Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
62% was in favor of a playoff, but 70% of those same players said they didn't want the 16 team playoff because (somehow) that would get rid of all the bowl games. One of the annalists on the network even said that playoffs and bowl games couldn't co-exist....... Typical media answer to tell you what to think.
Here's the opposite answer to what he said in three different formats, with the same outcome. I firmly believe that it would keep BOTH sides happy.
The Playoff will start following Championship Week. Meaning there will be three straight weeks of football. There can be 6 or 10 bowl games associated with this system and the teams that lose in a game will still have a bowl game to play in. Oh, and this will get rid of that extra game and +1 talks. This will add a few more games and (more importantly to the Big Heads) MONEY to the sport. Use of neutural sites can be voted on.
8 Team System
Schools involved: The Top 8 in the BCS Poll
Non-BCS Bowls involved: None
Bye-week: No
10 Team System
Schools involved: The Top 10 in the BCS Poll
Non-BCS Bowls involved: 2 (Cotton, Capital One, Gator, or Chick fil-a) Bye-week: Yes
16 Team System
Schools involved: The Top 10 in the BCS Poll and 6 wildcards (depending on stadings in the Top 25 and/or Conf. Championship)
Non-BCS Bowls involved: 4 (Cotton, Capital One, Gator, and Chick-fil-a)
Bye-week: No
I say do away with the BS...I mean BCS..lol. One way to do it would be to take the conference champions of each conference (Pac 10, Big 12, Big Ten, ACC, SEC, Big East, MWC, and WAC) and have them play each other in the bowl games as part of a playoff system. For those conferences without a conference championship game, the top team in that conference with the most wins would advance to the playoffs. Teams in the playoffs could be chosen at random (lottery perhaps) to determine the matchups (8 total teams in 4 bowl games-Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowl). The four remaining winners of the major bowls would play each other in two playoff games the following weekend in the same time slot the current national championship is played (again lottery assigment perhaps to the two playoff games). The final two remaining winners would advance to the national champinship game the following weekend. This would add only one more week to the current BCS system. Teams left out of the playoff system could play in the other bowl games by invitation like it is currently done (Cotton Bowl, Holiday Bowl, etc.)
It's possible to keep the bowls with a playoff, but a big problem is that the bowls will want to be a part of the playoff, which would mean less of an opportunity for fans to reasonably travel to the playoff games. The games would still sell out, much like the rounds of 16 always do in the hoops tourney, but there would be way more local fans as apposed to fans of the teams. Then you run into a potential problem of the local fans simply not liking the match up and not showing up.
An ideal playoff would be one like the NFL, with higher seeded teams having home field advantage with a neutral site championship game that rotates amongst the current BCS bowls, but the bowls are too powerful and would never let that happen. That would leave all but one current BCS bowl with two non-playoff teams, ie teams not ranked in the top 8-16. Plus it would leave out many great locations, like the Cowboys' new stadium, Tampa, Indy, Seattle, and San Diego, a few of those not even hosting bowl games.
One solution could be to have the rounds before the championship games held after finals in December at the higher seeds' stadiums, with the teams not making the championship games funneled in to the remaining bowls, but that brings a bunch of other problems like travel dilemmas and doubts that fans would come to bowls after playoff losses.
Basically it comes down to the NCAA not having the best interests of the players or fans in heart. They look after themselves and this issue, amongst others, could be the downfall to that crooked "non-profit" organization.
If we are ever to have a national championship tournament and use the bowls, could we please dispense with the absurd idea of conference championship games as they are now structured?
An eight team field going into the "playoffs" would be made up mostly of conference champions. Don't we wish to have the best teams going into the post season, the ones that week in and week out won their conferences, not subject to the crazy whims of one championship game?
Do we really wish to see a Kansas State at 5-3 in the conference knock off a Texas with a, say, 8-0 conference record to represent the Big 12 in the play offs?
Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot that way. Conference championship games are about money, so if they nobody held them the way they are now set up, nobody loses...the pot goes down for all and so no competitive balance is lost.
And, again if $ is not the issue, for crying out loud...if you have a 12 team conference, play AN ELEVEN GAME ROUND ROBIN. Alabama fans would rather see Georgia at Tuscalousa than UL Monroe. Ohio State fans would choose Wisconsin over Central Michigan. Cal-Washington is a better match up than Cal-SJ State.
The rules would be simple: if you win an 11 game round robin outright, you're conference champ. If two teams are tied, they play in a conf championship game. 3 teams or more tied? Two are picked by formula (now point differential).
I've made this suggestion before. I'm doing it again because it makes sense (and maybe cents...but not dollars...and that's why it would be rejected)
If we are ever to have a national championship tournament and use the bowls, could we please dispense with the absurd idea of conference championship games as they are now structured?
An eight team field going into the "playoffs" would be made up mostly of conference champions. Don't we wish to have the best teams going into the post season, the ones that week in and week out won their conferences, not subject to the crazy whims of one championship game?
Do we really wish to see a Kansas State at 5-3 in the conference knock off a Texas with a, say, 8-0 conference record to represent the Big 12 in the play offs?
Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot that way. Conference championship games are about money, so if they nobody held them the way they are now set up, nobody loses...the pot goes down for all and so no competitive balance is lost.
And, again if $ is not the issue, for crying out loud...if you have a 12 team conference, play AN ELEVEN GAME ROUND ROBIN. Alabama fans would rather see Georgia at Tuscalousa than UL Monroe. Ohio State fans would choose Wisconsin over Central Michigan. Cal-Washington is a better match up than Cal-SJ State.
The rules would be simple: if you win an 11 game round robin outright, you're conference champ. If two teams are tied, they play in a conf championship game. 3 teams or more tied? Two are picked by formula (now point differential).
I've made this suggestion before. I'm doing it again because it makes sense (and maybe cents...but not dollars...and that's why it would be rejected)
thoughts?
Unfortunately you have to look at things in terms of dollars, otherwise you're just dreaming. Conferences love the extra revenue from the championship games and they're here to stay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
