How to make a playoff fair...

[OU_Sooners75]

Since there is a thread on the politicians wasted their time with this issue...here is my opinion on how it should be ran if it ever occured.


Make the playoff 16 teams. All conferences in D-1A football are included.

I. Eligibility:

A.) You must win your conference. (total of 12)
B.) If you do not win your conference, at-large bids will occur.
C.) If you are not a member of a conference, then you are not eligible for the national playoffs.
II.At-large Bids (total of 4)

A.) If the conference has a championship game, then the runner up is eligible for the playoff.
B.) If there is not a conference championship game, then the second place team is eligible from that conference for the playoff.
C.) After A and B are determined, a ranking system, much like the BCS is then used to determine the at-large bid. With the 4 highest ranking teams getting the At-large bids.
III. Seeding

A.) All teams will be seeded based on a BCS type of polling system. Much like what the NCAA basketball Tournament uses in the RPI.
B.) Conference champions are not necessarily seeded higher than at-large teams.
IV. Sight of play:

A.) First round the higher seed is the home team. No Neutral games.
B.) Second round games would be played at 4 of the following locations:
Atlanta, Phoenix, Pasadena, New Orleans, Orlando, Dallas, Miami
C.) Third round will be played at 2 of the listed locations.
D.) The Championship game will be played at the final location.
Please note. The locations listed are locations of the seven highest payout bowls. Each of the locations will host the championship game once every 7th year.
V. Champion:

The Champion is undisputed and officially recognized by the NCAA. No more determining a champion using polling systems. All previous champions before the playoff was implemented into D-1A football will forever be officially recognized by the NCAA.


If you think there should be more added to this, let me know. I am open for suggestions.

[John Kochtoston]

Since there is a thread on the politicians wasted their time with this issue...here is my opinion on how it should be ran if it ever occured.


Make the playoff 16 teams. All conferences in D-1A football are included.

I think this is at least eight to many, if not 12. The fewer teams in makes it much more likely the "best" team, not the hot team, will win.


I. Eligibility:

A.) You must win your conference. (total of 12)

Again, I totally disagree. Barring an miracle season where the Sun Belt champ or the MAC champ runs the table, including winning their "Pin me, pay me" games, Florida Atlantic and Central Michigan have no business playing for a national title. Take the four (or eight) best teams. I'd also be OK with the six BCS champs getting auto bids, with two wild cards for non-BCS champs or runners-up.

B.) If you do not win your conference, at-large bids will occur.

See above.

C.) If you are not a member of a conference, then you are not eligible for the national playoffs.

If Notre Dame ever becomes relevant again, this might be a sticky wicket. I think that's a bigger if than other people do, but we'll see.

II.At-large Bids (total of 4)

A.) If the conference has a championship game, then the runner up is eligible for the playoff.

So, the loser of OU/Texas, for instance, often the two best teams in the Big 12, is essentially eliminated, while a weak sister from the North gets a chance to go? Not sure about that one.

B.) If there is not a conference championship game, then the second place team is eligible from that conference for the playoff.
C.) After A and B are determined, a ranking system, much like the BCS is then used to determine the at-large bid. With the 4 highest ranking teams getting the At-large bids.

I'd rather see an RPI determine the teams, if a statistically meaningful one can be made from 12 games.

III. Seeding

A.) All teams will be seeded based on a BCS type of polling system. Much like what the NCAA basketball Tournament uses in the RPI.
B.) Conference champions are not necessarily seeded higher than at-large teams.
IV. Sight of play:

A.) First round the higher seed is the home team. No Neutral games.

Agree here.

B.) Second round games would be played at 4 of the following locations:
Atlanta, Phoenix, Pasadena, New Orleans, Orlando, Dallas, Miami

Second-round games would almost have to be played at home sites in a 16-team tournament. I'm not at all convinced that 40,000 fans (roughly half a stadium's worth) will travel to a CCG, and three playoff games.

C.) Third round will be played at 2 of the listed locations.
D.) The Championship game will be played at the final location.
Please note. The locations listed are locations of the seven highest payout bowls. Each of the locations will host the championship game once every 7th year.
V. Champion:

The Champion is undisputed and officially recognized by the NCAA. No more determining a champion using polling systems. All previous champions before the playoff was implemented into D-1A football will forever be officially recognized by the NCAA.


I personally don't think NCAA recognition is that big of a deal, but, I'd be perfectly fine with it.

If you think there should be more added to this, let me know. I am open for suggestions.

Personally, I favor a plus-1, preferably with the 1-2 game being decided after the bowls. My second choice would be a plus-1 in a four-team, seeded playoff.

[Youngsooner]

Finally, another playoff thread ;)

[KantoSooner]

Wow! Am I sure glad someone finally brought this up. I've wondered for years about a playoff and have been disappointed to never see various opinions aired.

[Curly Bill]

...just when I was beginning to think everything was right with the world...:(

[John Kochtoston]

Finally, another playoff thread ;)

Hey, if it's good enough for the Georgia legislature, it's good enough for me.:D

[JLEW1818]

I do not like the plus 1. What if you have 3 teams who do not lose all year. Example the 04-05 season "Auburn". The best team is still not 100% shown. Here is the way I see it. Either everybody has a conference championship game or nobody has a conference championship game. Each BCS conference has to play at least 1 other BCS conference in pre-conference. Keep the polls how they are. Top 8 teams go to a tournament. If your number 9 and still have a problem, then don't lose and problem solved.
JMO but will prlly never ever happen cause the system is stupid.

[JLEW1818]

16 teams is way too many teams. Who was ranked 16th before the bowl games? Exactly nobody knows. If the plus 1 thing happens what if 3 one lose teams or 3 undefeated teams win there bowl game. Then what?

[mynameisjoe]

PLAYOFFS?! DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT PLAYOFFS!! PLAYOFFS, YOU KIDDING ME?!

[goingoneight]

I like the conference champions as well. It would help make every single week and conference titles matter for something. The only problem is the independents. Notre Dame comes first. :mad:

[OU_Sooners75]

Hey, if it's good enough for the Georgia legislature, it's good enough for me.:D
My thoughts exactly.

[OU_Sooners75]

16 teams is way too many teams. Who was ranked 16th before the bowl games? Exactly nobody knows. If the plus 1 thing happens what if 3 one lose teams or 3 undefeated teams win there bowl game. Then what?
16 teams are not to many.
D-1AA, D-2, D-3, NAIA, JUCO all have a 16 team or more playoff. If they can do it...then why is it too many for the more superior athletes/teams?

I wish people would stop using "too many teams" as an excuse to do what would be the right thing to do in D-1A college football.

[John Kochtoston]

16 teams are not to many.
D-1AA, D-2, D-3, NAIA, JUCO all have a 16 team or more playoff. If they can do it...then why is it too many for the more superior athletes/teams?

I wish people would stop using "too many teams" as an excuse to do what would be the right thing to do in D-1A college football.

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do that thing.

1) There is much more parity at the lower levels of CFB than there is at the D-1 level.

2) There is also less opportunity to do apples-to-apples comparisons at lower levels of CFB, since teams tend to play other close-by teams, because of limited travel budgets.

3) Fewer teams also means that there is more emphasis on the regular season, and a much better chance that the best team, instead of the hot team, wins it all.

[John Kochtoston]

I do not like the plus 1. What if you have 3 teams who do not lose all year. Example the 04-05 season "Auburn". The best team is still not 100% shown. Here is the way I see it. Either everybody has a conference championship game or nobody has a conference championship game. Each BCS conference has to play at least 1 other BCS conference in pre-conference. Keep the polls how they are. Top 8 teams go to a tournament. If your number 9 and still have a problem, then don't lose and problem solved.
JMO but will prlly never ever happen cause the system is stupid.

1) Could three unbeatens still come out of a bowls-plus-1 system? Sure. But, it would force every team to play at least one quality OOC game before that happens. Auburn played no one of value OOC, and that's what cost them their trip to the title game. Auburn is hardly the only team to build up a record sponsored by Hostess, either. However, under a bowls-plus-1, after TGOWWDNS, Auburn would have had their shot for USC to light them up.

2) I see your 2004 and raise you 2001. How many teams, exactly, did Miami need to thump before they proved they were No. 1?

[OU_Sooners75]

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do that thing.

1) There is much more parity at the lower levels of CFB than there is at the D-1 level.

2) There is also less opportunity to do apples-to-apples comparisons at lower levels of CFB, since teams tend to play other close-by teams, because of limited travel budgets.

3) Fewer teams also means that there is more emphasis on the regular season, and a much better chance that the best team, instead of the hot team, wins it all.

So the parity in D-1A is lower? Care to explain how Boise State was able to play with OU?

A 16 team playoff is at max 4 more games. Limit the season to 11 games plus a ccg. This will make a max of 16 games for the players.

Why 16 teams? In case you do not know there are 12 conferences. Since a 12 team playoff is a stupid format, I say through in the next four best teams.

Why all conferences? So every D-1A school has that chance.

If traveling expenses are an issue, then they can use home field advantages throughout the playoff and play the championship game whereever the NFL Superbowl is going to be played, or in one of the seven cities I mentioned.

If you do just an 8 team play off, then all BCS conferences champs and 2 at-large Mid-Majors should be invited. The Mid-Majors should be conference champs as well.

[OU_Sooners75]

OH and don't play the Bowl Tradition card.

That says one of two things...

1. You are afraid of change.
2. What tradition? Big 8 went to the Orange Bowl. Now we go to the Fiesta. Not much tradition there.

[usmc-sooner]

oh great another playoff thread

the NFL to me just showed that playoffs are just as flawed as the BCS, a team that got hot at the end won the playoff. It's a tournament, you have a tournament champion. If you had three of them you'd probably have 2 or 3 different winners.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

oh great another playoff thread

the NFL to me just showed that playoffs are just as flawed as the BCS, a team that got hot at the end won the playoff. It's a tournament, you have a tournament champion. If you had three of them you'd probably have 2 or 3 different winners.

And didn't even win their division.

[OUmillenium]

How to make a playoff fair...

Don't have one.

[JLEW1818]

Auburn did not make the championship in 04-05 because they started so low in the rankings............. They play a harder conference then us, I hate to say it. No conference championships top 8 teams go. 16 teams is TOO MANY. 16 vs 1 ? this is not college basketball.

[LittleWingSooner]

Have an 8 team playoff. 6 teams get in from the major conferences. 2 at large bids. If a team from a lower conference is undefeated and in the top 12 they should get in.

[Sooner_Bob]

How is 16 too many?

Playoff Week 1 = 8 games
Playoff Week 2 = 4 games
Playoff Week 3 = 2 games
Championship Game

That's not that far fetched.

Also, the Mossman (http://www.soonersports.com/genrel/121107aaa.html) argument about the whole week-long experience associated with the bowls is a cop out. If the "kids" care more about that experience than the actual game then maybe that's a problem.

Also, I don't think anyone is saying take that week-long experience away from every team . . .

[LittleWingSooner]

Putting teams from the Sun Belt and WAC Conferences would be a joke. They play nobody all year and get in a playoff over a team like lets say Texas who beats them by 3 TDs. Fact is that 16 teams aren't good enough to win it all in College Football. There's probably about 20-30 teams good enough to win it all in college basketball.

[MextheBulldog]

16 is too many because then you allow the 3rd and perhaps 4th place teams from major conferences into the mix.

Keep it at 8, then you maintain integrity of the regular season, and avoid having a team like the Giants sneak in and win it all, despite not having won their own division.

[LittleWingSooner]

16 is too many because then you allow the 3rd and perhaps 4th place teams from major conferences into the mix.

Keep it at 8, then you maintain integrity of the regular season, and avoid having a team like the Giants sneak in and win it all, despite not having won their own division.

Giants were the best team in the NFL the last 2 or 3 months.

[FroggyStyle22]

I think we should adopt a relegation system like they do soccer in Europe.

There are only the current 6 BCS conferences. Each one has an A and a B league with about 10 teams each. Every year the top three teams from the B league and the bottom 3 from the A league switch places. At the end of the season there is an 8 team tournament, the six conference champs and two at large teams. Teams that do not get in the tournament have bowl games assuming they qualify. This way players get rewarded for a good season and, top to bottom, the regular season stays relevant.

[usmc-sooner]

Giants were the best team in the NFL the last 2 or 3 months.

yet they lost about a month ago to the Patriots

[silverwheels]

The college football post-season isn't about fairness. It's about money and old people who are too afraid to let go of tradition. When someone (important) comes up with a way for a playoff to make more money than the bowls and all the old fogeys die, then perhaps we may see a playoff. Until then, don't count on it.

[LittleWingSooner]

yet they lost about a month ago to the Patriots

In a game where they didn't play some key players and held a lot back. And it was a close, hard fought game.

[Sooner_Bob]

16 is too many because then you allow the 3rd and perhaps 4th place teams from major conferences into the mix.

Keep it at 8, then you maintain integrity of the regular season, and avoid having a team like the Giants sneak in and win it all, despite not having won their own division.


Seriously?

So you're completely against the wild card idea with the NFL? To me that's what makes the NFL playoffs great.

[usmc-sooner]

In a game where they didn't play some key players and held a lot back. And it was a close, hard fought game.

and they didn't win their division, So are they the Champions or the Champions for the last 2 months.

like I said they won a tournament, if the playoffs started tommorrow, same set up, we'd have a different champion.

That's why I like the college system they evaluate the entire field of work, not just name the winner of a tournament. If you played the NCAA BBall tournament over with the same seedings you wouldn't get the same sweet 16, final 8, or final 4, much less the finals the same.

[LittleWingSooner]

The problem is that in college football you can have a bad year like LSU did this year and lose to bad teams, and still make the NC game. Or you can just schedule your way to the NC game like Ohio State did. 8 teams makes you have to win a division, if you put the first round games in the home field of the top 4 teams it's even more incentive because if you lose a game you may have no control of playing a first round home playoff game. Going on the road in college football is tougher then it is in any sport. You give the home games by ranking in the final BCS Poll.

[Phantasm]

humm, playoffs.... could be good

[JLEW1818]

How is 16 too many?

Playoff Week 1 = 8 games
Playoff Week 2 = 4 games
Playoff Week 3 = 2 games
Championship Game

That's not that far fetched.

Also, the Mossman (http://www.soonersports.com/genrel/121107aaa.html) argument about the whole week-long experience associated with the bowls is a cop out. If the "kids" care more about that experience than the actual game then maybe that's a problem.

Also, I don't think anyone is saying take that week-long experience away from every team . . .


Agree 100%

[John Kochtoston]

I think we should adopt a relegation system like they do soccer in Europe.

There are only the current 6 BCS conferences. Each one has an A and a B league with about 10 teams each. Every year the top three teams from the B league and the bottom 3 from the A league switch places. At the end of the season there is an 8 team tournament, the six conference champs and two at large teams. Teams that do not get in the tournament have bowl games assuming they qualify. This way players get rewarded for a good season and, top to bottom, the regular season stays relevant.

You know, as much as I hate soccer, this isn't the worst idea in the world. Not that I think it would ever happen, but since we're just spitballing here...

I'd like to see it on a national basis, though. Grab the top 14 teams from the end of the final regular season of the current system. Put them in the Premier league. Everyone plays each other once. At the end, the two best teams play for it all. Repeat the next year. Any team that finishes in the bottom half two years running is relegated down to Series A, with Series A promoting its best teams to fill the slots. Create Series B, C, whatever, until all the teams are in a Series. That way, each team has a realistic shot to win its series, and continuous success will allow for an eventual chance to play for it all.

[Ash]

and they didn't win their division, So are they the Champions or the Champions for the last 2 months.

like I said they won a tournament, if the playoffs started tommorrow, same set up, we'd have a different champion.

That's why I like the college system they evaluate the entire field of work, not just name the winner of a tournament. If you played the NCAA BBall tournament over with the same seedings you wouldn't get the same sweet 16, final 8, or final 4, much less the finals the same.

Wrongo about the bball tourney. Go back and check the percentages on how often the top 4 seeds make it to the regional finals and final game as opposed to other seeds, much less win it.

[usmc-sooner]

Wrongo about the bball tourney. Go back and check the percentages on how often the top 4 seeds make it to the regional finals and final game as opposed to other seeds, much less win it.

don't get me wrong you'd have a bunch of the same teams but not all the teams. Sweet 16 wouldn't be the same and on down.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

+1 is good enough

[Ash]

don't get me wrong you'd have a bunch of the same teams but not all the teams. Sweet 16 wouldn't be the same and on down.

That's true. But what's the difference with a team playing well at the end of the year and winning their one bowl game (or vice versa, playing like crap and winning their one bowl game -see WVU) and a team playing well at the end of the year and that carrying over into a playoff?

The argument works both ways. Running into a "hot" team or a team having a bad game and being eliminated from champeenship consideration is going to happen whether it's one bowl game or 4 playoff games.

[usmc-sooner]

That's true. But what's the difference with a team playing well at the end of the year and winning their one bowl game (or vice versa, playing like crap and winning their one bowl game -see WVU) and a team playing well at the end of the year and that carrying over into a playoff?

The argument works both ways. Running into a "hot" team or a team having a bad game and being eliminated from champeenship consideration is going to happen whether it's one bowl game or 4 playoff games.

true I just don't see one being "better" than the other, they both have flaws.

[hOlden caUlfield...]

I don't hear too many people complain about the Basketball Tourney ever. (88' Sooners is the only thing that comes to mind)

[Crucifax Autumn]

If I had my way the playoff would be designed to get OU in yearly against midrange teams that are neither powerhouses or "cindarella" teams!

Obviously I'm being silly...

[CORNholio]

Auburn did not make the championship in 04-05 because they started so low in the rankings............. They play a harder conference then us, I hate to say it. No conference championships top 8 teams go. 16 teams is TOO MANY. 16 vs 1 ? this is not college basketball.

Nobody could beat SuC that year. If Auburn had gone and had lost by 40 everybody would be gushing about how OU would have beaten SuC. Anymore than 4 or 5 is too many everybody can pick the top 5 but not everybody puts them in the same order thats where a playoff makes sense. It's not there to give a "hot" team a chance to sparkle and fade.

[CORNholio]

I don't hear too many people complain about the Basketball Tourney ever. (88' Sooners is the only thing that comes to mind)

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

[hOlden caUlfield...]

Well... There are playoffs in D-1AA Football, D-2 Football, D-3 Football, Juco Football, NFL, College Basketball, NBA, MLB, NHL.....It would be much easier to just name the sports that do not have a playoff. I guess they are ALL wrong.
I'm completely undecided on what is the best thing for NCAA football. I do know the B.C.S. is not. People will ALWAYS complain about something, but the system we have in College Football is far-fetched and ridiculous at best.

[JLEW1818]

Nobody could beat SuC that year. If Auburn had gone and had lost by 40 everybody would be gushing about how OU would have beaten SuC. Anymore than 4 or 5 is too many everybody can pick the top 5 but not everybody puts them in the same order thats where a playoff makes sense. It's not there to give a "hot" team a chance to sparkle and fade.


Ya I see your point. I'm not saying we were not the second best team in the nation that year, because we were. Auburn had no claim to go to the finals that year. They start 15th I think and we started 2nd and did not lose. Case closed.

[LittleWingSooner]

Well... There are playoffs in D-1AA Football, D-2 Football, D-3 Football, Juco Football, NFL, College Basketball, NBA, MLB, NHL.....It would be much easier to just name the sports that do not have a playoff. I guess they are ALL wrong.
I'm completely undecided on what is the best thing for NCAA football. I do know the B.C.S. is not. People will ALWAYS complain about something, but the system we have in College Football is far-fetched and ridiculous at best.

If all of College Football didn't have a playoff then the non-playoff guys have a point there. But fact is that any level of football the ADs and coaches laugh at you if you say that the highest div in college football has it best.

[OUmillenium]

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

Ha! Speak it brutha!

spek

[usmc-sooner]

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

exactly

[Curly Bill]

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

I'm onboard as well.

[Ash]

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

Pure bullcrap. You obviously haven't watched a tournament or paid attention in the past 30 years or so.

[LittleWingSooner]

So you are basically saying that 90% of college football is crowning their NT in a crappy way?

Only 115 teams out of the thousands of teams that play college football are crowning an NC the way the top Div does.

[Curly Bill]

Pure bullcrap. You obviously haven't watched a tournament or paid attention in the past 30 years or so.

You obviously have never heard of hyperbole. :)

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

PLAYOFFS?! DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT PLAYOFFS!! PLAYOFFS, YOU KIDDING ME?!

We won't ever get Diddley-Poo out of University presidents or the current back-room deals. :D

[reddfoxx]

Leave the current system in place. I love to watch meaningless games played by mediocre teams in empty stadiums in December.

I wonder why everyone is so concerned about the best team winning the national title? The best team doesn't always win. Anyone who has watched football more than one season knows that. Why try to play "Football God" and annoint who you perceive as the best team as the National Champion?

[JLEW1818]

Leave the current system in place. I love to watch meaningless games played by mediocre teams in empty stadiums in December.

I wonder why everyone is so concerned about the best team winning the national title? The best team doesn't always win. Anyone who has watched football more than one season knows that. Why try to play "Football God" and annoint who you perceive as the best team as the National Champion?

Why should any team even play then?????? If your not TRYING to play for a national title, then its pointless to play. Everybody knows that we need a new system. So yes have a tourney and let the best team win. Yes upsets happen its football.... how bout we don't even play the upcoming season so we can make sure that the best team does not have to lose? Are you serious with your comment? IF YOUR NOT PLAYING FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP THEN WHEY THE HELL ARE YOU PLAYING? AND DON'T SAY TO BUILD CHARACTER. LOL. Oh ya and Oklahoma has never played a meaningless game since I've been watching them lately. ha

[reddfoxx]

Easy boy, it was said tongue-in-cheek. I agree with you- I hate the current system.

[SoonerFaninAZ]

I've searched for quite some time and I've yet to find a single post, blog or column where fans of NCAA I-AA, NCAA Div II, NAIA, NCAA Basketball, NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL think they ought to go to a bowl system.

[Sco]

^Valid argument.

[goingoneight]

The problem is that in college football you can have a bad year like LSU did this year and lose to bad teams, and still make the NC game. Or you can just schedule your way to the NC game like Ohio State did. 8 teams makes you have to win a division, if you put the first round games in the home field of the top 4 teams it's even more incentive because if you lose a game you may have no control of playing a first round home playoff game. Going on the road in college football is tougher then it is in any sport. You give the home games by ranking in the final BCS Poll.

I'll bet you if we played Kansas's schedule, we'd be National Champions to be honest with ya. Name teams and media darlings walk their way into undeserving roles all the time. Neither USC or Georgia belonged in the MNC game, but they damn sure campaigned like hell to get them in there. They pulled the "tough conference" card to get LSU in and the name team with one loss got blown out in the finale. The BCS is most of the time a total crapshoot. For now, it determines National Champions. Therefore if you change the system, you cannot subtract MNCs from teams who did what they had to do to earn them. But I watched both Ohio State AND LSU and nothing all year long told me they wouldn't struggle against anyone decent. Now, put all the deserving teams in a small tourney with say... home field advantage rewarded to the higher seeds and you have at minimum a 200% better idea who is better than who.

[LittleWingSooner]

I've searched for quite some time and I've yet to find a single post, blog or column where fans of NCAA I-AA, NCAA Div II, NAIA, NCAA Basketball, NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL think they ought to go to a bowl system.

That's probably the best argument for a playoff system.

[LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe]

I'll be the first then. March Madness is by no means a better (or even good) way to determine a champion. 9 out of 10 times the best team in the country doesn't make the championship game much less win it. It is so out of hand that it is just funny. If they are going to give that many mediocre teams a chance at the NC then why don't they just skip the regular season and just play the tournament, hell let everybody in, it'll take 4 months. When that tournament is over then they should take the top 32 teams from that one and have another tournament to see who is really better, after about 2 years and 25 tournaments they should take the average place in the tournament for each team and crown a winner.:rolleyes:

Well then I guess they were not the BEST team in the country, a playoff system makes you bring your A game every week/day(whatever) and if you don't you are done. There has rarely if ever been any speculation as to who might have done what if they played team A instead of team B in the BB toruney. The Pats WERE the best team in the NFL until they got beat by the Giants......end of story!!!!!