Simple Solution to the Playoff Controversy

by fugimaster24 on Jul 25, 2008 6:31 AM EDT

The source of reluctance to change the current college football postseason system is that the major conferences want to keep the bowl system intact. What if they could have their bowls, and STILL have a playoff as well? Its this simple.

Split the BCS Conferences into Regions-There are currently 3 conferences that hold conference title games; the Big 12, ACC, and SEC. There are also three who do not; the Big 10, Pac-10, and Big East. Split the conferences on those lines. At the conclusion of the regular season and conference title games, the final BCS rankings are released as they normally are. However, instead of using those standings to directly determine who plays for the National Championship, they're instead used to determine who plays in two regional championship games. The highest two ranked teams from the ACC, Big 12, and SEC play each other, and the highest two ranked teams in the Big 10, Big East, and Pac-10 play each other. The winners of those two games play for the national championship. This would solve a couple of problems:

#1. Teams forced to play in a confrence title game are no longer at a disadvantage. Under this system, they would not have to compete against teams that do not have to play a confrence title game for a spot in the BCS title game.

#2 Teams that don't earn they're way into a regional title game have no logical arguement to be in the BCS title game. If they aren't even one of the best 2 teams in their region, then they can't be one of the best 2 teams in the country. The losers of the regional title games would also not have a reasonable arguement for themselves either, seeing as they lost their title game. The arguements for who is #1 and #2 become arguements for who is #3 and #4.

After the regional title games, the bowl season is carried out as it always has been. Conference champs not in the title game receive bids to the BCS bowls, and then at-large teams are invited, etc. These BCS games lose none of their luster because the losers of the regional title games would have been there anyway. Everything, with the exception of two games, stays exactly the same.

This also makes an incredible amount of sense for the conferences financially as well. Since nothing in the grand structure of the college football season changes, the money still trickles to where it would have gone anyway. However, in addition to this, the 3 conferences in each region could split the money from a regional title game 3 ways. After a TV deal, sponsorship, and ticket sales, this could add up to quite a bit of money.

So, no one loses. The fans get their playoff. The conferences get their bowls and money. All the system needs is a small tweek to make everyone happy.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Shut out non-BCS teams?

There’s some thinking Jim Delany can get behind. 1984 BYU pours a beer out for you, sir.

by gumbercules on Jul 25, 2008 10:05 AM EDT 0 recs

Technically

1984 BYU drinks the beer while nobodys looking.

For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994

by jesse. on Jul 25, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

touché

by gumbercules on Jul 25, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up 0 recs

Last years "contoversy"

To me the funny thing is that nobody really deserved to play for a national title last season. Ironically, the team crying the most, Georgia, had one of the weakest arguments for inclusion in the BCS title game.

I saw a part of Mark Richt’s press conference yesterday, and he was complaining it’s hard focus on a goal that you can’t control, i.e. a National Championship. Why not focus on a goal you can, like an undefeated season?

My point is, I don’t really see a need to overhaul a system that did a good enough job picking two teams to play for a title out a group of teams that really didn’t deserve to play for a title.

For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994

by jesse. on Jul 25, 2008 11:53 AM EDT 0 recs

They were the one..

Georgia was the one team that didn’t back up the rankings. They should have been in it over OSU

by MrBrianPSU on Jul 25, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Are you serious?

They lost two games, and did not even with their division in the SEC. They shouldn’t have been in the BCS championship game over Hawai’i, let alone Ohio State.

For the Glory; National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994

by jesse. on Jul 25, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

This will solve nothing...

the BCS is critized for not getting the polls right and not have a true championship game how are you going to pick two teams between Texas/Oklahome, Va tech/FSU/Clemson, and the winner of the SEC, and then two teams between USC, WVU/Rutgers, and the Big Eleven, you will hear the same complaining. it’s a noble effort put forth but this would never work for the same reason the BCS isn’t working that well now

by PSUfanSTUCKinSECland on Jul 25, 2008 11:56 AM EDT 0 recs

creative, but flawed

Interesting idea of semi-final games before the bowls, but could setup a very anti-climactic NC game. What if this year Georgia and Oklahoma go through their seasons and conference championships undefeated, and the champs of the Big Ten, East, and Pac-10 all have 2 or more losses. Your system would have the 2 best teams playing in a semi-final, not unlike the NFL in the late 80’s/early 90’s when the NFC championship was great, but the Superbowl was a foregone conclusion.

The purpose of the BCS is to pit #1 against #2. When there’s controversy over who those 2 are, there’s no way to resolve it. A playoff seems “fair” but does not guarantee a 1 vs 2 title game.

by pjk on Jul 25, 2008 1:04 PM EDT 0 recs

I'll meet you halfway

I think we can get this done without changing too much. Just use whatever BCS formula you want, and pick the top 4 / 8 / 16 teams for the playoff. Allocate the non-qualifiers to the other bowls…it’s not like people aren’t going to watch two 8-4 teams play in the Tangerine Unisys FootJoy Bowl. Hell, you could even find a way to pair up the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions in the Rose Bowl if you really wanted.

by Run Up The Score on Jul 25, 2008 2:49 PM EDT 0 recs