoff would without question diminish the importance of the regular season.

Whatever. The way I see it is the BCS has diminished the importance of the post season, which is a much greater crime.

How do you figure? The BCS has many flaws, to be sure, but at least on the rare occasion when only two teams clearly emerge as the two best ('98, '05), it matches them up. If the old system had been in place in '05, SC would've gone to the Rose Bowl and Texas would've gone to the Fiesta and we would've missed out on one of the greatest CFB games in history.

I just don't see why anyone would be so desperate to exchange 15 weeks of excitement for 3 weeks of excitement. It's not like a playoff would guarantee a matchup of the two best teams anyway. Just ask the 2001 Seattle Mariners or last year's Dallas Cowboys. The last thing CFB needs is some mediocre 3-loss team getting hot in December and winning a national title.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:How do you figure? The BCS has many flaws, to be sure, but at least on the rare occasion when only two teams clearly emerge as the two best ('98, '05), it matches them up. If the old system had been in place in '05, SC would've gone to the Rose Bowl and Texas would've gone to the Fiesta and we would've missed out on one of the greatest CFB games in history.

Well, I'm not much of a proponent of the old system either.

In any given year, odds are pretty good that there are more than two teams capable of winning the title. Why it all has to be deduced to just two teams when the talent and coaching gaps are widening across the country is baffling to me. Add to that, the fact that it's even possible for one or two undeserving teams to reach the title game is what makes the system so incredibly flawed to begin with. If an "undeserving" team reaches the playoffs that's one thing, but the national championship game? That's a huge problem.

I don't view the regular season as a playoff either. With a true playoff, you win and you advance. That is not necessarily the case in the BCS. Team A) can have an identical record with team B) and lose the head-to-head match up, yet still "advance." The fact that scenario is even possible completely eliminates the very basic principle of a playoff. A playoff is a simple, specific format that always yields the same result. The BCS yields ever changing results that are based on a multitude of variables. In other words, two teams can accomplish the same thing yet have their fates decided by two different results. Now, you can call that whatever you want - most of us call it chaos - but it sure as hell ain't a playoff.

I just don't see why anyone would be so desperate to exchange 15 weeks of excitement for 3 weeks of excitement.

Excitement is subjective. Me? I'm quite sure I would find the regular season just as, if not more exciting. As we stand now, so many teams who lose just one game are out of the title running. It makes for an awful lot of irrelevant games. So a 3-loss team could get into the playoffs. So what? As we come down the home stretch, that means we see more teams competing in the regular season for playoff berths. Seems to me that makes for MORE relevant and exciting games. Besides, as we stand now, it's possible for a 2 loss team to get into the MNC game. So what's the big deal if a 3 loss team gets into the playoffs?

It's not like a playoff would guarantee a matchup of the two best teams anyway.

That's irrelevant to me. My argument in support of a playoff is that it allows for more than two capable teams to compete for the prize. What happens after that is up to the playoff to decide.