by
166 Comments
This is the yearly touting of my playoff system idea. I think this idea will get even better once all BCS conferences have a championship game.

Here it is:

Take the BCS conference champions plus two at large...eight teams total. The two at-large teams would be the highest ranked teams in the BCS poll that did not receive the automatic bid.

Amendement 1: BCS Conference champions must be ranked in the top 12 in order to get a playoff invite.

If you can't win your conference, you will need to be an at-large team to enter the playoff.

Don't give me this baloney that regular season games will have less meaning. Seeds will be determined by current BCS rankings. Therefore, playing a tougher schedule could get you the higher seed and the coveted home field advantage in the first round.

We need to move power away from the pollsters and computer polls that are determining who plays in the title game. This is preposterous. It is a joke. And potentially corrupt. Granted, in my system, the BCS ranking will still be used to determine the at-large teams, in addition to seedings. But the BCS poll will not get to decide the two teams that will play for the title, like is the case today. What we currently have is a complete joke of a system.

Eight teams mean three weekends of games. First round games are played at the higher seed's home stadium.

Semifinal games would be on same day at two different major bowl sites (eg, Fiesta and Sugar).

Final game will be at a third major bowl site. One major bowl would get left out each year of the playoffs, but could pick whatever teams were leftover.

To give you an example of dates:
First round: Dec 18, 2010
Semifinals: Jan 1, 2011
Finals: Jan 15, 2011

I dare anyone to come up with a plan better than this that removes as much bias from the selection process, addresses logistical issues with travel, appeases the college presidents that think the season is too long as it is, and generates as much interest.
Filed Under: General Sports
166 Comments
user avatar
TheFranchise164 months
I think the best way is to incorporate a few "play-in" games the same weekend as the conference championships.

For example, this year Boise St might play the PAC10 regular season champ and TCU might play the BigTen regular season champ. That eliminates at least two possible contenders.

It keeps the bowl structure in place so the pro-bowl crowd doesn't object as much.
user avatar
loweralabamatrojan164 months
quote:

We need to move power away from the pollsters and computer polls that are determining who plays in the title game. This is preposterous. It is a joke. And potentially corrupt. Granted, in my system, the BCS ranking will still be used to determine the at-large teams, in addition to seedings. But the BCS poll will not get to decide the two teams that will play for the title, like is the case today. What we currently have is a complete joke of a system.

Exactly freaking right.
:cheers:
user avatar
Michael J Cocks164 months
XIV actually posted the best plan I've ever seen.
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

XIV actually posted the best plan I've ever seen.
you mean the plan in which there may or may not be a round of playoff games? good luck with that...
user avatar
Michael J Cocks164 months
quote:

you mean the plan in which there may or may not be a round of playoff games? good luck with that...


Yeah, if they aren't needed, so be it.
user avatar
NOTORlOUSD164 months
If system was in place, I think the voters would look at the situation and vote up Boise or TCU if necessary. For instance, Wisconsin would have been passed by Boise in 2006.
user avatar
LordoftheManor164 months
my issue has already been mentioned. a scenario where a one-loss SEC team could be eliminated by SECCG
user avatar
JG77056164 months
I can't think of any year in which more than 4 teams have had a legitimate beef about playing for the title. So when they decided to add another BCS game a week after the others, why didn't they just make that the +1 game.

You have the top 4 teams in the BCS rankings play each other in 2 of the 4 BCS games, the other 2 can pit the left over conference champions and any at large teams still eligible after that. Then the winner of the 2 playoff games play a week later in the BCS championship game.

You don't lose or gain any bowls and only 2 fewer teams make a bowl than currently do. Each team that makes the BCS title game will get the money paid for 2 BCS bowls and you'd have to think conferences would like that incentive.
user avatar
Gmorgan4982164 months
If you're not going to give teams in the MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and WAC a fair shot, why don't you just propose that these conferences form their own subdivsion?
user avatar
Buckeye Fan 19164 months
Great idea.
user avatar
Buckeye Fan 19164 months
BTW, GMorgan, they have the choice of being in 1-AA and having a "fair shot" or being in 1-A and getting $$$. Obviously, you see what they chose.
user avatar
Gmorgan4982164 months
Well, if "1-A" accepts them as a team in their system, they should get a fair shot at the championship, IMO.
user avatar
Slickback164 months
I'm a fan of a 4 team playoff. Keep the BCS for seeds.

#1 plays #4 - BCS Bowl #1
#2 plays #3 - BCS Bowl #2
National Championship - BCS Bowl #3

This would only extend the season one game for two teams.

Yes, one BCS bowl would get left out each year. Let them choose their matchup for their bowl. No restrictions. They can pick from any teams, bowl eligible, besides the #1-#4 ranked teams.

I think people looking for 8 or 16 team playoffs are asking for too much. Too drastic of a change IMO for the NCAA to go to that.
user avatar
lsu480164 months
I say we make the entire season one big single elimination tourney. THAT would be awesome!!!!!!
user avatar
Michael J Cocks164 months
quote:

I say we make the entire season one big single elimination tourney. THAT would be awesome!!!!!!


:lol: agreed.
user avatar
Baloo164 months
The standard 16-team format with 11 conference champs and 5 at large bids played at home site is probably the one that addresses most people's concerns about the current system. I'm not in love with it, as I'm against at large bids, but I think it's the best system that's been popularly suggested.
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

The standard 16-team format with 11 conference champs and 5 at large bids played at home site is probably the one that addresses most people's concerns about the current system. I'm not in love with it, as I'm against at large bids, but I think it's the best system that's been popularly suggested.
I think this is WAY too many teams...and it adds another week to the schedule (a sore spot with some school presidents).

But it is in line with my idea in that it leans heavily on conference champs. I think this is the key.
user avatar
Buckeye Fan 19164 months
Four team playoff. Move the season up a week. Play the first round game the week after CCG's at the #1 and #2 home fields. So the first playoff week then is the same week as the CCG's now. Then do bowl selections (including the teams that lost the first round playoff games), award the Heisman, etc, like we do now, with the two winners playing in the NCG at a neutral site.

IMO, this is the best way. It eliminates complaints from anyone, and keeps the regular season meaningful. It still keeps the bowl system completely intact (and not with playoff games that are "bowls" in name only). It's not that much added effort. Very little extra travel, and logistics aren't a huge issue. There can be no complaints about school/class/exams. In my opinion, this would be the best possible option for college football. My only concern is if this would eventually lead to a larger playoff, which would be a bad thing.
user avatar
Gmorgan4982164 months
quote:

I'm not in love with it, as I'm against at large bids
Me too. That's why my preferred system would be a 12-team playoff with one at-large team.
user avatar
H-Town Tiger164 months
quote:

Take the BCS conference champions plus two at large...eight teams total. The two at-large teams would be the highest ranked teams in the BCS poll that did not receive the automatic bid.

If you can't win your conference, you are on the outside looking in


so in other words you are just taking the top 8 conference winners.
Which means a 4 loss team that wins the Big East or CUSA would get a hot at the NC but an 11-1 LSU that lost to Auburn and didn't win the SEC gets left out.

No thanks. The BCS >>> Than this
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

Which means a 4 loss team that wins the Big East or CUSA would get a hot at the NC but an 11-1 LSU that lost to Auburn and didn't win the SEC gets left out.
whoa...slow down...CUSA is not a BCS conference, and if LSU wins out, they are likely to move ahead of TCU, giving LSU an at-large playoff bid (assuming Boise State gets the other).
user avatar
H-Town Tiger164 months
quote:

whoa...slow down...CUSA is not a BCS conference, and if LSU wins out, they are likely to move ahead of TCU, giving LSU an at-large playoff bid (assuming Boise State gets the other).


OK, I'm missing something or your op is worded poorly (no offense) You said 6 bids would go to 6 BCS conference winners. 2 at large would be next highest in the BCS Standings and that if you can't win your conference, you are on the outside looking in. So do you need to win a conference or not?

Also i you give auto bid to the BCS conference you will have Pitt or whoever wins the BE in, while 1 of unbeaten TCU, unbeaten Boise and 11-1 LSU will be out.
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

if you can't win your conference, you are on the outside looking in
I edited my post...if you don't win your BCS conference, you can still get in as an at-large.
user avatar
reddman164 months
I thought xiv had an interesting way to do it.

LINK

user avatar
Tigerbait337164 months
I just can't bring myself to approve of a system, that promotes teams to schedule easy competition.

user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

I just can't bring myself to approve of a system, that promotes teams to schedule easy competition.
???

In my system, LSU, if they win out this year, would most likely get the 2nd at-large...this would only be due to its perceived strong schedule, especially the OOC schedule.

Additionally, SOS factors into a team's BCS rankings, which would control the seedings...top four teams would get to play first round game at home.

To say scheduling won't play a factor is incorrect.
user avatar
Big Saint164 months
Conference champs should be included if they finish in the top 10 of said polls. I'm tired of the Big East champ taking a spot in these games yet being ranked 15-20. If there are that many teams better than a conference champ why shouldn't they get the shot instead?
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

Conference champs should be included if they finish in the top 10 of said polls.
this has been considered...but I wouldn't want to give too much power to the polls in this scenario.
user avatar
SlowFlowPro164 months
quote:

Take the BCS conference champions plus two at large...eight teams total. The two at-large teams would be the highest ranked teams in the BCS poll that did not receive the automatic bid.

this isn't good enough for "them" anymore
user avatar
Tigerbait337164 months
quote:

If you can't win your conference, you are on the outside looking in.


I just dont like the fact that a top ranked Florida team can go undefeated all year, and lose to Alabama in an SEC Championship game (a game in which half the conferences don't have) and be ruled out.

That Florida team was better than every other team, including a Big East winning Cincinnati, as shown in the Sugar Bowl.
user avatar
The Easter Bunny164 months
quote:

That Florida team was better than every other team, including a Big East winning Cincinnati, as shown in the Sugar Bowl.


They would have been in last year, and undefeated Boise left out. Thanks a lot, Chicken
user avatar
molsusports164 months
that florida team would still have received an at large bid as a very highly ranked team in teh BCS

It's not a bad system... my major problem is it still allows in awful conference champs who don't deserve a shot at a NC after already losing a few games

Hell, If Auburn is eligible this year I don't think LSU deserves a shot in the playoff... they had their shot against Auburn already and lost the game
user avatar
Tigerbait337164 months
Maybe, but if Florida would of gotten an at-large bid, than its contradicting what the reason for a playoff is.

Alabama
Texas
Georgia Tech
tOSU
Oregon
Cincinnati

Boise State
TCU

If Florida would of went in over an undefeated Boise State/TCU..then we aren't solving anything.

user avatar
The Easter Bunny164 months
Chicken, this idea is sooooooo old, but it still doesn't solve two of the main problems people bitch at the BCS about:

1. It still uses opinion polls/computers
2. It still can leave out undefeated teams (Boise in 2009, for example)
user avatar
Chicken164 months
quote:

1. It still uses opinion polls/computers
you will never eliminate that...you need them, at the least, for seeding...and you will need them for picking an AQ runner up (eg, LSU) over a non-AQ team like TCU.

College Baseball and College Basketball have computers (RPI) and humans deciding their playoff field and seedings. This is no different.
quote:

2. It still can leave out undefeated teams (Boise in 2009, for example)
It would only be left out due to weak scheduling on their part.
user avatar
LSUandAU164 months
I like the 8 team approach, but would just take take the top 8 in the BCS period. Too bad for number 9. Better to leave out number 9 than number 3 from a chance like now.
Popular Stories
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram