quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:
No 1 G8r... this is almost exactly as mine...

I choose 16 teams as well. 11 conference champions (if they qualify, need 9 wins) plus at-large selections (by committee, just like basketball). Seed the conference champs first, then the at-large guys... top 8 get home games in round 1...

I like the idea of using a committee, like in basketball. I disagree with the 9 win requirement as teams that aren't that good are going to get weeded out anyway. The 9-win requirement would prevent teams from scheduling out of conference rivalry games as they'd schedule patsies instead to try to hit the 9-win mark. Win your conference, you're in the playoffs - period.

quote:

I could add in one exception for Notre Dame in that if they are in the top 4, they get a home game...

I could agree to this...if I HAD to.

quote:

I like using six bowl games and here's why. In rounds 2 & 3, you have...six games. Use three from the East (Orange, Sugar, Citrus) and three from the West (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton) to rotate the games between rounds 2 & 3...

Seed the teams in 4-team regions, try to keep teams close to home...avoid rematches if possible in the first round.

This is a workable idea.

quote:

Allow the bowls not involved to select 1st round losers & teams that did not qualify.

I think uninvolved bowls should get their pick of any 1st and 2nd round losers and teams that did not qualify. The 2nd round losers could go to bowls that pay higher, since those bowls are likely to be at least a couple of weeks away.

Between our ideas, this is starting to look very workable to me. I like the fact that it keeps the regular season interesting, including the need for significant out of conference games so that out of conference rivalry games don't fall off of the radar. Anything without an at-large option will not preserve this.

Okay, serious answer.

Six 12-team conferences plus two at large. Winnow down to 72 BCS teams by dropping anybody with less than 25,000 per game attendance into the next tier.

I usually don’t attack other Gator posters for that is the job of the trolls but I have to say that anyone on here who supports the BCS really needs to think twice about what they are saying. The BCS isn’t responsible for the zeal college fans have for their teams. College fans unlike NFL fans are more geographically binded to their teams meaning college games are like mini state civil wars thus the excitement. In addition, parents follow and support their kids in college games closer than in the NFL which translates to stronger larger stadium turnouts. Lastly, the student fan base furnace which fuels college football is nonexistent in the NFL. The BCS is really about the conference commissioners making coin meaning it’s a glorified ponzi scheme.

An undefeated SEC power like Auburn being left of the title game is reprehensible. This year we could have multiple undefeated major conference teams not play for a title. I still believe Florida is the best of them all and nor would I give back anything BCS title earned but that’s not the point. Champions should be crowned on the field of play not in the court of public opinion. Regardless of the playoff system constructed whether it’s a +1+2 or every conference champion versus conference champion it would be far better than letting talking heads decide championships in polls. The only thing the BCS provides is interesting debate about who should rise and fall in the polls because of a loss or two. A playoff system would take that debate away but not the zeal of college football.

quote:

Originally posted by no1g8r:
Okay, I took this stab at it, but still reserve the right to tweak my opinion.

* - There are eleven conferences. The winner from each Conference goes into the playoff, along with 5 at-large team that are selected by BCS standings, using a similar system for the at-large teams as what we use today.

* - This system doesn't care how the conferences select their champions, but it may be to their advantage to play a conference championship game to improve the BCS standings of the team that doesn't win the conference, as well as the seeding of the conference champion.

* - Notre Dame, Army and Navy would be encouraged to join a conference, but they would still be eligible for at-large status, using the same BCS standings as everyone else. No special Notre Dame exceptions.

* - The regular season would be an 11-game season, rather than 12. Most teams schedule a Div II team in that 12th game slot anyway, so it is of little value.

* - The playoffs would add up to 4 games to the season for 4 teams in the championship game, the same as the number of games played by Div II and Div III with their playoffs today (15). This is one more than teams with conference championships and bowl games play today.

* - The 11 conference winners would first be seeded according to their BCS standings, then the 5 at-large teams would be seeded in the 12-16 slots.

* - In the first playoff round, seed 1 would play seed 16, seed 2 would play seed 15, and so on.

* - The first round games would be played at the home stadium of the highest seeded team in each game, 2 weeks after the conference championship games.

* - In this season, with 11 games, the conference championships would end no later than Saturday, November 28th.

* - The playoff would begin 2 weeks later, on Dec 10th, 11th, 12th. The determination of which game is played on which day would be by random draw, or as an alternative, by seeding (highest first, lowest last).

* - The second round of the playoffs (semi-finals) would be played at the home stadium of the highest seeded team in each game, 1 week after the round 1 playoffs. All 4 of these games would be played on Dec. 19th.

* - The 2 third round games (finals) would be played on January 2nd, and would be played at current BCS bowl sites.

* - The championship game would be played 2 weeks later, on January 16th, at the current BCS bowl championship site.

Bowl games
* - This leaves 1 current BCS bowl out of the playoffs each year. This would be rotated. They would pit the 2 teams that lost their finals game on January 2nd, and would be played 1 week later on January 9th.

* - Currently, aside from the games played in BCS bowls, there are currently 29 other bowl games. These games would establish tie-ins to the various playoff rounds, using payout to determine the ranking of the bowls.

* - For example, outside of the BCS bowls, the highest payout bowl is the Capital One Bowl, so it would host it's pick of the losers of the 4 second round teams.

* - The next highest payout is the Outback bowl, so it would host the 2 losers of the second round games that were not picked up by the Capital One Bowl

* - The next highest payout is the Cotton bowl, which would host its pick of the 8 losers of the first round games, the Peach Bowl would pick next, the Gator bowl next, and the final 2 first round losers would go to the Alamo Bowl.

* - The remaining 23 bowls would have their choice of picks from non-playoff teams, as is the case today.

* - Non-playoff games could be scattered across the calendar similar to the way they are today, to keep many of the traditions of holiday game watching in place.

* - An alternative would be to allow the highest payout bowls to have their choice from ALL of the remaining teams (not still in the playoffs) so that they could match up in the manner that would best ensure higher attendance and viewership.

This plan satisfies most of the requirements that I could come up with, including giving preferences to the highest paying bowls, leaving most of the current bowl structure in place, not adding too many games (1 game at most, equaling what Div II and Div III play).

This structure also keeps the regular season meaningful, as teams want to win their conference to be guaranteed a playoff spot, but still want to have a strong schedule so that they can garner an at-large position in case they don't win their conference.

I consider this a draft plan, as I'm still working at tweaking a few ideas.

Fire away!

Something like this sounds good, but it will never happen. With this format some teams who are bowl eligible will not be able to go to bowl because some playoff teams will play in multiple bowls. No way the NCAA will allow that to happen. The reason why I think the plus-one is the best is because it is the simplest format to install with minimal changes.

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:
So let us look at the schedules of the 7...yes 7 remaining undefeated teams...

Florida - Vandy, @South Carolina, FIU, FSU
Bama - LSU, @MSU, UTC, @Auburn
Iowa - Northwestern, @Ohio State, Minnesota
Texas - UCF, @Baylor, Kansas, @Texas A&M
Cincinnati - UConn, WVU, Illinois, @Pittsburgh
TCU - SDSU, Utah, @Wyoming, New Mexico
Boise St. - Idaho, @Utah St, Nevada, New Mexico St.

Now, the ones I have put in BOLD are the ones I think are lose-able...Texas and Boise St, to me, do not have a lose-able game...Florida, Cincinnati and Iowa only have one...and Bama has a couple (Maybe 3 if you count Mississippi State)

but...

...I fully expect all 7 of these teams to finish undefeated in the regular season...so...how does a +1 get us anywhere in this scenario?

Well first of all, in the plus-one system the teams who will be chosen to play for the NC will be chosen AFTER the bowl games, which means that there will not be 7 undefeated teams by that time.

Like stated before, UF and Bama will play each other so that leaves only 6 possible (but not probable) undefeated teams. These 6 teams will play each other in the bowls which leaves only 3 undefeated teams by the time the bowls are played. It is much better to decide who should play in the championship after the bowls than before.

Now the plus-one system isn't perfect, and a team will still get left out in this scenerio, but it is still better than the current system. In the current system under this scenerio, there will be three undefeated teams after the championship, but under the plus-one there will only be two. But once again, this scenerio is highly unlikely.

quote:

Originally posted by GatorInMontgomery:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TriathGator:


+1 should be enough for a playoff, no more. As others have said, we want the regular season to be worth something. And I think that being conference champ should be worth something also.

I agree completely. I’m not a fan of “at large bids” in the NFL, NCAA Basketball and certainly not in NCAAF if they implement them. Even the NFL in my opinion should switch to a division champion only playoff system which would add value to the division games and division titles. The whole at large thing is too subjective while winning the conference title or division title outright silences the crowd. There should be a requirement in any college playoff system they create that you need to win your conference title in order to qualify. No more “at large” or “who’s most deserving” debates.

quote:

Originally posted by Mid-SouthGator:

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:
So let us look at the schedules of the 7...yes 7 remaining undefeated teams...

Florida - Vandy, @South Carolina, FIU, FSU
Bama - LSU, @MSU, UTC, @Auburn
Iowa - Northwestern, @Ohio State, Minnesota
Texas - UCF, @Baylor, Kansas, @Texas A&M
Cincinnati - UConn, WVU, Illinois, @Pittsburgh
TCU - SDSU, Utah, @Wyoming, New Mexico
Boise St. - Idaho, @Utah St, Nevada, New Mexico St.

Now, the ones I have put in BOLD are the ones I think are lose-able...Texas and Boise St, to me, do not have a lose-able game...Florida, Cincinnati and Iowa only have one...and Bama has a couple (Maybe 3 if you count Mississippi State)

but...

...I fully expect all 7 of these teams to finish undefeated in the regular season...so...how does a +1 get us anywhere in this scenario?

Well first of all, in the plus-one system the teams who will be chosen to play for the NC will be chosen AFTER the bowl games, which means that there will not be 7 undefeated teams by that time.

Like stated before, UF and Bama will play each other so that leaves only 6 possible (but not probable) undefeated teams. These 6 teams will play each other in the bowls which leaves only 3 undefeated teams by the time the bowls are played. It is much better to decide who should play in the championship after the bowls than before.

Now the plus-one system isn't perfect, and a team will still get left out in this scenerio, but it is still better than the current system. In the current system under this scenerio, there will be three undefeated teams after the championship, but under the plus-one there will only be two. But once again, this scenerio is highly unlikely.

...as stated before, I said "regular season" and I don't consider the SECCG the Regular season...just like I did not list the BigXIICG in Texas's schedule...

...so let me get you +1'ers straight...we can add one MORE game to the ONE MORE game we've already added and STILL not get a true champion and you guys are ok with that?

Let's just say for argument's sake that at the end of the season we have 5 or 6 teams undefeated...plus a 1-loss Oregon (Pac10 Champ)...you are OK with 4 undefeated teams playing in the +1 system and leaving 1 or 2 undefeated teams out PLUS the Pac10 champion?

Seriously?

OR...what about this scenario...

Let's say that of the seven, only Florida ends the season undefeated...and plays the bowl game against (pick one) and wins that game...do they STILL have to play the +1 game? or can we just end the argument right there?

This is the reason we need a playoff...scholarship limitations, TV exposure, and the like have leveled the playing field enough that you have legit teams every year. We're getting closer and closer to the dooms-day scenario...

and given the possibilities from this season...+1 just won't get it done...

quote:

Originally posted by 561gator:

quote:

Originally posted by GatorInMontgomery:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TriathGator:


+1 should be enough for a playoff, no more. As others have said, we want the regular season to be worth something. And I think that being conference champ should be worth something also.

I agree completely. I’m not a fan of “at large bids” in the NFL, NCAA Basketball and certainly not in NCAAF if they implement them. Even the NFL in my opinion should switch to a division champion only playoff system which would add value to the division games and division titles. The whole at large thing is too subjective while winning the conference title or division title outright silences the crowd. There should be a requirement in any college playoff system they create that you need to win your conference title in order to qualify. No more “at large” or “who’s most deserving” debates.

1) The NFL has a GREAT playoff. Look at the TV ratings and revenues...they are off the charts and growing every year.
2) Wild-cards do one thing exceptionally well, they guarantee that the best two teams from the regular season make it into the playoffs. NFL, NBA, MLB...all have the same result. And Wild-cards regularly prove their worth in winning Super Bowls, World Series, etc...Even as recent as last year, Baltimore Ravens were the Wild Card and Pittsburgh Steelers the division champion. Baltimore played for the AFC Championship...why? because they were better than Tennessee...simple
3) All the playoff scenarios proposed here (except the +1's) have had as their primary requirement to win the conference championship or you risk missing-out...

So no at-larges huh... what if Florida goes into the SECCG undefeated and loses to an undefeated Alabama...misses the playoffs and somebody like Boise State (who played exactly ONE game worth anything) gets in...you OK with that?

Nothing until every conference who wants in has a conference championship game and every independent joins a conference.

in my personal opinion anything that involves including teams that didn't win their conference should automatically be eliminated.

1 simple criteria to be crowned National Champion you must first be a conference champion. How can you be the best team in the country if you are not the best team in your own conference. Conference champions are rewarded for a full season of games...and spare the crap of who is the best team at the end of the season...that's not what it's about...it's about the best team for that year which includes the end of the year as well.

quote:

Originally posted by -THE DUDE-:
in my personal opinion anything that involves including teams that didn't win their conference should automatically be eliminated.

1 simple criteria to be crowned National Champion you must first be a conference champion. How can you be the best team in the country if you are not the best team in your own conference. Conference champions are rewarded for a full season of games...and spare the crap of who is the best team at the end of the season...that's not what it's about...it's about the best team for that year which includes the end of the year as well.

So do we need to now change the criteria for the other NCAA sports as well? None of them require you to be a conference champion in order to participate in their playoffs...

Hell, Basketball doesn't even reward the conference champion...just the conference tournament champion...

64 teams, with a Final Four in a predetermined location.

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:

I get your point, but I did say "regular season"...I don't consider the SECCG regular season...

yep, some teams do normally fall out of the picture...I just don't see it happening this year...maybe Bama and Iowa...Cincinnati

Yes, you said, "regular season." However, the current system includes the results of conference title games, so you can't ignore that it's part of the equation.

Also, as I said the first time - EVERY YEAR at this time, the media says the same thing you are saying now... and then things work themselves out over the remaining games. I'm not saying your scenario CAN'T happen, just that it's not likely if the season plays out like it typically does. Let's see how the season ends before you are declared a football prophet - and then you can start your own sports betting company.

quote:

Originally posted by cggater:

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:

I get your point, but I did say "regular season"...I don't consider the SECCG regular season...

yep, some teams do normally fall out of the picture...I just don't see it happening this year...maybe Bama and Iowa...Cincinnati

Yes, you said, "regular season." However, the current system includes the results of conference title games, so you can't ignore that it's part of the equation.

Also, as I said the first time - EVERY YEAR at this time, the media says the same thing you are saying now... and then things work themselves out over the remaining games. I'm not saying your scenario CAN'T happen, just that it's not likely if the season plays out like it typically does. Let's see how the season ends before you are declared a football prophet - and then you can start your own sports betting company.

LOL...Yeah, I'm no prophet...and no sports betting for me. I did bet on the Gators once...that's all it took for me.

I agree that most years, you are right, the season "shakes-out"..and most of the teams I listed have at least one difficult game left on their schedule...besides, I don't consider "waiting for it to shake-out" a system...

...I wanted to start a thread about something other than Vandy (yawn), Spikes, Georgia, the offense, uniforms or Vol trolls...

I think it should be the conference champions plus Wild Cards. You have to add more conferences I think. You can't convince me that the Big East is really better than the MWC. So I think add 2 more conference that get automatic bids, and then rate the conferences at the end of each season. For example, if this year the MWC actually did suck and MAC was better, give the MAC the automatic big the next season. Essentially the idea of regulation which is used in Soccer I believe.

Then allow for Wildcards for teams that might go undefeated in the non-auto bid conference and for special cases. Like OU and Texas last year. I think this year and last year, Bama and UF should have a spot in the playoff.

Determine SEC Champ, Big 12 Champ, Big 10 Champ and PAC 10 Champ in conference championship games. Those 4 champions play in semi-finals, and the winners play for national title. The ACC, Big East and all small conferences and other teams are left to watch the big boys play for the title.

This plan may not be fair, but it would produce some great games.

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:

LOL...Yeah, I'm no prophet...and no sports betting for me. I did bet on the Gators once...that's all it took for me.

I agree that most years, you are right, the season "shakes-out"..and most of the teams I listed have at least one difficult game left on their schedule...besides, I don't consider "waiting for it to shake-out" a system...

...I wanted to start a thread about something other than Vandy (yawn), Spikes, Georgia, the offense, uniforms or Vol trolls...

Yeah, I'm no betting man either. I don't even like to talk smack because all it took was one time to eat crow to tell me college football is too unpredictable.

I understand the "shake-out" is no system, but isn't it a big part of what generates so much fun discussion about college football? I love that every game counts during the regular season. A playoff would kill that. Can you imagine Meyer sitting Tebow during the f$u game to make sure he's healthy for the post-season??? I'm also a traditionalist - I love bowl season.

IMHO, there is rarely a season when a team has a legit gripe that they were left out of the MNC game. In fact, undefeated awburn is the only team I can think of. Maybe Utah and Boise were robbed, but their conference schedules allow them to play 1-2 tough OOC games, which givess them the same luxury miami (ind and then big east) and f$u (acc) had for so many years. I'm just not convinced they're elite teams (and I don't think utah played the same bama team we played last year).

Okay, given the proposal that I'd made, 2008 would have looked like this (I used BCS standings in lieu of a NCAA committee):

Round 1 matchups:

#16 TCU @ #1 Oklahoma
#15 Ohio St. @ #2 Florida
#14 Texas Tech @ #3 USC
#13 Alabama @ #4 Utah
#12 Texas @ #5 Penn St.
#11 Buffalo @ #6 Boise St.
#10 Troy @ #7 Cincinnati
#9 East Carolina @ #8 Va. Tech

These are GREAT matchups for a first round set of games. Every game is very competitive, and should generate interest. There are a lot of teams that do not normally play each other, which makes it even better.

If we assume that the "favorites" win these games, round 2 would look like this:

Alabama @ Oklahoma
Texas @ Florida
Va. Tech @ USC
Cincinnati @ Boise St.

Again, highly competitive games. Cool.

Again, assuming the favorites win, round 3 would feature these games:

Boise St. vs. Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl
USC vs. Florida in the Sugar Bowl

Assuming favorites win the championship game would still be:

Florida vs. Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl


The rest of the bowls would have looked like this (assuming bowls keep their 2008 actual teams wherever possible, changes are in bold):

Dec. 20 - Eagle Bank Bowl - Wake Forest vs. Navy
Dec. 20 - New Mexico Bowl - Colorado St. vs. Fresno St.
Dec. 20 - MagicJack Bowl - USF vs. Memphis
Dec. 20 - Pioneer Bowl - Arizona vs. BYU
Dec. 21 - R+L Carriers Bowl - So. Miss vs. Vanderbilt (actual was So. Miss vs. Troy)
Dec. 23 - Poinsettia Bowl - TCU vs. Boston College (TCU played in Round 1)(actual was TCU vs. Boise St.)
Dec. 24 - Hawaii Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Hawaii
Dec. 26 - Motor City Bowl - FAU vs. Central Mich.
Dec. 27 - Meineke Car Care Bowl - W. Virginia vs. N Carolina
Dec. 27 - Champs Sports Bowl - FSU vs. Wisconsin
Dec. 27 - Emerald Bowl - California vs. Miami
Dec. 28 - Independence Bowl - Louisiana Tech vs. Northern Illinois
Dec. 29 - PapaJohns.com Bowl - Rutgers vs. NC State
Dec. 29 - Alamo Bowl - Missouri vs. Northwestern
Dec. 30 - Humanitarian Bowl - Maryland vs. Nevada
Dec. 30 - Texas Bowl - Rice vs. W. Michigan
Dec. 30 - Holiday Bowl – Oklahoma St. vs. Ole Miss (Actual was Oregon vs. Oklahoma St. )
Dec. 31 - Armed Forces Bowl - Houston vs. Air Force
Dec. 31 - Sun Bowl - Oregon St. vs. Pittsburgh
Dec. 31 - Music City Bowl – Iowa vs. S. Carolina (actual was Vanderbilt vs. Boston College)
Dec. 31 - Insight Bowl - Kansas vs. Minnesota
Dec. 31 - Peach Bowl - LSU vs. Ga Tech (assumes Peach picked these teams over remaining Round 1 losers)
Jan. 1 - Outback Bowl – Georgia vs. Michigan St. (actual was Iowa vs. S. Carolina)
Jan. 1 - Capital One Bowl - Ohio St. vs. Va Tech (actual was Georgia vs. Michigan St.)
Jan. 1 - Gator Bowl - Nebraska vs. Clemson (assumes Gator Bowl stayed with these teams over Round 1 losers)
Jan. 1 - Rose Bowl – Oregon vs. Penn St. (Penn St. was a round 1 loser) (Actual was USC vs. Penn. St.)
Jan. 1 - Orange Bowl – Alabama vs. Texas(Actual was Va. Tech vs. Cincinnati)
Jan. 2 - Cotton Bowl - Utah vs. Texas Tech (Actual was Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech)
Jan. 2 - Liberty Bowl - Kentucky vs. East Carolina (ECU also played in Round 1)
Finals Game – Moved to Jan. 3 (was Jan. 2) - Sugar Bowl - USC vs Florida (actual was Utah vs. Alabama)
Jan. 3 - International Bowl - Connecticut vs. Buffalo (Buffalo also played in round 1)
Finals Game – Moved to Jan. 3 (was Jan. 5) - Fiesta Bowl - Boise St. vs. Oklahoma (actual was Texas vs. Ohio St.)
Jan. 6 - GMAC Bowl - Tulsa vs. Ball St.
Jan. 8 - BCS Championship Game - Florida vs. Oklahoma


There are a lot of other ways that this could be sliced, but in the model above, every team that was actually involved in postseason play is involved in either the playoffs, a bowl game, or both. (Troy is the only team that was in the playoffs that didn’t garner a bowl game in the model above). Many of the traditional conference bowl matchups were maintained (such as the Rose Bowl with Pac 10 vs. Big 10, etc), and with careful planning, even more could be managed. I was trying to preserve a lot of the 2008 matchups as they were, whenever possible.

Best of all, since all Div 1 conferences have a fair shot, this is a plan that could determine a TRUE NCAA Champion, rather than an unsanctioned BCS champion.

No playoffs for me, thanks just the same.

I think this would be interesting. Have it similar to the NCAA basketball tournament. Start with 65 teams. The 2 lowest ranked have a play in game to see who will get the last spot. 65 teams would be far too many, so use the top 25 and have #25 and #24 have a play in game.

There would be 4 regions
The regions would be in
-Miami (Orange Bowl Region)
-New Orleans (Sugar Bowl Region)
-Pasadena (Rose Bowl Region)
Glendale (Fiesta Bowl Region)
The city that hosts the final game will rotate every year, as does the current BCS NC

quote:

Originally posted by bachikarn:
I think it should be the conference champions plus Wild Cards. You have to add more conferences I think. You can't convince me that the Big East is really better than the MWC. So I think add 2 more conference that get automatic bids, and then rate the conferences at the end of each season. For example, if this year the MWC actually did suck and MAC was better, give the MAC the automatic big the next season. Essentially the idea of regulation which is used in Soccer I believe.

Then allow for Wildcards for teams that might go undefeated in the non-auto bid conference and for special cases. Like OU and Texas last year. I think this year and last year, Bama and UF should have a spot in the playoff.

That's why my system has 14 teams. 3 Wildcards PLUS the top 2 teams get a bye week to heal. IMO, that puts the best teams on the field AND makes the season "worth something," which I think is ridiculous anyway. If you don't perform well during the season, you don't do well enough to reach the tourney. Or if you are a conference with a 4-loss champion, you probably don't advance as you'll get seeded low & play a higher seeded team.
Also, for those who say "Conference Champs only," just look at UTx last year. Not all conferences do things right, like the SEC. UTx didn't even get the chance to play for the B12, even though they beat the eventual champion during the season. Having 5 wildcards is too much IMO, but 2-3, including NotreDam if they qualify, still works without 'gumming up the works.'

OK...you can all go home now. Here is the BEST and most DEFINITIVE college football playoff proposal. I wrote this in response to an article listing all the problems. He never wrote back.

Not only do I lay out out an efficient system, but along the way refute all the common objections

The ideal playoff format is an 8-team playoff that begins with the existing BCS bowl games:

The 6 power conferences must each determine a champion, either in a championship game or a formula that guarantees a single champion. Use a BCS type formula to select 2 at-large teams from the other conferences or independents. If you can't win your conference, you can't play for the national championship. This takes all the extra air out of your 16-team scenario. (Personal to Notre Dame -- join a conference!)

Use the 4 exisiting BCS bowls for the first round; Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange Bowls. Now New Year's really counts for something! In fact, the bowl system has been strengthened because more bowl games just became more important. Right now, the 32 traditional bowls are meaningless. (We're number 3!) Also, the top 2 teams in the country are back in the bowls again instead of just in the championship game.

The semi-finals and championship game are then played the next 2 weeks.

Push this system against all your pros and cons and you get:

1) *MORE MONEY - MAYBE: *More Money -- definitely!
2) *BETTER GAMES: *More quality intersectional matchups.
3) *THE BOTTOM LINE: *A true national champion on the field...not just a beauty contest.
4) *TRAVEL TROUBLE: *The big-time travel difficulties you envision are only for 4 teams a year. Actually, bowl game boosters and sponsors buy up large chunks of the major bowl game's tickets and the allotments available for the team's fans are relatively small anyway. Most Gator season ticket holders weren't even eligible for BCS tix. If more games were played, maybe more different fans might get to see their team in the playoffs.
5) *TRADITION TRASHED:** *Bowl system remains fully intact and is made even more meaningful. If the Big 10 and Pac 10 want to keep playing the Rose Bowl within this system, let 'em!
6) *SOMEBODY'S ALWAYS ANGRY: *Angry? If you can't win your conference....
7) *THE REGULAR SEASON MATTERS: *Regular season success is the only way to win your conference, or win your way into your conference championship game.
8) *32 WINNERS: *32 teams win their bowls...2 of the advancing 4 win at least one more game.
9) *PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT: *All the playoff teams get the full bowl experience in the first round. 4 teams (out of 119) then prepare for 2 weeks of road games. I'm sure each member of those teams would say it's worth it.
10) *BEST DON'T ALWAYS MEET: *The best will meet, and the polls will have very little to do with it.
11) *LITTLE GUYS NOT WELCOME: *Boise State gets their chance.
12) *BRING ON THE CREAMPUFFS: *The rankings don't matter...winning the conference does. Perhaps playing better non-conference teams prepares a team to perform better in conference play.
Feel free to poke holes in this...I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

So Wyogator, let me make sure I understand this exactly correct. No wild-cards right? So if Both Alabama and Florida go into Atlanta undefeated, you are OK with the loser being out and the 9-4 winner of the ACC in the tournament...? You are OK with that?

I disagree that conference champions only preserves the "regular season meaning". I think if it is Conference Champs only, then it actually works in reverse.

If both Bama and Florida still have hope even if they lost in Atlanta, then both will try to remain on top of the standings...but if they know that only one team is getting the bid, they are going to rest players as soon as their respective divisions are wrapped-up...get me point?

quote:

Originally posted by GRBman:
So Wyogator, let me make sure I understand this exactly correct. No wild-cards right? So if Both Alabama and Florida go into Atlanta undefeated, you are OK with the loser being out and the 9-4 winner of the ACC in the tournament...? You are OK with that?

I disagree that conference champions only preserves the "regular season meaning". I think if it is Conference Champs only, then it actually works in reverse.

If both Bama and Florida still have hope even if they lost in Atlanta, then both will try to remain on top of the standings...but if they know that only one team is getting the bid, they are going to rest players as soon as their respective divisions are wrapped-up...get me point?

If we were going to a 16-game playoff, there might be room for a second team from the same conference. Keep in mind that the goal is to crown a NATIONAL champion and an important part of the element is for it to be truly intersectional. We know from personal experience that it is difficult for the national polls to compare the relative strength of teams from different conferences. Maybe that 9-4 ACC started poorly but got it's act together and is playing as well as anyone, or lost a stellar QB for 3 games. Again, the whole idea is to make the polls less important so that what actually happens on the field is important. That conference championship game is actually the first round (think 12 teams) of the playoffs.

Remember in 2006 when some were clamoring for an OSU rematch with Michigan? What would that have proved? If OSU won, then the national championship would have represented a defacto CONFERENCE championship. If Michigan won, they'd get the NC even though the 2 earned a split...in that case you'd really need a rubber game to determine the champ.

As far as teams resting key players once they've clinched, that is a possibility, but it is the exception rather than the rule that conference championship game slots are decided this early. Also, how well does it usually work out for those teams that pack it in after they've clinched? We've seen plenty of times that they lose their edge.

Here is my 12 team playoff idea.

- Every team playing in 1A should have a shot to win the Title. This would mean some consolidation of the teams and conferences throughout the divisions.
- In Division 1A there would be a total of 6 conferences and 72 teams, all conferences would have 12 teams and a Conference Championship game. PAC-10 would gain 2 teams(BYU,Utah?) BIG 10 would gain 1 (Notre Dame?) and Big East would gain 4.
- The 5 conferences left out of the D1A would comprise a D1B division. These teams will still play and be ranked amongst the D1A teams and will be given a chance to play for an at-large bid in the Playoffs.
- D1A conferences would be realigned every 5 years to maximize competition on their respective regions. For Example Boise St. has been playing at a high level while Washington St. has been terrible. At the end of five years Boise St could be assimilated into the PAC-10 while WSU would be kicked. A TCU could replace a Baylor in the Big 12. Southern Miss could replace Miss St. etc. In a sense every team in the D1B would be able to earn their way into a D1A slot.
- The 6 Conference Champs in D1A would get an automatic bid. The BCS system would still be used to select the seeding and the 6 at-large teams. The top 6 BCS ranked teams that didn't win their Conference would go to the playoffs, these would include D1B teams if they're ranked high enough. The Top 4 BCS teams would get a bye week. This would preserve the regular seasons intensity.
- The first or at-large round of the Playoffs would be 4 major bowls to rotate annually. These bowls wouldn't get the top 4 teams but they would still be a NCAA playoff game so I don't think revenue would be lost. The second round would be a home game for the top 4 seeds, earning these teams the revenue and fan support of a home game. The third round would be 2 games rotating between the 4 major bowls.
- The current bowl games could still be played by teams that didn't get in. An 11 game regular season could be reinstated to compensate for a longer postseason.
I tried to post a bracket but I've already spent too much time on this fantasy world.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

The 6 power conferences must each determine a champion, either in a championship game or a formula that guarantees a single champion. Use a BCS type formula to select 2 at-large teams from the other conferences or independents. If you can't win your conference, you can't play for the national championship. This takes all the extra air out of your 16-team scenario. (Personal to Notre Dame -- join a conference!)
.
.
.
11) *LITTLE GUYS NOT WELCOME: *Boise State gets their chance.

Here's where I think you lose something. There are 11 conferences, 6 of which are guaranteed spots, and 5 of which have to hope some polling system/selection committee will pick them. You eliminate getting there by virtue of "winning it on the field". I don't think you can claim a true national championship unless all conferences have at least their champion making the playoffs.

quote:

7) *THE REGULAR SEASON MATTERS: *Regular season success is the only way to win your conference, or win your way into your conference championship game.
.
.
.
12) *BRING ON THE CREAMPUFFS: *The rankings don't matter...winning the conference does. Perhaps playing better non-conference teams prepares a team to perform better in conference play.

No, if it's just conference champions that get in, then the non-conference regular season doesn't matter, they are just exhibition games.

Anything less than the 11 conference champions won't pass muster with the NCAA, and not including at least SOME at-large teams will render the non-conference regular season meaningless. That's why you need at least a 16 team playoff.

The mix of conference champions and at-large teams doesn't seem to hurt the NCAA basketball tourney any, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by no1g8r:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

The 6 power conferences must each determine a champion, either in a championship game or a formula that guarantees a single champion. Use a BCS type formula to select 2 at-large teams from the other conferences or independents. If you can't win your conference, you can't play for the national championship. This takes all the extra air out of your 16-team scenario. (Personal to Notre Dame -- join a conference!)
.
.
.
11) *LITTLE GUYS NOT WELCOME: *Boise State gets their chance.

Here's where I think you lose something. There are 11 conferences, 6 of which are guaranteed spots, and 5 of which have to hope some polling system/selection committee will pick them. You eliminate getting there by virtue of "winning it on the field". I don't think you can claim a true national championship unless all conferences have at least their champion making the playoffs.

quote:

7) *THE REGULAR SEASON MATTERS: *Regular season success is the only way to win your conference, or win your way into your conference championship game.
.
.
.
12) *BRING ON THE CREAMPUFFS: *The rankings don't matter...winning the conference does. Perhaps playing better non-conference teams prepares a team to perform better in conference play.

No, if it's just conference champions that get in, then the non-conference regular season doesn't matter, they are just exhibition games.

Anything less than the 11 conference champions won't pass muster with the NCAA, and not including at least SOME at-large teams will render the non-conference regular season meaningless. That's why you need at least a 16 team playoff.

The mix of conference champions and at-large teams doesn't seem to hurt the NCAA basketball tourney any, does it?

One of the reasons I was proposing an 8 rather than a 16 team playoff is I believe we have a better shot at that. I think the 8-game playoff is the best balance of getting all the truly deserving games in the mix without making it unwieldy and much more costly. How many times has a 9 or lower seed won the basketball tourney? Also, it's not as hard to play more games in hoop as it is in football. Not really a good comparison. What is a good comparison is the high intensity one and done nature of the playoff.

Remember that the goal is get to the 1 team that is natonal champ. I really think that can be accomplished with 8 teams. Keep in mind that the 2nd place conference team got their chance, either in regular season in the division with the champ or as the opposite side champ. There no way you can say the regular conference season doesn't matter in that format. Football is a sport that traditionally relies on one-up matchups, not a tournament.

In the past 15 years, how many teams outside the power conferences would have really had a shot at winning out in a 3-game championship playoff? Don't say Boise...they had to succeed in 5 straight trick plays to win one in overtime. That doesn't make them likely to win 3 in a row against 3 top ten teams. In my format, 2 of them get that shot every year.

Otherwise, realign into 8 conferences and have the 8 conference champs go at it. I just don't think the extra 8 games really justify the additional cost, time, time, travel and wear and tear on the teams.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
One of the reasons I was proposing an 8 rather than a 16 team playoff is I believe we have a better shot at that. I think the 8-game playoff is the best balance of getting all the truly deserving games in the mix without making it unwieldy and much more costly. How many times has a 9 or lower seed won the basketball tourney? Also, it's not as hard to play more games in hoop as it is in football. Not really a good comparison. What is a good comparison is the high intensity one and done nature of the playoff.

Remember that the goal is get to the 1 team that is natonal champ. I really think that can be accomplished with 8 teams. Keep in mind that the 2nd place conference team got their chance, either in regular season in the division with the champ or as the opposite side champ. There no way you can say the regular conference season doesn't matter in that format. Football is a sport that traditionally relies on one-up matchups, not a tournament.

At every other level of football, the champion is determined in a tournament format. I think I get what you mean, but the bolded statement is flat-out wrong...ALL playoffs are tournaments

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
In the past 15 years, how many teams outside the power conferences would have really had a shot at winning out in a 3-game championship playoff? Don't say Boise...they had to succeed in 5 straight trick plays to win one in overtime. That doesn't make them likely to win 3 in a row against 3 top ten teams. In my format, 2 of them get that shot every year.

That's not the point. The point is to design a championship that is fair to all 120 Div 1-A teams...not who we THINK can win it...but who really can...

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Otherwise, realign into 8 conferences and have the 8 conference champs go at it. I just don't think the extra 8 games really justify the additional cost, time, time, travel and wear and tear on the teams.

I think we'd all feel differently if we were fans of TCU, Boise St. or Cincinnati at this point...They are going to win all the games they scheduled (well, maybe) and not even get a sniff of a chance...all I'm saying is "ok, we'll give you a chance...good warm-up for the real teams"

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
One of the reasons I was proposing an 8 rather than a 16 team playoff is I believe we have a better shot at that. I think the 8-game playoff is the best balance of getting all the truly deserving games in the mix without making it unwieldy and much more costly. How many times has a 9 or lower seed won the basketball tourney? Also, it's not as hard to play more games in hoop as it is in football. Not really a good comparison. What is a good comparison is the high intensity one and done nature of the playoff.

Remember that the goal is get to the 1 team that is natonal champ. I really think that can be accomplished with 8 teams. Keep in mind that the 2nd place conference team got their chance, either in regular season in the division with the champ or as the opposite side champ. There no way you can say the regular conference season doesn't matter in that format. Football is a sport that traditionally relies on one-up matchups, not a tournament.

In the past 15 years, how many teams outside the power conferences would have really had a shot at winning out in a 3-game championship playoff? Don't say Boise...they had to succeed in 5 straight trick plays to win one in overtime. That doesn't make them likely to win 3 in a row against 3 top ten teams. In my format, 2 of them get that shot every year.

Otherwise, realign into 8 conferences and have the 8 conference champs go at it. I just don't think the extra 8 games really justify the additional cost, time, time, travel and wear and tear on the teams.

Fair points. I had some additional criteria that I was trying to apply, which included:

1) Create a playoff that results in an NCAA national champion - I don't think that you can do that without having a playoff that invited all conference champions, thus the need for more than 8 teams in the playoff

2) Ensuring that ALL of the regular season means something, INCLUDING non-conference games - under your scenario, the UF-FSU, GA-Ga Tech, Clemson-SCar, anybody vs. Notre Dame, and a LOT of other rivalries would have absolutely no meaning (except to Notre Dame in their games). To me, this would dilute these rivalries immensely, as you'd no longer have the possibility for an underdog rival coming in and hurting the post-season prospects for their out of conference rival.

3) Preserving the existing conferences and their traditions during their regular seasons

4) Preserving the bowl tie-ins and traditions surrounding bowls.

Remember, in the 2006 basketball season, Florida did not win the SEC conference champion title for the regular season, LSU did (UF won the tournament, not the conference title). If we apply the same logic, Florida wouldn't have made it to win the basketball National Championship in 2006.

I'll post the way the 2009 projected post-season would look under my plan in another post.

Okay, I had a BORING 3-hour conference call, so while listening I came up with this, the projected 2009 post-season schedule following the proposal I listed before, along with a few tweaks.

This assumes that teams ended their seasons, including conference championship games, by Nov. 28 this year, instead of a week later on Dec. 1. This could either be accomplished by starting the season a week earlier or by eliminating the patsy game that all teams seem to play each year.

Here's the viewer's schedule of games. Existing bowls, for the most part, kept their dates/times - the playoff games are mixed in. Obviously bowl dates/times could be adjusted for maximum exposure.

10-Dec @ 5:30pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 1 // Seed 12 @ Seed 5 // Houston @ Cincinnati
10-Dec @ 9:00pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 2 // Seed 13 @ Seed 4 // BYU @ Iowa
11-Dec @ 5:30pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 3 // Seed 16 @ Seed 1 // Idaho @ Florida
11-Dec @ 9:00pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 4 // Seed 9 @ Seed 8 // LSU @ Oregon
12-Dec @ 11am -- Playoff Round 1 Game 5 // Seed 14 @ Seed 3 // Cent. Mich. @ Alabama
12-Dec @ 2:30pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 6 // Seed 15 @ Seed 2 // Troy @ Texas
12-Dec @ 6:00pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 7 // Seed 11 @ Seed 6 // Penn. St. @ TCU
12-Dec @ 9:30pm -- Playoff Round 1 Game 8 // Seed 10 @ Seed 7 // Ga. Tech @ Boise St
19-Dec @ 11:00am -- Playoff Round 2 Game 1 // Winner Game 1 Winner Game 2 // Cincinnati @ Iowa
19-Dec @ 2:30pm -- Playoff Round 2 Game 2 // Winner Game 7 Winner Game 5 // TCU @ Alabama
19-Dec @ 2:30pm -- New Mexico Bowl // Mtn West #3/4 WAC #2 // San Diego St. - Fresno St.
19-Dec @ 6:00pm -- Playoff Round 2 Game 3 // Winner Game Game 8 Winner Game 6 // Boise St. @ Texas
19-Dec @ 8:00pm -- St. Petersburg Bowl // Big East #6 C-USA #5 // USF - UCF
19-Dec @ 9:30pm -- Playoff Round 2 Game 4 // Winner Game 4 Winner Game 3 // Oregon @ Florida
20-Dec @ 8:00pm -- New Orleans Bowl // C-USA #4 Sun Belt 1 // Marshall - Iowa St.
22-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Las Vegas Bowl // Mtn West #1 Pac 10 #4 // Utah - Arizona St.
23-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Poinsettia Bowl // Mtn West #2 Pac 10 #6 // Air Force - Nevada
24-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Hawaii Bowl // C-USA #2 Hawaii or WAC #3 // So. Miss. - Troy
26-Dec @ 4:00pm -- Meineke Car Care Bowl // ACC #6 Big East #3 // Va Tech - Pitt
26-Dec @ 5:00pm -- Little Caesers Bowl // Big 10 #7 MAC #1 // Michigan - Central Mich.
26-Dec @ 8:30pm -- Emerald Bowl // ACC #7 Pac 10 #5 // N. Carolina - Arizona
27-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Music City Bowl // ACC #5/6/7 SEC #6/7 // Clemson - Arkansas
28-Dec @ 5:00pm -- Independence Bowl // Big 12 #7 SEC #8 // Texas Tech - Ole Miss
29-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Champs Sports Bowl // ACC #4 Big 10 #4/5 // Miami - Michigan St.
30-Dec @ 4:30pm -- EagleBank Bowl // ACC #8 Army or C-USA #6 // Duke - E. Carolina
30-Dec @ 4:30pm -- Texas Bowl // Big 12 #8 Navy or C-USA #7 // Texas A&M - Navy
30-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Holiday Bowl // Big 12 #3 Pac 10 #2 // Oklahoma St. - California
30-Dec @ 8:00pm -- Humanitarian Bowl // Mtn West #5 WAC #1 // BYU - Idaho
31-Dec @ Noon -- Sun Bowl // Pac 10 #3 Big East or Big 12 or Notre Dame // Oregon St. - Missouri
31-Dec @ 3:30pm -- Armed Forces Bowl // Mtn West #3/4 C-USA #3 // Air Force - SMU
31-Dec @ 5:30pm -- Insight Bowl // Big 10 #6 Big 12 #6 // Northwestern - Kansas St.
31-Dec @ 7:30pm -- Chick-Fil-A Bowl // ACC #2 SEC #3/4/5 // Ga Tech - Tennessee
1-Jan @ 11:00am -- Outback Bowl // Big 10 #3 SEC #3/4/5 // Wisconsin - Georgia
1-Jan @ 1:00pm -- Capital One Bowl // Big 10 #2 SEC #2 // Penn St. - LSU
1-Jan @ 1:00pm -- Gator Bowl // ACC #3 Big East or Big 12 or Notre Dame // Boston Coll - Notre Dame
1-Jan @ 5:00pm -- Rose Bowl // Big 10 #1 Pac 10 #1 // Ohio St. - USC
1-Jan @ 8:30pm -- Sugar Bowl // SEC #1 At-Large // LSU - BYU
2-Jan @ Noon -- International Bowl // Big East #4 MAC #4/5 // Rutgers - Kent St.
2-Jan @ 2:00pm -- Cotton Bowl // Big 12 #2 SEC #3/4/5 // Oklahoma - Auburn
2-Jan @ 2:00pm -- PapaJohns.com Bowl // Big East #5 or Sun Belt SEC #9 or Sunbelt // W. Virginia - Kentucky
2-Jan @ 3:30pm -- Playoff Finals Game 1 - Fiesta Bowl // Semifinal Winner Game 3 Semifinal Winner Game 2 // Alabama - Texas
2-Jan @ 5:30pm -- Liberty Bowl // C-USA #1 SEC #6 // Houston - S. Carolina
2-Jan @ 8:00pm -- Alamo Bowl // Big 10 #4/5 Big 12 #4 // Minnesota - Nebraska
2-Jan @ 8:00pm -- Playoff Finals Game 2 - Orange Bowl // Semifinal Winner Game 4 Semifinal Winner Game 1 // Cincinnati - Florida
6-Jan @ 7:00pm -- GMAC Bowl // ACC #9 MAC #2 // FSU - Temple
16-Jan @ 8:00pm -- National Championship Game // Finals Winner Game 1 Finals Winner Game 2 // Florida - Texas



Rather than assume that bowl matchups are announced after the conference championship game, this assumes that bowls are announced after playoff round 1, allowing teams that lost in the first round to play in a bowl game, so long as they have at least 2 weeks between their playoff game and their bowl game.

This was also scoured to eliminate rematches as much as possible, as some popped up when teams were juggled in the bowls. It only took the same kind of bowl tweaking that happens today when bowl selection committees pick their matchups.

There are a lot of GREAT games in the playoffs, while still maintaining great games in the bowl season as well.

I'm really interested in hearing feedback, so fire away.