It’s about time! God, I hope they don’t screw this up.
About ####ing time; 4 teams in sounds like the fairest and most workable option to me.
I’m not going to complain with any final result, as it will certainly be an exponential improvement, but, please please please please please please make it at least 8 teams.
Thank you in advance.
Four teams is probably ideal for getting buy in from the powers-that-be.
Eight teams is probably optimal to keep someone on the friinge from whining about it.
How do the playoffs working in all of the other college divisions?
FCS (1AA) and Division II each have 24-team playoffs and Division III has a 32-team playoff!
And the universe hasn’t exploded. The BCS can do at least 8 teams.
Darn and I was hoping for a tournament system like basketball.
Yeah, and I can count on one stump the number of games that weren’t complete bores.
The universe hasn’t imploded because nobody cares enough about these games to watch, much less debate the merits of the system.
No more than 8 teams. Even the 12 team playoffs in the NFL is about the limit they’re willing to go.
FCS and Division II football is boring anyway, mostly because there is a better product available.
But those systems work, regardless of interest. Do you really think fans wouldn’t be interested in watchinig Oklahoma St. play Michigan, then Boise, then Oregon, then Alabama in a championship game? Or LSU play TCU, then Stanford, then USC, then Arkansas in a championship game? Nonsense. You can’t translate the lack of interest in the lower division to the BCS.
Fine, no more than 8 teams. I’ve already stated I can accept that. I’m not advocating for a 24 or 32 team playoff, I’m just using the lower division playoff systems to illustrate that a large(r) scale playoff system is sustainable in the BCS. Trust me, there will be bucket loads of interest even if you stretch the playoffs to 16 teams. 32 will always be too much, for football at least.
And what happened with all those FCS and Division III bowl games? Oh, right - there aren’t any.
For better or worse, big-time FBS football isn’t the same as the other divisions in college football. There’s too much money (and tradition, I dare say) wrapped up in the bowls, and I don’t see them going away any time soon. A four-team plus-one playoff is something I’ve been advocating for years, because you could put it in place right now without affecting any of the bowl schedules one iota.
I think I might be convinced to go to a six-team playoff, if the early rounds were played in December. I personally think eight teams is too many - how many years could you honestly say there are eight teams truly worthy of being the champion? Anything more than that and the bowl system can’t survive, and the landscape of big college football would really change. Some people may think that’s for the better, but I think going to the plus-one is plenty good.
You don’t have to give up the bowl system. All non-BSC bowls continue as usual, with non-playoff teams, and the 4 BSC bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta) host playoff games (one quarterfinal game, two semi-final games and the championship.
From the linked article:
*
Another potential issue when the rules finally are changed is that there will be no conference limitations to the Plus-One or any playoff format. That was three SEC teams ranked Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in late November, and three SEC teams could make a Pus-One Final Four.*
hehehehe. Considering the amount of whining this year, I can’t wait to see what happens when the SEC dominates the new system with three, maybe even four teams in the playoffs.
Don’t get too excited, though. The article also says the new system will start in the 2014 season, so we’ll see at least two more consecutive SEC/BCS Champions in the current format.
Christ, you’re insufferable. You are the worst of fandom. Would you at least keep it to the ESPN boards, and out of here?
I’ll buy the money argument… but tradition? The real bowls like the Rose Bowl will survive and thrive under any system, either by becoming part of the playoff or as an alternative for the teams that just missed the playoffs. I’m not sure the grand traditions of the three year old Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl, or the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas (five years in existence and its already on its fourth name) is anything anyone except their investors will miss if they go away. There are probably less than a dozen bowls that anyone really cares about. All the rest have all been so diluted no one cares any more. Now that teams can get in with losing records there really isn’t any cachet to going to a bowl.
It’s insufferable, but worse because he’s right. I don’t see this happening. The PAC 12 and the Big Ten are regional powers and know it. They aren’t going to fight to change a damned thing.
And that’s a good thing, because college football is a lesser football.
Change in the way rankings are assigned is just as important (if not more important) than adding another game.
As already mentioned, what is the point of adding 2 more teams if both of them are undeserving rematches? 2008 Utah finished the season undefeated, crushed #4 Alabama, beat 3 other teams which finished ranked in the top 25 (plus some which fell out), but would have been left out of a 4 team playoff in favor of 4 teams with losses who had already played each other.
At the very least, when teams are close together the advantage should be given to conference winners. Winning your conference doesn’t need to be a strict requirement, but it should mean a little.