Now Can We Please Have A Playoff?

by BSD on Dec 3, 2007 10:55 AM EST in Football Comment 53 comments

The wait is finally over. We finally know who will be matched up in the various Bowl Championship Series games. They even had a selection show and everything. After weeks of speculation the crowning moment of the college football season arrived and we were informed the all-powerful all-important BCS system will give us epic matchups like...Georgia and Hawaii? Southern Cal and Illinois? Oklahoma and West Virginia? Well at least Missouri and Virginia Tech looks like a good matchup. Wait...what? The Tigers didn't get in? Kansas will play the Hokies instead? Didn't Missouri beat them? And didn't they beat Illinois too? Weren't the Tigers ranked #1 in the country last week?


Chase Daniel deserved better than the Cotton Bowl.

It's time to admit the BCS model is broken. Sure they get the championship game right three out of every four years, but too often there is doubt whether the right teams are matched up. Does Ohio State really deserve to be there? They didn't beat anyone ranked in the top 20. In that sense they're no more deserving than Hawaii, Arizona State, or Kansas.

But what bugs me more is the lesser BCS bowls. We're lead to believe making it to a BCS bowl is a crowning achievement for your team. But the fans are treated to matchups of teams not playing on the same levels. Georgia and USC are playing fantastic football right now. It seems like they deserve better opponents than Hawaii and Illinois. And we fans deserve better too.

It's time to institute a playoff system. Take the top 8 or 16 teams. I don't care, take the top four. Give me something better than the current system that gives me games I'll only watch if they don't conflict with Simpsons reruns. Make a game like Georgia and Hawaii some meaning.

I'm tired of all the talk about a playoff making the regular season meaningless. That's a fabricated lie. A playoff would do no such thing. In fact, a playoff would generate more excitement for the game throughout the country. The reason is that more teams would be involved in the national title hunt later into the season. Let me explain.

Look at the Oklahoma Sooners. Their hopes for a national championship took a major hit when they lost to Colorado. Whatever hopes they had left were destroyed when they lost to Texas Tech. But if we had a playoff system that gave the current BCS conference champions an automatic bid their hopes would still be alive.

If an eight team playoff were in place, the excitement this weekend wouldn't have been limited to Missouri, Columbus, Morgantown, Athens, and Baton Rouge. It would have included Norman, Knoxville, Boston, Blacksburg, and Pasedena. Beyond a playoff would have extended excitement further into the season in places like Ann Arbor, Champaign, Happy Valley, Austin, Gainesville, Madison, and Tempe as these schools would have still had a chance of qualifying for a tournament late in the season. Someone explain to me how spreading the excitement and making it last longer into the season is bad for the game?


They could be dreaming about more than fresh fruit in Blacksburg

The argument against taking the kids out of school doesn't wash either. They manage to do it in Div-IAA, Div II, and Div III and we don't hear about those poor kids flunking out of school. You could wait until after finals and have an eight team tournament over the three week winter break. I fail to see how any playoff system would take the kids out of class any more than the NCAA basketball tournament which features two weeks of games played on Thursday and Friday afternoons not to mention the classes lost to traveling for week night regular season games.

It's time for the university presidents to sit down and make a commitment to organizing the first playoff system in Div I-A football. If I had my way I would take the six champions of the Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, SEC, ACC, and PAC-10 and two at large teams outside of those conferences to include the smaller conferences and independents. You went 11-1 and didn't win your conference? Too bad. Win that game next year. If you can't win your conference you don't deserve to play for the national title.

Every other college sport has a playoff. There's no excuse for not having one in Div I-A football as well.

0 recs | Comment 53 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I Disagree On One Point........

the conference title thing. To me that is as unfair as the way they qualify kids in PA for the State Track meet. Throw the discus 10 feet and win your District Title and you go to the State Tournament. Throw the discus 45 feet and com in third in your District and you stay home. That isn't fair either.

Also, I would say this...I watch an inordinate amount of College Football. I like to make things interesting by putting some of my hard earned money where my mouth is. Wait until after the games have been played before deciding whether these are good matchups or not. Name recognition, history, etc has nothing to do with whether something is a good matchup. Look no further than USC Mich, UF OSU, or BSU Okla. for that proof. I can't wait to see the line for Hawaii and UGA. Of course, in typical Georgia fashion they will just say they couldn't get up for a team like Hawaii if they underperform in the bowl game.

I could be wrong, but I think OSU is going to give LSU everything they can handle and after watching USC against UCLA, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois gave USC a game as well.

Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.

by ech2os on Dec 3, 2007 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

With All Due Respect

We're not talking about a high school discus competition. It's Div I-A college football. I would consider the regular season to be the first round. If you win your conference you get to go to the second round.

The only problem I have with taking the conference champions is the fact that most conferences have too many teams that it's not possible to play everyone in your conference during the regular season. It wouldn't seem right sending Purdue to the playoff if they didn't play Michigan or Ohio State.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Dec 3, 2007 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally,

I think that an 8 team field is too small to guarantee conference winners - BCS or otherwise (I also don't agree with all conference winners going in a 16 team format - as some pundits have suggested) a bid.

by PSUgirl on Dec 3, 2007 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree on the conference champion thing.

For this reason: Georgia and LSU didn't play each other this year. They both went 10-2, and each team lost 2 conference games. Yet LSU got to play for their conference championship and Georgia didn't due only to the strength of their respective SEC divisions.

My plan would be (in a perfect world):
All 11 conference champions (sure, there would be some crappy teams, but the top teams in the nation should get an easy first round like in hoops)
5 at-large teams
Use the BCS system to rank the teams, and play all games at higher seed's stadium, until the final 4, which would be at a neutral site.
The only problem I see with this proposal is that it would take 4 weeks, around finals and x-mas. It could be worked around if the NCAA really wanted it to happen.

by nittanynutz on Dec 3, 2007 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GA and their conference championship

They didn't get to play in it because they had the same conference record as TN and lost to them on the field.

by PSUinTN on Dec 4, 2007 8:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dan Hawkins Approves

It's Division 1 football! It's the Big Twelve! It ain't intramurals!

by Hawkeye State on Dec 3, 2007 12:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I

agree with the whole playoff system bid. Problem is, the presidents dont want it at all. They like stuffing their conference's pockets with procedes from the big bowls games and how many teams they get into the BCS game, which only 2 are allowed from a conference. That rule is retarded.

The BCS is one of those things, it just doesn't work and the men behind it don't care. As long as they get the team with the most history or a name on the front of their jersey they're happy. If Ohio State does the same thing they did last year, then this system will prove to be an absolute failure even more. I personally think they might look better because LSU is a good team but they have flaws. It's funny OSU didnt have to play, Oklahoma or Georgia, either one of those games would be a laugher. I'd laugh real hard.

Also I think we should wait to see how the other games play out, Boise State and Oklahoma was an instant classic, maybe the best game all last year. Now we know what OSU is capable of, and it's horrible they back into the national title game. LSU did also, but they had to play 2 more weeks unlike OSU, who sat at home for two weeks and had a very good chance to advance to the title game, because 3 of the top 5 teams in the BCS where going to elimanate each other eventually.

Now I think they could still use the BCS for a playoff system. Let the 16 top BCS teams play. 16 teams would be a better format if you ask me. I think only letting the conference champs would be another way to put a lock on deciding an eventual champion(THE BCS is already doing this). With enabling the top 16 teams to play it out, the conference champion goes right out the window, which it shouldn't matter for this, because the best team should be crowned. Georgia could most likely beat LSU right now, now Georgia only didnt go to the sec championship because Tenn beta UK and it allowed them to go instead of Georgia.

Now if they want to use these big name venues as places to host playoffs I'm ok with that. They could set it up like March Madness for each venue, Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar. So each winner will have the title of Orange Bowl bracket winner and etc and they can rotate where the championship game will be played every year.

Now the whole, all mighty academic schedule thing is a sad argument. basketball plays two times a week at times and all that traveling, they miss so much class it's not even funny. It's the only arguement they got, as if they really care about the players academic progress. If they did care, maybe they would help most of these players get degrees before going off to the pros, so they can take that lame excuse and shove it as far as I'm concerned. All lesser conferences get to play a playoff, why cant the best football in america do it? Could you imagine december madness? LOL, I like that so much better.

make the regular season worth something, because it is meaningless now. The BCS is setup where if your a school like OSU, all you have to do is beat your weak MAC ooc schedule and win the big ten and your in the national title game. It's tailored for the big name schools in the big conferences, it's not about the best team playing the best team that year. it's unfair towards the kids, after this year they showed us why they play the games in between the lines and not on paper or by status quo.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 12:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

3 Team Rule

in the BCS has to go. The fact that a conference can't send 3 teams to a BCS bowl is dumb. If your conference boasts 3 of the top teams in the nation (Big 12 this year, Big 10 last year) all three of those teams should be allowed to go to a BCS bowl. By having this stupid rule we allow teams into BCS games that don't belong (Notre Dame in 2006 and Illinois in 2007) while keeping out more deserving teams (Wiscy/Auburn in 2006 and Missouri in 2007).

by Nick7 on Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Illini

got in, because BCS has tie ins to certain conferences. Which is retarded, if you go to the BCS site they want certain conference teams in games. For example Rose Bowl always wants PAC 10 champ and a Big 10 team. It's stupid, I'm suprised they didn't take Michigan instead. LOL!!

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally Agree.........

this is what I was trying to analogize with the track comparison above. Shitty Conference Champ shouldn't go ahead of 2nd place team out of a superior conference. If you conference is good and the 3rd team is better than say......Kanasa.....then your team should go.

Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.

by ech2os on Dec 3, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

the BCS would come in hand with just taking the top 16 teams, which would be 3 Big 12 teams in that field. No sense in cutting them out, because they didn't win theit conference.

Winning the big 12 isn't as easy as winning the big 10, also taking the top 16 teams period. Would eliminate getting only the big name schools in, like the BCS already does.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Devil's Advocate

What if Shitty Conference Champ and 2nd place team from superior conference have identical records? Then how do you choose? S.O.S?

Angelo

by nittanyroar on Dec 3, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's irrelovant

take the top 16 bcs teams. Like I said before, if it happens to have more big 12 teams or more big 10 teams. So be it. Let the BCS determine the top 16, if they used it this year Mizzou wouldn't have been cut out. All 3 Big 12 teams would be in the playoff.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Playoffs

As a avid fan of both I-A football and I-AA football I can say that absolutely a playoff system is the way to go. In I-AA they take 16 teams, the major conferences each get an automatic qualifier and then the other teams are all determined by a committee. Yes you do end up with some teams that don't belong because they won their conference but there are no rules about maximum amount from a conference. This year there were 5 teams from on conference and after the play on the field it was obvious that those 5 spots were deserved. The I-AA playoffs are even more fun to watch sometimes because everyone is playing for their lives in each game ala March Madness.

BUT, the I-AA playoffs are not a money making venture and even with larger stadiums and fanbases in I-A you still won't make any money from a playoff. Even the largest fanbases in I-AA can't fill their home stadiums during the holidays. As long as its about money and the university presidents are in charge you will have the BCS

by gdeveney on Dec 3, 2007 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If

Penn State made it into a new playoff type system, you don't think we'd fill up the fiesta bowl site? I think big time schools would always sell out, just because there are people who go to see good college players play. And with so much being on the line, most teams would bring their best games. 1-A would definately fill out, we are disappointed we have to wait a month for bowl games lol.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To play devil's advocate

At the ACC Championship, that stadium was empty and Virginia Tech is always sold out isn't it?

by PSU Nick on Dec 3, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lol

I wouldn't have went to that game if they gave me tickets and I have a free place to stay in Florida. No one wanted to see those two teams play hahaha.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its not just the fiesta bowl

It's not just the fiesta bowl. Imagine if this Sunday you found out your team is playing in the Fiesta bowl, on saturday. You have one week to make your plans. You win and you find out your location for next week.

You could be talking about multiple cross country trips on one week notice which is going to drop a lot of fans.

It is easy to go to a bowl game as a fan when you have a month to plan it and probably have some holiday time. Think if you started planning today for a trip saturday.

The usual argument for this problem is have the first few rounds at the higher seeds stadium. A good solution but I think you would still be surpised at how hard it would be to fill a stadium on a weeks notice. People have plans for the month of december.

I'm a season ticket holder for the University of Delaware. I always describe UD as the I-AA version of Penn State. We have one of the biggest stadiums in I-AA, lots of loyal fans, big tailgates, and lots of sell outs. We still have trouble filling our stadium during the playoffs because you have less than a week to make your plans.

by gdeveney on Dec 3, 2007 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

but I think at this level and with all the time for a layoff, they'd have a week off therefore being 2 weeks. I think Div 1 could fill out home games for a team, I live near Philly and if I found out PSU would be hosting a playoff game 2 weeks from now, I'd see if I could get tickets. It wouldn't be a matter if I could go or not, just if I could get tickets.

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The real fans

will drop everything, short of a death, major illness, or some calamity and be able to make a playoff game on a week's notice. It wouldn't be that big of an issue. That's why the early round of the playoffs should be played on a team's home field instead of some far off neutral site. I'm sure Beaver Stadium would still be rockin' for a playoff game.

by Ab4PSU on Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no interest in a playoff

While a playoff would be exciting, and lucrative, it is unnecessary, and is not a better way of picking a National Champion than the BCS (at least the if the BCS were administered more fairly). I think the elimination of the BCS, followed by a plus one game is preferable to either.

The system as its constructed now, essentially attempts to award the National Title to the team that had the best overall season, while a playoff rewards the team that is playing the best at the time among certain qualifying teams. I think the former is the better goal, and the rewards the rightful champion, and I think it's silly to say USC (who lost to Stanford) and Georgia (who didn't even win the SEC East) should still have a chance to be National Champion because they are paying the best now. Who cares who is playing the best now, in my mind, if you can loose at home to a three win team, and still play for a National Title, then the system is broke.

In my mind, no team with two losses has any basis in reality to argue that they should be playing for a National Championship. So does Oklahoma have an argument that they should have been picked instead of LSU, sure, but I don't find their argument that they had one of the best two seasons in college football to be all persuasive, so I'm inclined to ignore it vis-a-vie LSU. Essentially, there is no injustice this morning (unless you are Hawaii) several teams that do not have a persuasive case to play for the Title won't be, one that probably shouldn't, will.

For the Glory National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994,

by jesse. on Dec 3, 2007 1:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree with jesse

You cant ask a team, and more importantly its fanbase, to jump around the country game after game at the end of the year to implement a playoff system. If a team goes undefeated and win's their conference title (what if someone had this year?) they should not have to play the no.8 team and then the no4. team in the country to prove that they deserve to be in the national title game.

I'm not for giving WVU or Mizzou or Kansas or USC another chance this year, they blew it already.

May No Act of Ours Bring Shame

by loyal and true on Dec 3, 2007 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Solution

Home games. (Gasp! And ask the bowl games to give up their money?)

Other college sports have home games for their playoffs. Or you set up regional games. Host a game in Philly or Pittsburg between two eastern games. Have a Midwestern, southern, and pacific divisional game. But it would require the Big four bowls to give up their prestige. They could take turns hosting the championship games or semi-final games in their region. Other than that they get first pick of the rest of the teams.

I'm just talking crazy talk now I know.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Dec 3, 2007 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

see above

see my comment above but you would still be amazed how hard it would be to consistently fill stadiums on a weeks notice.

I do want a playoff but its not going to happen with the current cash cow that is the bowl system. I just can't see the presidents giving that up.

by gdeveney on Dec 3, 2007 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the final two

games of the playoff are played in traditional bowl sites, it's like going on back-to-back road games in the Big Ten. And the bowls still wouldn't lose any of their prestige (ie, MONEY!!) But you're right about this: They cry about what's best for the student athelete and missing classes, but it all boils down to money. And like just about every damn thing else in this country, $$$ rules all. What a shame. This is sports. It's supposed to be settled on the field.

by Ab4PSU on Dec 4, 2007 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus One

I hate the idea of a "plus one" game. How would that be set up? You make the #2 and #3 teams play each other and the winner plays #1? Or do #1 and #2 play and the winner plays #3? It doesn't seem fair to me to make two of the three teams have to win two games while the third team just has to win one game. If you're going to go that route have a four team playoff. #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. Then the winners meet in the championship game. This would be acceptable to me. Really, most years you can point to three or four elite teams, but then after that there is a second tier of five or six two and three loss teams that are very good but clearly a step below the upper echelon.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Dec 3, 2007 1:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

how would you do that mike?

no.4 AT no.1 ?
no.3 AT no.2 ?

Are you for any team playing more than 1 bowl game?

May No Act of Ours Bring Shame

by loyal and true on Dec 3, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is a valid point

Asking college football fans to travel long distances two or three weeks in a row to follow their team is asking a lot. That's why I would propose regional playoff games similar to the NCAA basketball tournament. Have a midwestern game in Indianapolis or St. Louis where a lot of Big Ten and Big XII teams could drive to. Have an Eastern regional in Philly, Washington, or Atlanta. Have a southern regional in New Orleans, Houston or Atlanta. Have a western regional in Arizona or California. We would have to give up the notion that all playoff games have to be held in Florida, Texas, or Arizona.

If we're going to scrap the bowl system it's better to scrap it entirely (except for the teams that don't qualify for the playoff). That will piss off the BCS bowls, but I think we really have to change the way we're thinking if we're going to institute the playoff system. We can't create a playoff while holding onto the bowl system.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Dec 3, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely..........

on the changing the way you are thinking. Big big key factor. People keep comparing Div I-AA Football playoffs and how that works and they also talk about the BB tourney and how that works. The fact of the matter is that people watching I-AA football don't have decades worth of Bowl Posterity clouding their head. They also don't know if the team being selected out of the SW region is good or isn't whereas DIV IA fans are completely inundated with information and force fed ideas about teams like Hawaii. The college BB system isn't as emotionally charged in that from my perspective people try to win the tournament more than they are interested in crowning the best team in college basketball. Further, when UNC loses in the tournanment, they know they are going to be in it next year. Right now with College Football a team sniffs a shot at the title and doesn't get invited to the title game they might not get another sniff for 10 years so being left out of the conversation stings a bit more.

Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.

by ech2os on Dec 3, 2007 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus one

Wouldn't this essentially be a 4 team playoff?

Or do you play the bowls as they are with all their tie-ins (Pac 10 champ vs Big Ten champ in Rose Bowl, etc.) and after all bowls are complete have another game?

This makes the most sense to me.

by Nick7 on Dec 3, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, its easier than that

Everything goes back to the way it was with the bowl games, If USC is number one and Ohio State is number two, so be it, they play. Some years you get lucky, others you don't. All of the high end bowl games would go back to being played on the first, and the bowl games would essentially add an extra week to the season, albeit one where you know you are going to play somebody good.

The plus one game would be played first Friday more than seven days after January first. In my world it would rotate among the BCS conferences who would act as "host", who could play it wherever they wanted (for example the Big Ten in Detroit, Pac Ten in LA, SEC in Atlanta, Big East in Miami, etc.), and it would be more like the Super Bowl, than a traditional Bowl Game. This would solve the problem of fan bases having to travel twice, because they might only get 10-15 percent of the tickets for the final game.

This would also solve the Hawaii/Boise State/Utah situation where they are undefeated but they haven't played anybody. If Hawaii were to beat say LSU in the Sugar Bowl who is to say they don't deserve to play for the NC in another two weeks. It would also make reward the bowls take the higher ranked at large teams to ensure their game is relevant to the National Championship race.

For the Glory National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994,

by jesse. on Dec 3, 2007 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Still the Best

College football is the best sport out there. It's better than the NFL.

I don't like the idea of a playoff, because there is always the law of unintended consequences.

Besides, I've always enjoyed the regular season far more than the Bowl Games at neutral sites.

If there has to be a playoff, most of the games should be played in on campus stadiums. Especially because it's not fair for the SEC/PAC-10s of the world to always get to play bowl games in warm weather.

Big 10 teams can't be built to play exclusively in beach volleyball weather, whereas SEC teams can.

by CDRS on Dec 3, 2007 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Better than the NFL

Can't agree more. Unless the Steelers are on I won't watch(but I don't plan my day around it like PSU). In fact, I've had it with the Super Bowl, done, done, done. Unless the Steelers are in it I am not watching. It's to the point now where it is about everything BUT the game. The two weeks that precede the SB are truly intolerable. Then when the game starts it takes four hours to complete because the network has to get in the multi-million dollar corporate spots. Absolutely ridiculous and I want no part of it.

This year, this is my plan for Super Bowl Sunday: Get wings, pizza, beer and watch the '87 Sunkist Fiesta Bowl on DVD, then watch the '05 Fedex Orange Bowl, also on DVD. After I watch those two I will probably still be able to catch the last half of the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, but I won't. Whew, sorry for the rant, had to get that off my chest.

Angelo

by nittanyroar on Dec 3, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Super Bowl

If the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl, I'm joining you, except I might not even watch the fourth quarter (unless they are losing).

I cannot take a moment more of the slobbery kisses the sports media (based out of New England - btw), are giving the Patriots and their vastly overrated team.

by CDRS on Dec 6, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Enough about a playoff!

I don't understand why people keep asking for a playoff. Isn't it clear that with a playoff, the regular season devalues greatly? Yeah a playoff will determine the 'true' champion of each season, but can't it also lead to cinderella teams like boise state or hawaii or utah making a run and winning a national championship in a year where they clearly didn't dominate or are the best team. The fact that we have the BCS and not a championship is the reason why college football is so popular and every game even between Pitt and W. Virginia where no one outside the states of PA and WV should care, but they do. Don't you think people in Arizona and California were glued to their seats watching Pitt take out W. Virginia which would have mattered very little if there was a playoff. Just don't understand this clamoring for a playoff. Theres a great post about this on nittanywhiteout.blogspot.com

by meanjoe on Dec 3, 2007 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The regular season is

not rendered moot if the team with a higher ranking gets to play at home for the first round or two of the playoffs.

by Ab4PSU on Dec 7, 2007 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

arguing

People have written some excellent thoughts and arguments here, and I really want a 16 team playoff but it is all pointless. As mentioned above the people behind the BCS know it is broken and just don't care, MONEY rules all. Frustrating.

by PSU86 on Dec 3, 2007 5:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My system

If I had it my way, the top 16 teams in BCS Computer average would be seeded strictly according to their final ranking and play a single elimination playoff.

The minor bowls would still exist because people like them. They make money.

by ckmneon on Dec 3, 2007 6:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My System

This is what we came up with over several adult beverages a few months ago. The blue ribbon pannel included alums/fans from PSU, Pitt, IUP, Iowa, ND, FSU, and Nebraska. Yes, I need new friends.
16 Teams
6 Conference Champs get automatic bids. Regular season cut to 11 games to make room for conferences that have championship games.
Seeding done according to current BCS System.
8 Top Seeds get home game second week of December. This would be before Finals and most stadiums would sell out. Gate goes to the home school after set ammount for road team to cover travel. TV revenue goes to NCAA conferrences similar to current bowl revenues.
Next 4 games are played at traditional bowl sites Fiesta, Rose, Orange and Sugar and are played New Years weekend. 2 week layoff will allow teams/fans to make travel arrangements. This is also after finals which allows students to complete their course loads.
The Semi-finals and Final will be held at one of the 4 major bowl sites, and the games rotate every year. The Semis will be played on the Saturday following New Years and the Final will be held the following Friday Night in Prime Time. Selling out the semis will be easy because you will pull from 4 teams fan bases. The winning teams will stay in host city and pratice for the week. Both Teams have equal time to prepare and heal. Short turn for the final game, but it beats 52 days off. Students that make the final will only miss 1 week of class and fans that make that trip will either stay the week and party, or sell tickets/hotel rooms for huge profit.
Patent Pending.

by jbolt2005 on Dec 3, 2007 7:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

this is why

there's no playoff system.

Anyone from a Northern team that would agree to a playoff system using the traditional bowl sites is a complete fool at best.

Why should Penn State go South two games in a row and most likely play a team at least once on their home turf. That's insane.

Make those sunsabitches come North and play at Happy Valley in December. We've been going to their houses for years. Screw them. Come play it the cold, you pussy bastards.

Div IAA, II and III all use home fields. Any playoff system in Div IA would have to use the same format, otherwise screw it.

And tell your Nebraska guy he shouldn't drink so much. He's embarrassing the rest of us. :)

Go Big Red Nebraska!
http://www.cornnation.com

by cornnation on Dec 3, 2007 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lol

thank you for that wonderful explanation. That's basically what i said above but you actually took it a step further breaking down traveling and how much time students would miss.

My push for a playoff system is because, I'm sick of them telling us who should or "belongs" in the title game. History has shown us, most of the time one team doesn't count and its a blow out. In fact almost one BCS game a year shows us how bad a matchup it is. Out of the last 3 title games, 2 have been a joke being OSU-Florida, or that USC-Oklahoma game.

Sadly though, it's not going to happen. Alot of people are content with the BCS and alot of people will either use the excuse, they care about school so much(even though most of these kids dont graduate and leave early) or the tradition of the bowl games. That's whats killing us right now, because of past tradition the BCS beleives OSU is a national title contender every year. Or that USC should be in the big game. With what their pulling letting two teams back pedal into the BCS Championship is really ashame. I just wish someone at ESPN would have the balls to say they dont belong there, that whole 3 hr show yesterday and no one spoke much truth....

WE ARE, PENN STATE!

by LinebackerU on Dec 3, 2007 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why. . .

There's no playoff system. As Mike said a day or two ago you have to completely overhaul the bowl system to create a playoff. The bowls would never agree to be a "semifinal" game. The bowls make their money by being the last game of the year for a team. Thats how you get the money, sponsors, people, etc. If you are going to do a playoff you have to say goodbye to bowls for the most part, or let Pitt play in them or something.

May No Act of Ours Bring Shame

by loyal and true on Dec 4, 2007 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike,

I see that the WWL has the College Bowl Mania/pick 'em challenge up. Were you planning on creating a BSD group?

Angelo

by nittanyroar on Dec 3, 2007 10:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Playoff

I cannot believe people would not want a playoff!!! You see the NCAA tournament in basketball, and you see how great it is, and I don't know why the highest level of NCAA football can't have the same thing. I am sick of hearing this "regular season is a playoff" crap. That is so ignorant. I think a 16-32 team playoff would keep everyone interested the whole season. I hate it when Penn St. loses in September and then I just feel apathetic to them the rest of the season. A playoff would correct those things. In my eyes, college football is a Mickey Mouse operation until this is changed.

by InPsufan on Dec 4, 2007 4:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

sick of hearing about basketball. . .

Its just as ignorant to think that a 16-32 team tournament would be just as easy to implement in football as it is in basketball. I've got an even better idea. . . best of 7 tournament, like the World Series!

May No Act of Ours Bring Shame

by loyal and true on Dec 4, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure - 32 would be nuts

but I think that, eventually, 16 teams would be manageable. 8 is more "like" basketball (any 64 team single elimination tournament) - 3 weekends - 3 road trips.

"Championship Division" has a 16 team playoff.

Interesting that you would bring up baseball - the NCAA's dirty little secret.

by PSUgirl on Dec 4, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NCAA Tourney

It is great, but who cares about the regular season?

If Duke beats NC or vice versa, what real difference does it make? They're both going to the tourney.

I don't watch NCAA basketball until March.

Conversely, I watch College Football from game one. Because they all mean something.

If Appy State beats Michigan (or the equivalent of Michigan) in basketball, it's really meaningless.

The season as is, features a playoff every week.

by CDRS on Dec 6, 2007 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could handle a playoff

But 8 teams max. This isn't the NFL. This isn't NCAA basketball. This is college football. You shouldn't be able to lose 3 or 4 games and still have a shot at the title.

I don't have a system in mind, but something like the 6 major conference champs and 2 at large. Seed them appropriately. I'd probably even prefer a four team system with the and one game.

Get up State.

by speedomike02 on Dec 4, 2007 9:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Properly Seeding...........

the playoff is key. Some people would argue that in BB you get better out of conference matchups during the season because you can afford to lose a few games and you are going to be rewarded for your SOS schedule. So if the field is large enough that you know you can afford to lose 3 games and still make the playoff, you will be more likely and apt to schedule the regular season games that nobody gets to see right now.

Eric Watters Atlanta, Ga.

by ech2os on Dec 4, 2007 10:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tradeoff

I see your point and it's an interesting one, but I think there are enough good OOC games (usually a couple good ones each weekend before conference play starts) that I wouldn't want to sacrifice what is a great regular season by allowing 16 teams to get in. I'd rather only let 8 teams in and make every game mean more than let 16 in to get a few more interesting OOC games. Personal preference I guess.

And with basketball-how much do those out of conference matchups really matter? North Carolina played Kentucky this weekend, UConn played Gonzaga-did anyone really care?

Get up State.

by speedomike02 on Dec 4, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs