PDA

View Full Version : College Football Playoff, my proposal

sooner333
12-09-2003, 03:36 PM
Okay, I'm not necessarily in favor of a playoff, but if there is one, this would be the one I would support the most.

It's a 12 team system, 11 conference winners plus one. The system combines the importance of a regular season and a playoff system. Obviously the teams are going to have to play hard to win their conference in order to play in the playoff. In addition, teams will have to try hard in the out of conference schedule to try to get the one at-large bid. The at-large is in response to sometimes the best team in a conference not winning the conference title (The BCS has OU the best team in the Big 12 and had USC as the best team in the PAC 10 last year, despite neither team winning their conference). Either way, it will be hard to get the at-large and for the most part won't be disputed too much, because there aren't that many "great" teams that don't win the conference.

The seedings would all be done by the BCS rankings, relatively unchanged from this season. The top four teams would get byes, rewarding them for their superior performance. Also, in a 16 team playoff, the additional at-larges provides much harder matchups in the second round for the top teams, which should be avoided more to find a true champion.

Here are the matchups:

Round One:

Game 1 (12) North Texas vs. (5) Florida State -@Talahassee, FL
Game 2 (11) Southern Mississippi vs. (6) Miami -@Miami, FL
Game 3 (10) Utah vs. (7) Kansas State -@Manhattan, KS
Game 4 (9) Boise State vs. (8) Miami University -@Oxford, OH

Round Two

Game 5: Game 1 winner vs. (4) Michigan -@Ann Arbor, MI
Game 6: Game 2 winner vs. (3) Southern Cal -@Los Angeles, CA
Game 7: Game 3 winner vs. (2) Lousiana State -@Baton Rouge, LA
Game 8: Game 4 winner vs. (1) Oklahoma -@Norman, OK

Semifinals
Game 9: Game 5 winner vs. Game 8 winner -@Fiesta Bowl
Game 10: Game 6 winner vs. Game 7 winner -@Orange Bowl

Finals: Game 9 winner vs. Game 10 winner -@Sugar Bowl

First of all, the Four BCS Bowls would rotate having the games, one year one bowl would be left hosting the next two at-large teams (if it is a season rematch, then take the 2nd at-large and pit against 4th at-large)...this year that would be Ohio State vs. Texas in the Rose Bowl.

This system makes sense because it keeps the Bowl games involved, allows for a great matchup in the non-playoff Bowl game. And travel isn't as big of a concern because both teams in the first round know where they will be playing the next week if they win. Furthermore, the second round site knows that it is hosting the next weekend. I think this is the most logisitical and fair way to have a playoff in college football.
rkmsuf
12-09-2003, 03:39 PM
Nice proposal but complete waste of time.

No playoff will exist as the current system of bowls is very, very lucrative. No one is chancing any change...
cthomer5000
12-09-2003, 03:41 PM
you would leave out the Rose Bowl, out of the big 4? insane.
sooner333
12-09-2003, 03:42 PM
Oh, I knew it was a waste of time, I just felt like doing it, because most proposals involve "after the bowls" or 4, 8, or 16 teams.

I think the after the bowls are bad because what if Northwestern and Stanford were undefeated going into the Rose Bowl and nobody else was...why would they have to play another team after beating the clear other best team? I don't like that.
sooner333
12-09-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
you would leave out the Rose Bowl, out of the big 4? insane.

Dola- The Rose would rotate out every four years like the others to host the two best teams not in the playoff. That would be Ohio State-Texas this year...not a bad matchup. The next year it would get the title game, then the next year a semifinal, the next year the other semifinal, then the next year back to the at-large game.
rkmsuf
12-09-2003, 03:43 PM
Logically a playoff makes all the sense. The fans want it and I'm sure the players would eat it up...
ISiddiqui
12-09-2003, 04:01 PM
BAH, this was my proposal (though I didn't go through on it in depth in a USC/LSU/OU thread. I want royalties ;).
rkmsuf
12-09-2003, 04:02 PM
take solice in the fact that neither one will be instituted...
kcchief19
12-09-2003, 05:33 PM
It's not the bowls that are going to hold up a playoff -- it's the schools, particularly the BCS schools, who don't want to share the pie. Given the opportunity, the BCS schools would throw the bowls out in a heartbeat.

But here's the thing -- under the NCAA, money from college bowl games is shared by the schools and conferences involved. However, money from a playoff would be divided among all member institutions. In the NCAA tournament, all D-I schools get a cut, then schools get payments based on how well they do. A share of that money is then pooled to the rest of that team's conference.

Under the current system, Sugar Bowl money is going to go to OU and LSU with a share to their conferences and that's it. Under a playoff scenario, OU and LSU would have to share some of that money with the rest of D-I, including non-BCS schools. That is what is not going to happen.

You could do a playoff and still have the bowl system in place. You telling me that the Humanitarian Bowl would be better served having Georgia Tech and Tulsa play on the blue turf on rather, than they say K-State versus Miami in a first-round matchup?

There would still be room non-playoff bowls, too. A playoff would never replace the bowls. There are playoffs at lower NCAA division levels and there are still some bowl games at those levels, too.
MrBug708
12-09-2003, 05:36 PM
Why don't we have MOL?

Margin of Loss?
digamma
12-09-2003, 05:38 PM
Under this proposal, why would you play any meaningful non-conference games? You wouldn't want to risk a loss that would knock you out of the one at large spot. The bickering about that one at large would be worse than the current BCS.
sooner333
12-09-2003, 06:03 PM
Playing meaningful out of conference games would occur because obviously the team who was the at-large team would have at least one loss. Considering that other at-large teams would have at least one loss as well, it could very well come down to strength of schedule.

Also, I have been in support of bringing back Margin of Victory to the BCS for awhile. Margin of victory also implies margin of loss as well. If that were the case, Oklahoma would still be in the Sugar Bowl this year (and still #1 in this playoff) and USC would probably be in, although that's not for certain. The Massey poll which has MoV has LSU, OU, USC, and the Sagarin has OU, LSU, USC. So...it woudl still be up in the air. MoV was taken out to make Oregon happy in 2001. Now it appears to have hurt a Pac 10 school.
Ryan S
12-09-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by kcchief19
You telling me that the Humanitarian Bowl would be better served having Georgia Tech and Tulsa play on the blue turf on rather, than they say K-State versus Miami in a first-round matchup?

It might be good for the Humanitarian Bowl, but it would be bad for Georgia Tech and Tulsa. Mess with the bowls, and the season will end in November for most teams.
KWhit
12-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Ryan S
It might be good for the Humanitarian Bowl, but it would be bad for Georgia Tech and Tulsa. Mess with the bowls, and the season will end in November for most teams.

Gee, it would really be unfair if a 6-6 team missed the postseason.

:rolleyes:
Buccaneer
12-09-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by KWhit
Gee, it would really be unfair if a 6-6 team missed the postseason.

:rolleyes:

Now you are beginning to sound like me.

11 conf. winners plus 1 at-large makes sense but you will leave out at least one or two Top 6 teams. The solution would be to eliminate automatic bids. I absolutely hate that in college hoops and it makes even less sense in college football.
sooner333
12-09-2003, 07:45 PM
The only reason I have the automatic bids and only one at-large is that I want the regular season to have meaning. That's what I love now about the current system (which I would be reluctant to change). This would also stop the bitching from minor conference teams. Also, I could live with a four, MAYBE even 8 team playoff, as long as it didn't take place after the bowls. I just hate that idea...because of the Northwestern-Stanford situation I brought up earlier.
Ryan S
12-09-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by KWhit
Gee, it would really be unfair if a 6-6 team missed the postseason.

:rolleyes:

If it were a professional sport I might agree that we could do without .500 teams in the postseason, but it is not.

Bowl games should be end of season rewards for teams who have a good season. Why does it need to change just so people can have a real champion?
Pumpy Tudors
12-09-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by rkmsuf
Logically a playoff makes all the sense. The fans want it and I'm sure the players would eat it up...

You're generalizing. SOME fans want it. If the system were suddenly switched to a playoff, there would still be grumbles from some fans. Playoffs will not "solve" everything.
Passacaglia
12-10-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by rkmsuf
take solich in the fact that neither one will be instituted...

Oh, come on. I don't see what Nebraska has to do with any of this. We're talking about a college football playoff!
rkmsuf
12-10-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Passacaglia
Oh, come on. I don't see what Nebraska has to do with any of this. We're talking about a college football playoff!

Apparantly I'm either fixated on Nebraska or in love with Solich...not good, not good...