Y'know what would be great right now? A playoff.

[Megatron]

*Note: I know this won't happen since the AQ conferences are in favor of the BCS, but I'm playing fantasy land right now so let me be...

This year, just like seemingly every year, there's some controversy as to who should be invited to the BCS title game with the expected SEC Champion and #1 LSU. Should it be Alabama, who took LSU all the way to OT before losing? Should it be Oklahoma State, who only has one loss and hasn't played LSU yet? What about Virginia Tech, Stanford, or Houston, who all have 1 or 0 losses yet have a very long shot to get the chance? You know where I'm going with this - a full fledged playoff, which we've been begging for it seems like since the inception of the BCS. Why?

-Gives more teams hope late in the season, which keeps the interest up in the sport. While bowl games are nice, players know there's not much to be gained other then playing 60 more minutes in Florida or Texas or California. With a playoff, another win gives them another step closer to winning what everyone wants - a National Championship.
-Clears some of the debates we've had on who should and shouldn't be in. 2 years ago there were 5, yes 5, undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, yet only 2 of them had a shot for the national title. What does that say to those teams that you've beaten everyone that you've gone up against but still 'aren't good enough'? This way, they have nobody to blame but themselves for not winning the title.
-Would give the NCAA even more money then the Bowl system currently gives them, which is what it's all about. I don't wanna spoil my plans for later on in this thread, but a 16 or 20 man playoff could make them boatloads of cash. Think of March Madness, only with even more money being dished out due to you getting mainly quality teams and not 7-10 matchups where (more often then not) you aren't gonna see a potential national champion play.
-If the lower 3 college divisions (FCS, II, and III) can all manage a playoff system just fine (and have been for years) why the hell are we still fucking around with a system that nobody seems to like except for bigwigs? It's embarrassing that these guys aren't figuring out the proper way of determining a national champion, instead relying on computers.

Now that I have my reasons out of the way, here's how I'd do it.

1. 20 teams. We're going all out in this. I took a look at FCS's playoff system last year and it's pretty much going to be a carbon copy of that.
2. Throw out the conference championship games. While that makes some conferences some nice money, you get 12 games here to prove your worth. Plus it'd be unfair to those teams that do experience success that they have to play an extra game for doing well. Throw divisions out and determine it through regular season play.
3. It would start the first week after the regular season ends and go all the way through New Years week.
4. There would be 4 'play in' games the first weekend, with those 4 winners moving on to face seeds 1-4.
5. The seedings would be determined by a committee like how the NCAA basketball tournament is. Computers won't decide it. Have a 7 or 9 man (or whatever number is appropriate) panel and have them churn out the seeds.
6. There isn't a limit on how many teams per conference can enter. If 4 SEC teams are worthy they're all thrown in.
7. Every round until the semifinals would be played at the higher ranked teams stadium. Once you get to the final 4 they're played on Neutral sites, which could be two of the BCS stadiums rotated each year (such as Sugar and Fiesta one year then Rose and Orange next).
8. The Championship would be held at a different neutral location each year, determined by a means like the Super Bowl and World Cup. It wouldn't only be in the south either, however if it was in the Midwest or Northeast it would have to be in a domed stadium (throwing out a handful of stadiums). A title game cannot be held in the same stadium until 4 more playoffs have passed. Or, in otherwords, once every 5 years. The region won't stay the same either. You won't just have 5 straight years in SEC country. There'll be one in the West, or MW, or East.

Now, the ways to qualify are -
1. Win your conference. I don't care if it's the MAC or Sun Belt or SEC or Big 12. You win, you're in.
2. Get an at-large bid. In order to get an at large, you have to win at least .666% of your games (or, in other words, an 8-4 record) to qualify. While a team wouldn't be penalized for counting an FCS team as a win, a team that has 8 FBS wins is going to be thought of higher then a team with 7 FBS and 1 FCS, due to the level of competition.

Those are the only two ways. There would be 11 AQ with 9 additional at-large. If you can't crack one of those spots then, quite frankly, you don't deserve it. With that now said, here's an example of how a playoff would look this year (all conference champions are decided by where they rank as of this moment)

Automatic Qualifiers:
ACC - Virginia Tech
Big 12 - Oklahoma State
Big 10 - Michigan State
Big East - Louisville
Conference USA - Houston
MAC - Northern Illinois
MWC - TCU
Pac-12 - Oregon
SEC - LSU
Sun Belt - Arkansas State
WAC - Louisiana Tech

There's 11 of 20. As for the At Large, as I said it would be dependent on the panel to decide who's worthy and who isn't. Using the AP Poll and my own judgment, here would be the other 9 playoff teams.

At Large bids -
Alabama
Arkansas
Stanford
Boise State
Oklahoma
Georgia
Michigan
Wisconsin
Kansas State

Now we have our 20 teams, and it's time to seed them:

Spoiler

1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Virginia Tech
5. Stanford
6. Houston
7. Oregon
8. Arkansas
9. Boise State
10. Michigan State
11. Oklahoma
12. Wisconsin
13. Michigan
14. Georgia
15. TCU
16. Kansas State
17. Northern Illinois
18. Louisville
19. Louisiana Tech
20. Arkansas State

As I said, 1-4 would face the winners of the 4 play in games, which features seeds 13-20. As such, here would be the first round matchups:

Spoiler

1st Round
Arkansas State @ Michigan
Louisiana Tech @ Georgia
Louisville @ TCU
Northern Illinois @ Kansas State

Some bland matchups, but the fun starts the following week.

We'll just go chalk for seeding purposes, which would give us our playoff matchups:

Spoiler

2nd Round
Kansas State @ LSU
Boise State @ Arkansas

TCU @ Alabama
Michigan State @ Oregon

Georgia @ Oklahoma State
Oklahoma @ Houston

Michigan @ Virginia Tech
Wisconsin @ Stanford

Now look at some of those sexy looking contests. Boise against an SEC school? Sparty's D against Oregon's O? A shootout at Houston? Power football in Palo Alto? Oh yes. And that's just the start!

Again I'll go chalk simply for seeding purposes and making it easier on me.

Spoiler

Boise State @ LSU
Oregon @ Alabama
Houston @ Oklahoma State
Stanford @ Virginia Tech

Again Boise gets an SEC power, you get Pac 12 champ vs. top SEC team, another potential shootout in Oklahoma, and a matchup of two solid and consistent teams. No stinkers here.

Once we get here the games are played at a neutral site. One at 4:00 and another at 8:00.

Spoiler

Virginia Tech vs. LSU - Played at Orange Bowl
Oklahoma State vs. Alabama - Played at Rose Bowl

While these games look like overmatched team vs. SEC opponent at least they would have to play their way in.

Finally, the championship game played in a neutral field as well.

Spoiler

LSU vs. Alabama - Played at Cowboys Stadium

Now tell me, wouldn't THAT make for a hell of a December. There's a lot of can't miss matchups there and it would be a more pure way of determining a national champion. Is there some flaws? Yes. The travel for some teams would be rough. The AQ's love the bowl system. Some deserving teams like South Carolina and Clemson would be left out for Louisiana Tech and Arkansas State. However, that's life. If you can't get one of the 10 spots available to you, you probably don't deserve a shot.

If it works in the lower divisions (who have less money and notoriety as well) it should work in the top NCAA division.

Alright, I'm done talking for now. Love it? Hate it? Too many teams? Not enough? Do I have to much time on my hands (possibly)? Let me hear it. I'd still take this over the stupid BCS.

 

[Davi323]

I have long favored a playoff. However, I do think that 20 teams is a bit much. Not because of the length of time it would take (although yu do have to remembr this kids have exams in December, and it would be very difficult to play in a playoff and prepare for exams at the same time) I don't think there are legitimately 20 teams that can do it. I don't think once you get past 8 teams that any would have a real claim to be included. I would take 6 bcs AQs plus 2 at larges only. That's only 3 weeks of games, and would fit into the already existing bowl games nicely. Use the BCS bowls as hosts, and keep all non BCS bowls intact for everyone else.

Truth be told tough, if they were to develop a simple +1 model, essentially creating a small 4 team playoff, that would probably satisfy most people.

 

[Megatron]

I have long favored a playoff. However, I do think that 20 teams is a bit much. Not because of the length of time it would take (although yu do have to remembr this kids have exams in December, and it would be very difficult to play in a playoff and prepare for exams at the same time)

Division FCS, II and III all do it. FCS I know does it with 20 teams. You think they don't go through the same period as FBS teams? Plus most of it is actually over winter break since it'd start in December. Maybe the first week or two but its not like players havent had to study and play at the same time before.

I don't think there are legitimately 20 teams that can do it. I don't think once you get past 8 teams that any would have a real claim to be included. I would take 6 bcs AQs plus 2 at larges only. That's only 3 weeks of games, and would fit into the already existing bowl games nicely. Use the BCS bowls as hosts, and keep all non BCS bowls intact for everyone else.

Truth be told tough, if they were to develop a simple +1 model, essentially creating a small 4 team playoff, that would probably satisfy most people.

Well are there 68 teams that are really worthy of being able to fight for the NCAA Basketball championship? No, yet they're all included. And you aren't including many undeserving teams with the system I have in place. The 11 CC earned their right by being the cream of the crop in the conference. The other 9 spots are gonna be filled by 9, 10, and 11 win teams that have had relatively good seasons anyhow. Plus, it'd help take the blow of teams that have lost heartbreakers like UW and OU who easily could've been undefeated had a few bounces go their way.

And really, if you only included 2 at large, how are you going to pick from a pool of Bama, Stanford, Oklahoma/OSU, UW, Georgia, South Carolina, Boise, Kansas State, etc. There's more then enough 2 or 3 loss teams that could take the undefeated teams down.

And while many would be satisfied with a plus 1, don't you think it'd be more exciting for the sport to have 20 teams involved in a crazy playoff that spans over the month of December instead of the New Orleans Bowl featuring Louisiana Lafayette and Tulane? The NCAA tournament is the biggest draw for basketball and I think this would be even much, much bigger, drawing-wise.

 

[Davi323]

I don't think a team like UM, MSU or other 2 loss teams really have an argument to be included. This isn't the NFL, where the salary cap evens everything up to create parity, in college there is usually a large talent difference between the 0 and 1 loss teams and those with 3. There comes a point were the amount of teams is simply impractical, both in logistics and quality level. In my opinion, 20 teams crosses the threshold between those that could legitimately win and those that can't. It's just my opinion.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm also a big fan of the plus one system as the most realistic answer. To my knowledge there has never been more then 3 undefeated power conference teams and I doubt there has ever been more then 4 undefeated teams period regardless of conference. Make it so you can't have multiple teams from the same conference to avoid conference favoritism and also avoid most potential rematches. Right now you'd have LSU, OK State, Stanford, and Va Tech. That gives three one loss teams a second chance. All of the other one loss teams will have beef but none will really be legitimate and Houston needs to play someone better then UCLA before they can talk.

Personally I'd love an 8 team playoff with the power conference winners and then two at large teams but the more teams and more games that get added the less realistic it becomes. Anymore then 8 teams I believe would be overkill.

 

[Davi323]

Yeah. Pretty much there is usually a large difference between what you want to do, and what you are capable of doing when it comes to reorganizing a major sport. It would be great if they could include as many teams as possible, but that just isn't feasible. I used to favor a 16 game playoff, but then once I started figuring out how difficult that would be to implement, I dropped it down to 8. It just seems to be a more sensible/realistic number to work with.

 

[Megatron]

I don't think a team like UM, MSU or other 2 loss teams really have an argument to be included. This isn't the NFL, where the salary cap evens everything up to create parity, in college there is usually a large talent difference between the 0 and 1 loss teams and those with 3. There comes a point were the amount of teams is simply impractical, both in logistics and quality level. In my opinion, 20 teams crosses the threshold between those that could legitimately win and those that can't. It's just my opinion.

I'll keep using the same argument I have been - the NCAA Basketball tournament. If theres only 4-8 teams worthy of a title shot, why do they make it 68? Remember, teams can get hot and pull off upsets. If you only included the best 8 teams this past year in the NCAA tournament, none of the Final 4 teams would've been there. Yet they were allowed to play the games and UConn showed they were the best team in march and deserved the title.

You could get the same in here, but it's not even that egregious. The At-large teams would be mainly a pool of 1 and 2 loss teams, with a possible 3 loss team making it in every now and then (although I'd believe it to be more of an anomaly then trend.)

I'm also a big fan of the plus one system as the most realistic answer. To my knowledge there has never been more then 3 undefeated power conference teams and I doubt there has ever been more then 4 undefeated teams period regardless of conference. Make it so you can't have multiple teams from the same conference to avoid conference favoritism and also avoid most potential rematches. Right now you'd have LSU, OK State, Stanford, and Va Tech. That gives three one loss teams a second chance. All of the other one loss teams will have beef but none will really be legitimate and Houston needs to play someone better then UCLA before they can talk.

Personally I'd love an 8 team playoff with the power conference winners and then two at large teams but the more teams and more games that get added the less realistic it becomes. Anymore then 8 teams I believe would be overkill.

So you're saying an 8-4 West Virginia team is more deserving of fighting for the national championship then someone with the likes of Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Michigan, Boise State, Houston etc.?

That's why it wouldn't be an overkill. Just because a team has 2 losses doesn't mean it can't be a national champion. A 10-2 team is damn good team and worthy to be invited to the dance. LSU won the title with 2 losses. Sure, a boatload of teams had to lose for it to happen, but you cant tell me they weren't vastly superior to OSU in that title game.

And more games = more $$$$, which is what the NCAA should be looking at. They know how much money the NCAA Tourney makes, and there have been some projections I've seen that say a football playoff (I believe it was 16 team) would be even bigger.

Also, theres 20 of 120 Division I teams included in my model, or 16.6%. Basketball has 68 of 346, or 19%. I know Basketball is easier for travel and accommodations since theres not as big of a roster size, but this tournament would take no more then 5 weeks. I still don't see why a 20 (or even 16) team tournament wouldn't work, since most of the teams involved (aside from some AQs) would have big enough fanbases to get them to travel to games.

 

[Davi323]

I'll keep using the same argument I have been - the NCAA Basketball tournament. If theres only 4-8 teams worthy of a title shot, why do they make it 68?

Money. The NCAA Tournament makes a crapload of money. The more games broadcast, the more people watch, the more money everyone makes. Did you know that since they expanded to 64 teams in 85, no team lower than an 8 seed has ever won? That means that doubling the amount of teams didn't make a damned bit of difference to the actual results of the tournament. It was a money grab, nothing else.

Football isn't basketball. You don't get to play 3 times a week to still get in 68 teams in a short time frame. You would limit the amount of teams, if only to keep the time frame of the NCAA Football playoff manageable. Even if you don't buy the argument that realistically, only the top 8 teams could win it, you cannot deny that with football, the calendar is not on your side. How late into January/February are you willing to go? How much time afterward should returning players get to have off before they jump right back into spring practices? If you go that far into January, how are you going to schedule your games around the NFL Playoffs? Nobody cares about Wildcard weekend, but when your NCAA playoff starts conflicting with the AFC and NFC Championship games, you are going to have a nightmare on your hands.

I would LOVE to see a 32 or even 64 team Football playoff. I love watching Football, the more the merrier. But including that many teams is logistically ridiculous. There is simply no way a 64 team NCAA Football playoff could ever work. You are telling me what you want, and I am telling you what you can have. The more teams you include, the more impractical it becomes. I think 8 is probably the best balance between time frame and realistic chances of the teams playing.

Let me put it this way: I will need a new car soon. I really, really want a 1963 Chevrolet Corvette. It's my dream car. But, I acknowledge that is an entirely unrealistic dream to hold out for...so I will probably settle for a car that costs about 60 grand less than that, because it's more within my budget.

 

[Big Sexy]

So you're saying an 8-4 West Virginia team is more deserving of fighting for the national championship then someone with the likes of Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Michigan, Boise State, Houston etc.?

That's why it wouldn't be an overkill. Just because a team has 2 losses doesn't mean it can't be a national champion. A 10-2 team is damn good team and worthy to be invited to the dance. LSU won the title with 2 losses. Sure, a boatload of teams had to lose for it to happen, but you cant tell me they weren't vastly superior to OSU in that title game.

West Virginia certainly isn't deserving and in a fantasy world I wouldn't have them involved. In the real world, however, all power conferences are treated equal with things like this. I was trying to keep my proposal more realistic.

In terms of more games = more money that may be true but remember these are unpaid college kids and with too many teams involved the number of games could become an issue. You don't want your championship teams basically playing an NFL schedule.

 

[Megatron]

Money. The NCAA Tournament makes a crapload of money. The more games broadcast, the more people watch, the more money everyone makes. Did you know that since they expanded to 64 teams in 85, no team lower than an 8 seed has ever won? That means that doubling the amount of teams didn't make a damned bit of difference to the actual results of the tournament. It was a money grab, nothing else.

And NCAA Football doesn't make money? Hell, College football puts basketball to shame. Look at the top 50 most profitable programs from the 2009-10 year - the top 20 are all the schools FOOTBALL programs. Very few teams basketball team outdraws their football team (UNC, Duke, and Syracuse seem to be the ones, from a quick glance - to nobodies surprise).

http://businessofcollegesports.com/...ketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/

Football is the moneypit. If the NCAA was really about making some cold hard cash, they'd jump on that idea in a heartbeat and ****e the hell out of it. You'd be getting a ridiculous amount of sponsors, more fan interest then your average R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl, and would be best teams in a win-or-go-home type situation.

Football isn't basketball. You don't get to play 3 times a week to still get in 68 teams in a short time frame. You would limit the amount of teams, if only to keep the time frame of the NCAA Football playoff manageable. Even if you don't buy the argument that realistically, only the top 8 teams could win it, you cannot deny that with football, the calendar is not on your side. How late into January/February are you willing to go? How much time afterward should returning players get to have off before they jump right back into spring practices? If you go that far into January, how are you going to schedule your games around the NFL Playoffs? Nobody cares about Wildcard weekend, but when your NCAA playoff starts conflicting with the AFC and NFC Championship games, you are going to have a nightmare on your hands.

I'm not sure if you glossed over my idea or what, but I clearly stated, you end the season after 12 weeks (which this year would be last week). You throw out the CC games and have regular season champions. Sure, you may have a tie in a conference once in a while, but chances are they'll be included anyways. The playoffs (or 4 play in games, to be exact) would begin this weekend, with the other 12 teams getting the day off. The following week would be the 16 teams (on Dec. 11) then 8 teams (Dec. 18). Since Christmas is the following week, we'll say the 26th or 24th (probably 26th since most NFL games are on Christmas eve this year). Then you give the two finalists the 2 weeks to prepare and you could still have it on schedule with the current BCS title game (which happens to be the 9th).

No reason these players need the whole month of December off if they wanna be playing for the national championship. And that would draw a lot more people in on Saturdays then the 2 PM mid major basketball game on ESPN2.

I would LOVE to see a 32 or even 64 team Football playoff. I love watching Football, the more the merrier. But including that many teams is logistically ridiculous. There is simply no way a 64 team NCAA Football playoff could ever work. You are telling me what you want, and I am telling you what you can have. The more teams you include, the more impractical it becomes. I think 8 is probably the best balance between time frame and realistic chances of the teams playing.

I never once said there should be a 32 or 64 team playoff. There's barely enough teams that crack .500 in a season, and 32 would consist of a lot of poor 7-5 or 8-4 teams. 20 (or hell, even 16) would be the most practical for a playoff because you'd be including all 11 conference champions and 9 very deserving and very good at large teams.

I'm still not realizing many faults in a 16 or (my preference) a 20 team playoff. It'll bring you more money and keep more interest up. 40 days of teams sitting on their hands and waiting for the National Championship game is way, way too long. You can only pound certain stories so long from December 5th to January 9th. With a 2 week break you'll get constant coverage and media stories, closely comparable to the NFL.

Heres another article posted a few years ago by Yahoo Sports columnist Dave Wetzel who agrees with my idea and raises some of the same points I have: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709

EDIT:

West Virginia certainly isn't deserving and in a fantasy world I wouldn't have them involved. In the real world, however, all power conferences are treated equal with things like this. I was trying to keep my proposal more realistic.

In terms of more games = more money that may be true but remember these are unpaid college kids and with too many teams involved the number of games could become an issue. You don't want your championship teams basically playing an NFL schedule.

If WVU is included and you aren't including an undefeated team like Houston you may as well only bother with a plus 1 system (since I'm figuring your two AQ would be Bama and Stanford/VT). Every conference champion should get their fair shot, since they've shown they're the best of the 9/10/11 common teams they've seen. If they get eliminated in the 1st round, so what? If they win, obviously that Big East Champion wasn't worthy enough anyways.

The amount of games complaint is a bogus one. Allow me to steal a quote from the article I just posted by Wetzel:

One of the apologists’ greatest whines is that a playoff would make the season too long. It’s conceivable that some teams would play 17 games. The guys in the other divisions of college football manage to do it though and as Texas Tech coach Mike Leach points out, the Texas high school season can go 16 games long and the best players are often on both offense and defense. The NFL plays a much longer season with just 53-man rosters.

So tell me, if HS students and lower caliber college players can do it, why not Division 1?

 

[Big Sexy]

So tell me, if HS students and lower caliber college players can do it, why not Division 1?

I never said they couldn't, I just don't think that it's something that would ever come to fruition because there would be too many naysayers talking about how they play enough games as it is.

If WVU is included and you aren't including an undefeated team like Houston you may as well only bother with a plus 1 system (since I'm figuring your two AQ would be Bama and Stanford/VT). Every conference champion should get their fair shot, since they've shown they're the best of the 9/10/11 common teams they've seen. If they get eliminated in the 1st round, so what? If they win, obviously that Big East Champion wasn't worthy enough anyways.

Again, in a fantasy world I agree and I know that your scenario was fantasy based to start this thread. My scenario was more reality based and is something that could conceivably happen. We are both discussing different things so there really isn't anything to debate about.

 

[Megatron]

I never said they couldn't, I just don't think that it's something that would ever come to fruition because there would be too many naysayers talking about how they play enough games as it is.

The only teams that would really play more games then what most teams do currently are the ones that play in the semi finals and finals (or if a team went from the play-in round to the round of 8). And they would be playing only 1 or 2 more games with some extra rest.

Again, in a fantasy world I agree and I know that your scenario was fantasy based to start this thread. My scenario was more reality based and is something that could conceivably happen. We are both discussing different things so there really isn't anything to debate about.

I have no reason to believe why a 20 team playoff couldn't work. When I meant by fantasy thread I meant in terms of, BCS is sticking to the BCS and thats that. An 8 team playoff is a fantasy at this point. No playoff no way no how.

While less amount of teams is always a more realistic idea a 20 (or 16) game playoff could very much be a bigger success financially and a fairer way to determine the champion.

 

[Davi323]

And NCAA Football doesn't make money? Hell, College football puts basketball to shame. Look at the top 50 most profitable programs from the 2009-10 year - the top 20 are all the schools FOOTBALL programs. Very few teams basketball team outdraws their football team (UNC, Duke, and Syracuse seem to be the ones, from a quick glance - to nobodies surprise).

I never said they didn't. You asked why the NCAA Basketball tournament had 68 teams, I answered.

Football is the moneypit. If the NCAA was really about making some cold hard cash, they'd jump on that idea in a heartbeat and ****e the hell out of it. You'd be getting a ridiculous amount of sponsors, more fan interest then your average R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl, and would be best teams in a win-or-go-home type situation.

I agree that an NCAA Football playoff would make a shit ton of money. I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise.

I'm not sure if you glossed over my idea or what, but I clearly stated, you end the season after 12 weeks (which this year would be last week). You throw out the CC games and have regular season champions. Sure, you may have a tie in a conference once in a while, but chances are they'll be included anyways.

Chances are? So you are willing to acknowledge that a conference with two divisions has a tie, that one could be left out, while the other goes? That hardly seems fair.

The playoffs (or 4 play in games, to be exact) would begin this weekend, with the other 12 teams getting the day off. The following week would be the 16 teams (on Dec. 11) then 8 teams (Dec. 18). Since Christmas is the following week, we'll say the 26th or 24th (probably 26th since most NFL games are on Christmas eve this year). Then you give the two finalists the 2 weeks to prepare and you could still have it on schedule with the current BCS title game (which happens to be the 9th).

I don't think you would get much support for that because of college exam schedules, but I don't have any complaints about starting in December rather than January, other than you just destroyed what TV ratings those December bowl games would otherwise have gotten.

No reason these players need the whole month of December off if they wanna be playing for the national championship. And that would draw a lot more people in on Saturdays then the 2 PM mid major basketball game on ESPN2.

Exams.

I never once said there should be a 32 or 64 team playoff. There's barely enough teams that crack .500 in a season, and 32 would consist of a lot of poor 7-5 or 8-4 teams. 20 (or hell, even 16) would be the most practical for a playoff because you'd be including all 11 conference champions and 9 very deserving and very good at large teams.

You compared a college playoff to the NCAA tournament...if you didn't want that, you shouldn't have brought March Madness up.

I'm still not realizing many faults in a 16 or (my preference) a 20 team playoff. It'll bring you more money and keep more interest up. 40 days of teams sitting on their hands and waiting for the National Championship game is way, way too long. You can only pound certain stories so long from December 5th to January 9th. With a 2 week break you'll get constant coverage and media stories, closely comparable to the NFL.

Again, its really just a matter of how much time it would take plus how many teams would realistically have a chance to actually win it...I think 8 is feasible, you think 20 is...it's a matter of opinion.

 

[Big Sexy]

I have no reason to believe why a 20 team playoff couldn't work. When I meant by fantasy thread I meant in terms of, BCS is sticking to the BCS and thats that. An 8 team playoff is a fantasy at this point. No playoff no way no how.

While less amount of teams is always a more realistic idea a 20 (or 16) game playoff could very much be a bigger success financially and a fairer way to determine the champion.

20 is too many because I don't see there being 20 deserving teams. The small conferences with no competition don't deserve to all have a representative. The NFL only has 12 teams so why should college have more? College has a lot more teams but there is also a much wider gap in talent differential.

The most fair way to me with a little bit of fantasy mixed in would be this:

1. 8 team playoff
2. Big East loses it's power conference status so the now 5 power conference winners get in.
3. No conference can have more then two teams so the three at large bids come from three different conferences. This year those three would be Alabama, Stanford, and Houston.

 

[Megatron]

I never said they didn't. You asked why the NCAA Basketball tournament had 68 teams, I answered.



I agree that an NCAA Football playoff would make a shit ton of money. I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise.

A 20 team playoff would make crazy money. We both agree. Moving on.

Chances are? So you are willing to acknowledge that a conference with two divisions has a tie, that one could be left out, while the other goes? That hardly seems fair.

Chances are the two teams tied would be included anyways. And there wouldn't be two seperate divisions. It'd just be 12 team conferences. And if there's a tie and you NEED to determine a winner there's a variety of tiebreakers you could use (head to head; if both teams are undefeated and didn't play you could use opponents win %). Or, hell, just make them 'co-champs' (although I hate it) since if they're from a BCS conference they'll both be included in.

Take last years Big 10, for example. Just because UW got the Rose Bowl bid, you think OSU and MSU wouldn't have been included? Of course they would've. While having a conference title attatched to your name is nice, everyone's about the national championship.

I don't think you would get much support for that because of college exam schedules, but I don't have any complaints about starting in December rather than January, other than you just destroyed what TV ratings those December bowl games would otherwise have gotten.

A meaningful playoff game would outdraw a bowl game every single day, outside from possibly the 1/16 and 2/15 games (which still could be very interesting depending on the matchups).

And if you wanna include Bowl games for teams that didn't qualify, be my guest. I believe I said earlier that if the 8-4 and 7-5 teams want one more game and the bowl reps want to have one, go for it. Just have it during the weekdays during college break.

Exams.

NCAA Basketball players have to worry about their studies as well. And if they have to worry about their exams then that player can sit out the game. While its an ultimatum, sure, it's not like teams can't live without 1 player.

You compared a college playoff to the NCAA tournament...if you didn't want that, you shouldn't have brought March Madness up.

A 16 or 20 team playoff would be comparable to the NCAA tournament due to the fact that the percentage of teams involved would be very close (as I again stated earlier). A 64 team playoff is too much since it includes over 1/2 Division 1 football teams. There's a lot more basketball then football programs which is why you can have more teams. The raw numbers shouldn't be equal but the percentages very much can be.

Again, its really just a matter of how much time it would take plus how many teams would realistically have a chance to actually win it...I think 8 is feasible, you think 20 is...it's a matter of opinion.

By my counts, 5 weeks of games and another week of rest, resulting in it ending in the same time as the BCS championship is played. (and one round would only be the 4 playin games).

And honestly there's a good amount of teams that, if they won the title, I wouldn't be shocked. These BCS schools are very close in the talent level, especially the top teams in each conference. You could have up to 11 or 12 winners that many wouldn't be surprised at.

And I know it's only a matter of opinion, but I'm bored and the SS needs a little bit of discussion to be had.

EDIT:

20 is too many because I don't see there being 20 deserving teams. The small conferences with no competition don't deserve to all have a representative.

That's an attitude that I think is wrong with NCAA football. Just because they play in a small conference they don't deserve a shot? If you include them and they are given the low seeds and lose in the play in round or round of 16, so what? At least we know they aren't the best. Plus, having upsets could be the best part of the tournament. Why do people watch the first 2 days of the tournament? For the 4/13 and 5/12 upsets that are gonna happen. Do they happen often? No, but that's the beauty of a playoff.

The NFL only has 12 teams so why should college have more? College has a lot more teams but there is also a much wider gap in talent differential.

You answered your question yourself. The NFL includes 37.5% of their teams. My playoff would include only 1/6th of all Division 1 teams.

And the more talent gap is pretty bogus as well. Boise isn't churning out top 10 recruiting classes but they've lost all but 3 games in the past 4 years. Texas has had much more highly regarded talents but the past two years have been nothing more then average in the Big 12. It's not about the talent you have, it's how much you get out of it and how you develop it. Theres a handful of teams I can name off the top of my head that have some talented players: LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, USC, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Boise, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Houston.

Thats 20 right there, and if you include the conference champions (who are deemed the best of their level of play) you have more then a big enough pool to choose from. Finding 20 talented teams shouldn't be a problem. Sure, you may have some early round blowouts, but tell me what playoff doesn't have a few stinkers here and there?

The most fair way to me with a little bit of fantasy mixed in would be this:

1. 8 team playoff
2. Big East loses it's power conference status so the now 5 power conference winners get in.
3. No conference can have more then two teams so the three at large bids come from three different conferences. This year those three would be Alabama, Stanford, and Houston.

I think the power conference label should just be rid of. The Big East is indeed awful, but aside from VT and Clemson, what really does the ACC have to brag about? 8-4 Florida State? The Mountain West has just as many top teams with Boise and TCU. Throw out the power conference label because most of the time each conference has 3-4 teams capable of beating another conferences top 3-4 teams.

And I just don't think 3 at large is enough. While it could work, sure, so could the NBA playoffs if it only included 1 other wild card team with the 3 division winners. Adding other 10 win teams like Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Boise, Michigan, Arkansas, wouldn't gripe with too many people, and would get large fanbases interested which = $$$$.

 

[Big Sexy]

That's an attitude that I think is wrong with NCAA football. Just because they play in a small conference they don't deserve a shot? If you include them and they are given the low seeds and lose in the play in round or round of 16, so what? At least we know they aren't the best. Plus, having upsets could be the best part of the tournament. Why do people watch the first 2 days of the tournament? For the 4/13 and 5/12 upsets that are gonna happen. Do they happen often? No, but that's the beauty of a playoff.

I want to see the best of the best play in a college football playoff. I'm sorry but no way does a Sun Belt or MAC team have a chance at winning this thing. The talent differential isn't as great in college basketball, especially nowadays with most of the best players leaving after one year. Rarely would there be an upset and if there was it would basically always be a one game thing.

And the more talent gap is pretty bogus as well. Boise isn't churning out top 10 recruiting classes but they've lost all but 3 games in the past 4 years. Texas has had much more highly regarded talents but the past two years have been nothing more then average in the Big 12. It's not about the talent you have, it's how much you get out of it and how you develop it. Theres a handful of teams I can name off the top of my head that have some talented players: LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, USC, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Boise, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Houston.

Boise is the exception, not the rule. It also helps that they play a shit schedule every year. It's nice that they have beaten Oregon and Georgia the last few years but you stick them in a conference like the Big 10 or Pac 12 where they are playing multiple tough games a year and I guarantee they don't do as well. They'd still be very good but not nearly what they are now. For the most part, however, these small conference teams are pretty awful.

Thats 20 right there, and if you include the conference champions (who are deemed the best of their level of play) you have more then a big enough pool to choose from. Finding 20 talented teams shouldn't be a problem. Sure, you may have some early round blowouts, but tell me what playoff doesn't have a few stinkers here and there?

A talented team and a deserving team are two completely different things. I'm the biggest Michigan fan in the world but they are going to finish third in their conference and even though they are 10-2 I don't think they should be among the elite playing for a National Title. I want to see only the elite competing and the teams that have earned their spot without any doubt.

I think the power conference label should just be rid of. The Big East is indeed awful, but aside from VT and Clemson, what really does the ACC have to brag about? 8-4 Florida State? The Mountain West has just as many top teams with Boise and TCU. Throw out the power conference label because most of the time each conference has 3-4 teams capable of beating another conferences top 3-4 teams.

The ACC has been down lately but just a few years ago who would have thought Miami and FSU would go down ad much as they have? That's a conference that at least has hope for a future turnaround. I don't see that in the Big East. Even as average as the ACC is this year, they're are without doubt a better overall conference in terms of depth vs the MWC. Put San Diego State, Wyoming, and Air Force in the ACC and I doubt they have the same number of wins.

If you get rid of the power conference label then being in a tough conference becomes a huge negative rather then a positive. Basically you play a tough schedule and your team gets beat up through a grueling conference season yet you don't get any more benefit then a team winning a shit conference.

And I just don't think 3 at large is enough. While it could work, sure, so could the NBA playoffs if it only included 1 other wild card team with the 3 division winners. Adding other 10 win teams like Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Boise, Michigan, Arkansas, wouldn't gripe with too many people, and would get large fanbases interested which = $$$$.

Money is going to be made regardless. Even with an 8 team playoff you would still have all the other bowl games with the teams who didn't qualify for the playoff.

 

[Megatron]

I want to see the best of the best play in a college football playoff. I'm sorry but no way does a Sun Belt or MAC team have a chance at winning this thing. The talent differential isn't as great in college basketball, especially nowadays with most of the best players leaving after one year. Rarely would there be an upset and if there was it would basically always be a one game thing.

The thing is, if these teams suck, they'll lose in the play in round or round of 16 and that's that. It's not like they'll dramatically alter the tournament. And if they win, you have a nice story. Plus, the teams will get an extra home game which brings in some nice cash.

And there's been some decent MAC/CUSA teams. Miami Ohio when they had Roethlisberger and CMU when they had Lefevour would give some teams battles for a little bit. Would they ever win? Probably not. But wouldn't it be nice to see them get a shot? If they get slaughtered by 30 to Alabama, so be it. If not, then we can say any team can win any given day.

Boise is the exception, not the rule. It also helps that they play a shit schedule every year. It's nice that they have beaten Oregon and Georgia the last few years but you stick them in a conference like the Big 10 or Pac 12 where they are playing multiple tough games a year and I guarantee they don't do as well. They'd still be very good but not nearly what they are now. For the most part, however, these small conference teams are pretty awful.

This is opening a much different can of worms but if Boise was included in a BCS conference like the Pac 12 and had all the revenue that those schools get then I don't think it'd take them long to get off the ground. Sure, it may take a year or two for them to acclimate with their opponents, but that's gonna happen whenever you change conferences. Just ask Nebraska, Florida State, and Miami.

And really, aside from Stanford, Oregon, and USC, what is a good team in the Pac 12. 6-6 UCLA and Arizona State? 7-5 Washington and Cal? Plus, they've had Oregons number the past few years and would matchup very tightly with USC and Stanford. And they wouldn't need to go out and schedule a tough OOC, so they'd probably add 3 "close to guarantee" wins each year.

They'd definitely have a shot at 10-2 or 11-1 this year. The Pac 12 has 3 good teams and rest are shit. And the Mountain West has 5 teams at least 7-5 or better as well. While the quality of teams is better, slightly, in the Pac 12, you're not accounting in the money that would be given to help them recruit and get the higher thought of talent.

A talented team and a deserving team are two completely different things. I'm the biggest Michigan fan in the world but they are going to finish third in their conference and even though they are 10-2 I don't think they should be among the elite playing for a National Title. I want to see only the elite competing and the teams that have earned their spot without any doubt.

Teams that win 10 of 12 games, regardless of opponent, have to be at least somewhat deserving.

And if we're talking elite teams, why is the ACC getting bids again? Last time they had a team in the national title hunt was how long ago?

And again, I don't think you'll see anyone complaining if a 10-2 Kansas State is included that only lost to OU and OSU (with one coming down to the last play). There's more then enough deserving teams to have a playoff. Winning 83% of your games is a damn good feat and should be rewarded for it.

The ACC has been down lately but just a few years ago who would have thought Miami and FSU would go down ad much as they have? That's a conference that at least has hope for a future turnaround. I don't see that in the Big East. Even as average as the ACC is this year, they're are without doubt a better overall conference in terms of depth vs the MWC. Put San Diego State, Wyoming, and Air Force in the ACC and I doubt they have the same number of wins.

With the money they get in they should be getting more. They have more money which allows them to recruit farther across the country and get better athletes.

And you could say the same thing that a GT or Virginia may have less wins in the MWC due to traveling across country a few times a year playing teams that can play some good football.

If you get rid of the power conference label then being in a tough conference becomes a huge negative rather then a positive. Basically you play a tough schedule and your team gets beat up through a grueling conference season yet you don't get any more benefit then a team winning a shit conference.

Not really. Those teams in the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, etc. are still getting the AQ bids because they'll more often then not have teams with higher W-L and become more deserving. Just because you get rid of power conference doesnt mean all of a sudden the Sun Belts getting 3 bids. The same teams, more or less, would be included in the playoff.

Money is going to be made regardless. Even with an 8 team playoff you would still have all the other bowl games with the teams who didn't qualify for the playoff.

Yes, but with 20 teams you get 12 more meaningful games then you do with 8. Plus teams aren't having to guarantee for paying for tickets (like UConn did last year in the Fiesta Bowl which caused them to lose a great deal of money). The playoff teams would split all the profits they get with the rest of their conference. So if 3 SEC teams get in they'll get 3/20ths of the profit to distribute to their other conference members. Say the playoffs really net $1 billion through all the games total (which is simply a guesstimate) the SEC would get 150 million to spread out through 12 schools, which gives it at 12.5 million per team. A pretty solid investment, I would say.

 

[Big Sexy]

The thing is, if these teams suck, they'll lose in the play in round or round of 16 and that's that. It's not like they'll dramatically alter the tournament. And if they win, you have a nice story. Plus, the teams will get an extra home game which brings in some nice cash.

And there's been some decent MAC/CUSA teams. Miami Ohio when they had Roethlisberger and CMU when they had Lefevour would give some teams battles for a little bit. Would they ever win? Probably not. But wouldn't it be nice to see them get a shot? If they get slaughtered by 30 to Alabama, so be it. If not, then we can say any team can win any given day.

My line of thinking is, if you don't have a legitimate shot at competing for and winning a National Title then you don't belong in a playoff competing for a National Title. Those games and upsets from your play in round and round of 16 could still happen in other bowl games outside of the playoff.

This is opening a much different can of worms but if Boise was included in a BCS conference like the Pac 12 and had all the revenue that those schools get then I don't think it'd take them long to get off the ground. Sure, it may take a year or two for them to acclimate with their opponents, but that's gonna happen whenever you change conferences. Just ask Nebraska, Florida State, and Miami.

Again though, Boise is the exception not the rule and while they would have more revenue they'd also have more competition not just on the field but also in recruiting.

And really, aside from Stanford, Oregon, and USC, what is a good team in the Pac 12. 6-6 UCLA and Arizona State? 7-5 Washington and Cal? Plus, they've had Oregons number the past few years and would matchup very tightly with USC and Stanford. And they wouldn't need to go out and schedule a tough OOC, so they'd probably add 3 "close to guarantee" wins each year.

They'd definitely have a shot at 10-2 or 11-1 this year. The Pac 12 has 3 good teams and rest are shit. And the Mountain West has 5 teams at least 7-5 or better as well. While the quality of teams is better, slightly, in the Pac 12, you're not accounting in the money that would be given to help them recruit and get the higher thought of talent.

The reason teams like UCLA, Arizona State, Washington, etc only have 6-7 wins is because they are all beating each other in conference play. Those teams aren't great like the elite in the conference but they aren't push overs either. Just look at 12-0 Houston. Arguably their most hard fought game this year was at home against a 6-6 Pac 12 team in UCLA. If Boise is in a conference where they aren't getting a bunch of gimmes and actually have to battle most weeks then they aren't going to be as successful. They would still be good but if you give Boise, let's say, Cal's schedule this year. I definitely see them with 2-3 losses.

Teams that win 10 of 12 games, regardless of opponent, have to be at least somewhat deserving.

And if we're talking elite teams, why is the ACC getting bids again? Last time they had a team in the national title hunt was how long ago?

And again, I don't think you'll see anyone complaining if a 10-2 Kansas State is included that only lost to OU and OSU (with one coming down to the last play). There's more then enough deserving teams to have a playoff. Winning 83% of your games is a damn good feat and should be rewarded for it.

Winning 10 games is great but why should Arkansas get to compete for the National Title when they already went 0-2 against elite title contenders? Same with K State who went 0-2 against other potential title contenders. Outside of the Big East the ACC is the weakest of the power conferences but they are still strong enough to have their conference winner deserve a shot in an 8 team tournament.

With the money they get in they should be getting more. They have more money which allows them to recruit farther across the country and get better athletes.

And you could say the same thing that a GT or Virginia may have less wins in the MWC due to traveling across country a few times a year playing teams that can play some good football.

If you put Boise in the ACC they get more money but they also have a lot more competition. You put GT in the MWC they have less money but so does everyone else in the conference.

Not really. Those teams in the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, etc. are still getting the AQ bids because they'll more often then not have teams with higher W-L and become more deserving. Just because you get rid of power conference doesnt mean all of a sudden the Sun Belts getting 3 bids. The same teams, more or less, would be included in the playoff.

In your system, yes but it hurts tough conference teams in my system. In my system if there were no power conferences then the winner of Wisconsin/MSU would get left out of the playoff in favor of Boise State.

Yes, but with 20 teams you get 12 more meaningful games then you do with 8. Plus teams aren't having to guarantee for paying for tickets (like UConn did last year in the Fiesta Bowl which caused them to lose a great deal of money). The playoff teams would split all the profits they get with the rest of their conference. So if 3 SEC teams get in they'll get 3/20ths of the profit to distribute to their other conference members. Say the playoffs really net $1 billion through all the games total (which is simply a guesstimate) the SEC would get 150 million to spread out through 12 schools, which gives it at 12.5 million per team. A pretty solid investment, I would say.

The UConn thing only happened because of the stupid terms that the BCS has requiring the teams to buy a certain number of tickets. The same thing happened to Va Tech. With the BCS gone and a playoff in order, that wouldn't happen.

The NCAA could have as many consolation bowl games as they wanted outside of the playoffs that would generate revenue.

 

[Davi323]

Can I just say that while we are bickering about how a playoff should be structured, that its a much more rational argument than IF a playoff is needed? Thank goodness most people are bright enough to see that the current BCS system sucks. We all agree that there is a problem, and that it's the same problem. It's good to know that we are just arguing about the solution, not if the problem exists...

 

[Megatron]

My line of thinking is, if you don't have a legitimate shot at competing for and winning a National Title then you don't belong in a playoff competing for a National Title. Those games and upsets from your play in round and round of 16 could still happen in other bowl games outside of the playoff.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If you can win your conference, be it the SEC, Mountain West, CUSA, or Sun Belt, you at least are deserving of a shot to the dance. If they get their ass kicked, so be it.

And don't be foolish. You aren't seeing Arkansas State play Alabama in a normal bowl because the bowl executives won't want ASU invited. In a playoff you at least get the matchup because of the AQ. This will be the only chance for the best team in a 'mid major' to face a top major team, aside from early regular season matchups that rarely happen.

Again though, Boise is the exception not the rule and while they would have more revenue they'd also have more competition not just on the field but also in recruiting.

It's not like Peterson hasn't been able to develop talent these past 5 years. Give them better athletes and he'll still be able to develop them.

The reason teams like UCLA, Arizona State, Washington, etc only have 6-7 wins is because they are all beating each other in conference play. Those teams aren't great like the elite in the conference but they aren't push overs either.

They're not much better then your San Diego State or Wyoming. They play one decent OOC team and record most of their wins against cupcakes or bad competition. Boise and TCU would be heavy favorites against any of those teams and are more talented then them.

Just look at 12-0 Houston. Arguably their most hard fought game this year was at home against a 6-6 Pac 12 team in UCLA. If Boise is in a conference where they aren't getting a bunch of gimmes and actually have to battle most weeks then they aren't going to be as successful. They would still be good but if you give Boise, let's say, Cal's schedule this year. I definitely see them with 2-3 losses.

Cal had all of 3 good teams this year. USC, Stanford, and Oregon. Like I said, they've had Oregons number and can match up with Stanford and USC. Its not like they're playing those caliber teams each and every week. 3 weeks out of 12 games a season. They already had 2 with Georgia and TCU. You're either giving the Pac 12 too much credit or Boise not enough.

Winning 10 games is great but why should Arkansas get to compete for the National Title when they already went 0-2 against elite title contenders? Same with K State who went 0-2 against other potential title contenders. Outside of the Big East the ACC is the weakest of the power conferences but they are still strong enough to have their conference winner deserve a shot in an 8 team tournament.

Because teams get better as the season goes on and two losses should automatically knock you out. Would they be locks to make it in? no, but they would be possible contenders (and may have to participate in play in games anyways since there is considerable doubt about them).

If you put Boise in the ACC they get more money but they also have a lot more competition. You put GT in the MWC they have less money but so does everyone else in the conference.

Not a whole lot more. VT and Clemson were the only good teams, and Clemson's fallen off lately and VT hasn't beaten anyone. These power conferences aren't as hot as you make them out to be. They have 2-3 good teams, 2-3 teams slightly above .500, and the rest mainly .500 or below. Boise's been facing a schedule similar to that since Peterson has taken over and they've won 90% of the time.

In your system, yes but it hurts tough conference teams in my system. In my system if there were no power conferences then the winner of Wisconsin/MSU would get left out of the playoff in favor of Boise State.

Technically no they wouldn't since Boise didn't win their conference. And its not like Boise is a poor team. I'd actually put them as favorites over MSU and Wisconsin on a neutral field, since neither of those teams is the same away from home as they are at home.

The UConn thing only happened because of the stupid terms that the BCS has requiring the teams to buy a certain number of tickets. The same thing happened to Va Tech. With the BCS gone and a playoff in order, that wouldn't happen.

The NCAA could have as many consolation bowl games as they wanted outside of the playoffs that would generate revenue.

But you're still getting the same problem with those consolation games since teams would have to buy tickets to cover their share. At least with playoff games people wouldn't need to be forced to come.

 

[Big Sexy]

And don't be foolish. You aren't seeing Arkansas State play Alabama in a normal bowl because the bowl executives won't want ASU invited. In a playoff you at least get the matchup because of the AQ. This will be the only chance for the best team in a 'mid major' to face a top major team, aside from early regular season matchups that rarely happen.

TCU/Wisconsin, Boise/Oklahoma, Houston/Whoever they play this year. Those were/are all top small conference teams against major competitors. No one wants to see Arkansas State vs Alabama because 99/100 times it would be a slaughter. It doesn't always work out but postseason games are meant to be competitive.

It's not like Peterson hasn't been able to develop talent these past 5 years. Give them better athletes and he'll still be able to develop them.

And give him greater competition and he'll need every single on of those better athletes to compete consistently week after week and year after year.

They're not much better then your San Diego State or Wyoming. They play one decent OOC team and record most of their wins against cupcakes or bad competition. Boise and TCU would be heavy favorites against any of those teams and are more talented then them.

They'd also be slight underdogs against Oregon, Stanford, and USC. At least in two of those three.

Cal had all of 3 good teams this year. USC, Stanford, and Oregon. Like I said, they've had Oregons number and can match up with Stanford and USC. Its not like they're playing those caliber teams each and every week. 3 weeks out of 12 games a season. They already had 2 with Georgia and TCU. You're either giving the Pac 12 too much credit or Boise not enough.

I'll take USC, Stanford, and Oregon all over Georgia and TCU this year. I'm not saying Boise would go 0-3 in those games but at the very least they lose 1 and 2 is also a possibility. Plus I could see them getting upset by one of the solid teams in UCLA, ASU, Utah, and Washington. There's the 2 and maybe 3 losses.

Because teams get better as the season goes on and two losses should automatically knock you out. Would they be locks to make it in? no, but they would be possible contenders (and may have to participate in play in games anyways since there is considerable doubt about them).

Two losses doesn't always knock you out but in a year like this with so many one loss teams it should unless you are like MSU/Wisconsin and winning your conference with it.

Not a whole lot more. VT and Clemson were the only good teams, and Clemson's fallen off lately and VT hasn't beaten anyone. These power conferences aren't as hot as you make them out to be. They have 2-3 good teams, 2-3 teams slightly above .500, and the rest mainly .500 or below. Boise's been facing a schedule similar to that since Peterson has taken over and they've won 90% of the time.

Boise is facing similar records but not as strong of teams. The ACC has 3/12 under .500 vs the MWC who has 3/8. The ACC has 5 teams with at least 8 wins vs 2 for the MWC. The ACC has more strength and depth after Va Tech and Clemson then the MWC does after TCU and Boise.

And it's not like Air Force, Wyoming, and SD State are playing overly tough non conference schedules. Wyoming got demolished by an average WAC team in Utah State and beat a below average MAC team by just 1 point. The only solid team Air Force played was Notre Dame and they got blown out. SD State's most impressive non conference win was over a last place PAC 12 team in WSU.

Technically no they wouldn't since Boise didn't win their conference. And its not like Boise is a poor team. I'd actually put them as favorites over MSU and Wisconsin on a neutral field, since neither of those teams is the same away from home as they are at home.

In my system if there were no power conferences then Boise would have been an at large team in the 8 even though they didn't win their conference. If there's no power conferences then the rules about non power conferences only having the conference winner eligible, don't exist. No way does a one loss MWC team deserve a spot over a two loss Big 10 team.

But you're still getting the same problem with those consolation games since teams would have to buy tickets to cover their share. At least with playoff games people wouldn't need to be forced to come.

I'm not saying to have these consolation games run like the current bowl system is run. I've never understood teams having to cover their shares and that's something I'd get rid of.

 

[Shocky]

It really wouldn't be hard to do it if College Football really wanted to do it.

It my hypothetical world, this is what I would do. All conferences play either a Conference Championship game, or the smaller conferences play a Championship game amongst each other.

The Mountain West and Conference USA are talking "football only" merger. This means that (after the Big East raids both conferences) both conferences will either be 9 or 10 teams. They play a round robin schedule, and the winners of each conference plays each other for a bid into the playoff. I would say so long to the WAC, and tell the Sun Belt and MAC to work out a similar deal, and they're in.

Then you have the big 6 conferences. The Big East is hell bent on getting 12 teams for a football championship game in NYC. The ACC, SEC, PAC 12, B1G, already have on established. Pretty much, force the Big XII-2-1-1+2 into a title game. The Big 12 avoids this because Texas and Oklahoma don't want another bump in the road on the way to a National Title.

So in this scenario, you essentially have a 16 team playoff. The conference championship games count as a defacto first round. The 2nd round you seed based on rankings. So MAC/Sun Belt winner gets fed to an SEC team. You play that round at the home field of the highest rated team.

The Final Four would have two sites bidding like the March Madness Regional Finals. Then of course play the National Championship. There you have it. A 16 team playoff, and only adding 2 extra games at the end of the season.

Of course this won't happen. The Big 10 and Pac-12 would honestly rather play in the Rose Bowl against one another. The Big 12 and the SEC are content on beating each other up, er The SEC spanking the Big 12, in title games. The ACC is content skating by not being recognized for the over rated shit football conference they are. And the Big East continues to get mocked even though they've been a good football conference overall since the last raids.

 

[TSG]

Here is the way I see it: I love the proposed playoff format by Megatron, but also agree on the point that the AQ school should be protected by Big Sexy. Other than that, everything I agree with is on Megatron's end. The length can work (as he backed up with fact), money can still be big, other bowls can still run independently for non-playoff teams, and it in general is a good idea.

NOTE: This will sound very complicated as I explain it in words, but once I lay it out after you already have an idea in your head how it works, it will seem pretty simple.

Here is how I would have it run. Have the conference championship game (if your conference calls for one) the same week it is now. Have playoff selection for the teams that Sunday. I don't care if a selection committee, rankings system, or whatever determines at large bids and seeding heading into the playoff. But seeding will be drastically important, why will be clear here soon. Now, to protect the AQ conferences and give them the reward Big Sexy and others would certainly call for, none of those conference champs have to play in a play in-game. Here's the catch: four out of the five non AQ champions will have to play in a play in game. Since I didn't view it as fair if one play in-game pitted to conference champions (meaning one had no-chance of making it to the final 16 cut), so I determined that the highest ranked non-AQ conference champion gets a bye from the play-in game. This prevents people complaining that a team like Boise State in previous years who are clearly elite may be eliminated in the playoff game, because the top non-AQ champ will be in the final 16 already.

Next, you take the four-lowest ranked at-large teams and pit them against the four lowest ranked Non-AQ conference champions in the play in-games. This way, the top 5 at-large bids (AKA the ones Big Sexy would probably view as the elite, that have proved they deserve to be in the playoff if it were 8 teams like he was proposing) are automatically locked in, and the AQ conference champs are locked in, so the AQ conferences are protected, and the top ranked Non AQ champ, for example the Boise State of the year. As the at-large teams will probably be the favorites if they're from an AQ conference, and the Non AQ champs already aren't guaranteed a spot in the final 16, this doesn't give them the power conferences advantage. Home field advantage could go to conference champs or the highest ranked team in the regular season, either way.

After the play-in games, the top 16 have been decided. If any bowls have decided they want to continue to run independently, they can now hand out invitations. The teams are seeded 1-16, and the playoff then ensues until the final two are decided. There would then be a bye week, and the nation championship. This year, going by dates, it would end on Saturday, January 16th (or Monday, January 18th if you want to play it on a Monday like they do now), which is only one week later than it ends now. I would give the higher seeded team the home-field advantage at least in the first two rounds. After that, if you want to use the old BCS bowl sites (and even bowls), bid it out like the Final Four, or whatever. That's just semantics at this point. Next I will lay it out for you, using the current season as an example.

NOTE: I took the conference champions and then filled the at-large bids with all the remaining 1 and 2-loss teams, determining the top non AQ conference champion and how the rest were ranked 8-11 by how I see things playing out after today's games in the BCS standings, and not necessarily how thing may play out. I randomly picked winners of the play-in games to move things along. I ranked the final 16 by how I felt the teams should be ranked, not necessarily how someone else would or how'll they'll be ranked in the final BCS standings.

20 team playoff

11 conference championships (listed in order of seeding)

- LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin, Clemson, West Virginia, TCU, S. Miss, Ark. State, N. Illinois, La. Tech

9 at-large bids (listed in order of seeding)

- Alabama, Stanford, Boise State, Virginia Tech, Michigan, Kansas State, Houston, South Carolina, Arkansas

Format:

Week One (Play in Games, winners is bold): Dec 10th

- Non AQ Conference Champion #2 (C-USA) vs At large #9 (S. Miss vs. Arkansas)

- Non AQ Conf. Champ #3 (Sun-Belt) vs. At large #8 (Arkansas State vs South Carolina)

- Non AQ Conf. Champ #4 (MAC) vs. At-large #7 (Northern Illinois vs. Houston)

- Non AQ Conf. Champ #5 (WAC) vs. At large #6 (Louisiana State vs. Kansas State)

Week Two (Round 1) : Dec 17th

Teams remaining (in order of seeding, 1-16)

- LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Stanford, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, TCU, Boise, Michigan, Kansas State, Clemson, South Carolina, Houston, WVU, Southern Miss

Week Three (Round 2): Dec 23/24/26th

Teams remaining (if all higher seeds win)

- LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Stanford, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, TCU

Week Four (Final 4): Dec 31st

Teams remaining (if all higher seeds win)

- LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Stanford

National Championship: January 14th

- LSU vs. Oklahoma State

And there is my plan. It could be ranked way differently in real life, there may be different match-ups. It's just how I laid it out to make things move along. I feel it protects the AQ conferences which makes sense, keeps conference championships which I also felt would be good, and keeps the great idea of a 20 team playoff which I fully support and fits the right number of teams there should be, and can also keep bowls running if they want. So, you can debate and pick that apart, more than likely it has a number of flaws I missed. But there you go. Take it as you will.