My solution for the BCS drama

[IrishCanadian25]

So let's face it - March Madness is insanity. It's fun and all, but the size of the playoff (it used to be 64-teams, now it's 65-teams, and it's expanding shortly...) renders the regular season useless. Aside from Kentucky vs Louisville, I don't bother normally.

College Football, on the other hand, has the best regular season under the sun. It's magnificent. The concern is that the end of the year is just a cash-manufacture, and that the absence of a playoff system leaves some deserving schools outside looking in.

Some "experts" have suggested a 16-team playoff. That's ******ed. You mean to tell me that the team that ends the year ranked #16 has the same claim to play for a national title as the team ranked 3rd?

Same argument I have against an 8-team playoff. It adds too many more weeks onto the season.

I, on the other hand, am in favor of a 4 team playoff.

Take the top 4 teams in the BCS at the end of the year - they are usually close to the coaches / AP poll anyway. Match them up, #4 @ #1 and #3 @ #2. Make the lower seeds play a road game. Do this early, when the average teams are playing in bowl games like the "KY Jelly Intense Sensation Lube-Bowl" or whatever they name those lower level games.

From there, the two winning teams meet up in whatever is considered the "National Title" bowl, whether it's the Fiesta or the Rose or what have you.

Secondarily, match up the two teams that lose in another bowl to determine the 3rd place team.

I'm sorry, but if you don't rank in the top 4, you shouldn't be in the national title conversation. And since even one loss can knock someone out of the top 4, it doesn't diminish the value of the regular season.

 

[Big Sexy]

I've brought this same type of thing up on here before and I agree completely just with a couple minor changes to your solution. With the top 4 teams it's the plus one system. Basically you still keep all of the Bowl Games including all of the BCS games and every year you take two of the BCS games and put the top 4 teams against each other.

For example, last year the top 4 BCS teams at the end of the year were Alabama, Texas, Cinci, and TCU in that order. You take number 1 Alabama and have them play the number 4 TCU in let's say the Fiesta Bowl and then you have number 2 Texas play number 3 Cinci in the Sugar Bowl. The two winners of those games then meet up a week or two later in the National Title game.

Like IC said if you can't finish in the top four then you really have minimal room to bitch. And I can almost guarantee that there will never be more then 4 undefeated power conference teams so no major undefeated teams will be left out. Colleges still make a shit ton of money for bowl games, the BCS games all stay in tact, the only thing that changes is we at least have some sort logical way to crown a National Champion where no undefeated power conference teams will be left out.

 

[People's Champ]

Were you looking for someone to argue against this idea IC? Anyone who would is a damn fool. This idea is what a lot of people (including myself) have been hoping would happen. 16 or even 8 teams is too much. 4 is perfect. As was said, once you go outside the top 4, its hard to argue they should be in contention for a national title. Doing it with a 4 team playoff keeps the regular season relevant while helps determine a real champion. And they still get to keep their bowls so they still make shit loads of money, which is really all they care about.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Man this would make those top 4 teams alot of money being in 2 bowl games at the end of the year. We will still have the bubble talk and someone feeling shafted each year, but this would help. Only possible problems with doing it this way would be the same ones that are brought up with the system we have now with added games. I do like the point Big Sexy brought up by having the playoff games in BCS bowls instead of early bowl season. A big money bowl should have a big money game, if not than that brings those games down a peg because the better teams won't be playing in them. It also leaves plenty of time for the winners of the playoffs to prep for the game seeing that the Nation Championship games usually seem like it's a year after all the other games are over.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Here's the one issue with Big Sexy's idea of having the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 games being Bowl games - no bowl wants to concede that their "big bowl game" is a semi-final, and that the only reason it's being played is to find out which two teams will go to some other company's National Championship game. You have to kind of see it that way...the marketing people may balk.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I thought that too, but all you do is rotate them just like they do with the National Champioship game. Sure it gets rid of the Pac 10 vs. Big 10 Rose Bowl and others like that but I'm sure it could be resolved.

 

[Big Sexy]

Here's the one issue with Big Sexy's idea of having the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 games being Bowl games - no bowl wants to concede that their "big bowl game" is a semi-final, and that the only reason it's being played is to find out which two teams will go to some other company's National Championship game. You have to kind of see it that way...the marketing people may balk.

A few years ago I would have been more inclined to agree with you but since the addition of the 5th BCS game in the 06-07 Bowl season the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls know they aren't the number one bowl game. And like Blue said all of the sponsors for these games can be rotated just like the current National Title game is sponsored by a different company each year.

 

[Davi323]

Here is why I think it has to be 8 teams, and not 4. You have six BCS conferences and at large BCS bids...what happens if you have 5 or all 6 of the BCS conference champions with identical records? You can't simply tell 2 of them, sorry, your record, which is the same as these other teams, isn't good enough, but theirs is. It is just asking for the same kind of controversy the BCS endured when an undefeated Auburn, from the SEC didn't even get a chance to play for the title. 4 teams still means 2 BCS conference champions get shut out, even if their record is indistinguishable from the others. With 8 teams, you include all 6 BCS conference champions plus two at large teams to include your hypothetical Notre Dames/Boise States/Utahs/TCU type teams.

4 just doesn't seem enough, because there are more BCS conference champs than there would be slots. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Obvious advantages to an 8 team playoff over a 4 team one: we get more meaningful bowl games. 7 games spread out over 3 weeks, between the best teams in each conference, played in the BCS bowl venues. (Rotated so everyone gets a fair deal). Combined with the NFL playoffs, an already great January for football gets even better. From a fan perspective, nothing could be better.

 

[TwistofRKO]

There are not 8 teams who deserve to be champion. That nixes 8 teams.

This is the most popular compromise, the plus-1, and i'd be okay with it, but its still not perfect. You still have the same issue, small schools can play against San Jose States all year while others have to go through the SEC and Big 12. That's not solved. All in all though, I would be fine with this.

 

[Davi323]

I am gonna disagree. At the end of the year, those teams in the top 8 could beat any other team. The NFL playoffs prove that even a wildcard can earn a title by beating the best teams in the NFL. Of course there is going to be a dropoff at some point, but 8 isn't where it is at. In an 8 team playoff, you would have to beat 3 top 8 teams in 3 consecutive weeks. Are you suggesting that if an 8 seed beats 3 teams ranked higher than itself in three weeks that they haven't earned the right to call themselves champions? Bullshit. Especially since it would have to start with a win over the supposed number 1 team in the nation.

 

[TwistofRKO]

You have about 2-3 really hard games every year, lose 2 of them from a power conference, you'll likely be in the top 8. If you can't win the majority of your tough games what gets you in ahead of 9-16? It's pointless. Its a waste of time for everyone involved, and would dilute the greatest regular season in all of sports.

 

[Davi323]

Then why not only accept the two teams with the best record in the NFL to play in the Super Bowl? Lets skip the entire playoffs entirely, and just take the AFC team and NFC team with the best record...oh, wait. You can't do that, can you, because more often than not,the team with the best regular season record doesn't actually make it to and win the Super Bowl. The NFL has had numerous Super Bowl champions who weren't the two best or 4 best teams in the NFL during the regular season. It also means you have no idea what the final 8 teams were last year. Only two teams that finished in the top 8 had two losses. 4 had a single loss. 2 went unbeaten.

And you completely ignored my question...if a number 8 team beat 3 teams ranked ahead of itself in an 8 team tournament, starting with the number 1 team in the country, would they be deserving of the championship? Because in every other sport, including all other levels of college football, the answer to this would be a resounding yes. Its how EVERYONE determines their champion, except for Division 1A (FBS) football.

And I call TOTAL bullshit on the dilution of the season. This would make late season games even MORE meaningful. Take VaTech. They just lost to Boise State. Currently, their national championship hopes are slim, because they lost one game. In an 8 game playoff, they still have the rest of the season to play for. They know that they are still in it, so they will still give 100%. A playoff would prevent really good teams from checking out mentally because of a heartbreaking loss. It gives them something to continue to play for.

 

[Big Sexy]

Then why not only accept the two teams with the best record in the NFL to play in the Super Bowl? Lets skip the entire playoffs entirely, and just take the AFC team and NFC team with the best record...oh, wait. You can't do that, can you, because more often than not,the team with the best regular season record doesn't actually make it to and win the Super Bowl. The NFL has had numerous Super Bowl champions who weren't the two best or 4 best teams in the NFL during the regular season. It also means you have no idea what the final 8 teams were last year. Only two teams that finished in the top 8 had two losses. 4 had a single loss. 2 went unbeaten.

And you completely ignored my question...if a number 8 team beat 3 teams ranked ahead of itself in an 8 team tournament, starting with the number 1 team in the country, would they be deserving of the championship? Because in every other sport, including all other levels of college football, the answer to this would be a resounding yes. Its how EVERYONE determines their champion, except for Division 1A (FBS) football.

And I call TOTAL bullshit on the dilution of the season. This would make late season games even MORE meaningful. Take VaTech. They just lost to Boise State. Currently, their national championship hopes are slim, because they lost one game. In an 8 game playoff, they still have the rest of the season to play for. They know that they are still in it, so they will still give 100%. A playoff would prevent really good teams from checking out mentally because of a heartbreaking loss. It gives them something to continue to play for.

You're comparing two completely different things right now. D1 College Football and the NFL have and always will be completely different. The NFL has the playoffs and college football has its bowl season. It's harder to set up a playoff system in college because there is over 100 teams and the level of talent and competition between teams is completely different when it comes to the different conferences. The NFL doesn't have polls, everything is based on records because with only 32 teams the talent differential is much smaller then that of college football. Shit, even the NFL isn't perfect. In 2008 the Chargers went 8-8 and made the playoffs because they won their division, while the 11-5 Patriots were left out of the playoffs.

Not only that but no matter how many teams you have in a college playoff system, there will be teams that get upset. If you have an 8 team playoff then the 9-15 teams that probably have similar records to the 7 and 8 teams will be pissed. College Football needs to focus on one thing at a time and the first priority should be to make sure that undefeated power conference teams don't get left out when it comes to a chance to win the National Title. A plus one system will take care of that.

 

[TwistofRKO]

And I call TOTAL bullshit on the dilution of the season. This would make late season games even MORE meaningful. Take VaTech. They just lost to Boise State. Currently, their national championship hopes are slim, because they lost one game. In an 8 game playoff, they still have the rest of the season to play for. They know that they are still in it, so they will still give 100%. A playoff would prevent really good teams from checking out mentally because of a heartbreaking loss. It gives them something to continue to play for.

Since BS took care of the rest....

Your example is the perfect example of dilution. Did you try to make yourself look that stupid? They lost a game, so giving them another chance would mean the one-loss suffered wasn't a crucial to its title hopes as it is now. The late season games between 1-loss teams already have importance in case another team slips up.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Adding on to Big Sexy's last point, the NFL also has a fair and uniform draft that gives last place teams the opportunity to make the first pick of rookie players. The college game, on the other hand, allows coaches and AD's to recruit as many of the best high school players as they can sell to their program. So you really are comparing apples and oranges.

Right now, the #3 team in the nation has no claim to the national title because only the top 2 teams play for the title. A few times - not every year, mind you - the #3 team has been undefeated or at least been close enough to teams #1 and / or #2 to make a claim. If you cannot finish the regular season in the FBS ranked in the top 4, you shouldn't have a complaint. Enjoy your very important, lucrative, televised, non-championship bowl game.

 

[Davi323]

Who gets screwed, exactly? I have been very clear about who the 8 teams would be...the six BCS conference champions, plus two at large wildcard teams. And bitching about 8 teams possibly excluding someone when you favor only 4 teams seems a bit hypocritical. At least an 8 team model doesn't leave 2 BCS conference champions on the outside looking in, as would be required by a simple plus 1. Obviously, someone is always going to feel like they got screwed, but if a playoff is ever to replace the current controversy filled system, it would have to at least include all the BCS conference champs. 8 teams is the lowest amount of teams you can do that can accomodate BCS conference champions AND still leave a little room for the Notre Dames, Utahs and Boise States. I am not suggesting 16 or more teams, that is too many...but 4 is too little. So they gotta go somewhere in the middle.

 

[Big Sexy]

Who gets screwed, exactly? I have been very clear about who the 8 teams would be...the six BCS conference champions, plus two at large wildcard teams. And bitching about 8 teams possibly excluding someone when you favor only 4 teams seems a bit hypocritical. At least an 8 team model doesn't leave 2 BCS conference champions on the outside looking in, as would be required by a simple plus 1. Obviously, someone is always going to feel like they got screwed, but if a playoff is ever to replace the current controversy filled system, it would have to at least include all the BCS conference champs. 8 teams is the lowest amount of teams you can do that can accomodate BCS conference champions AND still leave a little room for the Notre Dames, Utahs and Boise States. I am not suggesting 16 or more teams, that is too many...but 4 is too little. So they gotta go somewhere in the middle.

Who's being hypocritical? I was saying that no matter how many teams you have whether it's 4, 8, 16, whatever, there's always going to be people bitching. And why do all 6 conference champions deserve a shot at the National Title? Again, this isn't the NFL it is completely different. The only similarity is the sport being played. You can't tell me that the last few years the Big East and ACC have had teams every year that deserved a shot at the National Title.

 

[Davi323]

They do, because the way the entire BCS is structured revolves around those six conference champions already. NCAA football revolves around the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-10 and the Big East. That is why they had the power to create the BCS bowls in the first place, guaranteeing each of their champions a premier bowl each year.
If a playoff were to ever come around, the commissioners of those conferences wouldn't sign off on it unless each of their winners were guaranteed a chance to play in it. The six BCS conferences are in essence, a cartel, who will not go along with anything that doesn't clearly benefit themselves. That is simply reality. There would be too much money at stake for each conference to not insist on it. You have to think about what it is going to take to get that playoff in place in a real sense, you guys are stuck thinking only about a theoretical sense. I believe 8 teams is the minimum you could feasibly do, not because I think 4 teams wouldn't give a legit champion, but because of all the practical, real life stuff that would get in the way. If the goal is a NCAA football playoff to determine a legitimate instead of mythical national champion, you have to figure out what you will need in order to accomplish that goal. And what you need to accomplish that goal is the approval of the six BCS conferences. Then you have to include Notre Dame, because they still have a considerable amount of clout, and they wouldn't agree to it unless they were guaranteed a spot if they met certain criteria...just like they have a guaranteed BCS bowl for meeting certain criteria now. A true playoff would replace the BCS, not be beside it. So, the same powers that created the BCS largely to profit their own schools, would do the same in a playoff.

But, lets look at the numbers, shall we? There are 119 teams in Division 1A (FBS) football. What we are bitching about is the difference between letting 3.3% of the teams fight for the championship and 6% of the teams. When you consider the totality of the FBS subdivision, you can't claim that 8 is letting in mediocre teams, because we are still talking about the absolute best of college football. The NFL lets in 38% of its teams. For NCAA football to match that, they would have to have a 45+ team playoff, which is beyond ridiculous. But 8 teams? 6% of the entire country? How is that unreasonable? There is most definitely a large discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" in college football, nobody is arguing otherwise...however, there are certainly more than 4 teams that would qualify as a "have" instead of a "have not".

Those weaker ACC and Big East teams? They currently get BCS quality bowl games already, and the millions of dollars that go with it. If they are that bad, then they will quickly lose in the 1st round, and that will be that. Just like weak playoff teams in every other sport in America. It's a complete non-issue. The quality of the BCS conference champion doesn't matter, because it's the overall political strength of the BCS conference that is important in determining whether we actually get a playoff or not. That is what you guys simply are NOT understanding. Individual teams (excluding ND) simply DO NOT MATTER in formulating a playoff. It's all about what you can get the big conferences to sign up for, because once they agree to it, all the mid-majors will fall in line behind them.

BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BCS CONFERENCES FIRST!

You guys can talk about the ideal system all you want. I am not talking about the ideal, perfect system at all. I am talking about the only potential model that has a realistic chance of ever happening. They are two completely different things. I live in the real world. I know that you have to be pragmatic about certain things. This is one of them.

 

[Big Sexy]

You guys can talk about the ideal system all you want. I am not talking about the ideal, perfect system at all. I am talking about the only potential model that has a realistic chance of ever happening. They are two completely different things. I live in the real world. I know that you have to be pragmatic about certain things. This is one of them.

Bullshit. A plus one system is a lot more realistic then an 8 team playoff. The plus one system keeps everything in tact it just changes the relevancy of a couple BCS Bowl Games. With an 8 team playoff extra bowl games would have to be added or lesser known bowl games would have to take on much bigger meaning. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to get the plus one model to happen then an 8 team playoff. The conference winners that don't make it in would just play in the other BCS games that don't involve the playoff and still get a shit ton of money for it. The 8 team playoff is more unrealistic then the plus one system.

 

[Davi323]

No, you would turn the current BCS bowl games into first round games, the 2 semifinal rounds would be 2 of the first round sites, and the finals would be 1 of the 2 first round sites that didn't host a semifinal game. These would rotated every year so that they all get equal amount of games. All the lesser non-BCS bowls would stay intact, they have nothing to do with it. This would just involve the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowl venues. 1 of them already does double duty every year, all this would do is increase that to 3 of them getting to host 2 games.

If you wanted to do the bare minimum and keep the bulk of the Bullshit Championship Series intact, a plus 1 model is the easiest way to go...but if you are going to actually install a true, legitimate playoff system, instead of a band-aid, 8 teams is the minimum.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

I like a 4 team playoff....at first i liked 6 were all conferences champions plus 2 wildcards....but not all conferences are alike....take for instance the ACC...they had a week to prove themselves and well came up with nothing...likewise with the big east...just 1-11 against other BCS conference teams...quite honestly the only great conferences are SEC, Big Ten, Pac-10, Big 12, and yes The Mountain West....and you'll get the fans (like me) who say give TCU and Boise a shot....and i think with this teams will schedule harder teams too so more marque match ups during the regular season....4 team playoff would be sweet

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

No, you would turn the current BCS bowl games into first round games, the 2 semifinal rounds would be 2 of the first round sites, and the finals would be 1 of the 2 first round sites that didn't host a semifinal game. These would rotated every year so that they all get equal amount of games. All the lesser non-BCS bowls would stay intact, they have nothing to do with it. This would just involve the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowl venues. 1 of them already does double duty every year, all this would do is increase that to 3 of them getting to host 2 games.

If you wanted to do the bare minimum and keep the bulk of the Bullshit Championship Series intact, a plus 1 model is the easiest way to go...but if you are going to actually install a true, legitimate playoff system, instead of a band-aid, 8 teams is the minimum.

I completely understand what you're saying. Some people fail to realize that the major powers aren't going to agree to a four team play-off because it means that two of them will get left out.

The concept of "he who has the money, makes the rules" is lost on them. Regardless of which of the 6 major conferences you're talking about, the fact of the matter is that the conferences, as institutions, have a fuck-load of money and will not agree to any scenario where there's a chance that a representative from their conference could be left out.

This is not possible in a four team playoff and, therefore, will not be signed off on. No matter how unlikely it is that a team from each of the six major conferences goes undefeated, it's still a possibility and would therefore mean that two of those teams would have played an entire season for nothing in the 4 team playoff model.

The Bullshit Computer Series has proven that any number of previously unthinkable scenarios will present themselves if you give it the opportunity. 13-0 Auburn winning jackshit, a team that just lost their conference championship game playing for the national title causing the AP to give out its own title, Boise St and Utah having two perfect seasons and being left out of the title discussion, etc..

The point of that was to illustrate that all of these things will be brought up when you discuss a four team playoff and if ANY of the 6 AQ conferences feel that there's a possibility they could get screwed like Boise, they'll tell the committee to fuck off.

A four team playoff is not feasible because of that. You've already told 6 conferences they have an automatic right at the chance to play for a national title, good luck telling two of them that you're rescinding that right.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

That and the BCS is bout money honestly...so of coarse they want the Texas's, Ohio St.'s, Alabama's and USC's of the world cause of there history and the money they can bring so its totally unfair for the Utah's, TCU's, and Boise's of the world cause there small and relatively new to the scene...this way a 4 team playoff if it was today would be Alabama vs. TCU (which who wouldnt love to see those D's go at it?) and Boise vs. Ohio St.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

That and the BCS is bout money honestly...so of coarse they want the Texas's, Ohio St.'s, Alabama's and USC's of the world cause of there history and the money they can bring so its totally unfair for the Utah's, TCU's, and Boise's of the world cause there small and relatively new to the scene...this way a 4 team playoff if it was today would be Alabama vs. TCU (which who wouldnt love to see those D's go at it?) and Boise vs. Ohio St.

It would be Bama vs. Oregon and Boise vs. Ohio St. Oregon jumped TCU in both polls this week.

Yeah, the BCS is about the money, but so are the conference commissioners who sign off on these deals allowing stuff like the BCS to become a reality.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

Yup your so right unfortunately which im somewhat happy that Congress wants to force a playoff (granted they can be doing better things than college football but hey). I mean how many times has there been Multiply Undefeated teams at the end of the year recently