College Football Playoff Overhaul

[TopDawg]

Blues1's thread reminded me of this. Since I haven't been distracted by OU football this year, I've been able to dedicate my thoughts to more important things, like restructuring college football. So here it is...my plan for making a playoff system work in college football.

I think the most important part of the playoff system is that conference winners are automatically qualified, so the first step is restructuring the conferences to be more level and keep the number of automatic qualifiers down. There are currently 120 FBS teams. We add 6 more and create 7 conferences of 18 teams each. Each conference is split into two divisions with 9 teams each and you play every team in your division to decide which representative from each division goes on to the conference championship game...the winner being the automatic qualifier.

This keeps the conference schedule roughly the same length that it is now. With automatic qualification, there is really no incentive for playing patsies in the non-conference schedule...a non-conference loss isn't going to hurt you and the competition against better teams will better prepare you for conference play.

So now for the fun part...the conference realignment. The 7 conferences would be based off of the 6 BCS conferences. Each BCS conference would take on some additional members (mostly the weaker members of non-BCS conferences) with a new conference being formed made up of some of the stronger non-BCS conference teams and others. This works out geographically because many of the best non-BCS teams are in the Rocky Mountain area or Texas. The only BCS conference teams that would be displaced from their current conference would be Colorado and Iowa...so hardly anybody would notice.

Atlantic Coastal Conference
(Base BCS Conference: ACC)
ACC North
Boston College
Duke
Maryland
NC State
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
FCS Team (UMass)

ACC South
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami, FL
East Carolina (C-USA)
Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
Florida International (Sun Belt)
UCF (C-USA)
FCS Team

Great Plains Conference
(Base BCS Conference: Big XII)
Great Plains North
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa (Big Ten)
Northern Illinois (MAC)
Ball State (MAC)
FCS Team

Great Plains South
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
North Texas (Sun Belt)
Tulsa (C-USA)
FCS Team

Southeastern Conference
(Base BCS Conference: SEC)
SEC West
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Arkansas State (Sun Belt)
UAB (C-USA)
FCS Team

SEC East
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Western Kentucky (SB)
Memphis (C-USA)
FCS Team

Great Lakes Conference
(Base BCS Conference: Big Ten)
Great Lakes West
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin
Bowling Green (MAC)
Toledo (MAC)
Notre Dame (Ind.)

Great Lakes East
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Central Michigan (MAC)
Eastern Michigan (MAC)
Western Michigan (MAC)
Ohio (MAC)
Akron (MAC)

Pacific Conference
(Base BCS Conference: Pac-10)
Pacific North
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Idaho (WAC)
Boise State (WAC)
UNLV (Mountain West)
Fresno State (WAC)
Nevada (WAC)

Pacific South
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC
San Diego State (Mountain West)
San Jose State (WAC)
Hawaii (WAC)

Conference USA
C-USA Mountain
Air Force (Mountain West)
Brigham Young (Mountain West)
Colorado (Big XII)
Colorado State (Mountain West)
New Mexico (Mountain West)
New Mexico State (WAC)
Utah (Mountain West)
Utah State (WAC)
Wyoming (Mountain West)

C-USA South
Houston (C-USA)
Louisiana-Lafayette (Sun Belt)
Louisiana-Monroe (Sun Belt)
Louisiana Tech (WAC)
Rice (C-USA)
Southern Methodist (C-USA)
TCU (Mountain West)
Tulane (C-USA)
UTEP (C-USA)

Appalachian Conference
(Base BCS Conference: Big East)
Appalachian New England
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Buffalo (MAC)
Army (Ind.)
Navy (Ind.)
Temple (MAC)

Appalachian South
Louisville
South Florida
West Virginia
Middle Tennessee State (Sun Belt)
Kent State (MAC)
Miami, OH (MAC)
Troy (Sun Belt)
Southern Miss (C-USA)
Marshall (C-USA)

The only geographically awkward teams are Kent State and Miami, OH in the Appalachian South division. That could be fixed simply by changing the FCS teams selected and where they end up.

The Appalachian (Big East) Conference is still probably the weakest of the existing BCS conferences. The Great Lakes (Big Ten) Conference gets a little boost of offense with Central Michigan and Notre Dame. The Pacific (Pac-10) Conference becomes tougher with Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada added to the mix. And Conference USA has some legit teams in it...based on performance the past 5 years or so, Colorado is probably the 5th best school behind BYU, Utah, Houston and TCU.

So how does the playoff work with 7 teams? The winner of each conference goes to the playoffs. I'm not sure which I like better: taking the top-rated non automatic bid (so the best team that didn't win their conference) to make it an 8-team playoff or taking the top 5 such teams to make it a 12-team playoff. If it's a 12-team playoff, the top 4 teams (based on ranking or something else) get 1st-round byes.

I know there are other things to consider. Leroy Lizard is going to bring up the scheduling problems with finals and stuff. I think that's a manageable obstacle. And this is really only looking at football, not basketball or any other sport that might be negatively impacted by this. My answer to that: so what? This isn't likely to happen anyway...but it's fun to talk about. I wish EA Sports would let you align the conferences and post-season however you wanted...this is how I'd do it.

[rawlingsHOH]

Great Plains North
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa (Big Ten)
Northern Illinois (MAC)
Ball State (MAC)
FCS Team
And Iowa is sending a big middle finger in your general direction! LOL

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I just don't think its fair what you've done to Western Kentucky.....

[rawlingsHOH]

I just don't think its fair what you've done to Western Kentucky.....

Yeah, Ark St and WKU need out of the SEC. Add Tulane and So. Miss instead.

[StoopTroup]

Now all you need to do it convince The Big XII, The SEC, The Big 10 and the Pac 10 that they'll make just as much or more money by doing this.

Right now they probably like the odds of having a Team in the MNC every year. Especially the Big XII and the SEC.

Maybe PBHO will back it up with some Government dough....lol

[TopDawg]

I just don't think its fair what you've done to Western Kentucky.....

What? Given them a chance to make it to the national title game?

;)

[TopDawg]

Yeah, Ark St and WKU need out of the SEC. Add Tulane and So. Miss instead.

We can switch Tulane and Arkansas State...no problem with that...but what's so bad about WKU?

They've got a chance to beat the FCS team and Memphis in their division and it won't be long before they could be competitive with Vandy and Kentucky.

[TopDawg]

Now all you need to do it convince The Big XII, The SEC, The Big 10 and the Pac 10 that they'll make just as much or more money by doing this.

Right now they probably like the odds of having a Team in the MNC every year. Especially the Big XII and the SEC.

They will make more money. And while those 43 teams might be opposed to it, the other 83 might be all for it. Yeah, I know, I know...there would be a lot of convincing to do. And I know those 4 conferences have all the power. But although I realize it's not a realistic scenario right now, I tried to keep those BCS conferences as intact as possible to make it something they might actually consider.

[Leroy Lizard]

Then Notre Dame says "nyet."

[TopDawg]

Notre Dame can go start their own division. I'm sure another FCS team will be happy to step in to take their place.

[Leroy Lizard]

Will the FCS teams that join the SEC ever win a game?

[TopDawg]

Will the FCS teams that join the SEC ever win a game?

If Appalachian State can beat Michigan, Richmond can beat Duke, Villanova can beat Temple, and William and Mary can beat Virginia, then an FCS team can beat Vandy, Arkansas State/Tulane, UAB, WKU or Memphis.

Plus, they've got the non-conference schedule. That's a chance to pick up a couple more W's.

[Leroy Lizard]

When Appalachian State beat Michigan, it was considered a miracle. And that was one of the best FCS teams in the country, if not THE best.

[ashley]

The presidents will not vote for the NCAA to control this. They know they will be screwed.

[King Barry's Back]

"So here it is...my plan for making a playoff system work in college football."

Umm, what about this grandiose plan is workable? The only thing that's going to work in college football reform is evolutionary steps.

I will take one other shot at your plan. You arbitrarily choose 18 team conferences, with two nine team divisions -- and you play only the 8 division rivals. Then the two division champs play each other.

You realize that this isn't really a conference? It's two separate conferences. And this fact badly undermines your efforts to keep a semblance of the traditional conferences in place.

Just to take Oklahoma as an example -- our historic rivalries with the schools of the old Big 6 and 7 would evaporate. We've played those schools annually or at least regularly (thank you big 12) since the 20s.

And that would be replicated at dozens of schools across the country.

College ball is not the NFL. It moves slowly and reforms itself through conservative, self-interested decision making.

Or it doesn't change at all.

[Leroy Lizard]

But... but... we need radical changes because I can't live any longer without having a true champion crowned.

[Dan Thompson]

Okay, here is your chance to make a difference

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

[TopDawg]

"So here it is...my plan for making a playoff system work in college football."

Umm, what about this grandiose plan is workable? The only thing that's going to work in college football reform is evolutionary steps.

I will take one other shot at your plan. You arbitrarily choose 18 team conferences, with two nine team divisions -- and you play only the 8 division rivals. Then the two division champs play each other.

You realize that this isn't really a conference? It's two separate conferences. And this fact badly undermines your efforts to keep a semblance of the traditional conferences in place.

Just to take Oklahoma as an example -- our historic rivalries with the schools of the old Big 6 and 7 would evaporate. We've played those schools annually or at least regularly (thank you big 12) since the 20s.

And that would be replicated at dozens of schools across the country.

College ball is not the NFL. It moves slowly and reforms itself through conservative, self-interested decision making.

Or it doesn't change at all.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who wasted time on this topic.

All of this grandiose plan is workable. Likely? Not at all...but I freely admitted that.

If you don't want to call those things conferences, you don't have to. Fine with me. If you'd prefer to look at it as 14 nine-team conferences and add another round to the playoffs, fine by me. But it IS a conference if it's called a conference and acts as a conference and in this system, both apply. It's a conference because the winners of the same divisions play each other every year without exception. If you want to turn that into bowl-game tie-ins that serve as a first round to the playoff, I can live with that.

The regular rivalries have already evaporated. I'm not glad they have, but let's not pretend they still exist. If playing Nebraska twice every 4 years is a tradition worth keeping, we can still play them in games that don't count toward the conference standings. It makes as much sense as saying that Texas, at 7-1 in conference play, deserves to represent the south because even though they lost to OU, they beat a 2-10 Iowa State, a 2-10 Colorado and a 1-11 Kansas State while OU, at 6-2 in conference play, lost to a 12-0 Nebraska and a 11-1 Missouri. Shouldn't the division winner be determined based on division games?

Like I said...I don't pretend that this is a likely scenario. But it's fun to talk about. I realize it takes away some great things about college football today and gets us further from some great things about college football of yesterday, but I think it could also bring a lot of great stuff to college football of tomorrow.

[TopDawg]

But... but... we need radical changes because I can't live any longer without having a true champion crowned.

We currently have a true champion crowned. Are you suggesting we abandon that? I'm just looking for a better way to make sure all teams have a shot at being the true champion.

[TopDawg]

When Appalachian State beat Michigan, it was considered a miracle. And that was one of the best FCS teams in the country, if not THE best.

If...Richmond can beat Duke, Villanova can beat Temple, and William and Mary can beat Virginia, then an FCS team can beat Vandy, Arkansas State/Tulane, UAB, WKU or Memphis.

Plus, they've got the non-conference schedule. That's a chance to pick up a couple more W's.

[Leroy Lizard]

Sure, they CAN... about every fifth year.

You are bringing in teams to serve as doormats. Worse, half the time the games will be played in the FCS team's 20,000-seat stadium.

[Sooner70]

I don't know why you'all are so worried up about this. Once Obama gets Health Care passed, takes care of the economy, closes Gitmo, supresses world terrorism, and fixes all the world environmental stuff, he's gonna have the government take care of the CFB Playoff situation. We'll have a government mandated playoff system. Y'all need not worry. (Yeah...right.....this is the same entity that lost the original tapes of the first man on the moon in 1969.)

[TopDawg]

Sure, they CAN... about every fifth year.

You are bringing in teams to serve as doormats. Worse, half the time the games will be played in the FCS team's 20,000-seat stadium.

I'd be okay with kicking out the current doormats.

Of course, if I suggested that, you'd complain about it too.

[TopDawg]

You also seem to be ignoring the other new teams in the SEC that they can be competitive with immediately. Sure, the first few years they're in the SEC they're going to get drubbed by the powerhouses. Just like what already happens these days. And while WKU might not like going up against Florida every year...Vandy might like going up against WKU every year.

And I bet that WKU would gladly take a few years of getting drubbed by Florida if it meant getting a piece of the SEC pie. They'd get a lot more money by being part of this new system. Eventually they'd be able to turn that 20,000 seat stadium into a 45,000 seat stadium. Plus, it would mean more money could be filtered into the academic side of those institutions. We're getting more kids a better education with this system, Leroy!

[Leroy Lizard]

You forget that to advance to FBS a school has to meet certain requirements, including the number of sports offered. This is not a cheap move. They may have to build the stadium first.

These schools are not going to compete for a national title, nor do I think they want to. The players certainly don't go to North Texas because they want a ring. Football is fun, and they have the chance to shine and make it to the NFL. They can go to college, get a degree, meet some chicks, party all day, play their favorite sport... sounds good enough for me.

This may be a shock, but there is more to college football than chasing titles. That is why I don't think we need this. Let's just play the games and enjoy them.

[TopDawg]

You forget that to advance to FBS a school has to meet certain requirements, including the number of sports offered. This is not a cheap move. They may have to build the stadium first.

These schools are not going to compete for a national title, nor do I think they want to. The players certainly don't go to North Texas because they want a ring. Football is fun, and they have the chance to shine and make it to the NFL. They can go to college, get a degree, meet some chicks, party all day, play their favorite sport... sounds good enough for me.

This may be a shock, but there is more to college football than chasing titles. That is why I don't think we need this. Let's just play the games and enjoy them.

I didn't forget that there are FBS requirements, but those can be changed. Or, those schools can be given some time to meet those requirements. I'm fully aware that if the NCAA commish logs on to Soonerfans, sees my idea and decides to implement it, there will be some logistics to work out. It probably won't happen next year (and, yes, I'm keenly aware that it probably won't happen EVER.)

And, like you, I don't think we NEED this either. But we didn't NEED bowl games back when they were added...but it did add value to the sport.

10 years ago nobody would've thought that Boise State was going to compete for a national title. You could say "The players certainly don't go to Boise State because they want a ring." Well, that's changed. The people at Boise State want to play the big boys, but the big boys are afraid. Let's put them on a more equal playing field and give them the same opportunity the big boys get.

Sure, there are kids who play football just because they love football. But if given the choice, I'd say a very high percentage of the student athletes who play FBS football would cherish the opportunity to play for it all.

[Leroy Lizard]

And, like you, I don't think we NEED this either. But we didn't NEED bowl games back when they were added...but it did add value to the sport.

Yeah, but college football instituted bowl games because the teams felt it was something they would like. They didn't have the media telling them they must have them, and they didn't have congress trying to pass laws forcing bowls on them. But that's the situation we have now.

If your idea is something college football wants, then let the teams decide for themselves. As fans, we should just sit back and enjoy what they offer us. As soon as we fans get involved, things get all screwed up.

[TopDawg]

I'm not sure what you mean by "college football instituted bowl games"? It wasn't college football that came up with the idea.

If you want to make it an invitation, that's fine by me. If the winner of the conference championship game decides to decline the playoff invitation, they can let the conference championship game loser go in their place.

Is that what you mean by letting the teams decide for themselves? If you mean it on a larger scale as in "Don't make any changes until the teams give their approval to those changes" then how do you suggest we find out if they approve? Do we put it to a vote of the teams (coaching staffs, athletic departments), the presidents, the conferences? Do we let the fat cats of the current system (SEC, Big XII, etc.) decide the fate of the other conferences or does everybody get an equal voice? I have no doubt that the Big XII and SEC are fans of the current system because it keeps undefeated teams like Cincinnati, TCU and Boise State on the outside looking in. Is that okay or should we try to give the boys at Cinci, TCU and Boise State a more level playing field in case they DO want to play for a national title?

I think we should. If you disagree with me on that point--if you think we shouldn't level the playing field-- then it's no wonder we don't see eye-to-eye on the value of a playoff system.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not sure what you mean by "college football instituted bowl games"? It wasn't college football that came up with the idea.

A bunch of people (Tournament of Roses) decided to invite some teams to play. There was no mandatory restructuring of football. No outrage from Congress. No calls from the media.

These were invites. The teams didn't have to participate if they didn't want to, and many teams have turned down bowl invites. But it is hardly invitation if you are forcing teams to join conferences they have no intention of joining.


If you want to make it an invitation, that's fine by me. If the winner of the conference championship game decides to decline the playoff invitation, they can let the conference championship game loser go in their place. Is that what you mean by letting the teams decide for themselves? If you mean it on a larger scale as in "Don't make any changes until the teams give their approval to those changes" then how do you suggest we find out if they approve?

You will find out soon enough. It isn't like they are going to host the games without telling us.


Do we put it to a vote of the teams (coaching staffs, athletic departments), the presidents, the conferences? Do we let the fat cats of the current system (SEC, Big XII, etc.) decide the fate of the other conferences or does everybody get an equal voice?

That's up to college football to decide. If college football thinks that its minor conferences need a bigger share of the pie, then college football will make the necessary changes. And if the TCU's of the world decide that isn't good enough, they can create their own division and championship. (The American Way.)

It's about freedom. Let the teams figure this out for themselves based on the purpose and spirit of college football. As fans, we have no stake in this matter.

[gotpoi73]

This may be a shock, but there is more to college football than chasing titles. That is why I don't think we need this. Let's just play the games and enjoy them.

Ask the players if there is more to college football than chasing titles. That's why kids come to OU, for a chance to play for those titles.

And if it is not important, why does every other collegiate sport get it's winner by settling it on the field/court/course..etc?

The right playoff system would be awesome...make it so!

[SoonerMachine]

Thanks TopDawg for all the work... I've tinkered with an 80, 96, 112 and 128 team overhaul and it's not easy!

Now, just to give you an idea of what an 8-team playoff would have looked like without changing the conferences:

8-team Playoff Formula:

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:

· Highest ranked conference champion hosts lowest ranked conference champion, etc.

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


2nd Round:

· Highest rank hosts lowest rank, etc.


3rd Round:

· Winners play for the National Championship



Historical Examples

1998

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Tennessee (12-0) - SEC
#2 - Florida State (11-1) - ACC
#5 - UCLA (10-1) - Pacific 10
#6 - Texas A&M (11-2) - Big 12
#9 - Wisconsin (10-1) - Big 10
#10 - Tulane (11-0) - Conference USA

At-Large Teams

#3 - Kansas State (11-1) - Big 12
#4 - Ohio State (10-1) - Big 10

1st Round:

#1 Tennessee hosts #10 Tulane

#2 Florida State hosts #9 Wisconsin

#5 UCLA hosts #6 Texas A&M

At-Large Elimination Game:

#3 Kansas State hosts #4 Ohio State


1999

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Florida State (11-0) - ACC
#2 - Virginia Tech (11-0) - Big East
#3 - Nebraska (11-1) - Big 12
#4 - Alabama (10-2) - SEC
#7 - Wisconsin (9-2) - Big 10
#12 - Marshall (12-0) - MAC

At-Large Teams

#5 - Tennessee (9-2) - SEC
#6 - Kansas State (10-1) - Big 12

1st Round:

#1 Florida State hosts #12 Marshall

#2 Virginia Tech hosts #7 Wisconsin

#3 Nebraska hosts #4 Alabama

At-Large Elimination Game:

#5 Tennessee hosts #6 Kansas State


2000

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - OU (12-0) - Big 12
#2 - Florida State (11-1) - ACC
#3 - Miami (10-1) - Big East
#4 - Washington (10-1) - Pacific 10
#7 - Florida (10-2) - SEC
#14 - TCU (10-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

#5 - Virginia Tech (10-1) - Big East
#6 - Oregon State (10-1) - Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 OU hosts #14 TCU

#2 Florida State hosts #7 Florida

#3 Miami hosts #4 Washington

At-Large Elimination Game:

#5 Virginia Tech hosts #6 Oregon State


2001

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Miami (11-0) - Big East
#3 - Colorado (10-2) - Big 12
#4 - Oregon (10-1) - Pacific 10
#8 - Illinois (10-1) - Big 10
#10 - Maryland (10-1) - ACC
#13 - LSU (9-3) - SEC

At-Large Teams

#2 - Nebraska (11-1) - Big 12
#5 - Florida (9-2) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 Miami hosts #13 LSU

#3 Colorado hosts #10 Maryland

#4 Oregon hosts #8 Illinois

At-Large Elimination Game:

#2 Nebraska hosts #5 Florida


2002

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Miami (12-0) - Big East
#2 - Ohio State (13-0) - Big 10
#3 - Georgia (12-1) - SEC
#6 - Washington State (10-2) - Pacific 10
#7 - Oklahoma (11-2) - Big 12
#14 - Florida State (9-4) - ACC

At-Large Teams

#4 - USC (10-2) - Pacific 10
#5 - Iowa (11-1) - Big 10

1st Round:

#1 Miami hosts #14 Florida State

#2 Ohio State hosts #7 Oklahoma

#3 Georgia hosts #6 Washington State

At-Large Elimination Game:

#4 USC hosts #5 Iowa


2003

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#2 - LSU (12-1) - SEC
#3 - USC (11-1) - ACC
#4 - Michigan (10-2) - Big 10
#7 - Florida State (10-2) - ACC
#9 - Miami (10-2) - Big East
#10 - Kansas State (11-3) - Big 12

At-Large Teams

#1 - OU (12-1) - Big 12
#5 - Ohio State (10-2) - Big 10

1st Round:

#2 LSU hosts #10 Kansas State

#3 USC hosts #9 Miami

#4 Michigan hosts #7 Florida State

At-Large Elimination Game:

#1 OU hosts #5 Ohio State


2004

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - USC (12-0) - Pacific 10
#2 - OU (12-0) - Big 12
#3 - Auburn (12-0) - SEC
#6 - Utah (11-0) - Mountain West
#8 - Virginia Tech (10-2) - ACC
#9 - Boise State (11-0) - WAC

At-Large Teams

#4 - Texas (10-1) - Big 12
#5 - California (10-1) - Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 USC hosts #9 Boise State

#2 OU hosts #8 Virginia Tech

#3 Auburn hosts #6 Utah

At-Large Elimination Game:

#4 Texas hosts #5 California


2005

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - USC (12-0) - Pacific 10
#2 - Texas (12-0) - Big 12
#3 - Penn State (10-1) - Big 10
#7 - Georgia (10-2) - SEC
#11 - West Virginia (10-1) - Big East
#14 - TCU (10-1) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#4 - Ohio State (9-2) - Big 10
#5 - Oregon (10-1) - Pacific 10

1st Round:

#1 USC hosts #14 TCU

#2 Texas hosts #11 West Virginia

#3 Penn State hosts #7 Georgia

At-Large Elimination Game:

#4 Ohio hosts #5 Oregon


2006

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Ohio State (12-0) - Big 10
#2 - Florida (12-1) - SEC
#5 - USC (10-2) - Pacific 10
#6 - Louisville (11-1) - Big East
#8 - Boise State (12-0) - WAC
#10 - OU (11-2) - Big 12

At-Large Teams

#3 - Michigan (11-1) - Big 10
#4 - LSU (10-2) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 Ohio State hosts #10 OU

#2 Florida hosts #8 Boise State

#5 USC hosts #6 Louisville

At-Large Elimination Game:

#3 Michigan hosts #4 LSU


2007

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Ohio State (11-1) - Big 10
#2 - LSU (11-2) - SEC
#3 - Virginia Tech (11-2) - ACC
#4 - OU (11-2) - Big 12
#7 - USC (10-2) - Pacific 10
#9 - West Virginia (10-2) - Big East

At-Large Teams

#5 - Georgia (10-2) - SEC
#6 - Missouri (11-2) - Big 12

1st Round:

#1 Ohio State hosts #9 West Virginia

#2 LSU hosts #7 USC

#3 Virginia Tech hosts #4 OU

At-Large Elimination Game:

#5 Georgia hosts #6 Missouri


2008

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - OU (12-1) - Big 12
#2 - Florida (12-1) - SEC
#5 - USC (11-1) - Pacific 10
#6 - Utah (12-0) - Mountain West
#8 - Penn St. (11-1) - Big 10
#9 - Boise St. (12-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

#3 - Texas (11-1) - Big 10
#4 - Alabama (12-1) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 OU hosts #9 Boise St.

#2 Florida hosts #8 Penn St.

#5 USC hosts #6 Utah

At-Large Elimination Game:

#3 Texas #4 Alabama


2009

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Alabama (13-0) - SEC
#2 - Texas (13-0) - Big 12
#3 - Cincinnati (12-0) - Big East
#4 - TCU (12-0) - Mountain West
#6 - Boise St. (13-0) - WAC
#7 - Oregon (10-2) - Pacific 10

At-Large Teams

#5 - Florida (12-1) - SEC
#8 - Ohio St. (10-2) - Big 10

1st Round:

#1 Alabama hosts #7 Oregon

#2 Texas hosts #6 Boise St.

#3 Cincinnati hosts #4 TCU

At-Large Elimination Game:

#5 Florida hosts #8 Ohio St.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ask the players if there is more to college football than chasing titles. That's why kids come to OU, for a chance to play for those titles.

Until relatively recently, there was no true national title. So why were the players signing on then?


And if it is not important, why does every other collegiate sport get it's winner by settling it on the field/court/course..etc?

By the same token, how has college football managed to survive at all? SE Missouri and Montana St. should have the 80,000 seat stadiums and the huge tv contracts because they have that essential ingredient for success, the playoffs. After all, players want to play for a national title, and they have one at the FCS level.

If college football needs to change, it will change. It doesn't need our input, and it certainly doesn't need the federal government's.

By the way, I'm not certain what a playoff looks like for college golf or tennis. But I don't follow those sports. Maybe you can describe it.

[King Barry's Back]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who wasted time on this topic.

All of this grandiose plan is workable. Likely? Not at all...but I freely admitted that.

If you don't want to call those things conferences, you don't have to. Fine with me. If you'd prefer to look at it as 14 nine-team conferences and add another round to the playoffs, fine by me. But it IS a conference if it's called a conference and acts as a conference and in this system, both apply. It's a conference because the winners of the same divisions play each other every year without exception. If you want to turn that into bowl-game tie-ins that serve as a first round to the playoff, I can live with that.

The regular rivalries have already evaporated. I'm not glad they have, but let's not pretend they still exist. If playing Nebraska twice every 4 years is a tradition worth keeping, we can still play them in games that don't count toward the conference standings. It makes as much sense as saying that Texas, at 7-1 in conference play, deserves to represent the south because even though they lost to OU, they beat a 2-10 Iowa State, a 2-10 Colorado and a 1-11 Kansas State while OU, at 6-2 in conference play, lost to a 12-0 Nebraska and a 11-1 Missouri. Shouldn't the division winner be determined based on division games?

Like I said...I don't pretend that this is a likely scenario. But it's fun to talk about. I realize it takes away some great things about college football today and gets us further from some great things about college football of yesterday, but I think it could also bring a lot of great stuff to college football of tomorrow.

All very good points. Your last paragraph sums it all up very nicely -- it's all trade offs. I'd just throw in here that trading off traditions for a playoff might make sense, but only if you think a playoff would really bring a lot to the table of college football.

[TopDawg]

A bunch of people (Tournament of Roses) decided to invite some teams to play. There was no mandatory restructuring of football. No outrage from Congress. No calls from the media.

So someone outside of the world of college football said "Hey, college football, here's an idea. Why don't you try it out and see if you like it." And college football tried it and they loved it.

Interesting.


These were invites. The teams didn't have to participate if they didn't want to, and many teams have turned down bowl invites. But it is hardly invitation if you are forcing teams to join conferences they have no intention of joining.

If Texas decides they don't want in, they don't have to join the conference. If Utah State decides they don't want in, they don't have to join the conference. Nobody is FORCING anyone to join a conference. I'm saying..."Here's the idea. You're invited. Wanna play?" If enough big names schools don't want to play, it'll surely fail. If enough small time schools don't want to play, it'll surely fail.


That's up to college football to decide. If college football thinks that its minor conferences need a bigger share of the pie, then college football will make the necessary changes. And if the TCU's of the world decide that isn't good enough, they can create their own division and championship. (The American Way.)

OK, so you've had your fun taking pot shots at this plan just by saying "It won't happen" or "It shouldn't happen (despite not fully understanding how it would happen)", but let me ask you...Do you think that college football should try to level the playing field so that a team full of players who do want to win a national title get to control their own destiny instead of leaving it in the hands of a bunch of mostly uneducated and biased voters?

Again, if you don't think that they should...if you think it's fine that someone in Maine who has never seen a TCU game is helping decide whether TCU is good enough to play for it all...if you think that's part of what makes college football so grand...then it's no wonder we don't see eye-to-eye on the playoff thing.

[Leroy Lizard]

OK, so you've had your fun taking pot shots at this plan just by saying "It won't happen" or "It shouldn't happen (despite not fully understanding how it would happen)", but let me ask you...Do you think that college football should try to level the playing field so that a team full of players who do want to win a national title get to control their own destiny instead of leaving it in the hands of a bunch of mostly uneducated and biased voters?

I would like to see a level playing field, but the only way to level the playing field is to introduce drastic changes that will ruin college football. Don't let the chase for the silly national title screw up all that is great about the game.

We are going to end up turning college football into an amateur version of the NFL, which is ESPN's wet dream. The media looks upon a playoff as the ultimate marketing tool, and it will only escalate from there. They don't care about the spirit and charm of college football one iota.

At some point there will be a call to allow teams to market their own players. Then, players will demand to be paid a stipend (which will balloon out of control).

I see instituting a playoff akin to opening Pandoria's box. Once we do it, we will lose control of the game and the marketers will take over.

And then, we will sit around and wonder what happened.

[TopDawg]

I see instituting a playoff akin to opening Pandoria's box. Once we do it, we will lose control of the game and the marketers will take over.

And then, we will sit around and wonder what happened.

Do you think that's what has happened in college basketball?

[sooner_born_1960]

Every NCAA sport besides football has a championship by inviting conference champs and at-large teams/individuals to it's tournament. None of them had to completely redo the conferences to accomplish this. There is no reason for football to have to resort to such extreme measures.

[TopDawg]

Every NCAA sport besides football has a championship by inviting conference champs and at-large teams/individuals to it's tournament. None of them had to completely redo the conferences to accomplish this. There is no reason for football to have to resort to such extreme measures.

Like Leroy has pointed out...there is no reason for football to have to resort to ANY measures. But this is one I think it'd be fun to see. I think automatic bids are an important part of a playoff and I don't like the way the current conferences set up for that. I'd be happy to see it...I think it would be an improvement over what we have now...but I'd rather see a conference realignment be part of it too.

[Leroy Lizard]

Do you think that's what has happened in college basketball?

Yes, I do.

But TopDawg, this is not college basketball. We can't look at lacrosse or badminton to see what will happen to college football. On the same subject, what happens at the FCS level has nothing to do with the FBS level.

Playoff proponents always try to compare FBS college football to the other sports. It doesn't work. FCS can institute a playoff with seemingly little harm because they are not FBS. College basketball can schedule an entire tourney of games over a single weekend because they are not FBS college football.

[TopDawg]

Yes, I do.

But TopDawg, this is not college basketball. We can't look at lacrosse or badminton to see what will happen to college football. On the same subject, what happens at the FCS level has nothing to do with the FBS level.

Playoff proponents always try to compare FBS college football to the other sports. It doesn't work. FCS can institute a playoff with seemingly little harm because they are not FBS. College basketball can schedule an entire tourney of games over a single weekend because they are not FBS college football.

I understand they're not the same. But you think that college basketball would be better off today had they never had a end of season tournament/playoff? What is it about a playoff that's so bad for college sports? How does it leave you wishing for a time before they existed?

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not sure, because I don't know what college basketball looked like back then. We have tons of nostalgia and imagery about college football throughout its history, but not with college basketball.

[TopDawg]

Well, personally I don't see how a playoff would be a whole lot different from what we have now. And I'm not saying that what we have now is perfect. Of course, I don't think what we had yesteryear was perfect either. But I don't see how a playoff would have much negative impact over what we have now. It would be almost just as if the 4 teams who won BCS bowls got together for a 3-game playoff (two semis and a final).

Now, granted, my proposal at the beginning of this thread suggests huge conference changes as well. That's mostly just for fun. I'd be thrilled if we took the current conference structure and went with automatic bids for those 11 champs and then one extra bid. But I'd prefer it if the conferences were more equally yoked and if they all selected their champion the same way (i.e. - with two divisions and a title game). I'm not too keen on the idea of a Sun Belt champion being one of the 8 teams in the playoff, based just on the fact that they had the best record in the Sun Belt. I'm not fundamentally against it and I'd take it over what we have now, but I'd prefer to have the conferences be a little more similar.

[gotpoi73]

[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;2793852]Until relatively recently, there was no true national title. So why were the players signing on then?

Until relatively recently there weren't scholarship limits or parody. If you believe these kids don't want to prove they are the best, thats on you. Still I encourage you to go ask any athlete why they compete or if they even care about winning.




By the same token, how has college football managed to survive at all? SE Missouri and Montana St. should have the 80,000 seat stadiums and the huge tv contracts because they have that essential ingredient for success, the playoffs. After all, players want to play for a national title, and they have one at the FCS level.

Unfortunately not every athlete has the ability to go to a top 20 school. I am fairly positive that if a player that goes to SE Missouri or Montana St. had the chance/ability to play for an OU, FLA, Bama etc... they would probably go to one of those schools instead


If college football needs to change, it will change. It doesn't need our input, and it certainly doesn't need the federal government's.


Doesn't need input from the millions of people that fill the stadiums, buy the gear and fund the universities? Ok...


By the way, I'm not certain what a playoff looks like for college golf or tennis. But I don't follow those sports. Maybe you can describe it.

Its quite simple. The best players compete until the top two face off (however golf is a little different, there might be four golfers in the final grouping). After the final two compete, whoever wins is then declared the champion. The only other subtle difference is coaches, writers and computers don't get to determine who gets to participate in said championship.

You as well as everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to think that the college football system does not need to evolve or that the people who support it don't deserve a voice, in my opinion is archaic.

[Leroy Lizard]

Until relatively recently there weren't scholarship limits or parody.

Parody?


Doesn't need input from the millions of people that fill the stadiums, buy the gear and fund the universities? Ok..

Nope. Absolutely not. Playing to the crowd is what causes one to "jump the shark."

If you try to institute what the fans want, you will end up with crap. The fans only care about one thing: Their own entertainment.

Besides, the fans have already spoken by attending the games, buying the junk, and turning on their tvs. College football is wildly popular right now, and always has been.


You as well as everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to think that the college football system does not need to evolve or that the people who support it don't deserve a voice, in my opinion is archaic.

Archaic? Hardly. We don't have a playoff system because college football doesn't always just give the fans what they want.

We have the BCS today because of fan crying, "We need #1 vs #2!" Okay, so we got #1 vs #2 and the fans now find more things to bitch about.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, personally I don't see how a playoff would be a whole lot different from what we have now.

When the BCS was implemented, did you see all the problems we are having now?

Playoff proponents never, ever see the problems. As they figure it, let's get the playoff system first, we'll fix the problems later. But the problems I presented are not fix-able.

You can never go back. If a playoff ends up hurting college football, it's permanent.

[ashley]

You forget that to advance to FBS a school has to meet certain requirements, including the number of sports offered. This is not a cheap move. They may have to build the stadium first.

These schools are not going to compete for a national title, nor do I think they want to. The players certainly don't go to North Texas because they want a ring. Football is fun, and they have the chance to shine and make it to the NFL. They can go to college, get a degree, meet some chicks, party all day, play their favorite sport... sounds good enough for me.

This may be a shock, but there is more to college football than chasing titles. That is why I don't think we need this. Let's just play the games and enjoy them.

Good post.

[gotpoi73]

Until relatively recently, there was no true national title. So why were the players signing on then?



By the same token, how has college football managed to survive at all? SE Missouri and Montana St. should have the 80,000 seat stadiums and the huge tv contracts because they have that essential ingredient for success, the playoffs. After all, players want to play for a national title, and they have one at the FCS level.

If college football needs to change, it will change. It doesn't need our input, and it certainly doesn't need the federal government's.

By the way, I'm not certain what a playoff looks like for college golf or tennis. But I don't follow those sports. Maybe you can describe it.


Parody?




Nope. Absolutely not. Playing to the crowd is what causes one to "jump the shark."
really is this happy days or college football? if you don't want to see the best teams competing for a championship, then why the hell are you watching?

If you try to institute what the fans want, you will end up with crap. The fans only care about one thing: Their own entertainment.


Besides, the fans have already spoken by attending the games, buying the junk, and turning on their tvs. College football is wildly popular right now, and always has been.


you are right. to hell with making it better. the model from the 1950's works just fine...yawn

Archaic? Hardly. We don't have a playoff system because college football doesn't always just give the fans what they want.


We have the BCS today because of fan crying, "We need #1 vs #2!" Okay, so we got #1 vs #2 and the fans now find more things to bitch about.
you are right again letting computers decide the championship is a great way to settle the argument. you are a dinosaur my friend. fans are bitching because they want the real deal. this system is retarded, and if you don't recognize that, then you are just a sad little re re. keep the blinders on and enjoy the institution as it is

[ashley]

I say again the presidents and AD's will not vote to let the NCAA control college football playoff's, nor should they. Would you really think ball would be better than it is now?

[gotpoi73]

I say again the presidents and AD's will not vote to let the NCAA control college football playoff's, nor should they. Would you really think ball would be better than it is now?

yes

[Leroy Lizard]

you are right again letting computers decide the championship is a great way to settle the argument. you are a dinosaur my friend. fans are bitching because they want the real deal. this system is retarded, and if you don't recognize that, then you are just a sad little re re. keep the blinders on and enjoy the institution as it is

When college football is on, turn off the tv.

Seriously, turn it off.

After all, if the system is as bad as you say it is, vote with your feet. How can a fan possibly enjoy a game when the "system" is so unfair? So this coming year, I expect that fans will say "enough!" and simply not watch college football.

What's this? College football is enormously popular? That can't be! College football should be emulating hockey or golf. Clearly those sports have it all worked out, which is why people are clamoring for tickets.


really is this happy days or college football? if you don't want to see the best teams competing for a championship, then why the hell are you watching?

Why are you watching now?

[TopDawg]

When the BCS was implemented, did you see all the problems we are having now?

That some teams could still go undefeated and not play for the championship? Yes.

That we were leaving it up to intricate computer algorithms and ignorant voters to decide who should play and who shouldn't? Yes.

That it wouldn't be as good as a playoff? Yes.


Playoff proponents never, ever see the problems. As they figure it, let's get the playoff system first, we'll fix the problems later. But the problems I presented are not fix-able.

You say there are going to be problems and throw your hands up in defeat. Sure there are going to be problems. But there are problems now. There were problems in the 50's. There are ALWAYS problems. If you operate with a fear of problems, there won't be any progress.

You're exactly right, though. There IS a chance that a playoff could be worse for college football. And if it IS worse, a change can be made to go back. What you're afraid of is that it won't be worse and, therefore, we won't go back. If things are better with a playoff, it'll stay. If things are worse with a playoff, it won't.

[TopDawg]

After all, if the system is as bad as you say it is, vote with your feet. How can a fan possibly enjoy a game when the "system" is so unfair? So this coming year, I expect that fans will say "enough!" and simply not watch college football.

What's this? College football is enormously popular? That can't be! College football should be emulating hockey or golf. Clearly those sports have it all worked out, which is why people are clamoring for tickets.

Let me see if I'm catching your drift.

Are you suggesting that if someone thinks that something they love could be better, they should avoid it until it gets better?

Are you suggesting that if something is more popular than something else, it's as good as it can be?

Are you suggesting that if something is more popular than something else, it can learn nothing from the thing that's less popular?

[Leroy Lizard]

You say there are going to be problems and throw your hands up in defeat. Sure there are going to be problems. But there are problems now. There were problems in the 50's. There are ALWAYS problems. If you operate with a fear of problems, there won't be any progress.

But college football is already popular. There is nothing we need to fix that is so urgent that we can risk introducing more problems into the system, especially if they are crippling.

Sure, if the sport was on the decline I could understand. Change needs to happen at that point. But why risk it now?


You're exactly right, though. There IS a chance that a playoff could be worse for college football. And if it IS worse, a change can be made to go back

No! You can never go back. Once a playoff is instituted, it will be permanent. There will be simply too much money tied up to make the changes.

It's like trying to put the spirit back in Christmas. Once the media and advertising industry has their hooks in it, you can never go back. People all over clamor for the better days when Christmas really meant something, but those days are gone and they can never be recreated. That's the way it is in a consumer-driven market.

And the same applies to college football.

So here is the analogy I would use. Imagine college football as a quaint little fishing village off the coast of Oregon. Now, here comes Wal-Mart (the playoffs). The people of the village say, "We need lower prices!" Some, like me, say that Wal-Mart will make your lives cheaper, but the village will never be the same.

I am not a no-growth person by nature, but there is a time when you need to preserve the heritage of that which you love. Playoff proponents just cannot see the impact the playoffs will have on the charm and spirit of the game. They just can't see far ahead enough.


Are you suggesting that if someone thinks that something they love could be better, they should avoid it until it gets better?

Are you suggesting that if something is more popular than something else, it's as good as it can be?

Are you suggesting that if something is more popular than something else, it can learn nothing from the thing that's less popular?

No, I am saying "Quit acting like college football is some horrible, horrible thing thrust on you that can only be enjoyed if we make drastic changes.

[TopDawg]

So here is the analogy I would use. Imagine college football as a quaint little fishing village off the coast of Oregon. Now, here comes Wal-Mart (the playoffs). The people of the village say, "We need lower prices!" Some, like me, say that Wal-Mart will make your lives cheaper, but the village will never be the same.

The BCS was Wal-Mart. The playoffs are Target. College football is not a quaint little fishing village off the coast of Oregon anymore. It already has Wal-Mart. Sure, bringing in Target will make it less like a quaint little fishing village off the coast of Oregon, but it will make it better than a formerly quaint, formerly little, small fishing town with only a Wal-Mart.


Playoff proponents just cannot see the impact the playoffs will have on the charm and spirit of the game. They just can't see far ahead enough.

What impact will it have?


No, I am saying "Quit acting like college football is some horrible, horrible thing thrust on you that can only be enjoyed if we make drastic changes.

Quit acting like that's what I'm acting like. I'm not saying "College football is terrible and something needs to be done to rescue it from certain death." I'm saying "College football is great. You know a way to make it even greater? Give schools like TCU and Cincinnati and Boise State...or ANY undefeated school that is left out...a fair shot at the title."

You said yourself that you'd like to see a level playing field and a playoff is the best/only way to do that. The only difference that I see is that you fear the changes that a playoff would bring and I don't.

[gotpoi73]

When college football is on, turn off the tv.

Seriously, turn it off.

Come on Leroy, really?? I love college football. Why wold I turn it off? As a matter of fact, I will be watching Nova and Montana play for the Championship tonight. Will you?


After all, if the system is as bad as you say it is, vote with your feet. How can a fan possibly enjoy a game when the "system" is so unfair? So this coming year, I expect that fans will say "enough!" and simply not watch college football.

The system sucks. It is better than it was, but not as good as it could or should be. Do you really believe that the kids playing prefer the bowl system to a playoff system. Seriously, what do you think they would say?



What's this? College football is enormously popular? That can't be! College football should be emulating hockey or golf. Clearly those sports have it all worked out, which is why people are clamoring for tickets.

You know what else is enormously popular? The Jonas Brothers, Hillary Duff and Uggs.

As for Hockey it's more of a regional thing, just ask Minnesotans.

As for golf, have you ever heard of Anthony Kim?




Why are you watching now?

Cuz I love college football. If you believe that Texass and Bama are the only two teams that deserve a shot to play for the championship, then continue to live in your world of bliss where the system is perfect

[gotpoi73]

[QUOTE]It's like trying to put the spirit back in Christmas. Once the media and advertising industry has their hooks in it, you can never go back. People all over clamor for the better days when Christmas really meant something, but those days are gone and they can never be recreated. That's the way it is in a consumer-driven market.


Bah Humbug to you Leroy if you are that jaded and don't believe in Christmas spirit




So here is the analogy I would use. Imagine college football as a quaint little fishing village off the coast of Oregon. Now, here comes Wal-Mart (the playoffs). The people of the village say, "We need lower prices!" Some, like me, say that Wal-Mart will make your lives cheaper, but the village will never be the same.

I don't know what planet you live on. But who do you think brings in all that money to the universities? Football ain't been a tiny little fishing village for a LONG time.


I am not a no-growth person by nature, but there is a time when you need to preserve the heritage of that which you love. Playoff proponents just cannot see the impact the playoffs will have on the charm and spirit of the game. They just can't see far ahead enough.


I know, I remember the days when The Papa John's Bowl really meant something or when The Meineke Car Care Bowl was the game every team dreamed about playing in. You can't believe that the powers that be are trying to preserve anything but their wallets. Dude it's all about money

[Leroy Lizard]

The BCS was Wal-Mart.

I agree. And how did we end up with Wal-Mart? By not being happy with what we had and thinking that a little twist here and a little twist there would make things better.

So fans got their #1 vs #2. The village got its Wal-Mart.

Now, everyone is unhappy. The Wal-Mart opened, and urban blight has set in. "I don't understand. I thought things would be better when all those jobs became available."

But we will never learn our lesson. Never. We will constantly modify college football to suit our whims, and the game will deteriorate more and more. And in the end, we will have a miniature version of the NFL.

Maybe that is what everyone wants.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know what planet you live on. But who do you think brings in all that money to the universities? Football ain't been a tiny little fishing village for a LONG time.

The whole concept of analogy escapes you, so I'm not going to bother responding. Figure it out on your own.

[TopDawg]

Now, everyone is unhappy. The Wal-Mart opened, and urban blight has set in. "I don't understand. I thought things would be better when all those jobs became available."

But we will never learn our lesson. Never. We will constantly modify college football to suit our whims, and the game will deteriorate more and more. And in the end, we will have a miniature version of the NFL.

Maybe that is what everyone wants.

Let me put it to you like this. If you could wave a magic wand and instantly return college football to a bygone era, which would be the ideal one for you? Would you just go back to the time before the BCS? Would you go back to the time when the national champion was crowned before the bowl games? How many bowl games would we have? Etc...

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the national title would best be crowned after the bowl games, although I could see it either way.

As for number of bowl games? I really don't care. As long as there is a city wanting to invite a couple of teams to play, let them play.

So I ask, do you see my point? You don't have to agree, of course, but do you see what I am trying to prevent?

[TopDawg]

I know one of your biggest concerns with my proposal in this thread is the drastic conference changes...so putting that aside...if we just implemented an 8-team playoff under the current conference alignment, what would be so bad about it? I know there would be scheduling issues you've talked about before, but how would it destroy the things that are so great about college football in your eyes?

[Leroy Lizard]

I know one of your biggest concerns with my proposal in this thread is the drastic conference changes...so putting that aside...if we just implemented an 8-team playoff under the current conference alignment, what would be so bad about it?

And how long would it take for the 8-team playoff to expand to 16 teams?

This is what I'm talking about. We think that one Wal-Mart store isn't going to cause too much trouble, not realizing that Target and Old Navy and Kohl's are going to move in soon after.

Once we institute a four-team playoff, fans will not be happy. They will want an eight-team playoff. Once the eight-team playoff is in place, fans will be even more miserable. We will need a 16-team playoff.

If you don't believe me, look at the number of teams involved in college basketball and baseball playoffs.

Baseball: Started with eight teams, now numbers 48.

Basketball: Started with eight teams, now numbers 65.

[olevetonahill]

I aint reading all this
Im just gonna chime in with the Fact that FOOTBALL is a Very Violent and Dangerous sport.

You ADD games and More Injuries occur. You Pit lesser athletes against Bigger stronger and More conditioned athletes , More Injuries are gonna occur .
Leave it alone :cool:

Or better yet do what OUinFLA. suggested Go back to the Old Bowl system, Where the Bowls had a lot riding on the out come .

[ndpruitt03]

I don't think we necessarily need a playoff, although I'm in favor of it big time. There needs to be a change in the bowls though. They basically make the regular season in college football mean less for 90% of the schools. You can basically schedule a bowl now, that seems to be cheating to me. Cut the number of bowls or make all the 6-6 type bowls a week after the season ends the have the real bowls start 2 weeks later.

[gotpoi73]

The whole concept of analogy escapes you, so I'm not going to bother responding. Figure it out on your own.

That's fine if you think the concept of analogy escapes me, but you never addressed the question of if you believe those actually playing would like the chance to compete for a title? You already stated that college football does not have to give the viewing public what it wants, but do you believe it shouldn't give the players what they want either?

[Leroy Lizard]

You already stated that college football does not have to give the viewing public what it wants, but do you believe it shouldn't give the players what they want either?

Not necessarily. I think it is good to listen and take the players' suggestions seriously. But ultimately changes should be made according to what the university president's decide is best for the sport.

If it was up to me, the NCAA would only comprise college presidents.

The same goes for students in general. They often have good ideas, but ultimately they can't always have what they want.

[Leroy Lizard]

deleted