Ok so...with Michigan and Florida being so close this year...and teams like Auburn a couple years ago being undefeated but left out of the championship game, i think there should be a playoff system instead of this BCS mess. Here's how i would set it up:
The winners of each of the BCS conferences should get automatic bids to the playoffs. The other two spots should be made up of the other two best teams in the country, which would be determined by the BCS rankings. This would make it an 8 team tournament. The bowl games should still exist, with each of the bowl games rotating each year to take up a different spot in the tournament.
What does everyone think? Comments, other suggestions?
Thanks
2006-12-05 08:59:35 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
That's fine. The good part about that is that you have the best team from each major conference.
A lot of commentators, though, seem to think a four-team playoff is more workable.
What I haven't been able to figure out is what the objection to a playoff is. If we go to a four-team playoff scenario and we do not increase the number of bowl games, then we only lose two spots in the bowls (the two teams that get to play twice, once in round 1 and once in the championship, would displace two teams that would get to go without a playoff system). People say it's about the bowl money, but I would think the college presidents, for the sake of the sport, would be willing to run the risk that they are one of the two schools left out.
2006-12-05 09:08:27 · answer #1 · answered by MithrilHawk 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There would have to be a change to the current schedules limiting the number of games to about 10. This would keep the student athletes from having to play too many extra games. This could create scheduling problems for the teams that don't make the playoffs but still want to play 12 games. The 8 team format seems to be the consensus. I like the idea. If you can get past the scheduling conflicts it's a solid plan. But those teams will not put up with lost revenue.
2006-12-05 09:16:25 · answer #2 · answered by kingsteve14 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everything sounds good up until those last two spots to be determined by the rankings. This is where you will have controversy because what if the #10 ranked team beat the #8 ranked team earlier in the year - the #8 ranked team goes....but #10 cannot be in your playoffs system.
It's really the same type of controversy; not with the title game but instead with who "deserves" those final two spots.
2006-12-05 09:32:43 · answer #3 · answered by Matt K 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem I have with that is that with only 8 teams involved you are going to leave out a lot of good teams and programs. there is something like 32 bowls, so thats 64 teams that get to play in that last game. with your system, these kids are being left out. Even if its something like the Texas Bowl between Rutgers and Kansas, these guys derserve to play in some kind of game. its not all about making sure people are 100% sure who the best 2 teams are, its about all of these teams that make up a great Division 1 football league. You have to play well all year to earn your spot. can you imagine if there was a playoff and Ohio State rested Troy and Mich rested Chad henne to save them for the playoffs? that would be disgraceful. and remember, these are kids!
2006-12-05 09:11:11 · answer #4 · answered by stateofwoo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Top 12-16 is best because you get all the great teams, and some sleepers in there. If you cut off the 12th game, and keep the bowl games in the playoff it would be much better
2006-12-05 10:06:04 · answer #5 · answered by C-Bo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like the idea. It makes the season important, yet gives a number of good teams a chance. While I believe OSU is clearly the dominant team in division 1A football, it would be nice to see how Michigan, USC, Boise State, or LSU would do in a playoff system as these are all good teams.
2006-12-05 09:18:26 · answer #6 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It needs to be 16, if only to not overvalue the conference title and to force some teams to play decent out-of-conference schedules. If only conference champions are included, then there is no incentive for teams to go out and play other BCS conference schools and they will continue to schedule their easy victim Sun Belt/MAC/Division I-AA opponents.
2006-12-05 09:37:58 · answer #7 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like the idea, it seems like the fairest way to do it. As much as people slag the BCS, it wouldn't be the only indicator in deciding the champ, just finding else who else will be in the play-offs. Good job.
2006-12-05 09:12:00 · answer #8 · answered by No-Dogg 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a playoff system works for NCAA basketball, why wouldn't it work for football?
2006-12-05 09:18:51 · answer #9 · answered by ...mr2fister... 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋