Is this a good way to replace the BCS?

Question

Have every conference champion even the small schools have a lock in the playoffs. Then a committee like in NCAA Basketball choose at least one or two teams from each conference to play in bowl games while the conference champions also play each other. So one bracket would have the Conference champs and another conference would have the non-conference champs. And then the conference champ plays the winner of the loser bracket for the National Championship. Also the teams that did not make the playoffs would just play in normal bowl games.

Answer 1

Almost any idea is better than the BCS. The thing is that it all boils down to money. Which school and which committee can make the most for there university. Schools like ND who get an automatic BCS bowl bid if they have a subpar season will not be pleased. The BCS needs work but until you can continue to stuff every bodies pockets there is nothing you can do about it.

Answer 2

No matter what system you use, people are going to gripe.

If we had an 8 team playoff, people would complain because the 9th ranked team beat the #6 team early in the year...so why should #6 be in and #9 be out?

What makes you think that this "committee" would ALWAYS choose the best and most deserving teams? That isn't any better than having a "comptuer" do it. They'd make just as many "mistakes".

Why would someone from a loser's bracket deserve a National Championship when they couldn't even win their own conference?

Answer 3

I can't see that. No one would want to play in anything called a loser's bracket. Also, it sounds extremely complicated. I have a system that I really want to send to someone that deals with these questions. Here it is: I say they take the top 12 teams and do it EXACTLY like the NFL. Take the top 4 teams and give them a bye. Then let the rest play in a simple pattern that can stay the same year-after-year. Here's how it would go: #5 and #12 play (winner goes to face #1). #8 and #9 play (winner faces #4). #7 and #10 play (winner faces #4) #6 and #11 play (winner faces #3). Then it's all a traditional playoff. I say the top 12 because to get to a BCS bowl game, a non-BCS school has to be at least 12th. This way NO ONE can complain and the non-BCS schools get a shot.

Answer 4

I like Robert's idea. Sorry, tric. The only problem I forsee with his idea is when teams with equal wins and loses get slighted from selection. I propose one additional thing, the 9 through 12 nationally ranked seeds are offered a chance to be a part of the event by giving the kicker more prominence. The first 6 seeds are set. Kickers combine distances of 5 tries. The team with the longest attempt is seeded 7th. The next longest is 8th. The remaining 4 teams are offered bids to the lower bowl game in their respective conference. Employing the kicker is a way to keep the athletes from additional injury and to show off what they are capable of in a pressure situation. I know. Kickers are weak. Don't hate me.

Answer 5

If you are talking about some kind of playoff, forget it. College football is too injury ridden to ever have an effective playoff. Not to mention that five games would take five weeks and that would add 5 weeks to a 12 week season. That is a bit extreme.

Answer 6

A playoff system and include Division 2 teams like Appalachian State.

Answer 7

Great way to get a true champion. The extra games also adcd more money to the schools as well as the conf. I say they should push for it cause the system now is horrible.

Answer 8

They have tried to do something like this before but the people who decide this say that it add to many unnessicary games to the season. They also said that people are in college to get an education, not play football.

Answer 9

yes playoffs like the NFL. top 8 ranked teams go.

Answer 10

Very good idea. Keep the bowl games.