Let's hear from both sides

I like the idea of a playoff but that might be simply because I like the NFL better and they have a playoff.

A playoff is necessary. Scrap the Bowl System... its too f**king corporate anyways. Let the NCAA fight for sponsors for a playoff system.

Pro playoff:

If basketball had a BCS type system, there's no way in hell Memphis would be in a Championship.

Honestly I don't have a huge problem with the current system. The regular season is incredible and I like the bowls. Growing up in Pasadena probably contributed to that though.

If forced to expand, I have a problem with inviting some conference champions and not others. It's one thing inviting the two highest-ranked teams--you have to be pretty damn good to be considered in the top 2 at the end of the year, and generally there are a very small number of teams with a legitimate argument for inclusion. Things get dicier when choosing between the fourth, fifth, and sixth best teams for that final plus-one spot; a team could have a great year, finish 11-1 in a weaker conference and be spurned in favor of a blue-chip 10-2 counterpart.

I would get rid of conference championship games and force teams to play round-robin every year. The regular season champions of all 11 conferences would be invited, along with five at-large teams selected by committee. If you are a wannabe in a non-BCS conference with high aspirations, you had better darn well win a league title to get a chance at the postseason; allowing five teams would enable the inclusion of a Kansas or Georgia type team that had a great season in a power conference. At this point it would be tempting just to scrap the entire bowl system.

I think a playoff would be great but only 6 teams. The top two in the BCS standings get a bye while #3 vs. #6 and #4 vs. #5. Each of the current BCS Bowls (Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, Orange) hosts one of these games. I don't think we've had a year since the BCS was created where anyone outside the top 6 could make a realistic claim at being robbed of a shot at the title.

How would the rankings be determined?

Same as they are now. This keeps the BCS in place so proponents of that system are somewhat happy and it also utilizes the bowls, keeping those folks happy. Now obviously #7 won't be thrilled, but neither is #66 in the NCAA basketball tourney. Too bad. Like I said, nobody can make a legitimate claim sitting at #7.

I do like how the #1 and #2 teams get a reward in this scenario. I'd still prefer either all or nothing--go to a full 16-team playoff with automatic qualifying and a selection committee, or just stick with 1 v. 2.

The biggest problem with what we have now IMO is the influence of pollsters. Expanding the number of teams eligible for the national championship would only increase the amount of degrading and unseemly year-end lobbying by coaches for inclusion. With six qualifiers, you'd have representatives of the top 10-12 teams parading through College Gameday and cold-calling members of the media, begging voters for a spot. Not to mention the fact that coaches make up 1/3 of the BCS formula--talk about conflict of interest.

Penn State's loss makes the likely BCS matchup quite palatable--the champions of the two best conferences this year, the Big 12 and the SEC. Even with a loss to Auburn, Alabama would probably make the top two of the BCS rankings if they win the SEC championship game. Of course there are a lot of monkey wrenches left.

This may have been suggested before but I read idea in SI few years back. 8 team playoff winner of each BCS conference plus the next 2 highest ranked teams. First round played at the higher ranked teams field then the second and so on played in rotation at the bowls.
I'm sure Penn State and USC both would love to have a playoff system. Also at least 2 teams in Big 12 that will get pushed out with possibly one loss

16 team playoff..

Without a playoff, every "champion" will be exactly that: "champion" in quotes.

To me. best idea is a 8-team playoff, with the Top 8 in a combination of the AP and Coaches poll participating (add up points received from both polls and have a combined Top 8). The final poll might include participants from current "non-BCS"conferences. Of course, there would still be some argument from teams ranked 9th or 10th, but the argument that they should be in the playoff is different that the current argument that someone feels like they should be playing for the actual "championship."

I fear as long as TV owns the world, we're stuck with what we have....

A 16-team playoff is the way to go, especially since it only adds one week and one additional game to the season vs. an 8-team playoff. Picking only the top 8 teams (of the approx. 120 D-I teams) would be too difficult because you're going to leave a great team or two out. Sixteen sounds like the right amount and it gives you a lot more variety. It would make for some exciting early-round upset potentials like the NCAA basketball tourney.

Let's go through the BCS nightmare -- Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State; Florida loses to Florida State and beats Alabama in the SEC title game; Missouri beats Texas Tech in the Big 12 title game. Who should make it to the championship?

USC!

Definitely Texas. And probably USC.

Penn State and Utah are each more deserving than USC. Penn State shellacked the Oregon State team that beat USC, 45-14, and beat Ohio State on the road (USC beat them at home). The MWC is 6-1 against the Pac 10 and Utah also managed to beat Oregon State.

Regarding Texas, I feel like you need to limit the championship game to teams that won their conference. Then again, Texas has the best resume of the three division rivals and will probably get unfairly left out of a Big 12 title game appearance.

My top three would be some combination of Florida, Utah and Penn State. Ugly situation...

You could have a 16 team playoff using all the current bowls as the playoff sites. It could make for exciting play. Bowl games would actually mean something then. And it probably would not take any more time that what is already used. IMHO

I voted for Obama as soon as he said he wanted a college football playoff.

Ok, my mind was made up before that...but that's something I wouldn't mind seeing him follow up on.

16-team Playoff!

11 conference champions

5 At large bids.

First round at home of higher seed.

Quarters the week before Christmas--existing bowl sites.

Semis New Years Day--BCS bowl sites.

NC Game Jan 8--BCS bowl site.

Nobody misses any more school than they would already miss (isn't that the University Presidents' worry?)

Sounds like a plan to me IR....

I'm going to the MAC Championship game in Detroit next Friday.

In a perfect world, the winner of this game would be playing for the automatic bid to the field of 16. An opportunity for an undefeated team(Ball State) to play for a national championship. Which they rightfully deserve(as does Utah, and Boise State).

They've done all they can possibly do with their schedules.

BCS proponents are correct in this regard, the regular season is a playoff. A playoff in a sense that only 66 teams are invited to participate(the schools of the BCS conferences/Notre Dame)...the other 53 schools are shit out of luck, they get no shot whether they finish 0-12 and lose every game by 50, or go 12-0 and win every game by 50, they will never get a chance to be in the "playoff".

While I love March Madness and the way it leads to a true national champion I question an 8 or 16 team playoff. We would have just as much controversy picking the teams as we do now for the BCS national championship team. What do you do about Boise State? What about bubble teams?

Honestly since the teams do not play through a divisional process like the NFL there is no good answer nor will there ever be for this problem. I can guarantee you that if we had an 8 or 16 team playoff system we'd be debating the merits of how you select the teams.

Keep it the way it is - at the moment while it might suck for some teams, I like the fact that you have to win in the regular season. If you take care of business and win the games you're supposed to, you will end up rewarded somehow - in theory, at least. A playoff would eliminate the strength of the regular season.

I wouldn't mind a return to the old Bowl Coalition system in which every conference champ is guaranteed a BCS Bowl slot in addition to 5 At-Large teams - in addition, expanding the BCS bowls to include, say, the Cotton and Gator bowls.

I posted much of this in the Make the Case thread, but it's probably more appropriate here, and I've expaned it a little. As far as picking the top 8... it could be using the BCS formula. But, I also like the idea of having a committee pick 1-2 of the teams at large. I don't think I like the idea of conference champions getting automatic bids, with so few slots. Look at how that is screwing up the BCS bowl matchups some years. I mean, does anyone really think the Big Least or ACC Champions this year deserve to be in a top notch bowl, let alone a National Championship playoff? Not because of strength of schedule (more on that later), but because of their records and play on the field.

Honestly, all this does is show the need for a freakin' playoff. Probably an 8 team playoff. Yeah, sucks to be #9, but no matter what number you pick, someone will get left out. Besides, by limiting the number of teams in the playoff, it preserves the "meaning" of the regular season. If you don't win, you're not in. Anyone in the Top 8 probably has no more than 1 loss, or a very good reason why 2 losses doesn't put you further down the rankings. Let the rankings determine most of the playoff teams, and a committee choose 1-2 teams. That way, they might give it to a deserving 2 loss team, or maybe give a mid level conference winner a chance. Or not. Every year could be different, depending on the committee.

I like the tradition of the bowls, etc. but this is ridiculous. If you want to make the bowls the first round of the playoff, fine. Let the alumni buy the tickets, spend a week in a nice location, etc., do the usual bowl trip things. No need to change anything. Plus, it makes some of these bowl games even more important... after all, the winner advances to the semi-finals. After that, the remaining games (semi-finals and finals) are played in whatever location(s) the NCAA awards them to. Teams can go back home after the bowl to practice, and then travel to the games like an away game. Or, the NCAA can make arrangements and pay for the teams to stay and practice at the game site. Eliminates the schools having to pay for the outrageous amounts they spend on bowl accomodations for the additional playoff games. There's no reason this can't work. Many of the people buying the tickets for those "playoff" games probably won't be alums of the school, but that's the way it is at the NCAA men's basketball tourney anyway. Set aside X amount for students and alums, to be released for sale after the bowl games, and advance sale the rest. Trust me, people would buy tickets to these games, even if they don't know who will be playing. Works for basketball, works for the NFL, etc.

As for strength of schedule... to some degree, it's irrelevant. Even if you try to schedule good teams in the non conference portion, because schedules are set in advance, things change. Who knew Notre Dame would be this horrible 4 years ago? Or Michigan? Gee, we could have scheduled a game against LSU, and last year we would have gotten credit for it, and this year... well, not so much. And you can't control how the other teams in your conference play. If most of them have off years, is that your fault? Does that mean that you aren't any good? I admit, sometimes I'm guilty of the "who have they played" game, but you have to be careful with that. Just because the teams you played were weaker, doesn't mean you are weaker. You might have had an easier road, but other than testing your team, it doesn't directly determine how good you are. Really... throw Florida, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, Alabama, Utah together... do we really know who would beat who (OK, other than maybe Texas/Oklahoma... LOL)?

Alabama is undefeated... yet some question how good they are because of their schedule. Penn State gets knocked because a completely different team, in completely different years, laid an egg in championship games, and because of a "weak" schedule. USC is criticized for a soft schedule, yet at the same time the press still acts like they are practically a pro team, they are "so good." So, USC=weak schedule=God's gift to football but not BCS Championship, Penn State=weak schedule=pretender, Alabama=weak schedule=questionable team, but deserve to be there because they're undefeated. Huh? Even if we were to say a weak schedule was reflective of how good the team is, we don't apply it equally. Biases still come into play.

People are splitting hairs between Oklahoma and Texas, talking about relative strength of schedule. What? One beat the other on a neutral field, end of story. If Oklahoma were the better team, they should have won the game. Texas has a point here. Just because Oklahoma's schedule is perhaps a little more difficult, doesn't make them better. And yes, I realize the better team doesn't always win. The winner of the NCAA basketball tourney isn't always the best team. But they are the National Champion because they won the tournament, at the end of the year, with the best teams participating. That's what a National Champion is in every sport.. the team that wins the tournament, not always the best team. Yet, in football, without the teams playing each other, we try to crown a "National Champion" based on opinions, and we call that team the best team. Completely ridiculous.

Sorry for rambling, but this really is a stupid way to do things.

That's the best scenario and probably the most fair one as well. People will always complain, but 16 is a good number. I like all 11 conference champs being invited with 5 at-large bids, and a team couldn't meet a conference opponent in the opening round. If that were the case, this is a possibility of how the 2008 playoffs would look:

#1 Alabama vs. #16 Troy
#8 Penn State vs. #9 Boise State

#4 Florida vs. #13 Virginia Tech
#5 USC vs. #12 Ball State

#2 Oklahoma vs. #15 Tulsa
#7 Utah vs. #10 Ohio State

#3 Texas vs. #14 TCU
#6 Texas Tech vs. #11 Cincinnati

Now that would be an exciting tournament to watch. Who wouldn't tune in to see if unbeaten Ball State could pull off a win over USC? Boise State vs. Penn State in the opening round would be a must-see. And this season alone could have terrific in-state matchups in the opening round like Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, Texas vs. TCU, Bama vs. Troy, etc.

[quote name='Penn State' date='Dec 1 2008, 04:59 PM' post='371804']
I mean, does anyone really think the Big Least or ACC Champions this year deserve to be in a top notch bowl, let alone a National Championship playoff? Not because of strength of schedule (more on that later), but because of their records and play on the field.

I do. Cincinnati has looked pretty good ON THE FIELD, and they are 10-2, with only a game at Hawaii standing between 10-2 and 11-2. That's a good record in any conference, thank you. There is NO way you can tell me the Big Eleven was tougher than the Big East this year. Did you watch Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan? Puh-leeze.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread. I like the 16-team format proposed above. I previously posted in favor of an 8-team playoff, but I like the 16-team format and schedule better. We do agree on one thing, Penn State, and that's that the current system is absurd.

There is a great deal to be said for a playoff system... shouldn't Florida, Alabama both have a shot at the title... shouldn't Texas and Oklahoma both have a shot???

With that being said, I like it the way it is... why??? Because it makes every game a playoff game!! Imagine how much interest outside Alabama the Iron Bowl would have gotten with a guarantee playoff trip already locked up for Bama... the same for the Florida - FSU game. Would the OU and OSU game matter if OU had really locked up a playoff spot???

PS: GO GATORS

That's kind of a weak argument. Each game during the regular season would hold possibly even more meaning than they do now. You'd need to win to secure a spot in the playoffs and you'd need to win to secure a better seed. We'd have "bubble" teams in football just like basketball. Yes, the Iron Bowl would've been important because if Bama had lost, then maybe they would've dropped all the way down to a #5 or #6 seed, thus making their road to the national title game all the more difficult. And OU-OSU would've mattered even more because a win by the Cowboys over Oklahoma would've likely given Oklahoma State one of the 5 at-large slots.

For those who like the current bowl system so much, why don't we just do the same for college basketball then? Instead of these fine student-athletes missing so much school during the month of March, let's scrap March Madness and have the top 64 teams meet in 32 separate college hoops "bowls." Then you could end the year on March 15th with, say, Duke meeting Wisconsin in the Indy Basketball Bowl in Indianapolis... or Kansas could meet UCLA in the Arizona Bowl in Phoenix. Wouldn't that be exciting? No, it wouldn't. People would argue that we need to determine a true national champion!

If every game is a playoff game, I'd love to know when Ball State, Utah, and Boise State were eliminated from the "playoff".

That's all you need to know about that argument.....

Hello... this is one of the best posts on this yet.

The only hesitation I have about getting rid of the bowls completely, is the amount of tradition involved, at least with the major bowls. It's still a big deal to go to the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl... and for the players and for the bands, alums, etc. it's a nice trip... a reward for a great season. Especially for those of us up north... almost a week in a warm climate, special events, etc. Having been to a few major bowl games while in college, I can tell you it's more than just the game. That goes away when you go to a straight playoff situation. Trust me, the money isn't there to transport huge bands, etc. to several playoff games, especially if you want to reward them with a week somewhere. And many alums plan their post Xmas vacations every year around a bowl game. That's one reason I proposed the 8 team model, using the bowls for the first round. Now, I would be happy to see a playoff, for sure, even if it meant the demise of the bowls. But I would certainly miss them as well.

Well to be specific, Ball State got eliminated tonight

Well if Honda can pull out of Formula One maybe there can be a college football playoff after all. Money is the deciding factor and most of that comes from big-time supporters and adverts. Reduce that and the motivation for keeping the whole thing could eventually crumble. But the financial crisis is only a window that could shut if any signs of recovery occur, and those big-time supporters may be semi-immune to the forces we normal humans live by.

That said, I'd like to see a playoff with at least a 16 team start and a shorter season to make the whole thing end about the same time if necessary.

And how about making the overall rankings partially dependent on the academic achievement of the players somehow - say worth a quarter of the score? Imagine, real scholar-athletes competing for a football championship.

Ok, just dreaming.

I still think a six game playoff would work best. You would still incorporate the BCS to determine the six teams that would qualify. And you would still use the four major bowls on a rotating basis as the four elimination games leading to the National Chmapionship game. The top 2 in the BCS get a bye, #3 vs. #6 and #4 vs. #5. #1 then gets the lowest remaining seed and #2 draws the other. Throw out automatic bids for conference champions. Is anybody really thinking Cincinnati or whoever comes out of the ACC is the best team in the country?

So if the season were over now we'd get Florida-USC and Texas-Utah the first weekend. Say Florida and Texas win then we'd get Florida-Alabama and Oklahoma-Texas in the national semis.

And for those who will say what about #7, well if you have an 8 team playoff # 9 is upset. A 16 team playoff using the current BCS rankings would include Georgia. I mean should Georgia really be playing for a shot at the title?

That's the biggest obstacle to this whole thing. I really think the conferences were trying to find a solution in BCS that didn't upset the flowers, chips, fruits and nuts bowls (oh, I forgot to throw in my beloved shrine of Texas liberty one). In doing so they have created the insanity we have now. The other issue is how to establish the playoff teams which based on most of the comments in here leads us back to the insane system we are using now. That's a place we want to try to walk away from as soon as possible. College basketball and baseball have good systems that remove a lot of the doubt by the sheer number of teams they bring into the system. Yes, we can always argue about why the selection committee picked one bubble team over another but they're bubble teams which usually don't make it to the Final Four anyway. To be fair and remove any question you would have to create a huge playoff system that would pull in a bunch more teams, something that is logistically impossible and not economically feasible.

The bottom line is this. We have what we have. It ain't pretty and every year seems to lead to this debate. However the alternatives are just as squirrely. If anything, it keeps our blood moving this time of year and provides great water cooler conversations.

Just heard a sportscaster on ESPN relate how someone had stopped conversation about a playoff system by asking "What about the players?" as if the Bowl system were a necessity for the players.

I don't get it. The players in basketball aren't clamering for a bowl system, or a BCS for that matter. No players in college baseball seem to think that sport is going to be helped or killed by computers deciding a championship.

I think sportscasters have become almost as enamored with the Bowl system as they are with their own voices.

And if they are so concerned about the players why don't they talk more about how many of them flunk out of school, or worse, flunk out of life when they can't make the pros, as most won't.

I suppose they make a bit of money off the current complicated and extended mess - jock's job security.

Utah and Boise State's big wins in BCS games shows that those conferences should be given a shot as well...If not, why the heck are they even in the top division??

There's really no argument anymore if you ask me. Utah shredded Alabama last night, and Alabama was thisclose to being in the national championship game. I'd pick the Utes to be the national champs if I had a vote... and for the record, I like virtually nothing about the state of Utah so I'm far from being a homer on this one. It's true that Alabama wasn't a league champion like Oklahoma was a couple of years ago when the Sooners lost to Boise State, but Utah's win was impressive nonetheless. And the Utes' victories over Alabama, TCU, Oregon State and BYU were just about as good as anyone's top 4 wins for the year. Who wouldn't love to see a Final Four this year matching Florida, Utah, USC and Oklahoma!? Now that would be must-see TV!

So Texas and Texas Tech don't deserve a place in your Final Four? (Consider the situation before the bowl loss to Mississippi.) Texas is obviously a top-4 team.

I am not trying to be a huge dick here. This season, more than any except when Auburn went undefeated and got left out of the championship game, shows the flaws in the BCS system. But I have yet to hear a credible alternative that would have included Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech in a playoff (I don't think a 32-team tournament is credible)--or even figured out a consistent and "fair" way to deal with the Big 12 South situation that doesn't involve the same pollster value judgments people love to whine about.

Previously in this thread, I drew up a mock bracket for this season and showed how a 16-team playoff would've *most likely* looked if they'd taken all 11 conference champions and 5 at-large teams. Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech were all in the bracket.