Offical How I Would Fix The BCS Thread

[mnboiler]

I know people have posted there ideas other place but I thought it would be easier to have one place for I'll the ideas. This way people could easily ask question, critique, and poke holes in other peoples ideas.

I'll start.

You keep the current 4 BCS bowls, and maybe add a 5th-I think the Cotton Bowl would be a good game to add-then play all 5 games over New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, then the weekend depending how the calender falls. This allows all the traditions to continue, Rose Bowl will still be Big 10 vs Pac 10, etc.

After all 4/5 games are played the AP, Coaches, computer polls do one final ranking with just the 8 or 10 teams that played in BCS bowls. Then you take the #1 and #2 team and they play the next weekend.

While some will say thats unfair to the Big/Pac 10 teams because they will always play each other therefore both will never play in the NC game. My response is that there is no rules saying that a losing team couldn't be in the NC game.

For example this year the schudule could be
Cotton Bowl-Dec 31
Rose Bowl-Jan 1(Afternoon)
Orange Bowl-Jan 1(Night)
Suger Bowl-Jan 2
Fiesta Bowl-Jan 3

National Championship Game-Jan 10

So I guess it would be verison of the +1 format.

[bigtenchamps1899]

i like the BCS.

[Maverick]

Sixteen team seeded playoff over four weeks. 8 games, 4 games, 2 games, Championship game. First round is home game for top eight teams. That is fifteen games, the last seven games (weeks 2,3,4) can be "bowl" games. There are 34(?) bowl games now, so if that stays the same, then there are still 27 "bowl" games to be played by teams that didn't make the Championship tourney.

Today's bowl season stretches out over almost three weeks now, so it would either need to start one week earlier or go one week later than now. Not that big a change. The home team advantage for the first game evens things out for northern teams that now have to play bowl games often times in their oponents backyard.

Regular season games will mean more than ever in the battle to get selected and in-conference record should be the only ones counted for the rankings. Think of the media hype of the NCAA basketball tourney and you can see what the possibilities are for promoting conferences and making money and satisfying fans and teams who today are being screwed...

[Gold Rush]

OK, my best version is to take the top 8 teams and seed them 1-8.

The four highest rated teams each get the playoff game at home. With the four teams that win, you send them to 2 New Year's Day Bowl games.....and you send the winner of those games to the BCS Championship bowl a week later. If you take the top 8 instead of the major conference winners, you would be replacing Cincinnatti and Georgia Tech with Utah and Texas Tech, which are more deserving teams and that would be more fair.

The way it would have played out this year:
#8 Texas Tech at #1 Florida
#7 Utah at #2 Oklahoma
#6 Penn St. at #3 Texas
#5 USC at #4 Alabama

I like this a LOT more than what we have right now......

Whatever the case is, I think everyone agrees the present system is antiquated and needs to be changed.

[16FeetUnder]

MnBoiler - What's the difference between that and what we do now? One more game played before the national championship game? What's the point?

Is determining a national champion the only goal of college football? If so, then a playoff system is the way to go. If that's not the only goal, then something else (BCS).

[Gold Rush]

A playoff system makes each of those games much more meaningful than what we have now. Actually, the only Bowl game that means anything right now is the BCS Championship and the others are just for show when you get right down to it.

The Division 2 and Division 3 have their football playoffs and every other sport has an actual playoff system to determine their champion. D-1 Football at least has the BCS championship which is better than what they had before, but that only works when you have 2 clear cut #1 and #2 teams. There is a great potential that someone is getting screwed over and the team that is sitting at home i.e. Texas or USC this year would have won the whole thing if they would have had the chance.

[16FeetUnder]

A playoff system makes each of those games much more meaningful than what we have now. Actually, the only Bowl game that means anything right now is the BCS Championship and the others are just for show when you get right down to it.

The Division 2 and Division 3 have their football playoffs and every other sport has an actual playoff system to determine their champion. D-1 Football at least has the BCS championship which is better than what they had before, but that only works when you have 2 clear cut #1 and #2 teams. There is a great potential that someone is getting screwed over and the team that is sitting at home i.e. Texas or USC this year would have won the whole thing if they would have had the chance.

USC had their chance in their 'playoff' game against Oregon State. They blew it. Texas had a similar chance. Unfortunately, the BCS isn't perfect, but it sure makes the regular season interesting.

[idagopher]

since the BB post season tourney was developed, big time NC games get fewer and fewer and so does relative attendance and iterest, coaches schedule for records to get in the post season. A big play off will do the same in football with fewer and fewer NC games and everyone waiting for the BCS to play a big tome game, just lokk at Boise State who plays in a weak conference and will only schedule a good team in the get two return home games for it

[Gold Rush]

I think a BCS playoff system would be huge for both attendance as well as TV ratings. I look at how fun March Madness is for college basketball and I think there would be a lot of interest for it.

I get the feeling a decent playoff system will be here eventually, but it will take a few more years
with a few more teams getting hosed before it happens. I bet if Notre Dame got hosed, things would change pretty fast.....maybe that's what will finally do it.

[Gold Rush]

since the BB post season tourney was developed, big time NC games get fewer and fewer and so does relative attendance and iterest, coaches schedule for records to get in the post season. A big play off will do the same in football with fewer and fewer NC games and everyone waiting for the BCS to play a big tome game, just lokk at Boise State who plays in a weak conference and will only schedule a good team in the get two return home games for it

Actually, I think Boise St. is a good example of what NOT to do under a BCS tournament format. They went undefeated and got shut out of the BCS. They need to improve their strength of schedule and it was that same easy schedule that kept their ranking too low to get in.

[MaxyJR1]

Have 8, 12 team conferences and have the two division winners advance to playoffs. Then use BCS standings for seeding only. That would get you 16 teams in a playoff and on field performance got them there. Teams should play 10 conference games and then have two non-conference games that only count toward BSC rankings for seeding. Rest of teams still go to bowls.

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

USC had their chance in their 'playoff' game against Oregon State. They blew it. Texas had a similar chance. Unfortunately, the BCS isn't perfect, but it sure makes the regular season interesting.

You mean USC's playoff was on September 25th. That's a little early, don't you think?

If polls are supposed to be a snapshot of the Football Bowl Subdivision, then USC should be the National Champs.

[EdinaHawk]

I think a BCS playoff system would be huge for both attendance as well as TV ratings. I look at how fun March Madness is for college basketball and I think there would be a lot of interest for it.

I get the feeling a decent playoff system will be here eventually, but it will take a few more years
with a few more teams getting hosed before it happens. I bet if Notre Dame got hosed, things would change pretty fast.....maybe that's what will finally do it.


I think the opposite might be true. College ball fans are, by and large, students and alumni in addition to some local diehards. The likelihood that most of them could make more than one bowl trip is very, very low, unless we start holding playoff games in colder climes. March Madness works because you can play several games each week. 8 or 16 team playoffs push the bowl season well into late January and result in 16 games for those teams playing in the MNC game. The bowls become less profitable on an individual basis, fans can't afford to follow their teams through to the end, and that system eventually collapses. The logistics are absolutely impossible to overcome.

In any event, I don't see any circumstance under which the university presidents would agree to a solution beyond the +1, and some (BigTen) would fight even that tooth and nail.

Jmo, but I'd rather see a reversion to the old bowl system based on conference tie-ins. In the end, it really doesn't matter if multiple teams are crowned with the MNC.

[BBShopGo4]

I may be all alone in this, but I'd rather scrap the idea of a national championship in football altogether. I don't' think it's practical/feasible. I think it's taken the fun out of bowl season. I really liked the traditional bowl rivalries of the past. The Rose Bowl was the ultimate goal for B10 teams.

The only idea that I've heard that would produce an reasonably undisputed national champion would be some sort of tournament. That idea isn't feasible in my mind for a number of reasons:

- If you use the bowl games as the tournament games, I don't think the money/fans will show up for the early rounds. Fans of a team can't afford to travel to four games in four weeks. I don't think the corporate sponsors will stick with the bowls if people aren't showing up...so the money dries up for the neutral-site "bowl games".

- If one of the playing teams hosts the games, you've got to construct some sort of revenue-sharing plan. Teams that have to travel to their playoff games see a significant increase in their expenses for the year, and the home teams get a big revenue bonus. If not balanced out, this would lead to the rich getting richer as the top teams get more money to plow into their program while the lower teams get have to spend more. This would be complicated, to say the least.

- At the risk of being labeled naive, I also think that this sort of system just makes college sports less college and more professional. I think it's gone too far already. (It's probably too late to reverse this trend...) The players would have even more on their plate, especially the ones on the lower-ranked teams that have to travel more. The additional time commitments and missing class is a distinct disadvantage to maintaining any semblance of student-ness.

- Playing games in northern states throughout December and January could start to impact recruiting for those schools. Now, we can say that we are done playing the weekend before Thanksgiving and that the temperatures are reasonable. Southern recruits very well might take northern schools off their list if they might have to play games into January. If this were to happen, colder-weather schools would be at a competitive disadvantage.

[GopherinPhilly]

I stickin with my original post to have an 8 team playoff system...but if we must keep with tradition and within the bowl system, then the best way is a plus 3 system.

Play the 4 BCS bowls on new years day and jan two. Then the 4 victors enter a playoff. Home games for highest ranked in first round and national champ game at a neutral site that rotates between the 4 BCS bowl sites.

With Nat Champ game played the week before the Superbowl and playoff games played same weekend Thur/Fri night prev week so as to not compete with AFC/NFC Champ games on that weekend.

Big money, home games so travel isn't the biggest issue, tradition and BCS bowls get plus one every fourth year....I would love to see if USC has the legs to win two more and claim the championship...wouldn't you all?

[Schnoodler]

I personally find the BCS a perfectly boring and meaningless end to an exciting year. I have no fondness for it what-so-ever. I find it quite rediculous that an argument still exists that doesn't support a playoff system. It's the good ole boy football network trying to protect their money stack and we're the dupes that buy in to the BS. I'm not buying.

A 16 game playoff system involves less teams and spans the same time frame and crowns a true champion. Anything less than that is...well, less than that. If you get more creative and utilize play-in games you can include more teams and/or reduce the overall impact to any team.

The real question isn't whether we should have a playoff system, but how.

[The Big L]

This is what I would do:

-Scrap the 12th game. If a playoff scenerio is intended, we can't have 12 regular season games or else team could potentially play 16 games.

-Have 8 teams in the playoffs, the 6 BCS conference champions and the top 2 non-BCS conference champions, as decided by the polls or a selection committee. These teams are ranked 1-8 and the quarterfinals are played at the higher ranked team's stadium. These games will be played the week after the conference championship games, and with the 12th game eliminated, this will be about the first week of December. I'm a firm believer that you have to win your conference to win the national championship, but for those who don't the other two teams can be at-large picks.

-Hold the semi-finals around Christmas, right at the start of bowl season. This gives teams a breather after a long season, and avoids their finals.

-Now there are two teams remaining. These teams play in your national championship, and everyone else fills in the bowl schedule. Nothing about bowl season changes at all, except that the teams playing in the NC are chosen by a pre-bowl tournament and not by the BCS. So, schools who didn't win their conference championship will still have their bowl games, and teams who did, but may have lost in the tourney, can still go to the Rose Bowl, or Sugar Bowl, ect. This will keep all the corporate sponsors happy and increase interest in the NC game, as well as having a few profitable tournament games in early December.

[FreakyDeke]

Notre Dame will never get hosed.

[magpie]

Easy, have all major conferences declare a champ per their rules (playoff or season title), and place them in a bracket per regional match-ups:

West
USC (Pac10) vs Penn St (Big Ten) - Rose Bowl
Utah (Non-BCS West) vs Oklahoma (Big 12) - Fiesta Bowl

East
Virginia Tech (ACC) vs Cincinnati (Big East) - Orange Bowl
Ball St/Boise St (Non-BCS East) vs Florida (SEC) - Sugar Bowl

Then just have a final four at a predetermined facility, same as hockey, basketball, etc. This year would've been USC, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and Florida -- most likely. That's a good final four, and that gives teams like Utah a chance to prove themselves.

[Boondoggle]

Here is a hybrid idea I have come up with:
-The NCAA college football season would be played in its entirety, the same way it works now.
-The conference champions of the Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 would receive automatic bids into an eight-team tournament. This would leave two open spots for non-BCS teams and another at-large bid.
-Seeding for the tournament would be done by a computer system that is similar to the current BCS system.
-The quarterfinal and semi-final rounds of the national tournament would be completed in the month of December.
-In order to satisfy each of the BCS bowl associations, there would be a four year rotation. The national championship would be played as the Sugar Bowl the first year, Orange Bowl the next, and so on.
-After the final two teams are determined, the six eliminated teams would be assigned to a current BCS bowl game (Sugar, Orange, Rose, and Fiesta) along with another national tournament competitor.
-All of the other non BCS bowl games, such as the Insight bowl, would be played during the month of December.
-The only games that would be played on January first would be the non-national championship BCS bowl games.
-The national championship game would then be played as the last game of the season. Currently, there are some bowl games that are played after the national championship game. That is just wrong.

I feel that my plan would satisfy both sides of the national championship argument. The programs would be able to participate in bowl games and receive the high payouts they have been enjoying throughout the existence of the bowl system.

[MNfootballfan]

USC had their chance in their 'playoff' game against Oregon State. They blew it. Texas had a similar chance. Unfortunately, the BCS isn't perfect, but it sure makes the regular season interesting.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. USC and Texas both lost thier 'playoff' games and they blew it? So, why is it that Florida and Oklahoma get to play in a double elimination bracket and Texas and USC play in a single elimination bracket. Oklahoma had their playoff game vs. Texas, how did that work out? Florida had their playoff game vs. Ole Miss.

I dont understand how you justify some teams play in double elimination and some teams play in single elimination tournaments.

[gophermartin]

USC had their chance in their 'playoff' game against Oregon State. They blew it. Texas had a similar chance. Unfortunately, the BCS isn't perfect, but it sure makes the regular season interesting.

I like that USC, Okl, Texas...teams that lose during the regular season have a reduced (not eliminated) chance of the national title. Perfection is highly highly valued. I like that. With a 8 or 16 team playoff....messing up during the regular season doesn't matter.

I would vote Utah the champ. They won all of their games and beat Alabama by a much easier margin than FL did. I know there are reasonable arguements against that logic..there are reasonable ones in favor of it too. Unless they play how would we know. (I know that is an arguement for a playoff).

I'd also be OK with the proposed method that MNBoiler is talking about. That is more realistic than an actual playoff. Forces everyone to play 13 games and then the 14th for 2 teams is the title game.

GM

[Bayfieldgopher]

The BCS is an absolute joke. The only way to determine a true champion is on the field of play using a play off format. D1 CFB must be the only sport not to have a playoff.

I would prefer an 8 team system with semifinal games being New Years bowl games over the current BCS format.

[FishingMN]

The BCS is bogus.

An 8 team playoff is definitely the way to go. Eliminate the conference championship games for those conferences that have them if they are concerned about too many games.

Continue the other 25+ bowl games as exhibitions as they are now for the non-playoff teams.

[dpodoll68]

With a 8 or 16 team playoff....messing up during the regular season doesn't matter.

Will someone please explain this to me? I keep hearing this all the time, how a playoff will make the regular season "not as important." How so? That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Most years, you would still need to have 0 or 1 losses (at most ever, 2) to get into a proposed playoff. How is the importance of the regular season diminished? It's not like Oklahoma could go 8-4 and still get into a playoff.

Bob Stoops, preseason speech:

"Well guys, we've already been granted our automatic bye into the national playoffs, so we don't have to try the entire regular season. 3-9? 5-7? Doesn't matter. After all, as every one says, the regular season doesn't count any more."

Ridiculous.

[RodentRampage]

I favor a 8 team playoff. 4 is too few to cover all the contenders with a serious claim that they are good enough to be considered. I would scrap the status of "BCS Conference". My tournament would have the top-8 conference champions. Using the current Sagarin Rankings, we would have

#1 Florida vs #8 WV
#2 USC vs. #7 Florida State
#3 OK vs. #4 Boise State
#4 Utah vs. #5 Penn State

Ideally, I would have the opening round at the home field site. This would have to involve the regular season coming to an end without dragging on well into December. Then I would play the opening round the weekend after the regular season starts, so the cold isn't too much of a factor.

This would, of course, leave Notre Dame left out. I'd be fine with that, they can join a conference. But if they are able to force the issue, we could have one or perhaps two at-large spots.

A 10 or 12 team tournament is also possible without getting too many teams. But it would extend the playoffs a week longer, which would make it difficult to have games at home field sites.

I do think it is possible to have a tournament while still preserving the importance of the regular season and conference championships.

[GophersInIowa]

Will someone please explain this to me? I keep hearing this all the time, how a playoff will make the regular season "not as important." How so? That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Most years, you would still need to have 0 or 1 losses (at most ever, 2) to get into a proposed playoff. How is the importance of the regular season diminished? It's not like Oklahoma could go 8-4 and still get into a playoff.

Bob Stoops, preseason speech:

"Well guys, we've already been granted our automatic bye into the national playoffs, so we don't have to try the entire regular season. 3-9? 5-7? Doesn't matter. After all, as every one says, the regular season doesn't count any more."

Ridiculous.

I agree. To me it makes it even more important. More teams will have a shot at a chance to win the national championship Even if they lose one or two games, they still have a shot. More teams are involved in being "a bubble team" than there is now. The way it is now, there are only a few teams who have a realistic chance in the last few weeks of the season of making it to the NC.

[GopherGod]

I agree. To me it makes it even more important. More teams will have a shot at a chance to win the national championship Even if they lose one or two games, they still have a shot. More teams are involved in being "a bubble team" than there is now. The way it is now, there are only a few teams who have a realistic chance in the last few weeks of the season of making it to the NC.


The only thing that I would possibly worry about as you see in the NFL ocassionally is a college team resting their stars the last game of the season if they feel they are already a lock for the playoff.

[GoBigGold]

Fix it? it worked just fine this year. I don't care about a national champ playoff, but I do wish the big ten changed the preseason and just scheduled every big ten team to play each team every year. We never have a true big ten champ in FB.

[dpodoll68]

Fix it? it worked just fine this year. I don't care about a national champ playoff, but I do wish the big ten changed the preseason and just scheduled every big ten team to play each team every year. We never have a true big ten champ in FB.

How do you figure? I think Utah, Texas and USC would all disagree with your "worked just fine" assessment. And how do you surmise that the Big Ten champ must play all other Big Ten teams to be considered the "true" champ, and yet you're okay with arbitrarily choosing the national champ from a field of teams that have vastly different schedules, and almost never get to actually settle the issue on the field? Please explain.

[GoBigGold]

I never said I was for allowing the National champ to be arbitrarily selected.
I said I do not care about the National Championship Playoff system. No matter what you come up with folks will complain that the selection process is unfair. I enjoyed the OU V FL and think the national chatter and tv ratings prove that the nation enjoyed the match up.

My key point is that the each Big Ten squad should play each other every year. 10 games a B10 fan can count on viewing. No more discussions of----- this might be their year because they don't have OSU or PSU on the schedule.

[Schnoodler]

I'm all for getting the playoffs started so I'd be happy with a 4 team format initially.

In the longview tho, I think if you ever want to include more than 8, which you might given 11 conferences and indies, you might want to look at play in formats. If you're going to go the inclusive route play ins increase the number of teams participating without increasing the number of games any one team is likely to play.

Any number of possiblities accomodating any number of teams open up once you go this route. For instance the top 4 teams could get byes with four play in games for a total of 12 teams. That's all conferences plus 1. Very unlikely any one team would play more than two games with that one or two magical exceptions.

[stevedave23]

My key point is that the each Big Ten squad should play each other every year. 10 games a B10 fan can count on viewing. No more discussions of----- this might be their year because they don't have OSU or PSU on the schedule.

YESSSS!!!! FINALLY someone agrees with me. 10 conference games and 2 non-conference games every year.

As far as post season I still stick by my very unpopular opinion that a playoff system would ruin college football. A playoff would dillute the regular season and the focus of everything would be "the playoffs". Making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, ranking for the playoffs, gearing up for the playoffs, resting guys before the playoffs, etc. Screw playoffs, that's not what college football is about.

[MNfootballfan]

YESSSS!!!! FINALLY someone agrees with me. 10 conference games and 2 non-conference games every year.

As far as post season I still stick by my very unpopular opinion that a playoff system would ruin college football. A playoff would dillute the regular season and the focus of everything would be "the playoffs". Making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, ranking for the playoffs, gearing up for the playoffs, resting guys before the playoffs, etc. Screw playoffs, that's not what college football is about.

I understand what your thinking but I respectfully disagree. Before the bowls, the #16 BCS team had a record of 10-2. If your in the top 16 teams your treading on thin ice. There isn't a lot of room for mistakes. I don't think you would see teams resting guys before the playoffs. In football any team can truly beat any team. It is such a weird game. You need to be mentally and physically ready every snap or your toast.

[dpodoll68]

A playoff would dillute the regular season

No, No, NO!!!! Did you even read the rest of the thread? College football is nothing like the NFL, where you have the potential of skating into the playoffs at .500 or slightly better. You must, must, must lose 2 games or less to be considered in a potential college playoff. Teams would still have to bring it every week, just like they do now - perhaps even more!

Stop making this ridiculous argument!

[stevedave23]

No, No, NO!!!! Did you even read the rest of the thread? College football is nothing like the NFL, where you have the potential of skating into the playoffs at .500 or slightly better. You must, must, must lose 2 games or less to be considered in a potential college playoff. Teams would still have to bring it every week, just like they do now - perhaps even more!

Stop making this ridiculous argument!

I have no problem if you disagree with me but don't tell me to, "stop making this ridiculous argument." Personally I think the idea of a playoff system in college football is ridiculous, but I won't attack you for stating your opinion.

Scenario 1: Ohio St is 11-0 heading into their final game vs. Michigan. Under a bowl system Ohio St. needs this game in order to get the best bowl bid and/or be considered for a national championship. Under a playoff system Ohio St would want to win in order to, "get a better seed for the playoffs" and if they lost it, "wouldn't really matter as long as they do well in the playoffs." I don't like that. That importance of that game has been dilluted.

[GoBigGold]

SD23, spot on.

[dpodoll68]

I wasn't speaking in regards to your disfavor for a playoff. I myself am on the fence either way. What I was attacking, and will continue to do to anyone who asserts it, is your logic that it would dilute the regular season. In your hypothetical, is Ohio St. an infinitely worse team because they happened to lose to Michigan? No, they just had an off day. A 1-loss OSU team, in almost any year, deserves just as much of a shot at the title as an undefeated one.

Which brings me to the heart of my argument. My biggest problem with the BCS is that it demands perfection - something no other sport at any level does - and then when it doesn't happen (because perfection is rarely achieved, let alone by 2 and only 2 BCS conference teams), we end up with several teams that have a legitimate claim to the title. In my opinion, it was plain to see that either USC or Texas was better than Utah this year, and probably just as good as Florida. That is an argument that will never be settled, because the BCS system, as presently constituted, is nothing more than a glorified beauty pageant.

[stevedave23]

I wasn't speaking in regards to your disfavor for a playoff. I myself am on the fence either way. What I was attacking, and will continue to do to anyone who asserts it, is your logic that it would dilute the regular season. In your hypothetical, is Ohio St. an infinitely worse team because they happened to lose to Michigan? No, they just had an off day. A 1-loss OSU team, in almost any year, deserves just as much of a shot at the title as an undefeated one.

Which brings me to the heart of my argument. My biggest problem with the BCS is that it demands perfection - something no other sport at any level does - and then when it doesn't happen (because perfection is rarely achieved, let alone by 2 and only 2 BCS conference teams), we end up with several teams that have a legitimate claim to the title. In my opinion, it was plain to see that either USC or Texas was better than Utah this year, and probably just as good as Florida. That is an argument that will never be settled, because the BCS system, as presently constituted, is nothing more than a glorified beauty pageant.


Ok so what if a team has an off day in the playoffs? What if a clearly inferior team barely makes it into the playoffs and then gets hot and wins it all? The problem with a playoff system is that it demands perfection in the playoffs. Rather than rewarding the team that has played the best EVERY WEEK, ALL YEAR you are rewarding the team that played good enough to get into the playoffs and then played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS.

[Schnoodler]

If we had a 12 team playoff format with all 11 conferences represented +1 it would enhance the conference play. A ten game B10 format would make more sense as the only way to the championship is by winning the conference and not the pollsters hearts. It would also result in more balance in the various conferences as schools opt for a conference that makes more sense for them and gives them a better chance of winning.

Right now as many point out, if you want to go to a championship calibre team you should consider the southern schools. That all changes in a 12 team playoff format. It would be somewhat of an equalizer in recruiting for the conferences. the last great barrier to parity

[GopherGod]

If we had a 12 team playoff format with all 11 conferences represented +1 it would enhance the conference play. A ten game B10 format would make more sense as the only way to the championship is by winning the conference and not the pollsters hearts. It would also result in more balance in the various conferences as schools opt for a conference that makes more sense for them and gives them a better chance of winning.

Right now as many point out, if you want to go to a championship calibre team you should consider the southern schools. That all changes in a 12 team playoff format. It would be somewhat of an equalizer in recruiting for the conferences. the last great barrier to parity


I personally enjoy seeing us play some of the non-conference games especially if they are BCS schools. I would prefer to see us keep the same number of conference games as we do now and keep the same amount of non-conference games and then have the big 10 divided into two divisions with a conference championship like so many other BCS conferences do. It would also help reduce the long layoffs between the end of the regular season and the bowl games that have hurt the big ten in the past.

[McGopherFan]

May as well throw out the directional informtion if Ohio is West of Pennsylvania.

When talking of 80-120,000 attending the semis would better on the same day in two locations say Minnesota and Texas predetermined and the final also predetermined.



Easy, have all major conferences declare a champ per their rules (playoff or season title), and place them in a bracket per regional match-ups:

West
USC (Pac10) vs Penn St (Big Ten) - Rose Bowl
Utah (Non-BCS West) vs Oklahoma (Big 12) - Fiesta Bowl

East
Virginia Tech (ACC) vs Cincinnati (Big East) - Orange Bowl
Ball St/Boise St (Non-BCS East) vs Florida (SEC) - Sugar Bowl

Then just have a final four at a predetermined facility, same as hockey, basketball, etc. This year would've been USC, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and Florida -- most likely. That's a good final four, and that gives teams like Utah a chance to prove themselves.

[Schnoodler]

I personally enjoy seeing us play some of the non-conference games especially if they are BCS schools. I would prefer to see us keep the same number of conference games as we do now and keep the same amount of non-conference games and then have the big 10 divided into two divisions with a conference championship like so many other BCS conferences do. It would also help reduce the long layoffs between the end of the regular season and the bowl games that have hurt the big ten in the past.

Really it'd be up to each conference to determine who the champ goes and how it's determined. A conference championship game is a great way to do it. I was responding to the idea that it'd be cool if we played each big ten team once, and right now it's a bad idea as you need to go undefeated to get a crack at the national championship but if the conference championship were the key to moving on then it would be a workable and maybe desirable schedule change.

Maybe ND would feel the need to get into a conference then. B10(12) with east west and a title game sounds good to me.

Mostly, the more you look at the playoffs the better they look.

[RodentRampage]

If the tournament were limited to conference champions, then there would be no possible diluting of the regular season. If there were one or even two at-large sports, teams would still have powerful incentives to win that final game, as they would have no good reason to expect a guarantee of a playoff spot.

The phenomenon which allows NFL teams to sit their starters at the end of the season because they cannot drop a seed would not exist in a college tournament.

[dpodoll68]

Ok so what if a team has an off day in the playoffs? What if a clearly inferior team barely makes it into the playoffs and then gets hot and wins it all? The problem with a playoff system is that it demands perfection in the playoffs. Rather than rewarding the team that has played the best EVERY WEEK, ALL YEAR you are rewarding the team that played good enough to get into the playoffs and then played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS.

You're missing the point entirely. How is a "clearly inferior team" even going to get in the playoffs? As I have already stated, there is little parity in college football, unlike what exists in the NFL. Every team in will be, at worst, a 1- or 2-loss team. By definition, they will not be "clearly inferior."

And as far as rewarding the team that played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS, that is how EVERY OTHER team sport, at every level, decides their champion. Seems to work out ok for them. Are you telling me that NCAA DI-A has it right, and everyone else, including divisions I-AA through III of the very same sport, has it wrong?

[MNfootballfan]

Ok, I did this in about 10 minutes.

I took the 11 Conference Champions.
ACC Virginia Tech
Big 12 Oklahoma
Big East Cincy
Big 10 Penn St
CUSA ECU
MAC Buffalo
PAC 10 USC
Sun Belt Troy
SEC Florida
WAC Boise St
Mountain West Utah

I have a 16 team tournament. Those 11 teams have an automatic entry into the tournament. Then I took the best teams according to the last BCS Standings to fill out the tournament field. These bids are:
Texas
Alabama
Texas Tech
Ohio St
TCU

First Round, the higher seed gets a home game.

1. OU
16. TCU

8. V Tech
9. Buffalo

4. Utah
13. Alabama

5. PSU
12. Texas

6. Boise St
11. Troy

3. USC
14. Texas Tech

7. Cincy
10 ECU

2. FLA
15. tOSU

With only an extra 5 teams makign the field, I don't believe you can afford to tank games.

[RodentRampage]

If someone is really serious in opposition to a playoff, then the BCS should go, as it is a 2-team playoff. Or we could go back to the old, old way, and have the national champion decided before the bowl games.

You could do a 16-team playoff with all of the conference champions getting an autobid, but I would not give the at-large bids the 12-16 seeds. The seeding should be by ranking. In your tournament, #6 Boise gets #11 Troy, while #5 Penn State gets #12 Texas. Penn State winds up playing a much stronger opponent than does Boise State, despite getting a higher seed.

[MNfootballfan]

If someone is really serious in opposition to a playoff, then the BCS should go, as it is a 2-team playoff. Or we could go back to the old, old way, and have the national champion decided before the bowl games.

You could do a 16-team playoff with all of the conference champions getting an autobid, but I would not give the at-large bids the 12-16 seeds. The seeding should be by ranking. In your tournament, #6 Boise gets #11 Troy, while #5 Penn State gets #12 Texas. Penn State winds up playing a much stronger opponent than does Boise State, despite getting a higher seed.

Yes, I see what youa re saying and your right about the Penn St thing. Like I said, I had the general idea and I threw it together really quick. Maybe after work, I can sit down and think about it a little more :)