The Perfect Playoff Solution...

[TMcGee86]

if nothing else, to divert your attention away from what's happened to our beloved program.


I've laid out my plan before, but it is so perfect it must be stated again.

It corrects everything that is wrong with the current system, and destroys nothing that is right with the current system.


Here it is:

A six team playoff.

Eliminate Conference Championship games and the first round is held the week the CCG's would have been held.

The Final Four is held on New Years Day. Bringing back the glory to Jan 1.

The True National Championship Game is held, just like it is now, a week later, ala Jan 8th last year.


This year it would look like this:

First Round, Dec 5th.

#1 Florida - Bye

#2 Alabama - Bye

#3 Texas vs. #6 Boise State

#4 TCU vs. #5 Cincy


Final Four, Jan 1st

#1 Florida vs. #4 TCU

#2 Alabama vs. #3 Texas


National Championship Game, Jan 7th

#4 TCU vs. #2 Alabama (heh, sorry, couldn't resist).




Tell me where this is wrong?

It keeps the regular season meaningful, as there is still major incentive to stay undefeated to obtain a first round bye.

It adds NO more weeks to the schedule, does not play through finals, does not bleed into two semesters, and does not require massive travel.

It all but eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim to the NC game.

And it makes Jan 1 relevant again.

Plus it only adds one game max to anyone's schedule.


Add the Cotton Bowl (now played at JerryWorld) to the BCS rotation and you have the five game sites needed for such a playoff.


Bing bang boom perfection, personified. :D

[OUHOMER]

I like it, Did you want to call the NCAA or do you want me to?

[Leroy Lizard]

Eliminate Conference Championship games and the first round is held the week the CCG's would have been held.

If by perfect you mean, "No chance in Hell of being implemented because no conference would be stupid enough to give up such a major payday to satisfy your silly need to be entertained," then I agree.

I mean, c'mon! Think about it.

Current situation: Conference championship game guaranteed every year with the entire gate receipts staying in-house. Game is guaranteed to be held in a home state, with all the tourism money staying within the home state.

And you're going to replace that with what?

Playoff proponents need to think beyond just matchups.

[TMcGee86]

If by perfect you mean, "No chance in Hell of being implemented because no conference would be stupid enough to give up such a major payday to satisfy your silly need to be entertained," then I agree.

I mean, c'mon! Think about it.

Current situation: Conference championship game guaranteed every year with the entire gate receipts staying in-house. Game is guaranteed to be held in a home state, with all the tourism money staying within the home state.

And you're going to replace that with what?

Playoff proponents need to think beyond just matchups.

That's the one thing that might be too hard to overcome, but if you could guarantee the conference more money from the playoff revenue, it could work. You'd only have to convince 3 conferences anyway.


But luckily that is the easiest thing to remove. You still have the same scenario, only the first round games are played on Dec 10th & 11th and now probably the loser of UF/Bama is 6th.

Still at least 3 weeks to prepare for the Final Four, and even more incentive to go undefeated.

[Leroy Lizard]

You have to convince all three conferences to do it. If any one conference official has an ounce of gray matter between his ears, your playoff idea will be shot down.

Think about what you are asking conferences to give up. The host cities pay the conferences a lot of money for the privilege, and this money is guaranteed every year. Your idea has the SEC not hosting a game at all in the week replacing the conference championship game, so their conference gets zip. It looks like Texas could host a game, so Austin would benefit... but there is no guarantee of that since Boise could end up hosting the game in any given year.

A CCG attracts 70,000 fans, and the gate receipts get shelled out to the conference's teams because every year two conference teams are guaranteed to play. Your idea only has one conference team making money this year, and if UT loses another game the Big XII could end up with nothing.

So you have some great matchups there, but it isn't very smart. Great matchups are easy to draw up and they get everyone excited. But they're just not feasible.

[SoonerMachine]

Yes, I've e-mailed to every AD and the NCAA, and no, no one replied except ut! :texan:

8-team Playoff Formula (utilizing the BCS):


1. After the season ends, select the six highest ranked D-1A conference champions (regardless of conference)

2. Select the two highest ranked at-large teams (conference or independent)


1st Round (1st Saturday in December):

Highest ranked conference champion hosts lowest ranked conference champion

Second highest ranked conference champion hosts fifth lowest ranked conference champion

Third highest ranked conference champion hosts forth lowest ranked conference champion

Highest ranked at-large team hosts second highest ranked at-large team*


2nd Round (the following Saturday):

Highest rank hosts lowest rank

Second highest hosts third lowest


3rd Round:

Winners play for the National Championship on New Year’s Day


*In the event an at-large team is an independent, then the 1st round will proceed as follows:

1st Round:

Highest rank hosts lowest rank

Second highest hosts seventh lowest

Third highest hosts sixth lowest

Forth highest hosts fifth lowest


Advantages:

· Incorporates a true playoff field while emphasizing the regular season
· Allows for independents to participate (e.g., Navy)
· High potential for a ‘Cinderella season’ (e.g., ’98 – Tulane, ’99 – Marshall, ’00 – TCU, ’04 – Utah & Boise St., ’05 – TCU, ’06 – Boise St., ’08 – Utah & Boise St.)
· Retains all bowl games, including invitations to the six teams eliminated from the playoffs
· Increases revenue for teams and conferences participating
· Reduces travel time for fans (no bowl hopping)

Disadvantages:

· As with any playoff system, the possibility for rematches exists (Note: This method reduces rematches by requiring the at-large teams to face each other rather than a pure ‘top eight’ approach)
· Will still require the BCS (subjectivity) for the seeding of the conference winners and the selection of the at-large teams
· Expands the season for participating teams

[Leroy Lizard]

1st Round (1st Saturday in December):

When do you play the conference championship games?


2nd Round (the following Saturday):

This is the weekend before final exams. College presidents won't go for it.


· Will still require the BCS (subjectivity) for the seeding of the conference winners and the selection of the at-large teams

Not only that, but for picking the conference champs as well.

You forgot the biggest drawback: Having teams host games is a monster money-loser for college football. Miami pays big bucks to host the Orange Bowl, but none of the host cities are going to sponsor the games in your system because the games are scheduled to play in their cities as a matter of policy. Besides, it is hard to schedule games on a week's notice in some college towns.

[pappy]

My recommendation for a playoff is top 12 teams (like the nfl) give the top 4 seeds a bye week you let the top 12 teams play playoffs for the national championship and all the bowl eligable teams that are outside the top 12 still play bowl games. You use the bcs bowls for the playoff locations.

[SoonerMachine]

When do you play the conference championship games?

The season will start one week early or bye weeks will be eliminated.


This is the weekend before final exams. College presidents won't go for it.


It's only four teams at this point, and many college's finals are beyond that week.


Not only that, but for picking the conference champs as well.


N/A


You forgot the biggest drawback: Having teams host games is a monster money-loser for college football. Miami pays big bucks to host the Orange Bowl, but none of the host cities are going to sponsor the games in your system because the games are scheduled to play in their cities as a matter of policy. Besides, it is hard to schedule games on a week's notice in some college towns.

TV revenue/BCS contracts will be more than enough. Monster money-loser?

[SoonerPr8r]

Why not have the OP's idea and keep the meaningless bowls (non-bcs bowls). That way schools and subsequently conferences still get their payouts.

^Cake and eating it too

[TMcGee86]

You have to convince all three conferences to do it. If any one conference official has an ounce of gray matter between his ears, your playoff idea will be shot down.

Think about what you are asking conferences to give up. The host cities pay the conferences a lot of money for the privilege, and this money is guaranteed every year. Your idea has the SEC not hosting a game at all in the week replacing the conference championship game, so their conference gets zip. It looks like Texas could host a game, so Austin would benefit... but there is no guarantee of that since Boise could end up hosting the game in any given year.

A CCG attracts 70,000 fans, and the gate receipts get shelled out to the conference's teams because every year two conference teams are guaranteed to play. Your idea only has one conference team making money this year, and if UT loses another game the Big XII could end up with nothing.

So you have some great matchups there, but it isn't very smart. Great matchups are easy to draw up and they get everyone excited. But they're just not feasible.

Well, I would think the overall intake from the playoff games would far surpass anything collected from the likes of a CCG. As long as you divvy it out to the conferences in such a way that equals what they got before, and again, that would be easy because only 3 had them, then there would be no reason for them not to be on board.

Plus, like I said, such a scenario could still easily be played with CCGs intact.

[Leroy Lizard]

TV revenue/BCS contracts will be more than enough. Monster money-loser?

Absolutely, at least the way it was proposed. The current BCS bowls already have huge viewership, and any extra money made will not go directly to individual conferences. You are asking conferences to give up huge guaranteed paydays for the chance that one of their teams MIGHT make a lot of money.

If no one was watching the bowl games now, you might have a point. But BCS bowl games are already huge moneymakers. To offset the losses of losing conference championship games, you have to generate a lot of ADDITIONAL revenue with the playoffs. I don't see how you're going to do that.

Your playoff system has five games played between six teams. But the six teams normally would play three bowl games. So you only have two additional games to create enough additional revenue to pay for the elimination of three conference championship games.

Do the math. The bowls have, which is why they oppose a playoff.


Well, I would think the overall intake from the playoff games would far surpass anything collected from the likes of a CCG. As long as you divvy it out to the conferences in such a way that equals what they got before, and again, that would be easy because only 3 had them, then there would be no reason for them not to be on board.

Just three?

Suppose the Big XII doesn't land any teams in the playoffs. Are you still going to pay money out to the Big XII? If you give the Big XII (say) $5 million from playoff proceeds, are you going to give the Pac-10 and the Big-10 the same amount? What about the Big East? MAC?


Plus, like I said, such a scenario could still easily be played with CCGs intact.

Then why were CCGs removed from the equation in the first place?

[TMcGee86]

Just three?

Suppose the Big XII doesn't land any teams in the playoffs. Are you still going to pay money out to the Big XII?

Yes, the Big12 would still get money.


If you give the Big XII (say) $5 million from playoff proceeds, are you going to give the Pac-10 and the Big-10 the same amount? What about the Big East? MAC?


No, they would not get the same amount. The Big 12, SEC and ACC would get a greater share of the overall revenue than the Big 10 and Pac 10. And the Big 10 and Pac 10 would get a greater share than any non bcs conference.

At first this sounds unfair, but like you said if you do the math, it makes sense.

Before, the Big10 and Pac 10 shared one BCS game. While there was always a chance that one or both would land another team either at large or in the Championship game, it wasn't guaranteed.

However, under my system the payoff would be guaranteed every year. And with 5 total playoff games, you can use the revenue from 3 of the games to make up for the CCG's and still have two games left over to compensate all the other conferences.

The Pac and Big 10 are making out better than they were before, and the CCG 3 are covered for their loss and given more money that they would not have been guaranteed before.

Remember, the bowl games are not eliminated. So if the Pac/Big 10 want to keep pitting the best non-playoff schools in the rose bowl, then they are free to do so.

The only games eliminated are the CCG's. And like I said, those three conferences are compensated for their loss with a disproportionate share of the playoff revenue, regardless of team participation in any given year.


Now granted, I'm banking on the fact that a playoff game would bring in much more money than a CCG, however I don't think that is that great of a stretch.

All other games, including BCS Bowl games, could still be played. They would just be played without the top six teams.

Or you could even include the first two losers in the playoff games meaning only the top 4 would be eliminated from the BCS Bowl Games.

Again, it adds no more games because CCG's were eliminated, so the first round would be the 13th game, and the BCS Bowl game would be the 14th, just as it is now.





Then why were CCGs removed from the equation in the first place?

Just because I don't like them. Originally I had it with them still in there, but I figured why not take the opportunity to eliminate them. Plus it makes the timeline work better as you aren't playing the second week of December. You could still get around that, but it would take more tinkering, maybe eliminating the reg season bye week.

[RedstickSooner]

if nothing else, to divert your attention away from what's happened to our beloved program.


I've laid out my plan before, but it is so perfect it must be stated again.

It corrects everything that is wrong with the current system, and destroys nothing that is right with the current system.


Here it is:

A six team playoff.

Eliminate Conference Championship games and the first round is held the week the CCG's would have been held.

The Final Four is held on New Years Day. Bringing back the glory to Jan 1.

The True National Championship Game is held, just like it is now, a week later, ala Jan 8th last year.


This year it would look like this:

First Round, Dec 5th.

#1 Florida - Bye

#2 Alabama - Bye

#3 Texas vs. #6 Boise State

#4 TCU vs. #5 Cincy


Final Four, Jan 1st

#1 Florida vs. #4 TCU

#2 Alabama vs. #3 Texas


National Championship Game, Jan 7th

#4 TCU vs. #2 Alabama (heh, sorry, couldn't resist).




Tell me where this is wrong?

It keeps the regular season meaningful, as there is still major incentive to stay undefeated to obtain a first round bye.

It adds NO more weeks to the schedule, does not play through finals, does not bleed into two semesters, and does not require massive travel.

It all but eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim to the NC game.

And it makes Jan 1 relevant again.

Plus it only adds one game max to anyone's schedule.


Add the Cotton Bowl (now played at JerryWorld) to the BCS rotation and you have the five game sites needed for such a playoff.


Bing bang boom perfection, personified. :D

I despise the idea of a college football playoff, but I like yours. If this were the way we went about it, I'd be on board.

[JLEW1818]

why wait so long between rounds 1 and 2 ?


screw school final exams

[Leroy Lizard]

screw school final exams

Gee, you sound like a real scholar.

[Leroy Lizard]

All other games, including BCS Bowl games, could still be played. They would just be played without the top six teams.

Without the top teams, these would no longer be BCS bowl games. They would be relegated to second-class status.


Or you could even include the first two losers in the bowl games meaning only the top 4 would be eliminated from the BCS Bowl Games.

What self-respecting team would play in such a game? WHat are you going to call it? The Agony of Defeat Bowl? What would they play for? A trophy depicting that British skier wiping out?

[Leroy Lizard]

However, under my system the payoff would be guaranteed every year. And with 5 total playoff games, you can use the revenue from 3 of the games to make up for the CCG's and still have two games left over to compensate all the other conferences.

What about all the lost tourism money? How much money are you going to get from the Boise Chamber of Commerce for hosting a game on a week's notice?

[goingoneight]

Bowl games aren't eliminated for the same reason the Not Invited Tournament still exists in basketball.

[Leroy Lizard]

The NIT is super cheap to promote. All the games are played in one place, the number of athletes is far smaller, the insurance is much less. With the NIT, you could have has few as 200 fans travel with the team and the NIT can still cover expenses. Football is not basketball. You simply cannot compare the two.

[JLEW1818]

Gee, you sound like a real scholar.

its a joke, and who finally turned you green??:D

[Statalyzer]

why wait so long between rounds 1 and 2 ?


screw school final exams

If D3, D2, and D1AA can find a way, D1A can.

[Statalyzer]

Bowl games aren't eliminated for the same reason the Not Invited Tournament still exists in basketball.


What self-respecting team would play in such a game? WHat are you going to call it? The Agony of Defeat Bowl?

The Cotton Bowl. The Gator Bowl. The Sugar Bowl. The Outback Bowl. The Holiday Bowl.


What would they play for? A trophy depicting that British skier wiping out?

Why not? It's about the same thing they already play for.


Bowl games aren't eliminated for the same reason the Not Invited Tournament still exists in basketball.

Bowl games aren't eliminated for the same reason that Bowl Games still exist in the current football system.

[Leroy Lizard]

The Cotton Bowl. The Gator Bowl. The Sugar Bowl. The Outback Bowl. The Holiday Bowl.

Those bowl games are assigned according to a team's overall season and the teams are legitimate bowl champions. Watch the Arizona fans go nuts over winning the Copper Bowl last year. Yes, teams are sometimes disappointed that they didn't go to a better bowl.

On the other hand, the bowl described in the playoff scenario is officially a consolation game, where teams play in it BECAUSE they lost the previous game. In that case, there is nothing to play for.

Big difference.

Again, schedule an NFL game between two teams that just lost their opening playoffs and see if anyone shows up. NFL fans would consider the game ludicrous.


If D3, D2, and D1AA can find a way, D1A can.

You cannot compare D1AA with D1A because the money, traditions, and pressures are vastly different.

[TMcGee86]

What about all the lost tourism money? How much money are you going to get from the Boise Chamber of Commerce for hosting a game on a week's notice?

Boise would never host a playoff game. The playoffs would be held in the five BCS Bowls after the Cotton was added.

The game sites would be laid out years in advance same as they are now, so travel would be easy, you know every year where you have to go and when you would be going.

And all of the other bowls are still in place.

The bowls will still be played, and the teams will still play in them, for the same reason they do now, money.

[TMcGee86]

Without the top teams, these would no longer be BCS bowl games. They would be relegated to second-class status.

True, but they are second class status now because none are the national championship game, and yet... they still get played every year. It wouldn't be any different under my system than it is now with two "bowl" games played at the same site, i.e. the Rose Bowl this year or the Orange Bowl last year.




What self-respecting team would play in such a game? WHat are you going to call it? The Agony of Defeat Bowl? What would they play for? A trophy depicting that British skier wiping out?

The same self-respecting teams that agree to play in bowl games now even though they lost out on going to the NC game.

Did Alabama turn down a Sugar Bowl bid last year because they lost the SEC championship game and thereby lost their shot to play in the MNC game? Nope.

Did Texas turn down a Fiesta bowl bid last year when they lost to Tech and thereby lost their shot at the MNC game? Nope.

Did WV turn down the Fiesta Bowl two years ago because they lost their last game of the season and thereby their shot at the NC game? Unfortunately for us, nope.

If UT loses the Big12 CG this year do you think they are going to turn down their BCS bowl bid? No, but one can dream :D .

Why? Aren't those "self-respecting" teams?

It wouldn't be any different under my system. Just because a team lost the first round playoff game doesn't mean they can't go to a bowl game. It's no different than a top rated Conference Championship Game loser playing in a bowl game. Both had a shot at the national championship dashed the first week of December. Both would still welcome the bowl money.

[TMcGee86]

On the other hand, the bowl described in the playoff scenario is officially a consolation game, where teams play in it BECAUSE they lost the previous game.

wait, i think we got off somewhere, that is not what I meant.

I meant that those two teams could still play in bowl games but not that they would play each other in a single bowl game.

I just meant they would be free to accept bowl bids, they wouldn't be locked in to any particular bowl.


Though I guess if they really wanted to play each other to claim the right to the higher poll spot in the final polls they could if they wanted to. But that was not what I meant.

[TMcGee86]

Again, schedule an NFL game between two teams that just lost their opening playoffs and see if anyone shows up. NFL fans would consider the game ludicrous.

Well hell, schedule two 8-8 teams to play in a meaningless game the week of the Superbowl and see if anyone shows up.

Now call it a "Bowl Game" and you have the current system in college.

And yet, we still have bowl games.


apples and oranges.

[Leroy Lizard]

You said:


It adds NO more weeks to the schedule, does not play through finals, does not bleed into two semesters, and does not require massive travel.

But now you are saying:


Boise would never host a playoff game. The playoffs would be held in the five BCS Bowls after the Cotton was added.

So it's the ever-shifting target. We imply in one post that the games are held locally (no massive travel). When someone counters, we say that the games are held on neutral sites. Back and forth we go, with the playoff design changing to meet every challenge to the point where it contradicts itself.

So which is it?

If the games are held in bowl stadiums, you have massive travel. If the games are held locally, you have financial problems.

You can't have it both ways.

[TMcGee86]

If D3, D2, and D1AA can find a way, D1A can.

While I agree in theory, it's useless to expect that D1 is going to magically wake up and see the contradiction.

My system is specifically designed to attack all arguments the NCAA has made so far as to why there is not playoff in place.

Some of those arguments I agree with, like not watering down the reg season. Some I don't but still found a way around them, like not playing through finals.

[TMcGee86]

You said:



But now you are saying:



So it's the ever-shifting target. We imply in one post that the games are held locally (no massive travel). When someone counters, we say that the games are held on neutral sites. Back and forth we go, with the playoff design changing to meet every challenge to the point where it contradicts itself.

So which is it?

If the games are held in bowl stadiums, you have massive travel. If the games are held locally, you have financial problems.

You can't have it both ways.

It's always been that there would be five BCS bowls hosting the five playoff games. Sorry I didn't put that in my first post. I would add the Cotton now that it's played at Jerryworld and they would host the playoff games. When I said no massive travel, I was meaning that it wouldn't add a ton of games like a 16 team playoff would, requiring weeks and weeks of traveling for underdog teams unfortunate enough to win their games.

My plan is no different than traveling to Kansas City for the Big12CG, and then traveling to Miami for the BCSCG. Something OU somehow managed to do last year.

The only difference is you would have to turn around the next week and play in a true national championship game assuming you won both those games.

It would only effect two teams each year, and those two teams will gladly accept the "inconvenience" of playing in a national championship game.

All teams would know a year in advance exactly where the first round games were held.

Let's say next year it's the Cotton Bowl and the Sugar Bowl.

It's just like this year where the winner of the Big12 knows it's going to travel to dallas for the Big12CG.

And if they win, they have a month to prepare for the MNC game at the Rose Bowl.

Just like they would under my system, except it would be a Final Four game at the same Rose Bowl.

Only difference would be the winner gets to go to the Fiesta Bowl the next week for the National Championship Game.

[Leroy Lizard]

I meant that those two teams could still play in bowl games but not that they would play each other in a single bowl game.

How in the Hell are you going to schedule a bowl game, with all the festivities involved, when you don't even know a week before who is going to be playing? The bowls don't even know if they are going to have a team show up.

If OU loses in the first round of the playoff, no one (including the players, coaches, and fans) is going to be in the mood to play another game on a week's notice. Bowl games are a reward for a good season. But the team just played that game and lost. So why would they make yet another trip? Can you imagine how bitter it would be to lose two postseason games in a row?

[TMcGee86]

Add the Cotton Bowl (now played at JerryWorld) to the BCS rotation and you have the five game sites needed for such a playoff.

wait, I did say it, just didn't make it as clear as I should have.

[TMcGee86]

How in the Hell are you going to schedule a bowl game, with all the festivities involved, when you don't even know a week before who is going to be playing? The bowls don't even know if they are going to have a team show up.

If OU loses in the first round of the playoff, no one (including the players, coaches, and fans) is going to be in the mood to play another game on a week's notice. Bowl games are a reward for a good season. But the team just played that game and lost. So why would they make yet another trip? Can you imagine how bitter it would be to lose two postseason games in a row?

Again, we are off base.

What I said was the first two losers could play in a bowl game. The Final Four teams would obviously not play again. They would be done.

The only two teams I was talking about would be the two teams that lost in the first round of the playoffs, which are held the first week of December, just as the Conference Championship Games are now.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's no different than traveling to Kansas City for the Big12CG, and then traveling to Miami for the BCSCG. Something OU somehow managed to do last year.

And again the argument changes. Now you are saying that it does require massive travel, but the fans would be willing to do it.

"It's X."

"Won't work."

"It's Y."

"Won't work."

"It's X, but X is okay."

Playoff proponents pull this trick with the revenues as well.

"Playoffs are huge moneymakers!"

"Okay, let's institute one."

"We can't, because all the college presidents care about is money."

"But I thought that playoffs were huge... oh, never mind."

As soon as I point out the problems with the travel associated with the playoff idea, you will just shift it once again to having the games played locally. Around and around and around we go.

[TMcGee86]

And again the argument changes. Now you are saying that it does require massive travel, but the fans would be willing to do it.

"It's X."

"Won't work."

"It's Y."

"Won't work."

"It's X, but X is okay."

Playoff proponents pull this trick with the revenues as well.

"Playoffs are huge moneymakers!"

"Okay, let's institute one."

"We can't, because all the college presidents care about is money."

"But I thought that playoffs were huge... oh, never mind."

As soon as I point out the problems with the travel associated with the playoff idea, you will just shift it once again to having the games played locally. Around and around and around we go.

I have never advocated that the games would be held locally. Read my first post, the bottom of it clearly states that the five BCS bowls would be the game sites. I really have no idea where you are getting the idea that I ever said they would be home games at any point. I have never even thought that much less wrote it down anywhere.


And how is it "massive" travel when it requires no more travel than teams do now?

You are telling me that a single game equals "massive" travel? I don't really consider that to be all that massive.

[Leroy Lizard]

Again, we are off base.

What I said was the first two losers could play in a bowl game. The Final Four teams would obviously not play again. They would be done.

Suppose a bowl game after a playoff loss is really desirable. Your first-round losers get to play in one, but not the Final Four teams. If they lose, they get to go home and watch the team they just beat play in a bowl game. That makes no sense.


The only two teams I was talking about would be the two teams that lost in the first round of the playoffs, which are held the first week of December, just as the Conference Championship Games are now.

No one is going to want to play a bowl game after just losing in a bowl game. A bowl game is a reward for a good season. They already got their reward, but lost. They're not going to want another reward. And losing two bowl games in a row would truly suck. Who would want to chance that?

[gotpoi73]

if nothing else, to divert your attention away from what's happened to our beloved program.


I've laid out my plan before, but it is so perfect it must be stated again.

It corrects everything that is wrong with the current system, and destroys nothing that is right with the current system.


Here it is:

A six team playoff.

Eliminate Conference Championship games and the first round is held the week the CCG's would have been held.

The Final Four is held on New Years Day. Bringing back the glory to Jan 1.

The True National Championship Game is held, just like it is now, a week later, ala Jan 8th last year.


This year it would look like this:

First Round, Dec 5th.

#1 Florida - Bye

#2 Alabama - Bye

#3 Texas vs. #6 Boise State

#4 TCU vs. #5 Cincy


Final Four, Jan 1st

#1 Florida vs. #4 TCU

#2 Alabama vs. #3 Texas


National Championship Game, Jan 7th

#4 TCU vs. #2 Alabama (heh, sorry, couldn't resist).




Tell me where this is wrong?

It keeps the regular season meaningful, as there is still major incentive to stay undefeated to obtain a first round bye.

It adds NO more weeks to the schedule, does not play through finals, does not bleed into two semesters, and does not require massive travel.

It all but eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim to the NC game.

And it makes Jan 1 relevant again.

Plus it only adds one game max to anyone's schedule.


Add the Cotton Bowl (now played at JerryWorld) to the BCS rotation and you have the five game sites needed for such a playoff.


Bing bang boom perfection, personified. :D

can we still have all the crappy bowl games that nobody cares about for all the teams that don't qualify for the playoffs?

[TMcGee86]

Suppose a bowl game after a playoff loss is really desirable. Your first-round losers get to play in one, but not the Final Four teams. If they lose, they get to go home and watch the team they just beat play in a bowl game. That makes no sense.

The final four games are held on Jan 1. I would imagine that the playoff losers would play in a game prior to Jan 1. I guess it could happen assuming they accept a BCS bid, but like you said before, the bowl games are second class now, so why would the Final Four teams care. It's like saying a Sweet Sixteen team gets pissed at watching a Final Four NIT team play the next week. Who cares?




No one is going to want to play a bowl game after just losing in a bowl game. A bowl game is a reward for a good season. They already got their reward, but lost. They're not going to want another reward. And losing two bowl games in a row would truly suck. Who would want to chance that?

They didn't just lose a bowl game, they lost a playoff game. That's the difference. Like you said, "a bowl game is a reward for a good season." Well, making the playoffs is a pretty damn good season. Why deprive them of the "reward" of a bowl game?

Did we deprive Bama of that reward when they lost their de facto playoff game vs. Florida last year?

[TMcGee86]

can we still have all the crappy bowl games that nobody cares about for all the teams that don't qualify for the playoffs?

Yes, all bowl games would still be in place. Even BCS games. Just not the BCS championship game.

[East Coast Bias]

What we are seeing here must be a lot like the Congress or the Senate. Would I sound like a Democrat if I said "You guys must really like the way things are now"?

[Leroy Lizard]

Well hell, schedule two 8-8 teams to play in a meaningless game the week of the Superbowl and see if anyone shows up.

Now call it a "Bowl Game" and you have the current system in college.

And yet, we still have bowl games.

Because college football has no playoff. That is why bowl games between 6-6 teams still work.

[TMcGee86]

I think "work" is probably stretching it a bit.

[Leroy Lizard]

The games are held, the teams are satisfied, no major problems are presented... they work.

Bowl games are for the teams that participate and their fans. Sure, many of us will watch, but as long as the fans and players of the participating teams are happy, all is well.

We tend to forget the purpose of bowls. They are an event staged by a city where they invite teams to come and play. The city is happy because fans pour in and spend money. The teams are happy because they get to travel and vacation a little, as well as play another game. The fans are happy because it is a good excuse to go vacationing.

But like in all else, there are those that just cannot be happy.

[TMcGee86]

Because college football has no playoff. That is why bowl games between 6-6 teams still work.

Ah but we have a playoff right now. A two team playoff. #1 vs. #2.

And yet, no bowls are affected by this.

It would be no different with 6 teams.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ah but we have a playoff right now. A two team playoff. #1 vs. #2.

True premise, but only via semantics.


And yet, no bowls are affected by this.

This is true.


It would be no different with 6 teams.

Does not logically follow.