so a potential future playoff may get another big boost this year. I can easily see Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon and Nebraska/Oklahoma (likely will meet in the Big 12 championship) going undefeated from the BCS conferences and then Boise State and TCU both going undefeated from the non-BCS. I see a mess at the end of the year with a lot of whining from teams left out of the championship game.
Can easily see 6 unbeatens this year...
- Thread starter maroonmania
- Start date
Holy crap.
Alabama
Ohio State
Oregon
Nebraska/Oklahoma winner
Boise State
TCU/Utah winner
Michigan State
That's six with a great shot - and Michigan State has a good chance if they get out this weekend. The stupid Big Ten tiebreaker would give Michigan State the Big 10 championship if they and Ohio State ended up both unbeaten.
This is what we need to blow up the BCS.
Alabama
Ohio State
Oregon
Nebraska/Oklahoma winner
Boise State
TCU/Utah winner
Michigan State
That's six with a great shot - and Michigan State has a good chance if they get out this weekend. The stupid Big Ten tiebreaker would give Michigan State the Big 10 championship if they and Ohio State ended up both unbeaten.
This is what we need to blow up the BCS.
I really doubt there will be more than 2 BCS undefeated teams (it's only happened once since the BCS started). And for all the bitching, everybody knows that Boise and TCU don't really have a legitimate complaint if they're left out for an undefeated BCS team.
Still, I do think there needs to be an 8-team playoff to settle things. Take the 6 BCS champions, the highest ranked mid-major champion, and 1 at-large team. Play the 1st round 2 weeks after the conference championship games at the homes of the 4 top seeds, the semi-finals on New Year's Day, and the finals on the 2nd Saturday after New Year's Day.
Still, I do think there needs to be an 8-team playoff to settle things. Take the 6 BCS champions, the highest ranked mid-major champion, and 1 at-large team. Play the 1st round 2 weeks after the conference championship games at the homes of the 4 top seeds, the semi-finals on New Year's Day, and the finals on the 2nd Saturday after New Year's Day.
come. I also think if Bama slips up and loses one but then wins the SEC title game, they belong over an undefeated Boise team. The two schedules are just light years apart in terms of difficulty. Nice close call win over Va. Tech though.
Many of those teams aren't really as good as people are saying. I agree about a 1-loss Bama team deserving a shot over Boise (not necessarily true for a 1-loss team from the other BCS leagues), but I think to be politically correct most of the human voters will vote an undefeated Boise over a 1-loss BCS team. Also, TCU has to really be feeling left out here. I actually think an undefeated TCU team should get a shot before an undefeated Boise team simply because they play in a tougher league (arguably as good as the worst BCS leagues). But they screwed that up in the bowl game last year when they lost to Boise.</p>
Until somebody invents a system that has as much or more guaranteed money to the big conferences as the current system, you can forget it.
It doesn't matter how screwed up the BCS seeding gets. All that matters is that all the big conferences are guaranteed huge payouts for their BCS bowl tie-ins.
You'd think somebody could just make a 4-team playoff with the existing 4 BCS games and their guaranteed payouts, but I think the big conferences (ie: NCAA voting members) are too greedy to figure out how to split up the money beyond the 1st bracket.
It doesn't matter how screwed up the BCS seeding gets. All that matters is that all the big conferences are guaranteed huge payouts for their BCS bowl tie-ins.
You'd think somebody could just make a 4-team playoff with the existing 4 BCS games and their guaranteed payouts, but I think the big conferences (ie: NCAA voting members) are too greedy to figure out how to split up the money beyond the 1st bracket.
There are a ton of other issues, one being not wanting to share the money, and the other being the Big 10 and Pac 10 not wanting to lose the Rose Bowl.
I would think that the Big 12 would be more than willing to side AGAINST the Big 10 and Pac 10 after this most recent off-season and the attempted destruction of the Big 12 that those two leagues did. I guess it really depends on how Texas feels.
Anyway, the SEC is for a playoff. I believe the ACC is as well, at least going to a 4 team playoff.
You can't tell me a playoff wouldn't bring in more money than the BCS bowl games. If you did a playoff in conjunction with the other remaining bowls as consolation games (which they are today), then you would have more games, with better ratings, which equals more money.
I would think that the Big 12 would be more than willing to side AGAINST the Big 10 and Pac 10 after this most recent off-season and the attempted destruction of the Big 12 that those two leagues did. I guess it really depends on how Texas feels.
Anyway, the SEC is for a playoff. I believe the ACC is as well, at least going to a 4 team playoff.
You can't tell me a playoff wouldn't bring in more money than the BCS bowl games. If you did a playoff in conjunction with the other remaining bowls as consolation games (which they are today), then you would have more games, with better ratings, which equals more money.
Run a 16-team playoff starting the weekend after championship weekend. This would require 8 games the first weekend, which at first may seem to be less attractive to advertisers, but the games will surely draw more viewers than some crap MAC-WAC bowl game. Give the losers of the first two rounds the option to go to bowl games. The last four teams then play four games in major stadiums. These will draw as much if not more viewers than the BCS games since all but the consolation game will impact the title. Also, playoff tickets would go 60-40 for the home team in the first two rounds. I think this would make far more money than the current system.
So here's how it would go if we had it this year.
Sat Dec 4 - Championship weekend and final games for most conferences
Sun Dec 5 - Playoff bracket determined
Tue Dec 7 - Heisman trophy show (does this program get big ratings as this could be a sticking point)
Thu Dec 9 to Sat Dec 11 - First round games at home sites (8 games)
Sun Dec 12 - Bowl bids for losing teams can go out
Sat Dec 18 - Second Round games at home sites (4 games)
Sun Dec 19 - Bowl bids go to losing teams
Bowl games played in December and early January
Sat Jan 1 - Semifinals played at predetermined sites (2 games)
Thu Jan 6 - Consolation game at a predetermined site
Sat Jan 8 - National Championship game
So here's how it would go if we had it this year.
Sat Dec 4 - Championship weekend and final games for most conferences
Sun Dec 5 - Playoff bracket determined
Tue Dec 7 - Heisman trophy show (does this program get big ratings as this could be a sticking point)
Thu Dec 9 to Sat Dec 11 - First round games at home sites (8 games)
Sun Dec 12 - Bowl bids for losing teams can go out
Sat Dec 18 - Second Round games at home sites (4 games)
Sun Dec 19 - Bowl bids go to losing teams
Bowl games played in December and early January
Sat Jan 1 - Semifinals played at predetermined sites (2 games)
Thu Jan 6 - Consolation game at a predetermined site
Sat Jan 8 - National Championship game
A playoff system would bring in a lot less money for any big conference in a year where they don't have a team in the playoff. Say the Big 10 doesn't have a team in the playoff (yes, usually they would..but sometimes they will not). They come out way behind in that year compared to the guaranteed money they get from automatically placing a Big 10 team in a BCS bowl.RebelBruiser said:
That's why my post was about GUARANTEED money. Its a business decision. You don't turn down guaranteed money. Well, you might if you personally shouldered all the risk for your decisions. But these are schools we're talking about and they are run conservatively from a business standpoint. They are never going to turn down good guaranteed money - at least a voting majority of them will not (I'm looking at you, PAC-10, Big-10, and Big-12).
If you go with 8 teams, you give 6 automatic bids. I don't like that format, because it's too easy to leave a really good team out of the equation, since you'd only have 2 at large bids.
I'd prefer a 16 team playoff with 11 automatic bids to all conferences and 5 at large bids given to the highest rated remaining teams. I would prefer to see the BCS formula be used to determine the 5 at large bids and the seeding of the 16 teams.
I realize that would take way more foresight than the bunch of old guys in charge want to do, and it's a big risk, but I don't think it's all that much of a risk when you get down to it. 15 games for TV as opposed to only 5 games. Sure you have to split the money more ways, but at the same time, you'd have 15 games that really matter, where right now you only have 1 game that matters, and teams often have to wait up to 6 weeks between their final game and the title game.
I'd prefer a 16 team playoff with 11 automatic bids to all conferences and 5 at large bids given to the highest rated remaining teams. I would prefer to see the BCS formula be used to determine the 5 at large bids and the seeding of the 16 teams.
I realize that would take way more foresight than the bunch of old guys in charge want to do, and it's a big risk, but I don't think it's all that much of a risk when you get down to it. 15 games for TV as opposed to only 5 games. Sure you have to split the money more ways, but at the same time, you'd have 15 games that really matter, where right now you only have 1 game that matters, and teams often have to wait up to 6 weeks between their final game and the title game.
1. If you give an auto bid to every conference, you're going to have a lot of ****** teams in the playoffs.
2. If you give the bids to the 16 best teams, you're going to have some 4th and even 5th place teams making the playoffs, rendering the regular season meaningless.
That's why I like my 8-team proposal. It still give the little conferences 1 guaranteed bid. And with the 1 at-large bid, it leaves a place for a team like Florida last year who went 12-1 but lost their conference title game. But it doesn't reward teams for just being pretty good.
2. If you give the bids to the 16 best teams, you're going to have some 4th and even 5th place teams making the playoffs, rendering the regular season meaningless.
That's why I like my 8-team proposal. It still give the little conferences 1 guaranteed bid. And with the 1 at-large bid, it leaves a place for a team like Florida last year who went 12-1 but lost their conference title game. But it doesn't reward teams for just being pretty good.
It puts an incentive to get a top seed. Yeah, you may have pretty much punched your ticket by the end of the season, but you would much rather play the Sun Belt or MAC champion in your first week than a second place Big Ten team. Besides, it would only be two or three really awful teams. You could even force a minimum conference size to be an automatic qualifier (say, 10 teams). This would keep the Big East, MWC (until next year), WAC (especially next year), and Sun Belt out, or force them to consolidate to fewer conferences. Besides, we don't keep the SWAC champion out of March Madness because they are crappy compared to the 1 seed that will demolish them.
Not many teams from one conference would make the playoffs. It could even be capped at 2 at-large bids per conference at most. I think it gives more meaning to the regular season. If you're in a situation where you are out of contention to win your conference but have games left to play and could still make the playoffs, you will play for that.
Not many teams from one conference would make the playoffs. It could even be capped at 2 at-large bids per conference at most. I think it gives more meaning to the regular season. If you're in a situation where you are out of contention to win your conference but have games left to play and could still make the playoffs, you will play for that.
...while looking at remaining schedules. It definitely seems likely that at least 3 of them will finish unblemished... and that's not counting Alabama.<div>
</div><div>As for playoffs, all we need is a +1. That way you maintain the value of the regular season and you can still use the BCS rankings AND bowls as part of the process. You don't even have to add a game. It's already there. The "BCS National Championship Game" is determined by two postseason games, where #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3 in a rotating system amongst existing BCS bowls.</div><div>
</div><div>Add the Cotton Bowl to the BCS to keep the number of BCS bids where they already are. Two of the five BCS bowls host the semifinals every year. One of the other three non-semifinal sites hosts the title game.</div><div>
</div><div>Boom. Done.</div>
</div><div>As for playoffs, all we need is a +1. That way you maintain the value of the regular season and you can still use the BCS rankings AND bowls as part of the process. You don't even have to add a game. It's already there. The "BCS National Championship Game" is determined by two postseason games, where #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3 in a rotating system amongst existing BCS bowls.</div><div>
</div><div>Add the Cotton Bowl to the BCS to keep the number of BCS bids where they already are. Two of the five BCS bowls host the semifinals every year. One of the other three non-semifinal sites hosts the title game.</div><div>
</div><div>Boom. Done.</div>
teams that run unorthodox offenses or defenses would have an advantage in a playoff over a bowl as you would not have as much time to prepare for them. The Ga Tech's of the world could give a team fits if they dont play them every year and they only have week to prepare for them versus a month.
Who wants to see a 42-10 beatdown in the playoffs? With my 8-team playoff proposal, there's still plenty of incentive for the top teams in the regular season. For one, if you lose you may not even make the playoffs. Plus,the top 4 get home games in the 1st round, and the #1 seed would almost certainly host a team out of the top 10. That's plenty of incentive for the regular season. If you can finish 2nd, 3rd, or even worse in your conference, that's when the top teams have no incentive.
Not to mention that there's no way in hell that the BCS leagues are going to share that kind of money with the WAC, Sunbelt, MAC, CUSA, etc. Nor should they.
Not to mention that there's no way in hell that the BCS leagues are going to share that kind of money with the WAC, Sunbelt, MAC, CUSA, etc. Nor should they.
Here's how it should go. 4 team play off, the champions of the 2 strongest conferences get in automatically with 2 at large bids.
We can divide the country in half and use a rotating system for semifinal games using the current BCS games. In other words the teams from the West would play in the Rose one year and the Fiesta the next. The teams from the East would alternate between the Sugar and Orange.
So in 2011 it'd be East - Sugar, West - Rose. In 2012 it'd be East - Orange, West - Fiesta.
The winners of the 2 semi finals games would meet in the Current BCS championship game which rotates as well.
We can divide the country in half and use a rotating system for semifinal games using the current BCS games. In other words the teams from the West would play in the Rose one year and the Fiesta the next. The teams from the East would alternate between the Sugar and Orange.
So in 2011 it'd be East - Sugar, West - Rose. In 2012 it'd be East - Orange, West - Fiesta.
The winners of the 2 semi finals games would meet in the Current BCS championship game which rotates as well.