What do you think

[soberdennis]

I have long been a favor of a college playoff. They can use the bowls as playoff games and alternate the title game amongst the big 4. We don't need to speculate who would have won had certain teams played each other. Such matchups would be possible.
4 times in the last 16 years there has been a split national championship. A fifth, time people will argue ad infinitum who was better in 94 between Penn State and Nebraska
In every college sport in every division there is a national championship playoff except one sport in one division. Isn't it about time Big time college football joins them.
The NCAA basketball tournament is the biggest money maker in college sports. Imagine what a Football playoff would do.
I won't print what I think BCS stands for. I am thinking of something that comes out of a male bovine, though.

[Snake]

I totally agree with ya Dennis. There should be some type of playoff instituted. The problem is that as of yet, no one has been able to come up with one that will satisfy the Universities and the sponsors. I can't stand when there is no clear cut champion.. Somebody always gets hosed, and thats not fair to the players on the team getting hosed. I could care less about the University itself that gets robbed, but the players put in so much hard work, busted their butts everyday, and did everything they were supposed to, and still don't get the championship they deserve.

BTW, Penn State was obviously the best team in the nation in 94 ;)

[soberdennis]

I like your opinion on the subject. The NCAA seems to think they have solved the problem with the BCS. But look at what happened a few years ago when the number one team in the polls got shut out of the BCS championship.
Was LSU or Oklahoma better than USC? We will never know.
penn State was awesome in 94. Nebraska was a year away from the best team ever. It would have been a classic if they had gotten a chance to play.

[D.C.]

Whilst I like the idea of a tournament in theory lets face it folks, it's not basketball or baseball. Teams are not going to play any more than one a week so unless there is only a small number of teams (4 or 8 is the number coming to mind) there will not be any time to play the games (unless they play through December and not have the break).

A question, would a tourney be in place to be held after the bowls or would it be a replacement for the bigger bowl games? I don't think that anyone on the various bowl committees would be too pleased if their respective bowl was knocked down a notch or two in terms of importance.

[brady_branch]

I vote for a playoff, but it has to be after all the other bowls. That way we get the great buildup, all the smack talkin' going on... maybe get a few early upsets...

[D.C.]

I vote for a playoff, but it has to be after all the other bowls. That way we get the great buildup, all the smack talkin' going on... maybe get a few early upsets...

How many games do you expect these kids to play? They are only amateurs, they shouldn't get a pro-like schedule to deal with. To me that's too much to ask of them...It's an either/or situation when it comes to the bowl/playoff debate.

[efin98]

Whilst I like the idea of a tournament in theory lets face it folks, it's not basketball or baseball. Teams are not going to play any more than one a week so unless there is only a small number of teams (4 or 8 is the number coming to mind) there will not be any time to play the games (unless they play through December and not have the break).


For most if not all of the big teams in the county there's a four to six week break before they get to a bowl game. A week less for the ACC, Big 12, and SEC. Frankly that's more than enough time to prepare for a playoff format.

There can be a four week tourny with the winner of the conference titles among the 11 conferences in Division 1A: Big East, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt, MAC. The Indies get a chance should their records put them in the top 10. There would also be an additional 13 at-large teams(14 if no indy team is ranked high enough) taken among the conferences to bring the tourny up to 23 teams. The top eight conference winners get a bye week, the lower three conference winners plus the 13 or 14 teams play in a first round matchup. The winners advance to face the top eight conference winners, the losers get a bowl game matchup normally assigned by their conference(aka the lesser bowls).

Seeding is based on the the 11 champions' records, then the conferences' records against each other, then conferences' overall records. The teams keep their seeding throughout.

A question, would a tourney be in place to be held after the bowls or would it be a replacement for the bigger bowl games? I don't think that anyone on the various bowl committees would be too pleased if their respective bowl was knocked down a notch or two in terms of importance.

The first three rounds take place at the higher seed's home field. That leaves the final four games under my scenario: the same four BCS games. The other bowl games will choose among the losing teams in the tournament and the teams with winning records that didn't qualify for the tournament as is normally done.

Basically it's the same thing: the games are set, the only factor is the current BCS games have a qualifying game for them. The national championship is an actual national championship- not a BCS crowned champion.

[brady_branch]

I like it a lot. Just the MAC, WAC, and MWC shouldn't get an automatic bid. I would rather see a game featuring USC vs. Tennessee than USC vs. Toledo or Hawaii.

[cbenson5]

The schedules have already been expanded to where these boys play more than enough games. Whatever remains unsettled after the season can just remain unsettled. We shouldn't expect these boys to play 17 or 18 games.

[soberdennis]

Whilst I like the idea of a tournament in theory lets face it folks, it's not basketball or baseball. Teams are not going to play any more than one a week so unless there is only a small number of teams (4 or 8 is the number coming to mind) there will not be any time to play the games (unless they play through December and not have the break).

A question, would a tourney be in place to be held after the bowls or would it be a replacement for the bigger bowl games? I don't think that anyone on the various bowl committees would be too pleased if their respective bowl was knocked down a notch or two in terms of importance.
My idea is to use the top 15 bowls for a 16 team tournament. All regular season games end last week in November. The first week in December can be for Conference championships. The Championship game can still be the first or second week in January.

The minor bowls can be sort of like a NIT id they wish.

[efin98]

I like it a lot. Just the MAC, WAC, and MWC shouldn't get an automatic bid. I would rather see a game featuring USC vs. Tennessee than USC vs. Toledo or Hawaii.

Why? They are Division 1A conferences like the other conferences, they deserve as much of a shot at the national championship as the other conference winners.

Like the NCAA basketball tournament they get automatic bids but their record and their conference's record sets their seed. The better the competition the higher the seed for the winners, the lesser the lower. Frankly if you are afraid of Cinderella teams the key is the teams themselves- the better team will win, even though they are lower seeds. You have the chance of an at-large team winning out but odds are that team will face off against a powerhouse conference winner.

[brady_branch]

But what if say, Toledo finished 11-1 in the MAC and won the conference title? Would they then be seeded fourth after unbeaten USC, Auburn, and Ohio State? Or would they get a lower seed?

Purely hypothetical, I'm not suggesting Toledo will win the MAC or that USC, Auburn, and OSU will finish unbeaten.

[efin98]

But what if say, Toledo finished 11-1 in the MAC and won the conference title? Would they then be seeded fourth after unbeaten USC, Auburn, and Ohio State? Or would they get a lower seed?


Going along with your hypothetical situation and assuming that USC, Auburn, and OSU all finished 12-0 or 11-1(same record tie breaker going against Toledo) then yes they would be the #4 seed if and only if they finished with a better record than say the teams that won the other conference titles like say B.C.(ACC bid), West Viriginia(Big East bid), Memphis(C-USA bid), Brigham Young(Mountain West bid), Hawaii(WAC bid), Troy(Sun Belt bid), and Oklahoma(Big 12 bid).

[brady_branch]

But the level of competition that Toledo faces is worse than WVU or BC. That's the only flaw I see in your idea. The rest is very solid, and I agree with you. And also, what if Navy went 12-0 as an independent? Would they just get the last seed?

Not suggesting Navy's any good or anything...

[efin98]

But the level of competition that Toledo faces is worse than WVU or BC. That's the only flaw I see in your idea. The rest is very solid, and I agree with you.

It doesn't matter if BC or WVU was in a dog fight conference all year, if their record is worse than Toledo then Toledo gets the higher seed. They can still have a first round bye if they are high enough but they won't be seeded higher than Toledo. It's not right to diminish what Toledo did just to give favor to the other schools, Toledo earns their spot so they should have their spot.

Frankly I think you are mistaking "ranking" with seeding. Rankings like the Top 25 have no hold in the tourney, it is a possible consideration for the rest of the teams with winning records to determine where/if they play in the tourney but it doesn't affect the seedings for the conference champs- their records matter.

And also, what if Navy went 12-0 as an independent? Would they just get the last seed?

Not suggesting Navy's any good or anything...

I made an exception for them, there is a spot that can/will go to them and or Notre Dame if they are on parr with the conference winners. If they are say 10-2 and they did well against the other conference champs or against their competition then they get a spot in the tourney and could even be a high seed with a bye if they did well enough. They could also be out of the tourney if they are in a race with fellow 1 or 2 loss teams by virtue of tie breaker, it all depends on the rest of the field. It's a drawback to being an independant but that's what they have to deal with being unaffiliated.

[D.C.]

I don't know if anyone else has heard this but I was listening to the radio today and they were talking about Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville is advocating the winners of the two BCS games play one more game to determine the "real national champion".

I like this proposal and think it is more plausible than having a basketball style tourney.

[brady_branch]

DC, that might work, except then we would have to get rid of the conference tie-ins. Because Florida State was just not good enough last year to have a shot at the title.

And efin, I guess we just have fundamentally different views on this.

[efin98]

I don't know if anyone else has heard this but I was listening to the radio today and they were talking about Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville is advocating the winners of the two BCS games play one more game to determine the "real national champion".

I like this proposal and think it is more plausible than having a basketball style tourney.

The "plus one" option to try to appease both camps(pro tourney/pro BCS) but it doesn't solve the problem if there are multiple unbeatens or one-loss teams. It would be a first step but it eventually will have the same troubles that the BCS has in that someone will get left out and the question of "who would have won" unanswered.

[soberdennis]

But what if say, Toledo finished 11-1 in the MAC and won the conference title? Would they then be seeded fourth after unbeaten USC, Auburn, and Ohio State? Or would they get a lower seed?

Purely hypothetical, I'm not suggesting Toledo will win the MAC or that USC, Auburn, and OSU will finish unbeaten.
Overall record plays a role. but so does conference strength.An examplefrom another sport. George Washington had the best record in the country in basketball last year and wasn't a top 4 seed in their regional.

[soberdennis]

I don't know if anyone else has heard this but I was listening to the radio today and they were talking about Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville is advocating the winners of the two BCS games play one more game to determine the "real national champion".

I like this proposal and think it is more plausible than having a basketball style tourney.
Aren't there 4 BCS bowl games?

[D.C.]

Yes, there are...I'm not sure how they would do it but I'd think the two highest winners of the four BCS bowls. I'm still trying to find Tubervilles exact quote but haven't had much luck.

[redlegsfan21]

My Plan
1st Round (8 teams)
These can be rotated
Cotton Bowl (Big 12 vs. SEC)
Capital One Bowl (Big 10 vs. Highest Non-BCS Team)
Fiesta Bowl (Pacific 10 vs. 2nd Highest Non-BCS Team)
Sugar Bowl (ACC vs. Big East)

2nd Round
Orange Bowl (winner of Capital One and Sugar)
Rose Bowl (winner of Fiesta and Cotton)

Championship
Championship Game (rotates between cities)

[Snake]

I like redlegs' plan. I do not see the need to go down any further than the top 8 teams in the country to play for the National Championship. They could utilize the current bowl games as playoff games for these 8 teams. I would also be in favor of going back to a 10 game regular season for the teams, to allow for playoffs if neccessary.

[soberdennis]

I like redlegs' plan. I do not see the need to go down any further than the top 8 teams in the country to play for the National Championship. They could utilize the current bowl games as playoff games for these 8 teams. I would also be in favor of going back to a 10 game regular season for the teams, to allow for playoffs if neccessary.
Either way, it would be better than the current system.

[efin98]

Either way, it would be better than the current system.

Throwing darts blindfolded to pick the teams would be better than the current system.