BCS created this site

[Greydrake]

If living with BCS rankings means a 16 team playoff (which I think you are assuming) ,I would agree, it's probably the only equitable workable solution. There is an issue of timing to the playoffs, a narrow window of about 6 weeks which it has to fit in, any longer than the process starts overlapping too deep and may economically affect basketball conference play and NFL playoffs, and potentially a hardship issue for dedicated fans to involve themselves in the process.

It is a tough decision, especially in light of the economic forces which drive the bowls, that is a reality one has to live with in this society.

[ducksrock]

If living with BCS rankings means a 16 team playoff (which I think you are assuming) ,I would agree, it's probably the only equitable workable solution. There is an issue of timing to the playoffs, a narrow window of about 6 weeks which it has to fit in, any longer than the process starts overlapping too deep and may economically affect basketball conference play and NFL playoffs, and potentially a hardship issue for dedicated fans to involve themselves in the process.

It is a tough decision, especially in light of the economic forces which drive the bowls, that is a reality one has to live with in this society.

Not so sure about the 6 week window thing...And as far as BB goes, it brings in FAR less income than FB does. Some programs may in fact be hurt by an overlap between sports (if they dont or cant fill their stadiums). However, for those teams that consistently field quality teams and are able to maintain a dedicated fanbase, I dont see a problem to exist, especially considering that the games at the end of the season would be for ALL OF THE MARBLES....
And I spose that for those that just cant live without watching Pro FB, in place of watching College FB, they could just sell their unused tickets....Playoff....16 teams..I am ALL over that....

[SuperDuck]

Here's the thing, we're only talking about 16 teams out of 117 FBS/Div 1 (whatever) teams and that would be cut in half every weekend after the first weekend. There's not going to be much damage done by that.

Since there would be no conference championship games (in my format), they could take one week off and have two weeks preparation time for the first playoff game and then a two week break before the semi-finals. Everyone would need to get all of their regular season games over by Thanksgiving weekend.

Using this year as an example, it might look something like this.

Round One - December 12
Round Two - December 19
Semi-Finals - January 3rd
Championship - January 10th

Or the first games could be pushed up one week.

Round One - December 5th
Round Two - December 12th
Semi-Finals - December 19th
Championship - January 3rd

Of course, there would be other bowl games going on too so nobody would be starving for a game.

Just a thought, guys.

[Greydrake]

Good thoughts, IMO the first option is better, a short buffer between season ending games and the playoffs is a good thing. Finishing by the 10th of January is pretty much what now exists, and is reasonable.

There are eleven conferences, any thoughts how you fill the 16 slots?
Where do you play the games?

Might as well sort this out for the BCS since they are unwilling to figure it out

[ducksrock]

Good thoughts, IMO the first option is better, a short buffer between season ending games and the playoffs is a good thing. Finishing by the 10th of January is pretty much what now exists, and is reasonable.

There are eleven conferences, any thoughts how you fill the 16 slots?
Where do you play the games?

Might as well sort this out for the BCS since they are unwilling to figure it out

Well, for starters...anytime U of O wins 6 or more games and are within the top 25, we should have an automatic NC Berth.. HEY, the Domers have had special considerations for all the BCS years...Why not us?

I am jk, of course....I shall leave further comment on this matter to brighter minds....lol
And these days, that isnt setting the bar all that high...

[wheaton4prez]

Conference champions only should be in the playoff. Wildcard additions are pure bulls##t and unfair, otherwise why even hold the season.

I agree about taking all subjectivity out of the process. However, I think going with conference champions only has some problems.

For example, some teams aren't in a conference and may choose not to join one (Notre Dame, Navy, etc.).

Also, there is a sort of subjectivity built in for conference champs only. In the sense that it may keep a better team out if there are two or three solid teams in one conference and the champs of two other conferences are relatively weaker.

Why not just go with a formula ranking that has no human element to populate the top 8 teams, whatever conference they may be from? Then, keep the same BCS bowl identities as the play-off games, to maintain tradition.

If we went with the Sagarin rating as the objective measure, this would be the seeding so far this year (not counting results from this week):

Boise State @ Alabama
Georgia Tech @ Florida
Oregon @ TCU
Cincinatti @ Texas

Pretty solid, reasonable line-up imo.

A 16 team play-off is interesting. I sure would like more football to watch. But, that ends up being a lot of extra games one team has to play to make the championship game, exposing NFL bound players to increased injury risk. It would make for a lot of unaccounted for games in terms of who puts them on and whether or not they would ultimately be profitable for anyone to bother.

The NFL model awards home advantage to teams. So, there are usually a lot of home fans interested in filling up seats at play-off games. College holds the bowl games at neutral locations. So, profitability depends a lot on fans from both schools being willing to travel to the game. With a 16 team play-off, you would have Alabama vs. Oregon State in Arizona or some place. Fans from either team might not be willing to spend the extra dough to attend given that it's a lop-sided match-up and they would rather spend the money to travel to a later play-off game. I suppose you could re-arrange it so that college football used home field play-off advantages. But, given how difficult it is to change the BCS, that much change seems even more difficult.

[spinseeker]

The problem with going with an 8 team playoff is the subjectivity of the voters. Not just in which teams get to play for it, but also which conferences get a chance. There are 11 FBS conferences. If a team finishes undefeated in any of those, who is to say how strong that team is? They should be allowed into the playoffs.

On the flip side, look at how the Pac 10 is doing this year. If (god forbid) Oregon State beats us in the Civil War, the Pac 10 wouldn't have anyone in the top 8. Who's to say our top 4 teams couldn't beat any of the other conference champs? I think the Pac is that strong this year, yet we would be left out of a playoff because we wouldn't SEEM strong enough because the voters didn't like how our conference LOOKED and noone stood out above everyone else.

Also, teams grow throughout the season, for better (experience) or worse (injuries). Should we really limit the playoff to just those teams that can start strong and stay that way even though another team that started with new players or coaches has grown into arguably the best team?

I vote for a 16 team playoff. 11 conference champs and five at large spots. That would take most of the top ten every year and all conference champs and leave room for the independents, so that not just the teams that SEEM to be the best get a shot at all the marbles.

[spinseeker]

This is their strongest argument from that site, IMO:

'The bowl experience is enjoyed by 68 universities each year with more than 7,000 student athletes and another 10,000 students participating as band members or in other on-the-field ways. In absence of the bowl system, many student-athletes would lose the opportunity. A playoff would put the great traditions of the bowls at risk.'

It is nice that all those kids get to experience that after all the hard work and injuries and what not.

My original solution was to remove those 16 teams that qualified for the playoffs and let everyone else who is bowl eligible still go to a bowl game. The first and second round losers of the playoffs would still go to a bowl game after they are out (specific bowls would be timed to allow this). Third and final rounds would be your BCS bowls as they are currently. First and second round are played at the higher seeds home field. (Not ideal for the smaller conference champs, but their will most likely be a larger stadium to bring in more revenue and allow more fans to attend.)

[Greydrake]

As to initial bowl locations, regional playoffs in the initial round make the most sense and diminish the effect of fan travel fatigue.

I understand it might be undesirable if a region has the perceived strongest two teams, but it makes no difference in reality if they square off early or later. If you are running an 8 team playoff I see no need for additional bowl games for the loser. Ask any player, would you rather be in a championship playoff game with a championship shot before xmas or just play in a bowl game after the first of the year.

Any player would rather have the championship shot and consider it an honor.

[wheaton4prez]

The problem with going with an 8 team playoff is the subjectivity of the voters. Not just in which teams get to play for it, but also which conferences get a chance. There are 11 FBS conferences. If a team finishes undefeated in any of those, who is to say how strong that team is? They should be allowed into the playoffs.

The top 8 doesn't have to be determined based on subjectivity or conferences. If it used the objective sagarin poll as I proposed, all teams would get a shot based on the same concrete rules. No humans involved.

On the flip side, look at how the Pac 10 is doing this year. If (god forbid) Oregon State beats us in the Civil War, the Pac 10 wouldn't have anyone in the top 8. Who's to say our top 4 teams couldn't beat any of the other conference champs? I think the Pac is that strong this year, yet we would be left out of a playoff because we wouldn't SEEM strong enough because the voters didn't like how our conference LOOKED and noone stood out above everyone else.

That would be a product of the win based computer formulas. The points based formulas do a good job of measuring team strength based on their score histories. Even with 3 losses, the points column might keep Oregon in the top 8. Thing is though, I think you have to put some emphasis on wins. Otherwise, it kind of changes the objective of the game. It would become less about playing opponents and more like two teams playing the clock like in a marathon run or something. But, we could put different weights on each column rather than just splitting them 50/50 so that points matter more than wins. Just not absolutely.

If it happens that the average of a conference is high. But, they have no top teams, I think you have to live with that. You shouldn't get into play offs because the low end teams in your conference are better than anothers.

Also, teams grow throughout the season, for better (experience) or worse (injuries). Should we really limit the playoff to just those teams that can start strong and stay that way even though another team that started with new players or coaches has grown into arguably the best team?

In my opinion, you have to use all of a teams games to decide. There is no way that I can think of to measure how much a team improved in experience or by returns from injury, etc. that is objective. This criteria basically requires humans to be involved in the selection process whether you have 8, 16 or 32 team play-offs.

As to initial bowl locations, regional playoffs in the initial round make the most sense and diminish the effect of fan travel fatigue.

I understand it might be undesirable if a region has the perceived strongest two teams, but it makes no difference in reality if they square off early or later. If you are running an 8 team playoff I see no need for additional bowl games for the loser. Ask any player, would you rather be in a championship playoff game with a championship shot before xmas or just play in a bowl game after the first of the year.

Any player would rather have the championship shot and consider it an honor.

Good point about the teams matching up at some point anyway. That's true. But it still doesn't account for independents and getting knocked off in a regional champ game by a conference rival wouldn't be as desirable as playing in one of the later, traditional bowl games and a second team in a conference may have deserved that opportunity.

[Greydrake]

Independents should not be much of a concern and could easily be accommodated by requiring them to join a conference. There are only 3, Army, Navy and ND. Big10 could easily take in ND which has been a point of conversation for a long while. The Big East has only 8 schools in conference and could withstand expansion for football.

[SuperDuck]

As I said before, I don't think that eight teams is enough. That will leave too many potentially very good teams out. You've got to have a 16 team field in order to be 100% certain that you've got the best teams.

I also said that we should take the top two teams from all six BCS conferences. That would be 12 teams. Any team with three losses would be eliminated. All other at large slots would be settled by committee. Yes, there will be some teams mad at the low end of the spectrum, but what are the odds that any of them would seriously make a run at the championship? Not likely. If need be, there could be something like two "play-in" games so that everyone would be happy. Expand the field to 20 teams and play the lowest four with the winners getting to meet the #1 and #2 teams.

All games should be played at the higher seeded team with the exception of the championship game. This should be held at a neutral site.

[wheaton4prez]

Independents should not be much of a concern and could easily be accommodated by requiring them to join a conference. There are only 3, Army, Navy and ND. Big10 could easily take in ND which has been a point of conversation for a long while. The Big East has only 8 schools in conference and could withstand expansion for football.

That is only easy in theory. The conferences and each independent program are all independent entities with their own interests to consider, beyond just football. There are academic standards, common sports played, funding issues and just general philosophies that need to be agreed to. The Big 10 may not want to add ND and ND may not want to be part of the Big 10 or any other conference. What entity would "require" them to do something as involved and complex as joining a conference?

As I said before, I don't think that eight teams is enough. That will leave too many potentially very good teams out. You've got to have a 16 team field in order to be 100% certain that you've got the best teams.

You could make that argument to include every team in the play-offs. Maybe the 17th team is actually the best. Where you draw the line for teams, imo, shouldn't be based on anyones eye-ball guess for what would include the best team. It should be based on what conforms closest with tradition and what is feasible in terms of creating high-attendance games. 8 clearly fits that. Any team that might be good should have realized their potential during the season in order to make the top 8. Not sit on their laurels for the season and save their best play for the play-offs. I think that a 16 team play-off plays into the argument the BCS makes that it diminishes the importance of regular season games. It would give a team like 5 loss Arkansas a shot in an expensive production of a game when really, we already know that they don't deserve to be in the top echelons due to how they played in the season. The game wouldn't be profitable and nobody would want to touch it.

[Greydrake]

Well, ND plays in the Big East in basketball, the only thing that has kept them independent in football is the NBC contract, which doesn't look so promising for renewal. Frankly their relevance is getting lost, and a conference move may actually help them.

[SuperDuck]

Independents should not be much of a concern and could easily be accommodated by requiring them to join a conference. There are only 3, Army, Navy and ND. Big10 could easily take in ND which has been a point of conversation for a long while. The Big East has only 8 schools in conference and could withstand expansion for football.

That is only easy in theory. The conferences and each independent program are all independent entities with their own interests to consider, beyond just football. There are academic standards, common sports played, funding issues and just general philosophies that need to be agreed to. The Big 10 may not want to add ND and ND may not want to be part of the Big 10 or any other conference. What entity would "require" them to do something as involved and complex as joining a conference?

As I said before, I don't think that eight teams is enough. That will leave too many potentially very good teams out. You've got to have a 16 team field in order to be 100% certain that you've got the best teams.

You could make that argument to include every team in the play-offs. Maybe the 17th team is actually the best. Where you draw the line for teams, imo, shouldn't be based on anyones eye-ball guess for what would include the best team. It should be based on what conforms closest with tradition and what is feasible in terms of creating high-attendance games. 8 clearly fits that. Any team that might be good should have realized their potential during the season in order to make the top 8. Not sit on their laurels for the season and save their best play for the play-offs. I think that a 16 team play-off plays into the argument the BCS makes that it diminishes the importance of regular season games. It would give a team like 5 loss Arkansas a shot in an expensive production of a game when really, we already know that they don't deserve to be in the top echelons due to how they played in the season. The game wouldn't be profitable and nobody would want to touch it.

I respectfully disagree. 16 teams works in most other divisions just fine.

Also, with there being 6 BCS conferences, as well as other conferences like the WAC, Mountain West, etc, how could an 8 team field possibly work? It couldn't, not with teams like Boise State and TCU undefeated this season.

So who would the 8 teams be this year? Boot either Florida or Alabama and the Oregon/OSU loser and move Ohio State into the last slot? That's not very attractive at all.

With no conference championship games, who would advance to the playoffs, Florida or Alabama? Or were you talking about having the 8 team field chosen AFTER the conference championship games? Well, if we were going to have those, why not just eliminate them and play a larger field? That way teams from different conferences could match up against the rest of the field in opposite brackets. They could potentially play each other for the national championship that way, if they both win out.

Just my opinion, not that it matters. Nothing's going to happen any time soon anyway.