That’s why I think a 4-team playoff is more logical than 4. The logistics get much harder to anticipate beyond that.
For 2 weeks, sure. For 3, I think you’ll see that second game lose attendance, and a desire for the final game to be played at the Rose Bowl that’s had an additional 60,000 seats retrofitted to accomodate the demand.
The NCAA basketball tourney has both fewer seats as well as local interest to attend. However, it’s not the attendance that the sponsors are the most concerned with - it’s the viewership. I have a VERY hard time thinking the ratings for these wouldn’t be enormous.
And you haven’t provided any sort of discussion at all as to why that is a problem. “Students first, athletes second” doesn’t cut it. Maybe you could provide evidence of how the players in the FCS academically suffer as a result from having to play in a 16 team playoff system. Or if not, how that’s not relevant to the discussion.
I’ve been advocating this for years. The BCS and the obsession with naming a “national champ” is pointless. Football and the Bowls were at their most interesting and exciting when they were traditional matchups for bragging rights and the NC was something voted on in the Monday papers.
That said, the only Playoff format I could stomach is one in which the big Bowl games act as the playoff games and the Conference Title games act as the opening round of 16.
Basically, it’s a 16 team tourney. The first 8 games are comprised of the SEC title game, the Big 12 title game, a new Big Ten title game and Pac-10 title game. Big East title game, ACC title game and then a Mountain West vs. WAC game, a MAC vs. At Large/ND game. If you want to turn the final 2 games into strictly at Large bids that exclude the big 6 conferences I’m good with that. No conference gets more than 2 teams into the dance.
From there the Quarter Final games are the big regional bowl games, Sugar with the SEC champ vs the Big 12 champ. Rose with the Big Ten vs. Pac-10 champ. Orange with the ACC champ vs. the Big East champ. Fiesta with the winner of the 2 at Large/Western conference matchups.
So, up until now no additional games have been added except for a couple championship games that would already happen. Then you add a pair of Semi Final games that get sponsored and rotated between sites and a Championship game.
Everyone gets rich. Everyone gets a shot at the “title”. The conference regular season games mean a ton. The conference title games are even bigger than they are now. There much less motivation to schedule cupcakes early in the year. It preserves the traditional Bowl tie-ins. Assuming the “tournament games” are scheduled on the weekends around the holidays, it gives the remaining bowl games a stage to perform on during the holidays when they fall mid-week.
This scenarios works good on paper, until you analyze what happened in the big 12 South last season. Three teams with one loss apiece, two of them shut out of the Big 12 Championship game, let alone the your playoff picture.
Man, that sucked last year. Texas really did get hosed in that one. But I bet if Omni’s system was put in place, the Big XII would make quick work of fixing that up.
Part of the reason for that debacle was the Big 12 was trying to game the system, making sure its highest ranked team got a BCS bid. With a “win your conference and you’re in” approach, a conference would have the incentive to make sure their best 2 teams are in the Conf Champ Game.
The fact that the conferences are disparate is the reason for this approach. There is no way of telling if a Big 10 team is better/worse than an SEC team because they play different teams/different schedules.
Who cares. If this is really all about getting the NC then those also-rans in the Big 12 South lost their opportunity during the regular season. Making the regular season as important as possible is a goal. Achieved successfully. Anyways, every system you put together will leave someone out in the cold. There’s just too many teams. My way at least ensures that teams have an opportunity on the field to prevent this and it’s not based on some stupid media members opinion or some coaches ulterior motives.
Let the Conferences fix it their own way if they really have an issue with it. Stop scheduling the conference title game based on divisions and go with a best overall record or AP ranking or whatever. Let Texas and Oklahoma play in the Big 12 title game if you want. It’s a conference issue. The tournament wouldn’t be improved by having 3 or 4 teams from a single conference involved.
If it’s an absolute necessity, have those at Large bids be the mechanism for getting a third major conference team in so long as it doesn’t freeze out the MAC/WAC/MWC/C-USA teams regularly. I’m willing to make these bids subject to a BCS like formula with bonuses going to the mid-major conference title winners so that a 12-1 Oklahoma ranked in the top 8 doesn’t get locked out, but a 9-3 LSU doesn’t get in based on media favoritism and a soft non-conf schedule.
Heh, I barely skimmed the thread before posting. I’ve been spewing this proposal on the Dope for years now and I was on autopilot.
It’s really an ideal system. The Conference title games all get bigger and more meaningful. Conference title game weekend would be huge for the media and the fans. You’d think the SEC and Big 12 would love this, as it stands if USC and OSU are ranked 1 and 2 going into the title weekend their games are pretty much meaningless.
The biggest bonus is that the big bowls get to latch onto tradition once again. The Cals and Illinois and Wisconsins of the world get to preserve the goal of reaching the Rose Bowl for their fans and boosters. The teams that lose the Conference title games are still eligible for the rest of the bowl games. What’s better, 2009-10 Florida playing in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans in a ultimately meaningless game that’s a long trip from Gainesville against a Cincy team they don’t care about or Florida playing close to home in the Citrus Bowl against say regional counterpart Georgia Tech or Big Ten runner up Penn State?
The only argument against it is that Florida and SEC honks desperately want Florida to get a second bite at the same apple and Boise State to get no bites at all.
My Proposal: A four team playoff (I voted for the eight team, but this is easier logistically).
1.) The Rose Bowl returns to the old format (Pac-10 winner Vs. Big 10 winner). In the event that one of those school is in the four team playoff, they’re replaced by the conference runner-up.
2.) The three remaining former BCS bowls rotate to hold two semifinals and the championship.
3.) The two semifinals are played on New Years Day. The championship is played a week after.
4.) The current BCS formula is scrapped. A RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) like what is used in college basketball is used to determine the top four teams. This RPI can be adjusted to have less emphasis placed on strength of schedule to accommodate teams from lesser conferences. The RPI will also include ranking position of the top polls to calculate teams.
5.) All FBS conferences are eligible for inclusion in the playoff.
6.) All conferences must have a conference championship game. Conferences like the Pac-10 or the Big 10 would have to add teams to accommodate.
I don’t get this. The SEC title game is huge as it is. The last two have hosted the nos 1 and 2 team and produced the eventual national champ. In fact, it is a scenario identical to "USC and OSU are ranked 1 and 2 going into the title weekend " and the games were the opposite of meaningless.
whoops. for some reason I was thinking Oregon State. Still, Omniscient’s simply wrong about a no 1 or 2 team’s title game being meaningless. A loss in the title game will knock you out of the first or second spot. This is obvious.
Don’t the Big 10 and PAC 10 determine their champion based on conference record and not a title game? If so and USC and OSU are 1-2 then the SEC and Big 12 championship games are likely meaningless since the winner would be unlikely to jump an idle USC or OSU to be able to get into the national championship game. If there were a playoff then the winner of those games would still have a shot at the national championship unlike in the current system.
Without a doubt. This problem could be eliminated by having the first game at the higher seed’s home stadium. That would guarantee a sell out though you’d lose a little revenue when a smaller school hosts. After that, it’s just two games. Travel to one, and to see a National Championship game would be a once in a lifetime experience. No way fans would pass such an opportunity up no matter the cost.
Then that’s the Big 12’s problem.
I like Omniscient’s playoff. The only way I’d change would be to let the conferences decide their champion however they wish. I’m a PAC-10 fan and we don’t need a damn title game. That way if you get snubbed, you know who to blame.