- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Speaking of a playoff system...
Posted on 12/3/07 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 12/3/07 at 2:04 pm
Now that the BCS Champ game is set there are a lot of cries that the process is a mess, etc. Ok, maybe, but not for LSU. Not this year.
For other years when it would be more self-serving, here's my only take... let me know what you think.
1. There is too much money in the bowl system to scrap it. The cities whose annual revenues depend on bowls to keep their economies running would be in open revolt if the bowl system was scrapped. It ain't happening. The reason there are playoffs in the lower regions of college football is there were no bowls to begin with.
2. A playoff system would have to use the bowls as they are, particular the ones around New Year's Day -- just like now. This would not be a perfect system, but it might work.
3. It would involve two regular BCS bowls and then that extra one, the BCS Championship game on Jan 7th. It would be ok to add the Cotton as a possible BCS bowl site, for the sake of tradition -- it used to be a biggie. Every year, the two BCS bowl sites would rotate among the whole group of designated BCS bowls.
4. On those years when the bowl is a playoff bowl, any regular tie-ins with conference champions would be suspended for that year only.
5. It would involve the top four teams in the BCS formula, chosen as they typically are according to the BCS method, polls, SOS, etc.
6. This could get brutal. The top four would play in the two BCS playoff bowls in some format like: #1 versus #4 at bowl A, and #2 versus #3 at bowl AA.
7. The winner of bowl A would be either the #1 or #4 team. The winner of bowl AA would be either #2 or #3.
8. The two winners would then play in the BCS Championship game. The winner of that game would be MNC.
Go ahead, pick it to pieces. It's just my idea.
For other years when it would be more self-serving, here's my only take... let me know what you think.
1. There is too much money in the bowl system to scrap it. The cities whose annual revenues depend on bowls to keep their economies running would be in open revolt if the bowl system was scrapped. It ain't happening. The reason there are playoffs in the lower regions of college football is there were no bowls to begin with.
2. A playoff system would have to use the bowls as they are, particular the ones around New Year's Day -- just like now. This would not be a perfect system, but it might work.
3. It would involve two regular BCS bowls and then that extra one, the BCS Championship game on Jan 7th. It would be ok to add the Cotton as a possible BCS bowl site, for the sake of tradition -- it used to be a biggie. Every year, the two BCS bowl sites would rotate among the whole group of designated BCS bowls.
4. On those years when the bowl is a playoff bowl, any regular tie-ins with conference champions would be suspended for that year only.
5. It would involve the top four teams in the BCS formula, chosen as they typically are according to the BCS method, polls, SOS, etc.
6. This could get brutal. The top four would play in the two BCS playoff bowls in some format like: #1 versus #4 at bowl A, and #2 versus #3 at bowl AA.
7. The winner of bowl A would be either the #1 or #4 team. The winner of bowl AA would be either #2 or #3.
8. The two winners would then play in the BCS Championship game. The winner of that game would be MNC.
Go ahead, pick it to pieces. It's just my idea.
2
Posted on 12/3/07 at 2:30 pm to JawjaTigah
quote:
It's just my idea.
Not really. YOu just described the Plus One model that many of us have been screaming for for years.
Posted on 12/3/07 at 2:50 pm to SG_Geaux
Heres mine i posted it on the Rant:
1.) Move the season up 1 week.
2.) Eliminate one non-conference game and demand every conference to hold a championship game. Every team plays a total of 3 out of conference games and 8 conference games plus the championship game for the 2 teams in each conference that make it.
3.) After championship week, the top 8 in the BCS go to the bowls. Which bowl gets whom would rotate every year along with what seeds they are given, However the 2 non former BCS bowls will never host the semi-final games but the BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) that host these quarterfinal games would rotate every year. (for example, 2 BCS bowls and 2 other lage bowls maybe peach or cotton? so 1 year the Peach bowl would host the 1 vs. 8 matchup, then 2 vs. 7 the next, etc.) These bowls would all be played by the end of December.
4.) With 4 remaining teams, the games would be played at the 2 remaining old BCS bowls with again the seeds rotating every year, on New Years day or sometime around the 1st of January.
5.) The MNC would be played the following week and still rotate like it does now between the 4 venues.
That is the best way to do it, IMO. The season would not be to long, so that argument is out. It is not a valid argument anyway, bc only 8 teams would have extended seasons, and 1-AA does it. Are they not student athletes too? I realize this is a long shot, and the biggest things standing in the way is the corporate sponsers, but the system needs to be fixed. Ok, so give me your thoughts....
1.) Move the season up 1 week.
2.) Eliminate one non-conference game and demand every conference to hold a championship game. Every team plays a total of 3 out of conference games and 8 conference games plus the championship game for the 2 teams in each conference that make it.
3.) After championship week, the top 8 in the BCS go to the bowls. Which bowl gets whom would rotate every year along with what seeds they are given, However the 2 non former BCS bowls will never host the semi-final games but the BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) that host these quarterfinal games would rotate every year. (for example, 2 BCS bowls and 2 other lage bowls maybe peach or cotton? so 1 year the Peach bowl would host the 1 vs. 8 matchup, then 2 vs. 7 the next, etc.) These bowls would all be played by the end of December.
4.) With 4 remaining teams, the games would be played at the 2 remaining old BCS bowls with again the seeds rotating every year, on New Years day or sometime around the 1st of January.
5.) The MNC would be played the following week and still rotate like it does now between the 4 venues.
That is the best way to do it, IMO. The season would not be to long, so that argument is out. It is not a valid argument anyway, bc only 8 teams would have extended seasons, and 1-AA does it. Are they not student athletes too? I realize this is a long shot, and the biggest things standing in the way is the corporate sponsers, but the system needs to be fixed. Ok, so give me your thoughts....
Posted on 12/3/07 at 3:14 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:Good, I don't mean to sound like I think it's my original creation; it's a distillation of a lot of the stuff I've read and digested here and elsewhere. The point is, I think this model is doable with a minumum of demanding schedule changes and playoffs in conferences that don't have them, and within the bowl system as it is now; just a bit more specific than playing the two BCS #1 & #2s a week after New Year's.
YOu just described the Plus One model that many of us have been screaming for for years.
This post was edited on 12/3/07 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/3/07 at 3:16 pm to Geaux17
I don't dislike your idea. The Cotton Bowl in anticipation that moves may be made has made the decision to abandon the cotton bowl for the Cowboys new super stadium--when its built for 1/1/2010 bowl.
The Big 10, Pac 10 , and Rose Bowl would be livid with 3 of 5 rotating playoff. In the current model they got the rose bowl to alwasy being NY Day which they saw as a step forward, thats one of the only reasons they were ok with adding Champ game. if you notice which ever of sugar, fiesta, orange host NCG get Jan.1, and others are like 3rd and 4th and BCS on 7th, but Rose always gets Jan. 1 including their NCG year.
They have said over my dead body to plus now that mike slive is now mentioning--although i've never understood why b/c it guarantees their beloved tradition.
If you do anything to lessen the 5 gave inital format then the $hitty confernces will bo bonkers. So the best thing they'll likely be able to do. The top 4 thing is ideal, but won't work b/c Rose would be pissed. To me this is the way to sell it to them, they get to go back to tradition and host BCS NCG every 5th year.
Every year: Sec vs. at large in Sugar
Every year: ACC vs. at large in Orange
Every year: Big-11 vs. Pac-10 in Rose
Every year: Big-12 vs. at large in Fiesta
Every year: at large vs. at large in Cotton
with the same rules as now that Big East is an at large and must pick a top 4 and special rules for notre lame and $hit conferences.
Then play NCG a week later.
I'd say go forward with the model you metnion and let them opt out if they dare and get the ire of their schools. BUT what you would have is every year the BCS goes to whomever, but the AP goes to winner of Rose Bowl pac-10 v. big-10
so it defeats the point if you can't satisfy them and to me above is only way, they moved to 5th game b/c of new years and money. They may move to plus one b/c of big 1- pac 10 line up every year.
The Big 10, Pac 10 , and Rose Bowl would be livid with 3 of 5 rotating playoff. In the current model they got the rose bowl to alwasy being NY Day which they saw as a step forward, thats one of the only reasons they were ok with adding Champ game. if you notice which ever of sugar, fiesta, orange host NCG get Jan.1, and others are like 3rd and 4th and BCS on 7th, but Rose always gets Jan. 1 including their NCG year.
They have said over my dead body to plus now that mike slive is now mentioning--although i've never understood why b/c it guarantees their beloved tradition.
If you do anything to lessen the 5 gave inital format then the $hitty confernces will bo bonkers. So the best thing they'll likely be able to do. The top 4 thing is ideal, but won't work b/c Rose would be pissed. To me this is the way to sell it to them, they get to go back to tradition and host BCS NCG every 5th year.
Every year: Sec vs. at large in Sugar
Every year: ACC vs. at large in Orange
Every year: Big-11 vs. Pac-10 in Rose
Every year: Big-12 vs. at large in Fiesta
Every year: at large vs. at large in Cotton
with the same rules as now that Big East is an at large and must pick a top 4 and special rules for notre lame and $hit conferences.
Then play NCG a week later.
I'd say go forward with the model you metnion and let them opt out if they dare and get the ire of their schools. BUT what you would have is every year the BCS goes to whomever, but the AP goes to winner of Rose Bowl pac-10 v. big-10
so it defeats the point if you can't satisfy them and to me above is only way, they moved to 5th game b/c of new years and money. They may move to plus one b/c of big 1- pac 10 line up every year.
Posted on 12/3/07 at 3:20 pm to Cadercole
quote:Do you really think this would happen every year? What if the AP was brought back into the BCS formula with the expectation that there would be no polling deviation once the top four teams were chosen?
BUT what you would have is every year the BCS goes to whomever, but the AP goes to winner of Rose Bowl pac-10 v. big-10
Posted on 12/3/07 at 3:27 pm to JawjaTigah
No matter what anybody does, somebody is going to be pissed. If you only take the top 4 teams, #5 in the rankings will be pissed saying they should be in the playoff system. There is no definite way to end all of the controversy. Somebody like Bob Stoops or Mike Richt is always going to cry about not getting a shot for the national title.
Posted on 12/3/07 at 3:31 pm to hoboattacker
The good thing about taking four teams and not two is you double the happy factor for these teams, and that will have a cumulative impact as teams and their fans begin to realize the potential for their getting into the big game has also increased.
Posted on 12/3/07 at 7:39 pm to JawjaTigah
I personally don't have a problem with the PAC-10 not having a championship game because they all play each other. I think it would work best if there were no 12 team conferences. I know we aren't going to kick two teams out either, so I guess we will just have to piss and moan this time every year!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News